Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Thomas D. Brown v. Brandon F. Kelly
Date: 12-06-2024
Case Number: 22MR17
Judge: James A. Mack
Court: Circuit Court, Putnam County, Illinois
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Henepin Civil Rigths Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Illinois Attorney General's Office
Description:
In Illinois, there are two legal hurdles to the purchase of a firearm from a seller
designated as a federal firearms licensee, "a person licensed by the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] as a manufacturer, dealer, or importer of firearms." 28 C.F.R. § 25.2 (2024). The first is the possession of an Illinois firearm owners identification (FOID) card. See 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2022). The second is a background check, initiated by a federal firearms licensee, that reveals no legal justification for denying the transaction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1)(A) (2018); 430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022).
The first legal hurdle, the possession of a FOID card, is not at issue in this appeal. Plaintiff holds a FOID card, and the propriety of his doing so was firmly established by the Illinois Supreme Court in Brown v. Illinois State Police, 2021 IL 126153, 190 N.E.3d 162. Described in more detail below, the Brown court concluded plaintiff's possession of a FOID card did not violate federal law. ISP was ordered to issue plaintiff a FOID card; ISP complied with that order.
Plaintiff's purchase of a firearm from a federal firearms licensee was, however, prevented at the second hurdle. ISP, conducting the background investigation mandated by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1)(A) (2018)) and state law (430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022)), did not approve the transaction. ISP stated it, acting as "Point of Contact" (POC) for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), could not approve the transaction because NICS refused to authorize it. NICS found plaintiff "federally prohibited."
Plaintiff contends Illinois law, specifically section 3.1 of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022)), requires ISP to authorize the transaction. Defendant disagrees, maintaining it did not have a clear duty to approve the firearm purchase after NICS denied ISP's request to authorize the purchase.
Key Phrases Mandamus relief. Federal firearm licensee. Background check. FOID card. NICS determination.
Hennpin, Illinois civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff denied the right purchase a firearm.
In Illinois, there are two legal hurdles to the purchase of a firearm from a seller
designated as a federal firearms licensee, "a person licensed by the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] as a manufacturer, dealer, or importer of firearms." 28 C.F.R. § 25.2 (2024). The first is the possession of an Illinois firearm owners identification (FOID) card. See 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) (West 2022). The second is a background check, initiated by a federal firearms licensee, that reveals no legal justification for denying the transaction. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1)(A) (2018); 430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022).
The first legal hurdle, the possession of a FOID card, is not at issue in this appeal. Plaintiff holds a FOID card, and the propriety of his doing so was firmly established by the Illinois Supreme Court in Brown v. Illinois State Police, 2021 IL 126153, 190 N.E.3d 162. Described in more detail below, the Brown court concluded plaintiff's possession of a FOID card did not violate federal law. ISP was ordered to issue plaintiff a FOID card; ISP complied with that order.
Plaintiff's purchase of a firearm from a federal firearms licensee was, however, prevented at the second hurdle. ISP, conducting the background investigation mandated by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1)(A) (2018)) and state law (430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022)), did not approve the transaction. ISP stated it, acting as "Point of Contact" (POC) for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), could not approve the transaction because NICS refused to authorize it. NICS found plaintiff "federally prohibited."
Plaintiff contends Illinois law, specifically section 3.1 of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3.1 (West 2022)), requires ISP to authorize the transaction. Defendant disagrees, maintaining it did not have a clear duty to approve the firearm purchase after NICS denied ISP's request to authorize the purchase.
Key Phrases Mandamus relief. Federal firearm licensee. Background check. FOID card. NICS determination.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Thomas D. Brown v. Brandon F. Kelly?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Thomas D. Brown v. Brandon F. Kelly?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Putnam County, Illinois, IL. The presiding judge was James A. Mack.
Who were the attorneys in Thomas D. Brown v. Brandon F. Kelly?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Henepin Civil Rigths Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Illinois Attorney General's Office.
When was Thomas D. Brown v. Brandon F. Kelly decided?
This case was decided on December 6, 2024.