The Illinois State Police are resisting release of internal communications about one man’s denied FOID card, even though those are public records.  The Illinois Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hart v. Illinois State Police.  This is another Thomas Maag case, and Mr. Maag is proving himself a very capable Second Amendment litigator.

You can download the entire audio and/or video of the case here.

And Greg Bishop has more at The Center Square:

(The Center Square) – The intersection of Illinois’ Firearm Owner’s Identification card and the Freedom of Information Act was the focus of an Illinois Supreme Court case heard this week.

The case stems from two people requesting public records regarding why their FOID cards, a state-issued identification required in Illinois to own or buy firearms and ammunition, were either revoked or suspended. The plaintiffs’ FOIA requests to Illinois State Police were denied. After challenges, the case made it to the Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday…

Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Thomas Maag said going through the FSB isn’t conducive.

“They don’t answer the telephone for hours at a time. They don’t answer emails for days and or weeks at a time,” Maag said. “I invite this court to go to their website and dial the telephone number and see how many hours it takes to get a person, if you even can.

This is a feature of an Illinois State Police under Governor Jelly Beans, not a bug.

They’re not a third party seeking their own address or other personal information, Maag said.

“They do want to be told what the stated reason they’re not being allowed to have a FOID card and thus exercise their Second Amendment rights is so that they can determine whether or not they can challenge that or not,” Maag said.

Practically speaking, given that this Illinois Supreme Court is the best Gov. Pritzker’s money can buy, don’t get your hopes up that the ISP will be required to actually provide some customer service to gun owners… and to reveal their internal communications about denying people a fundamental constitutional right.

4 thoughts on “ISP on hotseat in FOIA IL Supreme Court case…”
  1. We all know what to expect with the biased, bribed fraud known as the Illinois Supreme Court. They get to shit all over us and nothing is done to make things fair. As far as the Firearm Services Bureau it’s always been a joke. Like any office in this state the service sucks period. The sad part is that the ISP were once a respected and professional agency and watching them turn into the Gestapo / Stasi against We The People so they can be flunkies for the lard ass is tragic.

    1. You are correct. Anyone, well, public officials that still apologize for the ISP and wishes to further empower them which is then turned AGAINST YOU shall be considered part of the state that hates you as a once free American. So far that is 100% of the Illinois House. HB2722. Both parties are garbage and the sooner people get out of the denial stage about reality that the sooner we can “flush the toilet” come election time. Ask anyone running for the General Assembly how they would vote on HB2722 and you’ll get your answer on whether or not they are for you or if they are for the system.

  2. I’m sure Plummer feels sorry or in his words “sympathetic” to the ISP. Poor things. Perhaps we should take up a collection for a pallet of tissues so the Brownshirt stormtroopers can wipe their tears when they get their precious feelings hurt. I mean, what a stressful job they have sitting on the interstate waiting for someone to drive past talking or texting on their phone. Never mind the police do this themselves and in school zones while paying no attention to driving but they’re exempt so that makes it ok. Then when they screw up on the job they are shielded from personal bad behavior thanks to qualified immunity. They still can’t figure out why there’s an anti-police movement in this country. Hmmm, someone call a rocket scientist because this appears to be a tough one.

  3. I don’t think this case has anything to do with Guns Save Life’s core purposes.

    It’s a FREEDOM OF INFORMATION CASE. And I submit that Mr. Maag is dead wrong. The law is clear. The principle involved is the “plain language” of the FOIA. That language prohibits the state police from disclosing the very information that appellants seek; it matters not that they seek their own information. THE LAW IS THE LAW. The supreme court would be wise to reverse the appellate court and “commend” the matter to the legislature to fix if the legislature deems fixin’ is necessary.

    I have listened to the oral argument several times and all Maag is urging the court to do is DISREGARD THE LAW. There’s no mincing words about it. This is his position.

    FURTHERMORE< there is an injunction/consent order in place that ALSO prohibits the state police from doing exactly what appellants want. That's not to be disregarded.

    I think the supreme court is going to rule against Maag's clients, and it's no skin of anyone's teeth. It will not affect GSL's mandate in the LEAST.

    And the parties can do exactly what the AG urges: Simply apply or re-apply for a FOID and then find out the reasons for denial. DUE PROCESS would dictate that. I don't know why Maag didn't make a Due Process claim.

    But it's not worth GSL's time getting panties in a bunch. It really doesn't have anything to do with guns.

Comments are closed.