Teen suing over FOID Card denial seeks summary judgment.

Interesting, seems like it's ripe for a full blown challenge(as I would assume that there is also no remedy for an 18-20 who has no parents or guardian but was not a ward of the state). It's unfortunate that the possible plaintiff population is so small and by the time anything got off the ground they'd likely have gotten remedy by default by being 21.

Which then leads to the question, is there a way to file suit without a plaintiff involved who is directly affected?
 
by the time anything got off the ground they'd likely have gotten remedy by default by being 21.
Click to expand...

There have been cases where someone was allowed to continue their suit after getting/not getting remedy because actual resolution in the time frame provided by the court system was unlikely. I think the Roe v Wade set of cases was one of them in fact.

Sigcurious, according to the pleadings, this question was brought up. There was no means for a person who "aged out" of the system to receive any permission whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Further, exactly how would the State be able to provide or more importantly deny that permission under constitutional grounds? If said party has a right to bear arms, and the state cannot infringe that right without due process on specific criteria, they cannot backdoor a denial on other criteria for aged out wards of the state constitutionally, that would I assume as a layman, open up acres of 14A violations.
 
Quite frankly, I would like to see "status offenses" stricken in general.

To my mind, if one is a legal adult, can enter into contracts, and is fully liable for all one's actions, then one should be able to own any legal firearm; grab a beer at a party, bar, or store; apply for federal aid based on individual status and not on parental income...

Laws that create subclasses are deplorable.

If society truly believes that 18-20 should be treated like children, then we should change the laws to treat them as minors in all respects. No draft and no draft registration; parental consent (and liability) for all contracts; the works.

Otherwise, we are charging people as adults for committing the crime of not being old enough...

Note: I am 45, well in the safe zone for all age related shenanigans (no worries about being too young, nor any worries about extra testing for being old).
 
Did they work? Do those hours count for their OASDI totals? Is their opportunity to work protected by, indirectly provided by, and enforced by the Federal government?

That 16 year old working for Hot Dog On A Stick at the mall has the same minimum wage, discrimination in the workplace, and other assorted employment laws protecting them. And that enforcement has to be paid for.
 
JimDandy, I believe it was Thoreau who refused to pay taxes to Massachusetts, because he felt laws were unjust. For this, most in academia considered him a hero.

Why do you think citizens who are not granted equal protections should pay the same (or any) taxes?

Edit: Labor laws are only one piece of the puzzle; you seem to suggest they are all that matter.
 
To license a right is to take away that right and turn it into a privilege. The supreme court really need to rule that requiring a license is a violation of our rights, PERIOD.
 
Why do you think citizens who are not granted equal protections should pay the same (or any) taxes?

Edit: Labor laws are only one piece of the puzzle; you seem to suggest they are all that matter.
Click to expand...

The "indirectly" portion was an apparently too subtle reference towards the funding of the Armed Forces, among other things.

What equal protections are an infant/minor/child (pick your legal term) denied?

To license a right is to take away that right and turn it into a privilege. The supreme court really need to rule that requiring a license is a violation of our rights, PERIOD.
Click to expand...

If the FOID is "Shall Issue" then it does not strike me as a "license" as such. It MAY well be an improper an unbearable burden to the right. But I see it as more of an extension to the background check than an actual license.
 
JimDandy, in the example under discussion in this thread, the right to keep and bear arms would be directly on point.
 
As I see it, the base issue is that the state is not being consistent in the application of its own laws. Not if a FOID card is a legitimate restriction, but that it is being denied to an 18yr old, unfairly.

References to abortion, or anything else where an 18 yr old (or less) are not required to obtain parental permission are not the issue, but are examples of where the state is being inconsistent in application of its laws.

I'm no legal beagle, but isn't asking for a summary judgment the basic "I believe I'm right, its obvious.." and asking the judge to agree, or not?

And, if the judge rules against, can suit still be brought? And, if suit can be brought, if she turns 21 before it is resolved (that part of the law no longer applies to her) will it get tossed?
 
She can use the Roe cases to argue no one with standing can get justice in the time frame the courts allow, and maintain her suit if the judge agrees, which I have to think would be likely eventually.

How do you think an abortion case got to the Supreme Court some time after the child turned 5 or so?
 
I'm no legal beagle, but isn't asking for a summary judgment the basic "I believe I'm right, its obvious.." and asking the judge to agree, or not?

And, if the judge rules against, can suit still be brought? And, if suit can be brought, if she turns 21 before it is resolved (that part of the law no longer applies to her) will it get tossed?
Click to expand...
The magic language under the federal rules and many (most?) state rules for summary judgment is that "there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In other words, there doesn't have to be evidence taken because everyone agrees what the controlling facts are and it is simply a question of applying the law.

If the judge rules against the motion, the judge can also issue a summary judgment against the moving party. The judge may also deny the motion because there are material factual issues that have to be resolved either through additional discovery or at a trial.

The suit might or might not continue if the plaintiff turns 21 before it is resolved. It might become "moot." There is usually an exception for situations where the event is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The Roe v. Wade case someone else mentioned is a classic example. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that legal proceedings could be finished within the 9 months a woman was pregnant (probably less than 9 months because most women are at least two months along before they find out they are pregnant). The Court used the magic language I noted and said they would review the case.

In this particular case, there's a three year time period to litigate. In addition, once the plaintiff turns 21, the event (being under age 21) cannot happen again to this plaintiff. In Roe v. Wade, the same woman could get pregnant again. I don't know know if the suit would become moot or not when the plaintiff turns 21, but those are the issues that would have to be resolved.
 
In Roe v. Wade, the same woman could get pregnant again
Click to expand...

She could not become pregnant with THAT pregnancy again. The court cannot assume she would become pregnant again, or even that she would want to terminate any successive pregnancy.
 
She could not become pregnant with THAT pregnancy again. The court cannot assume she would become pregnant again, or even that she would want to terminate any successive pregnancy.
Click to expand...
No, but I have seen at least one case where the court said that the particular plaintiff could not find himself in that position again so it did not meet the exception for mootness; the fact it could happen to someone else was not enough. In Roe, it was at least possible for the event to reoccur for that particular plaintiff. Here is what the Supreme Court said about standing/mootness regarding Plaintiff Roe:
But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).
Click to expand...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html (emphasis added).

Again, I do not know the answer but I think that mootness/standing is at least an issue that would have to be resolved if the litigation were still ongoing when the plaintiff turns 21..
 
That 16 year old working for Hot Dog On A Stick at the mall has the same minimum wage, discrimination in the workplace, and other assorted employment laws protecting them. And that enforcement has to be paid for.
Click to expand...
That is more or less what those in England said following the French & Indian War. Although not a codified right, no "taxation without representation" is a founding principle of the USA. Those under 18 working and paying taxes are unfairly taxed. Felons in many cases and immigrants are also taxed without representation, but they have made a choice to put themselves in that situation. I still don't agree with it, but it is not as egregious an offense as suffered by those under 18.

Kepp in mind most personal taxes were at one time property taxes and that is why the right to vote was tied to owning property. Restricting property ownership was a way to control who voted without running afoul off this principle.

Being denied the right to vote is itself an unequal protection. The case being discussed is another. There are many. Anyone who can vote is unaffected, so of course no one in power cares at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top