Snedeker v. Will County State's Attorney's Office

Citation: 2022 IL App (3d) 210133Docket: 3-21-0133

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; November 14, 2022; Illinois; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Robert Snedeker, a Michigan resident, filed a petition in Will County, Illinois, seeking to restore his firearms rights under section 10(c) of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act after a 2009 misdemeanor domestic battery conviction prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The Will County State’s Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because section 10(c) only grants relief to Illinois residents. The trial court dismissed the petition, affirming it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a non-resident's request. On appeal, the court considered whether an individual with an Illinois conviction but residing outside the state could seek restoration of civil rights under the Act. The appellate court, interpreting the statute de novo, ultimately agreed with the trial court's dismissal, confirming that relief under section 10(c) is limited to Illinois residents.

Individuals prohibited from possessing firearms under specific sections of the Criminal Code of 2012 may seek relief from such prohibitions by applying to the Director of State Police or petitioning the circuit court in their county of residence. The trial court dismissed a petition on jurisdictional grounds, asserting that relief under section 10(c) is only available to Illinois residents, as the statute requires petitioning in the county of residence. The Act aims to create a system for Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards (FOID) to help law enforcement identify individuals barred from firearm possession. The Illinois State Police is responsible for the issuance, revocation, and monitoring of FOID cards, with administrative processes subject to review. 

The issue of whether section 10(c) allows non-residents to seek relief involves statutory interpretation, focusing on legislative intent as expressed in the statute's language. Statutory construction dictates that the plain language of the law must be followed without introducing unexpressed exceptions or limitations. Section 10 outlines two pathways for appeals: section 10(a) addresses challenges against the State Police's decisions regarding FOID cards, while section 10(c) pertains to individuals barred from firearm possession.

The petitioner is barred from obtaining a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card under section 8 of the relevant Act and must seek relief under section 10(c). Section 10(c) allows individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm under specific provisions of the Criminal Code or from acquiring a FOID card to petition either the Director of State Police or the circuit court where they reside for relief from such prohibitions. However, the language of section 10(c) is clear that only Illinois residents can file petitions in the circuit court, thus excluding the petitioner, a Michigan resident, from seeking relief.

The petitioner sought relief specifically for acquiring a FOID card due to a prior conviction for domestic battery. Section 10(c) is designed to facilitate the restoration of firearms rights, leading to the issuance of a FOID card, which is only available to Illinois residents. The court emphasizes that section 10(c) does not create a general process for restoring firearms rights but is limited to FOID card applications.

The court dismissed the petitioner’s claims and rejected his argument based on the Illinois State Police's website interpretation, stating that a court is not bound by an agency’s interpretation of a statute. The plain language of section 10(c) confirms that only Illinois residents can seek the relief provided therein, supporting the trial court's dismissal of the petition.

Section 10(c) of Illinois law presents challenges for nonresidents with Illinois convictions, as they must relocate to Illinois to restore their firearms rights. In contrast, Illinois residents convicted in other states must have their rights restored in the state of conviction to possess firearms in Illinois. The law stipulates that the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred governs the restoration of civil rights. Despite concerns over fairness, courts must apply clear statutory language as written, and there is no constitutional obligation for Illinois to provide a process for restoring firearms rights. Restoration is viewed as a discretionary measure of forgiveness for offenders, and the legislature has the authority to determine the trustworthiness of individuals regarding firearm possession. The determination of fairness and wisdom of the law is a legislative matter, not judicial. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.