Connour v. Grau
35 N.E.3d 244
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- In 1999 Connour was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery; under Illinois FOID Act and federal law he lost the right to possess firearms.
- In 2011 Connour petitioned under section 10 of the FOID Act; the trial court found he would not be dangerous and ordered the Illinois State Police (the Department) to issue a FOID card.
- The Department issued a FOID card labeled with a federal-warning phrase referencing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9); Connour sought a card without qualifiers and contended his rights had been restored.
- Connour later obtained a FOID card without qualifiers, but a firearms dealer’s NICS check still denied him because federal records still reflected his conviction.
- Connour filed a mandamus petition asking the Department to (1) issue an unrestricted FOID card and (2) report to federal authorities that his rights to possess firearms had been restored; the trial court granted both forms of relief.
- On appeal the Department challenged only the trial court’s order to report to federal authorities; the appellate court affirmed but modified the order to require reporting that Connour’s rights were restored "as a matter of Illinois law."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state court restoration under FOID Act §10 removes federal firearms disability under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9) | Connour: §10 restoration "restores civil rights" under 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(B)(ii), so his federal disability ended | Dept: State restoration does not automatically remove federal disability; reporting to federal authorities is discretionary and not required | Held: State §10 restoration does not automatically remove federal disability; reporting may only state restoration "as a matter of Illinois law." |
| Whether Department had clear duty to inform federal authorities that Connour's rights were restored | Connour: Department maintains NICS data and must report restoration so FOID card is effective for purchases | Dept: No clear ministerial duty because federal status is separate; labeling/reporting decisions are within Dept's responsibilities and federal law determines NICS status | Held: No clear right to have federal disability removed via state proceedings; Dept should report state-law restoration only. |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate to compel the Department to issue an unrestricted FOID card | Connour: Trial court already ordered issuance; mandamus appropriate to enforce that order | Dept: Placement or language of warnings is discretionary under FOID Act and §2-619 dismissal warranted | Held: Trial court correctly ordered an unrestricted FOID card under Illinois law; mandamus appropriate for ministerial compliance. |
| Proper scope of appellate modification to trial court's order | Connour: Wanted an order directing federal authorities be told his rights were restored generally | Dept: Order must be limited to reporting state-law restoration, not eliminating federal prohibition | Held: Appellate court modified order to require reporting that rights were restored as a matter of Illinois law and remanded for that precise language. |
Key Cases Cited
- Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (construing "civil rights restored" to refer to core civil rights and explaining limits on what counts as restoration)
- Coram v. State of Illinois, 996 N.E.2d 1057 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois Supreme Court majority: FOID Act §10 restoration does not automatically remove federal firearms disability)
- McFatridge v. Madigan, 989 N.E.2d 165 (Ill. 2013) (mandamus standard: requires clear right, clear duty, and clear authority)
- People v. Lampitok, 798 N.E.2d 91 (Ill. 2003) (procedural note on how concurring/dissenting reasoning can control outcome)