Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court

ISPFSB.com

In February 2018, a White County, IL Second Judicial Circuit Court judge ruled Illinois Firearms Owners Identification Card Act unconstitutional.  Eight months later, after pleadings and motions to reconsider the initial decision, the judge not only reaffirmed his original decision, but supplemented it.  Now,  IllinoisCarry.com’s spokeswoman Valinda Rowe claims that the Illinois Attorney General will take the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Valinda Rowe posted the news at Illinois Carry last week and Ace of Spades picked up the story this weekend buried among the Mueller report coverage.

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense.  Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame.  She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one.  In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

4. The Court reiterates its findings and ruling in its previous Order Finding Statute Unconstitutional filed herein on February 14, 2018, that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in her own home. The Court further finds and orders that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in her own home, in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States thru the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, because it is impossible to comply with and that such statute cannot reasonably be construed in a manner that preserve its validity. The Court further finds, in compliance with Supreme Court Rule 18, that ·the finding of unconstitutionality is necessary to the decision arid that such decision cannot rest upon an altemative ground; and that the notice required by Supreme Court Rule 19 has been served and that those served with such notice have been given adequate time and opportunity under the circumstances to defend the statute.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the foregoing reasons, and those enumerated in the Order Finding_Statute Unconstitutional filed herein on February 14, 2018, that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in this case, in violation of the Second Amendment”to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States thru the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and by reason thereof, this cause is dismissed with prejudice.

And now, according to Valinda Rowe, the case is headed to the Illinois Supreme Court thanks to Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

This comes on the heels of the Illinois Supreme Court unanimous ruling that Illinois’ prohibition on TASERS/stun guns is unconstitutional.

As an Illinois resident, I can’t begin to describe how big this case might become.  If the Illinois Supreme Court rules the FOID Act unconstitutional, expect Illinois Democrats to proclaim the sky is falling.  In reality, given how FOID Act violations so seldom get charged by prosecutors (and even when they do charge, they’re quickly plea-bargained away), a decision to strike down the FOID Act as unconstitutional wouldn’t pose a meaningful obstacle for police and prosecutors.

But a ruling striking down the FOID would rock gun control advocates in the Land of Lincoln.

comments

  1. avatar Jamie in North Dakota says:

    Love it!!!

    1. avatar Joe says:

      Name one single Consitutional right that requires a card (permission from a government entity) in order to be valid. Crickets… On to SCOTUS for full strike down

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Name one single Consitutional right that requires a card (permission from a government entity) in order to be valid. Crickets…”

        How about the first amendment?

        Organize a 5,000 person rally on the mall in Washington DC and watch the cops shut you down for not having a permit, official government permission…

        1. avatar Anti Dumbocrat says:

          That is such a strawman argument. What you’re talking about is ASSEMBLY not speech. You would be well within your INDIVIDUAL right to INDIVIDUAL free speech to stand in the same spot on your own and speak your mind.

        2. avatar Higgs says:

          The first does in fact cover freedom of assemble.

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          That being said requiring fees and scheduling for publicly owned property may be ok.

        3. avatar Ragnar says:

          So 5000+ armed people need a permit to retain protections granted from the 2nd Amendment, but an individual armed doesn’t?

          Okay.

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          No, 5000+ people need a permit that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. This is a Chewbacca argument. It’s chaff.

        5. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

          The AL Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v Birmingham ruled a permit to parade, speak, etc., to be unconstitutional censorship, or prior restraint on the individual(s) right(s). IN doing so, they quoted SCOTUS decision, Staub v. Baxley, noting, “And our decisions have made clear that anyone faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the right….for which the law purports to require a license.”

          Furthermore, Murdock v PA made quite plain that any attempt to license, or charge a fee for, is unconstitutional, as it changes the right into a privilege.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Uh… Making a claim under the Third Amendment would likely be hard without proof you own the dwelling?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          You don’t necessarily need a deed to demonstrate you own your home, though (obviously depends on the state). I believe almost everywhere (or actually everywhere) if you can demonstrate residence or tax payment long enough without a tenant’s agreement, the property ownership will transfer through abandonment –though it will doubtless require expensive & protracted litigation if the prior owner contests it. It’s kinda screwy how “ownership” is determined by who is paying the government what is clearly rent, lol.

      3. avatar RF s a BFBD says:

        Voting and a voter registration card.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Not an enumerated right. You guys are making this pretty easy.

        2. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

          The only way a voter registration card is unconstitutional is if a fee is charged to get it. (Murdock v PA)

          A registration card shows you have registered, and have a legitimate right to vote, as compared to an illegal immigrant who has no constitutional right to vote as they are not citizens of the U.S. Same with dead folks. They can’t vote (well, except in DemocRATic(k) erections) because they are no longer citizens having given up the ghost.

      4. avatar Bob999 says:

        So, if the government has enacted a law that violates a constitutional amendment, it is okay for the government to violate another? No, not in my opinion. The permit to assemble is not constitutional. Now, if they required prior notification so they can prepare for crowd control and traffic control, I can buy that. The word “permit” implies that they can deny your request, so I would bet that eventually it will be ruled unconstitutional in a fair judiciary. Now, we just need someone with millions to spare to pay the money to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

        1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

          Permits for such have been ruled unconstitutional by Shuttlesworth v Birmingham.

    2. avatar JF says:

      The Constitution has been laughed at by politicians for decades. The way the government is run is not even as the Founding Fathers intended it to be. The day “they” want to fully control te First or the Second it will happen, period. These cases being overturned are nice to see, but it’s pretty much just delaying the inevitable. As the nation is becoming softer with the younger generations, the 1st and the 2nd will be history.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        JF,

        You may be right. At the very least, higher court decisions in our favor indicate that we are on the right side of this if future politicians flout those decisions.

    3. avatar Randall Hatcher says:

      Thank you Attorney general. I’m a foid card carrier because the state stole my second amendment right to sell it back to me as a permit . It’s wrong . I’m preparing to activate a movement to as I coined the phrase ” VOID the FOID ” . Time to go on offensive

  2. avatar GS650G says:

    Jersey has this foid crap too. It would be great if it was struck down.

    1. avatar Bobsuruncle says:

      I agree, I grew up and lived most of my years there. New Jersey fire arm laws are one of the many reasons that I left. It took quite some time to get a foid card to get a shotgun in my municipality to hunt deer elsewhere in the state. Not so much as a parking ticket, but the powers that be had to sign off on it. Moved just west. Now I have a public range within 5 miles, a carry permit, and can buy anything any responsible adult wants without excessive restrictions. Hell, I can even get a can or class 3 if I fill out the forms for Uncle Sam. NJ won’t let you have them even if the ATF will.

      1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

        A carry permit is unconstitutional, PA knows it. Murdock v PA. The fee is merely payment for a license, and a way to use your right to raise funds for state business. The license turns your right into a privilege, and is thus unconstitutional.

    2. avatar jaydc says:

      If an FOID card is an infringement, it seems the handgun purchase permission slip would be an even greater one.

      1. avatar Jbw says:

        There are some states that require a purchase permit from the sheriff of the county you live in. Good luck in crook county if that happens.

      2. avatar Dennis says:

        You are 100% Correct. In Fact, all gun control laws are unconstitutional as held by Marbury VS Madison (1803) that any law which is repugnant (against) the constitution is null and void.

  3. avatar Ken says:

    Seems rather limited in scope in that it is only applicable to someone in their residence. It doesn’t appear to negate the need to have the FOID under other circumstances, i.e., outside the home, purchases, etc. While I’m a resident of the (currently, relatively) gun-friendly state of FL, I don’t think I’d really be doing a whole lot of fist bumping if I were a resident of IL. Just sayin’

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      So where are you going to keep your guns if not in your home? This makes the whole FOID BS null and void. The antis are going to run around in circles with their hair on fire over this.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Ken,

      Court decisions almost universally address the SPECIFIC question (and only that specific question) in front of them. Since this case was about a woman possessing a firearm in her home, the court’s decision only discusses possessing a firearm in the home.

      If the Illinois Supreme Court affirms this decision, it will be a trivial matter to apply this decision to possession of firearms outside the home in another case — a case which should end up being a slam dunk.

    3. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      My reading says it is only applicable in this case. IOW, the judge didn’t say the FOID was unconstitutional, just that it was unconstitutional in this case, and for this individual. Of course, I am making this assumption based solely on what I read in this article. The FOID is, and has always been, unconstitutional.

    4. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      “It doesn’t appear to negate the need to have the FOID under other circumstances, i.e., outside the home, purchases, etc.”

      If a FOID is not necessary in other states, why would it be necessary in IL, or NJ? That is merely the states attempt to limit (see the meaning of ‘infringe’) your right.

  4. avatar DrewR55 says:

    I had to check the calendar to make sure today wasn’t April 1st. This is surprising and (potentially) great news.

    1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      Again. my reading is that the judge determined it applies only in this case, and only to this individual.

      1. avatar einstein says:

        thats how court cases work, professor. its hard to rule on cases not in front of you or that dont exist yet, professor.

  5. avatar Mitchell says:

    Illinois is becoming seemingly interesting again. Not enough to move their but maybe visit again

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Why bother? You can’t carry your gun. They don’t honor any other states’ permits.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Exactly. I currently live in WA so I’m familiar with Communism. However, I can’t even visit my family in Illinois as there is no way to get a concealed carry permit there. They don’t recognize mine, nor will they allow me to get an out of state permit. So, I don’t go there.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “They don’t recognize mine, nor will they allow me to get an out of state permit. So, I don’t go there.”

          This ‘NY Pistol’ case currently in front of SCOTUS has very good chance of recognizing right-to-carry as being a national right, not just an NYC ‘travel permit’.

          I have to believe, with the necessity of the McDonald-Chicago decision to force national recognition of the ‘Heller’ decision, that the Court won’t make that error again with this case.

          At least, I damn sure hope so. Thomas & Co. couldn’t possibly have been blind to the kinds of games the Leftists play with the 2A…

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mark,

          Unless there is something about you that specifically disqualifies you from getting a concealed carry license in Illinois, you can get a non-resident Illinois license. It is expensive and requires 16 hours of training if I remember the training requirement correctly. At any rate, it is possible.

        3. avatar Mark says:

          No. I looked into this. They only allow certain states to apply for non-resident status.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        Rhetorical question: If requiring a citizen to have a FOID card in order to exercise a constitutional right, doesn’t it look like requiring a concealed carry license trips over the same logic that invalidates the FOID card? Both are licenses that “allow” the exercise an enumerated right that “shall not be abridged”. It sure looks to me like the legal pathway to constitutional carry has been opened. Gun control has always been in conflict with 2nd amendment rights. It’s high time the courts started recognizing that obvious fact. Gun control as a legal issue should be dead in the water.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “If requiring a citizen to have a FOID card in order to exercise a constitutional right, doesn’t it look like requiring a concealed carry license trips over the same logic that invalidates the FOID card?”

          *Exactly*.

          My dream for the result of the SCOTUS NY Pistol decision is that, unless you are a legally-prohibited person, your right to carry should be national in scope.

          Let’s hope SCOTUS sees it the same way.

          As far as I’m concerned, as a matter of national gun policy, if you are law-abiding and not a prohibited person, the government and police should leave you and your guns the hell alone.

          However, if you are a legally-prohibited person in possession of a firearm, you should have some explaining to do in front of a judge in a court of law…

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Garrison Hall,

          This is an area where the courts get it wrong. Their basic claim is that the United States Constitution 2nd Amendment only refers to open carry. So, to the extent that a state prohibits open carry or requires a license before you can open carry, the courts should rule those laws unconstitutional.

          The courts will claim that laws on concealed carry of weapons are constitutional based on somewhat obscure references before and shortly after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

          How, when, and/or why I carry anything on my person is no one else’s business and no government entity has any righteous authority to order me one way or another. Unfortunately, our government (including our courts) do not see it that way.

        3. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

          “Both are licenses that “allow” the exercise an enumerated right that “shall not be abridged”.”

          Licenses do not allow all, which is the purpose of the 2A. The right if allowed to be licensed, or requiring a permit to exercise said right, makes it a privilege granted, or withheld by the state. Shuttlesworth v Birmingham said such a permit system was an unconstitutional censorship, or prior restraint on the individual.

          What folks have to stop thinking is that the 2A is a right granted by government. It is not. Our founders recognized it as a natural right inherent to the individual. Once on thinks that 2A is granted by the state (government at any level) one can then start to infringe it based on the notion that the state makes the law(s). All the Constitution’s 2A does is prohibit the government from infringing the right. However, it is up to ‘we the people,’ to guarantee that government doesn’t usurp it. We do that through the election process, and when that fails, through the revolutionary process noted in the Declaration of Independence.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “However, if you are a legally-prohibited person in possession of a firearm, you should have some explaining to do in front of a judge in a court of law…”

          Shall not be infringed pretty much covers it. Anyone who thinks a person who is not under legitimate guardianship of another “should have some explaining to do in front of a judge in a court of law” because of keeping or bearing arms is someone who supports gun control and is against the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I don’t even care for the “guardian” bit, however, it seems to appease a few of the pearl clutchers among the POTG.

          No, you cannot infringe, not even a tiny bit, and consider yourself not pro-gun control.

        5. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You nailed it, 2brknot2bfree. Spot on.

  6. avatar Ark says:

    Uh-huh, that one’s gonna have fun in the ILSC.

  7. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Illinois is on a roll, I hope this sticks, make it case law and NOBODY will ever have to have a FOID card ever again…

    1. avatar Sig Sauer says:

      You could always move to Ohio. No FOID card required. Walk into FFL dealer present your Drivers License or Conceal Carry Card, complete a form 4473 and walk out with your new firearm. If one has a CCW card, dealer doesn’t have to use NICS.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          And Bama.

      1. avatar WI Patriot says:

        Evidently you missed my point entirely…

  8. avatar 2a suxs sucks says:

    I can’t wait for the day to cut my nap

  9. avatar strych9 says:

    Nice.

    Also interesting to note how different courts feel about laws that are impossible to comply with. This court finds a law that cannot be complied with unconstitutional where a California court finds the opposite. Different issues granted, but at their root pretty similar.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I thought about that as well Strych9.

      That just goes to show that some courts enforce agendas rather than justice.

  10. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    If this keeps up ‘former water walker’ is going to have to move to New Jersey or even a commonwealth country to be properly oppressed.

  11. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    I kind of feel like we need an amendment that the government is not allowed to appeal when it loses a court decision against a citizen. It’s tremendously expensive, and severely burdens the winning citizen who has a right to expect the government will honor government decisions. It’s a very different thing from appeals in a civil case between two private entities or a citizen appealing a government decision.

    The government always has deep taxpayer-funded pockets and vast resources. It effectively means a citizen has to win any controversial case against the government three to five times — a truly unjust burden.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

      No, make that +eleventy billion!

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      We need an amendment that tells government that they cannot infringe upon the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Oh, wait! We already have that.

      Another amendment won’t stop tyrants. Force stops tyrants. The only reason for the Constitution is to remind the People when they ought to throw off the chains of current government.

      An amendment without force behind it is like a restraining order. It is worthless if you aren’t prepared and willing to use force to protect yourself.

  12. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Well this certainly won’t have any effect on the thousands of gun-totin’ gangbangers that shoot up Chicago every weekend.

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Nothing will ever affect them, short of execution that is…

      1. avatar Paul says:

        Idiots not leaving their guns unsecured in the car, ready for the thieves to pick up, would be a good start. Then targeting black market, by again the feds are busy with political b.s, and Chicago PD has to pick up bodies in the streets.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Idiots not leaving their guns unsecured in the car, ready for the thieves to pick up, would be a good start.” Do you honestly believe that’s how the criminal underworld obtains their firearms???

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Paul,

          People would not have to leave their firearms in their vehicles if Illinois did not prohibit firearms in 22* different locations.

          * I am going from memory when I first read the concealed carry law in Illinois a few years ago. The exact number of locations where Illinois law prohibits firearms may be somewhat lower. Whatever the number of locations, it is ridiculous.

        3. avatar SoCalJack says:

          Going a little off topic here, as for unsecured guns in vehicles, from what I have seen, most decent pistol and rifle lock boxes are for trucks (e.g. Silverado/suburban , F-150, Jeep Wrangler, tundra, Ram). There very little available for cars due to the limited space.
          Most of, not all, these vehicle pistol lock boxes can be opened with a large flathead screw driver.

  13. avatar 2aguy says:

    Murdock v Pennsylvania, a Supreme Court ruling, already states that taxes on a Right are unConstitutional…so any fee for the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional…..these taxes and fees need to be attacked with this ruling…

    1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      Hmmm…

      Could that be used to finally overturn the NFA, especially in combination with the logic of Miller v. U.S. that states the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects military arms?

      1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

        U.S. v Miller effectively negated the 1934 NFA. The problem is, our pro-2A organizations have not followed through. I might note that Miller, then deceased when the case went to trial, was not present, and the ruling should never have occurred. However, it did back up the fact that ‘we, the people’ “the people” mentioned in 2A have the right tot he same arms as our military personnel, as members of the unorganized militia. Thus, they effectively shot down NFA. Again, you have to have people willing to follow through, and no one has undermined the NFA by stating what I just have. Most lawyers have a stake in having more laws on the books, and are merely part of the “Just Us” system, so do not expect any shift in the thought process among the constabulary, the judiciary, or the BAR. They benefit immensely in protection of the laws which infringe our rights.

    2. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      I really wish more would bring this up to Wayne LaPierre, and Alan Gottlieb. They don’t seem to give a damn. Last couple times I saw Wayne, he threw his secretary in between us, giving himself cover, not a manly move.

      Along with Murdock is Shuttlesworth v Birmingham which negate permits, FOID’s, etc.

  14. avatar 2aguy says:

    If you don’t have to have the FOID in your home, how can you be expected to have it when you buy the gun….if you don’t have it to be in your home…this case opens up the end of the FOID card…..Hoohah….

  15. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    And remind me again how many lives have been saved by the FOID in Chiraq? Take your time.

    1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      Or, ChAfghanistan, or ‘Detroit’istan, or ‘Baltimore’stan, ‘D.C.’istan…

  16. avatar MDH says:

    It’s about time!

  17. avatar grumpster says:

    So they arrest this lady with a single shot .22 rifle but no arrest on the monster that murdered all those people in Aurora when his FOID was REVOKED. Sounds about right for Illinois as it is much easier to pick on a lady with a ,22 singe shot rifle to make an example of rather than try to do that with a convicted violent felon.

    I am not very hopeful that this will be upheld by ISC.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The actual Aurora case was far worse than that. Not only was his FOID card revoked, they had his confession to a Class 3 felony above his signature. When applying for an FOID card, you specify you don’t have any felony convictions. Lying on the FOID application is a felony. They knew he had felony convictions. All they had to do was swear out a warrant and pick him up.

      1. avatar A O says:

        True. This could also null the lawsuit against the ISP for the aurora shooting.

  18. avatar Iillinois_Minion says:

    Heavy emphasis on “in the home” makes me hesitant on celebrating a victory. Further reading indicates more State procrastination (4//23/2019 ??) on this ruling.

    For those who are not natives of the “Land of Stinkin”, you need a FOID to handle, or purchase firearms AND ammunition.

    A stupid (state basd) permission slip for exercising a constitutional right. I can’t wait for the wailing for Springfield when if/when this is made final.

  19. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Can’t wait for the revolt ,,, it will be just like the civil war,,, the blues against the reds this time…,,, will be no middle ground,,, every one will be on a side… only problem is , everyone thinks they’re on the right side…

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      Well now, it wouldn’t be much of a war if everyone agreed, would it?

      1. avatar The Grey Man says:

        Bwahahahahahaha……

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      There will be plenty of middle ground. There are people on TTAG that were calling for genocide and trying to morally justify it. There are POTG who agree with some gun control. Nope… There will be lots of middle ground.

      (For those that are interested, I am 100% shall not be infringed and completely against intentional genocide.)

  20. avatar Dan says:

    I don’t trust John Roberts to stand up for the RKBA.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      From an actuarial perspective, that is unlikely to matter for much longer.

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “I don’t trust John Roberts to stand up for the RKBA.” Perhaps not, but he doesn’t sit on the IL Supreme Court, either…

    3. avatar JR Pollock says:

      John Roberts has sided with the rights of gun owners. Every.Single.Time.

      Heller
      McDonald
      Abramski
      Caetano

      1. avatar The Grey Man says:

        I hope he stays the course…..

  21. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Well, let’s see. Duh!

  22. avatar WuzYoungOneToo says:

    This is a good decision, and a win is a win…but the title is misleading. The judge did not declare the FOID requirement generally unconstitutional. He only declared it unconstitutional as applied in this specific case. That’s a good thing, to be sure. But it’ doesn’t strike down the FOID system as a whole.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Good to see a crack in the BS FOID…it won’t dissuade me from moving to Indiana but it makes it “slightly” more tolerable living in this chit state.

  24. avatar Truckman says:

    well people I agree about the firearms card but the Gov. already has there finger in our lives and that was the new drivers license that we all had to get because they are a national Id card that’s the reason here in FL. I had to have birth certificate and current bills showing my name and address and my wife had to have same things plus marriage license also had to have SS cards that was a obama move now why would they want that also here if you pick up a narcotic pain medicine they scan your DL all gov. watchdog looking over our shoulders

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “that was a obama move”

      The Real ID Act came in under George W. Bush; 2005.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

  25. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Hell yeah Illinois, keep it up! We need some of what you guys are chewing over here in WA!

  26. avatar Stephen Rainbolt says:

    The Illinois State Constitution has a RKBA amendment that reads:
    SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
    Subject only to the police power, the right of the
    individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
    infringed.”

    Most of the issues arise on the vagueness of what constitutes ‘Subject only to Police Power’

    Well in the Constitutional debates of 1970 that was specifically addressed, and it was stated that the right to keep and bear arms was subject to the same controls as Free Speech!
    So tell me how many Free Speech Licenses have you had to apply for lately in the State of Illinois?

  27. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Ok good for mom in Illinois.
    Now can someone please put this into plain [email protected]#$%^&ing English a normal person can understand.
    There must be a law against leglesse and the common man someplace.
    Damm this is why I hate articles such as this one.
    AND I hate legalesse in all forms.

    1. avatar TFred says:

      Read more of it. Look up words you don’t know. Nobody is born understanding this stuff, but the more you read and learn, the quicker you will be able to discern the nonsense, and most importantly, the easier you will be able to share your knowledge with others who are just learning.

      1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

        I learned Spanish, Italian, that way. Chinese in collage becaude I spoke the other 2. Legalese…… . Never. Makes me hate lawyers too.

  28. avatar Shawn says:

    Frankly I’m rather surprised. But no need to get excited. The Illinois state supreme court will say the FOID is constitutional. The circuit court will then agree if it goes there. After all the judges hate guns, hate gun owners and want us dead. Like most of the Democratic Party they want to see us exterminated.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Doubtful. The 7th Circuit is now one of the most conservative in the nation, thanks to Trump. Madigan’s pets are going to get teabagged on the federal level. It’s one of the reasons they aren’t really pushing that hard for the new gun control bills they introduced. Their latest plan was to increase the FOID fee from $10 every 10 years to $50 every 5 years on top of requiring digital fingerprints. The latter is not much of an issue if you have a CCW on file as that requires fingerprints, but I don’t see this holding water if the 7th circuit gets their hands on a good FOID case (as this appears to be.)

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        No fingerprints are required for CCW in Illinois.

        1. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

          Incorrect. Prints needed for ccw. https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/CCL.aspx

        2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          I got my CCW without fingerprints. It’s an option. (Unless the law changed last year.)

        3. avatar Leo says:

          Illinois CCW fingerprints, or at least the class I attended did.

        4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

          My class was taught by retired ISP at my range. If you wanted to get it sooner, you gave your fingerprints. Mine took about 90 days.

        5. avatar Leo says:

          From IL State Police CCL law requirements:
          a full set of fingerprints submitted to the
          Department in electronic format, provided the Department may accept an application submitted without a set of fingerprints in which case the Department shall be granted 30 days in addition to the 90 days provided under subsection (e) of Section 10 of this Act to issue or deny a license;

          My apologies to Victoria. 😊

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      ” The Illinois state supreme court will say the FOID is constitutional.” Likely, however the legislature will have to rewrite the circumstances to comply. Again, we’re dealing with the circumstances for which a FOID is necessary, not the concept of the ID itself. I wish the citizens of Illinois all the best but I believe they are still getting what they deserve if there isn’t a fairly large and imediate groundswell of support from within the state for their very liberties and rights.

  29. avatar TFred says:

    And don’t forget: THIS is what passes as “commonsense” gun control:

    A law that “reasonably” implements your “rights,” but that is literally impossible to obey.

    Not an accident. The proof: even after being undeniably explained, they are STILL DEFENDING IT.

  30. avatar former water walker says:

    ILLinois is still the most debt ridden state around with fatboy claiming he’ll “fix” a 3.2billion dollar shortfall by taxing the “rich”…who can easily move. And they plan on making the FOID a cashcow. And CCL skyhigh. Oh and Vic Nighthorse-you’re CLUELESS. Sorry I couldn’t post under your inane comment. TTAG wouldn’t work.

  31. avatar Brewski says:

    So scratch off one unconstitutional law and only 10,000 to go. Meanwhile 10 more unconstitutional laws that violate the 2nd Amendment are passed every day.

  32. avatar UpInArms says:

    So, if the Illinois Supreme Court finds the FOID cards are unconstitutional, does everyone who has said card get a refund on the fees they had to pay?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Sure would be fun if someone files that very lawsuit on their asses…

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      The fees are a rounding error. ($10 every 10 years) It would throw a bucket of cold water on the new gun control bills that they introduced this year. I think Madigan know which fights to pick. He’s not in a hurry to get Illinois’ 2.5 million gun owners pissed at him. He’s got to get a constitutional amendment through in 2020 that would allow the state to institute progressive taxes. That requires a 60% vote by Illinois voters. Not something that’s going to be easy with Trump’s reelection on the ballot. He didn’t lose the state by nearly enough of a margin in 2016 for them to risk pissing off his base.

  33. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Our state gov is against voter IDs and for polling taxes on other rights. Shows you the kind of hypocrites they are. The gymnastics of the State SC are probably going to be mind boggling. I predict a terrible ruling (both in consequence and in logic) coming down. I hope I am pleasantly surprised. I think having a FOID burning day would be most spectacular.

  34. avatar Dan says:

    Of COURSE the AG will appeal this ruling and I have no doubt that the Illinois Supreme Court will give the AG the ruling he wants. What is ALSO noted is the original judge in this ruling that has the liberal asses so chapped made the statement “in this case”. That means that his ruling applies ONLY TO THIS DEFENDANT.
    Anyone thinking that the FOID requirement is about to go away is delusional. The Second Amendment is
    IRRELEVANT to most attorneys, politicians and judges…..as is any defense of the right to keep and bear
    enumerated in a states constitution. Therefore the right is IGNORED and people prosecuted under laws
    that are blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL…..because the state (meaning those in power) isn’t interested in anything but POWER and the ability to wield power unopposed. This case is a meaningless blip on the judicial radar that will offer ZERO help in the cause of the right to keep and bear.

    1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      Amen, Dan.

  35. avatar Hannibal says:

    Sounds like they got very unlucky and found a judge that actually reads the language of the statute and understands what “infringed” means.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Just once I’d like to see a judge with the balls to hold the state’s lawyer in contempt for their refusal to read.

  36. avatar George from Alaska says:

    Used to live in Illinois, now I live in Alaska… was shooting tonight with magazines over 30 rounds, suppressed and some full auto. I saw a flamethrower for sale at a lgs a few weeks ago, all you have to do in sign a piece of paper saying you will be careful with your new weed burner… State permitted concealed or open carry, although only little penises carry openly up here in the cities. You can get a concealed carry card if you take a one or two day class and with that State card you can be NICS exempt if you like.
    Several years ago the State Legislature passed personal possession of automatic knives like the Gerber tanto tip shown on “How It’s Made” a couple of years ago…
    I saw where Twinkies are back on the market… what a wonderful world…

    1. avatar BatPenguin says:

      Other than the FOID card, the 72 hour waiting period, and a few small other items Illinois isn’t horrendous yet, okay the FOID is horrendous, but we aren’t like Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Mass., Commiefornia, etc. There are proposals now in our state legislature and the Democrats have super-majorities so we are holding our breath that we don’t become like those states. As of right now, we have no capacity limits, don’t have magazine disconnect requirements, etc. I am moving to Missouri though to get away from the mess that is Illinois. Illinois is bad on the 2nd Amendment, going broke (and the politicians won’t address the problem) 130 billion dollar PENSION deficit and we spend 125% of the state revenue. If we put all the state revenue at the pension deficit in four years we would have it caught up. Of course, that can’t happen so they keep raising our taxes but don’t put it towards the pension funds. Generated $5billion more tax revune in 2017 when they raised our taxes, did they put some on the pensions? Nope spend $5billion + to put us in the hole again.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “although only little penises carry openly up here in the cities.”

      You sound like so many other gun control jackasses. Can you squeeze fetish in there somehow. That would be a hoot.

      Here’s your goat.

  37. avatar Stateisevil says:

    You know how the IL SC will rule.

  38. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    OK, so you can’t comply since you can’t carry your FOID 24/7. Not a problem.

    FOID tattooed on your wrist.

    1. avatar Gregg Jarrette says:

      Like one of those prison camp numbers?

  39. avatar BatPenguin says:

    As a Southern Illinois resident, I am very hopeful that the FOID will be struck down as unconstitutional. There is no real purpose behind the FOID other than to be a barrier for people to overcome to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and does NOTHING to stop crime. This was on full display with the Aurora shooting. ISP failed to notice the guy had a felony conviction and gave him a FOID. Any dealer in the state upon seeing a FOID card that is active and valid will assume the person can legally own firearms. It honestly doesn’t do anything. You go through a background check to get it and it is valid for 10 YEARS, but then other than having to show it when purchasing a firearm or ammo it doesn’t do anything(it is honestly like a permission slip from the state saying I can exercise my right), if I go into Missouri which I work in Missouri my kids go to school in Missouri, I am in Missouri more than Illinois I can go into a shop and buy ammo and bring it back to Illinois without ever having to show my FOID card. You still have 72 hour waiting periods on all guns now. Still, have to go through the NICS check. If you are a felon you can’t own a gun. If someone is convicted of a felony but won’t serve time, the court at that time needs to determine if the person owns guns and if they do need to make sure they surrender them, all of that can be done without a FOID. My FOID card is good for 10 years, which means that right before it expires 10 years ago I passed a background check. If my name is run through NICs every time I buy a gun why do I need a FOID card? My only thought is that is so the state knows everyone who potentially owns a firearm. It is a Gunowner Registration, not a gun registration. My friends in Missouri if they introduce me to someone that is a pro 2a person they will eventually say show them that card. I then have to explain the FOID and it usually leaves them shaking their head.

    1. avatar JR Pollock says:

      Registering gun owners has the same functional equivalence as registering the firearms. When you think of it, registration of the owners yields a smaller, more manageable list.

  40. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

    The ruling only applied to the defendant in question. It was not an overall decision that the FOID card is unconstitutional. The judge was very careful to word it so that it applies only in this case. The rub is that, if it applies in this case, it must apply in all other cases. However, for that to work, one must stop paying for their FOID card, and hope for the best.

  41. avatar possum says:

    Nothing good about it. The judge started arguing his “Shall Not Be Infringed” with ” its legal but worded wrong”

  42. avatar Geoff says:

    “FOID CARD! We don’t need no stinkin’ FOID CARD”
    Even worse, some States (North Carolina for one) you have to ASK PERMISSION to even BUY a handgun.
    I’m glad I live in South Carolina where we don’t need permission from anybody except NICS to buy any gun.
    And with a CWP we don’t even need that as it substitutes for NICS.

    1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      You’re still being infringed, and bowing to whichever king demands the infringement.

  43. avatar Geoff says:

    Here’s another court case that applies only to the one person.
    The Government cannot charge him with a Felony for owning a bump stock.
    https://www.guns.com/news/2019/03/22/looming-bump-stock-ban-blocked-by-federal-court-order?avad=224605_f15692a51&utm_source=AvantLink&utm_campaign=176117&utm_medium=ale_NA

    1. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

      However, this sets a precedent, They do this in many, many more cases than you might imagine. They say it is because every case is slightly different, but the fact is, the BAR benefits immensely, as do the lawyers attached to it, through the process, and if each individual has to fight for their right in court, the lawyers end up the winners.

  44. avatar 2brknot2bfree says:

    You know, I find it odd the ignorance of some of those commenting here. The IL SC is noted as being the same as the 7th CC,. Just one misstatement within.

  45. avatar Will FORD says:

    I HAVE SAID from the get-go in 1991 or so that DAMN firearm owner I.D. singles out firearm owners AND THAT IS WRONG! Always thought it was unconstitutional. IT IS LEFT WING B.S.

  46. avatar Sheldon Carlson says:

    Yesssss!!!!

  47. avatar Gregg Jarrette says:

    Requiring photo id’s is racist-remember? Are muslim women required to show their face on a FOID?

  48. avatar Moe says:

    Its whiteside county not white county with that being said what is good for one person in this God forsaken state is good for all of us the ill supreme court should abolish the food card.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email