A three-judge panel of the 4th District Appellate Court is deciding the fate of Illinois’ requirement that gun buyers qualify for and acquire a Firearms Owners Identification (FOID) card before purchasing a gun.

According to a report at hometownregister.com, the court heard testimony in the case brought by Guns Save Life on December 19. The pro-gun organization argues that the FOID requirement is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and that there are no comparable historical laws to meet the second Bruen standard.

“Just like you wouldn’t require a license to pray at home or post an unpopular opinion on X,” Guns Save Life attorney Clark Hildabrand said during the proceeding.

According to the hometownregister.com report, the state argued just the opposite.

“Government can regulate to seek to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are dangerous and therefore likely to misuse them,” attorney Jane Elinor Notz said. “That applies to public carry and at-home protection.”

Interestingly, the website reported that Judge Craig DeArmond took exception to that statement. During the testimony, he told Notz that the recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent dealt not with keeping firearms in the home but with allowing some regulations on the carrying of firearms in public.

“I know you’re doing your best to not answer the question, but it’ll go faster if you do,” Judge DeArmond said when questioning Notz on the state’s position, according to the report.

Plaintiffs also argued that the state was being disingenuous when it claimed the FOID requirement only impacts criminals.

“Illinois has the firearm restraining order law that would operate more similarly, but here the FOID law applies generally to all law-abiding citizens, those who are impacted by the law,” Hildabrand said. “Other prohibitions already impact felons.”

John Boch, Guns Save Life executive director, told thecentersquare.com that he feels like his organization got a favorable panel of judges to hear this very important case.

“Judge DeArmond savaged that representative from [Attorney General] Kwame Raoul’s office, just savaged her with her talking points and just outright calling her incorrect in some of her assertions,” Boch told the news outlet after Thursday’s hearing. “I’ve never seen an oral argument get that testy and rough for either side’s counsel.”

In the end, plaintiffs are asking the court to rule the FOID requirement unconstitutional and to stop enforcement of the law in the future. Regardless of how the court rules, the case will likely be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

28 COMMENTS

  1. So Il has the FOID on at least 2 challenges one in state court and the other in Federal district court or am I way off in reading comprehension pre coffee?

    • Safe,

      “the case will likely be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.”
      It appears at this time it is in state court(s), but I haven’t finished a cup of coffee either!

    • SAFEupstateFML,

      Here is the key verbiage:

      “A three-judge panel of the 4th District Appellate Court …”

      That has to refer to Illinois state courts since federal courts would be 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The key there being the word “District” rather than “Circuit”.

      • Thank you I am seeing it now. Sadly farther along than our challenges on pistol permits or rifle/shotgun permits for NYC so at least they are getting somewhere with arguments not being delayed for standing.

  2. It looks like there are two “cracks in the armor” of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision that anti-Second Amendment governments are exploiting.

    The first “crack” is state governments claiming that their regulations prohibitions pass Constitutional muster as long as they are not total prohibitions.

    The second “crack” is state governments claiming that their regulations prohibitions are consistent with historical traditions which prohibit dangerous people from being armed.

    That second “crack” appears to be even more threatening than the first: it is governments’ newest magical incantation which replaces the previous “public safety / compelling government interest” magical incantation.

    (For people who are unaware, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment Bruen decision, governments justified Second Amendment infringements claiming that their infringements furthered “public safety” or “a compelling government interest”–which courts almost universally upheld.)

    • Tyrannical Illinois Democrats aren’t concerned about any ‘Cracks’ simply because they just ignore any court rulings that don’t support their tyranny.

      • Exactly, they’ll just appeal it to the Supreme Federation of Planets after they lose at all of the Earthbound courts, and continue their illegal interpretations and enforcement until such time.
        What – never heard of the Supreme Federation of Planets before? … it was probably in some b-movie sy-fi flick, so it’s good enough for J B Prickster and Company
        My suggestion to you Ill-annoyed captives would be to ignore their made up shit with the same fervor that they ignore all of the real shit.
        Oh, and Merry Christmas to all !!

        • I think you mean The United Federation of Planets from a little known series called
          Star Trek. Set in the 23rd century, nearly all of the characters carried a sidearm on them away from the Enterprise, by the way. And I second your Merry Christmas.

  3. A requirement to qualify for and acquire a FOID card.
    You left out one aspect, which is to also PAY for the card.
    How many other Constitutional rights does one have to pay for?

  5. Meh. Ill annoy needs to be slapped down hard by SCOTUS. Fat Boy bribed 2 gals on the ILL supreme court with over $1000000 each. I guarantee a multitude of ILL gat owners have the verbotten gats handy.

    • SCOTUS is way too weak tea to do anything of the sort anytime soon. Don’t expect any judicial fixes before things simply break down by other means. Is 250 years the “best before” limit of the formerly grand Republic? It’s looking a lot like it from where my bolthole is.

      • “SCOTUS is way too weak tea to do anything of the sort anytime soon.”

        The ‘Ghost Gun’ case is before the SCotUS right *now*, and the decision is in 6 months.

        I would rather that they wait until an air-tight case drops in their lap than rush on a poorly-constructed one…

    • SCOTUS has no powers of arrest or the ability to remove a politician from office for violating it’s rulings. So there really isn’t much the Supreme court can do to individual politicians who refuse to abide by their decisions even on matters of Constitutional law.

      • True, but not terribly important. The court can declare statutes unconstitutional, and any law enforcement agency that attempts to enforce those statutes afterwards is committing a violation of civil rights for which there is a remedy with teeth. Damages awards come out of the public treasury.

        • The court could do a whole lot more than issue mealy-mouthed rulings with a ton of wiggle room and loopholes which allow the lower courts to hove off on unconstitutional tangents and then proceed to never say so much as a whisper about it until many years later while the leftist inferior courts kick the can down the road indefinitely and keep the cases in an interlocutory status practically in perpetuity.

          Yes, they do have teeth -but they are so weak tea milquetoastian about it that they just don’t want, preferring to cling to procedural technicalities rather than actually doing their jobs and protecting the constitutional rights of the American People.

          That’s as nicely as I can put it.

        • Mark N.,

          The whole, “violation of civil rights,” schtick basically does not exist in practice. When was the last time our federal government’s Department of Justice prosecuted a state government under U.S. Code Title 18 Section 242 “Deprivation of rights under color of law”?

          I would bet you a year’s salary that our Department of Justice, with a Democrat in the White House, would claim prosecutorial discretion and refuse to prosecute any state government for the above. And it would not surprise me if the same happened even with a Republican in the White House.

          • Who is talking about the DOJ? It is true, the DOJ CANNOT prosecute a state government. It is called the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Legislators are specifically immune from liability with respect to their actions in enacting laws. But the DOJ can AND DOES prosecute criminal violations against government employees, such as the officers accused of killing Mr. Floyd.
            More to the point, there are CIVIL remedies as well which any citizen injured by an unconstitutional act can sue under 42 USC section 1983–AND THEY OFTEN DO. If you’ve been paying attention, most of the gun ban etc. cases have a civil rights cause of action which allows both damages and attorneys fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Civil court civil rights actions are quite common.

  6. The issue with the FOID is that it essentially replicates the questions on a 4473, but does not relieve a card holder from complying with federal law and filling out a 4473 at the time of purchase of a firearm. So basically it requires a buyer to do the same thing twice to buy a weapon. How that prevents bad guys from obtaining firearms is beyond comprehension.

    California has a card requirement called a FSC (firearms safety certificate) which requires passing a 35 question multiple choice test on basic knowledge of firearms safety requirements and law, but is not a background check. It costs $25 every time, even on renewals. The Legislature tried to pass a law that one had to have a valid card not just at the time of purchase, but at all times one is in possession of firearms. That obvious tax measure did not pass.

    • While replication of currently accepted Federal Law is a reasonably strong argument I’d have to ask about that price tag they’ve attached.

      A 4473 costs a few minutes. It’s a big hill to climb to convince most people/judges that this rises to the level of “infringement” in and of itself. A FOID costs actual currency. Sure, not a lot of it but it’s still a tax on the exercising of a right.

      Which of course brings up the FAET, which I’d like to see challenged instead of celebrated by the gun world as “wE’Re HeLpiNg wIt dA CoNseRVatIoNZ aNd sAfTiEz!”.

      IMHO, no, you’re paying a 10-11% tax on a Constitutional right and misallocating capital while bragging about it like the slow kid at the lunch table. That’s what you’re doing no matter how much lipstick you want to smear on that Suidae.

  7. Third Circuit Reaffirms That Gun Rights Can’t be Denied to ‘Nonviolent Nondangerous’ People Convicted of Misdemeanors.

    h ttps://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/crime-and-punishment/third-circuit-reaffirms-that-gun-rights-cant-be-denied-to-nonviolent-nondangerous-people-convicted-of-misdemeanors/

  8. The fate of the FOID is not in anyone’s hands. If the state wins they’ll continue to enforce it. If the state loses, they’ll appeal or ignore the ruling and continue to enforce it.

    • Yes they will appeal if they lose, and will seek to stay the lower court order pending appeal. If however the law is ultimately held to be unconstitutional in the state supreme court or SCOTUS, enforcing the law would be a compensable civil rights violation for deprivation of rights under color of law. Moreover, the primary place of enforcement, other than an arrest, is at the FFL where you go to buy firearms, and I would bet that they will not be enforcing the law.

  9. The ATF did it again…

    Hannah Hill, Vice President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, interviews Mark Manley, an innocent man who’s house was unjustly raided and his family threatened by the ATF.

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJMCeWLYzts

  11. Supreme Court Judge SLAPS Anti Gun State: 2a NOT a Privilege! Wilson v. Hawaii Spirit of Aloha.

    h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHj6CwALl9A

Comments are closed.