Illinois FOID Second Amendment Case Appealed to Illinois Supreme Court

Ammoland ^ | 26 March, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

A very interesting Second Amendment case has developed in the Illinois state court system. The case challenges the requirement to qualify for, pay for, and have in possession, an Illinois Firearm Owner Identification card (FOID), to legally possess a firearm in the home for the purposes of self defense. The case is very clear. The Illinois court ruled the requirement to have an FOID was unconstitutional. From illinoiscarry.com:

This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court.

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

We were in contact with the attorney for this case and discovered he was retiring and will not be representing Ms. Brown at the IL Supreme Court level. We have sought legal representation for Ms. Brown and believe the case will be in good hands. More news to follow!

The first decision on the case made numerous findings. Here is part of the wording on requiring a person to obtain a permit and pay for the permit to legally exercise her rights under the Second Amendment.

[marktwain]

It is a big deal if the Illinois Supreme Court rules that FOID cards are infringements on the Second Amendment.

[Yo-Yo]

Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection.

If gun-grabbers had their way, but were forced to provide some deference to the Second Amendment, that .22 Cricket would be the only allowable firearm.

[stylin19a]

Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

just in the home ?

[marktwain]

just in the home ?

---

That is what the case was about.

This is good legal strategy. It leads, inexorably, to other fees and permits.

But it is easier for the court and the Supreme Court to swallow this a bit at a time.

[Lurker]

“But it is easier for the court and the Supreme Court to swallow this a bit at a time.”

Years ago a lady downstate got caught entering a Courthouse with a pistol in her purse. It was unloaded but they charged her with the crime of it not being completely enclosed in a case.

She fought it to the lLSC and won. So there is hope for this lady.

L

[Jack Hammer]

I checked carefully; the Second Amendment doesn’t mention FOIDs.

[Ancesthntr]

“But it is easier for the court and the Supreme Court to swallow this a bit at a time.”

---

Our 2nd Amendment rights were taken away salami slice by salami slice over more than an 80-year period of time...and that’s how we’re going to have to get them back. It will not, much as I’d like it to, be done in one fell swoop. Let’s take this victory, hope the verdict is sustained on appeal, and run with it.

[stylin19a]

I suppose. The greater good and all...