With this case, the USSC can rule on both an individuals right to own (keep) and carry (bear) arms.
The constitutionality of puchasing only 'one gun per month' can be challenged.
The constitutionality of the State of Illinois to charge for a FOID card. Or any State that charges for a CCW permit. This could be challenged under MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942) which concluded in part:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution…. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the Constitution.' "
The Illinois State Constitution itself can be challenged. It states:
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."
CCW permits themselves can be challenged since the State keeps a record of the individual in violation of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act which states:
3. No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.
As I mentioned in my post #60, I am concerned that the two cited cases are too narrow. Emerson dealt with federal law denying guns to those under restraining orders. Even if the decision were overturned, it would only mean that the 'restraining order' law was found unconstitutional and would need to be eliminated or changed. To refresh your memory, that case did not deny his individual right to own a weapon, just that he was not allowed to own a weapon while under a restraining order. He claimed his rights were abridged because of the possibility of committing a crime, not that he had committed one.
And I don't like Silveira v. Lockyer because it's about "assault weapons", not about the RKBA which California has not even addressed. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, I don't believe that California ever adopted it under the 14th Amendment.
All I'm saying is there there has to be cleaner cases where the fundamental right to keep and bear arms can be heard in front of the USSC.