ILL FOID Falls

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

Victory in SAF-Funded Case Challenging Illinois FOID Mandate | Shooting Wire

[Eyesa Horg]

One step at a time. 

[Lawdog Dago Dom]

2 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

One step at a time. 

Actually it's like the second or third time. The current Governor literally financed the elections of two Illinois Supreme Court justices.

That's why no local 2A papers are shouting this out from the rooftops.

[Eyesa Horg]

🤞🤞

[Blackwater 53393]

Governor Prickster has the best State Supreme Court Justices that money can buy!!

 

If this can be gotten out of their hands and into SCOTUS, we may see some real action!!

[Sedalia Dave]

While this is a start, until the requirement to have an FOID to buy firearms and ammunition is deemed unconstitutional the status quo hasn't really changed.

[John Kloehr]

47 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

While this is a start, until the requirement to have an FOID to buy firearms and ammunition is deemed unconstitutional the status quo hasn't really changed.

Finally read the ruling and you may be right. The case dealt with possession of a firearm in the home, not purchase of a firearm or ammunition for it.

 

I have not looked to see if purchase will no longer require a FOID. If it still does, will take take another case (and more years) to clarify if the FOID itself is unconstitutional, and to enforce related rights.

 

Reading the ruling narrowly, it seems renewing a FOID would no longer necessary for keeping firearms at home.

[John Kloehr]

From the decision (my bold):

 

“Specifically, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and 430 ILCS 65/5 unconstitutional on their face and as applied to law-abiding citizens within their home as well as to the Defendant in the case sub judice under the Second Amendment to the United States’ Constitution... This Court cannot reasonably construe the FOID Card Act in a manner that would preserve its validity.”

 

The state may still appeal. The state web site still lists an FOID card as a requirement to purchase a firearm:

 

https://isp.illinois.gov/Foid/Foid

 

[Blackwater 53393]

J.K.!!

 

Am I reading this right??  Is this saying that the FOID card requirement is unconstitutional in its entirety??

[John Kloehr]

29 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

J.K.!!

 

Am I reading this right??  Is this saying that the FOID card requirement is unconstitutional in its entirety??

No.

 

The ruling (and the case) were in the context of firearms possession in the home. Per the ruling, an FOID car is unconstitutional in this context, as is any state-required fee for exercising the right to possess a firearm in the home.

 

This is Illinois, and this case has made the circuit three times since 2017. I expect the state to appeal. I happen to agree with the ruling, and  think that while a federal background check (NICS) might be constitutional (not fully decided), I do not think the $10 fee for it is constitutional. Like paying $10 each time I vote. The ruling provides support for a future NICS fee challenge

 

But this case was only about a FOID requirement to possess firearm in the home. The plaintiff did not have a current card at the time of the false report which set all of this in motion and was not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

 

My opinion on the FOID card is there should not be a license and background check and fee before being able to purchases a firearm requiring the same background check with a fee. I consider it unconstitutional is all cases. But this ruling was not about all cases, just all cases for possession in the home.

Edited February 13 by John Kloehr