In Illinois, if you own a firearm, you have to have a Firearms Owner Identification, or FOID card. This lets everyone know you're a law-abiding gun owner. It also tells the government exactly which law-abiding citizens own guns, so if they decide to confiscate them, they know where to look.
Technically, you get the card first, so not everyone with the card actually has a gun--they could get the card and change their mind, after all--but even that is subject to change depending on a court ruling.
That's right. The state's FOID requirement is now in federal court, potentially on its way to the Supreme Court.
In the neverending onslaught of lawsuits across the country, as Democrats continue to legislate in contempt of the United States Supreme Court Bruen decision, an Illinois appellate court is set to decide whether or not the state’s Firearm Owner’s ID card requirement is unconstitutional. As one of only a few states to impose such a requirement on firearms purchases and one of only two states requiring the ID just to possess a firearm or ammunition, you have to wonder why the violent crime rate in cities like Chicago is so high. Just kidding, you don’t have to wonder. That dumpster fire has been in Democrat control for many years and is exactly how they want it.
The case was originally brought against the state by Guns Save Life, asserting correctly that the law violates Americans’ Second Amendment rights. In not much of a shocker, Illinois activist judges in Sangamon County sided with the state. On December 19, however, an Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court three-judge panel heard arguments as the plaintiff’s attorney, Clark Hildabrand, urged them to honor the plain text of the Second Amendment and recognize that the only comparable historical laws on record are defunct loyalty oath laws and race-based prohibitions.
“Just like you wouldn’t require a license to pray at home or post an unpopular opinion on X,” said Hildabrand, representing Guns Save Life.
The state whined about the power to impose regulations with the intent to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.
“Government can regulate to seek to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are dangerous and therefore likely to misuse them… That applies to public carry and at home protection,” said Jane Elinor Notz, representing Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly.
Except Chicago stands as a shining testament to just how little these cards do in regard to keeping them "out of the hands of people who are dangerous and therefore likely to misuse them."
Criminals aren't getting guns through lawful means. They get them via black market transactions or outright theft. That means FOID requirements only apply to law-abiding people, all of whom are also undergoing background checks when they buy a firearm.
So how is the requirement for a permit to purchase a gun--one that doesn't exempt anyone from a NICS check in the first place--doing anything above and beyond the federal background check alone?
The short answer is that it's not.
But the metric for constitutionality isn't whether a law works or not, but whether it follows what the Constitution specifically allows. Following the Bruen decision, we know that there needs to be a historic analog for any gun control law. On that account, I don't see how a permit-to-purchase requirement will survive legal challenge. There's no such parallel, even under Rahimi's finding that it doesn't need to be a direct, one-to-one parallel.
As a result, these measures look like they're headed to the dustbin of history, which is where they belong at this point.
