New Lawsuit Against Illinois FOID

John Richardson has the details. It’s being funded by the Mountain States Legal Foundation. I don’t know much about MSLF, or their experience in running gun cases, or appellate level litigation, but the case looks pretty good. It’s essentially an Ohio woman who is challenging the FOID requirement, because they don’t issue FOIDs to out-of-state individuals, and require one to keep a loaded gun in your dwelling. It’s seeking injunctive relief, either to keep the State of Illinois from enforcing the FOID requirement on non-residents, or forcing them to issue FOIDs to non-residents. I’m hoping they do the former. This looks like a carefully thought out case, and isn’t asking the Court to do a lot. I wish them luck.

9 thoughts on “New Lawsuit Against Illinois FOID”

  1. NY State will have a porcupine, breech presentation, if the first option goes through. I was going to say this wouldn’t affect NJ, but it would; if I can possess a firearm at someone else’s house under the same circumstances as I could at my own, it would make my life a little easier in that I could stop off with the relatives who live near a cluster of ranges that I go to from time to time.

    At least, since the 2A has been incorporated, I would expect that intrastate regulation would be limited in the same way as interstate regulation…

  2. MSLF has a pretty good track record across the board in conservative/libertarian lawsuits to enforce Constitutional adherence by federal/state/local governments.

  3. All states that issue FOID cards ought to scrap them now rather than waste taxpayer money defending them in court. That would be the prudent thing to do, but I know better than this to think that it will actually happen. It’s not like anybody needs to apply for a state-issued ID card/permission slip to exercise any of their other constitutional rights.

  4. Well, if showing an FID means I can bypass a NICS check; I’ll sign up for it. As long as I don’t *have* to have a FID to purchase.

    When I purchased my rifle just recently, it took longer to fill out the 4473 than it did for the clerk to run me – he called in, gave my name and FID # to the State Police, and they said “yes” before I finished off the 4473.

    (Yes, I know, background checks “infringe!” NICS isn’t going anywhere any place, guys.)

  5. In North Carolina, our CHP (concealed handgun permit) serves the same function insofar as avoiding the hassle of a NICS check. Of course, no ID beyond a DL is required to purchase a long arm.

    NC still requires a pistol purchase permit from your local sheriff. I think it is left over from the Jim Crow days. Most sheriffs just run the check and give you as many permits as you want at $5 a pop. The CHP also serves as a pistol purchase permit.

  6. This would be great for those of us who travel to NJ regularly, as while it wouldn’t allowcarry, it would least allow possession and transport of a firearm in a vehicle.

  7. Won’t affect automobile possession in NJ unless they do something rather shocking. NJ law does not distinguish between in-state and out-of-state residents as far as possession goes. You get the same exemptions as I do. (NJs FID is a purchase card – predates NICS by a fair piece and supposedly does what NICS does; allow a background check at point of sale. It happens to allow general possession of a longarm (unloaded), but a non-resident can obtain a FID as well).

    What I am hoping is it will bust in NJs silly-ass “no diversions” law at least to the extent of letting me stop off at a friend’s or relations house on the way to/from the range.

  8. The law in New Jersey against hollow point ammunition also needs to go as far as I’m concerned. (Most .22 LR ammunition is hollow point.) This law could only have been written by somebody who is completely ignorant about what hollow point ammunition actually does, versus what hysterical gun-haters will claim about it.

Comments are closed.