Here we go again, folks. The bureaucrats in black robes over in Illinois have once again proved that they can twist themselves into legal pretzels to justify trampling your rights—as long as it makes the anti-gun crowd feel warm and fuzzy inside.
On April 29, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court dropped a ruling that should make any freedom-loving American’s blood boil. In Guns Save Life v. Kelly, a three-judge panel upheld the constitutionality of the state’s ridiculous Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card requirement. That’s right: according to Illinois, you don’t actually have the right to own a gun unless you first ask the state for permission and pay a fee. So much for “shall not be infringed.”
Two of the three judges apparently forgot—or outright ignored—the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court made it crystal clear in the 2022 Bruen decision that if there’s no historical tradition for a modern gun control law, it’s unconstitutional. But never mind that pesky little Supreme Court precedent. Instead, Judge Thomas Harris and one of his colleagues decided to pretend that loyalty oaths from the 1700s somehow justify today’s FOID scheme. That’s right—because someone once swore allegiance to the government before shouldering a musket, the state can now force you to buy a laminated permission slip to keep a .22 in your nightstand.
Judge Harris actually had the nerve to write this in the ruling: “The FOID Act is an implementation of [the] principle” that the government can screen citizens before letting them own a gun. He even quoted from Rahimi, the pending Supreme Court case that’s barely out of the oven, to justify a system that says you have no right at all unless and until the state gives it back to you.
Let me break that down in plain English: in Judge Harris’s world, your Second Amendment rights don’t exist unless Big Brother says they do. It’s not “innocent until proven guilty”—it’s “unarmed until proven worthy.”
Thankfully, not every judge on that panel was sipping the same Kool-Aid. Judge Craig DeArmond came out swinging with a dissent that basically said, “Have you guys even read Bruen?” And it’s a good question, because judging by their decision, it’s clear the majority either didn’t read it or read it with their eyes closed.
DeArmond wrote: “My colleagues fail to recognize the unique nature of a constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment.” Translation: the Second Amendment is special, folks. It’s not a suggestion. It’s not optional. And it sure as hell isn’t subject to whatever new restrictions Illinois Democrats want to dream up this week.
He went further, saying that the FOID Act flips the Constitution on its head. The founders believed everyone had the right to keep and bear arms unless they had done something to lose that right—not the other way around. But under Illinois law, the government assumes no one has the right unless they jump through hoops, fill out forms, and fork over some cash.
That’s not just wrong. That’s unconstitutional. Period.
Now here’s where it gets even more insane. Just two months ago, a different judge in a separate Illinois case—State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown—ruled the exact opposite. In that case, a federal judge said loud and clear that the FOID card requirement is unconstitutional when applied to someone possessing a firearm in their own home.
The facts of the Brown case are almost laughably simple. Vivian Brown had a .22 rifle in her home for self-defense. Her husband called the cops and claimed she was firing the gun indoors. When the police arrived, they found the rifle next to her bed—but no evidence of any shots fired. No shell casings, no bullet holes, no witnesses hearing anything. Yet Illinois still charged her with a crime—possession of a firearm without a FOID card.
Read that again: she owned a rifle, in her own home, and because she didn’t pay the state its little protection fee, they slapped her with a misdemeanor.
Fortunately, the judge in that case, T. Scott Webb, still understands how the Constitution works. In his ruling, he declared that there is no historical basis for the FOID card. And even better, he recognized that charging a fee to exercise a constitutional right is a violation in and of itself.
Let me quote the man, because he nailed it: “Any fee associated with exercising the core fundamental Constitutional right of armed self-defense within the confines of one’s home violates the Second Amendment.” Amen, Judge Webb. Maybe you could give Judge Harris a crash course in American history and constitutional law.
So what do we do now? Well, for starters, we keep fighting. Groups like Guns Save Life are doing the Lord’s work in courtrooms across this country, and they deserve every bit of support we can give. Because make no mistake—Illinois is the canary in the coal mine. If this FOID nonsense is allowed to stand there, other blue states are going to jump on the bandwagon. Today it’s a $10 card and a background check. Tomorrow it’ll be a psychological exam, a home inspection, and your Facebook password.
This is exactly why Bruen was so important. The Supreme Court drew a line in the sand: if there’s no historical tradition backing a gun law, it’s not allowed. No more interest balancing. No more “public safety” excuses. You don’t need a permit to speak, to pray, or to demand due process. And you damn sure shouldn’t need one to own a gun.
So let’s keep pushing. Let’s keep suing. Let’s keep reminding these judges, politicians, and anti-gun zealots that we don’t ask for our rights. We have them. And we’re not giving them up without a fight.
