Civil Liberty Group Sues Illinois Over License Required to Buy Guns, Ammunition
“But requiring people to get permission from the government in advance even to obtain a gun for hunting or for self-defense in the home is outrageous. The point of having Constitutional rights is that we do not have to get the government’s permission to exercise them.”
The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has sued Illinois over the Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) Act, which requires gun owners to obtain a card to purchase a gun or ammunition.
Fox News was the first to report the lawsuit.
The NCLA argues that the law violates the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“The FOID Card Act’s absolute prohibition on an individual’s possession of a firearm before obtaining a FOID card—that is, before submitting to a state administrative process under which state officials decide whether an individual is eligible and will be permitted to exercise that right—deprives individuals of that liberty interest without due process of law,” the NCLA writes in its lawsuit.
The FOID Act requires Illinois residents to obtain this card from the Illinois State Police before purchasing any gun or ammunition.
The state also requires gun owners to carry the card with them at all times.
Yes, you actually have to go through the government before even exercising your natural right to bear arms.
“This requires one to initiate and prevail in an administrative proceeding—in which the burden of proof is on the individual at every step, and which may take 30 days, 90 days, or even longer,” according to the lawsuit. “Any violation of this requirement is a crime.”
Imagine having to wait to purchase a gun or ammunition. Ridiculous.
Plaintiffs Christopher Laurent and Kim Dalton want to buy a gun for self-defense in their homes.
Neither one has done so because they do not have FOID cards. Laurent and Dalton “refuse to submit to the state’s unconstitutional procedure, and are unwilling to subject themselves to criminal prosecution by violating the law.”
Plaintiff Justin Tucker has a FOID card but has chosen to challenge the requirement to carry it at all times when he has his gun or when he wants to purchase ammunition.
“This case is not about invalidating all licensing related to guns,” said Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA. “But requiring people to get permission from the government in advance even to obtain a gun for hunting or for self-defense in the home is outrageous. The point of having Constitutional rights is that we do not have to get the government’s permission to exercise them.”
I thought it was ridiculous having to get any kind of carry license, but this takes the cake.
In 2025, an Illinois state trial court ruled parts of the law unconstitutional, but only applied it to the plaintiffs.
However, in May 2025, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the FOID Act.
The NCLA chose to file the lawsuit in a federal court located in Chicago to set a precedent.
“Once the federal courts weigh in, that will be the definitive law,” NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Jacob Huebert told Fox News. “If a federal court orders the Illinois State Police, the Illinois Attorney General, and the Cook County State’s Attorney not to enforce this law anymore, then they can no longer enforce it.”
Yet another reason why I’m glad I chose Oklahoma over Illinois. We have constitutional carry here, baby!
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What’s next, a Printing Press Owner’s Identification Card? PPOID
Why not, they are going after muskets
“Still deadly after centuries”
Already to go in CA. 3D printers needing CA approval for ANY program.
This was pushed in the early 1800’s… registration of printing presses. “Freedom of the Press”… was freedom to publish and disseminate news and opinion…. with the mechanical “press”. Also note the move to ban “unauthorized” reporting/reporters.
How dare you question the Oppressive State? You are serfs, not Citizens.
This will not last long with the current SCOTUS
The vile communist/Islamofascist Dhimmi-crats will never stop their brazen and lawless assault upon citizens’ constitutional rights.
Oh, these pukes will contrive out of thin air an alleged constitutional “right” to abortion, “gay marriage,” etc., but when it comes to explicitly-worded, unambiguous constitutional rights (articulated in the Bill of Rights), then, these pukes have a problem.
An ordinance which… makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms. And our decisions have made clear that a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license.
–SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM AL, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Massachusetts was sneakier about it. You didn’t need a “pistol permit” to have a handgun in your home. But if you didn’t, no dealer would sell you one because you didn’t have a legal way to get it home, (No, delers were forbidden to deliver.) The only people who could take advantage of the “no license for the home” law were people moving into state, because they had a grace period to obtain required licenses.
Same for their constant lie of “we don’t keep a gun registry” — true only because guns newcomers brought in with them were exempt (but native residents were screwed).
The Massachusetts law is still problematic. It’s an infringement of, if not an outright denial of, the right to property. The right to property isn’t just a right to its ownership, but also to its possession (different from ownership – you can own something that’s never been in your “possession”), acquisition, use, and enjoyment. If the gun owner can’t bring his property home, he is being denied several aspects of his right to property.
When the gun buyer is arrested for attempting exercise his full rights to his property, this law falls afoul of a very basic problem as does the law in Illinois (where it criminalize the exercise of certain aspects of the right to a class of property, to wit “firearms”) – they convert the exercise of a right or rights into a crime, and this is something that’s been explicitly forbidden by SCOTUS.
The FOID card: reason #3,731 that I fled The People’s Republic of Illinois 47 years ago.
I want you to imagine the most reasonable, prudent and non intrusive firearm law.
I am still 100% opposed to it.
Why?
1) The plain language of the Constitution forbids it, regardless of what leftist do-gooders might think.
2) We have much more to fear from a government that is aching to do awful things to half the population for the simple reason that they oppose being serfs instead of citizens than we do the murderer or the thief.
This is what happens when people are taught that their right are granted by government and that God is a fairy tale.
the left constantly drops weapons charges against their brood when they are brought in for crimes
the agenda is clear
good people owning guns>>bad
bad people owning guns>>good
lefty is a sickpos
Colorado enacted the same law that will be effective soon. The Oregon SC will rule on a similar law soon. Both require training and fees before issuing a permit to purchase. California has similar requirements and registration for all firearms. The goal is to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a firearm. The more difficult it is, the less willing people will attempt the purchase. This obviously has no affect on the criminal.
We could use a law that makes politicians liable for outright infringements on the Constitution.
Make them pay out of their own pocket too.
Leave a Comment