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.

Do you mean similar to the NICS background check required to purchase a firearm since the Brady Bill was passed in 1993? What this dolt is pretending not to understand is that dangerous and violent criminals are not going to give two warm pennies about some ID card requirement. How many gang members in Chicago line up to get on that list versus purchasing a gun on the street from a fellow criminal? You might think these people are out of their minds, but they know what they’re doing. Their only interest is to criminalize the law-abiding American gun owner, as they have wanted to make those lists and take away that right for years. 

Judge Craig DeArmond pushed back, reminding Notz that U.S. Supreme Court precedent allowed limited regulations for public carry, but not for keeping firearms in the home. DeArmond and Notz had a lively back-and-forth covering several issues, which is when the proceedings took a turn with few spice exchanges. 

“I know you’re doing your best to not answer the question, but it’ll go faster if you do,” DeArmond said as Notz dodged his questioning on the state’s position.

Hildabrand, unphased and likely energized by Notz’s buffoonery, continued to rebut the state, pointing out that the FOID aims to impact all gun owners in the state, and does nothing to target prohibited individuals as they would not meet the requirements for the ID in the first place, nor are they likely to apply for one.

“Illinois has the firearm restraining order law that would operate more similarly, but here the FOID law applies generally to all law-abiding citizens … Other prohibitions already impact felons.” Hildabrand said.

John Boch, the Executive Director of Guns Save Life who brought the case (and a regular contributor to TTAG), says he feels good about the arguments and is optimistic about favorability with the panel.

“Judge DeArmond that savaged representative from [Attorney General] Kwame Raoul’s office, just savaged her with her talking points and just outright calling her incorrect in some of her assertions … I’ve never seen an oral argument get that testy and rough for either side’s counsel” Boch said after the hearing adding, “Clearly there’s no historical precedent whatsoever for something like this in the colonial times.”

While the appeals court has taken the case under advisement, Boch is ready to go the distance no matter the outcome, expecting the Illinois Supreme Court as the next stop and possibly moving on to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this is one of many cases that will see this level of progression through the judicial system, a heavy burden on the taxpayer as we pay for both sides of the argument despite settled precedent by the highest court in the land. Democrat strategy has become clear as they ignore rulings, infringe on Constitutional rights, then tie the whole thing up in the courts and burn through money that could be better spent in the best interest of Americans, which is why I advocate for Supreme Court imposition of contempt charges for this practice.