Illinois Supreme Court Considers FOID Card Case: Indicted Gun Possession

The Illinois Supreme Court is currently deliberating a pivotal case regarding the revocation of Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) cards for individuals charged, but not convicted, of felonies.

This case, involving plaintiffs Aaron and Charles Davis, could have significant implications for gun ownership rights and public safety measures across the state. 

Background on Illinois Gun Laws 

Illinois is known for having some of the most stringent gun laws in the United States. These laws are designed to prevent gun violence and ensure public safety. Key regulations include: 

• Universal Background Checks: All firearm sales, including private transactions, require background checks. 
• FOID Card Requirement: Individuals must possess a FOID card issued by the Illinois Department of State Police (ISP) to own or acquire firearms and ammunition. 
• Domestic Violence Prohibitor Laws: Those convicted of certain domestic violence offenses are prohibited from possessing firearms. 
• Purchase Waiting Periods: There is a mandatory 72-hour waiting period before a firearm can be delivered to the purchaser. 
• Minimum Age Requirements: Individuals must be 21 to obtain a FOID card, with specific conditions for those under 21. 
• Extreme Risk Protection Orders: These allow for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. 
• Safe Storage Requirements: Firearms must be stored securely, particularly to prevent children from accessing them. 
• Assault Weapon Restrictions: Illinois bans the sale and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. 

Despite these comprehensive laws, Illinois faces challenges from illegally trafficked guns from neighboring states with less restrictive regulations. 

The Davis FOID Card Case: An Overview 

In July 2016, Aaron and Charles Davis were charged with felonies after firing guns into the air in Wood River, Illinois. Following these charges, their FOID cards were revoked. The charges were reduced to misdemeanors a year later, and their FOID cards were reinstated.

This sequence of events has brought into question the legality and fairness of revoking FOID cards based solely on felony charges without a conviction. 

State's Argument 

Representing the state, Assistant Attorney General Leigh Jahnig argued that the plaintiffs lack standing in their challenge.

Jahnig emphasized that the circuit court's ruling, which deemed the statute unconstitutional for anyone charged with a felony, should be overturned. According to Jahnig, the plaintiffs' situation does not warrant a broad application of the unconstitutionality ruling. 

Plaintiffs' Argument 

Attorney Thomas Maag, representing the plaintiffs, contends that the statute in question is unconstitutional as it applies to all individuals charged with a felony but not convicted.

Maag argues that under current federal law, individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or with certain mental health prohibitors are barred from possessing firearms. However, the Illinois statute goes a step further by revoking FOID cards based on charges alone, without a conviction. 

Maag highlights that while federal law allows individuals charged with a felony to keep their existing firearms, Illinois law prevents these individuals from acquiring new firearms while under indictment. This discrepancy is central to the case, as it raises questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. 

Implications of the Case 

This case underscores the tension between stringent gun control measures and the constitutional rights of individuals. If the Illinois Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a precedent that prevents the state from revoking FOID cards based on charges alone, thereby altering the landscape of gun ownership laws in Illinois. 

Conclusion 

The Davis FOID card case presents a complex legal challenge involving the interpretation and application of Illinois gun laws. As the Illinois Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome will likely have far-reaching consequences for gun owners and public safety protocols in the state.

By addressing the constitutionality of revoking FOID cards based on charges without conviction, this case highlights the ongoing debate over gun control and individual rights. The decision will not only affect the Davises but also set a legal benchmark for how similar cases are handled in the future. 

As Illinois continues to grapple with gun violence and the flow of illegal firearms, this case serves as a critical examination of the state's approach to regulating gun ownership and protecting its residents. The legal community and the public alike await the court's decision, which will undoubtedly influence the future of gun legislation in Illinois. 

‍