Shame on Guns Save Life. The plucky Illinois grassroots gun rights organization filed a legal challenge to the crown jewel of gun control in the Land of Lincoln – the state’s almost 60-year-old gun owner licensing scheme. And they thought they could win in a no-brainer ruling.
But in a 2-1 split decision, the state’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that the Firearms Owners ID Card Act does not conflict with the Second Amendment. Never mind that no state had anything even remotely like a gun license in the Founding Era. Never mind the rule of law and the US Supreme Court’s precedent established in the Bruen decision.
Just as many of the nation’s courts put themselves into legal pretzels to ignore the US Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision ending segregation in America’s public schools, so too did the IL Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did in upholding the similarly-racist FOID scheme. In fact, the two judges ruling to uphold the scheme couldn’t even agree on a single novel theory for side-stepping SCOTUS’ text, history and tradition test for evaluating the constitutionality of gun control laws. However, in a harsh dissenting opinion, Judge DeArmond savaged the other two judges for failing to follow the law and court precedent.
Racist FOID card, you ask? Why yes. The Land of Lincoln’s Firearms Owners ID Act passed in 1967 specifically targeting inner city blacks and other minorities. Then Mayor Richard Daley hailed the legislation as a way to keep blacks from buying and possessing guns. By keeping the blacks disarmed, they would become less able to defend themselves and their families against government tyranny, specifically abuse by law enforcement during the late 1960s.
Daley was recorded saying this to President Johnson in 1966:
“Well, as good as they can be, but we need some kind of federal help to shut off this gang situation. This gang situation in New York, in Los Angeles, in Philadelphia, in Cleveland, in Pittsburgh, in Detroit, in San Francisco, is no good. And if it’s allowed to go unabated, if it’s allowed to go and fester the way it is . . . The majority of them are headed, as you know, by ex-convicts: dope pushers, robbery with a gun, all of this kind of business. And there—something has to be done, Mr. President, on the sale of the guns. We—Outside [in] the suburbs—in the city we have control—but what the hell, in the suburbs that are—you go out to all around our suburbs and you got people out there, especially the non-white, are buying guns right and left. You got guns and rifles and pistols and everything else. There’s no registration; there isn’t a damn thing.”
Mom-At-Arms covered the racial angle behind the FOID card in great detail here. You can read the Fourth Circuit’s opinion here.
Where do we go from here? I’m the Executive Director of Guns Save Life. We’re evaluating our options at the moment, but don’t be surprised to see this going to the Illinois Supreme Court. Maybe some pressure from the new Second Amendment Task Force within the US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division will coax the Illinois Supreme Court to follow the rule of law and recognize and respect their role as an inferior court to the US Supreme Court.
If the Illinois Supremes do so, it will mark the end of our state’s crown jewel of (racist) gun control.
And these are the same ass clowns that say requiring ID to vote is voter suppression.
“And these are the same ass clowns that say requiring ID to vote is voter suppression.”
Why, yes, they are. Because guns bad, Democrats good, don’t you know.
Now we wait 3 years for them to deal with it, and then petition for cert. at the SCotUS…
Notice how they’re never honest about any of their positions. They rely on ignorant and brainwashed voters. If they were honest about their intentions, they’d get about 25-30 percent of the vote instead of roughly half. Yes, way too many people would willingly vote for evil. They hate you.
So in other words the infringing body rules its infringements are not infringements.
Yay, government!
local radio said we should call pritzker and jasmine “tubbs and crockett.”
That’s funny, but you shouldn’t defile Miami Vice like that!
Can’t want to see them climbing in and out of a De Loren.
Hawaii Declares War On Gun Owners!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC8bRtZNzjI
2A ALERT: 3 Bills Look To Ban Em All!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa2X1TmXqPQ
BREAKING: Insane Study BLAMES GUNS for something new?! You won’t believe this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK-Q6ru6K8M
Winning: China Caves to Trump on Tariffs Again.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/30/winning-china-caves-to-trump-again-n4939365
Tim Walz Explains Why Kamala Harris Picked Him, and I Can’t Stop Laughing.
“In what has to be one of the most hilarious revelations in the aftermath of the 2024 campaign, former vice presidential candidate Tim Walz suggested he was chosen to be Kamala Harris’s running mate for the most cringeworthy reason imaginable: to be a ‘code talker’ to white men who like sports and trucks.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
Speaking at Harvard Kennedy School on Monday night, Walz claimed his role on the failed Democratic ticket was to make white guys who watch football feel comfortable voting Democrat. Because nothing says ‘masculine appeal’ quite like a guy who prances around at campaign events like an overeager cheerleader and insists that tampons belong in boys’ restrooms.
…”
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2025/04/30/tim-walz-explains-why-kamala-harris-picked-him-and-its-as-ridiculous-as-youd-expect-n4939378
You left out fumble fucking his shotgun
“Because nothing says ‘masculine appeal’ quite like a guy who prances around at campaign events like an overeager cheerleader“
Wait a minute, Elon Musk danced around the stage at campaign events and has 14 baby mommas, he must be ‘masculine‘.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Republican.
“Never mind that no state had anything even remotely like a gun license in the Founding Era.”
Someone slept through their early American history class in high school, perhaps this subject wasn’t covered in their GED studies.
Maryland, 1715: Prohibited slaves from carrying guns without a license.
Maryland, 1756: Restricted Catholics from owning guns.
Pennsylvania, 1721: Restricted hunting from July to January.
New Jersey, 1686: Enacted a law against wearing swords, daggers, pistols, etc.
Our country didn’t adopt the Declaration of Independence until 1776. The Constitution became effective in 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
I’m not a slave.
I’m not a Catholic.
I’ve never hunted in Pennsylvania.
I’ve never stepped foot in New Jersey.
Respectfully leave me, and those similarly situated, to LEGALLY exercise our rights.
Yes, perhaps it is important to look to America’s legal traditions regarding restrictions on firearms:
“As early as 1686, New Jersey barred the wearing of concealable weapons in public because, according to the law, “it induced great Fear and Quarrels.” In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons. The restriction applied both to merchants and private citizens, and its stated purpose was “to guard and protect the citizens of this State against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” By the end of the 18th century, four states had enacted gun carry restrictions. In the 19th century, 37 states did so and another four states followed suit in the early 20th century“
https://www.acslaw.org/book/gun-laws-are-as-old-as-gun-ownership/
“The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791”
And yet, the State of Georgia just 46 years later banned the carry of “pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c.“
“1837 Ga. Acts 90, An Act to Guard and Protect the Citizens of this State, Against the Unwarrantable and too Prevalent use of Deadly Weapons, § 1.
YEAR:
1837
CATEGORY:
Categorical Bans
JURISDICTION:
State
. . . it shall not be lawful for any merchant, or vender of wares or merchandize in this State, or any other person or persons whatsoever, to sell, or offer to sell, or to keep, or to have about their person or elsewhere, any of the hereinafter described weapons, to wit: Bowie, or any other kinds of knives, manufactured and sold for the purpose of wearing, or carrying the same as arms of offence or defense, pistols, dirks, sword canes, spears, &c., shall also be contemplated in this act, save such pistols as are known and used as horseman’s pistols, &c.“
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/laws/1837-ga-acts-90-an-act-to-guard-and-protect-the-citizens-of-this-state-against-the-unwarrantable-and-too-prevalent-use-of-deadly-weapons-c2a7-1
It seems the United States does have a tradition of restricting and licensing firearms, how fascinating.
Slavery was also legal in georgia at that time. Seems you’re arguing for a return to slavery.
The dems have a history of restricting freedoms and calling for slavery. Fascinating.
First, you’re changing the subject. I was replying to a specific comment of yours with specific dates. All of those examples you provided are irrelevant for obvious reasons (check the dates).
Second, you defend an unconstitutional bill by providing an example of an … unconstitutional bill!! Wow! How does that work out in your mind? You don’t even think, do you? You are a hopeless drone. You are within the 25-30 percent that would willingly vote for evil.
The Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State found that the portion of the law banning the open carrying of arms was unconstitutional because it violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The court emphasized that the right to bear arms openly for self-defense was fundamental and could not be infringed, stating, “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed.”
This particular case (Nunn v. State) was even cited in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), for its interpretation of the right to bear arms. Now what?
Dude sez:
“All of those examples you provided are irrelevant for obvious reasons (check the dates).“
OK, you said pill of rights was ratified in 1791.
Correct, and I provided examples of firearms restrictions in the early American colonies, both immediately before and immediately after ratification of the United States constitution.
“As early as 1686, New Jersey barred the wearing of concealable weapons in public because, according to the law, “it induced great Fear and Quarrels.” In 1837, Georgia made it illegal “to sell. . .or to keep or have about their persons” pistols or other listed weapons.“
“you defend an unconstitutional bill by providing an example“
no, I am defending nothing. I am merely pointing out that the author’s premise “no state had anything even remotely like a gun license in the Founding Era.” is incorrect.
According to your examples there were no licenses. Just bans. So no, no licenses.
What jwm said. A ban and a license are two very different things.