In a closely watched case, the Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District ruled 2-1 to uphold the state’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card Act, which requires a government-issued ID simply to possess a firearm. The case, Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Brendan Kelly, challenged the constitutionality of requiring a license just to own a gun, not to carry it. According to Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner, the ruling directly contradicts historical and modern standards for Second Amendment protections.
Mark W. Smith: This Law Is a Historical Outlier
Mark W. Smith made his position clear: the FOID law is an outlier in both historical context and modern American life. In a video released on The Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel and in a post on X (formerly Twitter), Smith explained that the requirement to obtain a license merely to possess a firearm in the home has no historical precedent and violates the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Bruen Standard: Where the Court Went Wrong
Under the Bruen decision, gun control laws must be rooted in the historical tradition of firearm regulation in order to survive a Second Amendment challenge. According to Smith, the Illinois appellate court tried to argue that even though historical regulations were not identical to modern licensing laws, they were close enough. Smith strongly disagreed. He noted, “There is no requirement to point to a founding era licensing scheme because those simply did not exist for gun ownership in the home.”
Only a Few States Require Licenses to Own
Smith also pointed out how rare this type of law is in the modern day. As of now, only Illinois, Massachusetts, and parts of New York require some form of state licensing just to possess a firearm. Most states either require nothing at all or only require licensing for public carry. “This is not just a historical outlier – it’s a geographic outlier in America today,” Smith explained. “And that’s why this law stands on very shaky constitutional ground.”
What the Majority Opinion Said
The majority opinion from the Illinois appellate court held that while historical regulations weren’t the same as today’s FOID law, they still provided a general justification for licensing. The court claimed that there was no need to show a direct match with founding-era laws. They also emphasized the government’s interest in ensuring that firearms don’t end up in the hands of prohibited persons. But for Smith, this logic inverts the burden placed on government in Second Amendment cases.
The Dissenting Judge Got It Right, Says Smith
Judge Craig DeArmond was the lone dissenter in the 2-1 ruling, and in Smith’s view, he nailed it. The dissent argued that the plaintiffs (Guns Save Life) met the burden under the Bruen framework. DeArmond wrote that acquiring and possessing firearms is clearly covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and there’s no historic tradition justifying such a sweeping restriction. Smith praised the dissent, stating that it properly recognized the dangerous expansion of government authority.
A License to Have, Not to Carry
One of Smith’s major critiques of the ruling is how it confuses possession with public carry. In the Bruen case, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed public carry, where certain historical limits were more common. But Illinois’ FOID law goes further by requiring a license even for a gun stored at home. Smith argued that there is no legal foundation to justify applying public carry standards to private, in-home possession.
What’s Next? Illinois Supreme Court or Beyond
Smith expects that the next step for this case will be an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, but he doesn’t hold out much hope for a favorable ruling there. “The Illinois Supreme Court is dominated by left-leaning justices,” he explained, “so we’re not likely to see relief at the state level.” However, if the state’s high court upholds the appellate decision, it could set the stage for a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Bruen was originally decided.
FOID Law Fails Under Historical Scrutiny
Smith emphasized that in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, there were no state or federal requirements to register or license firearms for home use. Licensing laws that did exist were usually aimed at public carry or militias, not individual ownership. “If the Founders had wanted a license to own a musket, they would’ve said so,” Smith quipped in his video. “They didn’t – and that silence matters.”
Constitutional Concerns Go Deeper
Beyond the Second Amendment, Smith also hinted that FOID laws raise other constitutional issues, such as due process, equal protection, and unreasonable delays in exercising a constitutional right. “Imagine if you had to wait six months and pay a fee to speak your mind,” he said. “That’s what we’re talking about here. Government shouldn’t get to price or delay a right that’s written in the Bill of Rights.”
A Dangerous Precedent?
Smith warned that if the Illinois ruling stands, it could encourage other states to adopt similar licensing systems. And if those laws go unchallenged, it could lead to a patchwork of permission slips just to own firearms – something that flies in the face of constitutional uniformity. “Once you accept that government can license a right, it’s no longer a right – it’s a privilege,” Smith said.
Slippery Slopes Start Small
It might seem like a small matter – just a card, just a background check, just a form. But the FOID law represents a fundamental shift in how we treat rights in this country. It treats the right to keep and bear arms as presumptively illegal unless the state says otherwise. And once that logic takes root, there’s no telling where it ends. As Smith put it, “If you need permission to exercise a right, you don’t have that right.”
Why the Supreme Court Must Step In
This case might feel local, an Illinois law, a state court, but it has national implications. If courts can uphold licensing for home gun ownership by redefining what “history and tradition” means, then any state can try the same. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen was meant to put a stop to exactly this kind of legal overreach. Now it’s up to the high court to reaffirm its authority and protect the Second Amendment as a true, not theoretical, right.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.