On April 29, 2025, the Illinois Appellate Court’s 4th District issued a ruling in Guns Save Life v. Kelly that could have far-reaching consequences beyond the state’s borders. As reported by the Illinois State Bar Association, the court upheld the constitutionality of Illinois’ Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card system, rejecting arguments that requiring a license and fees to possess a firearm violates the Second Amendment.
The ruling might seem like a state-level technicality, but according to William Kirk, a pro-2A attorney and host of the Washington Gun Law YouTube channel, this decision could serve as a model for civilian disarmament across the United States.
William Kirk Sounds the Alarm
“This case is a road map for disarming all of you,” said Kirk in a detailed video commentary on the ruling. He argued that the court’s reasoning, when paired with problematic language from recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, namely, Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), gives lower courts the cover they need to uphold nearly any type of gun control.
Kirk called the combination of Bruen’s Footnote 9 and the vague historical references in Rahimi a “toxic cocktail” that can justify virtually any law under the guise of historical analogy and public safety.
The Case: Guns Save Life v. Kelly
According to the ISBA summary, the plaintiff in Guns Save Life v. Kelly challenged the FOID Act on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that requiring a license and a fee to exercise a constitutional right was unlawful. The appellate court sided with the state, stating that the FOID system aligns with a longstanding “regulatory tradition” of screening dangerous individuals before allowing firearm possession.
Justice Harris authored the majority opinion. Justice DeArmond dissented, while Justice Cavanagh filed a special concurrence.
The court reasoned that background checks, age limits, mental health reviews, and citizenship verification are all “objective criteria” rooted in public safety, echoing language from Bruen and Rahimi to defend modern licensing regimes.
The Problem With “Objective Criteria”
William Kirk emphasized how dangerous this reasoning could become. He warned that courts and legislatures may exploit the term “objective criteria” to justify expanding pre-purchase licensing systems.
“Right now in Illinois, you have to go through a background check to get your FOID card, before you go through another background check to buy a firearm,” Kirk explained. “What stops them from requiring a pre-FOID card background check? Or a gun safety certificate before that?”
According to Kirk, these stacked requirements could eventually amount to death by a thousand cuts – a bureaucratic firewall separating citizens from their rights.
Bruen’s Footnote 9: A Pandora’s Box?
Kirk singled out Footnote 9 in the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision as especially problematic. In it, the Supreme Court notes that shall-issue licensing schemes with “objective” standards are likely constitutional. While the intent was to shield responsible state-level systems from frivolous lawsuits, Kirk warned that anti-gun states are now using it as a sword, not a shield.
In the Illinois case, the state argued that because the FOID Act fits within a shall-issue framework, no historical analysis was even necessary – a claim the court rejected. But Kirk cautioned that future courts may fully embrace that argument, especially if they’re sympathetic to gun control.
Rahimi’s Ripple Effect
The U.S. v. Rahimi ruling added another layer of complexity. That decision reaffirmed that the government can disarm “dangerous” individuals, but left the definition of “dangerous” vague and open to abuse.
The Illinois court used Rahimi to argue that preventing felons, drug users, and those with mental illness from possessing guns is part of a “regulatory tradition.” Kirk agreed, those disqualifiers make sense, but he warned that the ruling’s vague language will allow states to label broader swaths of the public as “dangerous” and therefore ineligible.
A Presumption of Guilt
“The entire FOID system presumes that you are unworthy of owning a gun until you prove otherwise,” Kirk stated. “That flips the Constitution on its head.”
He compared the FOID process to a presumption of guilt: everyone must apply, wait, and submit personal details just to exercise a right. According to Kirk, this opens the door for states to layer additional requirements until the average citizen gives up in frustration.
What Makes This Case Nationally Relevant?
Although the ruling applies to Illinois, Kirk stressed that it should concern gun owners across the country. Several states, like Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, have already flirted with FOID-style schemes or expanded licensing requirements.
This ruling provides legal cover for those states, showing them how to design laws that appear neutral, objective, and “in the tradition” of public safety.
“It’s a roadmap,” Kirk reiterated. “A dangerous one.”
The Slippery Slope to Licensing Everything
Kirk also raised the alarm about how easily this ruling could set a precedent for licensing other rights.
“If states can force you to get a license and pay a fee to exercise one constitutional right, why not others?” he asked. “What if we had a permit system for free speech, or religion? Why is the Second Amendment treated as second class?”
His commentary touches on a common concern in the gun rights community: that the Second Amendment is uniquely burdened by laws no other right would tolerate.
Dissent and Debate Inside the Court
The ruling wasn’t unanimous. Justice DeArmond dissented, signaling that at least one judge saw flaws in the majority’s reasoning. Unfortunately, as Kirk noted, dissenting opinions don’t shape law, but they can form the foundation of future appeals.
Meanwhile, Justice Cavanagh filed a special concurrence that appeared to support the majority’s outcome but may have harbored subtle reservations about how the decision was reached.
A Warning, Not Just a Ruling
For William Kirk and others following this case, the real danger lies not in what the Illinois court upheld, but in how it did so. By anchoring its decision in broad historical analogies and leveraging loose language from Supreme Court decisions, the court has opened a door that may not be easy to close.
As Kirk concluded, “This isn’t just about Illinois. This is about how state after state will justify new restrictions. And we better be paying attention.”
Gun owners, constitutionalists, and civil liberties advocates alike would be wise to keep an eye on how this ruling is used in the months ahead.
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.