Appellate Court agrees with District Court - denies preliminary injunction.
"In balancing the equities of this claim, we find a preliminary injunction is not warranted." . . .
While plaintiff has demonstrated a fair question as to each of the elements required, granting the preliminary injunction would change the status quo and would not benefit the public interest. In so finding, we make no judgment as to the final merits of plaintiff’s claims, nor do we suggest the FOID Act’s restrictions are mere inconveniences. Instead, we reemphasize the heavy burden a plaintiff must meet to receive a preliminary injunction, particularly in the context of constitutional challenges where the granting of an injunction would have far-reaching consequences for the public. . .
Defendants contend the FOID Act fees help defray the expenses associated with administrating the statute. Plaintiff does not dispute this fact, recognizing “the cost of making a FOID card is about equal to the application fee.” Because both parties acknowledge this fact, it is again reasonable to find that the fee has a legitimate purpose of defraying the expenses incident to the administration and enforcement of the licensing statute. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to show it would likely be successful on the merits of its claim.
- 22 -¶ 80III. CONCLUSION¶
81For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams