Ruiz v Raoul - Non-resident 2A rights restoration

[Euler]

Prompted by Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > How can I restore my Illinois gun rights if I live in a different state?

On August 15, Ruiz filed his complaint in the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois. (docket)

With a little formatting change ...

Complaint said:

...
Illinois law provides a procedure for restoration of firearm rights through petition to circuit court pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/10.

However, Illinois law creates an absolute statutory impossibility for non-residents to access firearm rights restoration through the following scheme:

Step 1: Illinois law requires that an individual must first apply for a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card and be denied before being eligible to petition for restoration of rights under 430 ILCS 65/10.

Step 2: Illinois FOID card applications are restricted exclusively to Illinois residents pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/4, which states that FOID cards shall only be issued to residents of Illinois.

Step 3: Because non-residents are categorically prohibited from applying for FOID cards, they cannot be denied FOID cards.

Step 4: Without a FOID card denial, Illinois law provides no mechanism for non-residents to petition for restoration of firearm rights.
...

[Raythebroker]

Thank you for creating this topic Euler.

[Euler]

On September 8, the court scheduled an initial telephone conference (probably because Ruiz is filing from Florida) for October 27.

[Euler]

On September 29, Ruiz asked for a preliminary injunction. He also submitted a joint motion to set the briefing schedule for it.

On September 30, the state moved to dismiss the case (which is pretty standard).

I haven't read the motion for preliminary injunction, but I suspect that getting an injunction (and subsequently using it to restore his rights) might moot the case.

Edited September 30, 2025 at 11:28 PM by Euler

[mab22]

But that would be a permanent injunction to moot the case?

[Euler]

Preliminary injunctions aren't permanent, but even a preliminary injunction might let him get his rights back permanently. The law he's challenging effectively denies him access to Illinois courts, because he's a nonresident.

[Euler]

On October 1, in lieu of ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, the court set the following schedule:

10/27: Defendant's motion to dismiss and response to motion for preliminary injunction due
11/17: Plaintiff's response to motion to dismiss and reply to motion for preliminary injunction due
12/01: Defendant's reply to motion to dismiss due

Deadlines for initial status reports and status hearings are stricken.

[Euler]

On October 30, after some contention between the plaintiff and defendants on the schedule, the judge set the following schedule:

2025
11/19: defendants' motion to dismiss and response to the motion for a preliminary injunction due
12/23: plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss and reply to the motion for a preliminary injunction due

2026
01/06: defendants' reply to the motion to dismiss due

[Euler]

On November 19, defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was two motions to dismiss combined: one for failure to state a claim and one for lack of jurisdiction.

[Euler]

On November 21, Ruiz withdrew his motion(s) for preliminary injunction(s).

[Euler]

On December 22, Ruiz responded to the motion to dismiss.

On January 6, defendants replied.