Jump to content


Mishaga v. Monken, Non-Resident FOID Case

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
1 reply to this topic

#1 Gray Peterson


  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 21 August 2010 - 02:05 AM

The folks at Mountain States Legal Foundation are sponsoring Mishaga v. Monken, a suit which seeks to strike down the requirement for an Illinois ID card or drivers license for getting a FOID.

From the page:

Ellen Mishaga is an Ohio woman who travels frequently to the State of Illinois to visit and to reside in the home of friends; however, under Illinois law she is barred from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition because she does not possess a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID). On April 30, 2010, and again on June 14, 2010, Ms. Mishaga's application for a FOID was denied because, "No Illinois driver's license number or state identification number [was] provided."

Illinois requires that individuals obtain a FOID before purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition in Illinois. Among the requirements for a FOID is that anyone over the age of eighteen provide an Illinois driver's license number or Illinois Identification Card number.

Nonresidents are exempt from most FOID Act restrictions when hunting, target shooting, or if "licensed or registered to possess a firearm in their resident state"; however, a nonresident without a FOID cannot otherwise possess a functional firearm. [GP: Personal note here, the ISP considers only licenses to possess and registration certificates to be applicable for this exception. Carry licenses do not count!]

The Illinois Department of State Police must either approve or deny a FOID application within thirty days from receipt and must issue a FOID to persons who qualify. A $10 fee is required to defray administrative costs; a FOID is valid for ten years.

Possessing firearms or ammunition without a FOID or with an expired FOID is a misdemeanor, although a second or subsequent violation is a felony. It is also a felony to possess firearms or ammunition if a person is ineligible for a FOID, even if a person possessed a FOID issued before he became ineligible. The FOID Act contains no self-defense exceptions.

My own later commentary on a different forum:

It pretty much explains for itself. What essentially is the issue here is that Mrs. Mishaga has no ability to possess a firearm, even in a friend or family member's home, without a FOID or a license or registration to possess a gun in one's home state. Since Ohio doesn't require either to possess, and she cannot have a FOID, she cannot possess a firearm in Illinois at all for the purpose of self defense.

#2 Bill Matio


  • Members
  • 1,201 posts
  • Joined: 27-September 09

Posted 21 August 2010 - 06:20 AM


The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville