Coram v. State of Illinois
Annotate this CaseIn 2009, the Illinois Department of State Police denied Coram a firearm owners’ identification (FOID) card. The trial judge ordered issuance of the card. The State Police moved to vacate on the basis of Coram’s 1992 domestic battery conviction for slapping his girlfriend. He had pled guilty, but had not served any jail time. The Illinois statute provides for denial of a FOID card to anyone prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm. In 1996, after Coram’s conviction, the federal Gun Control Act was amended to impose a firearm disability on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. A different judge confirmed the previous order and, further, held unconstitutional, as applied, language of the federal Gun Control Act which was incorporated into the Illinois statute. Although that federal statutory language provided relief in cases of pardon, expungement of conviction, or restoration of rights after conviction, Coram, who had never served jail time, claimed that these grounds were not available to him under Illinois law. The Illinois Supreme Court resolved the matter without reaching constitutional questions concerning the right to bear arms. It vacated the holding that federal statutory law was unconstitutional as applied, but affirmed the original order directing issuance of a FOID card. Coram had a remedy under the Illinois statutory scheme, which provides a process to review whether an applicant for a FOID card should be perpetually barred from obtaining one or can have his second amendment firearm rights restored because he is determined to currently be a law-abiding, responsible citizen. That is what happened here.
Court Description:
In 2009, Jerry W. Coram was denied a firearm owners’ identification (FOID) card by the Illinois Department of State Police. In 2010, he sought judicial review of this ruling in the circuit court of Adams County in an effort to obtain one. Judge Mark Schuering gave individual scrutiny to Coram’s circumstances, pursuant to the standards of review set forth in the FOID Card Act, and entered an order directing issuance of the card. He concluded that Coram, despite his earlier misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence, would not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. The local State’s Attorney had not objected to Coram’s request but, after the entry of Judge Schuering’s order, the Department of State Police successfully intervened in the case and made a motion to vacate on the basis of Coram’s 1992 domestic battery conviction in connection with slapping his girlfriend. He had pled guilty, but had not served any jail time. Illinois statute provides for the denial of a FOID card to anyone prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm. In 1996, after Coram’s conviction, the federal Gun Control Act was amended to impose a firearm disability on those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
In 2011, the matter at issue here came before Judge Thomas Ortbal, who not only confirmed the previous order for issuance of the card, but went further and held unconstitutional, as applied, language of the federal Gun Control Act which was incorporated by reference into the Illinois statute. Although that federal statutory language provided relief in cases of pardon, expungement of conviction, or restoration of rights after conviction, Coram, who had never served jail time, claimed that these grounds for relief were not available to him under Illinois law.
The State Police, acting through the Attorney General, sought direct review of the holding of statutory unconstitutionality. However, the Illinois Supreme Court held that it could resolve this matter without reaching constitutional questions concerning the right to bear arms. It reversed that portion of the judgment below which held federal statutory law unconstitutional as applied, but affirmed the original order directing issuance of a FOID card. The Illinois Supreme Court held that Coram has a remedy under the Illinois statutory scheme, which provides a process of review to determine whether an applicant for a FOID card should be perpetually barred from obtaining one or can, instead, have his second amendment firearm rights restored because he is determined to currently be a law-abiding, responsible citizen. The latter is what happened here. Those results were upheld. The original order for issuance of a FOID card was affirmed, but the ruling as to statutory unconstitutionality was vacated.
Although a recent amendment to the FOID Card Act, effective January 25, 2013, provides that relief from a firearms disability may be granted only if it is not contrary to federal law, it was not in effect at the time of the FOID card application at issue here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.