1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN M. MARSZALEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

BRENDAN KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 20-cv-4270

Hon. Mary M. Rowland

ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants, Brendan Kelly, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, 

and Captain Gregory Hacker1, in his official capacity as the Chief of the Firearm Services 

Bureau, by and through their attorney, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, in answer to 

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, state as follows:

1. In Illinois, the ability to exercise one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear 

arms in conditioned on first obtaining a Firearm Owners Identification (“FOID”) card. 430 ILCS 

65/2(a)(1). Without a FOID card, a person may not even possess a firearm, much less purchase 

one; violation constitutes a Class A misdemeanor; a repeated offense is a Class 4 felony. 430 

ILCS 65/14. So exacting and sever as this law is applied, the spouse of a FOID-card-bearing gun 

owner can be criminally prosecuted if the spouse lacks his her own FOID card because the State 

may deem the spouse who lacks the card to be in “constructive possession” when the FOID-cardbearing spouse is absent from home. See e.g. People v. Elders, 63 Ill. App. 3d 554 (5th Dist. 

1978); See also Hicks v. Poppish, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95222, *15 (N.D. Ill. 2011).

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Captain Hacker was automatically substituted in as a 

Defendant in this lawsuit when he became the Chief of the Firearm Services Bureau.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:732
2

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Illinois law requires that an individual have a FOID 

card to possess or purchase a firearm and that a violation of 430 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (the 

“FOID Card Act”) can constitute criminal charges ranging from a Class A misdemeanor to 

a Class 4 felony as described in the FOID Card Act. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 1. 

2. The Illinois Legislature imposed this extraordinary2statutory scheme that requires 

a person to submit a form, pay a fee, and not suffer a specified disqualification in order to 

possess or purchase a firearm or ammunition. Unless and until the applicant actually obtains and 

holds in his or her hand the piece of plastic that is the FOID card, the person cannot exercise the 

most basic Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in one’s home for self-defense.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the FOID Card Act was passed by the Illinois 

Legislature and that in Illinois an individual must have a FOID card to legally own a 

firearm. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 2.

3. Undoubtedly recognizing the constitutional imposition the FOID scheme presents, 

the Illinois legislature required the Illinois State Police (“ISP”) to either approve or deny an 

application for a FOID card within 30 days. 430 ILCS 65/5(a). But despite this statutory 

command, the ISP commonly does not approve qualified residents’ applications within 30 days.

ANSWER: Defendants admits that 430 ILCS 65/5(a) states that FOID card applications 

shall be approved or denied within 30 days unless certain statutory exceptions exist and 

that there is a backlog of FOID card applications to be processed. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 3.

2

Illinois is just one of two states to impose this Second Amendment restriction for possession of a rifle, 

the other being Massachusetts. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, § 129C.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:733
3

4. Instead, the ISP leaves applicants in limbo for months, with residents commonly 

waiting as long as 60 to 90 days to receive a FOID card. That has been true for years, and it has 

only become worse as applications for FOID cards have surged in response to recent looting and 

violence.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that in the past there has been a backlog of FOID card 

applications to be processed. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph No. 4.

5. And the consequences for delay are neither abstract nor a mere inconvenience; 

they are a matter of life and death. Sadly, in similar situations, where the government 

bureaucracy legislatively empowered to act as a Second Amendment gatekeeper has dithered in 

processing applications, there have been fatal results.3

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 5. 

6. The Illinois residents who are Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have all been waiting 

longer than 30 days to receive the FOID cards for which they have applied. Many members of 

the organizational Plaintiffs in this case, the Illinois State Rifle Association (“ISRA”) and the 

Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”), have also been waiting longer than 30 days to receive 

the FOID cards for which they have applied.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 6 as it relates to 

Plaintiffs Robinson, Marszalek, LaVallie, and Sorenson. Defendants lack knowledge or 

3 For example, Carol Bowne was stabbed to death outside her Berlin, New Jersey home by an exboyfriend while the Berlin Township Chief of Police, the bureaucrat charged with deciding whether Ms. 

Bowne really needed a pistol for self-defense, processed her application. Ms. Bowne’s application 

specifically stated her fear of death or great bodily harm from the man who ultimately killed her. 

https://www.fox5dc.com/new/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:734
4

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained 

in Paragraph No. 6. 

7. Illinois cannot justify completely and indefinitely denying its residents their 

fundamental Second Amendment right to possess a firearm to defend their lives, families, and 

homes while they wait for the ISP to approve their FOID card applications. Simply put, if the 

State of Illinois is going to condition the exercise of a fundamental right on the receipt of a 

license, then the process for issuing that license cannot be defective to the point of nearinoperable. 

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 7. 

8. Plaintiffs have therefore brought this lawsuit to protect their Second Amendment 

rights, and, in the case of Plaintiffs ISRA and SAF, their members’ Second Amendment Rights. 

They ask this Court to (1) declare that the ISP’s failure to issue FOID cards to qualified 

applicants within 30 days violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and (2) order the 

state to immediately issue FOID cards to the individual Plaintiffs and to members of ISRA and 

SAF who applied for FOID cards more than 30 days ago, who have not had their applications 

approved or denied.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Plaintiffs assert that their Second Amendment rights 

have been violated, that Plaintiffs ISRA and SAF assert that the Second Amendment rights 

of certain members of their organizations have been violated, and that Paragraph No. 8 

states the relief that Plaintiffs seek through this lawsuit. Defendants deny that the rights of 

the Plaintiffs, or any members of the ISRA or SAF have been violated, and deny any 

remaining allegations of Paragraph No. 8. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:735
5

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1343, 2201 and 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because this action seeks to redress the 

Defendants’ deprivation, under color of state law, of rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that this court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants deny that they have 

violated any of Plaintiffs’ rights.

10. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the events and 

omissions giving rise to this action are harming Plaintiffs in this district.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that venue in this court is appropriate and deny the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 10.

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

11. Plaintiff James D. Robinson is an individual over 21 years of age who resides in 

the City of Blue Island in Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Robinson has a B.A. in Philosophy from 

North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. He has two daughters and is currently employed as 

a retail manager in Munster, Indiana.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 11.

12. Plaintiff John M. Marszalek is an individual over 21 years of age who resides in 

the Village of Carol Stream in DuPage County, Illinois. He has a B.F.A. in theater from 

Columbia College in Chicago, Illinois. He is currently employed as an Operations Director for a 

property management company in Lincolnwood, Illinois. He is married with four children.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:736
6

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 12.

13. Plaintiff Natalia D. LaVallie is an individual over 21 years of age who resides in 

the Village of Geneva in Kane County, Illinois. Dr. LaVallie has a Bachelor’s degree from 

George Washington University in Washington, D.C., graduated cum laude as a Doctor of 

Chiropractic from Life University in Marietta, Georgia, and received advanced training in animal 

chiropractic from Parker University in Dallas, Texas. In addition to her regular chiropractic 

practice in St. Charles, Illinois, she is certified in animal chiropractic by the Animal Chiropractic 

Certification Commission of the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association. She founded 

Barnyard Chiropractic as a mobile chiropractic practice to support animals and their humans in 

the comfort of their own home.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 13.

14. Plaintiff Matthew D. Sorenson is an individual over 21 years of age who resides 

in the City of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Sorenson has a Bachelors of Business 

Administration in accounting from the University of Iowa, and a Master of Accounting Science 

from Northern Illinois University. He is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Financial 

Planner. He is owner of a tax and financial planning practice in Chicago.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 14. 

15. Plaintiff ISRA is a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the 

laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chatsworth, Illinois. ISRA has more than 

26,000 members and supporters in Illinois, and many members outside the State of Illinois. The 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:737
7

organizational purposes of ISRA include securing the constitutional right to privately own and 

possess firearms within Illinois, through education, outreach, and litigation. ISRA brings this 

action on behalf of itself and its members.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that ISRA is a non-profit membership organization 

incorporated under the laws of Illinois with its principal place of business in Chatsworth, 

Illinois and that ISRA purports to bring this action on behalf of itself and its members. 

Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 15.

16. In addition, ISRA operates a firing range in Bonfield, Illinois, for use by members 

of its range. Range membership is separate from general ISRA membership.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that ISRA operates a firing range in Bonfield, Illinois, ad 

lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 16.

17. ISRA has members who are Illinois residents and have applied for Illinois FOID 

cards but have not received their cards, or had their applications denied for cause, within 30 days 

as state law requires.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 17.

18. These ISRA members would possess one or more firearms in Illinois but refrain 

from doing so because they do not wish to be prosecuted for possessing a firearm without a 

FOID card.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 18.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:738
8

19. Plaintiff SAF is a non-profit organization incorporated under the laws of 

Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. SAF’s membership 

includes residents of Illinois. SAF has over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The 

organizational purpose of SAF include education, research, publishing, and legal action focusing 

on the constitutional right privately to own and possess firearms. SAF brings this action on 

behalf of itself and its members.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that SAF purports to bring this action on behalf of itself 

and its members and lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 19.

20. SAF has members who are Illinois residents and have applied for Illinois FOID 

cards but have not received their cards, or had their applications denied for cause, within 30 days 

as state law requires.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 20.

21. The individual plaintiffs are members of both ISRA and SAF.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 21.

Defendants

22. Defendant Brendan F. Kelly is the Director of the Illinois State Police (“ISP”).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 22.

23. The ISP is a department of the executive branch of the State of Illinois created by 

statute, 20 ILCS 2605/2605-1, et seq. Under the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, 

430 ILCS 65/1, et seq. (“FOID Card Act”), the ISP is charged with administering the system for 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:739
9

consideration applications for, granting, denying, and/or revoking individual licenses to possess 

firearms under the FOID Card Act.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 23.

24. Defendant Kelly is the ISP employee directly responsible for the administration of 

the FOID Card Act. As such, Defendant Kelly is responsible for ISP’s failure to issue FOID 

cards to Plaintiffs within 30 days of receiving their applications. He is sued in his official 

capacity pursuant to the principles set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Director Kelly is sued in his official capacity. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 24.

25. Jarod Ingebrigtsen is the Bureau Chief of the Firearm Services Bureau (“FSB”), a 

division of the ISP established to administer programs relating to firearms delegated to the ISP, 

including under the FOID Card Act. Having the power to make decisions in these programs, the 

FSB is an administrative agency of the State of Illinois as defined by 735 ILCS 5/3-101.

ANSWER: Defendants admits that Jarod Ingebrigtsen formerly oversaw the Firearm 

Services Bureau, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the current Chief 

of the Firearm Services Bureau, Captain Gregory Hacker, is automatically substituted as a 

Defendant. Defendants do not dispute that at this point in time, Captain Hacker, in his 

official capacity, is an appropriate defendant in this lawsuit. Defendants admit the 

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 25.

26. As Bureau Chief of the FSB, Defendant Ingebrigtsen is directly responsible for 

the ISP’s failure to issue FOID cards to Plaintiffs and others within 30 days of receiving their 

applications. He is sued in his official capacity pursuant to the principles set forth in Ex Parte 

Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:740
10

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Captain Hacker is sued in his official capacity 

pursuant to the principles set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) but deny that 

Defendant Hacker has violated the Constitution. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 26.

FACTS

Illinois’s FOID Card Requirement

27. Under Illinois law, an individual must obtain a FOID card to be allowed to 

possess any firearm.

ANSWER: Outside of certain statutory exceptions contained in 430 ILCS 65/2, 

Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 27.

28. 430 ILCS 65/2 states, in relevant part:

Sec. 2. Firearm Owner’s Identification Card required;

Exceptions.

(a) (1) No person may acquire or possess any firearm, stun 

gun, or taser within this State without having in his or 

her possession a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card 

previously issued in his or her name by the Department 

of State Police under the provisions of this Act.

(2) No person may acquire or possess firearm 

ammunition within this State without having in his or 

her possession a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card 

previously issued in his or her name by the Department 

of State Police under the provisions of this Act.

...

ANSWER: Defendants admit that this is an accurate recitation of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1) 

and (2).

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:741
11

29. Illinois also provides that the ISP must “either approve or deny all [FOID card] 

applications within 30 days from the date they are received,” except for renewal applications, 

which are to be approved or denied within 60 days. 430 ILCS 65/5.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that 430 ILCS 65/5 provides that the ISP must “either 

approve or deny all [initial FOID card] applications within 30 days from the date they are 

received,” but deny that all renewal application must be approved or denied within 60 

days; instead, renewal applications must be approved or denied within 60 business days.

30. The ISP must approve a FOID card application unless a disqualifying factor listed 

in the FOID Card Act (such as a felony conviction or certain mental health problems) applies. 

See 430 ILCS 65/8.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph NO. 30.

Illinois’s Failure to Timely Issue FOID Cards

31. Despite the statutory requirement, the ISP often does not approve or deny new 

FOID card applications within 30 days.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that ISP has not approved or denied some new FOID card 

applications within 30 days. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in 

Paragraph No. 31.

32. For years, the ISP has commonly taken much longer than 30 days to approve 

qualified applicants’ FOID card applications.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that the ISP has taken longer than 30 days to approve 

some qualified applicants’ FOID card applications. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 32.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:742
12

33. For example, in March 2013, the ISP publicly admitted that applications were 

waiting 64 days to receive a FOID card. See Illinois Gun Buyers Now Waiting More than 60 

Days for FOID Card, CBS Chicago, Mar. 27, 2013.4

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Paragraph No. 33 accurately reflects the information 

contained in the referenced publication from March 27, 2013, but Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 33.

34. Others at the time were reporting waits of 10 to 15 weeks to receive a FOID card. 

See id.

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Paragraph No. 34 accurately reflects the information 

contained in the referenced publication from March 2, 2013, but Defendants lack 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 34.

35. In 2020, violence and looting have led to a surge in applications for FOID cards, 

and the ISP is still failing to issue FOID cards within 30 days as state law requires.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations that “violence and looting have led to a surge in applications for 

FOID cards.” Defendants admit that some FOID card applications have not been issued 

within 30 days and deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 35. 

4 https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/03/27/illinois-gun-buyers-now-waiting-more-than-60-days-for-foidcard/.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:743
13

36. The ISP recently purported that its average time to issue a FOID card is 51 days, 

but many individuals have experience much longer delays. See Megan Hickey, Surge in FOID 

Card Applications After Recent Violence Leads to Backlog, CBS Chicago, June 10, 2020.5

ANSWER: Defendants admit that Paragraph 36 accurately reflects the information 

contained in the referenced publication from June 10, 2020, but Defendants lack knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations 

contained in Paragraph No. 36.

37. For a significant amount of time, ISRA has received reports from its members and 

supporters of FOID application delays by the Defendants and the ISP.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 37.

38. For a significant amount of time, SAF has received reports from its members and 

supporters of FOID application delays by Defendants and the ISP.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 38.

39. ISRA members who have been waiting longer than 30 days to have their FOID 

card applications granted or denied include, among others, a 76-year-old male residing in 

DuPage County, Illinois, who applied for a FOID card in June, 2020.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 39.

40. Plaintiff James D. Robinson applied for a FOID card on February 8, 2020. The 

ISP still has not approved or denied his application.

5 https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/foid-card-application-backlog-illinois-violence-looting/.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:744
14

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 40 and further 

state that Plaintiff Robinson’s claims were dismissed as moot on June 9, 2021.

41. Plaintiff John M. Marszalek applied for a FOID card on May 4, 2020. The ISP 

still has not approved or denied his application.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 41 and further 

state that Plaintiff Marszalek’s claims were dismissed as moot on June 9, 2021.

42. Plaintiff Natalia E. LaVallie applied for a FOID card on or about April 15, 2020. 

The ISP still has not approved or denied her application.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 42 and further 

state that Plaintiff LaVallie’s claims were dismissed as moot on June 9, 2021.

43. Plaintiff Matthew D. Sorenson applied for a FOID card on June 2, 2020. The ISP 

still has not approved or denied his application.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 43 and further 

state that Plaintiff Sorenson’s claims were dismissed as moot on June 9, 2021.

44. None of the individual Plaintiffs is prohibited from obtaining a FOID card under 

the disqualifying factors listed in 430 LICS 65/8.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 44.

45. For a significant amount of time, the ISRA has received reports from its members 

and supports of FOID application delays by the Defendants and the ISP. See Declaration of 

Richard Pearson.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 45.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:745
15

46. For a significant amount of time, SAF has received reports from its Illinois 

members and supporters of FOID application delays by the Defendants and the ISP.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 46.

47. One cause of Defendants failure to timely process FOID applications is the State 

of Illinois’s persistent refusal to provide the resources necessary to do so.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 47.

48. On September 10, 2019, the State of Illinois Commission on Government 

Forecasting and Accountability reported that, in the preceding five years, the ISP had more the 

$29.5 million swept away or transferred away from the State Police Firearms Services Fund, the 

State Police Operations Assistance Fund, and the State Police Services Fund and into other 

accounts. 

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 48.

49. That money was to be used for three purposes: background checks for firearmrelated services, concealed carry licensing, and administration of the FOID Card Act.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 49.

50. Instead, the more than $29.5 million has been subject to interfund transfers, which 

are ostensibly to be repaid, but which have not been, or has been swept into other accounts with 

no obligation to reimburse the funds at all.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 50.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:746
16

51. The effect of this has been a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of the 

processing of applications under the FOID Card Act. Even before the state lockdown in response 

to COVID-19, applicants commonly made many attempts to reach someone at the ISP by phone 

with no success. In the unlikely event that a person would answer, the applicant is usually told 

only that his or her case is under review.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 51.

Injury to Plaintiffs

52. The individual Plaintiffs are each injured by the Defendants’ failure to issue them 

FOID cards within 30 days of receiving their respective applications because this failure has 

completely deprived them of their right to keep and bear arms and to use a firearm to defend 

their lives, families, and homes. But for the Defendants’ failure to issue them FOID cards, the 

Plaintiffs would immediately obtain and possess firearms in Illinois.

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

how any plaintiff would behave if they had a FOID card. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations contained in Paragraph No. 52 and further state that the individual plaintiffs 

claims have all been dismissed as moot.

53. Members of Plaintiffs ISRA and SAF who have applied for, but not timely 

received, FOID cards are injured by the Defendants’ failure to issue FOID cards within 30 days 

of receiving them because this failure has completely deprived them of their right to keep and 

bear arms and to use a firearm to defend their lives, families, and homes. But for the Defendants’ 

failure to issue them FOID cards, these individuals would immediately obtain and possess 

firearms in Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:747
17

ANSWER: Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

whether any members of the ISRA or SAF have applied for a FOID card more than 30 

days ago or how any member of ISRA or SAF would behave if they had a FOID card. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph No. 53.

54. If not permanently enjoined by this Court, Defendants and their agents, 

representatives, and employees will continue to fail to timely approve FOID card applications, 

which deprive the individual Plaintiffs and the members of Plaintiffs ISRA and SAF of their 

constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Thus, Defendants’ challenged practices 

are now causing and will continue to cause Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable injury, including but 

not limited to deprivation of their right to keep and bear arms. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy, 

and adequate remedy at law for their injuries.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 54.

55. ISRA is also directly injured by the state’s failure to timely approve FOID cards. 

To use the ISRA’s Bonfield shooting range, ISRA members must pay an additional $600.00 

annual range membership fee. But, as a prerequisite to range membership, the member must 

have a valid FOID card and submit a written application that includes his or her FOID card 

number and expiration date. Defendants failure to timely process FOID card applications harms 

ISRA because it deprives ISRA of revenue it would otherwise receive while would-be members 

wait to receive their FOID cards. See Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190, 194 (1976) (vendor had 

standing to challenge statute under which she “was obliged either to ... incur[] a direct economic 

injury through the constriction of her buyers’ market, or to disobey [a] statutory commend and 

suffer ... ‘sanctions and perhaps loss of license’”).

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 55.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:748
18

56. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as 

to their respective legal rights and duties. Plaintiffs contend, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that 

Defendants’ challenged practices violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs are 

informed and believe, and allege on that basis, the Defendants contend otherwise on all counts.

ANSWER: Defendants deny that there is a case or controversy between the remaining 

Plaintiffs and Defendants because the ISRA and SAF lack standing to bring these claims. 

Defendants admit that Plaintiffs have brought claims under the Second and Fourteenth 

Amendments, and Defendants deny that those claims have any merit.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

U.S. CONST. AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

57. Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege all of the foregoing Paragraphs as if fully 

restated herein.

ANSWER: Defendants incorporate and reallege their answers to the foregoing 

Paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

58. The Second Amendment provides:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 

free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

shall not be infringed.

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 58.

59. The Second Amendment is “fully applicable against the States.” McDonald v. 

City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 59.

60. The right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is a 

fundamental individual right and includes both the right to possess a firearm for “defense of 

hearth and home,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008) as well as the right 

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:749
19

to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th 

Cir. 2012).

ANSWER: Defendants admit the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 60.

61. Defendants’ failure to comply with their statutory obligation and issue FOID 

cards in accordance with the 30-day legislative command to Plaintiffs Robinson, Marszalek, 

LaVallie, and Sorenson, and to the affected members of Plaintiffs ISRA and SAF has completely 

denied those individuals their constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms for selfdefense.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 61.

62. The Defendants, under color of state law, have deprived and are depriving 

Plaintiffs Robinson, Marszalek, LaVallie, and Sorenson, and the affected members of Plaintiffs 

ISRA and SAF, of their right to keep and bear arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. These individuals were and are thus injured in 

violation for 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to declaratory and preliminary and 

permanent injunctive relief against the continued deprivation of their rights.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 62.

63. The Defendants’ failure to timely issue FOID cards and violations of applicants’ 

Second Amendment rights injure Plaintiff ISRA because they deprive ISRA of revenue from 

individuals who otherwise would be able to become members of its firing range. Plaintiff ISRA 

is therefore entitled to declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the 

continued deprivation of its would-be range members.

ANSWER: Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph No. 62.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:750
20

COUNT II: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, 42 U.S.C. § 1983

ANSWER: On January 26, 2022, Count II of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint was 

dismissed. To the extent that any answer to Count II is necessary, Defendants deny the 

allegations contained in Count II. 

ANSWERING FURTHER, Defendants deny each and every allegation not 

heretofore answered.

WHEREFORE, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief and requests that 

this Court enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs and for any other relief 

that this Court deems just and reasonable. 

February 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

KWAME RAOUL

Attorney General of Illinois

/s/ Mary A. Johnston

Mary A. Johnston

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

100 West Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-4417

Mary.johnston@ilag.gov

Counsel for Defendants

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 115 Filed: 02/22/22 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:751