Horsley v. Trame

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant’s decision to return plaintiff’s application for “FOID” card because plaintiff, as individual who was over 18, but under 21, failed to include signature of parent as required by statute violated plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights. Defendant established sufficient means/ends relationship between instant statute and important governmental interest in protecting public safety, where parent’s signature provided one method of making individualized assessment of applicant’s fitness for possession of firearm, and where parent’s signature on application subjected parent to liability for harm caused by applicant’s firearm ownership, which in turn provided victim with second source of income to pay for said harm. Moreover, instant statute did not impose blanket prohibition gun ownership for 18 to 21 year olds, since plaintiff always had ability to seek review/approval of her application from Director of Ill. State Police in event no parent was willing or statutorily able to sign her application form. Ct., though, did not resolve defendant’s argument that individuals under 21 have no Second Amendment rights.