Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RYAN A. THOMAS, GORAN LAZIC,
ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, and
SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, BRENDAN F.
)
KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the
)
Illinois State Police, and JESSICA TRAME, in her )
official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Illinois
)
State Police Firearms Services Bureau,
)
)
Defendants.
)
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, RYAN A. THOMAS, GORAN LAZIC, ILLINOIS
STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION, and SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION,
INC., by and through LAW FIRM OF DAVID G. SIGALE, P.C. and KNABE &
BEDELL, their attorneys, and for their Complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the Defendants, ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, BRENDAN F. KELLY,
in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, and JESSICA TRAME,
in her official capacity as Bureau Chief of the Illinois State Police Firearms Services
Bureau, as prayed for below, state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
On September 10, 2019, the State of Illinois Commission on Government
Forecasting and Accountability reported that, in the past five years, the Illinois

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:1

State Police (“ISP”) has swept or transferred funds totaling more than
$29,500,000.00 from the State Police Firearms Services Fund, the State Police
Operations Assistance Fund, and the State Police Services Fund away from these
funds and into other accounts. The money was to be used for three purposes:
administration of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/1, et

seq.) (“FOID Card Act”), background checks for firearm-related services, and
concealed carry licensing pursuant to the Firearms Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS
66/1, et seq.) (“FCCA”).
Instead, the more than $29,500,000.00 has been subject to interfund
transfers which are ostensibly to be repaid but which have not been, or swept into
other accounts without an obligation to reimburse the funds at all.
The effect of this has been a systematic slowdown and sometimes halt of
processing of applications and appeals of the FOID Card Act. Applicants and
appellants spend days on the phone attempting to reach someone at the ISP with no
success. In the unlikely event that a person answers, the applicant/appellant is
usually told only that their case is under review.
Appellants who quickly had their FOID cards, and likewise their concealed
carry licenses (“CCL”), revoked for reasons such as criminal charges or emergency
orders of protection that were dismissed or expunged, or no-longer-applicable
residence changes, or other statutory reasons that have been corrected or
addressed, quickly find their appeals sucked into a black hole from which escape
comes, if at all, with an interminable wait. There is no statutory deadline for the

2

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:1

Defendants to respond to a FOID appeal, and it is common for appellants to wait
many months, or even years, for a decision that does not come.
Further, the funds sweep and the breakdown of the FOID appeal system
have endangered public safety, as qualified persons are denied their rights and the
ability to self-defense and defense of their families with a firearm while languishing
in the FOID appeal system, during which time their CCLs are also revoked, while
criminals who ignore the FOID Card Act and FCCA requirements altogether carry
on unaffected.
The right to keep and bear arms for defense of hearth and home is a
fundamental individual right (See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), and applies to the Defendants (See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
742 (2010)). The right to the public carry of firearms is also fundamental, as much
so as the possession of firearms inside one’s home. In response to the Seventh
Circuit’s decision in Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), Illinois became
the last State in America to allow the public carry of firearms for self-defense
purposes.
However, the laws governing the licensing of firearm possession and
concealed carry in Illinois have resulted in a system that, for some, result in a
permanent denial of that right. This is due to a system that is extremely quick to
deny or revoke persons’ rights, and extremely slow in acknowledging or restoring
them.

3

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:1

Plaintiff Thomas has been battling this system since 2017. His only “sin” was
moving out of the State, and since moving back to Illinois has been trying to
vindicate his FOID and CCL rights. Plaintiff Lazic has had a FOID and CCL
appeal pending since the dismissal and later expungement of a charge in 2017. In
both cases, the Defendants’ inactivity is inexcusable.
Plaintiffs Thomas and Lazic are two such individuals unlawfully aggrieved
by the system, but they are far from the only ones.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

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, in that this action
seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statutes, ordinances,
regulations, customs, and usages of the Defendants as they execute, administer and
enforce the complained-of laws, of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by
the United States Constitution and by Acts of Congress.
2.

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

events and omissions giving rise to this action are harming Plaintiff in this District.
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
3.

Ryan A. Thomas (“Thomas”) is an individual 47 years of age who

resides in the City of Wilmette, County of Cook, in the State of Illinois. Thomas has
two children who he has faithfully supported. Thomas obtained a B.A. in Business
Administration in 1998, is currently obtaining an Executive MBA from the Kellogg

4

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:1

School of Business at Northwestern University, and he has been gainfully and
continuously employed as a Vice President of Sales in the cash automation services
industry, and prior to that owned an IT consulting company.
4.

Prior to November, 2015, Thomas had both a valid FOID card and

concealed carry license (“CCL”). In November, 2015, Thomas moved to Texas, and
in February, 2016, the Defendants revoked Thomas’ FOID pursuant to 430 ILCS
65/8, as well as his CCL, and demanded their return based on Thomas’ out-of-state
residence.
5.

In November, 2017, to be closer to his children, Thomas moved back to

Illinois. Since then, Thomas has been attempting to regain his FOID and CCL,
which by their dates had not even expired. After many attempts to reach someone
at the Illinois State Police by telephone, and complying with the FOID appeal
reinstatement process listed on the ISP’s website, and even having family members
to write letters to the ISP on Thomas’ behalf, the ISP never followed up with any
correspondence or other communication method. Thomas’ FOID and CCL statuses
are still listed as “revoked” on the ISP website, and the ISP still does not answer
telephone calls.
6.

Thomas would possess and carry a loaded and functional concealed

handgun at home and in public for self-defense, but refrains from doing so because
he fears prosecution due to the prohibitions on possessing a firearm for self-defense
without a FOID card and carrying a concealed firearm in public for self-defense
without a CCL. Thomas has fear not just for himself based on the current violent

5

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:1

crime situation in Chicago, but Thomas also worries for the safety of his children
and family members.
7.

Goran Lazic (“Lazic”) is an individual 51 years of age who resides in

the Village of Vernon Hills, County of Lake, in the State of Illinois. Lazic is married
and has two children. Lazic obtained an Associate of Applied Science in Dental
Hygiene degree in 2004, and since then he has been continuously employed as a
dental hygienist.
8.

Prior to June 7, 2017, Lazic had both a valid FOID card and CCL. In

May, 2017, Lazic was arrested for domestic battery/physical contact pursuant to 720
ILCS 5/12-3,2(a)(2), and the Defendants revoked Lazic’s FOID card and CCL
pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/8. The charge was dismissed on June 7, 2017 (the same
day Lazic’s FOID and CCL were revoked), and the arrest was expunged on
February 14, 2018.
9.

Since that time, Lazic has been attempting to regain both his FOID

card and CCL. He submitted an administrative appeal to the Defendants in June,
2017, but received no response. Through counsel, Lazic followed up on his appeal
on May 18, 2018, September 14, 2018, and November 28, 2018, but at no time did
Lazic receive his FOID card, CCL, or even a response to any of his appeal efforts.
10.

Lazic would possess and carry a loaded and functional concealed

handgun at home and in public for self-defense, but refrains from doing so because
he fears prosecution due to the prohibitions on possessing a firearm for self-defense
without a FOID card and carrying a concealed firearm in public for self-defense

6

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:1

without a CCL. Lazic has fear not just for himself, but Lazic also worries for the
safety of his children and family members.
11.

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 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.
12.

ISRA has members who have been denied Illinois FOID cards and

concealed carry licenses, and who have unsuccessfully attempted to navigate,
communicate with, and avail themselves of the FOID and CCL appeals processes,
not because their claims were not meritorious, but simply because the Defendants
have engineered and/or allowed the aforementioned processes to provide no relief to
applicants.
13.

Members of ISRA who are Illinois residents, and who are and have

been wrongfully deprived of their FOID cards and CCLs, would possess and carry
loaded and functional concealed handguns at home and in public for self-defense,
but refrain from doing so because they fear prosecution due to the prohibitions on
possessing a firearm for self-defense without a FOID card and carrying a concealed
firearm in public for self-defense without a CCL.
14.

SAF is a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the

laws of Washington with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington.

7

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:1

SAF’s membership includes day care home licensees residing in Illinois. SAF has
over 650,000 members and supporters nationwide. The purposes 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.
15.

Members of SAF who are Illinois residents and who are and have been

wrongfully deprived of their FOID cards and CCLs, would possess and carry loaded
and functional concealed handguns at home and in public for self-defense, but
refrain from doing so because they fear prosecution due to the prohibitions on
possessing a firearm for self-defense without a FOID card and carrying a concealed
firearm in public for self-defense without a CCL.
16.

Thomas and Lazic are members of both ISRA and SAF.

Defendants
17.

The Department of Illinois State Police (“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
considering applications for, granting, denying, and/or revoking individual licenses
to possess firearms under the FOID Card Act.
18.

Further, under the FCCA, the ISP is charged with administering the

system for granting and revoking individual licenses to carry concealed handguns
under the FCCA.

8

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:1

19.

Brendan F. Kelly is the Acting Director of the ISP and is sued in his

official capacity pursuant to the principles set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123
(1908).
20.

The Firearm Services Bureau (“FSB”) is a division of the ISP

established to administer programs relating firearms delegated to the ISP, such as
under the FOID Card Act and the FCCA. 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.
21.

Jessica Trame is the Bureau Chief of the FSB. She is the ISP

employee directly responsible for the administration of the FOID Card Act and the
FCCA, and is the ISP employee directly responsible for the initial, continued, and
wrongful revocations of Thomas’ and Lazic’s FOID and CCL rights. She is sued in
her official capacity pursuant to the principles set forth in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.
123 (1908).
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

FOID and Concealed Carry Rights in Illinois:
22.

The right to keep and bear arms for defense of hearth and home is a

fundamental individual right (See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), and applies to the Defendants (See McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S.
742 (2010)).
23.

The right to the public carry of firearms is also fundamental, as much

so as the possession of firearms inside one’s home. In response to the decision of the

9

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:1

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Moore v. Madigan, 702
F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012), finding the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution secured the right to carry a concealed firearm for protection outside
the home, Illinois enacted the FCCA, making Illinois the last State in America to
allow the public carry of firearms for self-defense purposes.
24.

Possession of a valid FOID card is a prerequisite for an Illinois

resident to obtain a CCL.
25.

Thomas and Lazic wishes to obtain a FOID card in order to be able to

obtain and possess a firearm for self-defense and defense of family, as well as to
obtain/renew their CCLs. Lazic also wishes to go to the firing range for practice,
but cannot do so without a FOID card. Thomas is also a hunter and would go with
friends and family if he were able, which of course he cannot because he lacks a
FOID card.
26.

Thomas and Lazic meet all qualifications for a FOID card, and there is

no lawful reason for the Defendants to deny Thomas’ and Lazic’s pending FOID
appeals, much less to fail to ever respond to them.
27.

Likewise, the only reason Thomas and Lazic currently have an

inability to obtain and/or renew their CCLs is the wrongful deprivation of their
FOID cards.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
28.

The Second Amendment provides:

10

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:1

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.
U.S. Const. amend. II.
29.

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

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).
STATE LAW
30.

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.
...

(c-5) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this
Section regarding the possession of firearms and firearm ammunition
do not apply to the holder of a valid concealed carry license issued
under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act who is in physical possession
of the concealed carry license.
31.

430 ILCS 65/3 states in relevant part:
(a) Except as provided in Section 3a, no person may knowingly
transfer, or cause to be transferred, any firearm, firearm
ammunition, stun gun, or taser to any person within this State
unless the transferee with whom he deals displays either: (1) a

11

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:1

currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card which has
previously been issued in his or her name by the Department of
State Police under the provisions of this Act; or (2) a currently
valid license to carry a concealed firearm which has previously
been issued in his or her name by the Department of State
Police under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act.
32.

No provision of 430 ILCS 65/3a is relevant to Plaintiffs.

33.

430 ILCS 65/10 states in relevant part:
Appeal to director; hearing; relief from firearm prohibitions.
(a) Whenever an application for a Firearm Owner's
Identification Card is denied, whenever the Department fails to
act on an application within 30 days of its receipt, or whenever
such a Card is revoked or seized as provided for in Section 8 of
this Act, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Director of State
Police for a hearing upon such denial, revocation or seizure . . . .

34.

430 ILCS 65/14 states in relevant part:
(c) A violation of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Section 2 is a Class
3 felony when:
(1)
the person's Firearm Owner's Identification Card is
revoked or subject to revocation under Section 8[.]

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
U.S. CONST. AMENDS. II AND XIV, 42 U.S.C. §1983
35.

Plaintiffs incorporate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 34, inclusive,

as if fully restated herein.
36.

Thomas and Lazic, through sheer indifference and/or a refusal to

process their FOID appeals on the part of the Defendants, have been denied their
constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
37.

By so burdening Thomas’ and Lazic’s ability to obtain a FOID card

under Section 10 of the FOID Card Act, and likewise their ability to obtain and/or
12

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:1

renew a CCL pursuant to Sections 10 and 50 of the FCCA, the Defendants have not
only unjustifiably denied them their rights but have effectively imposed an
unending ban on Thomas’ and Lazic’s rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
38.

The Defendants, under the color of law, both facially and as-applied,

have deprived and are depriving Thomas and Lazic of their right to keep and bear
arms, in violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Thomas and Lazic are thus damaged in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
Thomas and Lazic are therefore entitled to declaratory and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief against the continued deprivation of their rights.
39.

Thomas and Lazic are also entitled to monetary damages for the

violation of their rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.
COUNT II: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, 42 U.S.C. §1983
40.

Thomas repeats, realleges, and incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 38,

inclusive, as if fully restated herein.
41.

Thomas and Lazic, through sheer indifference and/or a refusal to

process their FOID appeals on the part of the Defendants, have been denied their
constitutionally guaranteed rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
42.

By so burdening Thomas’ and Lazic’s ability to obtain a FOID card

under Section 10 of the FOID Card Act, and likewise their ability to obtain and/or
renew a CCL pursuant to Sections 10 and 50 of the FCCA, the Defendants have not

13

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:1

only unjustifiably denied them their rights but have effectively imposed an
unending ban on Thomas’ and Lazic’s rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
43.

By so burdening Thomas’ and Lazic’s ability to obtain a FOID Card,

and likewise a CCL, the Defendants have not only unjustifiably denied them their
rights but have effectively imposed an unending ban on Thomas’ and Lazic’s right to
keep and bear arms for self-defense.
44.

Thomas’ and Lazic’s private interest that will be affected and deprived

by the Defendants’ actions is their fundamental right to armed self-defense in
public. They are not persons who were historically prohibited from possessing
firearms, and have not done anything since to remove themselves from those
categories of persons able to exercise this fundamental right.
45.

The risk of the Defendants’ erroneous deprivation of Thomas’ and

Lazic’s interest through the FOID appeal process is great, as Thomas and Lazic
have been deprived of their fundamental rights with no opportunity to correct or
undo the deprivation, and the consequences include Thomas’ and/or Lazic’s
sustaining of a severe or fatal injury should they suffer a violent attack and be
unable to properly defend themselves.
46.

The value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, such as

processing FOID appeals in a timely manner, responding to inquiries, and offering
hearings when appropriate, is high.

14

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:1

47.

The Defendants and the State do not have an interest in depriving

persons of fundamental rights, and of wrongfully preventing qualified persons from
being able to defend themselves, at home or in public.
48.

The Defendants, under the color of law, both facially and as-applied,

have deprived and are depriving Thomas and Lazic of their right to keep and bear
arms, in violation of their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thomas and Lazic are thus
damaged in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. Thomas and Lazic are therefore entitled
to declaratory and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the
continued deprivation of his right.
49.

Thomas and Lazic are also entitled to monetary damages for the

violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

WHEREFORE, Thomas and Lazic pray this Honorable Court:
a.

find that the Defendants have unjustifiably denied Thomas and

Lazic their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense;
b.

find that the Defendants have unjustifiably denied Thomas and

Lazic their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights;
c.

enter an order granting Thomas and Lazic injunctive relief that

enjoins the Defendants from further deprivation of Plaintiffs’ rights to keep
and bear arms and right via lack of procedural due process;

15

 Case: 1:20-cv-00734 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/31/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:1

c.

enter a mandatory injunction requiring the Defendants to issue

Thomas and Lazic FOID cards;
d.

award Thomas and Lazic monetary damages for the

deprivations of their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights;
e.

award Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983; and,
f.

award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as it deems just.

Dated: January 31, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
By:_/s/ David G. Sigale
One of the Attorneys for Plaintiffs

David G. Sigale (Atty. ID# 6238103)
LAW FIRM OF DAVID G. SIGALE, P.C.
430 West Roosevelt Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
630.452.4547
dsigale@sigalelaw.com
Gregory A. Bedell (Atty. ID# 6189762)
Knabe & Bedell
33 North Dearborn Street
10th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312.977.9119
gbedell@kkbchicago.com

16