Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution: A Right Recognized and Routinely Undermined

Illinois’ Constitution plainly recognizes a fundamental individual liberty: the right to keep and bear arms. Yet for many Illinois residents, that promise feels hollow in practice.

Section 22 of the Illinois Constitution states:

“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Those words acknowledge that the right exists, but the way Illinois has used the phrase “police power” has steadily transformed a constitutional guarantee into one of the most regulated rights in the state.

A Right That Comes With an Asterisk

Unlike many constitutional provisions, Section 22 contains built-in limiting language. While the Constitution recognizes an individual right, Illinois lawmakers have repeatedly treated the “police power” clause as an open-ended license to regulate, restrict, and condition that right almost out of existence.

In practice, Illinois has often flipped the constitutional order:

• The right exists only after state approval
• Ownership is conditioned on licenses, fees, and permissions
• Exercise of the right can be revoked through administrative action

From a freedom perspective, this raises a fundamental question:
Is it truly a right if it depends on government permission?

The Expansion of “Police Power”

Historically, police power was meant to address clear threats to public safety. Over time, however, Illinois has expanded this authority far beyond narrow regulation.

Today, police power is used to justify:

• Mandatory FOID cards to possess firearms or ammunition
• Extensive background checks and waiting periods
• Training mandates and recurring licensing fees
• Broad bans on commonly owned firearms and accessories

Rather than narrowly tailoring laws to punish criminal misuse, Illinois often regulates law-abiding citizens first, while criminals operate outside the system altogether.

FOID Cards: Permission to Exercise a Right

The FOID system is a prime example of infringement through bureaucracy.

Under Illinois law, a citizen must obtain government approval before exercising a constitutional right. Delays, administrative backlogs, and revocations have left lawful gun owners unable to possess firearms, sometimes for months or years, without any criminal wrongdoing.

From a freedom viewpoint, this turns the Constitution on its head. Rights are meant to limit government power, not depend on it.

Firearm Bans and the “Public Safety” Justification

Illinois frequently defends firearm bans by invoking public safety. Yet many restrictions target firearms commonly owned by responsible citizens, rather than focusing on violent offenders.

The result is a regulatory scheme that:

• Restricts choice rather than conduct
• Penalizes ownership rather than misuse
• Treats constitutional rights as privileges

This approach raises serious concerns about whether Illinois is honoring the spirit, or even the letter, of Section 22.

Section 22 vs. the Second Amendment

While federal courts continue to clarify the scope of the Second Amendment, Illinois relies heavily on its constitutional “police power” language to defend laws that would likely face greater scrutiny elsewhere.

The danger of this framework is obvious:
If police power has no real limit, then neither does the state’s ability to infringe on individual liberty.

Why This Matters Beyond Firearms

This debate is not just about guns. It’s about the precedent set when government can redefine a constitutional right through regulation.

If a right can be conditioned, delayed, taxed, licensed, and revoked administratively, is it still a right at all?

Section 22 was meant to protect individual citizens. Whether it still does depends on whether Illinois courts and lawmakers are willing to treat constitutional rights as fundamental liberties rather than regulatory privileges.

Closing Thoughts

Illinois’ Constitution promises its citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Yet decades of expanding regulation have steadily eroded that promise.

The issue is clear: rights should not require permission, and liberty should not hinge on bureaucracy.

If you have questions about your estate plan or a probate matter, contact the Law Office of Jonathan W. Cole P.C. at (708) 529-7794  Your Neighborhood Law Firm.