Preemption | Illinois Concealed Carry

State Preemption - Illinois

Illinois has a partial preemption framework regarding firearm and concealed carry regulation - one of the most distinctive in the nation. Unlike the vast majority of states that use preemption to restrict local firearm regulation, Illinois is the only state that regularly employs floor preemption and savings clauses across firearm policy topics, preserving significant local authority while establishing statewide minimums.

Constitutional Framework

Illinois's preemption landscape is shaped by the Illinois Constitution of 1970, Article VII, Section 6, which grants home rule municipalities (those with populations greater than 25,000) broad regulatory powers:

"(a) *** Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare."

• Ill. Const. 1970, Art. VII, § 6(a)

Critically, Section 6(i) establishes the standard for state preemption of home rule authority:

"Home rule units may exercise and perform concurrently with the State any power or function of a home rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or specifically declare the State's exercise to be exclusive."

• Ill. Const. 1970, Art. VII, § 6(i)

The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted Section 6(i) as eliminating, or reducing to a "bare minimum," circumstances under which local home rule powers are preempted by judicial interpretation of unexpressed legislative intent. Scadron v. Des Plaines, 153 Ill.2d 164, 185 (1992). Section 6(a) gives home rule units "the broadest powers possible." City of Chicago v. Roman, 292 Ill. App.3d 546, 685 N.E.2d 967 (1997); Scadron, 153 Ill.2d at 174-75; Town of Cicero v. LaFrancis, 282 Ill. App.3d 556, 557 (1996). Under Section 6(i), the General Assembly can restrict the concurrent exercise of a home rule unit's power by enacting a law that specifically limits such power; but unless a state law specifically states that a home rule unit's power is limited, the authority of a home rule unit to act concurrently with the state cannot be considered restricted. Scadron, 153 Ill.2d at 188; Village of Bolingbrook v. Citizens Utils. Co., 158 Ill.2d 133, 138 (1994). Where the legislature has not been specific, courts will not find preemption of home rule authority. City of Chicago v. Roman, 292 Ill. App.3d at 551.

Concealed Carry Act Preemption Provisions

The Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry Act (430 ILCS 66) establishes a statewide concealed carry licensing system administered exclusively by the Illinois State Police (ISP). The Act contains preemption provisions in 430 ILCS 66/90 that address the division of authority between the state and local governments regarding concealed carry regulation.

Key aspects of the statewide framework:

• Only the ISP may issue Concealed Carry Licenses (CCLs). The ISP has stated it "will continue to enforce the law in effect" and that "persons who carry firearms without a Concealed Carry License issued by the ISP are subject to arrest."
• Law enforcement agencies participate in the CCL process through the Law Enforcement Portal, which allows them to:
  • File objections against concealed carry applicants during the statutory 30-day objection period
  • Access FOID revocation reports, which list revoked individuals by county, revocation reason, and compliance with Section 9.5 of the FOID Act
  • Electronically confirm that a revoked or suspended individual's FOID card was surrendered and destroyed
  • Upload the FOID Card and Firearm Disposition Record (FDR) directly to the applicant's file
• The Act works in conjunction with the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65) to form the primary state-level regulatory framework for firearm ownership and carry.

Areas Where State Authority Is Exclusive

• CCL issuance and administration - The statewide licensing system is uniform; no local government may create its own concealed carry permit system.
• Regulation of specific licensed professions - The Private Detective, Private Alarm, and Private Security Act of 1993 (225 ILCS 446) contains an express preemption clause in Section 40: "The power to regulate the private detective, private security, private alarm, or locksmith business shall be exercised exclusively by the State and may not be exercised by any unit of local government including home rule units." - 225 ILCS 446/40. The legislative intent (225 ILCS 446/10) declares that these practices are "practices affecting the public health, safety, and welfare and subject to State regulation." This was tested in City of Chicago v. Haworth, No. 1-97-1588 (1st Dist. 1999), where the First District Appellate Court reversed the conviction of a licensed private detective for failure to register a firearm under the Chicago Municipal Code.
• FOID Card system - The Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65) establishes statewide requirements. Section 2(a)(1) provides: "No person may acquire or possess any firearm 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." - 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(1). Section 2(b), which lists individuals exempt from compliance, does not include private detectives.
• Clear and Present Danger reporting - Law enforcement officials, school administrators, and medical professionals must report individuals posing a Clear and Present Danger pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/8.1 and 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 1230.120, notifying the ISP Office of Firearms Safety within 24 hours via the Law Enforcement Portal.

Clear and Present Danger: Detailed Requirements

Clear and Present Danger is defined by statute as a person who: (1) communicates a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or poses a clear and imminent risk of serious physical injury to himself, herself, or another person as determined by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner; or (2) demonstrates threatening physical or verbal behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior, as determined by a physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, school administrator, or law enforcement official. - 430 ILCS 65/1.1.

Who must report (pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/8.1(d)(2) and 430 ILCS 66/105):

• Law enforcement officials
• School administrators - principals and chief administrative officers (or their designees) of public and private elementary and secondary schools, community colleges, colleges, and universities
• Medical professionals

Liability protection: The physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, law enforcement official, or school administrator making the determination and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the required notification, except for willful or wanton misconduct. - 430 ILCS 65/8.1.

Effect: Once a Clear and Present Danger determination is reported, if the person is a FOID card holder, the Office of Firearms Safety will determine whether the FOID holder is revoked, denied, or will remain valid. This process is intended to prevent individuals determined to pose a Clear and Present Danger from having access to firearms or firearm ammunition.

Areas Where Local Authority Is Preserved

Illinois courts have consistently held that gun control is a matter of local concern that properly falls within the exercise of a home rule municipality's power:

• Firearm registration ordinances - Home rule municipalities like Chicago may require firearm registration within city limits. Chicago Municipal Code §§ 8-20-030 through 8-20-260. The Code regulates the firearm (requiring registration) while the FOID Act regulates the person (requiring identification). The First District in Haworth distinguished these two regulatory frameworks, finding that "residents of the City must comply with both laws" but that the Code's registration requirement could not be applied to private detectives whose profession is exclusively regulated by the state.
• Municipalities may impose greater restrictions under the FOID Act - The FOID Act, at 430 ILCS 65/13.1, expressly permits municipalities to impose restrictions greater than those in the FOID Act itself. As the Haworth court noted, "the FOI Act expressly permits municipalities to impose greater restrictions" (citing 430 ILCS 65/13.1). This provision is significant because it represents a statutory savings clause - one of many that make Illinois's framework unique nationally.
• Assault weapons bans - In Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 447 (2015), the Seventh Circuit upheld Highland Park's local assault weapons ban ordinance, confirming that Illinois municipalities may enact such restrictions. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari, while having no precedential effect, signaled a continued reluctance by the Court to consider Second Amendment cases following District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Several Illinois municipalities maintain their own assault weapons bans.
• Handgun restrictions - The Illinois Supreme Court upheld Morton Grove's handgun ban in Kalodimos v. Morton Grove, 103 Ill.2d 483 (1984), recognizing that gun control is a matter for local concern. The Seventh Circuit similarly upheld it in Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983). While subsequent Second Amendment jurisprudence (Heller; McDonald) has altered the constitutional analysis, these cases established the principle that Illinois home rule units possess inherent authority over firearms regulation.
• Prohibited locations - Local jurisdictions may designate additional prohibited locations for concealed carry within the bounds allowed by state law under 430 ILCS 66/90.
• Zoning and discharge ordinances - Certain local regulations such as zoning restrictions on firearms businesses and discharge ordinances may remain enforceable.

The Haworth Decision: Anatomy of the Preemption Analysis

The 1999 First District Appellate Court decision in City of Chicago v. Haworth provides the most detailed judicial analysis of the interaction between state professional licensing preemption and municipal firearms regulation in Illinois.

Facts: Don Haworth, a state-licensed private detective with ten years of experience, was arrested in Chicago for possessing an unregistered Glock 9mm semi-automatic handgun while engaged in his work. Haworth possessed valid state credentials including a Permanent Employee Registration Card, Firearms Authorization Card, FOID Card, and Employee Identification Card. The handgun was borrowed from a colleague in Arlington Heights while Haworth's own firearm was being repaired.

The City's argument: Chicago argued that (1) gun control is a matter of local concern under home rule power; (2) Section 40 of the Private Detective Act does not limit home rule authority to impose general firearms registration laws on private detectives; and (3) the Code does not exempt private detectives from registration - indeed, Section 8-20-050(c)(4) of the Code specifically contemplates that private detective agencies may register firearms, suggesting that registration is required.

The Court's analysis: The First District agreed with Haworth. The court found that Section 40's language - "exclusively by the State" - invoked the constitutional standard under Section 6(i) by specifically declaring the state's exercise to be exclusive with respect to the private detective business. The court also addressed the Private Detective Act's Section 185(b), which allows a licensed employee to carry a firearm "not otherwise prohibited by law." The court interpreted "law" in this provision as referring to state law, reasoning that if municipalities could independently restrict private detectives' firearms, "a private detective could not own or possess a firearm while in any community in which his firearm was not registered," effectively undermining the state licensing scheme.

Key distinction: The court distinguished between the Code (which regulates the firearm by requiring registration) and the FOID Act (which regulates the person by requiring identification), but held that applying the Code's registration requirements to private detectives improperly interfered with the state's exclusive jurisdiction over their profession.

Limitation of the holding: The Haworth decision is narrow - it shields only licensed private detectives (and likely other professions exclusively regulated by the state under similar preemption clauses) from municipal firearms registration requirements. The court did not hold that Chicago's general firearm registration ordinance was invalid; it remains enforceable against all other individuals.

Illinois's Unique National Position

A comprehensive 2021 study published in the American Journal of Public Health (Pomeranz et al., "State Gun-Control, Gun-Rights, and Preemptive Firearm-Related Laws Across 50 US States for 2009-2018") found that Illinois occupies a unique position nationally:

• As of 2018, Illinois had only 14 ceiling preemptive measures - among the fewest of any state. By comparison, Arizona and Alabama had ceiling preemption over all 47 policy topics evaluated, and 31 states had 44 or more preemptive measures in effect.
• Illinois was the only state that regularly employed minimum standards (floor preemption) or savings clauses expressly allowing localities to regulate firearms, doing so for 32 of the 47 policy topics evaluated. No other state came close to this approach.
• Unlike 15 states (as of 2018) that enacted punitive preemption - authorizing the state attorney general or individuals/organizations to sue local governments or officials for engaging in preempted actions, sometimes with fines or removal from office - Illinois has no punitive preemption measures.
• Illinois repealed 1 gun-control measure during 2009-2018 (likely related to the adoption of shall-issue concealed carry in 2013), while also passing additional gun-rights measures during the period.
• The study attributed Illinois's unique approach in part to Chicago's high rate of firearm violence driven by firearms trafficking from surrounding states with weaker gun-control laws, noting that "given the lack of federal anti-trafficking laws, Illinois, and thus Chicago, is left to fend for itself."
• The study classified Illinois in the group of states with the fewest preemptive measures without corresponding gun-control measures (10 preemptive measures without gun-control counterparts) and only 2 gun-control measures with corresponding preemption - placing it alongside Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York as states that most preserve local regulatory authority over firearms.

Additional context from CDC data: The CDC's STATE System confirms that Illinois maintains no preemption of local ordinances across tobacco control policy topics (licensure, smokefree indoor air, and youth access) - consistent with its broader governmental philosophy of preserving local regulatory authority. Illinois is among only 7 states that have successfully repealed smokefree indoor air preemption provisions.

The Federal Preemption Context

Illinois's firearms preemption framework exists within a broader legal landscape of federal preemption doctrine. Under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2), federal law can preempt state and local law through express preemption (explicit statutory language), field preemption (where federal regulation is so pervasive as to occupy the field), or conflict preemption (where state law conflicts with federal objectives or makes compliance with both impossible).

Critically for firearms regulation, the Supreme Court has applied a presumption against preemption in areas of historic state police power. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947); Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 565 (2009). Firearms regulation has traditionally been considered a core exercise of state and local police power, meaning federal courts will generally require clear congressional intent before finding that federal law displaces state or local firearms regulations. This presumption reinforces the authority of Illinois and its municipalities to maintain their distinctive partial preemption framework.

Practical Implications for CCL Holders

• The statewide CCL is valid throughout Illinois, but concealed carry is subject to the prohibited locations listed in state law.
• Some local jurisdictions may impose additional restrictions that survive preemption, particularly regarding assault weapons, firearm registration (in Chicago), and discharge of firearms.
• Municipal assault weapons bans - CCL holders should verify whether the specific municipalities they visit have enacted local assault weapons bans or other restrictions.
• Chicago firearm registration - Any person (except licensed private detectives engaged in their professional duties, per Haworth) possessing a firearm within Chicago must register it with the Chicago Police Department under the Municipal Code §§ 8-20-030 through 8-20-260. The Code lists the types of firearms that are registerable at § 8-20-050.
• Consult 430 ILCS 66/90 directly for the full text of the Concealed Carry Act's preemption provisions, including which specific categories of local regulation are preempted versus preserved.
• State law controls the CCL process entirely - local law enforcement may not impose additional requirements for obtaining or carrying under a CCL, but they retain concurrent enforcement authority.
• The FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/13.1) expressly permits municipalities to impose greater restrictions than the state FOID requirements - CCL holders should be aware that local ordinances may supplement state requirements.

Key Statutes and Cases

Note: Illinois concealed carry permit holders should be aware that the state's partial preemption framework means that local regulations vary significantly across jurisdictions. While the CCL licensing system is uniform statewide, some municipalities - particularly Chicago and certain Cook County suburbs - maintain additional firearms restrictions including registration requirements, assault weapons bans, and other local ordinances. The FOID Act's express authorization for municipalities to impose greater restrictions (430 ILCS 65/13.1), combined with Illinois's unique use of savings clauses across 32 of 47 firearm policy topics, means that CCL holders must be attentive to the specific regulations in each jurisdiction they enter.