The Firearm Owners' Privacy Act, however, simply does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. The State's arguments rest on a legislative illusion. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to "retain," "to have in custody," "to hold," and "to carry" weapons, including firearms. The law at issue here does not affect nor interfere with a patient's right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms. Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is irrelevant to this law; therefore, I do not find that it is a legitimate or compelling interest for it.

Cooke had issued a preliminary injunction [JURIST report] in the case in September, reasoning the same way as she did on Friday. She found that the act in no way affects the primary constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws have been much debated in the past. In July 2010, the Chicago City Council [official website] unanimously approved a new gun control law that bans gun shops in the city and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, including porches and garages, with a handgun. Shortly thereafter, a group of Chicago citizens, supported by both the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Firearm Retailers [advocacy websites], filed suit against the city [JURIST report] claiming the new ordinance infringes on their constitutional rights. In June 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago [opinion; JURIST report] that the Second Amendment applies to states and municipalities as well as the federal government, thereby overturning Chicago's ban on handguns and raising considerable uncertainty about what amount of regulations of firearms was permissible. Two years earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense, overturning the District of Columbia's restrictive firearms law.