Federal Judge OKs Gun Restrictions on In-Home Daycares, Foster Homes

A federal judge in Illinois has upheld rules restricting firearm possession in at-home daycares and foster homes, ruling that those locations are akin to schools and can properly be deemed "sensitive places."

The lawsuit, filed by an Illinois couple along with the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois Carry, challenged the rules set forth by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services that require operators of in-home daycares to prohibit handguns on the premises "except in the possession of peace officers or other adults who must possess a handgun as a condition of employment and who reside on the premises of a day care home." 

What about firearms that aren't handguns? The DCFS rules state that "any firearm permitted on day care home premises, except handguns in the possession of peace officers, shall be kept in a disassembled state, without ammunition, in locked storage, inaccessible to children and that ammunition permitted on daycare home premises shall be kept in locked storage separate from that of disassembled firearms, inaccessible to children." 

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court struck down a virtually identical storage requirement for D.C. residents in Heller. 

Foster parents have to abide by similar rules: Any and all firearms and ammunition "shall be stored and locked up separately at all times and kept in places inaccessible to children," and "Loaded guns shall not be kept in a foster home unless required by law enforcement officers and in accordance with their law enforcement agency's safety procedures." 

U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, appointed to the bench by Barack Obama, upheld all of those regulations in a decision handed down on Monday. 

The daycare ruling isn't surprising to me given the venue, but saying people with foster kids can't carry in their own homes is an INSANE ruling, and hopefully one that is a bridge too far for SCOTUS.

Benchslap worthy. https://t.co/zlTxM2K1mm

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) August 3, 2026

Yeah, that is absolutely nuts. Requiring foster parents and daycare operators to store firearms and ammunition in a place where they're inaccessible to the kids in their care is one thing. Depriving these adults from being able to protect themselves and others in their home, though, is something else entirely. 

The district court held that in-home licensed daycares are equivalent to schools. The Seventh Circuit has previously declared that "learning environments overwhelmingly dominated by the presence of children," like schools, can be deemed sensitive places where guns can be banned without running afoul of the Second Amendment. 

While the plaintiffs had argued that “if the home became a ‘sensitive place,’ the Second Amendment would be nullified,” the judge argued that the question "is not whether ordinary private homes are sensitive places, but whether licensed day care homes—the homes of individuals who sought and obtained that specific licensure—are sensitive places."

Fair enough. But what about foster homes? Those aren't really "learning environments," after all. 

The judge disagreed with that conclusion. Foster parents, Judge Myerscough argues, are "to be directly involved in overseeing the formal education of the foster children in their care," according to state guidelines. Further, she notes, no one can become a foster parent until they've completed six hours of "educational advocacy training." 

Foster parents are also expected to be involved in "several non-academic aspects of the foster children’s advancement."

For example, Section 402(16), titled “Meeting Basic Needs of Children,” requires foster home licensees to develop the foster child’s personal and interpersonal skills and interests. Section 402.16(c) states that “[f]oster parents are expected to use” two concepts “for decision-making regarding the child's participation in extracurricular, cultural and social activities that are appropriate for the child's normal growth and development and enrichment.” 

One concept is the “reasonable and prudent parent standard,”which Section 402.2 defines as the standard “that a caregiver shall use when determining whether to allow a child in out-of-home care to participate in extracurricular, enrichment, cultural, and social activities” and that is “characterized by careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the child's health, safety, and best interests while at the same time supporting the child's emotional and developmental growth.”

The other concept is “normalcy parenting,” which Section 402.2 defines as “empowering a foster parent to approve or not approve a child's participation in appropriate extracurricular enrichment, cultural and social activities based on the caregiver's assessment using the reasonable and prudent parent standard, without prior approval of the Department, the caseworker or the court.”

In other words, foster parents are expected to parent. If that makes a foster home a "learning environment" where guns can be banned, then every home could be declared gun-free by the state. The only difference is that a foster home is licensed by the state. Is that really enough to make it a sensitive place where the possession of firearms can be banned outright? Myerscough says "yes."

The Court sees no reason why the Foster Home Rule would apply to foster home licensees’ homes for longer than they choose to apply for and maintain the license or permanently to the individual or their private home after the foster home license expires, and neither party argues otherwise.

I kind of see the argument about in-home daycares being comparable to schools, though I would still argue that would only apply to the parts of the home where the care is provided. Myerscough's rationale for upholding the restrictions on foster parents, though, is incredibly weak. 

There is already a shortage of foster parents in Illinois, and making people choose between their Second Amendment rights and taking on the responsibility of becoming a foster parent is going to sideline a lot of qualified and capable adults who could be making a real difference in the lives of kids in the foster care system. I wish I were more optimistic about the Seventh Circuit reversing this decision, but based on recent rulings upholding gun bans in public transportation and the state's prohibition on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, I'd be shocked if the appellate court sides with the plaintiffs if and when this case is appealed. 

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.