The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 6, 2013, 05:04 PM   #51
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
HB2899 is shot down - and pulled from consideration - this was a so called Assault Weapons ban that included by estimates 70 percent of pistols and half of all rifles in Illinois - along with taxes and registration of guns and gun owners.
mack59 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 06:09 PM   #52
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,394
Yes that was shortest committee meeting that I have ever seen!

The other bills 1237 and 3489 were taken off the table as well. They were FOID related with langue that was not good for gun owners. There has been an agreement from both sides that benefits both sides that will be introduced in the spring.

A great day for IL gun owners!
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.bandmbrass.com Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 06:16 PM   #53
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Thanks for keeping us all informed Mack. I'm doing a government job related move to IL this month.

Lord have mercy!
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 06:53 PM   #54
taylor351
Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2010
Posts: 35
Does the US code title 18 chapter 13 sec 242 have any bearing on these laws? I have been told that it would be illegal but I am not constitutional lawyer.
If not, why not?

-STATUTE-
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States,
or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if
such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to
death.
taylor351 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 07:14 PM   #55
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
Nickel Plated wrote:
…..FOID law. It's an unconstitutional law that shouldn't exist in the first place…..
Curious here, how is it that the FOID is unconstitutional? If it was, the SAF, GOA, or NRA would surely have had it corrected by now, it’s been a law for something like 45 years, plenty of time to correct.

As I understand it, the purpose of the FOID is to assure that the firearm owner is not a felon, and has not been convicted of domestic battery, even misdemeanor domestic battery. Personally, I have no problem with felons or wife beaters being denied firearm ownership.

Possession of a FOID also helps ammo sellers. They know, or at least can be reasonably assured, that the buyer is not a felon or a wife beater.

I’m a fence sitter on the FOID. It has it’s bad points, it has it’s good points. But it in no way affects my ability to own or use any firearm I have in my collection, or even any firearm I’d want in my collection.

So seriously, please explain why it’s unconstitutional. Thanks.
Mike38 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 07:50 PM   #56
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,379
Regardless of NFA '34, I don't see where having to get a state issued card for something listed in the BOR is Constitutional.

That goes for assembly permits and the like as well, it's a slippery slope.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 07:57 PM   #57
cobra81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2005
Location: Land of Lincoln
Posts: 299
FOID Unconstitutional

I'll take a stab at that one.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states a citizen's RIGHT to bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is (an albeit small) fee of $10 to obtain an IL FOID. Without the FOID, you are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition.
Since when should we have to pay a tax, surcharge, or fee, to access a constitutionally granted RIGHT? Not a privilege, such as a driver's license, but a right.

Second, any purchaser of arms in Illinois, like any other state, already has to pass the NICS background check. So, not only is the FOID redundant, it amounts to a tax on a constitutionally guaranteed right.
cobra81 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 07:58 PM   #58
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
Curious here, how is it that the FOID is unconstitutional? If it was, the SAF, GOA, or NRA would surely have had it corrected by now, it’s been a law for something like 45 years, plenty of time to correct.
It hasn't been attacked because we haven't been a position to do so until very recently. Right now, the groundwork is being laid, and we may yet see a challenge.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 08:00 PM   #59
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Second, any purchaser of arms in Illinois, like any other state, already has to pass the NICS background check.
Private sales don't require a background check... I am not for FOID but I do think background checks are a good thing.
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.bandmbrass.com Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 08:53 PM   #60
CurlyQ.Howard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2012
Posts: 280
One important part of the FOID requirement is that those citizen who are legally deemed unfit to possess a weapon or ammunition are denied the FOID card. This makes it easy for a merchant to tell if the customer meets state law to possess a firearm or ammo. What bothers me is when being friends with the local police/sheriff/law authority keeps a wife beater (or some other criminal) from being arrested and therefore losing his FOID card. I have a relative through marriage, who for over thirty years has been in this situation - now and then being beaten by her husband - she's even had to go to the hospital, but the local sheriff closes his eye to what has happened. It is as if the law doesn't exist. Yet if someone would go teach him some manners, he/she would be arrested first thing.
Yes, it is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but as of the 21st century, a variety of citizens have forfeited that right; hence, the need to sort out those who are legally entitled to own a weapon/ammo and those who aren't. As for the wife beater, he has no right to firearms/ammo as far as I am concerned. What he needs is a strait jacket - cinched up tight.
CurlyQ.Howard is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 09:51 PM   #61
Mike38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2009
Location: North Central Illinois
Posts: 1,147
Tom Servo, cobra81, thanks for the replies. I completely understand what you guys are saying. But I do think that the $10 fee (or tax if one chooses to call it) is a small price to pay to make it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and / or wife beaters.

I really wouldn’t call it a tax anyhow. Taxes are usually sources of revenue for the taxing body. Here in Illinois, the fee goes directly to the Illinois State Police, which is not a taxing body. And I’m sure the administrative work costs much more then the $10, so it’s negative revenue, and I wouldn’t call that a tax.

But again, I understand, and thanks for the replies.
Mike38 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 10:06 PM   #62
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 362
http://youtu.be/0bDJW97xBAE

Clip of rep Nekritz announcing the semi auto ban is being shelved...for now that is.
Davey is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 10:22 PM   #63
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
But I do think that the $10 fee (or tax if one chooses to call it) is a small price to pay to make it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and / or wife beaters.
I have two rebuttals. The first is that the FOID doesn't really make it any harder for determined criminals to get a gun.

The second is that the problem the FOID card is supposed to solve is already solved by the NICS check at the point of purchase.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 11:23 PM   #64
bitttorrrent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 667
I disagree in that the FOID does or would make it harder to obtain a gun in IL if you were unable to legally get one. All points of sale and gun ranges all require you to have one.

Even in purchasing a gun through Armslist or similar, everyone requires you to show it in both buying and selling.

So a would be thief or felon would have to resort to other methods, illegal purchase or straw purchase.

Of cours, as my wife pointed out, they could just forge one and be on there way. I would assume that the forged number would be cought by a LGS, but not a face to face sale.
bitttorrrent is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 12:04 AM   #65
CurlyQ.Howard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2012
Posts: 280
Believe it or not, if only by one year - 1968 vs 1969, FOID predates NICS. Plus, I don't know that NICS totally supplants FOID. Not that that would be necessary, but just perhaps the IL State Police go into greater detail on background (and maybe some would wish this not to be the case).
CurlyQ.Howard is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:15 AM   #66
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
Quote:
There has been an agreement from both sides that benefits both sides that will be introduced in the spring.
OK. Here's what HAS to be going on with this.

The grabbers figured out that they cannot **** off gun owners (and RKBA-friendly IL legislators) right now. That's because of the upcoming CCW bill.

For those not keeping score: the 7th Circuit has killed all IL carry laws banning open and concealed carry, effective July of 2013. They gave a six month delay so that IL could pass new carry legislation, either shall-issue or otherwise.

If no carry legislation passes by then, the grabbers face a "carry apocalypse" in which IL "goes Vermont" - no permit needed to carry open OR concealed because there would be no law banning it.

Better yet: passing some kind of carry law will require the cooperation of pro-RKBA legislators.

That puts the pro-RKBA side firmly in the driver's seat. They get to say "please us - dance little piggies!" The grabbers are going to want severe restrictions but they are not going to get any such thing. The gunnies don't have to bite - at all. Because if they do nothing at all, they win huge.

So in exchange for any sort of background check and training system, the gunnie legislators are going to get all sorts of goodies, if a deal happens at all.

If I were advising the gunnie legislators, I would say go ahead and create a good shall-issue system with eight hours training, background check, etc. IN EXCHANGE, you want several things: no possible override by Chicago on any gun rules ever ("strict preemption"), no possible new gun control bills for at least five years(!), FOID is dead, gun-free-zones are metal detectors, armed guards on-site and lockboxes for people's boomthings, probably more.

Otherwise, if they let the clock run out and it goes constitutional carry, that still leaves too many possibilities for gun free zones, and it leaves the grabbers still able to do more gun control later.

They know that some kind of massive horse-trade on gun issues is coming - hence the language about "agreement from both sides that benefits both sides". The hardcore grabber legislators who introduced this recently dead "ban ALL the things!" bill has been told to sit down and shut up and because of the need for a deal on carry. If this thing had gone any further, the gunnie legislators would have rightfully refused any discussions on a carry bill leading to unlimited carry come July.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 06:05 AM   #67
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The agreement has to do with two bills that dealt with mental health and gun ownership possession issues.

There were three gun control bills in the house - one was the so called assault weapon and magazine ban that would have by estimates banned 70 percent of all handguns and over half of all rifles. That was defeated.

The other two dealt with mental health restrictions - one focused on rules for police and the other for non-police. Some of the language was over-broad and different for police and non-police. There were concerns that people getting mental health care for everyday issues could be denied purchase or possession of a firearm. The agreement has to do with ironing out those issues so it is not a gun grab but does responsibly address the issue of the dangerously unstable mentally ill.

Also, this episode resulted in a lot of conversation on the gun issue between gun lobbyists and senators and house reps, which has built some bridges for paving the way to the ccw law. So Jim is correct that there has been a lot of discussion and feeling each other out behind the scenes.

Beyond that I don't know any specifics, which I wouldn't post if I did. The leadership of both house and senate are hostile to ccw as is the governor. So some house members and senators obviously don't want things out in public where they are exposed to the house speakers or senate presidents ire. There have been cracks in the Chicago front even before the court decision - with some Chicago reps responding to outreach from the rkba community. Despite some stereotypes some of the city reps have found that some of their constituency is receptive to ccw - given the high homicide rate in the city. Remember Otis McDonald is a black man from Chicago and it has been noticed in Chicago communities.

I find it hard to believe after 20 years of fighting for this, that a shall issue ccw law will happen in Illinois - but barring a court reversal it will.

Lisa Madigan has until Wednesday to file an appeal for a full enbanc hearing in the 7th circuit. If she does the court will respond within 10 days indicating if it the will accept the case for a full enbanc hearing. My guess is that she will appeal but the court will decline to rehear the case - for two reasons: one Posner the judge who wrote the majority decision is very respected in the circuit and two the court really doesn't want to pick up this hot potato and then reverse it.

If that is the case, then the only option for the state is to appeal to the USSC - which hasn't been too kind to Illinois on gun rights cases. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they try an appeal to the USSC. Meanwhile however the clock is still running on the deadline with the 7th circuit and the time runs out in mid-June (decision was in early Dec - add 180 days or about 6 months). So legislators are under the gun to get something done as there is no guarantee that the USSC will even hear the case and if they do the ruling could in all probability be upheld. Many gun control advocates don't want this case appealed for that reason as they feel it could result in a USSC decision that required shall issue nationwide and would overturn restrictive may issue laws in NY, HI, and such. I think the court will hear a may issue case sooner or later anyway.

If the USSC accepted the case then that could delay legislation as I don't doubt at that point the 7th would grant a stay on its order. However, waiting that long could leave the legislators in a tight bind (those that are not supportive of ccw) as if they wait too long and the USSC doesn't grant cert, then they will lose ever more negotiating and maneuvering time.

That leads me to believe that no ccw legislation will move forward until after it is determined if the 7th circuit will grant a full enbanc hearing. If that is denied then real negotiations will start and there may not be an appeal to the USSC. Interesting to say the least. Another attempt at the assault weapon ban and a magazine ban will be made later in the year. They would never agree to a seize fire on gun control legislation and any deal would be unenforceable anyway.

I doubt we (speaking of rkba movement) will try to bundle a lot of issues with the ccw law - though there will be preemption as part of the ccw law, no carve out for home rule in Chicago or anywhere. Foid will be dealt with separately. No gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois. Might be wrong, but hell just happy we beat them on the assault weapon and magazine bans this week.
mack59 is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:15 AM   #68
CurlyQ.Howard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2012
Posts: 280
"gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois." If any legislator or school district board of education really cared (about protecting the students) the money is there. Just look at the salaries that school superintendents are paid. Some in IL are paid more than the president of the United States or the IL governor. The money is there. The school superintendents could give up some salary if need be to pay for the necessary security. Don't for a second believe that the money is not there. Why this hasn't been proposed already is beyond my understanding (money for the protection of students or money to over pay administrators).
CurlyQ.Howard is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:53 AM   #69
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
As security of the students is ultimately the respnsibility of the principal and the superintendant, then they should have to either pay for security, or in smaller districts, do it themselves. If they are paid more than the POTUS, then that is not too much to ask.

At Sandy Hook, the principal of the school went to confront the gunman .... could that have not worked out better if she had more than righteous indignation and harsh words at her disposal?

Arm the Admins, at the very least. Qualified teachers next. All this could be done at a very low cost.

Any reasoned examination of the problem would lead to that conclusion.

Sadly, many "Educators" live in a world ruled by emotion/feelings, rather than logic and physics ...... which is why they are turning out so many "educated" ignoramuses that feel so good about themselves and hit the real world and are stunned that it demands abilities that they don't have and results they can't achieve ....... they certainly can express how they FEEL about everything, but they can't DO much of anything.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 12:56 PM   #70
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 362
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/729/roflbotzl.jpg

Centered is Edward Acevedo, Chicago cop/Chicago rep. Pic taken at the moment the announcement came down in the committee hearing that his beloved semi auto ban was being shelved. To his right is Todd Vandermyde, our NRA lobbyist, updating everyone at Illinoiscarry.com/forum of our latest victory.
Davey is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:13 PM   #71
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
That needs to be picture of the year..... That is a man realizing that his best and only hope for "his" AWB to pass just went out the window.
__________________
"....The swords of others will set you your limits".
Patriot86 is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 03:26 PM   #72
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 798
Where is the "like" button?
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 03:30 PM   #73
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Apparently there was another attempt at gun control by Illinois Legislature yesterday (Sunday, 1/6/13) and was narrowly defeated last night. Hopefully someone will post more information.

http://www.examiner.com/article/illi...y-gun-ban-vote

Nevermind! I missed the earlier post about this. Sorry!
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

Last edited by pnac; January 7, 2013 at 03:37 PM.
pnac is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:27 PM   #74
hounddawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Posts: 760
it won't even pass the smell test in court, just political posturing
__________________
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan
hounddawg is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13899 seconds with 9 queries