Abolishing the Illinois F.O.I.D. card

[Pahoo]

This may be old news to some of you folks but recently heard that an Illinois legislator is pushing for repeal of the FOID requirement. Claims it's redundant and really serves no purpose. Only advantage to some, is fees that the state would lose. Good luck to Illinois ........

Be Safe !!!!

[Mike38]

I doubt that will ever happen. Too many gun hating money loving politicians in Illinois.

I do agree with the redundancy part if the holder has both a FOID and CCL. They have the same information, even the same number, yet you have to pay the fees for both. One is yellow (FOID card) the other is blue (CCL permit).

[gmoney]

would be nice if they would can it.....!!!!

[K_Mac]

Mike38 even the picture used is the same, although they both require a new picture be submitted. The FOID card may be redundent, unnecessary, and unconstitutional according to some, but I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon. Of course I never thought I would see Illinois as shall-issue in my lifetime either.

[Pahoo]

Our local news reported on this, this evening and one aspect of this law really is messed up. A private individual is required to have a current FOID card, in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition......

However;
Illinois LEO's do not have to have an FOID card to purchase a firearm but one is required in order to purchase ammunition. .........

Be Safe !!!

[geetarman]

I solved the problem with Illinois. I left in 1990 and I am not going back.

[Tom Servo]

Much of Illinois would be in favor of such a thing, but then Chicago gets involved. They'll claim (as they've done before) that they need the FOID card to prevent crime and save lives, and they have the clout to preserve the law.

[Nathan]

Much of Illinois would be in favor of such a thing, but then Chicago gets involved. They'll claim (as they've done before) that they need the FOID card to prevent crime and save lives, and they have the clout to preserve the law.

....but they have no real nterest in preventing crime!

[Brit]

I solved the problem with Illinois. I left in 1990 and I am not going back.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza

Talk about radical change! From mega gun rules, to almost none! Even left the crappy weather behind. Good thinking.

[DaleA]

Illinois LEO's do not have to have an FOID card to purchase a firearm but one is required in order to purchase ammunition.

Well double

After 'they' make a law like that 'they' shouldn't be allowed to make any more laws. (And the law they made should be repealed.)

Reminds me of what might be an urban myth of a LEO trying to get thru airport security. He has paperwork for his firearm so he gets to take that on the plane but the screener still takes his pocket knife away from him because he doesn't have any paper work for that.

Not an urban myth is the story of a Northwest pilot who got into it with airport security over his nail clippers. "I already HAVE control of the airplane---I'm the PILOT" he was reported to have yelled at the security folk.

[Mike38]

Much of Illinois would be in favor of such a thing, but then Chicago gets involved

Illinois would be a great state without Chicago. Lots of red counties away from the cities.

From mega gun rules, to almost none

Not really "mega gun rules" if you look at the state as a whole. I'm going to go upstairs and count my stacks of 30 round rifle magazines, and 15 round handgun magazines, just for fun. There are states that this possession would be a felony. Not in down state Illinois, so it's not that bad.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Much of Illinois would be in favor of such a thing, but then Chicago gets involved. They'll claim (as they've done before) that they need the FOID card to prevent crime and save lives, and they have the clout to preserve the law.

True. That approach is still working well for Chicago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...212-story.html

If you hit a pay wall:
http://abc7chicago.com/news/2-girls-...ings-/1750784/

[Tom Servo]

That approach is still working well for Chicago

It's grim. I have to drive through there a few times a month. I won't listen to the local news because it's a constant (and blithe) litany of homicides.

When McDonald went before the Supreme Court, one of the city's arguments was (I kid you not) that their handgun ban was a public safety measure, and without it, things would get even worse. Same with the Ezell case. In a rational world, that very approach should tell everyone there's a very real problem with how they're running things there.

[Famas]

Hello - On a somewhat half serious-half humorous note...a friend and I were discussing this very topic last week and I happened upon this thread when I googled "abolishing FOID cards". My friend lives in Illinois, I live in Indiana.

We both came up with a solution (perhaps an easier solution?) that could solve the problem: Illinois should take up a vote to abolish Chicago from the state of Illinois.

[Spats McGee]

I wish Illinois the best of luck in this!

[JimPage]

I'd like to abolish New York City from the New York state. Hopeless, but I can dream,

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

When McDonald went before the Supreme Court, one of the city's arguments was (I kid you not) that their handgun ban was a public safety measure, and without it, things would get even worse. Same with the Ezell case. In a rational world, that very approach should tell everyone there's a very real problem with how they're running things there.

In general, do the courts ask for proof regarding claims that policy x will do y?

[Al Norris]

The courts give a great amount of deference to governments and their legislated acts. It is presumed that the laws are constitutional, until proven otherwise.

It is also presumed that public safety is a legitimate goal for governments, even if the government has never provided a reasoning for the law or policy.

At the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, rational basis, it is up to the challenger (plaintiff) to show that the government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy or they can show that there is no reasonable or rational link between between the governments interest and the law or policy being challenged.

As you might guess, since the burden of proof is on the challenger, it is very tough to have a law or policy overturned when the courts use this level of scrutiny.

In the higher forms of scrutiny, the burden of proof shifts and the government must prove that the law or policy fulfills an important governmental interest and that the law or policy is substantially related to achieving the goal. This is called Intermediate scrutiny and is actually a sliding scale, depending upon the law or policy being challenged and the nature of the challenge.

The highest form of judicial scrutiny, strict scrutiny, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest (public safety) and that the law or policy is narrowly tailored to fit the goal.

Long way of saying that no, the government is not required to prove that x will produce y. Only that x may achieve y and then only if strict scrutiny is being applied.

[rwilson452]

I'd like to abolish New York City from the New York state. Hopeless, but I can dream,
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum

I can recall this being talked about when I was in grade school. That was a long time ago.

[DT Guy]

Al Norris wrote
It is also presumed that public safety is a legitimate goal for governments, even if the government has never provided a reasoning for the law or policy.

At the lowest level of judicial scrutiny, rational basis, it is up to the challenger (plaintiff) to show that the government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy or they can show that there is no reasonable or rational link between between the governments interest and the law or policy being challenged.

I sincerely think one of the best ways we could improve our legislative process would be to reverse the 'presumption of innocence' for new laws, and require some independent review that a law is likely constitutional before it's enacted.

Cumbersome? Sure, and expensive. But it would put the constitutional gate-keeper IN FRONT of onerous laws, rather than (as now, with civil challenges) after an unconstitutional law has impacted lives. It would also slow/stop passage of the laws which everyone essentially *knows* are unconstitutional right from the beginning, but which make legislators political hay when passed.

It would make passing laws harder, and I personally think that would be a good thing. If such a system were in place, the FOID act, DC and California's 'good cause' infringements and lots of other onerous laws might not have ever been passed.


Larry

[Tinbucket]

Requiring Laws to pass Constitutional scrutiny has long been a goal of Constitutionionalists.
Congress has refused to even consider, as near as I remember, because Globalists, state and federal Lawmakers dictators and big business doesn't want it and spends millions anytime, it comes up, to kill it.
It should be hue and cry on every issue. We are not going to get our Country back if we don't force them to listen and do our will.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by DT Guy

I sincerely think one of the best ways we could improve our legislative process would be to reverse the 'presumption of innocence' for new laws, and require some independent review that a law is likely constitutional before it's enacted.

Perhaps, but to paraphrase the Roman poet Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen?

Who decides who sits on the "independent" review board? What steps are taken to ensure its continuing independence? Conversely, what can be done if it begins to act unpredictably or not-so-independently, or if its decrees veer in a not-so-Constitutional direction?

There is already a substantial body of criticism accusing the SCOTUS of acting as an unaccountable super-legislature prone to "discovering" constitutional rights that nobody noticed before. Why make things potentially worse by creating ANOTHER body with similar powers?

IMHO this idea is like Congressional term limits: it sounds great until you consider what it could do to our tradition of legislative independence, transparency, and accountability. Both ideas threaten to make so-called special-interest groups MORE powerful and LESS accountable than today.

On the other hand, if the main thrust of the idea is simply to stall the legislative process and make it more difficult to pass complex new laws, IMHO there's an easier way to go about it: a Constitutional amendment requiring bills to be limited to a single subject. But I digress.

[ShootistPRS]

A constitutional court that is made up of "normal" citizens with no training in the legal system. Their guide to decision making is their understanding of the constitution as written that they hold in their hand and a copy of the first ten amendments with a page that reads; "If a bill restricts or diminishes the rights of even one person it is unconstitutional. If a bill uses powers not granted by the constitution to the governing body it is unconstitutional."
Each court would be selected and vetted before they were seated for a hearing on one bill. It might be handled much like a jury in that a group is selected from the citizenship to serve and from that group 13 members are selected for each bill. The group is held incognito to prevent coercion or bribery and paid at the rate equal to the average national pay scale for their time in service. The selection process would rotate and be mandated just as jurors are.
In order to make the determination more "absolute" a complete agreement would have to be reached to pass a bill to the legislation or people for a vote. If just one juror dissented then the bill would be dropped as unconstitutional or held for another session with different jurors.

The reason for that is that if just one person saw that it violated the principals of the judgment required, that one opinion outweighs the rest. The highest responsibility is to hold the peoples rights above all else and restrain the government to those powers given by the constitution.

I am going to love to hear the comments from the legal eagles on this proposal.

[langenc]

Kinda like the gun sales people that will escort the purchaser of a gun to the door, after paperwork completed, hand him the gun and send him on his way..

Many times the individual has a gun on his belt, concealed.

[Mike38]

I'll never understand the (flawed) logic behind the Illinois three day waiting period to take possession of a handgun when the buyer holds a valid CCL. A few months back I bought a .22lr target pistol. By no stretch of the imagination would it be a gun one would use in any illegal acts. I had a loaded pistol in my right front pocket when the dealer told me when to pick up my new target pistol three days later. If I had intentions of doing something criminal, I'd use the gun I already had on me. But, that's Illinois for you.