Lou Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:25 PM Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:25 PM USA Today Link April 5, 2012 Audit: Gun program 'limited' in protecting safety From USA TODAY SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (WTW) — A new audit says Illinois State Police officials are not getting mental health information they need to revoke gun owner's permits, aren't retrieving canceled permits and aren't reporting proper information to the FBI. Auditor General William Holland's report Thursday found the Firearm Owners Identification program is "limited" in protecting the public." Holland found that in 2010 only three counties statewide submitted mental health records police need to revoke or deny FOID cards. He also found the state doesn't track information that federal officials require to make decisions about firearm possession. When state police do revoke a card, they only get about 30 percent of them back from the owner. The state police largely agree with the findings and say they're making improvements. ___ Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Lou Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:26 PM Author Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:26 PM It sure sounds like it's just one more in a long line of failed Illinois programs. This is as good a reason as any to eliminate it.
Bud Posted April 5, 2012 at 08:05 PM Posted April 5, 2012 at 08:05 PM It sure sounds like it's just one more in a long line of failed Illinois programs. This is as good a reason as any to eliminate it. at some point you have to ask yourself, "why Illinois"? Maybe East Iowa, South Wisconsin or even West Indiana might be a better choice as long as we adopted their government, politicians and laws.
Gunslinger Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:11 AM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:11 AM Are you implying that the FOID card system does NOT keep guns away from violent individuals?
Drylok Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:30 AM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:30 AM Are you implying that the FOID card system does NOT keep guns away from violent individuals? No it does not. Are you implying it does?
colt-45 Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:35 AM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:35 AM criminal doesn't need a foid card to carry. this is why it has never worked in the first place.imo
Yas Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:58 AM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:58 AM What were the 3 counties that complied?
Geneseo1911 Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:17 AM Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:17 AM From the article- 527 million spent on overtime in the FOID dept. This is on top of regular salaries, computers, etc. This should be the first budget cut. But instead the cry will be to shovel more truckloads of cash into the failed FOID scheme.
junglebob Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:40 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:40 PM From the article- 527 million spent on overtime in the FOID dept. This is on top of regular salaries, computers, etc. This should be the first budget cut. But instead the cry will be to shovel more truckloads of cash into the failed FOID scheme. And of course because the FOID scheme has failed there is a bill to require handgun registration. Gun registration hasn't worked in Canada, so now an Illinois legislator is proposing it for Illinois. Of course Obamacare passed, we couldn't learn from England on that. Why can't we ever learn from others mistakes?
Yas Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:42 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:42 PM What were the 3 counties that complied? Todd V posted in other thread:Someone was asking for the three counties: Cook, LaSalle, Bureau
mikew Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:56 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 01:56 PM From the article- 527 thousand spent on overtime in the FOID dept. Fixed it.
Xwing Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:19 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:19 PM Are you implying that the FOID card system does NOT keep guns away from violent individuals? Of course it does. It's all for the children. All criminals who commit violent felonies are quaking in their boots about the FOID card. If a violent criminal can't get his FOID approved, he has to downgrade his career path to shoplifting... Of course, the above is what our "dear leaders" in Illinois government think.
TFC Posted April 6, 2012 at 08:44 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 08:44 PM All of this time, and all of this money spent on what? Mediocre results and non compliance with state law?The one time I had to call Springfield to see why I hadn't received my FOID, I waited on hold for nearly 2 hours to be told that it was sent to the wrong address.... which took all of 4 minutes. They aren't getting that many calls for this kind of issue. How can so few accrue so much overtime for apparently doing so little work? Is it time for a federal investigation? I'd say yes.
BadWaterBill Posted April 6, 2012 at 09:04 PM Posted April 6, 2012 at 09:04 PM It is about keeping Aunt Sally and cousin Mike off the unemployment roles. They also want the fat retirement bennies. Another question to ask Rhom is how many of the gangbangers are serving ANY time in jail for not possessing a FOID card in addition to the other jail time?
vezpa Posted April 7, 2012 at 01:28 PM Posted April 7, 2012 at 01:28 PM What were the 3 counties that complied? Todd V posted in other thread:Someone was asking for the three counties: Cook, LaSalle, Bureau Lots of things that happen in this state are due to 3 counties. Take for instance Quinn's Victory in Illinois.
Gunslinger Posted April 9, 2012 at 03:00 AM Posted April 9, 2012 at 03:00 AM Are you implying that the FOID card system does NOT keep guns away from violent individuals? No it does not. Are you implying it does? Sorry I forget how sarcasm is not always evident in writing. The FOID is just a form of licensing and back door registration and those have no place near freedom.
kurt555gs Posted April 9, 2012 at 04:27 AM Posted April 9, 2012 at 04:27 AM Am I mistaken, or wouldn't it only take a simple majority vote to repeal FOID?
Davey Posted April 9, 2012 at 05:43 AM Posted April 9, 2012 at 05:43 AM Am I mistaken, or wouldn't it only take a simple majority vote to repeal FOID? Does the speaker of the house and head of senate have the ability to rule that a bill requires a super majority even though technically it wouldn't? I wouldn't be surprised if they dicked with us.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.