Jump to content


Photo

ISRA Alert - ISRA/SAF file federal lawsuit demanding State Police stop FOID card delay (Bradley v. Kelly)


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 Craigcelia

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,747 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 09

Posted 21 July 2020 - 12:15 PM

(May be better suited in the judicial forum, feel free to move mods)

ISRA/SAF file federal lawsuit demanding State Police stop FOID card delay
                                           
As you well know, the delays in handling FOID card applications has become a nightmare for Illinois gun owners. After months of negotiations, we have not been able to make any progress with the Illinois State Police, leaving us with little choice but to file a lawsuit.

Today, the Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to force the Illinois State Police (ISP) to comply with the mandated 30-day requirement to issue a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card if the applicant meets all qualifications.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of D’Andre Bradley, David D. Moore and Tara D. Moore, and Brett O. Shelton. They are represented by attorneys David G. Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., Gregory A. Bedell of Chicago, and Jacob Huebert of Phoenix, Ariz. The case is supported by the Goldwater Institute. The lawsuit is known as Bradley v. Kelly.

Named as defendants are ISP Director Brendan F. Kelly and ISP Firearms Services Bureau Chief Jessica Trame, in their official capacities.

The law requires that the Illinois State Police either approve or deny a FOID card application within 30 days, but ISP has been dragging its feet, leaving applicants in limbo for months. In some cases, the agency does not act for as long as 90 day. These delays have gone on long enough. We had hoped to avoid litigation, but at this moment, we have no choice.

We will keep you updated on the lawsuit as it unfolds. We have not lost in court yet and we are hopeful that streak continues.


Edited by Craigcelia, 21 July 2020 - 12:17 PM.

Craig

NRA / ISRA Life Member

GOA Member

IL/UT Instructor

 

 

 

 


#2 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 21 July 2020 - 12:55 PM

Hope all goes well. I was fortunate to get mine in just over 30 days, but I did hear of someone who'd been waiting since September.

#3 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,826 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 21 July 2020 - 01:06 PM

Lawsuit PDF is also at SAF if you have issues with redirect above.

https://www.saf.org/...1-Complaint.pdf

ISRA member alert link for above posted by Craig

https://archive.aweb...RA_SAF_File.htm

Edited by InterestedBystander, 21 July 2020 - 01:12 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member; GOA Member
🇺🇸

#4 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,065 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 21 July 2020 - 01:16 PM

I added "Bradley v Kelly" to the topic title and moved to the Judiciary Forum so we can keep discussion in one place.



#5 Craigcelia

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,747 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 09

Posted 21 July 2020 - 01:38 PM

I added "Bradley v Kelly" to the topic title and moved to the Judiciary Forum so we can keep discussion in one place.

thank you sir.


Craig

NRA / ISRA Life Member

GOA Member

IL/UT Instructor

 

 

 

 


#6 Talonap

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,642 posts
  • Joined: 12-July 08

Posted 21 July 2020 - 03:30 PM

Hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those, "Applies only to the Plaintiffs... " judgments - unless they loose. Hmmm, isn't the FOID  itself unconstitutional? 


Edited by Talonap, 21 July 2020 - 03:34 PM.


#7 OneGun

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 18

Posted 21 July 2020 - 03:37 PM

The lawsuit was not filed as a class action to include "others similarly situated"

 

So, it may not apply to anyone else.

 

Hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those, "Applies only to the Plaintiffs... " judgments - unless they loose. Hmmm, isn't the FOID  itself unconstitutional? 


Annoy a Liberal, Get a Job!


#8 RichieRich

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 20

Posted 21 July 2020 - 06:31 PM

Does this lawsuit include CCL applicants as well. I've been waiting since february(before the pandemic), and still no approval or denial. 



#9 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,608 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 21 July 2020 - 07:34 PM

It's sad to see that this lawsuit had to be filed, but the ISP needs to stop being a political football and do their job and get these FOID cards out in a timely manner. There's no excuse for 90-120 days on CCL permits either, since it's the same printing process, and the background check doesn't take an extra 60-90 days.



#10 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 21 July 2020 - 07:45 PM

I’m sure there will be some BS ruling “cause ya know there’s a pandemic and it makes it harder so it’s doubly ok to screw citizens, and it’s the state protecting every one BS.  
I don’t see a way this gets spun into the FOID being an infringement and going away, I doubt the 30 days would even be reduced. 
 

Guess I’m just pessimistic. 


Void the FOID!

#11 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 21 July 2020 - 08:43 PM

It's my understanding that Jessica Trame Butler is no longer the ISP FSB chief, may not be with the ISP at all.

 

It's one thing if the officeholder changes after you filed suit...

this is like filing "People vs Lisa Madigan" today instead of Raoul,


Posted Image


#12 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,826 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 21 July 2020 - 09:53 PM

It's my understanding that Jessica Trame Butler is no longer the ISP FSB chief, may not be with the ISP at all.
 
It's one thing if the officeholder changes after you filed suit...
this is like filing "People vs Lisa Madigan" today instead of Raoul,

Shes still listed on the Comptrollers employee list with same title with the ISP since 2018 and last paid 7/13/2020

TRAME BUTLER, JESSICA DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE

AGENCY POSITION LAST PAID DT ISSUE YEAR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE SENIOR PUBLIC SERVICE ADMINISTR 07/13/2020 2020

Edited by InterestedBystander, 21 July 2020 - 09:55 PM.

NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member; GOA Member
🇺🇸

#13 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,308 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 22 July 2020 - 05:53 AM

https://digitalediti...74-be7d4b88bda8
 

The Chicago Tribune printed an op-Ed by the plaintiff D’Andre Bradley.     
Sorry but it might be behind the paywall.   
 


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#14 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,826 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 22 July 2020 - 06:27 AM

https://digitalediti...74-be7d4b88bda8
 
The Chicago Tribune printed an op-Ed by the plaintiff D’Andre Bradley.     
Sorry but it might be behind the paywall.

https://www.chicagot...vai4-story.html
NRA Life Member; ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member; GOA Member
🇺🇸

#15 Felixd

  • Members
  • 16 posts
  • Joined: 01-March 19

Posted 22 July 2020 - 07:42 AM

I have difficulty understanding why ISRA has seemingly never been interested in legal action to stop the FOID law as an violation of civil rights. It seems it is willing to sue to enforce the elements of the law when those elements are violated by the state, but have not attacked the law itself. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems asking permission from the state to exercise a civil right, and then being required to pay money to do it, is unconstitutional. If I’m being naive please tell me. If there is another agenda I’d like to know. I’m not being argumentative or trying to diminish the ISRA with my question. I simply do not understand.

#16 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 22 July 2020 - 09:37 AM

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
 
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck. —Samurai proverb
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
 
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist." —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers
 
Posted Image     

#17 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 14,308 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 22 July 2020 - 10:00 AM

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued.  Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits.   So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored.  The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received. 
 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.  


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#18 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 22 July 2020 - 10:35 AM

 

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued.  Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits.   So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored.  The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received. 
 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.  

 

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?

 

We need something like that here, with the standard of proof being that if . . .

 

A: Has the FOID system caused even ONE person to be denied their ability to legally keep and bear arms within a reasonable time frame (we'll use the 30 days that Illinois law currently has as the deadline to issue or deny a FOID card)?

 

If the answer is "yes," and especially if the answer is "yes" for multiple or, even worse, MANY people have been denied their right to keep and bear arms, as reserved and protected by the Second Amendment and the Illinois Constitution, Section 22, which reads . . .

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
. . . then the following MUST be the ruling:
 
B: Because of actual, permanent, and unrecoverable harm (it's impossible to go back in time to restore the lost ability to exercise the violated right), the FOID card represents an inherent potential future violation of such rights, and is thus required to be illegal.
 
The standard should be, and objectively IS, as simple as that.

"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
 
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck. —Samurai proverb
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
 
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist." —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers
 
Posted Image     

#19 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,953 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 22 July 2020 - 02:59 PM

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?
...


Young v Hawaii is an open carry case. If Young can't carry his revolver concealed, he wants to carry it openly. Hawaii's strategy seems to be to delay the case until after Young dies, thus making it moot. Young is like 70 years old now.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#20 mab22

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 915 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 18

Posted 22 July 2020 - 03:48 PM

 

 

What needs to happen with this situation is that if it can be shown that the FOID card program has interfered with the civil and Constitutionally protected right of someone to be able to keep and bear arms, in a timely and reasonable fashion, which is actual harm, then it should be abolished and made forevermore illegal.

 

Because if that can happen in the past, despite the supposed mechanisms and laws in place that are meant to facilitate people getting their FOID in a time frame that allows them to exercise that right, then it can happen AGAIN in the future.

 

Thus, since it cannot be guaranteed not to henceforth interfere with citizens' rights, it is a violation of the Constitution and MUST be made illegal.

A good analogy is the CCW law for the state of Hawaii. In theory there is a shall issue law on the books.

In reality, There is no documented case in which one was issued.  Even retired LEOs who are eligible under the federal HR218 are denied permits.   So far no LEO has that I’ve been able to find. Why not? Because when you submit a FOIA request for information about CCW permit requests and denials it is simply ignored.  The state and county officials will not even acknowledge a FOIA request was received. 
 

Hawaii gets away with multiple constitutional violations.  

 

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?

 

We need something like that here, with the standard of proof being that if . . .

 

A: Has the FOID system caused even ONE person to be denied their ability to legally keep and bear arms within a reasonable time frame (we'll use the 30 days that Illinois law currently has as the deadline to issue or deny a FOID card)?

 

If the answer is "yes," and especially if the answer is "yes" for multiple or, even worse, MANY people have been denied their right to keep and bear arms, as reserved and protected by the Second Amendment and the Illinois Constitution, Section 22, which reads . . .

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
 
. . . then the following MUST be the ruling:
 
B: Because of actual, permanent, and unrecoverable harm (it's impossible to go back in time to restore the lost ability to exercise the violated right), the FOID card represents an inherent potential future violation of such rights, and is thus required to be illegal.
 
The standard should be, and objectively IS, as simple as that.

 

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Since the police fall under the executive branch that means subject to the Governors office?

 

The Police fall under the executive branch and they are not the/a 4th branch.

Police" only show up once in the constitution and it is section 22.    https://www.ilga.gov.../lrb/conent.htm


Void the FOID!

#21 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,953 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 22 July 2020 - 04:30 PM

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...


It means the police, without restraint, can infringe your right to keep and bear arms. However, state law (including the state constitutions) still does not supersede federal law. It would be interesting if the governor or AG argued that any state/county/municipal law that attempts to restrict police power over private firearms is unconstitutional.

Edited by Euler, 22 July 2020 - 04:31 PM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#22 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,617 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 22 July 2020 - 04:43 PM

 

That's what's being challenged in Young v. Hawaii, right?
...


Young v Hawaii is an open carry case. If Young can't carry his revolver concealed, he wants to carry it openly. Hawaii's strategy seems to be to delay the case until after Young dies, thus making it moot. Young is like 70 years old now.

 

 

I thought it was because Hawaii had never issued a concealed carry permit, and so Young sought to carry openly, and since Hawaii wasn't allowing either to be permitted, that Young was challenging the state on grounds that they did not allow the bearing of arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, under any licensing scheme.

 

So, wouldn't it kind of be about both, since if you can't do either, the the right is being infringed completely in any event?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of free speech, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?
 
"One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest." —Me
 
"Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck. —Samurai proverb
 
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." —Robert Heinlein
 
"I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist." —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers
 
Posted Image     

#23 Craigcr2

  • Members
  • 35 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 20

Posted 23 July 2020 - 08:24 AM

I still don't understand this part of the Illinois Constitution - "SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS Subject only to the police power,the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."...

It means the police, without restraint, can infringe your right to keep and bear arms. However, state law (including the state constitutions) still does not supersede federal law. It would be interesting if the governor or AG argued that any state/county/municipal law that attempts to restrict police power over private firearms is unconstitutional.

The “police power” is a constitutional law term that predates the modern concept of a police departments or officers. Here’s the definition from a legal dictionary “ Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities.”

https://legal-dictio...om/Police Power

#24 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,953 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 23 July 2020 - 05:33 PM

The “police power” is a constitutional law term ...


OK, thanks.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#25 defaultdotxbe

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,625 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 11

Posted 24 July 2020 - 09:43 AM

 

The “police power” is a constitutional law term ...


OK, thanks.

 

Yep, so our RKBA in the IL constitution basically says "Congress shall make no law...unless Congress makes a law"


"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly,
flat, and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to
intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."
-Chicago Times review of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


#26 MRE

  • Members
  • 9 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 20

Posted 24 July 2020 - 10:14 AM

The “police power” is a constitutional law term ...


OK, thanks.
Yep, so our RKBA in the IL constitution basically says "Congress shall make no law...unless Congress makes a law"

It potentially could be read that way, however most ILSC case law reads it in lockstep with the Federal 2nd Amendment language. Granted, precedent is only as binding as they want it to be, so they aren’t absolutely bound by that reading.

HOWEVER, while a State Constitution can grant individuals broader rights than the US Constitution, when the US Constitution grants broader rights than the State Constitution the US Constitution always controls.

#27 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 24 July 2020 - 03:21 PM

Unless there's not a court case.  I think that Pennsylvania had a system similar to a foid card from what I remember hearing on a radio show one time.  If I recall it was challenged and struck down because the court said you can't make someone pay to have a right afforded by the US constitution.



#28 Silhouette

  • Members
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 24 July 2020 - 03:55 PM

I grew up in Pennsylvania.  There is not and has never been a FOID for firearms ownership in Pennsylvania.  There have been numerous court cases addressing the right to carry concealed and/or the prohibition of concealed carry dating back to 1875.  Carry licenses have been issued in Pennsylvania since at least the 1980s (Philadelphia used to not issue them, and had special carve-outs, but all that has disappeared).  For reference to this discussion, the Pennsylvania constitution says, “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”  (Article 1, Section 21).  



#29 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,040 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 24 July 2020 - 08:02 PM

It's sad to see that this lawsuit had to be filed, but the ISP needs to stop being a political football and do their job and get these FOID cards out in a timely manner. There's no excuse for 90-120 days on CCL permits either, since it's the same printing process, and the background check doesn't take an extra 60-90 days.

You need to remember that Brendan Kelly used to be the State's Attorney in St. Clair county, probably the second most entrenched dumbocrat stronghold outside of Crook county.  Kelly is a good "puppet" who follows orders from above.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#30 illinois_buckeye

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 20

Posted 25 July 2020 - 05:42 AM

In PA was there ever a fee that had to be paid to own a gun? I'm just curious because they had mentioned something about a fee on the radio in PA that the courts struck down due to having to pay to have 2nd amendment rights. Just curious. But that story was a couple of months or so ago, so maybe I'm mistaken. Was just curious.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users