Jump to content


Photo

NRA Supports Challenge to Illinois’s FOID Act


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 03:45 PM

https://www.nraila.o...nois-s-foid-act

NRA Supports Guns Save Life's Challenge to Illinoiss FOID Act

Fairfax, Va. - The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today announced its support for a lawsuit challenging Illinoiss Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) Act. The lawsuit was brought by Guns Save Life and a 84-year old Marine Corps veteran who is currently a member of Guns Save Life.

The Illinois FOID Act infringes on law-abiding citizens fundamental right to self-protection, said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA-ILA.

The FOID Act requires individuals to pass an extended background check, provide a photo, and pay a fee before being granted government permission to possess a firearm in their own home. Illinois gun owners must pay a fee and renew their FOID cards every 10 years. If the cards are stolen, the gun owner is forced to jump through additional hoops and burdened with more fees to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection.

Party to the suit is an 84-year-old Marine veteran and Guns Save Life member who lives alone and relies on his firearms for self-protection. After he forgot to renew his FOID card, the police came to his home and confiscated his guns thus leaving him defenseless.

You shouldnt need government permission to exercise a constitutional right, continued Cox. The men and women of the National Rifle Association are pleased to join Guns Save Life in this fight to protect the rights of a distinguished combat veteran and all of the law-abiding gun owners in the great state of Illinois.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#2 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 20,733 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 02 May 2019 - 04:10 PM

Sounds like a good plaintiff. The more angles of attack the better.

#3 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2019 - 04:22 PM

Interesting, the confiscation for mere failed renewal (assuming no other disqualifications) that in turn deprived him of not only his right to self defense but also of his property, could be favorable on Constitutional grounds, especially with the new SCOTUS makeup...


Edited by Flynn, 02 May 2019 - 04:23 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#4 Illinois Sucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 17

Posted 02 May 2019 - 04:47 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."     Alexander Hamilton


#5 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2019 - 04:52 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 

Question, do you really believe the FOID stops ineligible people from buying guns in IL?  It's claimed purpose and it's real purpose are not the same, the end resault is no different in almost all the other states that don't have a 'gun right poll tax license', that resault being criminals don't obey laws and buy guns illegally...


Edited by Flynn, 02 May 2019 - 04:52 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#6 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 05:07 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

It depends on the state but I think you will find many do not have for private sales. Some folks will require a bill of sale with buyer info or only sell to someone with a CCL.

Background-Check-Laws-by-State-Governing
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#7 Illinois Sucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 17

Posted 02 May 2019 - 05:20 PM

 

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 

Question, do you really believe the FOID stops ineligible people from buying guns in IL?  It's claimed purpose and it's real purpose are not the same, the end resault is no different in almost all the other states that don't have a 'gun right poll tax license', that resault being criminals don't obey laws and buy guns illegally...

 

 

I do believe that having the FOID check stops some ineligible people from buying guns.  However, I am sure that some will find other ways to acquire one.

 

Not that I ever have or ever would sell any of my guns, but I personally could not sell one to someone without being confident they were not prohibited.  I am curious how other states deal with this.  If there are states that allow person to person transfers with no check what so ever, how to people rationalize this?


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."     Alexander Hamilton


#8 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 05:49 PM

Where would this lawsuit be filed? Does it begin in the local county of defendent? Circuit court? Curious for tracking purposes.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#9 Illinois Sucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 17

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:13 PM

 

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

It depends on the state but I think you will find many do not have for private sales. Some folks will require a bill of sale with buyer info or only sell to someone with a CCL.

Background-Check-Laws-by-State-Governing

 

 

I find that a bit crazy.  Would you be comfortable selling a gun to just anyone that showed up to buy it?  Are you comfortable with it being as as easy for an ineligible person to obtain a gun as buying a bicycle off of Craigslist?  (by "you" I mean members here and not anyone specifically)

 

I am not a fan of the fees or the wait times, but I honestly do not have an issue with someone making sure I am not prohibited to buy a gun before selling me one.


Edited by Illinois Sucks, 02 May 2019 - 06:14 PM.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."     Alexander Hamilton


#10 rmart

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:20 PM

I have a warped viewpoint.

 

If a person is not eligible to own a firearm (because there is evidence to show they can't be trusted with one) then I think they should be locked up somehow. If they can't get a gun what's to stop them from using a homemade bomb, a knife, or any other device to harm another.

 

I believe the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct as the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If you're not locked up you have the right to vote, speak, assemble, worship, etc. You should also have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That means, in my opinion, someone who has done time for a crime, regardless of severity, once they're out and have paid their debt to society they should have ALL rights restored including the RtKaBA.

 

If they can't be trusted with arms then don't let them out. For those who use arms maliciously and with criminal intent to harm, perhaps more severe repercussions should follow...


Edited by rmart, 02 May 2019 - 06:20 PM.

NRA Endowment Life Member

ISRA Member

Retired Firefighter/Paramedic

Father of two great kids and husband of one great wife

 

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to buy cars... ~unknown

 

The problem is not guns! It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice. ~unknown

 

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.

While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams 1779 to James Warren

 

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster

 

How much can you put in your signature before it becomes too long??

 


#11 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:42 PM

I believe the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct as the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If you're not locked up you have the right to vote, speak, assemble, worship, etc. You should also have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That means, in my opinion, someone who has done time for a crime, regardless of severity, once they're out and have paid their debt to society they should have ALL rights restored including the RtKaBA.

 

If they can't be trusted with arms then don't let them out. For those who use arms maliciously and with criminal intent to harm, perhaps more severe repercussions should follow...

 

I feel the same way, if society can't trust you to own a firearm (or exercise any other rights) because of your past crimes and actions society should not have let you out of prison to freely walk the streets in the first place.

 

For thost that don't feel comfortable selling to private individuals without a background check, then I suggest you only sell to FFLs and let them resell it...  I have been around long enough (not even that long) where just presenting your FOID was enough for a private sale, no way to check if it was valid, revoked, suspended, if the person just posted bond or just got done serving 2 years, or even if it was a counterfeit (not hard to counterfeit those old ones) and when I sold guns during those days, I simply decided if the individual was legit or sketchy and made sure to keep records of the sale. 


Edited by Flynn, 02 May 2019 - 06:43 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#12 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,956 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:55 PM

I have a warped viewpoint.

 

If a person is not eligible to own a firearm (because there is evidence to show they can't be trusted with one) then I think they should be locked up somehow. If they can't get a gun what's to stop them from using a homemade bomb, a knife, or any other device to harm another.

Not warped at all.  But one must be brave to socialize that point.



#13 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,956 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 02 May 2019 - 06:57 PM

Inquiring minds want to know where the suit was filed: state or federal court?

where's the complaint?

Did the police have a warrant?



#14 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,598 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:02 PM

Inquiring minds want to know where the suit was filed: state or federal court?
where's the complaint?
Did the police have a warrant?

Ditto! I assume perhaps State court. Did they need a warrant? FOID expires and not renewed gets REVOKED. Revoked FOID initiates 48 hour turn in with disposition forms to be submitted. No one to give to initiates LE confiscation?
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#15 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:08 PM

 Are you comfortable with it being as as easy for an ineligible person to obtain a gun as buying a bicycle off of Craigslist?

 

The reality is that it is that easy and has always been that easy for criminals that choose to ignore the law, FOID doesn't prevent this.  Guns are sold in alleys by criminals to criminals every day to anyone with a few Benjamins and with the Internet it's even easier, criminals can hit up many dark web markets and shoot over some bitcoin and have a gun with a loaded magazine delivered to their home, no questions asked.

 

FOID has never prevented a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm, it has only prevented them from legally obtaining something they couldn't legally obtain.  Sure it has inconvienced and discouraged some prohibited people but to suggest it has stopped them is far fetched, I would argue any day that FOID has put far more of a burden on law abiding citizens than FOID has ever put on criminals.


Edited by Flynn, 02 May 2019 - 07:10 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#16 Illinois Sucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 17

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:09 PM

I have a warped viewpoint.

 

If a person is not eligible to own a firearm (because there is evidence to show they can't be trusted with one) then I think they should be locked up somehow. If they can't get a gun what's to stop them from using a homemade bomb, a knife, or any other device to harm another.

 

I believe the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct as the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If you're not locked up you have the right to vote, speak, assemble, worship, etc. You should also have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That means, in my opinion, someone who has done time for a crime, regardless of severity, once they're out and have paid their debt to society they should have ALL rights restored including the RtKaBA.

 

If they can't be trusted with arms then don't let them out. For those who use arms maliciously and with criminal intent to harm, perhaps more severe repercussions should follow...

 

I really appreciate your opinion.  It gives me something to ponder.  I do like your rational.  I would think that most people would not consider letting a child of 8 own a gun...  at what age is someone allowed the right to keep and bear arms?  If there is an "age" where someone is NOT consider to have the mental faculties to be responsible enough to own a gun, I would also think there is possibilities where an adult with a mental qualifier should not own a gun,,,, but shouldn't be locked up either.  How would one rationalize not being able to check this?


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."     Alexander Hamilton


#17 Illinois Sucks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 330 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 17

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:17 PM

 

 Are you comfortable with it being as as easy for an ineligible person to obtain a gun as buying a bicycle off of Craigslist?

 

 

FOID has never prevented a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm, it has only prevented them from legally obtaining something they couldn't legally obtain.  Sure it has inconvienced and discouraged some prohibited people but to suggest it has stopped them is far fetched, I would argue any day that FOID has put far more of a burden on law abiding citizens than FOID has ever put on criminals.

 

 

If the FOID check wasn't there, it wouldn't make it "legal" for a prohibited person to obtain one. A prohibited person can't legally obtain a gun no matter what.  What the FOID check does is make it HARDER for them to obtain a gun.  While it might not prevent the hardcore criminal from getting a gun, I am sure that it certainly keeps guns out of the casual criminal's hands.


"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."     Alexander Hamilton


#18 rmart

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 13

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:22 PM

 

I have a warped viewpoint.

 

If a person is not eligible to own a firearm (because there is evidence to show they can't be trusted with one) then I think they should be locked up somehow. If they can't get a gun what's to stop them from using a homemade bomb, a knife, or any other device to harm another.

 

I believe the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is as sacrosanct as the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If you're not locked up you have the right to vote, speak, assemble, worship, etc. You should also have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

That means, in my opinion, someone who has done time for a crime, regardless of severity, once they're out and have paid their debt to society they should have ALL rights restored including the RtKaBA.

 

If they can't be trusted with arms then don't let them out. For those who use arms maliciously and with criminal intent to harm, perhaps more severe repercussions should follow...

 

I really appreciate your opinion.  It gives me something to ponder.  I do like your rational.  I would think that most people would not consider letting a child of 8 own a gun...  at what age is someone allowed the right to keep and bear arms?  If there is an "age" where someone is NOT consider to have the mental faculties to be responsible enough to own a gun, I would also think there is possibilities where an adult with a mental qualifier should not own a gun,,,, but shouldn't be locked up either.  How would one rationalize not being able to check this?

 

 

I would say the moment you're old enough to be emancipated.

 

At 16 you can be emancipated (with parental approval) get married, and be fully responsible for yourself. At 16 you can also be tried as an adult for some crimes, get a driver's license, and a job.

At 18 you can vote and you can die for your country. You're also held responsible as a legal adult and can sign contracts (some, can't rent a car though...) In some states (not Illinois) you can purchase and possess firearms.

At 21 you are a fully legal adult and can even drink alcohol!!. In Illinois you can purchase firearms. You can also sign contracts (all)

 

At any rate, regardless of which age you think best, the moment the state considers you to be a responsible adult you should be able to exercise all of your legal rights.

 

As far as the mental qualifier issue is concerned, if the mental disqualification makes you dangerous then you shouldn't be free. If the mental disqualification is simply one of impaired cognition I would say that shouldn't automatically remove someone's RIGHT to own and use a firearm for the purpose of self defense. I don't know an effective method to prevent the harmless mental deficient from owning and possessing a firearm other than strict supervision by a guardian of some sort. What mental disqualifiers were you thinking of?


Edited by rmart, 02 May 2019 - 07:26 PM.

NRA Endowment Life Member

ISRA Member

Retired Firefighter/Paramedic

Father of two great kids and husband of one great wife

 

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to buy cars... ~unknown

 

The problem is not guns! It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice. ~unknown

 

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.

While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams 1779 to James Warren

 

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster

 

How much can you put in your signature before it becomes too long??

 


#19 jagt48

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,509 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 11

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:23 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 
Question, do you really believe the FOID stops ineligible people from buying guns in IL?  It's claimed purpose and it's real purpose are not the same, the end resault is no different in almost all the other states that don't have a 'gun right poll tax license', that resault being criminals don't obey laws and buy guns illegally...
 
I do believe that having the FOID check stops some ineligible people from buying guns.  However, I am sure that some will find other ways to acquire one.
 
Not that I ever have or ever would sell any of my guns, but I personally could not sell one to someone without being confident they were not prohibited.  I am curious how other states deal with this.  If there are states that allow person to person transfers with no check what so ever, how to people rationalize this?

I also agree that the FOID stops some ineligible people. This is besides the point and makes firearm ownership a privilege and not a right. It's still a burden on the rest of us who are otherwise law-abiding. Rights cannot be taken away, privileges can.

And I have bought and sold guns in parking lots legally while growing up in Missouri. No harm, no foul. Like anything else, be smart about it and don't rely on the state to take care of you. This line of thinking is why we are in this stupid mess. If you don't want to be involved in the sale or buying of private citizens, then more power to you. The rest of us want to enjoy freedom of choice.

#20 richp

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,296 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 04

Posted 02 May 2019 - 07:24 PM

Hi,

Having lived in non FOID states for many years, selling to a private party always was a mild risk. Never knew of a problem personally, but yeah, it sort of was in the back of your mind as you sized up a potential buyer.

In that respect, as unpopular as it is otherwise and notwithstanding the constitutional issues, the FOID system provides a private seller some assurance of the legitimate status of a buyer.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips

#21 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 02 May 2019 - 08:03 PM

 

 

 Are you comfortable with it being as as easy for an ineligible person to obtain a gun as buying a bicycle off of Craigslist?

 

 

FOID has never prevented a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm, it has only prevented them from legally obtaining something they couldn't legally obtain.  Sure it has inconvienced and discouraged some prohibited people but to suggest it has stopped them is far fetched, I would argue any day that FOID has put far more of a burden on law abiding citizens than FOID has ever put on criminals.

 

 

If the FOID check wasn't there, it wouldn't make it "legal" for a prohibited person to obtain one. A prohibited person can't legally obtain a gun no matter what.  What the FOID check does is make it HARDER for them to obtain a gun.  While it might not prevent the hardcore criminal from getting a gun, I am sure that it certainly keeps guns out of the casual criminal's hands.

 

 

Exactly it was a tongue and cheek comment, FOID does nothing to stop criminals from obtaining a gun as criminals by defintion don't obey nor follow laws, that was the piint  As for casual criminals vs hardcore, I would argue that most casual criminals are likely not prohibited even under FOID, its generally only the hardcore criminals that have commited multiple felonies that actually stuck as felonies that are prohibited.  Truth is at the end of the day casual, hardcore, mentaly ill or what not, if they want a gun they will get one FOID doesn't prevent this, nor does it prevent these 'dangerous people' from obtaining other lethal weapons.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#22 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,868 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 03 May 2019 - 04:00 AM

 

 

 Are you comfortable with it being as as easy for an ineligible person to obtain a gun as buying a bicycle off of Craigslist?

 

 

FOID has never prevented a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm, it has only prevented them from legally obtaining something they couldn't legally obtain.  Sure it has inconvienced and discouraged some prohibited people but to suggest it has stopped them is far fetched, I would argue any day that FOID has put far more of a burden on law abiding citizens than FOID has ever put on criminals.

 

 

If the FOID check wasn't there, it wouldn't make it "legal" for a prohibited person to obtain one. A prohibited person can't legally obtain a gun no matter what.  What the FOID check does is make it HARDER for them to obtain a gun.  While it might not prevent the hardcore criminal from getting a gun, I am sure that it certainly keeps guns out of the casual criminal's hands.

 

 

I'd have to ask what your definition of "prohibited" is? The State of Illinois tend to have a fluid policy depending on locality.

Regarding the FOID,

It keeps guns out of the casual, average citizen's hands.

It keeps guns out of the hands of the elderly, poor, minorities, travelers, etc.

One can be prohibited based on income alone.



#23 Longrange454

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 19

Posted 03 May 2019 - 05:32 AM

In my book if your so concerned about a person your selling to. Take the firearm to an FFL let them do the transfer and the buyer pays the fee. To heck with the FOID card.



#24 Yas

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,086 posts
  • Joined: 07-February 09

Posted 03 May 2019 - 06:58 AM

Why is a FOID even an expire-able item?  We went from a 5 year card a few years back to a 10 year card at the urging of our legislators as a cost savings issue for the ISP. Now this session wants to make it more cost prohibitive for those with limited incomes and shorten the length of the cards life, thus using it to generate more costs to the card holder and generate more revenue.  After all your basic information will never differ other than a criminal issue and the ISP searches our records daily now anyways. 

 

 

Slightly different matter, Indiana CCL permit

​Looked at Indiana as I recall a pal talked about the 2 versions of CCL offered there a limited year license 5 years?  and a lifetime was offered for under $150 IIRC.

 

But what I spotted.....Funny thing to ponder and ask, 

How is it Indiana can offer electronic finger printing for under $15 and Illinois can't? 

 

 

All NEW license applications incur a $11.95 fee for IDEMIA Electronic Fingerprinting. Additionally, ALL license applications incur an IN.gov processing fee that varies according to the license type.

 

https://www.in.gov/isp/3065.htm



#25 FoxtrotIndia

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 19

Posted 03 May 2019 - 08:15 AM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 You fill out a 4473 before any purchase at an FFL, no? 
Otherwise, life...finds a way.



#26 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,840 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 03 May 2019 - 08:59 AM

Why is a FOID even an expire-able item?  We went from a 5 year card a few years back to a 10 year card at the urging of our legislators as a cost savings issue for the ISP. Now this session wants to make it more cost prohibitive for those with limited incomes and shorten the length of the cards life, thus using it to generate more costs to the card holder and generate more revenue.  After all your basic information will never differ other than a criminal issue and the ISP searches our records daily now anyways. 
 
 
Slightly different matter, Indiana CCL permit
​Looked at Indiana as I recall a pal talked about the 2 versions of CCL offered there a limited year license 5 years?  and a lifetime was offered for under $150 IIRC.
 
But what I spotted.....Funny thing to ponder and ask, 
How is it Indiana can offer electronic finger printing for under $15 and Illinois can't? 
 
 

All [/size]NEW license applications incur a $11.95 fee for IDEMIA Electronic Fingerprinting. Additionally, [/size]ALL license applications incur an IN.gov processing fee that varies according to the license type.[/size]

 
https://www.in.gov/isp/3065.htm
Let us not forget that the local fees@between 60% to 80% and the entire state fee are refundable if the license is NOT issued!

Edited by Bubbacs, 03 May 2019 - 08:59 AM.


#27 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,215 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 03 May 2019 - 12:03 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 

Uncle Ralph, who lived in Ft Wayne, IN, bought a few nice guns at garage sales over the years.

You just show up early, make a deal, pay with cash and take it home... or load it and stash it under the front seat for later.

 

I really like that no waiting period thing in states like Indiana.

Perhaps in our Illinois future there could be a compromise:

  NO FOID = minimum 3 day waiting period for NICS to clear.

  FOID/CCL = no waiting period.

 

Only Illinois has a FOID... NJ has something similar (FID?) but I don't know how similar it is.

 

Another stupid thought... how about a Federal FOID that lets you buy anywhere with no waiting period as long as the FOID check by phone is approved? Sort of like TSA PreCheck where you get access to the shorter, faster line.

 

Shopping while traveling would be so much more fun and expensive.


Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#28 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,653 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 03 May 2019 - 12:11 PM

How do other states keep ineligible people from buying guns (person to person) if they don't have something like a FOID card?

 
Uncle Ralph, who lived in Ft Wayne, IN, bought a few nice guns at garage sales over the years.
You just show up early, make a deal, pay with cash and take it home... or load it and stash it under the front seat for later.
 
I really like that no waiting period thing in states like Indiana.
Perhaps in our Illinois future there could be a compromise:
  NO FOID = minimum 3 day waiting period for NICS to clear.
  FOID/CCL = no waiting period.
 
Only Illinois has a FOID... NJ has something similar (FID?) but I don't know how similar it is.
 
Another stupid thought... how about a Federal FOID that lets you buy anywhere with no waiting period as long as the FOID check by phone is approved? Sort of like TSA PreCheck where you get access to the shorter, faster line.
 
Shopping while traveling would be so much more fun and expensive.

How about just respecting and honoring the Constitution.

NRA Patriot Life Member - Endowment
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#29 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 03 May 2019 - 02:04 PM

I can't find that article on the NRA's website.

 

https://www.nraila.o...nois-s-foid-act

 

Is it gone?


Posted Image


#30 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 03 May 2019 - 02:54 PM

Indeed, it's gone from the NRA site. The Wayback Machine got a copy of it, though.
NRA Supports Guns Save Life's Challenge to Illinois’s FOID Act
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.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users