72 replies to this topic

[jrsavoie]

That law went into effect January 2011. I believe it was passed in July 2010. It was sponsored by Kirk Dillard. A very unfortunate decision for somebody that has been so helpful in the fight for gun rights.

I heard that the bill was presented to him as a piece of do little, feel good, look tough on crime legislation. Few people looked at the possible ramifications as to how the bill could be enforced if passed into law.

There was a disclaimer in the bill - something to the effect of being someplace you are not supposed to be with a gun and no FOID. Which could be interpretted many ways.

I don't know that the law has been abused yet but it is bound to be abused as it is. I heard one story about a guy in Kankakee that had a ggun he inherited from his father that got arrested but no verification or details.

I will check and see if I can find more details.

They always talk about intent of the law. Intent means nothing in how a law will be enforced. Wording is everything.

Evidenced by how a few years ago they were confiscating vehicles when hunters leaned their guns on them.

HB5832

If my computer wasn't messed up I had more info that I would have copied and pasted.  Does anybody have a usable desktop to sell cheap? If so feel free to email/contact me.

abolt243, on 22 January 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

jrsavoie, on 22 January 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

There is also the FOID law they passed last year that makes it easy to get a mandatory year in jail for being in the wrong place in posession of a gun with an expired FOID.

I share your frustration with all the new, inane laws that our dear legislators come up with.  But, having watched the legislature pretty closely last spring, I must have missed one.  Can you tell me the bill number on this "law" that was passed, or give us a little more detail?

Thanks,

Tim

Edited by jrsavoie, 22 January 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[abolt243]

jrsavoie, on 22 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

That law went into effect January 2011. I believe it was passed in July 2010. It was sponsored by Kirk Dillard. A very unfortunate decision for somebody that has been so helpful in the fight for gun rights.

I heard that the bill was presented to him as a piece of do little, feel good, look tough on crime legislation. Few people looked at the possible ramifications as to how the bill could be enforced if passed into law.

There was a disclaimer in the bill - something to the effect of being someplace you are not supposed to be with a gun and no FOID. Which could be interpretted many ways.

I don't know that the law has been abused yet but it is bound to be abused as it is. I heard one story about a guy in Kankakee that had a ggun he inherited from his father that got arrested but no verification or details.

I will check and see if I can find more details.

They always talk about intent of the law. Intent means nothing in how a law will be enforced. Wording is everything.

Evidenced by how a few years ago they were confiscating vehicles when hunters leaned their guns on them.

HB5832

If my computer wasn't messed up I had more info that I would have copied and pasted.  Does anybody have a usable desktop to sell cheap? If so feel free to email/contact me.

abolt243, on 22 January 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

jrsavoie, on 22 January 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

There is also the FOID law they passed last year that makes it easy to get a mandatory year in jail for being in the wrong place in posession of a gun with an expired FOID.

I share your frustration with all the new, inane laws that our dear legislators come up with.  But, having watched the legislature pretty closely last spring, I must have missed one.  Can you tell me the bill number on this "law" that was passed, or give us a little more detail?

Thanks,

Tim

Please do.  I don't remember this from two years ago and can't find any bill where Dillard was the primary sponsor that affected the FOID law.  
Thanks,

Tim

[45superman]

Jrsavoie, could you be referring to HB 5832?  Dillard was one of the Senate sponsors, and my understanding of what it does is fairly similar to what you describe.

[abolt243]

45superman, on 22 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Jrsavoie, could you be referring to HB 5832?  Dillard was one of the Senate sponsors, and my understanding of what it does is fairly similar to what you describe.

If that's it, then it doesn't seem nearly as egregious as Jrsavoie's initial description.  Nothing about location.  Just makes it a class 4 felony if a person is caught with a loaded, uncased, accessible firearm AND does not have a valid FOID.  It spells out the penalty to be levied against people convicted of this offense.  Other parts of the FOID spell out special penalties for being caught with the above firearm in schools, gov't buildings, etc.  But that's not part of this bill, nor is it new.  Looks like 5832 simply spells out the level of felony charges for someone that breaks existing law.

I'm still betting that the SA's of Cook bargain away the charges to get a conviction on a lesser charge.

Tim

[jrsavoie]

It sounds an awful lot like somebody hunting with an expired FOID to me. People should be on top of that but it's easy enough to let things slip sometimes.

I think you take that law a little to lightly.

[45superman]

jrsavoie, on 22 January 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It sounds an awful lot like somebody hunting with an expired FOID to me. People should be on top of that but it's easy enough to let things slip sometimes.

I think you take that law a little to lightly.

I see it kinda along the same lines you do, but then again, I'm something of a rabble rousing trouble maker .  I'm more than a little embarrassed that I didn't seem to even mention it in the '09/'10 reference list.

I did at least write about it here (excerpt):

Quote

In other words, if you carry a gun in a condition in which it has not been rendered useless for immediate self-defense, and if you do not have a "Firearm Owners ID" (FOID) card--the Illinois permission slip required to possess a gun (or even a single round of ammunition)--you have committed a felony (and earned, according to federal law) a lifetime ban on firearm (or even body armor) ownership.

Actually, that is already the case under current law--the new legislation would take away the judge's discretion in imposing a sentence, making the one to three year sentence mandatory.

Please excuse the odd formatting in that article, and don't get me started on how badly I despise Examiner.

[billzfx4]

What if the person had an expired FOID, because the ISP can't keep up their end of THE LAW????

[abolt243]

45superman, on 22 January 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

jrsavoie, on 22 January 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

It sounds an awful lot like somebody hunting with an expired FOID to me. People should be on top of that but it's easy enough to let things slip sometimes.

I think you take that law a little to lightly.

I see it kinda along the same lines you do, but then again, I'm something of a rabble rousing trouble maker .  I'm more than a little embarrassed that I didn't seem to even mention it in the '09/'10 reference list.

I did at least write about it here (excerpt):

Quote

In other words, if you carry a gun in a condition in which it has not been rendered useless for immediate self-defense, and if you do not have a "Firearm Owners ID" (FOID) card--the Illinois permission slip required to possess a gun (or even a single round of ammunition)--you have committed a felony (and earned, according to federal law) a lifetime ban on firearm (or even body armor) ownership.

Actually, that is already the case under current law--the new legislation would take away the judge's discretion in imposing a sentence, making the one to three year sentence mandatory.

Please excuse the odd formatting in that article, and don't get me started on how badly I despise Examiner.

OK, I see where you guys are coming from.  But I don't think that was the intent, nor do I see it being used in that fashion.  It does bring up a good point though, perhaps one that needs to be addressed in future legislation.

And .45 Super, yes, you are a rabble-rousing trouble maker.  Thank God you're on our side!!

Tim

[abolt243]

billzfx4, on 22 January 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

What if the person had an expired FOID, because the ISP can't keep up their end of THE LAW????

While I still think that the law adresses REVOKED foids, not lapsed ones, I'm thinking that if you had some proof that you sent in the application on time and that the ISP had been sitting on it for longer than 30 days, and you were not ineligible for a foid, you'd have a pretty good case.  Might have to spend a day in court, but any state's attorney south of Cook county would probably drop charges.  

BTW, that's another advantage of sending in your applications by certified mail/return receipt requested as I suggest all the time.  Gives you proof as to when you mailed it and when they got it.

Tim

[45superman]

abolt243, on 22 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

And .45 Super, yes, you are a rabble-rousing trouble maker.  Thank God you're on our side!!

Much appreciated, Tim.

Good talking to you after all this time.  I've been largely absent for the last couple years, but I suspect you know I love you folks.

[abolt243]

45superman, on 22 January 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

abolt243, on 22 January 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

And .45 Super, yes, you are a rabble-rousing trouble maker.  Thank God you're on our side!!

Much appreciated, Tim.

Good talking to you after all this time.  I've been largely absent for the last couple years, but I suspect you know I love you folks.

Good to have you back.   Everybody needs a break on occasion.  Legislature will fire up again in a couple of weeks and we can get busy watching the bills.  BTW, we love you too!

[piker73]

I like the idea of the numbers, but the source he got them from is off, I live in menard county and personaly know of probably couple dozen hunters that live in Athens "next town over" they are all current fiod holders and that spread sheet only shows 1 person, I would imagine it has to be in hundreds for that town

[abolt243]

It's 2007 data, sorted by zip codes.  Sometimes is misleading as to actual physical location.  The county numbers should be pretty close for our needs.  You could do a new FOIA request and put together a new spreadsheet with up to date data.  Then we'd know for sure.  Ol' Coach that did this passed on a couple of years ago.  That man was passionate about RTC in IL.

Tim