All Activity

430 ILCS 65/5 (b) 430 ILCS 66/70 (c)

Good to know that they remain valid. Even though it still bothers me that I will possibly be past the expiration date shown online. Ill post an update when it finally shows active again. For some reason Im assuming that it wont until the CCL renewal is approved/active. It will be a pleasant surprise if they update the FOID expiration date before they process my CCL renewal. Aside from that, can anyone point me in the direction of where to find that exact statute that says theyre valid while renewal is pending? Id like to keep a copy of that with me just in case.

100% Agree - Buy an actually fine Tisas 1911 and have $$ left over for a nice Taurus .357. I have the snub-nose but am looking at adding a 4" barrel one as well. My brother luvs his 10mm Tisas 1911 and even Hickok45 gave the brand a positive review.

The 1911 in 45 acp and a 357 revolver are both fine firearms as I own both. You will end up with both of them yourself. Only question is...which order do you want them in? Lol.

Thanks for posting. Seems like a bullet-proof argument to me.

NAGR filed their reply Brief to SCOTUS today: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-880/308333/20240425102648122_23-880 Reply Brief PDFA.pdf

The statute says foid and ccl remain valid while renewal is pending. I'm curious when it will show active in the portal.

There are no wrong answers. Thanks for participating.

Thanks for the reply Molly. Just logged in and my FOID expiration date is still showing 5/2/2024. Thats why Im concerned. I was assuming my FOID would automatically be renewed.

Log back in and check your foid expiration date.

That's the state's plan, get rid people or rights one case at a time. Keeps them from straying too close to box number four.

@Kingcreek Same thing happened to me when I submitted my CCL renewal a month ago. The renewal button for my FOID disappeared. At least the emails and texts stopped coming to me. Now Im a bit concerned though. Both my CCL and FOID expire next month. My CCL is showing UNDER REVIEW with 60 days remaining for ISP to get their @(%* together. And technically both my CCL and FOID will be expired before then. Im a bit conflicted since Ive read in a few threads on this site that stated I should be OK to carry while waiting for my pending renewal, but what about the FOID??? Am I about to be in some limbo where my FOID is expired and my CCL renewal is pending under review? Anyone have any sort of idea whats up with this? I would prefer to stay legal and I cant find anything on the ISP site that tells me what to do about my situation.

58.3% VooDoo

Hopefully early/mid next year. If this is not the worst ran state it is real close.

61.7 What do I win?

Not sure how you fail a survey, but I did. I guess being an old dude that like mail and doesn't want text makes me a failure.

Please take the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QRKVSTD

I looked into it and I'm not *that* curious. What a PITA....I think I'll just contribute to Dexter's Defense Fund and leave it at that. VooDoo

According to the inter-webs, there should be a recording and transcript of everything said. I don’t know if things can be stricken from the audio or transcript. But you will want BOTH, and you should be able to request it.

If there is any doubt, it “should” be in the transcript, or whatever they do these days with the court reporter. Shouldn’t it?

Colion has credibility and he says it happened. VooDoo

Like I said, I'm sure there was a reason that a guy from Lake County got punched in the face at 3am in front of a Chicago dive bar and I doubt it was that the other guy was crazy.

Indeed, it's, in part, about getting arrested for (IL's unconstitutional) UUW, which he said he committed because of crazy people in Chicago, but which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't become one of those crazy people.

I'm sure there was a reason. The story isn't about a man going on a punching spree.

Travel to Chicago, but take a firearm with you, because "Chicago is crazy."Then walk around punching people in the face for no apparent reason, thus proving #1.