Jump to content

Help me with a question...


upland1911

Recommended Posts

Can't get this out of my head the last several months.

 

How is it that voter ID laws are racist and discriminatory....

 

BUT, requiring an ID, much less a specific ID (FOID) is not?

 

Voting and bearing arms are both constitution rights and the opposition's arguments against voter ID should also apply to FOID.

This either nullifies FOID cards or enables voter ID, does it not?

Has there not been a fiscally depressed minority or elder person along with willing legal representation to challenge the FOID as discriminatory?

 

Perhaps I am just unaware of the case?

 

Look forward to your thoughts

 

Upland

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason they're not able to see the conflict is because they like voting rights, but dislike gun rights. For the anti's, it's all about accomplishing an agenda regardless of the Constitution.

 

The Constitutionality of the FOID Act was partly challenged in People v Mosley. The Illinois Supreme Court found against the challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because guns are scary and voter fraud helps get politicians elected. Because anything even remotely dealing with the loosening of gun rights has to be subjected to most biased and unrealistic scrutiny that can possibly be applied to an issue. Because this is America and that's how far the political scales have shifted in the year 2017.

Because "inalienable rights" have always been something that's fluid and not set in stone. The only rights you have are the ones you fight for. And because this is IL and the case has to be exceptional to withstand the masses of liberal judges that will scoff at its very existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the anti's, it's all about accomplishing an agenda regardless of the Constitution.

 

 

Yep.

 

To the OP: Don't make the mistake of expecting the anti-gunners to be logically consistent - they're not. If something like the Constitution of the United States or something like logic gets in the way of their agenda - they dispense with it. Unfortunately that extends all the way up to members of the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the antis will not so anything p o gun that isn't forced upon them. My thoughts run more to the strategy and or profess of litigating this. Seems to have the potential of a win/win... Almost

If FOID is found discriminatory, big win. If upheld, substantiation for voter ID is in place. I just briefly skimmed case linked above but didn't seem to challenge as discriminatory as to race or income level.

Seems that a minority race, low income or otherwise affected citizen could make a case against FOID as discriminatory.

 

It would certainly take a willing capable attorney to handle, which I certainly am not.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy has been used before, but the FOID is like a poll tax. You have to pay a fee to exercise your right. Poll taxes have been deemed illegal and unconstitutional in regards to voting. The 24th ammendment. Why is it allowed for the second ammendment?
More like why is it a requirement to have ID in order to sneeze in this country? The ONLY thing that doesn't require ID is voting. No other rights require an ID as precondition but the First Amendment is somewhat curtailed by the government when it demands permits for assembly, that churches (non-profits) register with the IRS, etc. Fourth Amendment has its own problems. One being the "automobile exception" but that has nothing to do with ID.

 

If there is a "man with a gun" call and no exigencies exist, the courts will presume the individual is carrying lawfully and work backward. The same presumption should be extended to the whole damn right. The presumption SHOULD BE that a gun owner is lawfully exercising a right since, well, it's a civil right, and that the state must show that the person is a prohibited person. States that require some form of identification or government paperwork to keep arms have turned that presumption on its head. Every Illinois resident is presumed to be a prohibited person under state law, absent a FOID Card.

 

But to answer your question, why it's constitutional...it's constitutional because "the government says so." Public safety interest, applying intermediate scrutiny or rational basis, take your pick, "it's for the children." The only reason why we have the FOID is because Daley wanted to ban all guns to keep blacks from owning them (IIRC) and the FOID Card Act was the compromise. Racist roots of an idiotic law. Wow, never seen that before errr wait...pot being Schedule I is due to the government saying that black men rape white women whenever they get high. Nope, no racism there. ALL gun control is rooted in racism. Poll taxes, well, racism. But to require ID to vote? We're already required to have ID to take a #2 so what's the problem with stopping some voter fraud?

 

Another note...People v. Mosley is mentioned. What isn't mentioned is that he never bothered to apply for a FOID Card. THAT is why the statute remains constitutional. Or remains unreviewed by a court. If he had applied for a FOID, this discussion might not be taking place. Might not, but probably would anyway because of the reluctance of courts to pare down gun control laws due to their own spinelessness, caring about public opinion and allowing it to infiltrate their decision making process.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analogy has been used before, but the FOID is like a poll tax. You have to pay a fee to exercise your right. Poll taxes have been deemed illegal and unconstitutional in regards to voting. The 24th ammendment. Why is it allowed for the second ammendment?

 

In the USA there is a 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press and free speech, but you need a federal license to operate most radio transmitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about current CCL and FOID card holder time for renewal .... apply but don't pay the fee .... State rejects because fee (tax) not paid. Grounds for winnable lawsuit??

 

Yes shouldn't stop at the FOID, if the state wants classes for people they should provide them and the license should be $0 or they should start requiring people to pass a constitution/current events test and charge them for a license to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make a wicked case for requiring civics class as precondition to exercising the right to vote. The right to vote is a FAR greater threat to the safety of the public than the right to keep and bear arms. When the majority of Americans cannot name one single right guaranteed by the First Amendment, we have a massive problem. When 20% of a certain demographic thinks it's pm to bring violence on those with whom they disagree, that tells me that we have an education problem. Anyone who is on track to graduate from high school, yet cannot name one single right contained within the entire Bill of Rights, that kid ought to be rolled back to freshman status.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a former civics teacher +1. As a current lawyer. You would be surprised how many lawyers could not recite all of the Bill of Rights.

 

 

As a retired engineer I don't care if a lawyer can recite it, just as long as he knows what it is, where to find it and how to apply it.

 

Trying to memorize crap will get you in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, if a lawyer cannot name one single right contained within the Bill of Rights off the top of his or her head, said lawyer shouldn't have a license to practice law. Forget reciting the entire thing, as Amendments such as the Third Amendment (no quarter....) is never discussed, relatively obscure, and I can only think of one action where the Third was invoked (it involved police breaking into someone's home, basically evicting them so they could use the house for surveillance purposes).

 

I didn't even go to law school, but an intro to law (which covered con law, contracts, etc) was and still is prerequisite for any business degree at my alma mater (my professor was an attorney on the Pinto case, if that means anything to the old...er timers in the room). It was also taught in my mandatory poli sci course that fulfilled the Illinois Constitutional Requirement. The latter is a gen ed so why these kids do not learn about our government, our constitution, in a course which is legally required to teach that, is beyond me.

 

We need to bring civics courses back to the K-12 system. We cannot wait until college to teach this material as many kids are skipping college altogether now because of the insane tuition and debt loads incurred.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could make a wicked case for requiring civics class as precondition to exercising the right to vote.

I graduated HS back in '76. At that time you had to take a civics class and pass a state mandated constitution/government test to be able to receive your diploma. Is that no longer the case or is the state afraid of offending and triggering kids now a days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another case involving the 3rd Amendment in New York that made it to the Court of Appeals in 1983. The case involved prison guards who went on strike. They lived in housing provided by the prison. The National Guard was activated and the prison tried to garrison them in the prison housing. The strikers sued claiming it was a violation of the 3rd Amendment. They lost at the lower court but the appeals court remanded.

 

The lower court again found in favor of the defendants again due to qualified immunity, basically saying that due to a lack of caselaw the defendants didn't know it was illegal.

 

I think the strike ended so the case didn't go any further.

 

Found it:

 

Engblom v. Carey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I could make a wicked case for requiring civics class as precondition to exercising the right to vote.

 

 

I graduated HS back in '76. At that time you had to take a civics class and pass a state mandated constitution/government test to be able to receive your diploma. Is that no longer the case or is the state afraid of offending and triggering kids now a days?

I didn't go to HS in Illinois, but Civics was not a required class when I graduated in 93.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I graduated in 2000 and civics was not required. Madison Metropolitan School District (Wisconsin). Foreign language was required, two years worth. And we were on the four block so I could load up on math and science courses, ended up graduating with 6 math credits. From algebra to AP Calculus II. My district canned the Latin courses in favor of ebonics (I kid you not). You know, because most of the English language is derived from Latin so why teach Latin, what could students gain from that. I took it upon myself to learn as much as possible in re American government, the law, etc, simply because I do not enjoy being ignorant. Not when it comes to my government, my rights.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not sure exactly what the definition of a civic's class it but you are required to pass The U.S. and Illinois constitution test In order to earn an high school diploma in Illinois. Frankly I don't think just knowing the constitutions is enough and maybe that's what a civic's class is or should be.

 

I have to go with Jeckler comment above.

I just have never got over how the 2nd is any different then the 15th and how ANY state can charge money for that right. It's a tax to exercise your constitutional rights unfortunately the 24th was written to narrowly.

 

I guess this is supported by the growing numbers of constitutional carry states but we all need to get there. I have the right to free speech and can be held accountable for what I say and carrying a firearm should be no different. I know I'm just preaching ...

 

I know good people who simply cannot afford the costs for concealed carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...