armadroid Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:35 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:35 AM I was thinking today about this. If it is the case that you need a FOID to possess a firearm. Aren't all guns defacto banned without one? How has this not hit the courts yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:41 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:41 AM I was thinking today about this. If it is the case that you need a FOID to possess a firearm. Aren't all guns defacto banned without one? How has this not hit the courts yet.Hi Guy. Can you please explain that question a bit better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:56 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:56 AM If you are an Illinois resident, you cannot possess any firearm or ammunition unless you have a FOID. IIRC it hit the courts about 50 years ago. Most recently in Horsley v Trame where the federal courts decided that 18-20 year olds do not have firearms rights. There's a whole lot wrong with the entire FOID system and concept, but it looks very improbable that the courts are going to intervene at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:59 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 04:59 AM No!!!. Criminals do it all the time. Now if you wonder if you can do it legally then the answer is no. If you just moved to Illinois then you have a timeframe in which to get your FOID. Now let's go down the list of things that are banned that people still possess. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.40carry Posted April 1, 2018 at 05:09 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 05:09 AM I was thinking today about this. If it is the case that you need a FOID to possess a firearm. Aren't all guns defacto banned without one? How has this not hit the courts yet.Because FOIDS are generally issued and there's no consistent pattern of the state not issuing at all, the courts would say it's a reasonable regulation - not a defacto ban. Now if the state had never issued a FOID because no one could meet the "qualifications" you likely could prove a defacto ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Clinger Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:28 AM The requirement for a FOID is basically the state taking a RIGHT and turning it into a taxed and regulated privilege in which only the state can say whether you're allowed to own a firearm and they can revoke that privilege at any time. It's 100% totally unconstitutional. We don't have gun "rights" here in Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX63 Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:32 AM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:32 AM My father in law is 84 and has never had a FOID in his life. Came up from the basement after one large family get together years ago with an armful of rifles that he had from his time as a boy, when my two brother in laws were kids, etc. He's owned them long before 1968. He lives in a small rural eastern Illinois town. Goes outside and shoots moles and rabbits in his garden with an old 22. I have no idea how he buys ammunition. If the county sheriff were passing thru and stopped him to check his FOID, he would likely ask "What's a FOID?" That is what he said to me when I asked him?He is a case that is not "Grandfathered" into the system, but he isn't going to do anything about it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 1, 2018 at 12:02 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 12:02 PM Yes you need a FOID in Illinois to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition even though it is an inalienable right.The state want to make sure you are qualified to own them. Voting is also a right but to require someone to have an ID card to make sure they are qualified to vote would disenfranchise them and therefore isn’t legal. You just learned a lesson in liberal logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Illiniwek Posted April 1, 2018 at 01:07 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 01:07 PM Yes you need a FOID in Illinois to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition even though it is an inalienable right.The state want to make sure you are qualified to own them. Voting is also a right but to require someone to have an ID card to make sure they are qualified to vote would disenfranchise them and therefore isn’t legal. You just learned a lesson in liberal logic. That's the one thing I like about Lou, he knows what an inalienable right is.I disagree about the "The state want to make sure you are qualified to own them."Illinois should have no say in who and who cannot own a firearm nor should any "state".Why? Because it is an inalienable right granted to us guaranteed by the Second Amendment.Sorry to give you grief Lou buts that's just how I feel. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted April 1, 2018 at 02:58 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 02:58 PM Yes you need a FOID in Illinois to purchase or possess firearms and ammunition even though it is an inalienable right.The state want to make sure you are qualified to own them.Voting is also a right but to require someone to have an ID card to make sure they are qualified to vote would disenfranchise them and therefore isn’t legal.You just learned a lesson in liberal logic. That's the one thing I like about Lou, he knows what an inalienable right is.I disagree about the "The state want to make sure you are qualified to own them."Illinois should have no say in who and who cannot own a firearm nor should any "state".Why? Because it is an inalienable right granted to us by the Second Amendment.Sorry to give you grief Lou buts that's just how I feel.No need to apologize to me. It is the state requiring proof, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armadroid Posted April 1, 2018 at 03:25 PM Author Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 03:25 PM This was more of a thought experiment. But it shows the silliness of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoresident Posted April 1, 2018 at 05:51 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 05:51 PM All this stuff is pitched as common sense and convenience for gun owners. GCA of 1968 prohibited the sale of firearms to criminals. But without any system you had a mix of buyers and dealers being on the honor system. "Common sense" said this wasnt going to work because buyers and sellers could lie. So a patchwork of regulations sprung up to verify the data. Since manually verifying might add time the FOID system was pitched as a convenient way to verify you passed a background check. That's how it's pitched, it's not a restriction on the 2nd ammendment it's just identifying you passed a background check. But we all know the doublespeak by now. Then the Brady bill created a federal standard of background checks. Being a kid around this time I don't know if FOID card holders were made to wait back then. The NRA compromise on background checks then was if they were going to exist then they had to be instant when they had the infrastructure. This got us NICS, which we all know is not instant as it's name would imply. According to our politicians they run a background check on every person in the FOID database once a day, but they still require another background check to purchase. And while you can purchase with a handgun on your hip with a CCW you still have to wait 3 days to buy another. We are redundantly background checked over and over, yet our politicians say it's still not good enough. And as someone pointed out to me on here Illinois runs their own state NICS system. The FOID cost overruns remove money from nature conservation budgets (Department of Natural Resources) so on top of FOID being worthless you could argue it damages the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdf4 Posted April 1, 2018 at 08:06 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 08:06 PM I once saw an eldely woman whose husband had died and had no family come into the gun shop and wanted to get rid of an old revolver. The shop could not buy or take it because she didn't have a foid. They told her that she had to give the gun to somebody who had a foid. Wouldn't that technically be ilegal give the gun to somebody else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:28 PM Share Posted April 1, 2018 at 11:28 PM I once saw an eldely woman whose husband had died and had no family come into the gun shop and wanted to get rid of an old revolver. The shop could not buy or take it because she didn't have a foid. They told her that she had to give the gun to somebody who had a foid. Wouldn't that technically be ilegal give the gun to somebody else? A person without a FOID who inherits a firearm has 60 days either to get a FOID themselves or to sell (or otherwise transfer) it to someone with a FOID. The gun shop was wrong on the law. A person without a FOID is prohibited from buying a gun. A person without a FOID can sell a gun. FFL transferees (like gun shops) are not subject to a waiting period. Maybe the gun shop had a store policy not to buy from people without a FOID. Maybe the gun shop didn't have such a policy, but they were confused about the law. A stickier situation would occur if the woman had inherited the revolver more than 57 days previously. Then transferring to a non-FFL FOID holder would require a 3-day wait, which would put her past 60 days. If she inherited it more than 60 days previously, then she's technically already in trouble. Either way, she still wouldn't be prohibited from selling it, especially to an FFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Share Posted April 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM You could always drive to a neighboring state and sell it to an FFL there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted April 2, 2018 at 01:30 AM Share Posted April 2, 2018 at 01:30 AM Maybe we should advocate for a VID (Voter ID) to be mandated and required to be able to vote. Requires 16 hours of training and a $150 fee and is valid for 5 years. Basically, consistency between voting rights and carrying/possession of firearm rights. All rights should be treated equally. And voting without being educated is a much graver risk to our great country than firearms. Maybe only then will the antiâs see the infringement. But probably not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vito Posted April 2, 2018 at 03:07 PM Share Posted April 2, 2018 at 03:07 PM If that woman without a FOID sold or gave the gun to a neighbor, relative or friend, who would know? Until and unless we have gun registration forced upon us, we still retain the ability, legal or not, of transferring arms without state intervention. I am not advocating breaking the law, but the reality is if two parties agree to something illegal the State will not know about it and will be unable to do much about it. This happens probably dozens of times a day in Illinois among the criminal community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted April 3, 2018 at 04:34 PM Share Posted April 3, 2018 at 04:34 PM I think the FOID is great...because it's proof positive that all the "reasonable" restrictions the left want on gun ownership DON'T WORK. You want background checks on private sales? The FOID provides it. Every FOID holder has a background check performed on them everyday by the state police. If you want to do a private sale or transfer, a person who has had 360 background checks a year can buy it. No problem!Has it reduced the number of murders in the state? Is it keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and gang members? Not that I can tell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:04 AM Share Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:04 AM I was thinking today about this. If it is the case that you need a FOID to possess a firearm. Aren't all guns defacto banned without one? How has this not hit the courts yet.Non-residents are legally exempted from needing a FOID but some stores like Walmart require any non-resident that is not from a bordering stateto have a hunting license in order to buy ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.