291 replies to this topic

[jagt48]

[quote name="Flynn" post="1230786" timestamp="1568239881"][quote name="Bird76Mojo" post="1230781" timestamp="1568239035"]
[quote name="Flynn" post="1230769" timestamp="1568236299"]
[quote name="Euler" post="1230764" timestamp="1568235206"]
Change the FOID to IRIS (Illinois Resident Identification System), make everyone get one for everything (like voting, too, oh no!), and keep it cheap (or "free" - i.e., tax-funded)
[/quote]
 
Just allow citizens to run basic background checks on existing state IDs and drivers licenses, the check would not have to give details just a yes/no confirmation for things like firearm purchases, voting or to see if the person is say a registered sex offender heck use it for alchohol and smoking verification as well to confirm the ID is legit and not fake.
[/quote]
Sounds great! Let's just do away with privacy rights altogether..
[/quote]
 
How is verifying you are who you and and are eligable to exercise the right and/or privilege an invasion of privacy?  Sorry but I support verificaiton at the basic level as I understand that even rights are not absolute, and accept that age, citizenship and to see if a due process has removed the right/privilege verifications are well within acceptable regulations or should be.[/quote]

Wow... I don't even know where to begin....

[Black Flag]

Wow... I don't even know where to begin....

I asked Captain Obvious, he thinks those posts might be satirical in nature.

[jagt48]

Wow... I don't even know where to begin....

I asked Captain Obvious, he thinks those posts might be satirical in nature.

I sure hope so. I moved to IL from MO a few years ago and it boggles my mind how readily some people here bow to The Man.

[lockman]

 


 


Change the FOID to IRIS (Illinois Resident Identification System), make everyone get one for everything (like voting, too, oh no!), and keep it cheap (or "free" - i.e., tax-funded)


 
Just allow citizens to run basic background checks on existing state IDs and drivers licenses, the check would not have to give details just a yes/no confirmation for things like firearm purchases, voting or to see if the person is say a registered sex offender heck use it for alchohol and smoking verification as well to confirm the ID is legit and not fake.
 


Sounds great! Let's just do away with privacy rights altogether..
 


 
How is verifying you are who you and and are eligable to exercise the right and/or privilege an invasion of privacy?  Sorry but I support verificaiton at the basic level as I understand that even rights are not absolute, and accept that age, citizenship and to see if a due process has removed the right/privilege verifications are well within acceptable regulations or should be.

Would you apply the same standard to the first amendment, the fourth or fifth amendment?

A direct corollary would be a law making it illegal to participate in public speaking unless you have a permit from the government, conditioned on passing an identity background check and make sure you’re not in the prohibited database.




^ this ***

[TomKoz]

How about we need a Religion Worshippers Identification Card before entering a church?
Oh, can we also not ban some of those Assault Religions ?

Edited by TomKoz, 12 September 2019 - 06:50 AM.

[SiliconSorcerer]

How about we need a Religion Worshippers Identification Card before entering a church?
Oh, can we also not ban some of those Assault Religions ?

 

If constitutional rights are subject to a price we should charge to vote.

 

Think of the money the state could make, someone should call JB. 

[Flynn]

 

Would you apply the same standard to the first amendment, the fourth or fifth amendment?

 

NO I would not, but in regards to the 2nd I face the reality and truth that the Supreme Court WILL allow acceptable restrictions on the 2nd (like age and criminal history prohibitions) that are not applicable to other rights, to believe otherwise is just being foolish and naive. There is no way the Supreme Court will ever open up the 2nd to the same level as the 1st even if, you and I believe it should be, there is simply no way the Supreme Court is going to let say 10 year old gang banger with a 3 page rap sheet that stlll fully has his 1st and 4th rights walk into a gun store (with the money he made swinging 8-balls on the corner) walk out with a brand new Glock and AR-15 with a few cases of bullets, this is the truth like it or not the 2nd will have restrictions that are not applied to other rights.

Edited by Flynn, 12 September 2019 - 04:09 PM.

[papa]

 

 

Would you apply the same standard to the first amendment, the fourth or fifth amendment?

 

NO I would not, but in regards to the 2nd I face the reality and truth that the Supreme Court WILL allow acceptable restrictions on the 2nd (like age and criminal history prohibitions) that are not applicable to other rights, to believe otherwise is just being foolish and naive. There is no way the Supreme Court will ever open up the 2nd to the same level as the 1st even if, you and I believe it should be, there is simply no way the Supreme Court is going to let say 10 year old gang banger with a 3 page rap sheet that stlll fully has his 1st and 4th rights walk into a gun store (with the money he made swinging 8-balls on the corner) walk out with a brand new Glock and AR-15 with a few cases of bullets, this is the truth like it or not the 2nd will have restrictions that are not applied to other rights.

 

 

First of all they need to make the person serve the max time allowed for the crime committed without time off for good behavior .  When they have completed their full sentence  they then should have all rights restored.  If a person can not live in society without causing trouble ( committing criminal acts ) then that person should not be walking around loose.

[Flynn]

 

 

 

Would you apply the same standard to the first amendment, the fourth or fifth amendment?

 

NO I would not, but in regards to the 2nd I face the reality and truth that the Supreme Court WILL allow acceptable restrictions on the 2nd (like age and criminal history prohibitions) that are not applicable to other rights, to believe otherwise is just being foolish and naive. There is no way the Supreme Court will ever open up the 2nd to the same level as the 1st even if, you and I believe it should be, there is simply no way the Supreme Court is going to let say 10 year old gang banger with a 3 page rap sheet that stlll fully has his 1st and 4th rights walk into a gun store (with the money he made swinging 8-balls on the corner) walk out with a brand new Glock and AR-15 with a few cases of bullets, this is the truth like it or not the 2nd will have restrictions that are not applied to other rights.

 

 

First of all they need to make the person serve the max time allowed for the crime committed without time off for good behavior .  When they have completed their full sentence  they then should have all rights restored.  If a person can not live in society without causing trouble ( committing criminal acts ) then that person should not be walking around loose.

 

 

I agree with this, but IMO it's a pipe dream to believe the 2nd will be restriction and age free, the entire point of my post was that since there are going to be restrictions on the 2nd, and NICS isn't going anywhere, make a one stop ID...  I believe in the computer age that having to carryt and have multiple IDs is silly when a single ID with a comprehensive backend database would be better.  Agree or not, that is my opinion since I know full well rights are not absolute and restrictions will always apply to some degree.

[soundguy]

How long until we have a National FOID?

Would it work?

 

There should be no cost for internet verification of the buyer.

It should eliminate all waiting periods nationwide once the check is approved.

It should allow the holder to buy any gun in person anywhere in the US.

 

The other 49 states would be p*****...

Edited by soundguy, 12 September 2019 - 06:45 PM.

[Teufel Hunden]

How long until we have a National FOID?
Would it work?
 
There should be no cost for internet verification of the buyer.
It should eliminate all waiting periods nationwide once the check is approved.
It should allow the holder to buy any gun in person anywhere in the US.
 
The other 49 states would be p*****...

Because it's working so well in Illinois. In spite of running a background check on lawful gunowners every night, Illinois is among the worst states for murder and non-negligent homicide. It's almost as if laws restraining legal ownership of firearms is ineffective against criminals...

[TRJ]

How long until we have a National FOID?
Would it work?
 
There should be no cost for internet verification of the buyer.
It should eliminate all waiting periods nationwide once the check is approved.
It should allow the holder to buy any gun in person anywhere in the US.
 
The other 49 states would be p*****...

I see this as a distinct possibility within 10 years, after modern sporting rifles are banned in some fashion.

[stockboyy]

Lawful gun-owners in Illinois are subjected to the UNAVOIDABLE-JEOPARDYIES

 of the FOID-ACT.

--------------------       ---------------

Chicago Gang & Drug Criminals are Granted PLEA-BARGINS.

[Molly B.]

Lawful gun-owners in Illinois are subjected to the UNAVOIDABLE-JEOPARDYIES

 of the FOID-ACT.

--------------------       ---------------

Chicago Gang & Drug Criminals are Granted PLEA-BARGINS.

 

EXACTLY!!

[lockman]

 

How long until we have a National FOID?
Would it work?
 
There should be no cost for internet verification of the buyer.
It should eliminate all waiting periods nationwide once the check is approved.
It should allow the holder to buy any gun in person anywhere in the US.
 
The other 49 states would be p*****...

Because it's working so well in Illinois. In spite of running a background check on lawful gunowners every night, Illinois is among the worst states for murder and non-negligent homicide. It's almost as if laws restraining legal ownership of firearms is ineffective against criminals...

 

non-negligent homicide would include self-defense shootings. 

 

A homicide is death by the actions of another person. It denotes no moral or legal deference. hence, justifiable homicide or negligent homicide.

[hunter68]

The hearings for the FOID being unconstitutional  started Tuesday! Wish us all luck! FOID could be gone for good very soon! Eventually is has to be ruled unconstitutional, it's just a matted of time!

 

https://www.mdjonlin...e841cd1f0a.html

[BobPistol]

Lawful gun-owners in Illinois are subjected to the UNAVOIDABLE-JEOPARDYIES

 of the FOID-ACT.

--------------------       ---------------

Chicago Gang & Drug Criminals are Granted PLEA-BARGINS.

 

That's because gangs and drug dealers are cronies of the left. 

[Bitter Clinger]

The hearings for the FOID being unconstitutional  started Tuesday! Wish us all luck! FOID could be gone for good very soon! Eventually is has to be ruled unconstitutional, it's just a matted of time!

 

https://www.mdjonlin...e841cd1f0a.html

 

I'm guessing that there is no way the FOID will be struck down.  The powers that be won't let that happen and somehow successfully argue that it's constitutional, or should be allowed since they've had it for over 50 years.

 

If anything, the FOID might be declared not necessary for that one elderly woman and that's about it.

They will force the rest of us to have one.

[lockman]

Don’t let them rewrite history. The FOID may have been around for 50 years, but for most of that history it did not prohibit possession or ownership as long as you have the FOID or had one previously issued in your name. If your FOID expired in 1973 you can possess any lawful firearms and ammunition. You just could not buy any in Illinois until you get another FOID. The FOID was historically only the regulation of new purchases, anything possessed prior to expiration was legal to own, possess or use lawfully. ^ this ***

[crufflesmuth]

Don’t let them rewrite history. The FOID may have been around for 50 years, but for most of that history it did not prohibit possession or ownership as long as you have the FOID or had one previously issued in your name. If your FOID expired in 1973 you can possess any lawful firearms and ammunition. You just could not buy any in Illinois until you get another FOID. The FOID was historically only the regulation of new purchases, anything possessed prior to expiration was legal to own, possess or use lawfully. ^ this ***

 

I believe that's what Sigale was arguing.

[THE KING]

Any updates on this case. It sure would be nice to eliminate the FOID card.

[Euler]

Any updates on this case. It sure would be nice to eliminate the FOID card.

The Illinois SC has yet to announce a decision. When it does, I'm sure one side or the other will publicize it widely.