Jump to content

Why FOID Card for Rifle/Shotgun Ammo?


junglebob

Recommended Posts

Depends on your intended use. I'll give you another example and we'll keep it to an IL resident. Can someone that has a valid FOID that is 18,19, or 20 buy handgun ammunition? The answer is yes if their intent is to shoot a long gun chambered in a handgun caliber. This happens from time to time. You'll see they're not 21 yet and want to buy handgun ammo. We'll ask if it's for a long gun and they're usually reply with the make and model firearm they're using it in.

 

Of course someone could lie and we'd never know. But they have to tell us their intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocellairs, I'd say the prohibition on Sears and others selling firearms by mail was a direct result of Lee Harvey Oswald killing president Kennedy in 1964 with a rifle he purchased thru the mail.  I think that was the start of a lot of anti-gun legislation.

Well, that was '64.

His brother Bobby and MLK jr. both got killed in '68.

That's when the gun control drum started getting really hammered.

 

In IL, they were seriously talking handgun ban.

It had legislative support.

The FOID was a compromise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was mostly a reaction to the assassinations of the 1960's. John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. At least one of those assassins used a mail-order rifle to do the deed. Most of the other parts of the legislation didn't have even that tenuous link to preventing crime, but people just figured something had to be done.

 

At one time, I had the transcript of a floor debate over the Illinois Constitution when it was revised in 1970. The debate centered around whether to add a clause that affirmed the right to keep and bear arms. Predictably, Chicago, on the whole, was against it. T3h R34l D4l3y was in charge of Chicago back then.

 

Those who wanted to affirm the RKBA were afraid they couldn't get it passed if they did it for real, so they added the language about "subject only to the police power" that we all know and hate today. The debate was bizarre; those opposed to the RKBA were the ones arguing that this police power clause invalidated the measure! The ones who wanted a guarantee of the RKBA in the new Constitution argued that "subject to the police power" didn't really mean . . . . well, anything at all to hear them tell it.

 

 

That was a strange time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don, You said T3hR431lD4l3y was in charge of Chicago back then. Can you translate that for me?

 

I thought that goofy "subject to police power" had been in the constitution for a long time as there seems to be a debate on what it means. Why in the world did they put that in when it wasn't at least clearly defined? Doesn't seem like a phraze you'd put in if you were pro-rkba.

 

Why not something like we Illinoisans being United States citizens affirm the second ammendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that "...subject to the police power" refers to the legislature and any changes it might choose to make.

 

I'm another that thought that phrase had been in there a long time...like, when the Constitution for IL was drawn up!

 

That old word, "a**..u..me" again, huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my understanding that "...subject to the police power" refers to the legislature and any changes it might choose to make.

 

I'm another that thought that phrase had been in there a long time...like, when the Constitution for IL was drawn up!

 

That old word, "a**..u..me" again, huh?

It was...but it was the new state constitution that was done in 1970. Convenient timing for tossing in a few words that turn our 2A rights into something we have only at the whim of those that can choose to interpret those few words "subject to the police power" pretty much any way they damn well please. :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I picked up a L33t infection on another board. Haven't got it cleared up yet.

T3h R34l D4l3y = "The Real Daley" = The original Richard Daley.

 

3=E

4=A

Teh=The

 

Also martial artists and script kiddies constantly argue about who has "the real kung-fu."

 

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that in 1970 they were faced with a fight over whether to include a right to keep and bear arms or not. Many wanted no such language at all; many wanted it, but just as now in Illinois, most of the politicians who favored a "right to keep and bear arms" were talking about a right to hunt pheasants and keep a shotgun in a farm house. They didn't care if people had handguns in Chicago or not, and they didn't care if anyone could own any given type of gun as long as the basic hunting weapons were not to be bothered.

Rather than have the fight that was brewing, they offered a neutered version of their proposal to bring some of the antis over to their side.

 

I wasn't there and I shouldn't run my mouth. . . . but reading the debates was infuriating. All that stuff is gone now from my computer (that was two Windows corruption crashes ago) but I have it on paper around here somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple months back I did some research on the different Illinois Constitutions we've had.

 

The original(1818), and the second(1848) constitution didn't say anything about firearms at all.

 

I wasn't able to find a copy of the 1870 constitution on the internet. I've not been able to get to the library to look it up either.

 

I suspect nothing was ever said about firearms in the 1870 constitution. It simply wasn't needed...

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...