Jump to content

mrmagloo

Members
  • Posts

    2,468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

mrmagloo's Achievements

Member

Member (22/24)

  1. Thanks Mauser - That's encouraging, but the problem with taking the ISP's word on anything is, they tend to talk out of both sides of their mouths and will capitulate the second Jabba puts down one of his elephant feet. It constantly amazes me that in our circles, the ISP is all about supporting the 2A, but will quickly enforce unlawful legislation. Damn cowards. No doubt, I am cautiously optimistic about eventually seeing this nightmare go away, but remain entirely disappointed that the SC doesn't view even temporary breaches of any of our BOR's as an enormous problem and should never occur. Imho, the default on any law infringing on any BOR should be to put it on hold until the constitutionality is confirmed - not the other way around.
  2. Well, seeing we are not going to get any relief from the SC, I think it would be helpful for a discussion on the pro's and con's of registering. My original plan was to not register and simply remove anything of concern to my place out of state - which would be a headache. However, if this legal situation ever fails in our disfavor, it seems those who do not register would be restricted from bringing them back - again provided applicable portions of PICA prevail, which we all obviously hope will not. On the flip side, if you do register, it seems you do preserve your right to keep those items you declare until of course, they take the next step with making them illegal and confiscation which we all know the left is ultimately working towards. However, before that, if we ever get wind, we always have the right to move said item(s) out of state at the point. So, I'm becoming of the opinion we really have no choice but to register to preserve our Illinois ownership rights for now. If we prevail in the courts, I would imagine the state would be required to destroy all registration records, right? And if we eventually lose, no doubt they are going to press forward with trying to make them illegal and confiscate, so we then might as well start moving stuff quickly. I mean, if you move a registered item to a friendly state, which suddenly becomes an illegal item in Illinois, they certainly cannot force you to bring it back to surrender? I don't know, but this is just so frustrating that the SC is dragging their feet on this. Seems this should be a no brainer.
  3. Its amazing that these guys would press forward knowing full well they may be jeopardizing the better good with a stronger case? Can't we get some 2A legal eagles to get these groups together to talk about strategy, without the egos? Which gets me thinking, what is to stop a scenario where a Soros backed gun grabber legal firm files a case against gun arms legislation with the purposeful intent of torpedoing the case in an effort to sabotage the legal landscape against us? I mean if guys on our side are doing it out of stupidity, what is stopping a smart Anti from intentionally doing the same?
  4. I guess the moral of this story is, if Illinois passes laws that breach our Constitutional Rights, it's up to every single citizen to individually challenge the bad law to get their rights restored. I don't get most of this legal mumbo jumbo, but it seems outrageous that if a law is found unconstitutional, that it's not TOTALLY and IMMEDIATELY stricken. This nonsense that a unconstitutional law can only adversely effect ONE person and Only this ONE person is allowed a remedy, sounds utterly retarded.
  5. My instructor offered to do the paperwork for a couple of different states, and had all of the packets ready, and finger print cards. Perhaps that's what he was referring to.
  6. Yeah, I'm following, but the fact that they think restricting a right by a licensing scheme is OK, simply because the fee is reasonable in exchange for the cost of the license itself is mind numbing. That's like saying it's OK for the government to charge a mandatory fee to tattoo a barcode on your forehead, if the fee is roughly inline with the cost of the damn tattoo. What the h e l l does that have to do with the core loss of Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights?
  7. I don't get it. They are simply saying that due to receiving an ID card worth the approximate value of the fee, that it's OK to restrict a Constitutional Right? OK, where are Mandatory REAL Voter Cards? And what about Freedom of Speech cards? Do we now need to register for every frigging right we have? What a cluster.
  8. Why don't you let the Step Son Deputy hold the rifle until things can get sorted? Once surrendered, it can be tough to reclaim.
  9. Fwiw, I got a letter yesterday about my FOID expiring, and I when online right away and did the renewal process quite easily. Now the wait for the card.
  10. The courts don't give a crap about what their actions and in-actions cause? No doubt, they just opened a can of worms, but don't count on any enforcement changes. They don't care either. Nor do the legislators. None of these arse whoo's have personal skin or financial interest in the matter. They can play games all day long on the tax payers tab. This thing is not over by a long shot, but the can has gotten kicked for sure.
  11. Excellent point - Clearly you understand the legal aspects, but the point is, how can they state that the FOID is not applicable in her own home, which is in-conflict with the actual law. If they say the law doesn't apply, but the law itself says it does, seems to me they are OBLIGATED to settle the controversy that got the case to them? And that naturally leads to the entire chicken before the egg issue on obtaining and transferring the firearm and ammo to the home, which is also in conflict. Imho, this is why they punted.
  12. Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy. The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing. Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone. My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime Agreed, they could have very well decided to strike the portion of the FOID law only pertaining to the possession of firearms in your own private property. They could have also striken the entire thing. I think the point is, they found the easiest solution to solve the problem, without having to touch the law, which the majority desperately support along political lines.
×
×
  • Create New...