Jump to content

Illinois SB 107, FOPA, and the illegality of any law requiring registering of firearms.


ChicagoRonin70

Recommended Posts

So, all of us are obviously concerned about SB 107, the idiotically and speciously named "Assault Weapons" ban bill filed by the politically incompetent Julie A. Morrison, (D) 29, which, among other Constitution-violating foolishness, states the following:

 

This Section does not apply to a person who possessed an assault weapon before the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly, provided the person has provided in a registration affidavit, under oath or affirmation and in the form and manner prescribed by the Department of State Police on or after 180 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly but within 300 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 101st General Assembly:

(1) his or her name;
(2) date of birth;
(3) Firearm Owner's Identification Card number;
(4) the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the weapon; and . . .
However, a reading of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, FOPA, 18 U.S. Code § 926., explicitly states the following, which directly prohibits such a registration scheme, including specifically by State-level entities:
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Which brings up the direct question that Morrison and the co-sponsors of that bill are in direct, unequivocal, and complete violation of Federal law with this bill, to say nothing of the aforementioned Constitutional violations that the bill embodies.
My question is, given the unmitigated illegality of this proposed legislation, how is it even allowed to progress pass the initial filing stage and not be rejected due to its obvious contravening of long-established Federal prohibitions of the very thing at the core of the bill? And how is Morrison not being criminally prosecuted for what is a willful and knowing violation of Federal law? Even the filing of this kind of bill, according to statutes, is an illegal act. There's no question about it.
So, why isn't ANYONE pursuing legal criminal action against Morrison and the bill's co-sponsors (conspirators) for putting this forward? Since she is also doing so while a public official, that's a criminal act to deprive the citizens of Illinois under the color of her office, which is a Federal felony.
I really would like some explanation as to how this is allowed, how it could be even countenanced, and why it's not being prosecuted as the illegal act that it is?
Additionally, the very inclusion of that aspect, the registration, renders the entire bill as invalid and, again, it should be removed from any legislative consideration as a result.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you are right.

Good work getting speciously and countenanced into the same paragraph. If I did not know better I would say you had been an English professor at one time.

Down with SB 107!

 

Actually, English professors, among other smart people, used to hire me to check their work before the published it. Seriously, that was one of my jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

 

Actually, it says exactly that the United States, any State, or any subunit thereof is bound as follows:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . .

 

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof . . .

 

It also binds those political bodies as follows:

 

. . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

 

Just like the commas in the Second Amendment, they separate supporting linguistic aspects that surround the operative subjects that cannot require or maintain records or registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions/dispositions.

 

That section means the following, placed in order of the subordinate clause of what cannot be done, followed by the subject of who cannot do those things, according to the English language as understood when the FOPA was drafted:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established . . .

 

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more than obvious than State Senators and Rep's in certain parties don't follow the 'outdated' Constitution so why in the world would they follow the Federal laws of the nation?

 

Yes, and they should be prosecuted for doing so, as they are undeniably violating both Constitutional and Federal laws, thus committing actual crimes by filing such laws.

 

If I violate a law that says that I cannot write something that is intended to instigate an illegal act by others, thus committing a crime by definition from doing so, then writing a bill that violates laws on requiring firearm registration is also a violation of the law and is a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, as I read it, the FOID itself is very likely a violation of that law as well as Concealed Carry permits and databases? What are we missing?

It appears to only apply to registries of firearms, not firearm owners and the FOID would be grandfathered in any case:

[No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act

 

 

 

Have there been any lawsuits pursuant to this interpretation? All of the state-level "assault weapons" bans that require registration of existing firearms, including NY and CA, would fall under such an interpretation, since the earliest of those was passed in 1989, 3 years after FOPA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting, as I read it, the FOID itself is very likely a violation of that law as well as Concealed Carry permits and databases? What are we missing?

It appears to only apply to registries of firearms, not firearm owners and the FOID would be grandfathered in any case:

 

? emphasis added

 

As for 'grandfathered, IMO when the FOID act was altered and amended to allow concealed carry, it became a new law effective on that date mooting it's grandfathering status.

 

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Interesting, as I read it, the FOID itself is very likely a violation of that law as well as Concealed Carry permits and databases? What are we missing?

It appears to only apply to registries of firearms, not firearm owners and the FOID would be grandfathered in any case:

[No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act

 

 

 

Have there been any lawsuits pursuant to this interpretation? All of the state-level "assault weapons" bans that require registration of existing firearms, including NY and CA, would fall under such an interpretation, since the earliest of those was passed in 1989, 3 years after FOPA

 

 

I'm astonished that you could think that it does NOT apply to registries of firearms owners, when the text of the FOPA specifically reads . . .

 

. . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

 

For clarification in the supportive/subject structured version, I'll also highlight it:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established . . .

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

And, I don't know if there have been any such court challenges of those laws stemming from FOPA violations, but there ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE, and those legislators who passed them, as well as any law enforcement officials who enforced them, should be criminally charged as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting, as I read it, the FOID itself is very likely a violation of that law as well as Concealed Carry permits and databases? What are we missing?

It appears to only apply to registries of firearms, not firearm owners and the FOID would be grandfathered in any case:

 

? emphasis added

 

As for 'grandfathered, IMO when the FOID act was altered and amended to allow concealed carry, it became a new law effective on that date mooting it's grandfathering status.

 

 

 

Unholy . . . you're RIGHT! Any changes to the FOID law subsequent to the passage of FOPA would legally make it a new law by definition, otherwise it would be an illegal end-run around both the letter and the spirit of FOPA, thus any grandfathering would ONLY legally apply to the original text of the FOID law!

 

How has no one actually understood that at this point, or more likely, how have they let people get away with doing this kind of nose-thumbing at the Federal law and not challenged it as such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

I believe you are totally right on this. Contrary opinions on this thread are missing the plain language of the federal law.

 

And there is a much more powerful argument anyway. Something in the Bill of Rights about infringement...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

I believe you are totally right on this. Contrary opinions on this thread are missing the plain language of the federal law.

 

And there is a much more powerful argument anyway. Something in the Bill of Rights about infringement...........

 

 

The plain language of the law is what I wrote, in non-split order, according to how the English language is understood; it's the EXACT same words, only with subordinate clause connected instead of being split apart. Think of how the Second Amendment is written, how the clauses are separated by the commas. It's the exact same principle here:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established . . .

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

Incidentally, not only did English professors hire me to check their work, lawyers did as well, including several law firms. My particular specialty was parsing complex language into forms that were completely unambiguous to anyone reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

I believe you are totally right on this. Contrary opinions on this thread are missing the plain language of the federal law.

 

And there is a much more powerful argument anyway. Something in the Bill of Rights about infringement...........

 

 

The plain language of the law is what I wrote, in non-split order, according to how the English language is understood:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established . . .

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

You're missing the qualifier: "....records required to be maintained under this chapter....."

 

Do you really think that legions of attorneys have missed this concept you're advocating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The way I read the FOPA law is this:

 

The Federal government may not store firearms records at any facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

 

It doesn't say anything about state or local governments being able to do it.

 

That being said, I hope I'm totally wrong on this.

I believe you are totally right on this. Contrary opinions on this thread are missing the plain language of the federal law.

 

And there is a much more powerful argument anyway. Something in the Bill of Rights about infringement...........

 

The plain language of the law is what I wrote, in non-split order, according to how the English language is understood:

 

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled . . . nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established . . .

 

. . . by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof.

You're missing the qualifier: "....records required to be maintained under this chapter....."

 

Do you really think that legions of attorneys have missed this concept you're advocating?

 

Are you serious? In EVERY INSTANCE that I quoted and clarified, that qualifier is included in the supportive clause to the aggregate subjects (United States, STATES, political subdivisions of). It literally says that NONE of those entities can maintain registries of firearms, their owners, or the transactions/dispositions thereof, nor can those records be transferred.

 

NONE of those things are allowed to ANY of the listed governing entities.

 

English, my friend, do you speak it?

 

english-do-you-speak-it-gif-9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IL can keep all the FTIP data unfortunately. It's an exception allowed for "Point of Contact" states like IL that have their own background check system and a state law on allowing or requiring data to be kept. IL has such a law.

 

Wasn't easy to find, but here it all is in this post.

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71321

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I speak English. And I'm sure you've had a few legal courses in statutory construction. Good luck CR70. Done here.

 

Actually, for over twenty years, one of the things that my consulting service did was provide specialty legal editing and writing for lawyers and law firms, along with research verification for the same, as well as for peer reviewed academic and scientific publications and research. Additionally, I also specialized in what's called "down translation" of technical, scientific, and legal writing, which is taking jargon from professional fields and putting it into language, and explaining how I was doing so, so that it could be understood by non-experts of those fields and laypersons. My clients ranged from law firms to medical researchers to theoretical physicists to mathematicians.

 

So, literally, one of the things that I was paid extremely well for was knowing how to understand what was written on just about any subject matter, edit it, rewrite it so that the actual meaning was clear to anyone reading it, and include clear and unambiguous explanations of not only what was being written, but how I had done so and the correct way to interpret the meaning of what was written.

 

In fact, I actually edited a textbook on legal linguistics written by one of my clients who taught lawyers how to write contracts and legislative proposals.

 

You could say I've had a few courses in legal construction. Yeah. I suppose you could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to whether keeping FTIP data by POC states is legal, it's literally never been adjudicated on or even challenged directly in court. It's a regulatory interpretation by the DOJ, not a litigated and decided issue. As for the direct and explicit registering of firearms by the US, any state, or any other unit of government, it directly contradicts what is written in FOPA, but the Federal government would need to challenge states directly in court, which we all know it is loathe to do regarding firearms, so it would need to be done by a private individual, group, or entity, and the question pursued to an ultimate judgement by the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article IV, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution coupled with federal and state precedent grants legislative immunity to legislators for most acts (non felony) committed in the performance of their duties as a legislator. The most common form of this immunity is the representative (or in one case a famous supreme court judge) speeding. However, it also provides immunity for stupid comments on the floor and stupid legislation.

 

There is no exception for treason. I suppose one could argue that undermining the Constitution, without utilizing the amendment process, could amount to treason. Obviously, that would be a long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets better and better:

 

In the Tribune today, :

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-state-police-foid-guns-20190306-story.html

 

 

Among the changes is giving local law enforcement better access to the list of people whose FOID cards have been revoked. Police and sheriff's agencies will be told the reason a FOID card has been pulled and whether the person has turned the card and provided an accounting of their weapons, as the law already requires.

 

State police will also start providing local law enforcement with what firearms have been purchased by people whose cards have been revoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, you know what else is a "regulatory interpretation"? The ATF's bump-stock ban.

 

Keep that in mind when insisting that just because that is the way government entities have been able to get away with thumbing their noses at both the letter and spirit of laws, it's a settled matter. Arrogant, rabidly anti-firearm government entities aren't even abiding by Supreme Court decisions like Heller and MacDonald unless they are forced to by threats, and even the Federal government is balky at not infringing on Constitutional rights until the Supreme Court rules unambiguously.

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...