Jump to content


Photo

If you let your FOID expire, you’re an “irresponsible gun owner”


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

#31 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 16 August 2019 - 01:29 PM

It's still $10. Anyone who risks a weapons charge to protest a $1/year "tax" is irresponsible.

Any taxation of a civil right is irresponsible

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#32 RS1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 19

Posted 16 August 2019 - 01:43 PM

Try that in court. Judges can always use a laugh.

#33 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,998 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 16 August 2019 - 01:54 PM

Try that in court. Judges can always use a laugh.


Hopefully soon we won’t have to worry about the FOID

#34 Raw Power

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,410 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 16

Posted 16 August 2019 - 02:15 PM

You can drive on a license for 1 year after it expired. The same should be applied to a FOID especially since just about no where wants to take it as a form of identification, even though it's state issued and comes with full background checks every day.



#35 biggun 1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 652 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 16 August 2019 - 03:31 PM

the isp can,t usually  get anything related to ccl or foid done in the alloted time but they sure have time to attempt to make illinois gun owners look like the bad guy one day after the permission slip expires.maybe the isp should put the trooper who made the statement to work getting ccl and foid sent out on time instead of telling folks how they bad for not renueing on time.



#36 soundguy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,303 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 05

Posted 16 August 2019 - 05:13 PM

You can drive on a license for 1 year after it expired. The same should be applied to a FOID especially since just about no where wants to take it as a form of identification, even though it's state issued and comes with full background checks every day.


You DO have a year to renew your expired IL DL... if you are caught driving you face fines, vehicle impoundment and worse should you be involved in an accident or bad behavior. You also become ineligible for vehicle insurance, an additional can of worms.

So no... you CANNOT drive for a year on an expired DL.

It would be nice if you had a year to renew a CCL... but ya sure can’t carry on an expired CCL without having submitted renewal before expiration.
Life is a cooperative venture... That's what makes it work.

#37 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 16 August 2019 - 07:49 PM

Try that in court. Judges can always use a laugh.

Ok. Oh, wait. It's already been done numerous times in various other cases.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#38 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 16 August 2019 - 08:11 PM

The state simply can't get their ish together. I know 2 people with valid FOID cards AND a medical cannabis license.

That is permitted in IL. Allows private sales but wont pass a federal check from 4473.
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#39 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,852 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 16 August 2019 - 11:03 PM

 

The state simply can't get their ish together. I know 2 people with valid FOID cards AND a medical cannabis license.

That is permitted in IL. Allows private sales but wont pass a federal check from 4473.

 

 

I want to see the look on the dolts faces if they pass their mandatory universal background check at the Federal level and all those marijuna users be it medical or recreational in the liberal states fail the new mandatory universal background check and either become prohibited people or commit purgery on their background checks and become felons over that.


Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#40 Colt guy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,426 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 13

Posted 16 August 2019 - 11:24 PM

What are the odds that pot will be legalized on the federal level ? Pretty good I would guess.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

#41 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,043 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 17 August 2019 - 06:07 AM

Oh, my Sig is a smoking device, just not marijuana. I tried drinking an ice cold IPA from it and you can imagine how that went. Lol!


Guns and alcohol don’t mix. Of course that’s a good thing, what would this world be like if the liquids in containers mixed with them?


^ this ***

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#42 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 17 August 2019 - 07:43 AM

The FOID is 100% unconstitutional and therefore is not a "law".  It's an illegal rule that IL forces upon gun owners at the threat of being put in a cage.  It's a civil rights violation of the worst kind.

The only reason it's still around is that we as gun owners have allowed it to stand and continue to blindly follow the rule.



#43 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,236 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 17 August 2019 - 11:13 AM

The FOID is 100% unconstitutional and therefore is not a "law".  It's an illegal rule that IL forces upon gun owners at the threat of being put in a cage.  It's a civil rights violation of the worst kind.
The only reason it's still around is that we as gun owners have allowed it to stand and continue to blindly follow the rule.


Correction, the only reason it's still around is because it is very difficult to challenge and we've never had the votes to repeal it.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#44 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 17 August 2019 - 11:31 AM

The FOID is 100% unconstitutional and therefore is not a "law".  It's an illegal rule that IL forces upon gun owners at the threat of being put in a cage.  It's a civil rights violation of the worst kind.
The only reason it's still around is that we as gun owners have allowed it to stand and continue to blindly follow the rule.

Correction, the only reason it's still around is because it is very difficult to challenge and we've never had the votes to repeal it.

Correction, the only reason FOID is still around is because nobody wants to go on record to get it repealed as mandated at the end of the FOID Card Act.

(430 ILCS 65/16) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16) 
    Sec. 16. When 2% of the number of registered voters in the State desire to pass upon the question of whether the General Assembly should repeal this Act regulating the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, they shall, at least 78 days before a regular election to be held throughout the State, file in the office of the State Board of Elections, a petition directed to the Board in accordance with the general election law. The petition shall be composed of county petitions from each of the counties throughout the State and each county petition shall contain the signatures of at least 2% of the number of registered voters in the county. The petition shall request that the question "Should the General Assembly repeal the Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith,' approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" be submitted to the voters of the State at the next ensuing State-wide election at which such question may be acted upon. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)


    (430 ILCS 65/16.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.1) 
    Sec. 16.1. A petition for the submission of the proposition shall be in substantially the following form: 
    To the State Board of Elections 
    The undersigned, residents and registered voters of the State of Illinois, respectfully petition that you cause to be submitted, in the manner provided by the general election law to the voters of the State of Illinois, at the next State-wide election, the proposition "Should the General Assembly repeal an Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith', approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" 
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Such petition shall conform to the requirements of the general election law. The Board shall certify the question to the proper election officials who shall submit the question at an election in accordance with the general election law. Upon request of any citizen for a reproduced copy of the petition and paying or tendering to the State Board of Elections the costs of making the copy, the Board shall immediately make, or cause to be made a reproduced copy of such petition. The Board shall also deliver to such person his official certification that such copy is a true copy of the original, stating the day when such original was filed in its office. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)


    (430 ILCS 65/16-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.3) 
    Sec. 16-3. The Secretary of State shall cause the question to be plainly printed upon separate ballots as follows: 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Should the General Assembly repeal the Act
entitled "An Act relating to the acquisition,     YES
possession and transfer of firearms and
firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty       ---------------
for the violation thereof and to make an
appropriation in connection therewith",           NO
approved August 3, 1967, as amended?




I have 2 questions regarding this matter:

1) When was the last petition attempted?

2) Why does the state require 2% of registered votes? Is it the same requirement for other laws to be repealed, or more?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#45 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,236 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 17 August 2019 - 11:37 AM

The FOID is 100% unconstitutional and therefore is not a "law".  It's an illegal rule that IL forces upon gun owners at the threat of being put in a cage.  It's a civil rights violation of the worst kind.
The only reason it's still around is that we as gun owners have allowed it to stand and continue to blindly follow the rule.

Correction, the only reason it's still around is because it is very difficult to challenge and we've never had the votes to repeal it.

Correction, the only reason FOID is still around is because nobody wants to go on record to get it repealed as mandated at the end of the FOID Card Act.

(430 ILCS 65/16) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16) 
    Sec. 16. When 2% of the number of registered voters in the State desire to pass upon the question of whether the General Assembly should repeal this Act regulating the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, they shall, at least 78 days before a regular election to be held throughout the State, file in the office of the State Board of Elections, a petition directed to the Board in accordance with the general election law. The petition shall be composed of county petitions from each of the counties throughout the State and each county petition shall contain the signatures of at least 2% of the number of registered voters in the county. The petition shall request that the question "Should the General Assembly repeal the Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith,' approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" be submitted to the voters of the State at the next ensuing State-wide election at which such question may be acted upon. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)


    (430 ILCS 65/16.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.1) 
    Sec. 16.1. A petition for the submission of the proposition shall be in substantially the following form: 
    To the State Board of Elections 
    The undersigned, residents and registered voters of the State of Illinois, respectfully petition that you cause to be submitted, in the manner provided by the general election law to the voters of the State of Illinois, at the next State-wide election, the proposition "Should the General Assembly repeal an Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith', approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" 
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Such petition shall conform to the requirements of the general election law. The Board shall certify the question to the proper election officials who shall submit the question at an election in accordance with the general election law. Upon request of any citizen for a reproduced copy of the petition and paying or tendering to the State Board of Elections the costs of making the copy, the Board shall immediately make, or cause to be made a reproduced copy of such petition. The Board shall also deliver to such person his official certification that such copy is a true copy of the original, stating the day when such original was filed in its office. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)


    (430 ILCS 65/16-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.3) 
    Sec. 16-3. The Secretary of State shall cause the question to be plainly printed upon separate ballots as follows: 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Should the General Assembly repeal the Act
entitled "An Act relating to the acquisition,     YES
possession and transfer of firearms and
firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty       ---------------
for the violation thereof and to make an
appropriation in connection therewith",           NO
approved August 3, 1967, as amended?




I have 2 questions regarding this matter:

1) When was the last petition attempted?

2) Why does the state require 2% of registered votes? Is it the same requirement for other laws to be repealed, or more?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Madigan and his legal team will not allow this to get on the ballot. Same as with the independent map question.
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#46 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 17 August 2019 - 12:23 PM

The FOID is 100% unconstitutional and therefore is not a "law".  It's an illegal rule that IL forces upon gun owners at the threat of being put in a cage.  It's a civil rights violation of the worst kind.
The only reason it's still around is that we as gun owners have allowed it to stand and continue to blindly follow the rule.
Correction, the only reason it's still around is because it is very difficult to challenge and we've never had the votes to repeal it.Correction, the only reason FOID is still around is because nobody wants to go on record to get it repealed as mandated at the end of the FOID Card Act.
(430 ILCS 65/16) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16) 
    Sec. 16. When 2% of the number of registered voters in the State desire to pass upon the question of whether the General Assembly should repeal this Act regulating the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, they shall, at least 78 days before a regular election to be held throughout the State, file in the office of the State Board of Elections, a petition directed to the Board in accordance with the general election law. The petition shall be composed of county petitions from each of the counties throughout the State and each county petition shall contain the signatures of at least 2% of the number of registered voters in the county. The petition shall request that the question "Should the General Assembly repeal the Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith,' approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" be submitted to the voters of the State at the next ensuing State-wide election at which such question may be acted upon. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)
    (430 ILCS 65/16.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.1) 
    Sec. 16.1. A petition for the submission of the proposition shall be in substantially the following form: 
    To the State Board of Elections 
    The undersigned, residents and registered voters of the State of Illinois, respectfully petition that you cause to be submitted, in the manner provided by the general election law to the voters of the State of Illinois, at the next State-wide election, the proposition "Should the General Assembly repeal an Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith', approved August 3, 1967, as amended?" 
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Such petition shall conform to the requirements of the general election law. The Board shall certify the question to the proper election officials who shall submit the question at an election in accordance with the general election law. Upon request of any citizen for a reproduced copy of the petition and paying or tendering to the State Board of Elections the costs of making the copy, the Board shall immediately make, or cause to be made a reproduced copy of such petition. The Board shall also deliver to such person his official certification that such copy is a true copy of the original, stating the day when such original was filed in its office. 
(Source: P.A. 81-1489.)
    (430 ILCS 65/16-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-16.3) 
    Sec. 16-3. The Secretary of State shall cause the question to be plainly printed upon separate ballots as follows: 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Should the General Assembly repeal the Act
entitled "An Act relating to the acquisition,     YES
possession and transfer of firearms and
firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty       ---------------
for the violation thereof and to make an
appropriation in connection therewith",           NO
approved August 3, 1967, as amended?
I have 2 questions regarding this matter:
1) When was the last petition attempted?
2) Why does the state require 2% of registered votes? Is it the same requirement for other laws to be repealed, or more?
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Madigan and his legal team will not allow this to get on the ballot. Same as with the independent map question.

Objection: Speculation. The process is codified.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#47 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 6,773 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 17 August 2019 - 12:55 PM

With roughly 8 million registered voters and 2 million plus FOID holders 2% seems possible should it ever get there.

Is this ballot question the only way to repeal? What about the bills introduced to repeal the FOID? Should a miracle occur and one made it to/through committee and past the ILGA is the above still required?

Edited by InterestedBystander, 17 August 2019 - 12:56 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
SAF Member
GOA Member
🇺🇸

#48 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 17 August 2019 - 01:28 PM

 

 

How about the ISP being responsible and sending out notices sufficiently in advance of cards expiring, running an effective customer service and processing applications in timely manner as prescribed by law?

 
 
AGREED!!


See what happens when other members add to the conversation/post instead of trashing others on certain things that weren’t done a certain way?
How can we get the ball rolling on this?

 

 

How about contacting Fox Illinois and politely asking for equal time to make a counter point on the issue and informing Fox that the ISP frequently runs afoul of Illinois law, by not processing card renewals in the legally allotted time.

And that Trooper Mindy Carroll saying expired FOID card holders "may indicate an irresponsible gun owner" just may be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black."



#49 Buzzard

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,391 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 17 August 2019 - 01:35 PM

Can I therefore assume that carrying an expired concealed card card (while not carrying a weapon) is also bad juju?

I don't recall this being discussed in either the original carry class nor the renewal class.



#50 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 17 August 2019 - 01:37 PM

With roughly 8 million registered voters and 2 million plus FOID holders 2% seems possible should it ever get there.
Is this ballot question the only way to repeal? What about the bills introduced to repeal the FOID? Should a miracle occur and one made it to/through committee and past the ILGA is the above still required?

A quick Google search reveals Illinois has 7.99 million active registered voters and 758,000 inactive registered voters (whatever that means). 2% of all registered voters in Illinois would mean 175,000 signatures needed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#51 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,907 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 17 August 2019 - 05:51 PM

Trooper Carroll is, according to other sources, the "Central Region Publication Officer". She should stick to the mantra the ISP used for years about "not offering legal advice".

If I was a betting man, I'd wager that jobs like hers are just as politically motivated as those occupied by Sgt John Thompson and Lieutenant Darrin Clark back in 2013, both of whom signed witness slips in favor of Quimby's CCW veto, but also testified in front of the Legislature's veto session in favor of the Governor's veto, claiming that without a 100% alcohol service ban, CCW folks would enter restaurants to drink themselves to the point of intoxication while armed to avoid the bar (51%) ban.

While I found no record of Thompson or Carroll on the state employee website, Clark is back, now as "Government Affairs Chief", BTW, so if his behavior remains consistent we can expect more dishonesty about guns under the guise of authority.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#52 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,998 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 17 August 2019 - 06:13 PM

Trooper Carroll is, according to other sources, the "Central Region Publication Officer". She should stick to the mantra the ISP used for years about "not offering legal advice".If I was a betting man, I'd wager that jobs like hers are just as politically motivated as those occupied by Sgt John Thompson and Lieutenant Darrin Clark back in 2013, both of whom signed witness slips in favor of Quimby's CCW veto, but also testified in front of the Legislature's veto session in favor of the Governor's veto, claiming that without a 100% alcohol service ban, CCW folks would enter restaurants to drink themselves to the point of intoxication while armed to avoid the bar (51%) ban.While I found no record of Thompson or Carroll on the state employee website, Clark is back, now as "Government Affairs Chief", BTW, so if his behavior remains consistent we can expect more dishonesty about guns under the guise of authority.

She made the assumption that people MAY (happy bubbacs?) be irresponsible gun owners if they dont renew their FOID. Another route she could have taken would have been to say when people fail to renew their FOID, there are certain risks that come with that. Boom! Done! No controversy. She made a blanket statement declaring that people who dont renew are possibly dangerous/irresponsible with firearms (responsibility while owning guns), which therefor is political language (responsible gun owner) frequently used buy our opponents in order to make the impression that theyre pro 2A. See below

https://www.responsibleownership.org/#

And

https://www.responsi...take-the-pledge

As a responsible gun owners, I pledge to:

-Practice safe gun storage. I will keep my firearms and ammunition locked and separate, when not in use. (Is this not what we are fighting against? Safe storage laws?)

-Support universal background check requirements. I will not sell or buy a firearm without a background check. (No brained, we are against this)

-Support the rights of my fellow citizens to be free from intimidation by the open display of firearms in public. I will avoid the unnecessary carrying of firearms in public, particularly in places where children are present. (Making open carry where its legal a bad thing)

-Always make gun safety a priority in my home, in the field or on the range.

Thats Gabby Giffords group btw. And that is what a responsible gun owner is............


If we dont adapt and allow some new tactics, we are finished. The pushback on that is troubling, because even the antis seem to get it. Why dont we as a whole?

Case and point:

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=72743

Like this thread, thats an opportunity to mke a point on our side and have THEM clarify/go on defense. The infighting doesnt help.

Edited by steveTA84, 17 August 2019 - 06:16 PM.


#53 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,236 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 17 August 2019 - 06:50 PM

With roughly 8 million registered voters and 2 million plus FOID holders 2% seems possible should it ever get there.
Is this ballot question the only way to repeal? What about the bills introduced to repeal the FOID? Should a miracle occur and one made it to/through committee and past the ILGA is the above still required?


No
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#54 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,053 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 17 August 2019 - 07:58 PM

Someone IS thinking about me....

Now I’m happy, thanks.

#55 steveTA84

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,998 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 15

Posted 17 August 2019 - 08:16 PM

Post removed for responding to above. Im done. Thanks for the good times ILCarry, good luck in your future endeavors. Im out

Edited by steveTA84, 17 August 2019 - 08:17 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users