axel2078 Posted March 8, 2019 at 06:31 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 06:31 PM Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. My apologies if has already been mentioned, but I didn't see any topics for SB 44 unless I just missed it. This part is a bit concerning. Revoked FOID cards would include those that have been allowed to expire, even if there were to be a pending application for renewal at the time. If there are multiple FOID holders in a household and one member has their FOID revoked, nothing would prevent law enforcement from simply seizing all firearms and ammunition in the house. The legislation makes no mention as to how an individual may recover their property if it’s incorrectly seized or if they re-acquire a FOID card. There are no provisions to allow those revoked FOID holders to sell or dispose of their firearms to licensed dealers or valid FOID holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrickster Posted March 8, 2019 at 06:56 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 06:56 PM Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. My apologies if has already been mentioned, but I didn't see any topics for SB 44 unless I just missed it. This part is a bit concerning. Revoked FOID cards would include those that have been allowed to expire, even if there were to be a pending application for renewal at the time. If there are multiple FOID holders in a household and one member has their FOID revoked, nothing would prevent law enforcement from simply seizing all firearms and ammunition in the house. The legislation makes no mention as to how an individual may recover their property if it’s incorrectly seized or if they re-acquire a FOID card. There are no provisions to allow those revoked FOID holders to sell or dispose of their firearms to licensed dealers or valid FOID holders. NRA-ILA was quick on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJim Posted March 8, 2019 at 07:48 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 07:48 PM If there are multiple FOID holders in a household and one member has their FOID revoked, nothing would prevent law enforcement from simply seizing all firearms and ammunition in the house. How is it legal to trample on the rights of someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong? This sounds like a 1983 suit waiting to happen. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redlin Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:17 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:17 PM So if for some reason my wife didn't care to shoot anymore and she just allows her FOID to expire,the state could show up at my door to confiscate my guns?LOL,yeah o.k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcelia Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:20 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:20 PM I'm not sure where the bill language actually is.....http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=041500050K1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcelia Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:21 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:21 PM So if for some reason my wife didn't care to shoot anymore and she just allows her FOID to expire,the state could show up at my door to confiscate my guns?LOL,yeah o.k.Agree.....it will not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:42 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:42 PM So if for some reason my wife didn't care to shoot anymore and she just allows her FOID to expire,the state could show up at my door to confiscate my guns?LOL,yeah o.k.My wife’s FOID card is expiring in May and I just applied to renew it just for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailor Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:44 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:44 PM I'm not sure where the bill language actually is.....http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=041500050K1 The language is at this link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10100SB0044sam001&GA=101&SessionId=108&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=114416&DocNum=44&GAID=15&Session= As amended, the language would be (added some whitespace, and there's a lot more changed elsewhere by this too): (430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8)Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. [ … ] Upon revocation of a person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, the Department of State Police shall (i) provide notice to the person;(ii) confiscate the person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, firearms, and ammunition that are in his or herpossession; and(iii) report the name and other identifying information ofthat person to the National Instant Criminal BackgroundCheck System database within 15 business days. The person shall comply with Section 9.5 of this Act. Itis unlawful for a person whose Firearm Owner'sIdentification Card was revoked or denied to possess aFirearm Owner's Identification Card, firearms, or ammunition. This adds that the ISP shall confiscate firearms and ammunition of the revoked person "in his or her possession" and provides no type of grace period for legal transfer of firearms. I imagine this would permit the ISP to "provide notice" by showing up at the door to then immediately "confiscate" all the firearms and ammunition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VannDaddy Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:54 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:54 PM If there are multiple FOID holders in a household and one member has their FOID revoked, nothing would prevent law enforcement from simply seizing all firearms and ammunition in the house. How is it legal to trample on the rights of someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong? This sounds like a 1983 suit waiting to happen. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk Sounds like a lawsuit to get rid of the FOID system for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:54 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:54 PM This is frightening. It almost seems like some idiots in the legislature are trying to arrange a confrontation between innocent firearm owners and over zealous LEOs on front porches. Some one is going to get hurt, all for 'talking points' to use to put in more stringent gun control laws. Don't these gun grabbers know they're playing with fire? Don't they know this could turn in their hands and bite them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigcelia Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:59 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 08:59 PM I'm not sure where the bill language actually is.....http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=041500050K1 The language is at this link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10100SB0044sam001&GA=101&SessionId=108&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=114416&DocNum=44&GAID=15&Session= As amended, the language would be (added some whitespace, and there's a lot more changed elsewhere by this too): (430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8)Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. [ … ] Upon revocation of a person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, the Department of State Police shall (i) provide notice to the person;(ii) confiscate the person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, firearms, and ammunition that are in his or herpossession; and(iii) report the name and other identifying information ofthat person to the National Instant Criminal BackgroundCheck System database within 15 business days. The person shall comply with Section 9.5 of this Act. Itis unlawful for a person whose Firearm Owner'sIdentification Card was revoked or denied to possess aFirearm Owner's Identification Card, firearms, or ammunition. This adds that the ISP shall confiscate firearms and ammunition of the revoked person "in his or her possession" and provides no type of grace period for legal transfer of firearms. I imagine this would permit the ISP to "provide notice" by showing up at the door to then immediately "confiscate" all the firearms and ammunition. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedrickster Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:16 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:16 PM This is frightening. It almost seems like some idiots in the legislature are trying to arrange a confrontation between innocent firearm owners and over zealous LEOs on front porches. Some one is going to get hurt, all for 'talking points' to use to put in more stringent gun control laws. Don't these gun grabbers know they're playing with fire? Don't they know this could turn in their hands and bite them? If you actually listen to the activists driving bad policy it isn't much of a stretch, disarmament is the intent. There used to be a hard prohibition against explicitly stating the same but now, the mask slips after "events" and is completely off amongst friendlies. The simplest explanation is 1) no crisis left to waste 2) the intent is to no-knock enough people for administrative technical non-compliance as to send a message to the lot of us. The writing is on the wall in this state. In case the punchline isn't clear, the target IS otherwise "law abiding gun owners". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:37 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:37 PM So basically they let all of our FOID’s expire by not renewing in time as they do time and time again then come grab our guns with no provision to return them once the ISP sorts its own self out. What a hellscape we are creating here in Illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1700715 Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:39 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:39 PM Just because you have a foid card does not mean you have a gun either. My wife has a foid but has never purchased a weapon. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:44 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 09:44 PM Not sure if anyone has seen this yet. Helps to follow along or catch up with the legislative threads. Was posted yesterday when it happened. Posted Yesterday, 02:12 PM Senate Amendment 1 was filed on SB44 Safety - Tech http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:00 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:00 PM Some are theorizing this also permits destruction of confiscated firearms. ...Nowhere in Hastings' bill does it specify that the Illinois State Police must return the confiscated firearms and ammunition if or when the revocation is rescinded. Furthermore, the law doesn't mandate the ISP store the confiscated property, either. That suggests confiscated firearms would be destroyed periodically alongside crime guns. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:04 PM Share Posted March 8, 2019 at 10:04 PM I don't know for sure, but I don't believe the ISP supports any legislation like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:50 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:50 AM I don't know for sure, but I don't believe the ISP supports any legislation like this.Nobody wants a mini Waco in their town. Plenty of guys around that believe in principal more than their own life. I have to imagine that most police officers have a guy or three in mind when they read this bill. I keep feeling like it's time to pack up and go. Just trying to make it another 5 years so my son can graduate with his friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:52 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 12:52 AM One of the very frustrating parts are this is that the sponsor would tell you he's a gun owner, as if that makes his push for gun confiscation OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:46 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:46 AM My point is, everything to do with FOID cards falls under the responsibility of the ISP. They just announced there new set of procedures which is within their authority under current law. They don't want some legislator that doesn't know what he's talking about dictating their policies and procedures. I believe one of the reasons for his amendment was just to get himself in the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:49 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:49 AM One of the very frustrating parts are this is that the sponsor would tell you he's a gun owner, as if that makes his push for gun confiscation OK.We need a way to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them but kicking in doors isn't going to be the solution. People are going to get hurt and I think that is what Madigan and his slimey cohorts want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davel501 Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:51 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 02:51 AM ...and Fuds shouldn't speak about gun rights even if they're elected to office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deac0n Posted March 9, 2019 at 03:19 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 03:19 AM First time post, just signed up here, been a lurker for years. The site is great. So let me get this right, if I move out of state, and don't renew, I can be reported to nic's. And then never be able to own a gun anywhere. Upon revocation of a person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, the Department of State Police shall (i) provide notice to the person;(ii) confiscate the person's Firearm Owner's IdentificationCard, firearms, and ammunition that are in his or herpossession; and(iii) report the name and other identifying information ofthat person to the National Instant Criminal BackgroundCheck System database within 15 business days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted March 9, 2019 at 04:43 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 04:43 AM Also being discussed herehttp://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=71420 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redlin Posted March 9, 2019 at 05:20 AM Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 05:20 AM .Revoked FOID cards would include those that have been allowed to expire, even if there were to be a pending application for renewal at the time. I realize this ammendment may be being discussed in another thread,but I can't find where what is quoted in this post,above, is included in the amendment.It's late,I'm tired ,but I can't find it. ETA .. Using this as my reference.http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=10100SB0044sam001&GA=101&SessionId=108&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=114416&DocNum=44&GAID=15&Session= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.