Jump to content


Photo

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#181 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 13 June 2019 - 08:53 AM

 

 

^^^^
The anti-gun people will be out and there will be propaganda all over social media on how this decision could turn Illinois into the Wild West etc. keeping those people in check and engaging them is a must.

It wont turn us into the Wild West, it will just make Illinois like any other state in the union that does not require the card. Like with concealed carry, the Illinois politicians are so arrogant that they think they are wiser than the politicians in every other state.
Didnt hear much after the shootouts and blood running in streets events did not happen after passing CCL. They like to point to the handful of states remotely similar instead of the other 40+ that arent set up like IL yet do not have their issues. Its sad that most of these legislators know nothing about firearms and arent interested in educating themselves before introducing a bill that does nothing but feels good.

 

 

I think for at least some of them it goes beyond feeling good (though I don't discount that). I'd be curious how many of the "true believers" would lose a little fervency if there was zero chance of tangible gain. 


"I can't spare this man. He fights."  Abraham Lincoln


#182 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2019 - 01:45 AM

From the appellate response brief:

...
So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion.
...
In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...


I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).

Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.

Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.

Edited by Euler, 14 June 2019 - 01:55 AM.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#183 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,989 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 14 June 2019 - 05:29 AM

From the appellate response brief:...So the State not only wishes to unconstitutionally force lawful firearm users to go through its requirements simply to be able to defend their own homes, but the State is now arguing that everyone in the house should be forced to fulfill those requirements or, presumably, face criminal penalties. Since it is unconstitutional to force the licensing scheme upon the homeowner, forcing said scheme upon non-firearm-using residents is an outrageous suggestion which exposes the State's true intentions as to the infringements of the FOID Card system. This Court should emphatically reject the State's assertion....In light of the above, the Defendant-Appellee ... respectfully requests this Honorable Court to affirm the Orders of the circuit court that 430 ILCS 65(a)(2), as-applied to her, unconstitutionally infringes on her Second Amendment rights, as it does upon law-abiding persons who wish to possess a long gun in their homes for lawful purposes ...I haven't read the Plaintiff's case, but apparently the State is arguing that all people with access to an unsecured firearm (i.e., everyone in a household where a firearm exists) must possess a FOID on or about their person at all times when they have said access, otherwise they would be in violation of the FOID Act. Sigale is asking the court to rule on that non-legislated expansion of the FOID Act (presumably to keep it out of case law).Additionally, this case won't "Void the FOID" as some people would like it to do. It would only suspend the requirement to possess a FOID for long guns kept exclusively in the home. It would leave in place the requirement to possess a FOID for handguns anywhere and for long guns outside the home.Also, I think he means 430 ILCS 65/2(a), not 430 ILCS 65(a)(2). Hopefully the court will be forgiving of typos.


By logical extension possession of handguns would be included as per Heller they are the ‘ quintessential ‘ tool of self-defense. Transport to and from the range, the gun shop, or repair shop would also be logically included by extension through Ezell.

With the exception of the fee in order to exercise a constitutional right, upholding the circuit court judges decision would basically reset the FOID act back to the way it was when it was originally passed.


^ 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


#184 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,097 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:25 AM

“The problem, of course, is if you have to transfer it to and from and that was not covered in this case, so you’d still need a FOID card,” Pearson said.

 

I don't get this.  If the FOID is unconstitutional, then why would you need it for anything.  I'm also concerned as to how the original ruling stated that it was unconstitutional "in this particular case".  Do we have a 2nd amendment civil right or don't we?  Do we have equal application of the law, or don't we?

Why are these cases trying to narrow the rulings down to a very specific, tiny thing?

 

If I still need to have a FOID to buy, possess or "transfer to and from" a firearm or ammunition, then what's the point?

So I may not need a FOID to keep a firearm "in my home", but I'll need it if I ever want to take it out of my home?  The whole thing is absurd.



#185 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:37 AM

I don't know, but the last couple of posts confuse me?  I thought the objective of this case was to render the FOID entirely as unconstitutional?  I'm not sure if someone is misinterpreting the briefs, but sounds like some serious backpeddling?  Why would he allow the parsing out of long gun instead of insisting on the word of 'firearm' that covers all?  That basically undermines the big picture objective. So now the argument is only for the right to have a rifle without a FOID in your home only, but for anything else you need it?  What's the point?


Edited by mrmagloo, 14 June 2019 - 08:40 AM.


#186 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 16,061 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:54 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal. New issues and arguments are not allowed.
"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

#187 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 14 June 2019 - 08:59 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal.

The VOID the FOID is going to be cases like this. Baby steps instead of one whopping huge blow.

The point is many little battles until we win the war.



#188 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 14 June 2019 - 09:22 AM

This case has a very narrow scope that is intended to go after the very basic right of 'in the home', just as the Heller case did. It lays groundwork for future challenges.

Plus only issues raised in the initial case can be addressed in the appeal. New issues and arguments are not allowed.

 

My point is, look at the very first post in this thread.  The key points of contention then was, the FOID Act was unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. And, Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax  to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.  Note the word FIREARM - Not, long gun.

 

So naturally, when you already have a win saying that a fee or tax, or other limitation infringing on your right to have a Firearm or Ammunition in your home, why wouldn't we continue that with that same argument, and NOT on our own, start diluting our position by now dropping every thing but long arms?  And, what happened to the ammo?  The key point being there is, if it's legal to have ammo in your home, it has to be legal to purchase as well without a FOID.  At that point, the entire FOID crumbles.  However, with this sudden dilution, the key points that would have gutted the FOID just went out the window? Why??  We are in the process of winning the Superbowl, and at the same time, killing this new house FOID bill they passed, and now we want to start giving away our leverage?  I don't get it?


Edited by mrmagloo, 14 June 2019 - 09:24 AM.


#189 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,610 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 14 June 2019 - 01:40 PM

If the FOID is necessary to transport after this case, perhaps it becomes the functional equivalent to the NYC permit (the one being challenged in the USSC). If that case goes our way, FOID gets nuked.


Edited by TRJ, 14 June 2019 - 01:47 PM.


#190 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 14 June 2019 - 02:13 PM

If the FOID is necessary to transport after this case, perhps it becomes the functional equivalent to the NYC permit being challenged in the USSC. If that case goes our way, FOID gets nuked.


In the NYSRPA case, possession of a "permit" actually prohibits transporting firearms. In IL, a FOID (which is effectively a permit) allows state residents to transport firearms. There would have to be a couple dots in-between to connect those two, although the arguments would be similar.

The NYSRPA case is set up to decide that being prohibited from transporting a legally owned handgun beyond the home is a 2nd Amendment violation.

If a FOID is no longer required to keep a long gun in the home, then requiring a FOID to transport a long gun outside the home is a 2nd Amendment violation using the same arguments. It wouldn't follow the NYSRPA precedent. It would be a new precedent with the same arguments.

It would only apply to long guns, though, which seems artificial to me. Both long guns and handguns go bang when you pull the switch, and the issue would still be just transport, not carry. The only difference is the size of the enclosing case (no pun intended).

Task vs. goal orientation: If you can't complete the tasks, you will never reach the goal.
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#191 crufflesmuth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 16

Posted 15 June 2019 - 10:38 AM

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)


Edited by crufflesmuth, 15 June 2019 - 10:39 AM.


#192 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:24 AM

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?



#193 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,989 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:51 AM


The way I see it, this case may go two ways:
 
1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession
 
2. Full strike down = no more FOID
 
In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)


What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?


Without the FOID criminals will have access to firearms. WAIT! Criminals had just as much access to guns under FOID. So that’s not it.

Realistically there is no downside to striking the FOID! Background check still take place when you buy guns from the dealer. Murder is still murder armed robbery is still armed robbery. and state storm troopers don’t break down my door retrieving guns because I have an expired permission slip.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

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

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


#194 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,610 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 15 June 2019 - 11:55 AM

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

What is your single, worst case scenario, if a "Full strike down" happens?

 

Unfortunately, I think it falls under the advise we get to not discuss specifics of things of this nature openly on the board. 

Perhaps it would suffice to say that everything "gun and ammunition" in Illinois is woven through the FOID laws so CCL, purchase, possession, records management etc would all need to be re-worked. Our current legislature would be all too happy to re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding. 



#195 Badger52

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 19

Posted 15 June 2019 - 01:57 PM

...re-work FOID restrictions and fee schedules into something else that just barely passes muster with the court and further screws the law abiding.

 

From the bleachers cheering you all on, I would agree with this assessment, sad as it is.  The list is long of state cases that basically surveyed what they thought the peasants would tolerate, the way another pending case in another jurisdiction was likely to go, and then did some revision that rendered the pending case moot.  While it's wending its way I'd be reluctant to start doing too much public dissection, tempting as it is.  FOID  is the right answer.  Anything less than FOID they'd regard as a win because we all know it's not about rational thought processes.

Y'all are on my prayer list though... :)


Edited by Badger52, 15 June 2019 - 01:57 PM.


#196 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:09 PM

Unfortunately, I think it falls under the advise we get to not discuss specifics of things of this nature openly on the board.
^^^^^^^^ THIS. We all know they troll this board. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#197 gunuser17

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 17

Posted 15 June 2019 - 06:13 PM

You could end up with California's new ammo laws requiring a paid background check with every ammo purchase and all purchases have to go thru ffl effective 7/1.

#198 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,828 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 16 June 2019 - 12:20 PM

You could end up with California's new ammo laws requiring a paid background check with every ammo purchase and all purchases have to go thru ffl effective 7/1.

Thank God for Wisconsin!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#199 CILhunter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 17 June 2019 - 06:47 AM

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously.  The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms.  It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.



#200 cybermgk

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,132 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 17 June 2019 - 09:49 AM

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously.  The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms.  It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

It's Illinois, they would rush to pass a replacement, jjust as onerous and infringing, if not more so, with a LOT more bad language issues.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#201 BigJim

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,828 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 08

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:17 PM

If the FOID got tossed our over lords would replace it with the fix the FOID bill. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Big Jim
-----------------------------------------
I will not be commanded,
I will not be controlled
And I will not let my future go on,
without the help of my soul

The Lost Boy - Greg Holden

#202 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,470 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 17 June 2019 - 02:22 PM

If the FOID got tossed our over lords would replace it with the fix the FOID bill. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

If the FOID gets tossed as an infringment upon the 2nd because it's a fee and license to exercise a right, I have no doubt the state will play games but doing the above is basically flat out contempt at that point.


Edited by Flynn, 17 June 2019 - 02:22 PM.

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

#203 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 June 2019 - 05:10 PM

"Fix The FOID" is even more unconstitutional. Yep our legislators have to one-up one another. "I'm gonna introduce something MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! HA!" Apply logic here. If the current one is unconstitutional then "Fix The FOID" can't even withstand rational basis. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#204 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 18 June 2019 - 11:40 PM

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously.  The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms.  It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

"Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old American prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities are not to be trusted with firearms. The bias originated in the post-antebellum South for political reasons and may have changed its form, but it still exists. Today the thought remains: if you let the poor, and especially the black poor, have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. In his book The Saturday Night Special, anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [55] Barry Bruce-Briggs, in The Public Interest, stated that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday Night Special' is emphasized because it is cheap and it is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence. The reference is to 'Niggertown Saturday Night.'

There used to be a guy in Oak Brook who had a website dedicated to this. The one thing that I remember well is one of the Nuremberg judges, Thomas J. Dodd helped write the GCA of 1968. He had a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm 

This a long read but is very pertinent to what is going on right now in Illinois.


Edited by Mick G, 18 June 2019 - 11:40 PM.


#205 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,856 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 18 June 2019 - 11:59 PM

 

 

The way I see it, this case may go two ways:

 

1. Partial strike down = FOID continues to exist, but ONLY as a permit to purchase and NOT a requisite for mere possession

 

2. Full strike down = no more FOID

 

In the case of the second scenario, many problems would arise (can't list them here though)

 

Yes, many problems. Like we operate like the other 49 states.

 

Seriously.  The FOID was developed as a racist/classist means to keep minorities and the poor from getting access to firearms.  It has always been an infringement, and it is completely unnecessary.

 

"Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old American prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities are not to be trusted with firearms. The bias originated in the post-antebellum South for political reasons and may have changed its form, but it still exists. Today the thought remains: if you let the poor, and especially the black poor, have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. In his book The Saturday Night Special, anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [55] Barry Bruce-Briggs, in The Public Interest, stated that "it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'Saturday Night Special' is emphasized because it is cheap and it is being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence. The reference is to 'Niggertown Saturday Night.'

There used to be a guy in Oak Brook who had a website dedicated to this. The one thing that I remember well is one of the Nuremberg judges, Thomas J. Dodd helped write the GCA of 1968. He had a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm 

This a long read but is very pertinent to what is going on right now in Illinois.

 

 

 

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?


"A well educated Media, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Who gets to keep and read books? The Media? Or is it the People?

 

“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

 InX89li.jpg
 

 
 
 
 


#206 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,470 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 19 June 2019 - 12:16 AM

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?

 

 

You can copy and paste the text not the link, or remove the %20%A0 in the hyperlink there is a hidden space in the url text (not visible) that the forum doesn't like.

 

This link should work, I cleaned the extra character(s) at the end

 

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm


Edited by Flynn, 19 June 2019 - 12:18 AM.

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

#207 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 19 June 2019 - 12:20 AM

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?


There was a superfluous space in the url. Remove the space, and it works.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm
The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death, 1960.


#208 Mick G

    Former Member

  • Members
  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: 26-September 17

Posted 19 June 2019 - 06:10 AM

 

The link doesn't lead to anything. Can you repost the correct link?


There was a superfluous space in the url. Remove the space, and it works.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

 

 

Sorry about the bad link. I should have checked it but it was a long day. The Thomas J. Dodd connection was very important to the  Oak Brook guy who had the website. This was around 1994-1995 so you were blazing with a 56k modem.

Thank you guys for fixing it.



#209 crufflesmuth

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 16

Posted 19 June 2019 - 04:26 PM

One thing I can say, if it's unreasonable to pay a fee for a FOID to possess guns then the Cook County tax on ammo and firearms isn't that far off from being the same.



#210 chemical operator1

  • Members
  • 24 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 18

Posted 24 June 2019 - 06:08 AM

I read that the last extension for the case was April 26??....so whats taking so long for this to be heard? Any ideas....THE FOID IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users