Jump to content


Photo

Auditor General report on FOID and ISP


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
29 replies to this topic

#1 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 05 April 2012 - 12:41 PM

http://www.auditor.illinois.gov/

RECENTLY RELEASED AUDITS


April 5, 2012

Management Audit of the Department of State Police's
Administration of the Firearm Owner's Identification Act
Summary Report Digest - PDF (best version for printing)
Summary Report Digest*
Full Report

From the Synopsis:

• The Illinois State Police’s Firearms Services Bureau did not approve all FOID cards in the required 30 days for the 903,139 applications received during 2008, 2009, and 2010. Over the three year period, 566,616 of 879,906 (64%) applications were approved within 30 days. In 2008, 40 percent of cards were approved within 30 days. The processing times improved to 80 percent in 2009 and decreased to 70 percent in 2010.

• ISP did not deny all FOID card applications in the required 30 days. For applications received during 2008, 2009, and 2010, ISP denied 20,152. Over the three year period, 71 percent of the denied FOID cards were denied within the required 30 days.

• During 2008, 2009, and 2010, the ISP recorded 21,212 reasons for revocations of FOID cards for 20,227 cardholders. ISP officials estimated that only 30 percent of revoked FOID cards are returned to ISP.

• ISP did not have enough Customer Service Representatives to handle the volume of calls that are received by the Bureau related to the FOID card program. According to call logs provided by ISP, during the last quarter of 2010, 25,131 of 29,420 calls (85%) were not answered by ISP.

• According to documentation provided by ISP, from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011, the State Police spent $526,919 on overtime for FOID card processing.

#2 Lou

    Resident Old Guy

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,871 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 04

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:22 PM

The question of the day is "So what does the state intend to do about it?"

Obviously the state couldn't care less about the rights of firearms owners.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. -  George Orwell

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again. 


#3 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,023 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:26 PM

I have always felt that getting CCW is the priority and then getting rid of the FOID and the waiting times because neither make any sense.

But, now I think it would be better to attack all three; 1). Get CCW passed, 2) eliminate the FOID, and 3) eliminate the waiting periods.

I would even be in favor of requiring all firearm sales to be made through an FFL iF it eliminated the FOID and the waitting periods. Many States alreaDy require this and it provides infinitely more protection then the FOID and the waiting periods.

Edited by Bud, 05 April 2012 - 02:03 PM.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#4 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,805 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 03:00 PM

CCW permit + fingerprints + $100 = Instantaneous solution to the problem.
Stand Your Ground

#5 JR1987

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 810 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 11

Posted 05 April 2012 - 03:15 PM

85% not answered. Wow. Where does my tax money go? :headbang1:

#6 pyre400

    Political opinions expressed are always my own.

  • Admin
  • 7,728 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 03:37 PM

Without reproductions: "Where's the motivation, Bob?"

__________________
R[∃vo˩]ution


#7 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:13 PM

85% not answered. Wow. Where does my tax money go? :headbang1:


Toward the legal defense of gun bans?
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#8 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,691 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:49 PM

I have always felt that getting CCW is the priority and then getting rid of the FOID and the waiting times because neither make any sense.

But, now I think it would be better to attack all three; 1). Get CCW passed, 2) eliminate the FOID, and 3) eliminate the waiting periods.

I would even be in favor of requiring all firearm sales to be made through an FFL iF it eliminated the FOID and the waitting periods. Many States alreaDy require this and it provides infinitely more protection then the FOID and the waiting periods.


What? Posted Image
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#9 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,314 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:57 PM

I have always felt that getting CCW is the priority and then getting rid of the FOID and the waiting times because neither make any sense.

But, now I think it would be better to attack all three; 1). Get CCW passed, 2) eliminate the FOID, and 3) eliminate the waiting periods.

I would even be in favor of requiring all firearm sales to be made through an FFL iF it eliminated the FOID and the waitting periods. Many States alreaDy require this and it provides infinitely more protection then the FOID and the waiting periods.


Name three please that require private sales through FFL's AND have shall issue LTC. Just for my edification.

I'd rather follow the model of many states that design their LTC so that the ATF accepts it at the time of purchase rather than a background check.

Private sales through FFL is a bad idea IMHO.

AB
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#10 Davey

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,372 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 10

Posted 05 April 2012 - 05:52 PM

What? Posted Image


Current private transfers already require the equivalent of FFL background checks. If private transfers were made to require going through an FFL nothing would change. I think Bud has a good point.

#11 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,023 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 05:54 PM

Pennsylvania for one. Do I lose points if I don't come up with two more?

Pennsylvania:
PURCHASE

Any individual or dealer selling a handgun is required to sell or transfer it at the place of business of a licensed dealer or county sheriff’s office. Transfers of all firearms (handguns, rifles and shotguns) by a licensed dealer are subject to an instant records check of the purchaser. The purchaser must sign a transfer application/record of sale for the purchase of a handgun. No transfer application/record is necessary to transfer a rifle or shotgun. There is a $2 fee for the instant check and a $3 firearm sale surcharge to cover telephone costs. Transfers of handguns between spouses, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild or between active law enforcement officers are exempt from the above requirements. Rifles and shotguns may be transferred between unlicensed individuals. Antique firearms are exempt from the requirements regarding transfer of firearms through dealers

I don't like waiting periods and I don't like the FOID.

Do we agree there?

I am also a capitailist and I like the free market and I also like the idea of a lot of folks having a side job as an FFL. I like the idea of a neighborhood FFL, maybe one on every block or so where it's always convenient to have a buyer meet up with a seller and run a NICS.

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#12 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 06:08 PM

I would even be in favor of requiring all firearm sales to be made through an FFL iF it eliminated the FOID and the waitting periods. Many States alreaDy require this and it provides infinitely more protection then the FOID and the waiting periods.


Pennsylvania for one. Do I lose points if I don't come up with two more?

Pennsylvania:
PURCHASE

Any individual or dealer selling a handgun is required to sell or transfer it at the place of business of a licensed dealer or county sheriff’s office. Transfers of all firearms (handguns, rifles and shotguns) by a licensed dealer are subject to an instant records check of the purchaser. The purchaser must sign a transfer application/record of sale for the purchase of a handgun. No transfer application/record is necessary to transfer a rifle or shotgun. There is a $2 fee for the instant check and a $3 firearm sale surcharge to cover telephone costs. Transfers of handguns between spouses, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild or between active law enforcement officers are exempt from the above requirements. Rifles and shotguns may be transferred between unlicensed individuals. Antique firearms are exempt from the requirements regarding transfer of firearms through dealers

I don't like waiting periods and I don't like the FOID.

Do we agree there?

I am also a capitailist and I like the free market and I also like the idea of a lot of folks having a side job as an FFL. I like the idea of a neighborhood FFL, maybe one on every block or so where it's always convenient to have a buyer meet up with a seller and run a NICS.


You've already lost your points ... and this is getting more absurd by the minute.

I like the existence of FFLs, too. But I like not having the government involved in my private transactions better. In fact, I'd be thrilled if there were NO jobs for FFLs, if that meant the government wasn't in the business of regulating our rights.

What you are suggesting is ceding freedom here to gain some freedom there. It makes little sense (to me) and I suspect it makes little sense to most of the others on this board.

There have been many previous threads regarding "compromise" to get RTC, or whatever. And each and every time, we end up at the same place. We don't play that game, and most of us didn't take very long to come to that conclusion.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#13 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,023 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 06:12 PM

You've already lost your points ... and this is getting more absurd by the minute.

I like the existence of FFLs, too. But I like not having the government involved in my private transactions better. What you are suggesting is ceding freedom here to gain some freedom there. It makes little sense (to me) and I suspect it makes little sense to most of the others on this board.


Okay, no prfoblem and since you've identified yourself as spokesman for a majority of the forum, I will take my very unpopular opinion and leave Illinois Carry.

Never have been one to stay where I wasn't wanted. Satisfied now?

Bud

 

 

Dico Tibi Verum, Libertas Optima Rerum Nunquam Servili Sub Nexu Vivito, Fili.



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW


#14 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 06:15 PM


You've already lost your points ... and this is getting more absurd by the minute.

I like the existence of FFLs, too. But I like not having the government involved in my private transactions better. What you are suggesting is ceding freedom here to gain some freedom there. It makes little sense (to me) and I suspect it makes little sense to most of the others on this board.


Okay, no prfoblem and since you've identified yourself as spokesman for a majority of the forum, I will take my very unpopular opinion and leave Illinois Carry.

Never have been one to stay where I wasn't wanted. Satisfied now?


I said that I suspect it makes little sense for most others on this board. That makes me an educated guesser of what most folks here feel. Not a spokesman for the board.

I am not saying you're not wanted. I am saying that I strongly disagree with your view on this issue.

Be a man, Bud.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#15 05FLHT

    TCB.

  • Members
  • 1,196 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:17 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with a transfer at a LE station or through a FFL with only a $2 fee. I would have a problem if shenanigans such as happened in DC, with FFL's being regulated/legislated out of existence, were to then happen here. It would be a fine idea...if the government was trustworthy.

*Preaching to the choir* Criminals will get guns regardless of the laws in place. The only people that are ever restricted are the ones who follow the law in the first place.
NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
IL Concealed Carry Firearm Instructor

#16 DoYouFeelLucky

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,463 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 07:27 PM

I'm with Bud. I don't see the issue with requiring all firearms transfers are run through a FFL. If the FFL transfer/admin cost is reasonable, such as $25/$35, it's a reasonable price to make sure it is a legitimate transfer and the purchaser is clear. I always run any private sale through a FFL and it has never been any impediment to a sale.
Freedom has a cost, and a free society must always be vigilant and ready to defend themselves against those that would misuse those freedoms to harm others. You cannot legislate the protection of free people, they must turn to themselves to preserve and maintain their freedom. Copyright 2012 Niner8Zulu Consulting

#17 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:52 PM

I'm with Bud. I don't see the issue with requiring all firearms transfers are run through a FFL. If the FFL transfer/admin cost is reasonable, such as $25/$35, it's a reasonable price to make sure it is a legitimate transfer and the purchaser is clear. I always run any private sale through a FFL and it has never been any impediment to a sale.


Just a question ...

You're willing to accept a mandate for all private gun sales to be run through an FFL and 4473 forms, in order to do away with the FOID system. OK.

Are there other freedoms you're willing to give up, perhaps in exchange for other things?

How about a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds in exchange for a good right to carry bill?

Sound like a good deal?

What if, after this deal was done, along came a case like, say Zimmerman/Martin. Then suddenly there is a great clamor in the media and among gun control groups warning of the dire dangers of right to carry. Well, perhaps they might think that wasn't a very good deal after all, and they moved to repeal the carry bill. Do you suspect they'd move to repeal the ban on mag capacity, out of fairness and respect for gun owners?
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#18 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 05 April 2012 - 08:59 PM

Let's go back to trash talkin' the FOID card and the auditor's report, shall we?

#19 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,814 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:15 PM

Someone was asking for the three counties: Cook, LaSalle, Bureau
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#20 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,152 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 05 April 2012 - 09:31 PM

I'm with Bud. I don't see the issue with requiring all firearms transfers are run through a FFL. If the FFL transfer/admin cost is reasonable, such as $25/$35, it's a reasonable price to make sure it is a legitimate transfer and the purchaser is clear. I always run any private sale through a FFL and it has never been any impediment to a sale.


I don't believe this is reasonable. If it is so important to make sure the buyer is qualified to exercise a fundamental right then any expense should be at the general taxpayers expense. Otherwise a poll tax should be just fine then.
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA & SAF

#21 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,729 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 06 April 2012 - 05:28 AM

I can tell you that the anti's answer will NOT be to repeal FOID. Their answer will be to expand it, enhance it, charge more money for FOIDs, lengthen the 30-day application period, and etc. They are going to treat FOID as sacred and a "given", and assume it's absolutely necessary for protecting public safety. You KNOW their answer will be to make it more rigorous.

Fact is that the VAST majority of states get along just fine without any sort of "gun owner registration" scheme.



http://www.chicagotr...13.storyMy link

llinois lawmaker says gun-permit oversight 'ineffective' in protecting state

By Associated Press
6:31 p.m. CDT, April 5, 2012

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — An Illinois lawmaker pushing gun-control legislation says an audit shows state oversight of firearms ownership is "ineffective at protecting our state."

Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy says Illinois State Police officials who run the Firearm Owners Identification program are stretched thin.

For example, Cassidy says the required 30-day turnaround for approving or denying gun-purchasing permits is too short for proper review.

Auditor General William Holland reported Thursday state police officials don't collect proper mental health records necessary to deny permits, don't confiscate all the issued cards they later revoke and more.

Cassidy has introduced several gun-control measures including one requiring criminal background checks on private handgun sales.

Lawmakers called for the audit after debate last spring over a denied Associated Press request for names of FOID cardholders.
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#22 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,544 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:15 AM

I have heard at least one suburban rep use the lack of mental health records as rationale for voting against CCW when asked at a town hall meeting last year.

#23 spec4

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,348 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 05

Posted 06 April 2012 - 07:35 AM

Nationwide constitution carry. That just gets us to where we were in the beginning. Anything less is a compromise to the liberal socialists.

#24 JR1987

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 810 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:25 AM


85% not answered. Wow. Where does my tax money go? :pinch:


Toward the legal defense of gun bans?


Oh yeah. I forgot... ugh. Such a pain.

#25 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 989 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 09:30 AM

I'm with Bud. I don't see the issue with requiring all firearms transfers are run through a FFL. If the FFL transfer/admin cost is reasonable, such as $25/$35, it's a reasonable price to make sure it is a legitimate transfer and the purchaser is clear. I always run any private sale through a FFL and it has never been any impediment to a sale.


I don't believe this is reasonable. If it is so important to make sure the buyer is qualified to exercise a fundamental right then any expense should be at the general taxpayers expense. Otherwise a poll tax should be just fine then.

+1

I thought the legislative goal of the FOID Act was to identify people who are disqualified from possessing firearms, not impede the fundamental rights of those citizens who are not disqualified.

How much does DC's lone FFL charge for hangun transfers? Isn't it about $125? Even $25 is too much to exercise a fundamental constitutionally protected right.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#26 Steve O

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 11:07 AM

Nationwide constitution carry. That just gets us to where we were in the beginning. Anything less is a compromise to the liberal socialists.


^^^^^ This is the only "reasonable" position we should be taking about :pinch:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The more criminal the leadership of a country becomes, the easier it is for the average person to find himself labeled a criminal by that same leadership." ME

"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust.” James Madison.

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm… is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. - 1878"]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

#27 TFC

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,951 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:50 PM


Nationwide constitution carry. That just gets us to where we were in the beginning. Anything less is a compromise to the liberal socialists.


^^^^^ This is the only "reasonable" position we should be taking about :thumbsup:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


You just missed the main point.... Illinois is NOT a free state.
I stated in the other thread on this subject:
All of this time and all of this money for what? Mediocre results and non-compliance with the law.
Is it time for a federal investigation? I'd say yes.
~If you speak of a gun as a toy, then you see medical waste as playground filler. Yes, it means you're a screwed up individual.~
~"An invasion of mainland America is unwise. Behind every blade of grass a rifle would await us"
-Yamamoto Isoroku
I predicted that Chicago/Cook county will be sold out in order to get "shall issue".
Based on the restrictions on carry in Chicago/Cook County, I was right.

...doing just enough to keep them out of Federal Court...

#28 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:05 PM

Here is my response to the FOID card garbage... This is carried in several papers in our area as a letter to the editor... Feel free use it or modify it... Let's get some serious support for Sam McCann to get this gone... This letter is very short... I think less than 200 words... It should make most papers.... Drd

_______________________________________


A Matter of Presumption…
The Legislators of the State of Illinois have made two (2) presumptions, at least when it comes to the Firearms Owners ID card (FOID).

Presumption:

  • All Illinois Citizens are untrustworthy.
  • All other Americans are trustworthy.
The State, or in reality, the Chicago Machine, in my opinion, has presumed that if you reside in Illinois you are so untrustworthy that to increase public safety you must be vetted and approved by the State to bear an arm or to buy ammunition or armament.

The State has further presumed that if you are an American who resides outside the borders of the State of Illinois, then you are a perfectly honorable upstanding Citizen and need no vetting process to determine if you are upstanding enough to carry an arm, or purchase an arm or ammunition. It is enough that you are NOT an Illinois Citizen.

Senator Sam McCann has proposed a law to repeal the FOID card SB3340 – he needs others sponsors to help carry this repeal process forward. I wouldPosted Image encourage the People to call their Senators ASAP to request that they get on board as cosponsors of this. This is your opportunity to ask them why they DIS-trust the People of Illinois, but TRUST all Americans from other states and territories.

A similar proposal is in the Illinois House of Representatives, so while you are calling your legislators, call your Illinois Representative and discuss your concerns about this with them.

All have my express permission to spread this far and wide. If you would like to use it and send to your own newspaper, as a Letter to the Editor, over your own name you have my express permission to do so. Just get it out there and get the pressure going!

I may be contacted at: carry@pike912.org, for further discussion.

Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

Edited by dmefford, 06 April 2012 - 08:08 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#29 Buckfarrack

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,282 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 11

Posted 09 April 2012 - 03:25 PM

Here is my response to the FOID card garbage... This is carried in several papers in our area as a letter to the editor... Feel free use it or modify it... Let's get some serious support for Sam McCann to get this gone... This letter is very short... I think less than 200 words... It should make most papers.... Drd

_______________________________________


A Matter of Presumption…
The Legislators of the State of Illinois have made two (2) presumptions, at least when it comes to the Firearms Owners ID card (FOID).

Presumption:

  • All Illinois Citizens are untrustworthy.
  • All other Americans are trustworthy.
The State, or in reality, the Chicago Machine, in my opinion, has presumed that if you reside in Illinois you are so untrustworthy that to increase public safety you must be vetted and approved by the State to bear an arm or to buy ammunition or armament.

The State has further presumed that if you are an American who resides outside the borders of the State of Illinois, then you are a perfectly honorable upstanding Citizen and need no vetting process to determine if you are upstanding enough to carry an arm, or purchase an arm or ammunition. It is enough that you are NOT an Illinois Citizen.

Senator Sam McCann has proposed a law to repeal the FOID card SB3340 – he needs others sponsors to help carry this repeal process forward. I wouldPosted Image encourage the People to call their Senators ASAP to request that they get on board as cosponsors of this. This is your opportunity to ask them why they DIS-trust the People of Illinois, but TRUST all Americans from other states and territories.

A similar proposal is in the Illinois House of Representatives, so while you are calling your legislators, call your Illinois Representative and discuss your concerns about this with them.

All have my express permission to spread this far and wide. If you would like to use it and send to your own newspaper, as a Letter to the Editor, over your own name you have my express permission to do so. Just get it out there and get the pressure going!

I may be contacted at: carry@pike912.org, for further discussion.

Dan A. Mefford, D.C.



YES SIR!!! WAY TO GO Mefford. THIS is the way i would fight them too.Nothing else seems to be working.Wait,Wait,Wait,on the courts and then get shot down.....THIS to me IS the MOST logical b!tch i have heard so far.Once all the citizens start hearing that they aren't trusted here in IlliNOY,the FIGHT will be ON.I have been telling every person i know about not being trusted in this state,for at least two years.When they realize that IS the truth,they are p*****.Time to get agressive about the RTC and quit *****footin around.GETTR DONE!!!!

ILCCL exp date: 02/28/2019                                   Supporting Members Team

 

A gun sign,is a sign...THEY LOST!   T.Vandermyde

 


#30 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:01 PM

Everyone is looking for something to do... Well just get this little short letter passed around and do followup with your legiscritter and ask why they don't trust the People from Illinois but they "trust" every American from any other state.... You must followup by contacting your Reps and Senators....! Imperative to ask them the big why question... Never miss a town hall meeting... Always have someone there...

Regards, Drd
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819