smblion Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:41 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:41 PM if the state fails to pass a carry law in the next 180 days and unrestricted carry rules go into effect, would that make FOID obsolete?
Gray Peterson Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:45 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:45 PM if the state fails to pass a carry law in the next 180 days and unrestricted carry rules go into effect, would that make FOID obsolete? No, FOID in fact would be required for carry (or out of state home state license for non-residents).
Lou Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:45 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:45 PM My guess would be no. The decision did not address FIOD cards.
pyre400 Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:46 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:46 PM I'd think the FOID would be your carry permit. You'd no longer be subject to UUAW, but you'd still have to be in possession of a FOID. I could be wrong but I dont think (I doubt) the ruling had any implications on the FOID.
Buzzard Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 08:49 PM if the state fails to pass a carry law in the next 180 days and unrestricted carry rules go into effect, would that make FOID obsolete? No, FOID in fact would be required for carry (or out of state home state license for non-residents). +1 The FOID statute was never addressed in this case. Gray is correct - as he infallibly, always is.
Gray Peterson Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:52 PM if the state fails to pass a carry law in the next 180 days and unrestricted carry rules go into effect, would that make FOID obsolete? No, FOID in fact would be required for carry (or out of state home state license for non-residents). +1 The FOID statute was never addressed in this case. Gray is correct - as he infallibly, always is. I'm certainly not infallible.
Davey Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:54 PM Posted December 11, 2012 at 11:54 PM Does the ruling rule out may issue?
Gray Peterson Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:01 AM Does the ruling rule out may issue? The decision said Kachalsky is wrong, so yes. Also, the Chicago machine doesn't have the votes for "may-issue".
Boarderboy217 Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:13 AM What about all the fees and everything to even own a pistol in Chicago?
Buzzard Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:33 AM What about all the fees and everything to even own a pistol in Chicago? Again, sorry - different law.
Indigo Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM Posted December 12, 2012 at 12:46 AM What about all the fees and everything to even own a pistol in Chicago? That's what Todd and Co. will take care of in negotiations - statewide pre-emption, reasonable fees and restrictions or no law gets passes, and 180 days later we have Constitutional Carry. There will be problems with Chicago that will need cleaning up after this particular confrontation, but most of it should get dealt with by the new bill. It won't wipe out the gun registration requirement, but I expect that pre-emption should wipe out the Chicago Firearms Permit. (IANAL)
Davey Posted December 12, 2012 at 03:26 AM Posted December 12, 2012 at 03:26 AM Does the ruling rule out may issue? The decision said Kachalsky is wrong, so yes. Also, the Chicago machine doesn't have the votes for "may-issue". Where in the decision does it say Kachalsky is wrong. I read a paragraph on page 18 which alluded to that however it didn't seem explicit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.