View New Content

Not that I think the Chicago Tribunes Editorial board is worth a ... and I no longer have a subscription this is a excerpt from the publishing, JB refuses to meet with the Chicago Tribune Board..... Bailey, who opposes abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, has played down his views before a broader general electorate. He said he would push for a restoration of a law requiring parental notification if a minor seeks an abortion, but did not mention another goal to end taxpayer-subsidized abortions for poor women. Instead, given the likelihood of large Democratic legislative majorities that enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion in state law, Bailey said if elected governor that “women are well protected here in the state” and that “nothing is going to change with the abortion laws.” He accused Pritzker of using abortion as “fearmongering” among the electorate.

Is there any way to check the status of a FOID appeal? Or are people just at the mercy of whenever the state gets around to telling them something? I know someone who’s been waiting over a year on his appeal. And several others have reached out to ask me as well.

The case is Camacho v The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District filed in the Federal District Court of Western Texas. CNN

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/faith-freedom-self-reliance/female-gun-owners-fight-back-against-violence-and-political-rhetoric-in-california Female gun owners fight back against violence and political rhetoric in California By Tori Richards, Investigative Reporter In the anti-gun political climate of California , residents are stepping up their quest to own weapons and learn how to use them. Despite polls that say otherwise, firearms instructor Brandi Joseph offers proof that women want guns to protect themselves against America's escalating violence and are attending classes to hone their shooting skills. These are women of all races and political parties — especially Democrats . “The majority of people I know in my life are Democrats , and I do not know any who do not own guns,” said Joseph, the owner of Fortune Firearms shooting range. “What has started now is an increase of women getting involved. The majority of my clients are women.” ... Joseph, a moderate Democrat, has owned a gun for 20 years after going through a traumatic divorce, during which she feared for her safety. She obtained a restraining order but knew that wouldn’t protect her like owning a gun could. “A restraining order is a piece of paper that doesn’t do anything — it’s a joke,” she said. Now, she is seeing women in a similar situation: getting out of relationships and having a gun but not knowing how to use it. Many of her other clients are high-level professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and business owners who carry valuables. ... This isn’t what Joseph is seeing on her shooting range, because liberals are private about their gun ownership, while conservatives are “loud and proud,” she says. “Liberals’ firearms are more of a private matter for them,” she said. “Every politician is out of touch with us.” ...

AKA, we are going to do ballistics on all of them before you get them back. I'd sell them when I got them back.

As is becoming more and more common, Illinois passes more and more laws so fast that many municipalities cannot keep up. They also do not write in a penalty for noncompliance. That ISP pages is rarely updated.

Play it safe, intrastate commerce is federal territory. I would go through FFL if I were you.

This case is just starting but it's turning out to be quite interesting even at the preliminary injuction stage. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1662145028/VanDerStok_v_Garland_Order_on_MPI.pdf?1662145028 https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

https://www.rblaw.net/assets/htmldocuments/Roberts - Stamped Complaint.pdf

I’m going to lock this thread. It seems like we cannot discuss this without conflict. Let’s try to do better people.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/i-definitely-am-more-closeted-being-a-gun-owner-for-fear-of-retaliation/ ‘I Definitely Am More Closeted Being a Gun Owner, for Fear of Retaliation’ By CHARLES C. W. COOKE CNN has a good piece today on “America’s new gun owners,” who, the network suggests, “aren’t who you’d think”: ... Both Mendez and Regalado now have their own guns and are working toward getting their concealed carry permits. But they avoid talking about their guns with friends, who they say are firmly anti-gun. “They’re really not open to understanding,” Mendez said. Adding that she feels more comfortable discussing her same-sex relationship with friends than her guns. “I definitely am more closeted being a gun owner, for fear of retaliation.” . . . but not, apparently, by right-leaning gun owners: ... For years, gun-control activists have suggested that all it would take for them to get the strict regulations they covet is for “blacks/Muslims/Hispanics” to “start buying guns.” And, for years, this has been nothing more than projection. As CNN’s story illustrates, it’s not Second Amendment advocates who have an issue with non-whites owning guns; it’s the people who claim most loudly to champion diversity, but balk the minute that diversity leads to a political or ideological outcome that they personally happen to dislike. (emphasis added)

Well that's true, I didn't really consider that, thanks! But I still need to straighten this out I think lol!

https://www.usacarry.com/illinois-man-acquitted-fatally-shooting-man-rear-end/ Illinois Homeowner Acquitted After Fatally Shooting Man in Rear End by Luke McCoy An Illinois man has been acquitted of first-degree murder and unlawful discharge of a firearm after a fatal shooting on Feb. 13, 2021. The two men involved in this incident had a history of having a dispute. On many occasions, including the day of the shooting, a Missouri man caused a disturbance at the home of the other man involved. It is alleged that this man brought a handgun and an AR15 with him, and he was high on drugs at the time. As the man was running away from the homeowner, he turned and started pulling something out of his pocket. The homeowner thought it was a gun he was pulling out and shot the man. The bullet struck the right side of his buttocks traveling to the left, which nicked an artery and caused fatal bleeding. Prosecutors argued that the man was fleeing and therefore not posing an immediate threat to the homeowner. But the judge stated that it didn’t matter what the man was pulling from his pocket. He had already threatened to kill the homeowner and that “the homeowner does not have to wait until the attack occurs to apply deadly force.” (via The Telegraph) We often state that you should never shoot at a fleeing suspect. But it seems this homeowner thought the suspect was pulling a gun and fired at him in self-defense. “Some cases involve a very difficult mix of facts and circumstances that make a determination on the applicability of such rights difficult. This was one such case,” said defense attorney Brian Polinske.

Red Dot Arms on RT83 between Lake Villa and Antioch is the FFL that is getting sued. I'm going to have to stop in there and buy some of their overpriced ammo to show support.

Mental illness

720 ILCS 5/24-3(g) calls it "withholding delivery of the firearm for at least 72 hours after application for its purchase has been made." That's generally interpreted to mean 72 hours from the time the seller agrees to the sale, although many brick-and-mortar FFLs enforce it as 72 hours from when you fill out a 4473 and make you go back a second time. The seller may ask you to send him a copy of your FOID (or at least your FOID number) and more just to make sure you're not wasting his time.

What buyer information is asked for by Fireman method? I can't advance the form to that.

Every time you look at it, you can remind yourself that having the same physical card forever and ever was the goal for which ISRA bargained away private transfers.

I think it’s 15 now

Imagine if the FOID DB gets leaked. Kinda makes me regret not just waiting to move out of state first.

Yeah I listened as well... Sounds like there will be no surprises in any cases.

If the state requires mandatory training for a CCL they either need to provide it or pay for it, clearly a constitutional infringement. This class or payment must also be immediately available or requirement excluded. The there's a (D) after their name, I don't care if it's for dog catcher they won't get my vote.

A civil case needs to be able to demonstrate harm. Anyone under 18 hasn't been harmed by state law, since federal law prohibits firearm purchases for them. The case would be dismissed. I think the way to do it is either to try to get such a case certified as a class action, so saying everyone 18-20 is harmed, or to bring the case as a facial challenge, again saying everyone 18-20 is harmed. A class action would be a tough sell. There would need to be an endless stream of single-plaintiff cases, each of which could unfortunately be mooted after 3 years. Also courts strongly prefer as-applied challenges to facial challenges.

Easier to get a C&R then file the paperwork and pay a poll tax.