Jump to content

springfield shooter

Supporting Team I
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by springfield shooter

  1. From page 7 of the bill. Wouldn't this take care of the pre-serial number issue?



    18       (h) Exceptions. This Section does not apply to an
    19   unserialized unfinished frame or receiver or an unserialized
    20   firearm that:
    21           (1) has been rendered permanently inoperable;
    22           (2) is an antique firearm, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
    23       921(a)(16);
    24           (3) was manufactured prior to October 22, 1968;
  2. On 12/19/2021 at 9:06 AM, Molly B. said:

      Ammunition sales:  Due to not having the expiration date on the cards, dealers will have to verify the validity of the card electronically or by phone for ammo sales


    I think if there's money to be made, online sellers may well check FOIDs electronically. If there is a viable system for doing so, of course.


    By phone? How's the phone thing working out currently?



  3. HR163 Firearm Deaths - Reduce was filed this morning:


    Synopsis As Introduced

    Commits to passing meaningful legislation that will prevent people filled with hate from obtaining the means by which to end innocent lives.



    I've added this to our oppose list, not becuase we disagree with the concept expressed in the bill's title, but because the language of the resolution is a "gotcha" political statement rather than an expression of a desire for solutions.

    So, they are going to outlaw knives....rocks....2X4s....fists....feet....rouge automobiles....etc? Meaningful means effective, right?


    I have to read through this more deeply, but my initial impression is that this is just another way to tell Illinois gun owners if we want the system fixed we'll have to pay more.


    Representative Willis has been telling us we must pay $200 to $300 for fingerprints, that if we do that along with some smaller cost increases, she will get us our FOID cards post haste.


    Now representative Hoffman tells us that no, we don't have to pay more for our rights, but it is an option if we'd actually like to exercise our rights in a timely manner.


    There's really no difference between the two. They both want to transfer the cost of a failed system to the folks they impose that system on, telling us it's our problem to fix.

    There was also something buried in there about charging the FOID applicant for the cost of a background check. No dollar figure and I did not see any guarantee of meeting the legislated timeline.


    I think you might be referring to page 42, lines 18-22. These seem to refer to paying for checking the optional fingerprints (lines 5-17) against ISP and FBI criminal history databases.


    However...the proposed review board mentioned by Molly in post # 130 would be able to vote to require an applicant to provide electronic fingerprints (page 58, line 23 and on). Obviously, the applicant seeking review would be required to pay for the electronic fingerprints. And surely the cost of having them checked against databases as well.

  5. That's consistent with his HB602 that proposes to change the FOID cost to "...a $10 fee, plus applicable processing fees."

    Hoffman is from Madison County, which voted over 2 to 1 to become a 2A sanctuary county. I don't think the folks in his district will smile on the idea of paying more to exercise their gun rights.


    As an edit: I will confess I don't know what percentage of his district is in Madison County. I will say the gun culture down here is strong, and that's not restricted to Madison County alone.




    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.

  7. I must note that this is AS APPLIED challenge. Not a facial challenge. It's not gonna void our the FOID. It'll just void out the FOID requirement for defendant Brown. I can't figure out why her lawyer would plead it that way but that's what happened. I suppose it could turn into a facial challenge, but...I dunno. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


    The next step (if it played out that way) would be to litigate the fact that if defendant Brown can't be legally required to have a FOID card, then neither can anybody else.


    Very nice. My only concern is the language "in the home".


    Is that written in the courts written opinion.


    I would be happy to see it as unconstitutional period.



    We would be too but remember, McDonald vs Chicago had to remove the ban in in the home before we could get rid of the ban outside the home.



    Common sense (I know...I know...) dictates that one would have to be able to transport the firearm and ammunition TO the home. If it's legal IN the home without a license, it has to be legal getting it TO the home without a license.

  • Create New...