Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

297 profile views

crufflesmuth's Achievements


Member (5/24)

  1. FPC is likely to succeed on the merits of their lawsuit against Delaware's assault weapon ban. Pritzker probably has debt, which is why he's attempting to run and fail in the Democratic primary. Outside Highland Park and some neighborhoods in Chicago, nobody really cares about gun violence or assault weapons -that's the awful truth. I would think Democrats would take the time to strategize on how best to combat a Desantis/Trump ticket in 2024.
  2. They say this every year. Welch wants to make a name for himself. The Democrats are out of touch. The 9th Circuit has struck the magazine and assault weapon ban; at least that's what I've seen. Illinois progressives really need to acquaint themselves with reality: the legal landscape is changing.
  3. I can appreciate JB's posturing. If he couldn't get it last year, let alone this year - it's going to be a miracle - especially with Bruen. The landscape has changed. Magazine limits and "Assault" weapon bans are dying, slowly, from California to CT. Oh well. I can't wait to purchase some more firearms.
  4. I tried this. In theory, it's possible - in practice - you'll be waiting about one year. You must maintain 03 status, throughout the entire process. Once that's done, you have to be careful: it might not be legal in the next municipality.
  5. Given the current climate, I'll give the ISRA credit: they outplayed a bad hand. Could it have been communicated better? sure. Do I like the FOID system? no. You know what else I don't like? having to renew my FOID. The renewal requirement is why the FOID is a giant albatross of a disaster, for the ISP to administer: and they know it. Criticism for the ISRA: I can understand not wanting to show, or tell people the reality: politics and making deals. But not keeping people at bare minimum informed, I think a change in leadership and vision is needed. I'll appreciate NOT having to renew my FOID, when and IF that happens. Of course, the above presumes ANY of these changes have been signed into law.
  6. It's one thing for a gun shop/range to comply with state law (FOID to buy ammo/guns), it's quite another for that same shop/range, to go beyond the standard waiver and require things that are not legally required. That is the real travesty. Most every gun range is guilty of it. It's more laughable, when you realize it's the waiver you sign at gun ranges, and not the FOID/CCL itself, that gives the shop/range a legal defense - in the 100% impossible chance a prohibited person uses their facilities. If gun owners in Illinois want better representation, and if the ISRA does not fit the bill anymore, it's up to Illinois gun owners to determine how/when that takes shape.
  7. This is already the case with FTIP. With FTIP, ISP already knows what type, make and model you own. I know they (ISP) will deny it, but it's certainly the case. As for the ISRA, I would hold off judgement. As controversial as that sounds. Personally, I'm fed up with the FOID system. I despise the renewal aspect. But you know what else I despise: gun ranges and Illinois gun culture enabling the FOID system. How? Gun ranges that require FOID cards to use range facilities (private property), they are just as culpable for keeping the FOID system and culture alive. The extra legalism from this: it's why we have the problems we do with the FOID system. The way I see it: you can't credibly argue the FOID system is discriminatory, when you're benefitting from that system, to determine who can use your private property. Like it or not, gun ranges and Illinois gun culture have enabled the FOID card.
  8. Kelly is a tool. We have a system: it's called NICS and Form 4473. ISP is a joke. They should be advocating to end the renewal and possession requirement parts of the FOID.
  9. Solution: get a list 250k+ people with pending applications. If they want to play hardball, let them try that.
  10. You can bet EVERY criminal defense lawyer will be looking to have that case applied to clients pulled over with guns in their car, in Chicago. I disagree.
  11. If the FOID does not apply to your home, it would mean ISP CANNOT demand you to surrender any firearms/ammo that were lawfully acquired. It would mean, they could only send threatening letters detailing how failure to renew could result in your immediate arrest, as soon as you brought said firearms across the property line/dwelling. Of course, that scenario (again) creates a logistical nightmare for FOID enforcement and neuters the FOID altogether, with the State saving face. In such scenario, ISP would be a victim of it's own institutional laziness and that of it's political masters. One expired FOID is easy: but what about an ENTIRE state of expired FOID cards? State and Suburban PD would be hard pressed to enforce FOID Act violations under such scenario. It's certainly possible too. Requiring a FOID for possession of firearms/ammo is what keeps the FOID Act alive. Without it, the FOID falls apart. That's why IL SCOTUS punted this case. Technicalities notwithstanding. Also, if people don't need a FOID for home/dwelling possession, criminal defense lawyers WILL be stretching that definition to include cars pulled over during traffic stops. If that comes to pass, the FOID being required for transport will be an oxy moron at that point. Whatever way you look at this, the state loses pretty damn bad: at what speed that happens is dependent on what they do when this case comes back to the District level.
  12. The courts don't give a crap about what their actions and in-actions cause? No doubt, they just opened a can of worms, but don't count on any enforcement changes. They don't care either. Nor do the legislators. None of these arse whoo's have personal skin or financial interest in the matter. They can play games all day long on the tax payers tab. This thing is not over by a long shot, but the can has gotten kicked for sure. It's not over. The District Court will simply change their order, they'll say she does not need a FOID for possession in the home and that is where the rubber will hit the road, because the anti-gun forces of this state know, if the possession requirement for a FOID is struck - enforcement of the FOID Act becomes a logistical problem and difficult to do. The only place I could see someone getting successfully prosecuted for a violation (in such circumstances) would be the following: 1) Traffic stop in anti-gun town/city 2) A local gun range that 'follows' all law, regulations and rules (basically suburban cook county) So far as I can see, the state needs to appeal this to the appellate-level (once it goes through the District Court again). If they don't, they'll have caselaw build up that will screw them over. So it's either get screwed completely slow with caselaw (which is extremely effective) through this case being remanded, or appeal it (again) and let the chips fall where they may. That's where the state is right now with this case.
  13. This seems like a decent interpretation of all of that confusing "mumbo jumbo" about whether or not they they could hear the case. So if the FOID does not apply to the home, how does this person in the case, purchase new ammo, make sure the firearm is working and trains with it (takes it to the range), or purchase a new replacement one for use in the home? They can not do any of those things without a valid FOID, which means the FOID is in the way of "Home use"? Does this also mean that you can not, as an illinois resident go hunting without a FOID? It would mean (at best), the FOID is a purchase/transportation permit. It would mean you could let your FOID expire and possess previously acquired firearms/ammo, you just could not bring them beyond your property line without renewing your FOID. If they strike the legal requirement for mere possession in the home, the ISP will truly have a **** show on their hands.
  14. Excellent point - Clearly you understand the legal aspects, but the point is, how can they state that the FOID is not applicable in her own home, which is in-conflict with the actual law. If they say the law doesn't apply, but the law itself says it does, seems to me they are OBLIGATED to settle the controversy that got the case to them? And that naturally leads to the entire chicken before the egg issue on obtaining and transferring the firearm and ammo to the home, which is also in conflict. Imho, this is why they punted. The more I read this, the more I think iL SCOTUS remanded this on a technicality issue. After all is said and done, I think the state will have to appeal: there is too much for them to lose.
  • Create New...