Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by crufflesmuth

  1. Thanks; I'll definitely keep looking. Especially looking at those wait times.
  2. I still have my CCL, but cannot locate my physical FOID; I have a digital copy though. Both are still active, but my actual FOID is physically missing. If I apply for a replacement FOID, does that mean my CCL is no good?
  3. 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.
  4. What I want to know is this business about the FOID/CCL being renewed EVERY time you buy a firearm. Does this mean it becomes a purchase and not possession permit, outside having a carry permit?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. At best, I think SCOTUS will rule you have a right to carry, but like Illinois, it will mean fees and expensive classes, to exercise that right.
  9. The automatic renewal and FTIP inquiry are what I'm after. I agree, the FOID is trash, but part of that stems from the renewal requirement. If they did away with the renewal requirement, I could live with that. Additionally, they could solve alot of headache, by strictly making the FOID a permit for purchase and not possession. I hate this state sometimes. If the FOID cards no longer have expiration dates, does this mean they're going to get rid of the renewal requirement?
  10. If I understand this correctly, they're doing away with the renewal requirement, but will have an automatic FTIP inquiry, could someone explain how that works?
  11. I'm curious, for personal record purposes, can a private person request their own FTIP data?
  12. When this bill fails they'll try Biden's suggestion of adding "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines to the NFA. Since the NFA is primarily a tax bill they'll pass that one via reconciliation This right here! I don't know. I'm already waiting 5+ months for NFA paperwork, if they went that route, it might give litigators enough ammo to challenge the NFA.
  13. Unless they remove the renewal requirement, it's the same old tricks and pony.
  14. Interesting to see suburban democrats reluctant to support this. That's probably because everyone has rediscovered how good guns are during times of uncertainty. I think the ONLY way you could sell fix the FOID would be getting rid of the renewal requirement. I think people could stomach all the time and cost if that was done away with. Aside from that, IF this passes, it's the perfect vehicle to destroy the FOID.
  15. Much ado about nothing. Retiring just means he can do MORE things behind the scenes, with no restrictions and retain power indefinitely.
  16. Solution: get a list 250k+ people with pending applications. If they want to play hardball, let them try that.
  17. Well, that's better than mine currently - somewhere between 90 and 100 days - and that's for an EFILED one!
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Typically, if portions of a law are unconstitutional, the law is striken, and it is up to the legislators to craft a new law that is compliant. To suggest portions of the law don't pass muster, but leave it alone and just rule the defendant not guilty is crazy. The take away of their action here suggests, you do NOT need a FOID if you have firearms in your home. However, they purposely left off the part about how one would acquire a gun to bring into your home for said self-defense, and/or how you would obtain ammo as well. Clearly, they are smart enough to understand what they were doing. Essentially, this ruling was crap shows to what lengths card carrying Democrats will go to support their Anti-2A keystone. My understanding is the opposite, severability doctrine is the standard and only an inseverability clause would actually necessitate the striking of the entire law (although its sometimes done anyway, when no part of the law is found to be effectively severable) A recent example are the SCOTUS rulings on the Affordable Care Act and the Voting Rights Act, where they only struck portions of the laws As for getting the gun to your house, basically it means that prosecutors would need specific evidence of how you obtained the gun, simply possessing it isn't sufficient evidence to prove a crime If I understand this correctly, that would mean you could posses any guns/ammo you bought with your previously valid FOID, you just couldn't bring them outside the home unless you renewed your FOID/CCL?
  24. Wasn't expecting the FOID to be nixed; I was expecting them to strike the possession requirement though.
  • Create New...