THE KING

A big THANK YOU for posting this. I personally didn't even think about this. You would think the ISP would have given us a heads up. On second thought why would they want to help us out even a little. Dagnabit.

Molly THANK YOU

And they are going back to submitting prior training certificates with the FCCL application. Read page 9711 Section 1231. Appendix B paragraph c). It states "Instructors should inform applicants how much credit they wil receive for their prior training and remind them the prior training certificates must be submitted with the FCCL Training Certificate when they apply." Now if the application process let's the applicants upload those certificates or not is another issue entirely !!

All I can say is WOW just WOW. GOOD LUCK

Received my license this morning. Southern tip of Will County. Feel like a kid at Christmas.

You guys are the BEST. You just made my day. THANKS

That's what I thought too. But I was told tomorrow is Kashmir Pulaski day and there is no mail delivery.

Very nice

Yup i was there and giggled all day long about it yesterday YEAH WE KNOW You had me and Gary giggling too !! Especially with what we deemed as the quote of the day

I will be sending you a check today for the cirriculum. KING

Molly Here is the contact info for Jeff Tomczak's office Jeff Tomczak 116 N. Chicago St.. Suite 500 Joliet, Illinois 60432 Phone - 815-723-4400 Fax - 815-723-4422

I would rather see the costs go away totally. Why should I have to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right ?? If you read the Heller written opinion. The SCOTUS asked Mr. Heller if he was OK with the permit process. Personally, I wish he would have said no and made the argument back then to do away with the permitting process totally. The Supreme Court was ready to deal with the issue at that time.

I am saying go after it right now. Because right now the machine-crats are talking about making changes to the FOID program to turn it into a deterrent as one facet of a multi-faceted approach to keep Illinois the way it is, even if the UUW law is thrown out. By filing suit, we take that option off the table. I'd do it myself but I don't have any standing, I have my FOID. It has to be someone who is in that 60-70K backlog I would have to agree with you about going after the FOID now. I don't know what the suit will say and what relief they are asking for, but I would like them to even go after the state's discriminatory practice of not issuing a FOID to a person that is homeless. I'm sure they would be able to find someone that lost their job, their house and is either living in their car or a homeless shelter that wants to get a FOID !! Can you say equal protection or the lack thereof.

HOLY COW Everybody is coming out of the woodwork today. Welcome back, BShawn. Haven't seen you post here in a long time

We crashed the server this morning !! WOW. At this point I am as happy as the next guy or gal. I think Bud is right when he gave the three analogies of what could happen. It either goes to SCOTUS. The state passes a carry bill in 180 days or we get unconditional carry after the 180 days. Now here's my thought. The state passes a carry bill in January. A bill that we want and not the Chicago Dems. Plus, and it's only my opinion, but I DON'T BELIEVE home rule has anything to do with a carry bill anymore. The written opinion by Posner covers the state. It does not exempt Chicago or any other home rule municipality. heck, the judge even references Chicago in the ruling. I could be wrong, but I would think it only takes 60 votes now to pass a bill, not 71. If someone has better insight, please feel free to correct me. KING gotta go for another beer. LOVE IT !!

Thanks Molly

Then you should not live in any rentable dwelling or apartment that stipulates so in the lease, seems simple enough for you. Many leases have such stipulations, and government subsidized housing is probably at the forefront of such things. It goes along with how much of and how many hazardous things the property owner wishes to limit you carrying into the place(There are a lot of stupid people out there doing many stupid things, things the owner does not wish to be liable for.). Blame the lawyers(And the stupid people). Since when is it OK, to stipulate away your constitutional rights ??

I had the same thought !!

Thanks Sigma I actually enjoy reading some of the written opinions and briefs. I find the frustrating part as you have just said. It is in plain english and there shouldn't be a fight. I just wish there was an IMMEDIATE way of holding our elected officials accountable when it comes to this issue. As the courts have said, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Maybe that should be a two way street and not just ONE WAY.

If bearable means carry, well heck YEAH !!

Very interesting to read. It actually picked my spirits up when considering what state I'm in. I'm referring to the state of Illinois if anyone wonders. But I found this quote from page 20 rather enlightening. It made me think of NFA Class III for some reason. The bolded section is from the brief and it is not by my doing. But that is the section I am referring to. That the Second Amendment is a "fundamental right" is further reinforced by the Cours' discussions in Heller and Ezell The Heller Court compared the Second Amendment to the First Amendment, providing guidance as to how the fundamental right protected under the Second Amendment should be treated, stating: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

JACK If you haven't read the Heller V DC ruling by Justice Scalia, you should. Below is a little excerpt from his written opinion. The bolding is mine. And yes, some of the Chicago laws are blatantly unconstitutional to say the least. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.