Jump to content

MRE

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

MRE's Achievements

Member

Member (3/24)

  1. Getting closer to this prediction, unfortunately. Today it’s a crisis. Incremental steps towards suddenly finding a need to declare an “emergency” https://capitolfax.com/2021/11/01/pritzker-issues-gun-violence-eo-pledges-250-million-over-three-years-for-reimagine-public-safety-plan-including-100-million-from-next-state-budget/
  2. After reading the report, two other things are worth pointing out: 1) After Pritzker and company took over at the beginning of 2019, the number of firearms analysts for FOID was REDUCED from 26 to 23. So all of the talking points that they’ve been working since the beginning to hire more analysts is apparently a lie. Because statistics don’t lie. 2) At the beginning of 2019, the statutory time that they were given to process renewals more than doubled, from 30 days to 60 business days. Yet, their timeliness decreased significantly. For a reason why, see (1) above, and the previous points made in previous posts about added burdens and responsibilities in 2019. It seems obvious there was little to no real concern from this administration until the situation became so bad they were forced to do something. “We began hiring in March of 2020”. That’s admitting that they ignored the staffing problem (that got worse, not better, after Pritzker arrived) for over a year. Will they be called out for that?
  3. Bingo. The tools are there to fix the backlog without changing the law, they just didn’t do it. But now want to claim that the new law was somehow the panacea to fix everything. As the other thread about the audit pointed out, the agency was processing around 90% of applications on time in 2018. that included almost a full year and over 100,000 renewals. A continued increase can explain some of the decline in 2019, but not all of it. Their big solution in 2019 to foid and ccl problems, knowing more renewals were coming, was to spend time and energy trying to increase fees, and pile more work onto the agency with the redundant dealer licensing law. And we should be shocked it got worse in 2020?
  4. Two other things happened in 2019 vs 2018: A change in Governor, and enactment of a new dealer licensing law. If you think those two things didn’t have an impact on processing times, then I have a nice bridge to sell you.
  5. What are the numbers compared to what they were before the 2020 disaster? Are they actually down, or are they taking credit for fixing a problem they created? I’m guessing the answer to that is something they don’t want to admit.
  6. The Court gets this one right. Had Cook County’s interpretation, and the crazy Appellate Court decision, won out, it would’ve essentially been the end of felony relief. Which would’ve been an absurdity. Even the State knew this.
  7. This is a hypothetical map created by a National political person, and doesn’t come from the State legislature. Nobody outside of maybe a few have seen any actual proposed map yet. The only thing almost certain right now is that it will be drawn in a way that makes sure the loss of the congressional seat will come from a current Republican’s district.
  8. Yep. ISRA might attempt to justify this by saying “There are good things in this bill that some Republicans introduced before.” That might be true. You can offer me a gourmet plate of the finest foods around, but if it’s garnished with a bit of raw sewage detrimental to my health I’m not going to eat it. They apparently have no issue with eating a crap sandwich.
  9. It’s “less bad” now, but it’s just a Trojan horse they’re signing onto. The gun control groups aren’t happy with this bill, and will almost certainly be back in the fall or next Spring with their version. Mandating fingerprints won’t be as big a deal, they’ll say, because “some people do it already with no complaints”. The person to person will come back in one of two ways (because this is a major sticking point with these groups). They will either once again try to mandate all transactions go through an FFL, or they will use the State licensing act to mandate that FFL’s accept paperwork for transactions they had nothing to do with. Death by a thousand cuts.
  10. It is reasonable to think that the Modernization bill gave cover to some Dems who were feeling pressure to vote for the Fix the FOID, thus making that bill more difficult to get pass. It’s also my understanding that many of the sponsors of the Fix the FOID bill were not going to vote for the Modernization bill unless it mandated fingerprints. In the end, both bills being out there may be fracturing overall support, leading to no bill passing. Like 10 clowns trying to fit in a Volkswagen, and all of them get stuck. Whether that is or was ISRA’s intent isn’t known. I have my doubts, but given the nature of negotiations and what’s agreed to be said and not said publicly, we might never know. I very much doubt we’ll know any time soon, since neither bill is really dead yet…they’re just in post-session purgatory and potentially still being negotiated for the Fall or next Spring.
  11. Which is why I said that most expungements in Illinois are in effect actually just sealing. An expungement in Illinois isnt necessarily the same as an expungement in other states, but an expungement is an Avenue for relief for purposes of Federal firearms rights restoration, if done correctly. There are, however, cases where an expungement is an actual expungement where records are destroyed and cannot be considered for licensing purposes. See the marijuana legalization. And I can tell you that ISP absolutely considers whether, and to what extent, a record has been expunged when determining foid and ccl eligibility. Especially in conjunction with old pardons that may not be clear on their face as to intent when it comes to firearms rights restoration. Whether it will be useful for a persons individual circumstance is best left to their and their attorneys analysis and determination.
  12. Thats not necessarily 100% accurate. An actual expungement, meaning all records are wiped and shredded, will absolutely help. In fact its an express avenue under Federal law to restoration of firearms rights. The catch that most people miss is, in Illinois most expungements arent actually expungements, but a sealing, which law enforcement would still have access to.
  13. One thing to keep in mind, in terms of case law historically when it comes to licenses/permits for the exercise of certain rights: there is a difference between what is considered a “tax” and a “fee”. Fees have been largely upheld, as long as they are not so excessive that they are effectively prohibitive or implemented in a way that is discriminatory, and if they are used for purposes related to the implementation and enforcement of the license. Where they have been held unconstitutional is when they are used for general revenue for other purposes, or treated as a “tax”. In terms of the FOID, it’s pretty easy for the State to make the case that it is used for implementation and enforcement purposes, when law enforcement is the agency that the money goes to (whether it is ISP or DNR). Even when the funds were swept, my guess is that argument can still be made, albeit a little looser, when there general revenue funds still go to fund officers on the roads (ie enforcement).
  14. Thats because the Appellate Court opinion was absurd. The Appellate Court twisted and completely bungled the arguments made to them. Hopefully the ILSC straightens it out and doesnt throw out the baby out with the bath water and bite on Cook Countys crazy interpretation. I dont think the State even agreed with that insanity. Unless their position has since changed.
  15. My only words of caution on being ok with these ideas of “public health studies” are this: Some (not all, but some) gun control groups have a long game with all of this. First step is to have everyone starting to look at “gun violence” as a public health matter. Next step is to have studies done declaring it a public health emergency (this won’t be hard to get some group to declare based on a biased study). Once you have a situation where the government determines there is a “public emergency”, the courts are much more lenient with what restrictions they will deem constitutional. See the last year, if you doubt that. Will all of that happen? Hopefully common sense will prevail, and it won’t happen. But don’t doubt for a second that some of these groups want it to.
×
×
  • Create New...