Jump to content

MRE

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MRE

  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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. The short answer is yes, it’s possible, yes Georgia is correct that only the State of conviction can restore the right (Georgia can’t undo a conviction that it has no jurisdiction over), yes you can do it out of State, but it won’t be a quick process. If it’s a forcible felony, by statute it must be appealed to the Circuit Court. Yes, it you will definitely want (need) and attorney, and it likely won’t be cheap. The fact that it’s been over 20 years might make it easier to get your right restored, but it still needs to be done. The record doesn’t just disappear automatically. And to repeat a previous point: you’ll want to have an attorney. An Illinois one.
  10. The handgun registration bill says I only need to register handguns designed to be held and fired with a single hand. I use two hands when shooting all of my handguns, so I guess that means I wont need to register mine. Thats a relief. (Yes I know thats how its typically defined, but its a ridiculous definition. Although not as ridiculous as the entire concept of that whole bill)
  11. Classic, tone deaf legislation re-filing the same Fix The FOID language as before. And it being in an Omnibus bill tells me thats the bill they intend to run. ISP cant handle 10 year renewals right now, so lets double their load by making people renew every 5 years. Is this the ISPs idea of making the outdated and inefficient renewal process more efficient? Oh, and jack up costs and fees on the applicant. What a joke.
  12. The US Constitution provides broader protection on its face than the State Constitution, meaning the additional language of the State Constitution is meaningless and essential outdated and unenforceable window dressing. ...Based on the Slaughter-house Cases (1872), the US Constitution only protects rights from infringement by the Federal government, not state or local governments. States could "selectively incorporate" portions of those protected rights into their state constitutions. (They can also protect rights that are not protected by the US Constitution, although none have.) Since 1872, the US Supreme Court has been rolling back the decision of the Slaughter-house Cases one Amendment at a time. Supposedly Heller and McDonald addressed selective incorporation for the 2A, but some states and lower courts still resist.Additionally, the IL State Supreme Court judges constitutionality relative the the state constitution.So the state constitution is not irrelevant.l Which is why I followed up that one sentence you quoted with That wasnt necessarily the case when it was originally written, but it has been since the 2nd Amendment decisions a decade ago. Lower Courts make wrong decisions all the time, but its pretty clear that the USSC had incorporated the 2A. The ILSC has also read the State Amendment in lockstep with the Federal interpretation of the 2A. So, yes, the extra language in the State constitution is in generally irrelevant now. But it makes for nice sound bites to rile up the masses. Guess we will have to agree to disagree. Actually I should rephrase that last part. What I meant was that, given the incorporation by the USSC in Heller, the ILSC would almost certainly read the State Constitution in lockstep with the 2A. The alternative would be to not interpret it that way, which could only result in decisions that granted more rights than an incorporated 2A. The ILSC, at least in its current and long foreseeable future, will not do that.
  13. The idiocy of some legislators continues to amaze me at times. Not just introducing stuff like this, but doing to so every two years, even after being shown how stupid their legislation is. HB 3039, however, I would keep an eye on. Language like that, which adds more responsibilities onto an agency, is going to inevitably invite further discussion of fee increases. And this bill was filed by a suburban Republican.
  14. The US Constitution provides broader protection on its face than the State Constitution, meaning the additional language of the State Constitution is meaningless and essential outdated and unenforceable window dressing. ...Based on the Slaughter-house Cases (1872), the US Constitution only protects rights from infringement by the Federal government, not state or local governments. States could "selectively incorporate" portions of those protected rights into their state constitutions. (They can also protect rights that are not protected by the US Constitution, although none have.) Since 1872, the US Supreme Court has been rolling back the decision of the Slaughter-house Cases one Amendment at a time. Supposedly Heller and McDonald addressed selective incorporation for the 2A, but some states and lower courts still resist.Additionally, the IL State Supreme Court judges constitutionality relative the the state constitution.So the state constitution is not irrelevant.Which is why I followed up that one sentence you quoted with “That wasn’t necessarily the case when it was originally written, but it has been since the 2nd Amendment decisions a decade ago”. Lower Courts make wrong decisions all the time, but it’s pretty clear that the USSC had incorporated the 2A. The ILSC has also read the State Amendment in lockstep with the Federal interpretation of the 2A. So, yes, the extra language in the State constitution is in generally irrelevant now. But it makes for nice sound bites to rile up the masses. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
  15. The US Constitution provides broader protection on its face than the State Constitution, meaning the additional language of the State Constitution is meaningless and essential outdated and unenforceable window dressing. That wasnt necessarily the case when it was originally written, but it has been since the 2nd Amendment decisions a decade or so ago. What would be effective is to craft the State Constitution language to expressly provide more rights than the Federal. But that would never pass with the current makeup of the legislature. In other words, this effectively will do nothing, because it has no shot of passing.
  16. Its interesting that they are more than willing to show charts and graphs of application histories going back years for almost everything except processing time. I have a few guesses as to why. And they all lead to them eventually trying to claim great improvements, when in reality they will only be getting back to what the processing times were before this surge. Their chart for FOID numbers goes back to December 2019, when it says they approved 17,658 cards. In March 2020, they only approved 6,800. And this was a supposed peak month. Someone needs to answer why they apparently let processing drop off that much.
  17. If the concern is finding a qualified medical examiner, it should be noted that doesn’t specifically need to be a psychiatrist or psychologist. In most cases your normal doctor meets that definition, if you have one and they are willing to sign it. Not all are willing to do that, but many will.
×
×
  • Create New...