defaultdotxbe

I guess it would apply to someone who had a FOID, bought a gun, and then let the FOID expire. Or someone who moved from out of state with guns and never got a FOID.

I already explained my position here, basically it means the mere presence of a firearm isn't sufficient evidence for the state to deduce how it got there (which pretty much should go without saying, but here I am having to say it anyway) Plus there are plenty of ways for the firearm to be there without an intentional crime being committed: Family member had a FOID and passed away. Firearm was purchased very long ago before FOID was a thing. Person moved from out of state with the gun and never got a FOID. Give me some time and I can probably think of more As for ammo, almost any state in the union will sell you ammo without needing to see your FOID

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

Very Good Point. My interpretation is you can still be convicted for not having a FOID for anything beyond simple possession inside your home, and the case was remanded because striking the entire statute was overkill

May or may not be bigger on inside

There is no statutory limit, so technically as many as you can conceal

I believe he will not need one until he is 18 (or 21, as the laws seem to be trending) and old enough to own firearms in his own right (until then they are technically your guns, he just uses them) but you can get a FOID for him at any age

This is probably because they pull the photo from your existing ID to put on the FOID Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

It's hard for others to understand, but some legislators treat all people like people and don't play tit for tat with their rights Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Would be nice if someone ran against them up here in Cook county Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

In either case the answer to a denial of rights is not more denial of rights Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Quid pro quo shouldn't be required when rights are considered. If that's the approach that you take they are no longer rights, they are little more than a courtesy extended to cronies Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Plus politicians not being vindictive [redacted] is good for everyone Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

My mom could have been on 16 and Pregnant, if MTV had been a thing when she was pregnant with me >_> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

As long as the parents are eligible for a FOID, so teen parents still need their own parents permission lol Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk