Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

defaultdotxbe's Achievements


Member (24/24)

  1. I would think that would make it a little easier, as it would behoove the village board to ensure a uniform set of ordinances for the entire village.
  2. 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.
  3. This never happens under Chevron, quite the opposite in fact. The Chevron defense essentially says the court can't find an agency misinterpreted a statute, because agency's power to interpret the statute supersedes the court's interpretation
  4. So if its deceptive to market it as a combat weapon, what does that mean for all the people who keep calling it a military-grade weapon of war?
  5. I can't say for sure because I've never been in the situation, but every single bit of training and practice I've done all the way done to just blowing off steam at the range my finger has been off the trigger until the very instant I decide to shoot. I can't imagine I'd have my finger on the trigger at the range the mob was, because because if any of them tried to rush me or bring a firearm up I'd have more than enough time to move my finger to the trigger and squeeze I agree. Since spike in gun purchases due to the lockdowns and now the civil unrest I've felt that these new gun owners are going to end up largely a new generation of Funds. This time though it won't be hunting rifles and shotguns that are sacrosanct, it will be handguns. They will still believe that no needs and "assault rifle" and will keep a pre-existing belief that hunting is barbaric and unneccessary That he had an AR gives me some hope, but I don't think he's representative of the majority of new gun owners
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. There is no statutory limit, so technically as many as you can conceal
  10. 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
  11. I don't think Chicago (or any other town) raised their portion of the tax at all, just the county Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  12. Federal law (GCA of 1968, as amended) requires that any interstate transfer of firearms abide by the laws of both states. Since IL law only allows residents to purchase firearms in the adjoining states, that law is essentially granted power of federal law and is enforceable anywhere in the US (as much as I don't like it it's one of few legitimate exercises of the interstate commerce clause) Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  13. I saw an episode of Intervention a while back about a woman who got high on canned duster. "Abusing toxic vapors" wasn't a crime in her state so she was arrested for public intoxication. The next day when they released her they gave her the canned duster back lol. The police said it wasn't a controlled substance or contraband so they had no authority to keep it Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  14. This is probably because they pull the photo from your existing ID to put on the FOID Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
  • Create New...