Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by defaultdotxbe

  1. On 10/27/2023 at 9:23 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

    Fixed magazine pistols: 

    A Volcanic pistol, way cool but not that practical.  Remington also made a magazine pistol, but 32 extra short! 

    I've also seen a 22 which fitted in a fixed chain that looped around, also way cool, might have been a very well made gunsmith special. 


    Wasn't the Volcanic a lever-action? Since its not semiautomatic it wouldn't need to registered regardless of magazine size I believe.

  2. On 10/10/2023 at 11:51 PM, Euler said:

    OTOH the news coverage is giving Florence Gun Shop some nice, free advertising.

    Somewhat OT but who proofread that card before printing? The first item isn't even a valid URL, the Wordpress and Ning URLs shouldn't have www in front of them (Wordpress and Ning will sanitize the link so it works though) and generally using www isn't considered best practice anymore, in fact most people of my generation would call it a "Boomer thing" to use it at all.

  3. On 10/6/2023 at 1:38 PM, Upholder said:

    It is entirely unclear if this is a "Modest Proposal" that is not intended to be acted upon, or if it is an actual plan that the left is working to bring to fruition...


    I think it has to be a Modest Proposal, because it simply couldn't work. If we made a state out of each neighborhood in DC and then passed the proposed amendments, that would set the minimum district size for the House as the population of the smallest neighborhood. I can't find population stats for individual neighborhoods, but if we take the ward with the smallest population (Ward 7, population 77,456) and assume that population is divided equally among its 31 neighborhoods that means a House representative can represent no more than about 2500 people, which would mean the House would need to have 136,000 members to ensure equal-sized districts nationwide. It would also set a similar minimum size for their proportional Senate, assuming each state has to have at least 1 Senator it would mean a 136,000-person Senate as well. 

  4. On 8/20/2021 at 6:19 PM, lilguy said:

    Sooooo, if you have a gun in your home already and you don’t have a FOID it’s unconstitutional to require it.

    BUT its not unconstitutional to need one to buy a gun. So this would only protect those that never got a FOID to cover their already owned guns?

    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.



  5. Sorry but I can't get my head wrapped around that idea. If it is ok to posses a firearm in the home without a FOID card , then how did the firearm get there ? You can't buy a firearm without a FOID card , it is not legal for someone to loan or give you a firearm without you having a FOID card , and you certainly can't buy any ammo for the firearm without a FOID card.


    Pure stupidity!!!!!

    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


    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

    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


    Jeez, how can anyone suggest that the law that was used to prosecute someone is good to stand, but you cannot convict her for breaching it? What the hey!!! W-T-F kind of Illinois Democratic Machine brain dead logic is that?

    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




    And if I were a legislator in another state, I'd be fighting for my constituents rights, first and foremost and against states that deny the rights of my citizens.


    I don't think you understand the concept of "rights", if you think your constituents should have some privilege that others do not.




    Huh? I said I'd want my constituents to have the SAME rights when they visit Illinois that Illinois citizens have when they visit my state. No more, no less. It's an unknown concept to Illinoisans, but some legislators in other states actually treat their constituents as citizens and not subjects and they fight for their people.

    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




    Ya, it looks like each kid must have a separate account - unique login.


    Also a change from previous years - your kids must have a valid state license or state ID. They didn't need to have state IDs before IIRC.




    How does that work for younger kids? Those of us with children far too young to drive will still likely want to get the FOIDs due to the protections provided in the law.

    You can get them a state ID at any age, I think I had a state ID at a 8 years old


    Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



  • Create New...