Jump to content

defaultdotxbe

Members
  • Posts

    5,914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by defaultdotxbe

  1. 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.

     

     

  2. " Supreme Court ruled that a regulatory agency has the power to interpret the laws that it is charged with enforcing."

     

    I'm wondering why this is a problem. This makes reasonable sense. If courts find the agency misinterpreted the statute, the regulations (interpretation) get changed.

    I predict SCOTUS will affirm Chevron on the first two counts. The third one, I think could go lenient to the defendant.

    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

  3. If I think I’am going to have to use it my finger would definitely be on the trigger.

    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

     

    Never point your weapon at a target you don’t intend to destroy. Ain’t that rule number one? They weren’t just a crowd or peaceful protestors but pointing a gun at someone who isn’t an immediate threat with your finger on the trigger is a crime.

     

    She could have easily killed someone with a negligent discharge. These aren’t the kind of gun owners we want to get behind especially when they probably support gun control for everyone else.

    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

  4. 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

  5.  

    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

  6.  

    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

  7.  

     

     

    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

     

     

  8.  

    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...