mrmagloo

Its amazing that these guys would press forward knowing full well they may be jeopardizing the better good with a stronger case? Can't we get some 2A legal eagles to get these groups together to talk about strategy, without the egos? Which gets me thinking, what is to stop a scenario where a Soros backed gun grabber legal firm files a case against gun arms legislation with the purposeful intent of torpedoing the case in an effort to sabotage the legal landscape against us? I mean if guys on our side are doing it out of stupidity, what is stopping a smart Anti from intentionally doing the same?

I guess Charlie might have had Tiger Blood after all...

Ace the shading.

More of a rhetorical observation but you're right. Total cluster.

Hmm, what about the Dan Wesson multi-barrel 357 and 44 Mag kit's with the threaded barrels necessary to lock them down?

Let me reemphasize: The guidance here has been to avoid pointing out flaws in this legislation.

I guess the moral of this story is, if Illinois passes laws that breach our Constitutional Rights, it's up to every single citizen to individually challenge the bad law to get their rights restored. I don't get most of this legal mumbo jumbo, but it seems outrageous that if a law is found unconstitutional, that it's not TOTALLY and IMMEDIATELY stricken. This nonsense that a unconstitutional law can only adversely effect ONE person and Only this ONE person is allowed a remedy, sounds utterly retarded.

My instructor offered to do the paperwork for a couple of different states, and had all of the packets ready, and finger print cards. Perhaps that's what he was referring to.

Good luck.

Yeah, I'm following, but the fact that they think restricting a right by a licensing scheme is OK, simply because the fee is reasonable in exchange for the cost of the license itself is mind numbing. That's like saying it's OK for the government to charge a mandatory fee to tattoo a barcode on your forehead, if the fee is roughly inline with the cost of the damn tattoo. What the h e l l does that have to do with the core loss of Constitutionally GUARANTEED Rights?

I don't get it. They are simply saying that due to receiving an ID card worth the approximate value of the fee, that it's OK to restrict a Constitutional Right? OK, where are Mandatory REAL Voter Cards? And what about Freedom of Speech cards? Do we now need to register for every frigging right we have? What a cluster.

Why don't you let the Step Son Deputy hold the rifle until things can get sorted? Once surrendered, it can be tough to reclaim.

Fwiw, I got a letter yesterday about my FOID expiring, and I when online right away and did the renewal process quite easily. Now the wait for the card.

Read 430 ILCS 65 Firearm Owners Identification Act. Section 2 is very clear.

The courts don't give a crap about what their actions and in-actions cause? No doubt, they just opened a can of worms, but don't count on any enforcement changes. They don't care either. Nor do the legislators. None of these arse whoo's have personal skin or financial interest in the matter. They can play games all day long on the tax payers tab. This thing is not over by a long shot, but the can has gotten kicked for sure.

Where is Skinny when you need him???

Excellent point - Clearly you understand the legal aspects, but the point is, how can they state that the FOID is not applicable in her own home, which is in-conflict with the actual law. If they say the law doesn't apply, but the law itself says it does, seems to me they are OBLIGATED to settle the controversy that got the case to them? And that naturally leads to the entire chicken before the egg issue on obtaining and transferring the firearm and ammo to the home, which is also in conflict. Imho, this is why they punted.

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 Agreed, they could have very well decided to strike the portion of the FOID law only pertaining to the possession of firearms in your own private property. They could have also striken the entire thing. I think the point is, they found the easiest solution to solve the problem, without having to touch the law, which the majority desperately support along political lines.

Well, in a similar vein, it would be interesting on how things would play out for someone who just completed their CCL renewal with retraining and all, but got locked out from renewing their FOID and as a result, lost the CCL too.

Oxymoron

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 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.

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?

Whoa, very welcome news! Got my fingers and toes crossed!

That member might be Molly, I'd guess. Great news!

I did get a new FOID card, which at the time, expires in 6 months. Why the heck didn't they just charge me the renewal, and issue a new full term card, and save the cost of making and sending two cards? Dumb.