357

Primary reason not ancillary, introduced by the Black Caucus after George Floyd. Supposedly "systemic racism" is to blame and criminals are innocent. I agree with you about Soros and the globalists.

Unfortunately it was designed to help the criminals.

It has nothing to do with safety and makes people more unsafe. Should be called keep criminals out of jail Act.

Title says registered to us but there is no registration in Illinois and you can lend weapons in Illinois without transferring ownership.

Scare tactics, nothing they can do. They should be terminated for violating their oath of office and investigatd and prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Democracies are free to vote themselves into autocracies or to do any other thing to themselves. Treason would be to invite a foreign power to take them over. That's not the only definition of treason. They invite citizens of latin American countries to take over this country. And provide them sanctuary....... And break and ignore multiple laws with impunity and tell the police not to enforce the laws. Those Democratic lawmakers should face prosecution for taking bribes from Bloomberg and conspiring to take away people's Constitutional rights.

Rothschilds were and are behind the crown and Bloomberg is their front man. History is repeating. Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws. Mayer Rothschild

Democracies are free to vote themselves into autocracies or to do any other thing to themselves. Treason would be to invite a foreign power to take them over.That's not the only definition of treason. They invite citizens of latin American countries to take over this country.

We should be watching closely whats happening there (most of us are already, I know). They are well organized and united as a whole.When Bloomberg becomes king he can take away people's Constitutional rights and impose his will. Law enforcement has sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Civil disobedience will render Bloomberg's unconstitutional laws null and void.

Do it the same as DL. They also use the photo from the DL.

Yep, I was talking about the safe part.

Title has typo, guns save lives.

Who thinks JB and his handpicked director have something to do with this. This didn't happen before he got elected.

They have turned it into a gun grab too.

Why did police show up at your place and which police department?

You must have a slow car or afraid to drive and of other drivers like you said. It's easy to do 90 on 55 when other drivers are doing 90 and tailgating you to get out of their way. After that is luck of the draw. Btw tailgating is considered reckless driving too and depends on the cop. Signs go from 70 to 55 and is more unsafe to look at the speedometer and for cops and signs than looking at the road and driving at your own and your car's ability and not worrying about the nanny state ripping you off with hefty tickets. Also motorcycles and sport cars do 90 in first gear today.

Is negotiable with the prosecutor, you take the deal or go to trial. For the record I have only been caught once speeding and even for a first offense in an unpopulated area with no traffic, the prosecutor was only willing to give me Class B instead of Class A misdemeanor and I had an attorney. I refused to take the deal and had evidence of wrongdoing and wasn't going as fast as claimed on the ticket and the case was eventually dropped.

Driving has nothing to do with gun ownership and is not a Constitutional right. If you don't always succeed then don't act holier than thou. Going 35 mph over the limit is easy to do and is considered reckless driving according to the law and is done by the vast majority of drivers on the expressway every day. The limit is kept low artificially to generate revenue and everyone knows it. Cars and technology have advanced a lot from what they were in the 70's. In Germany where there's no speed limit in many places, there's less accidents and deaths than in the US. I will find it hard to believe if anyone hasn't gone 35 mph over the limit. Should you loose your Constitutional rights because of it? You wouldn't be saying is ok if it happened to you.

The FOID card law specifically says even for people under 21 years old that traffic offenses are not grounds for denial of their FOID card. On which Illinois statue is the ISP decision based on to revoke people's FOID cards for traffic offenses? (a) A person under 21 years of age who has been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;

Molly or anyone else know which Illinois state statute says the ISP can revoke the FOID card for Class A misdemeanor traffic violations? There is no Federal law prohibiting firearms possession for traffic violations. The letter says reason listed below pursuant to: 430 ILCS 65/8 (n) (n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law; (430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8) Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance: (a) A person under 21 years of age who has been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent; ( A person under 21 years of age who does not have the written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card; © A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction; (d) A person addicted to narcotics; (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental health facility within the past 5 years or a person who has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago who has not received the certification required under subsection (u) of this Section. An active law enforcement officer employed by a unit of government who is denied, revoked, or has his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card seized under this subsection (e) may obtain relief as described in subsection (c-5) of Section 10 of this Act if the officer did not act in a manner threatening to the officer, another person, or the public as determined by the treating clinical psychologist or physician, and the officer seeks mental health treatment; (f) A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community; (g) A person who has an intellectual disability; (h) A person who intentionally makes a false statement in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application; (i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States; (i-5) An alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i-5) does not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is: (1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes; (2) an official representative of a foreign government who is: (A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or ( en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited; (3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State; (4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or (5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3); (j) (Blank); (k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed; (l) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant or person who has been previously issued a Firearm Owner's Identification Card under this Act knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this paragraph (l) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying an application for and for revoking and seizing a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued to the person under this Act; (m) (Blank); (n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law; (o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony; (p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony; (q) A person who is not a resident of the State of Illinois, except as provided in subsection (a-10) of Section 4; ® A person who has been adjudicated as a person with a mental disability; (s) A person who has been found to have a developmental disability; (t) A person involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility; or (u) A person who has had his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card revoked or denied under subsection (e) of this Section or item (iv) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Section 4 of this Act because he or she was a patient in a mental health facility as provided in subsection (e) of this Section, shall not be permitted to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, after the 5-year period has lapsed, unless he or she has received a mental health evaluation by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner as those terms are defined in the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, and has received a certification that he or she is not a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or others. The physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner making the certification and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the certification required under this subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct. This subsection does not apply to a person whose firearm possession rights have been restored through administrative or judicial action under Section 10 or 11 of this Act. Upon revocation of a person's Firearm Owner's Identification Card, the Department of State Police shall provide notice to the person and the person shall comply with Section 9.5 of this Act. (Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13; 98-508, eff. 8-19-13; 98-756, eff. 7-16-14; 99-143, eff. 7-27-15.)

Unfortunately they only see what they want to see. Is there a law that says they can do this and where does the ISP findd the authority to deny people of their 2nd amendment rights for misdemeanor traffic offenses or are they doing whatever they want? Big reason for FOID to go and was found by a court recently to be unconstitutional. The law says you have to have been found guilty of a felony. Is Illinois reporting traffic offenses to NICS too now? Looks like any excuse they can find to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. Whatever the traffic offense was it's not an excuse to take away people's Constitutional rights. Nobody goes 55 mph anymore and the speed limit is too low for cars today and creates traffic congestion and from the oil embargo of the 70's and is left low artificially to generate revenue. The over the limit range was lowered a couple years ago in Illinois and the offense increased to crimes class A and B misdemeanors so attorneys can make more money. So speeding according to our legislators is the same as aggravated assault, battery, domestic battery and criminal sexual abuse. Most people driving have been turned into criminals by our legislature and can be easily tripped up and ripped off and now apparently they can loose their 2nd Amendment rights too. Thank you for posting this and it is a wake up call for a lot of people. OP what options did you have if you found out before agreeing to it and what was the offense and the penalties? If you don't mind were you racing or speeding and by how much? Does the 24 month supervision have the same prohibition for the whole state of Illinois or just your county? Form 4473 question 11c says: 11.c Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.) Question 11.b. - 12. Generally, 18 U.S.C. 922(g) prohibits the shipment, transportation, receipt, or possession in or affecting interstate commerce of a firearm by one who: has been convicted of a felony in any Federal, State or local court, or any other crime, punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (this does not include State misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment of two years or less)

Those are unenforceable.

Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case. I sent $50 through PayPal marked Brown case.

I'm ready to contribute.