borgranta

The existence of the NICS system negates the necessity of the FOID act and FTIP system. The FOID act is now an unnecessary burden in light of the NICS system. The FOID act predated the NICS system and was needed prior to the NICS system but it is now redundant and superfluous.

The only way it would be legal for ILLINOS to allow the FOID to exist after a court ruling declaring it unconstitutional would be to revise FOID law and all references of FOID in law to make it an optional card that would offer a benefit of no mandatory waiting period upon instant background check approval and a maximum 3 day wait when background check is delayed.

A court would rule that jailing or fining a Sheriff for refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws would be an unconstitutional act. It may also be defined as wrongful arrest since Supreme Court precedent has established that law enforcement has a right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. A cop that would arrest the sheriff will probably not have legal authority to do so and as a result the arresting officer may technically be committing a kidnapping.

If the ISP requires people to pay the repeatedly to correct then they are putting themselves at greater risk of charge-backs.

If statewide open carry were to become a reality such a ruling would benefit an open carrier

It predates the concealed carry law and applies directly to the UUW. It will benefit those convicted of carrying within 1000 ft of a park since it is unconstitutional. It may also protect those that carry while hunting fishing and trapping since such an activity might cause some people to be in violation depending on how close a park is.

An impersonator could assume the identity of a real deputy.

You could contact crime stoppers and report it as a suspected fake cop theft ring and with any luck you could get a reward. You could also report the same to the ATF. I remember seeing an article about a Bronx fake cop theft ring busted and the gear used by the theft ring resembled the description of the gear you described including a badge and tactical gear a fake unmarked police car.

Wait...You're in DuPage?! Total scam job. Call the...gulp...ATF...as well as ISP and report the attempted theft. But how did he get found out as a foid card holder???Assuming they are criminals they probably did the same scam to others not knowing in advance one way or the other.

I really cant know for sure. That same question is bothering me too. I have a video of the 20min visit. I can share it via PM if you like to see it. I live in a very decent area of DuPage county where police is present everywhere (160k population). It would be very risky for outsiders to impersonate law enforcement officers in the middle of the day next to a very busy street. Maybe that is why the SUV was unmarked to make it easier for them to impersonate. Maybe they are dirty cops using phony paperwork to steal your FOID and they might have tried to steal your guns and ammo as well.

How do you know that these guy were really deputies and not some criminals using phony uniforms and forged paperwork? Criminals could impersonate law enforcement officers and potentially confiscate guns and ammo as well as a FOID card. Criminals could probably alter a FOID card to enable them to buy guns and/or ammo.

Reporting voluntary admissions to the fed would be illegal since states can only legally report involuntary admissions.

Considering federal law requires non-resident military members stationed on orders in another state to be treated as residents in the state that they are stationed within leave no wiggle room to deny military members the same rights other ILLINOIS residents enjoy.

I know of at least one Missouri cop that is unable to obtain a FOID card here is the link to the thread. http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49827 Here is the link to the article about it. http://joeforamerica.com/2014/06/cop-cant-buy-a-gun-or-ammunition-in-illinois/

There's no evidence of this, and in fact because they also denied cert in Drake (where in NJ there's no doubt OCing a long gun in public is illegal with few exceptions), That leads me to believe that wasn't why cert was denied here.Perhaps they denied it because because obtaining a license to carry is as much of a privilege as getting a license to drive is.

SCOTUS likely believed that since carry of a long gun without a license was not illegal that the state was not in violation of their citizens rights since they allowed some form of carry on a non-descriminatory manner.

Peruta was ruled the way it was after the stated banned unloaded open carry of long guns and the fact that the Attorney General for Maryland stated that open carry was legal merely gave them an excuse to rule the way that they did. It is like Peruta in reverse with the may issue scheme left alone since the open carry of a long gun is supposedly legal.

It Appears that the Attorney General lied to the judges about being able to carry a long guns based on this video: Did the court allow the licensing scheme due to believing that open carry of rifles and shotguns was legal without a permit?

That is why some will have to un-holster and un-load the handgun and enclose it in a case while hoping not to catch a bullet.

Given the fact that New Mexico is only one hour shy of our training requirement it makes sense to allow non-residents from their have an opportunity to get our license.

It would be interesting to see the weeping and gnashing of teeth that would go on. If they were to rule that prohibiting unlicensed open carry was unconstitutional it would force them to make it easier to acquire a permit to reduce the amount of open carriers.

They may be waiting for Peruta since it does deal strictly with licenses to carry due to the fact that it was originally mooted by the unlicensed open carry of firearms and due to their criminalizing the unloaded open carry the court ruled that they have to allow one form of carry to the masses whether it be open or concealed and they ruled that self defense is a valid reason for a license. With everything leading up to the ruling with open carry SCOTUS could use that as an avenue to claim that unlicensed openly carrying is a protected right.

I will not break the law but would be willing to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit demanding the open carry of long guns but I will not break the law to do so.

I have not been denied a permit but have instead chose not to get one yet and I would be willing to be a plaintiff for an open carry case involving long guns and/or hand guns.

I just realized that the reason they denied cert is because there is no right to a carry permit. If the suit was designed to challenge the laws that prohibited the plaintiff from carrying legally for self defense it could have resulted in SCOTUS dealing with a pure right to bear arms case.