Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    Cook County

Recent Profile Visitors

899 profile views

burningspear's Achievements


Member (18/24)

  1. I have no quarrel with the Supreme court’s Rahimi decision. Rahimi’s “as is” challenge failed because a court found he was a “for real threat“ [my wording] to the physical well being of another and that disarming him had a basis in the history and tradition of this country during the Founding period. Oh, I agree that the FOID act, which is a blanket prohibition on the possession of firearms and ammunition until the State grants its permission is grossly unconstitutional.
  2. Thank you, Mr. mauserme. I don't understand how you are able to endure the unenlightened arguments offered by the likes of Don Harmon and Bob Morgan.
  3. The offender committed Attempt Robbery. Robbery is a forcible felony. Is Attempt Robbery a forcible felony? I don't know and will not waste my time to figure it out.
  4. There is, I am sure, massive non-compliance with this person to person, registration scheme. The non-compliance rate is undoubtedly higher than compliance with the "assault weapon"-magazine-ammo registration mandate. But, I suppose, there is no way to factually verify any of this. Our wise and learned lawmakers are crime fighters extraordinaire.
  5. You are absolutely correct. I go way back. I remember CAGE. I remember when drivers were stopped and cars search because the officers falsely claimed to have seen the barrel of a gun sticking out from the front seat; when in fact, after the search, a gun was actually found in the back seat or elsewhere. The after the fact barrel sticking out was the justification, the probable cause. I remember when a person was arrested and charged when the gun was unloaded, in a case, and at the bottom of a laundry basket underneath a pile of clothes. Do you remember Packman from the Westside? (If not, don't fret.)
  6. " Straighten up and fly right. Cool down, Papa, don't you blow your top." Smile.
  7. Each of you "naysayers" who jumped to negative statements -some of which boarded on racism - before all of the facts surfaced were wrong.
  8. Plaintiff should ask leave to amended the complaint to add a count asking that the FOID Act be declared unconstitutional, using the text, tradition, and history analysis described in the Bruen decision.
  9. The FOID scheme is unconstitutional. Now if we can get more than the two of us plus the Illinois Supreme Court to agree to that, this fumble by the legislature will disappear. In the meantime, it becomes more and more complicated and burdensome to not only acquire a firearm and ammunition but to also carry.
  10. You are absolutely correct. The Illinois Supreme Court did not rule on whether or not a FOID is required to lawfully possess a firearm in the home. The Brown case will not be a vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the FOID scheme. The trial court will find Defendant Brown not guilty. The State will not appeal, and the case will be over.
  11. You are correct. I believe that Brown is not the vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the people registration system known as the FOID Act.
  • Create New...