burningspear

He is a "man of color." https://www.cookcountysheriff.org/sheriffs-police-arrest-man-aiming-handgun-laser-motorists/ 2A4Cook you are wrong on many levels.

I agree with the statement from the State's Attorney's office. My view is that a person who is not a prohibited person should not be arrested for the mere possession of a firearm unless there is evidence of an intent to use it unlawfully or you are engaged in a forcible felony. This policy of the Chicago Police Department to arrest anyone possessing a gun without the proper permission slips from the state has not resulted in a reduction of the outrageous rate of violent crime plaguing the city of Chicago. To dramatically reduce the rate of violent crime within the boundaries of the city of Chicago, the Chicago Police Department must do a proper job of investigating crimes, arresting the alleged offenders, and assisting in the prosecution. Until that is done all of the rhetoric is for naught. During the last thirty years, how many murders have occurred within the boundaries of the city of Chicago? How many people have been wounded? How many offenders committed these wretched crimes? How many of these offenders have been arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for their dastardly acts? How many have gotten away with murder? What is the effective arrest rate? (Arrest and conviction equals effective arrest rate. Forget about "cleared by arrest.")The person carrying a firearm for self defense, for protection, is not the problem.

Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct. The pro-gun rights lobbyists better get busy.

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal. You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms. Should have said 6-3.

Indeed. The most likely outcome is that the Supremes will rule that the right protected by the 2nd Amendment extends to bearing arms outside the home. A permit can be required, but rather than requiring an individual to show "good reason," the state can only deny a permit for an individualized reason and will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Only the most restrictive of states would be affected by this, such as New York and Hawaii. Those states will respond with attempts to push the envelope of reasonableness (as Illinois did for a while), and depend on their up-to-now complicit circuit courts to permit it until the Supreme Court again, in 10 years perhaps, takes up an appeal. You are correct. Your statement reads like a summary of the forthcoming decision. Let me make a guess. The decision will be a 6-4 declaration that the denial of the application violated the right to keep and bear arms.

The sponsor of this bill are not focused on the real, basic causes of gun violence. Pathetic. I suppose it is easier to punish gun owners and gun shops who are legitimate than to ameliorate the actual causes of violence.

Yes. See my post #7. Visit the range. You will be welcomed. The owner is super friendly.

You would be welcome. The owner and his employees are friendly and helpful.

The FOID scheme is unconstitutional. It is a blanket ban on the possession of a firearm until the State tells you it is ok, after weeks, days, and months of waiting. But more on point, the proposed fix the Foid and the editorial urging its passage miss the target. The proposal does not deal with the the psychological, sociological, and cultural causes of violence, including violence inflicted by a person using a firearm. Until those issues are correctly dealt with, upticks in violence will continue. How many of the shooters who killed more than 800 people in Cook County in 2020 had a Foid card? How many even attempted to apply for one? You do not ride around looking for someone to shoot or rob or jack. Why? It is not because you have or don't have a Foid card, or don't have a firearm.

For Chicago arrests, you can search this site: https://publicsearch1.chicagopolice.org/

Check out Deacons For Defense. Also, review all of the Black codes that were passed post civil war, all designed and intended to disarm Blacks. What about the racist motivation for the FOID act.

I found his criminal history, felony convictions. Do not believe those who report that his felony record was expunged.

You are correct. I agree. Certain felons should not be denied the "right to keep and bear arms."

Agreed. Void The FOID FOID is unconstitutional, a voice in the wilderness shouted. Anybody hear me.

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.