Jump to content

Lawsuit challenging the FOID card


TyGuy

Recommended Posts

a case was filed in Madison County with the state police being served Thursday.

 

Haven't seen it yet. But I'm told they are trying to make it a class action

 

I want everyone to know that I wasn't complaining, I really just wondered if such a case had been heard before. I light of Heller and McDonald I don't see how a tax/fee to use your 2nd amendment rights can stand any longer, and I wouldn't make it part of the RTC issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be in our best interest to go after the FOID prior to getting a carry law. Notice how Madigan comes up with a new wrinkle every other day or so. We make headway on carry, so he introduces anti awb legislation or mag. limits or registration schemes. These things I believe are all designed to keep us back on our heels and not attending to the carry effort. If we siezed the inititave and went after the foid, we would take the battle to them and have them playing defense for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are aiming towards a class action and served the ISP it's likely in relation to the lack of turn around time and failure to provide the level of service as outlined by law, just my guess...

 

You don't say,.. :P

 

Well there is a distinct difference between trying to abolish the FOID as law and suing the ISP for noncompliance, IMO it's worth mentioning that they are separate issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think once the concealed carry law is passed and being used, we need to go after the FOID. I douby very much if it is defensible.

 

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that non residents in illinois do not haver to have a FOID to possess firearms and ammo while in Illinois:

 

http://watchdog.org/...-foid-gun-card/

 

wait a minute. Where is the equality under the law in that? Why are Illinois residents different from all other Americans?

 

Bud, do you have that case?

 

I do:

 

People v. Holmes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might be in our best interest to go after the FOID prior to getting a carry law. Notice how Madigan comes up with a new wrinkle every other day or so. We make headway on carry, so he introduces anti awb legislation or mag. limits or registration schemes. These things I believe are all designed to keep us back on our heels and not attending to the carry effort. If we siezed the inititave and went after the foid, we would take the battle to them and have them playing defense for a while.

 

Oh, there's a good idea.

 

Let's see, we get Mary Shepard, Moore et al to all drop their law suits, have Todd tear up the bill that he has writing and re-writing for the last coupokle of years, get Judge Posner to re-consoider his injunction and also hiis ruling that the UUW Statue is uunconstitutional and oh yeah, forget all the town halls, Op Eds, personal apearances and all the 4rest so we can start all over again.

 

But I would really like to be a co-plantiff in a class action against the ISP and the FOID.

Edited by Bud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I wasn't saying to go after it now. Jeebesus people.

 

I am saying go after it right now.

 

Because right now the machine-crats are talking about making changes to the FOID program to turn it into a deterrent as one facet of a multi-faceted approach to keep Illinois the way it is, even if the UUW law is thrown out.

 

By filing suit, we take that option off the table.

 

I'd do it myself but I don't have any standing, I have my FOID. It has to be someone who is in that 60-70K backlog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and several other people I know are in that backlog. Was told by one of them that they just called this week about it. Expect a 30 day wait AFTER the check is cashed to BEGIN the processing. Once processing begins they say it could take up to 60 days after that now. 90+ days is the new norm.

 

They should be getting sued over this. They are purposely understaffing to cause this chaos. Youd think our reps and senators would get tired of the phone calls. They cant rush anybodys through anymore nowadays from what Ive heard.

 

I fear for how the permit system will be handled.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

Edited by vess1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and several other people I know are in that backlog. Was told by one of them that they just called this week about it. Expect a 30 day wait AFTER the check is cashed to BEGIN the processing. Once processing begins they say it could take up to 60 days after that now. 90+ days is the new norm.

 

They should be getting sued over this. They are purposely understaffing to cause this chaos. Youd think our reps and senators would get tired of the phone calls. They cant rush anybodys through anymore nowadays from what Ive heard.

 

I fear for how the permit system will be handled.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

Maybe the CCW bill should have a provision that states you can start carrying if a processed permit is not in your possession within 30 days after application.

You carry 30 days after the date submitted via an insured letter receipt from the USPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the CCW bill should have a provision that states you can start carrying if a processed permit is not in your possession within 30 days after application.

You carry 30 days after the date submitted via an insured letter receipt from the USPS.

 

I believe the current wording that allows you to basically sue them and regain all your cost if they don't issue in 30 days is a better system as it cost them money, lawyer fees and more time something that sends a message to the bean counters and puts direct pressure where the pressure is needed...

Edited by RockerXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the CCW bill should have a provision that states you can start carrying if a processed permit is not in your possession within 30 days after application.

You carry 30 days after the date submitted via an insured letter receipt from the USPS.

 

I believe the current wording that allows you to basically sue them and regain all your cost if they don't issue in 30 days is a better system as it cost them money, lawyer fees and more time something that sends a message to the bean counters and puts direct pressure where the pressure is needed...

 

I always have a problem with that.

 

 

Send what message? You don't think that money comes out of their pockets, do you? It comes out of our pockets. They could care less.

 

The City of Chicago has now autbhorized lawsuit settlements in the amount of $44 million just since the first of the year.

 

That doesn't affect them at all, the taxpayers are paying that money. If the City, or in this case the State, needs more money they just raise your taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always have a problem with that.

 

Well clearly not always because based on you previous post in this thread...

 

But I would really like to be a co-plantiff in a class action against the ISP and the FOID.

 

You certainly seem to endorse said actions and even want to be a co-plaintiff in taking those tax dollars...

 

Send what message? You don't think that money comes out of their pockets, do you? It comes out of our pockets. They could care less.

 

The City of Chicago has now autbhorized lawsuit settlements in the amount of $44 million just since the first of the year.

 

That doesn't affect them at all, the taxpayers are paying that money. If the City, or in this case the State, needs more money they just raise your taxes.

 

Regardless of where the money comes from it's a finite amount, the ISP do not have an unlimited budget to work with and thus lawsuits do effect them and hit home harder than just about any other penalty that can be levied against them... It's not like they are going to be held criminally accountable and tossed into prison...

 

What would your propose the penalty be for non-compliance with the 30 day time limit?

Edited by RockerXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and several other people I know are in that backlog. Was told by one of them that they just called this week about it. Expect a 30 day wait AFTER the check is cashed to BEGIN the processing. Once processing begins they say it could take up to 60 days after that now. 90+ days is the new norm.

 

They should be getting sued over this. They are purposely understaffing to cause this chaos. Youd think our reps and senators would get tired of the phone calls. They cant rush anybodys through anymore nowadays from what Ive heard.

 

I fear for how the permit system will be handled.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

 

Maybe the CCW bill should have a provision that states you can start carrying if a processed permit is not in your possession within 30 days after application.

You carry 30 days after the date submitted via an insured letter receipt from the USPS.

And this would be better than abolishing the FOID... how?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe the CCW bill should have a provision that states you can start carrying if a processed permit is not in your possession within 30 days after application.

You carry 30 days after the date submitted via an insured letter receipt from the USPS.

I agree whether you are talking about FOID or RTC permit. They don't seem to have a problem with the issuance of Drivers Licenses or License Plate stickers. No these are political shenanigans. If charged with a crime for not having a FOID when the check had been cashed much earlier, I doubt that you would go to jail, but you would have legal expenses. That is wrong, but what is worse is that you would not be able to buy ammo or a new gun until the ISP finally gets around to doing their job. And that is, of course, another reason for the FOID to be done away with but before we get ahead of ourselves it may become the only thing that we will need in order to exercise our Second Amendments rights if the anti-crowd refuses to take "YES" for an answer and insist that we completey subjugate ourselves and compromise more that we have already done.

I don't see why an amendment could not be attached to almost any bill accomplishing the acceptance of a canceled check as the actual FOID if the ISP fails to deliver it within the legally required time. If we did that and the governor or the general assembly were to play games with the matter, it would probably be a fairly easy thing to find a court that would create a situation similar to what we have with the Seventh Circuit now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Regardless of where the money comes from it's a finite amount, the ISP do not have an unlimited budget to work with and thus lawsuits do effect them and hit home harder than just about any other penalty that can be levied against them... It's not like they are going to be held criminally accountable and tossed into prison...

 

What would your propose the penalty be for non-compliance with the 30 day time limit?

 

 

 

http://ilga.gov/legi...73&SessionID=85

 

How about we push SB1760 which puts teeth in the 30 day limit.

 

Yes Bud, I know the penalty is paid for by us taxpayers but what else can we do?

Flog the head of the ISP? Throw their butts in jail? Can you think of a better alternative?

I'm open but for right now at least SOMEBODY is looking for an alternative to the status quo.

 

At least this bill would hold them accountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I wasn't saying to go after it now. Jeebesus people.

 

I am saying go after it right now.

 

Because right now the machine-crats are talking about making changes to the FOID program to turn it into a deterrent as one facet of a multi-faceted approach to keep Illinois the way it is, even if the UUW law is thrown out.

 

By filing suit, we take that option off the table.

 

I'd do it myself but I don't have any standing, I have my FOID. It has to be someone who is in that 60-70K backlog

 

I would have to agree with you about going after the FOID now. I don't know what the suit will say and what relief they are asking for, but I would like them to even go after the state's discriminatory practice of not issuing a FOID to a person that is homeless.

 

I'm sure they would be able to find someone that lost their job, their house and is either living in their car or a homeless shelter that wants to get a FOID !!

 

Can you say equal protection or the lack thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...