Guns Save Life vs Kwame Raoul- Challenges FOID Act

[BobPistol]

More proof that gun control is based on racism and anti-catholicism.

[davel501]

If this is real he should be disbarred. 

[Tvandermyde]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:23 PM, Molly B. said:

What case is this?

 GSL v Kelley --- FOID card case I got their motion for summary judgement today. I'll post it up in a day or so after I get through it cause there are some doosies in here. And I need to cut vids on this. I think I have enough material for 4 or 5 videos

[Euler]

On 1/3/2023 at 12:23 AM, Molly B. said:

What case is this?

 

When we find out, this thread should be merged.

 

BTW, the firearm ban was for everyone except servants, so armed servants could keep their firearms without swearing an oath of loyalty. Is Raul trying to argue that the FOID is IL's certificate of loyalty? Or is it the certificate of servitude? I'm wondering, because servants don't have to be loyal. They just have to be obedient. Is Raul arguing that we're loyal or that we're obedient? I'm pretty sure that I'm not ready to call him "master," yet I still have a FOID. (Foolish Obedience ID?)

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

 

So during a period of wartime with England, the people (British Loyalists) who didn't swear an oath to the Colonies were disarmed.  That somehow applies to justify the FOID? The FOID is now a loyalty test?

 

Isn't there a question on the 4473 that has to do with renouncing US citizenship? Answering it incorrectly is a felony.  I'd say the federal 4473 form already covers the loyalty test that Raul is inventing in order to justify the FOID. 

Filling out the ATF 4473 form doesn't cost any money, doesn't take 30+ days to receive, and doesn't require a bunch of extra hoops to jump through (uploading photos, prints, creating an online account, navigating a buggy as **** website) like it does to obtain a FOID card.  I can fill out the 4473 and answer the "have you ever renounced your US citizenship" question and that makes the FOID loyalty test redundant and an infringement on my 2nd amendment rights, because in order to fill out the 4473 I must first have gone through all the extra bull**** to obtain a FOID card. 

 

 

 

 

[Flynn]

Wow, just WOW they are really scrapping the scum off the bottom of the barrel and have went full retard!

 

BTW that law they quoted was about the formation of commonwealth militia loyal to the state and not the King, because the colonies had just declared war on the King!

 

Interesting though that it excluded imported servants, women, and those under the age of 16 enforcing the idea that it revolved around those that were being called to militia service, not everyone.

[richp]

Something else is going on here.

 

This kind of thing should be seen as a back door attack on the historical principle behind Bruen -- illustrated by dredging up obscure laws (even though they may be niche statutes) that are dramatically contrary to today's understanding of the law and societal standards.

By doing this they hope to erode Bruen's powerful impact.

[mousegun6]

On 1/2/2023 at 9:27 PM, Tvandermyde said:

Yup the Illinois AG's office seems to be taking a que from the Range decision in citing the prohibition on Catholics and "imported servants" to justify the FOID card

 

 

Well that's a stretch, a bit like scratching your left ear with your right hand. I find it interesting that it refers to the age of 16 for disarmament, which implies that 16 was the age of consent to bear arms. I think they may have just shot themselves in the foot. The legal gymnastics the state will do to try and deny it's citizen's their constitutional rights is breathtaking and only shows that they are desperate after recent court rulings. We need to invest in the coming legal battle if we want to retain our 2nd Amendment rights.

[mikew]

Maybe the Raoul is getting whispers in his ears from the Stoneback.

 

[Plinkermostly]

'Shall not infringe' is going to be a . . . for them.

[cybermgk]

Too bad what he cites PREDATES the 2nd Amendment and is this moot viz a viz Bruen..

[2A4Cook]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:10 AM, cybermgk said:

Too bad what he cites PREDATES the 2nd Amendment and is this moot viz a viz Bruen..

LOL ... it predates the recognition of the USA as an independent, sovereign state as well as the constitutional convention.  This was a colonial rebellion edict in wartime.  These people are scum.  I will grant you, however, that the Democrat Party HAS declared war on half the American population, as well as on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[mauserme]

The 1/3/2023, topic titled "Illinois AG uses ban on "imported servants" to justify FOID" has been merged into this existing topic.

 

 

[Flynn]

On 1/3/2023 at 8:24 AM, mousegun6 said:

which implies that 16 was the age of consent to bear arms.

 

It wasn't about consent to bear, I was about your duty to the commonweath militia at age 16 (if you were a white male) you were required to own and maintain a firearm/ammo and be ready to be called up to service with that firearm at the ready once you turned 16 or face fines!  It was normal for much younger people to carry and own firearms, 16 was the age of mandatory enlistment in the militia.

 

This is very obvious further down in the quoted law where it makes clear that those disarmed are still part of the militia, but as unarmed members.

 

"Provided, That the person so disarmed shall, nevertheless, be obliged to attend musters, but shall be exempted from the fines imposed for appearing at such musters without arms, accoutrements, and ammunition."

[Euler]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:24 AM, mousegun6 said:

... which implies that 16 was the age of consent to bear arms. ...

 

On 1/3/2023 at 3:11 PM, Flynn said:

It wasn't about consent to bear, I was about your duty to the commonweath militia at age 16 ...

 

It was about the legal ability to swear an oath of loyalty. Women, children, and servants could not legally swear such oaths, so they were not punished for their inability.

[Dumak_from_arfcom]

On 1/3/2023 at 5:22 PM, Euler said:

 

 

It was about the legal ability to swear an oath of loyalty. Women, children, and servants could not legally swear such oaths, so they were not punished for their inability.

I concur.  

Raoul's argument is absurd. 

And I argue that if the FOID is now comparable to a loyalty test, that test is already fulfilled by answering a question on the 4473 which is a direct loyalty test that asks if the buyer has ever renounced their US citizenship.  IIRC there are were no such questions on the FOID application when I last renewed.  

[steveTA84]

Wait....Raoul is upholding a law meant to target and disarm his race just because whites were afraid of armed blacks in the 1960’s? Shocking. He is the real type of Uncle Tom ....

https://www.mom-at-arms.com/amp/turns-out-the-foid-card-exists-because-of-racial-tensions-and-armed-blacks

 

More articles from the time in link. The FOID only was created a** a means to target blacks in Chicago and turn them into criminals for simply possessing a firearm because they figured the majority of them wouldn’t want any interaction with the state police, especially during this time (race riots), so they (legislators) figured this was the easiest way to criminalize them. Way to go, Kwame.......

[steveTA84]

On topic for the subject, here’s CA’s historical laws they’re using to attempt to uphold the mag/AWB there. Seeing Democrats arguing in favor of racist and oppressive laws is quite the sight to see LOL!! 

 

Edited January 5, 2023 at 01:45 AM by steveTA84

[MrTriple]

On 1/3/2023 at 4:35 AM, Flynn said:

Wow, just WOW they are really scrapping the scum off the bottom of the barrel and have went full retard!

 

BTW that law they quoted was about the formation of commonwealth militia loyal to the state and not the King, because the colonies had just declared war on the King!

 

Interesting though that it excluded imported servants, women, and those under the age of 16 enforcing the idea that it revolved around those that were being called to militia service, not everyone.

But can you blame them? Applied correctly, the Bruen decision leaves them little wiggle room and they have to find some means of defending their law. So scraping the bottom of the barrel it is.

Edited January 5, 2023 at 06:49 PM by MrTriple

[Flynn]

On 1/5/2023 at 12:44 PM, MrTriple said:

But can you blame them?

 

When they turn to histical laws that were literally on the face racist and sexist to justify their ends, yes I will blame them.  IMO everyone should call them out for using Jim Crow laws that were in themselves unconstitional to validate their new unconstitional law. they should be tared and featherd.

[Upholder]

I have been able to find the appellate court's ruling in this case, but I have not been able to find the dockets for the appeal or trial court in Sangamon County.

[cbunt32]

So if under US v Rahimi the govt can't deny 2nd amendment rights to someone under a Domestic Violence Restraining Order, common sense would indicate the govt can't deny 2nd amendment rights to otherwise law biding citizens simply because they don't have a FOID.

[THE KING]

Any progress or updates on this case?

[MrTriple]

On 4/24/2023 at 7:31 AM, THE KING said:

Any progress or updates on this case?

In a similar vein, is anyone working on a federal lawsuit? While I'm glad someone is challenging the FOID, the state courts really aren't a good venue for any Second Amendment challenge.

[THE KING]

 

 

[mab22]

On 6/20/2023 at 5:22 PM, THE KING said:

https://youtu.be/_2YUJUo5vL0

What was the point of the video of a tictok video about a dog?

[THE KING]

Well that's jacked up. When I posted that link and I even opened it, it was the video of Todd from Freedoms Steel discussing the GSL case challenging the FOID. 😳

[Molly B.]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:06 PM, THE KING said:

Well that's jacked up. When I posted that link and I even opened it, it was the video of Todd from Freedoms Steel discussing the GSL case challenging the FOID. 😳

 

 

Fixed it.

[THE KING]

On 6/23/2023 at 1:21 PM, Molly B. said:

 

 

Fixed it.

Well thank you 🥰

[Upholder]

Held to be constitutional in all respects.