Abolishing the Illinois F.O.I.D. card

Requiring Laws to pass Constitutional scrutiny has long been a goal of Constitutionionalists.
Congress has refused to even consider, as near as I remember, because Globalists, state and federal Lawmakers dictators and big business doesn't want it and spends millions anytime, it comes up, to kill it.
It should be hue and cry on every issue. We are not going to get our Country back if we don't force them to listen and do our will.
 
DT Guy said:
I sincerely think one of the best ways we could improve our legislative process would be to reverse the 'presumption of innocence' for new laws, and require some independent review that a law is likely constitutional before it's enacted.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but to paraphrase the Roman poet Juvenal: Who watches the watchmen?

Who decides who sits on the "independent" review board? What steps are taken to ensure its continuing independence? Conversely, what can be done if it begins to act unpredictably or not-so-independently, or if its decrees veer in a not-so-Constitutional direction?

There is already a substantial body of criticism accusing the SCOTUS of acting as an unaccountable super-legislature prone to "discovering" constitutional rights that nobody noticed before. :rolleyes: Why make things potentially worse by creating ANOTHER body with similar powers?

IMHO this idea is like Congressional term limits: it sounds great until you consider what it could do to our tradition of legislative independence, transparency, and accountability. Both ideas threaten to make so-called special-interest groups MORE powerful and LESS accountable than today.

On the other hand, if the main thrust of the idea is simply to stall the legislative process and make it more difficult to pass complex new laws, IMHO there's an easier way to go about it: a Constitutional amendment requiring bills to be limited to a single subject. But I digress. :)
 
A constitutional court that is made up of "normal" citizens with no training in the legal system. Their guide to decision making is their understanding of the constitution as written that they hold in their hand and a copy of the first ten amendments with a page that reads; "If a bill restricts or diminishes the rights of even one person it is unconstitutional. If a bill uses powers not granted by the constitution to the governing body it is unconstitutional."
Each court would be selected and vetted before they were seated for a hearing on one bill. It might be handled much like a jury in that a group is selected from the citizenship to serve and from that group 13 members are selected for each bill. The group is held incognito to prevent coercion or bribery and paid at the rate equal to the average national pay scale for their time in service. The selection process would rotate and be mandated just as jurors are.
In order to make the determination more "absolute" a complete agreement would have to be reached to pass a bill to the legislation or people for a vote. If just one juror dissented then the bill would be dropped as unconstitutional or held for another session with different jurors.

The reason for that is that if just one person saw that it violated the principals of the judgment required, that one opinion outweighs the rest. The highest responsibility is to hold the peoples rights above all else and restrain the government to those powers given by the constitution.

I am going to love to hear the comments from the legal eagles on this proposal. :)
 
Last edited:
Kinda like the gun sales people that will escort the purchaser of a gun to the door, after paperwork completed, hand him the gun and send him on his way..

Many times the individual has a gun on his belt, concealed.
 
I'll never understand the (flawed) logic behind the Illinois three day waiting period to take possession of a handgun when the buyer holds a valid CCL. A few months back I bought a .22lr target pistol. By no stretch of the imagination would it be a gun one would use in any illegal acts. I had a loaded pistol in my right front pocket when the dealer told me when to pick up my new target pistol three days later. If I had intentions of doing something criminal, I'd use the gun I already had on me. But, that's Illinois for you.
 
I live in IL I am also a member of the ISRA and NRA. The FOID has been challenged 3 times in the past. One was shot down in the IL Supreme Court and was left there. The other two were shot down by Fed appeals Courts and left there. At present there is no action pending on the IL FOID by either the ISRA or NRA. It is a matter of money, the ISRA does not have the $$$ to start another appeal, and they cannot get a commitment from the NRA. So it looks like the FOID is going to stay. Mine will run out next year at this time. I will be 81 yrs old, so I may not even renew it. The FOID is done now strictly on line no paper work. Back log at this time is about 3-4 months after applying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top