Illinois gun ban/confiscation

Tom Servo, cobra81, thanks for the replies. I completely understand what you guys are saying. But I do think that the $10 fee (or tax if one chooses to call it) is a small price to pay to make it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and / or wife beaters.

I really wouldn’t call it a tax anyhow. Taxes are usually sources of revenue for the taxing body. Here in Illinois, the fee goes directly to the Illinois State Police, which is not a taxing body. And I’m sure the administrative work costs much more then the $10, so it’s negative revenue, and I wouldn’t call that a tax.

But again, I understand, and thanks for the replies.
 
But I do think that the $10 fee (or tax if one chooses to call it) is a small price to pay to make it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of felons and / or wife beaters.
Click to expand...
I have two rebuttals. The first is that the FOID doesn't really make it any harder for determined criminals to get a gun.

The second is that the problem the FOID card is supposed to solve is already solved by the NICS check at the point of purchase.
 
I disagree in that the FOID does or would make it harder to obtain a gun in IL if you were unable to legally get one. All points of sale and gun ranges all require you to have one.

Even in purchasing a gun through Armslist or similar, everyone requires you to show it in both buying and selling.

So a would be thief or felon would have to resort to other methods, illegal purchase or straw purchase.

Of cours, as my wife pointed out, they could just forge one and be on there way. I would assume that the forged number would be cought by a LGS, but not a face to face sale.
 
Believe it or not, if only by one year - 1968 vs 1969, FOID predates NICS. Plus, I don't know that NICS totally supplants FOID. Not that that would be necessary, but just perhaps the IL State Police go into greater detail on background (and maybe some would wish this not to be the case).
 
There has been an agreement from both sides that benefits both sides that will be introduced in the spring.
Click to expand...

OK. Here's what HAS to be going on with this.

The grabbers figured out that they cannot **** off gun owners (and RKBA-friendly IL legislators) right now. That's because of the upcoming CCW bill.

For those not keeping score: the 7th Circuit has killed all IL carry laws banning open and concealed carry, effective July of 2013. They gave a six month delay so that IL could pass new carry legislation, either shall-issue or otherwise.

If no carry legislation passes by then, the grabbers face a "carry apocalypse" in which IL "goes Vermont" - no permit needed to carry open OR concealed because there would be no law banning it.

Better yet: passing some kind of carry law will require the cooperation of pro-RKBA legislators.

That puts the pro-RKBA side firmly in the driver's seat. They get to say "please us - dance little piggies!" The grabbers are going to want severe restrictions but they are not going to get any such thing. The gunnies don't have to bite - at all. Because if they do nothing at all, they win huge.

So in exchange for any sort of background check and training system, the gunnie legislators are going to get all sorts of goodies, if a deal happens at all.

If I were advising the gunnie legislators, I would say go ahead and create a good shall-issue system with eight hours training, background check, etc. IN EXCHANGE, you want several things: no possible override by Chicago on any gun rules ever ("strict preemption"), no possible new gun control bills for at least five years(!), FOID is dead, gun-free-zones are metal detectors, armed guards on-site and lockboxes for people's boomthings, probably more.

Otherwise, if they let the clock run out and it goes constitutional carry, that still leaves too many possibilities for gun free zones, and it leaves the grabbers still able to do more gun control later.

They know that some kind of massive horse-trade on gun issues is coming - hence the language about "agreement from both sides that benefits both sides". The hardcore grabber legislators who introduced this recently dead "ban ALL the things!" bill has been told to sit down and shut up and because of the need for a deal on carry. If this thing had gone any further, the gunnie legislators would have rightfully refused any discussions on a carry bill leading to unlimited carry come July.
 
The agreement has to do with two bills that dealt with mental health and gun ownership possession issues.

There were three gun control bills in the house - one was the so called assault weapon and magazine ban that would have by estimates banned 70 percent of all handguns and over half of all rifles. That was defeated.

The other two dealt with mental health restrictions - one focused on rules for police and the other for non-police. Some of the language was over-broad and different for police and non-police. There were concerns that people getting mental health care for everyday issues could be denied purchase or possession of a firearm. The agreement has to do with ironing out those issues so it is not a gun grab but does responsibly address the issue of the dangerously unstable mentally ill.

Also, this episode resulted in a lot of conversation on the gun issue between gun lobbyists and senators and house reps, which has built some bridges for paving the way to the ccw law. So Jim is correct that there has been a lot of discussion and feeling each other out behind the scenes.

Beyond that I don't know any specifics, which I wouldn't post if I did. The leadership of both house and senate are hostile to ccw as is the governor. So some house members and senators obviously don't want things out in public where they are exposed to the house speakers or senate presidents ire. There have been cracks in the Chicago front even before the court decision - with some Chicago reps responding to outreach from the rkba community. Despite some stereotypes some of the city reps have found that some of their constituency is receptive to ccw - given the high homicide rate in the city. Remember Otis McDonald is a black man from Chicago and it has been noticed in Chicago communities.

I find it hard to believe after 20 years of fighting for this, that a shall issue ccw law will happen in Illinois - but barring a court reversal it will.

Lisa Madigan has until Wednesday to file an appeal for a full enbanc hearing in the 7th circuit. If she does the court will respond within 10 days indicating if it the will accept the case for a full enbanc hearing. My guess is that she will appeal but the court will decline to rehear the case - for two reasons: one Posner the judge who wrote the majority decision is very respected in the circuit and two the court really doesn't want to pick up this hot potato and then reverse it.

If that is the case, then the only option for the state is to appeal to the USSC - which hasn't been too kind to Illinois on gun rights cases. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they try an appeal to the USSC. Meanwhile however the clock is still running on the deadline with the 7th circuit and the time runs out in mid-June (decision was in early Dec - add 180 days or about 6 months). So legislators are under the gun to get something done as there is no guarantee that the USSC will even hear the case and if they do the ruling could in all probability be upheld. Many gun control advocates don't want this case appealed for that reason as they feel it could result in a USSC decision that required shall issue nationwide and would overturn restrictive may issue laws in NY, HI, and such. I think the court will hear a may issue case sooner or later anyway.

If the USSC accepted the case then that could delay legislation as I don't doubt at that point the 7th would grant a stay on its order. However, waiting that long could leave the legislators in a tight bind (those that are not supportive of ccw) as if they wait too long and the USSC doesn't grant cert, then they will lose ever more negotiating and maneuvering time.

That leads me to believe that no ccw legislation will move forward until after it is determined if the 7th circuit will grant a full enbanc hearing. If that is denied then real negotiations will start and there may not be an appeal to the USSC. Interesting to say the least. Another attempt at the assault weapon ban and a magazine ban will be made later in the year. They would never agree to a seize fire on gun control legislation and any deal would be unenforceable anyway.

I doubt we (speaking of rkba movement) will try to bundle a lot of issues with the ccw law - though there will be preemption as part of the ccw law, no carve out for home rule in Chicago or anywhere. Foid will be dealt with separately. No gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois. Might be wrong, but hell just happy we beat them on the assault weapon and magazine bans this week.
 
"gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois." If any legislator or school district board of education really cared (about protecting the students) the money is there. Just look at the salaries that school superintendents are paid. Some in IL are paid more than the president of the United States or the IL governor. The money is there. The school superintendents could give up some salary if need be to pay for the necessary security. Don't for a second believe that the money is not there. Why this hasn't been proposed already is beyond my understanding (money for the protection of students or money to over pay administrators).
 
As security of the students is ultimately the respnsibility of the principal and the superintendant, then they should have to either pay for security, or in smaller districts, do it themselves. If they are paid more than the POTUS, then that is not too much to ask.

At Sandy Hook, the principal of the school went to confront the gunman .... could that have not worked out better if she had more than righteous indignation and harsh words at her disposal?

Arm the Admins, at the very least. Qualified teachers next. All this could be done at a very low cost.

Any reasoned examination of the problem would lead to that conclusion.

Sadly, many "Educators" live in a world ruled by emotion/feelings, rather than logic and physics ...... which is why they are turning out so many "educated" ignoramuses that feel so good about themselves and hit the real world and are stunned that it demands abilities that they don't have and results they can't achieve ....... they certainly can express how they FEEL about everything, but they can't DO much of anything.
 
That needs to be picture of the year..... That is a man realizing that his best and only hope for "his" AWB to pass just went out the window.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top