Teen suing over FOID Card denial seeks summary judgment.

These are two separate issues and the statement about abortion has no bearing on law, so the abortion statement is irrelevant.

I think the issue then remains her FOID and the Law is the Law. I stand with the law because bending the rules for one person can have more negative consequences than positive. "It rains on the just as well as the unjust".

Do I think the Law should change? Yes but conditionally.

Also I think she went about things the wrong way. She should be fighting to have it changed and accepting why it's in place to begin with.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this sentiment. I don't stand with the law in any routine or automated fashion. It has been the legal history of this country for 200 years that the job of a jury is to weigh the application of th elaw in the particular case. If a person shoots in self-defense in their home, in clear violation of the city ordinance against firing a gun in the city limits, are you suggesting they should be prosecuted for firing the weapon even though they could not be prosecuted for killing the intruder?

Just what conditions would you apply to eliminating Illinois FOID card?
 
I don't think FOID is a good thing. I think having it changed tweaked or removed should be done the right way.

Have it put on the ballot. Have it removed from law.

I don't agree with the law, but her process.

There should be enough support from people to get it changed permanently and for everyone.
Click to expand...

You believe, then, that the only way to get rid of an unconstitutional law is to lobby legislatures to change the law? You're arguing that the courts have no role in eliminating government abuses?
 
I don't see a problem with letting a court strike a law on the basis of discriminatory practice. (Or the basis of improper legislative procedure, for example NY's law - SAFE Act? - that was passed without public hearings, required time for legislative review, etc)

I do see problems with courts creating or modifying laws, as that should be done via legislative action.
Click to expand...

This is not a case of asking the court to create or modify a law. The law is already written and, in the United States, it is the basis upon which all other laws must be based: The United States Constitution.

The courts have twisted the Constitution to allow for "reasonable restrictions" even though no such option is permitted by the Constitution so, for now, we can't get past that one. So, if the Illinois FOID is, at least until ruled otherwise, the law and accepted, in Illinois government at least, to be a reasonable restriction. So this girl is not fighting that entire battle. She's saying that the application of this reasonable restriction is unreasonable. She's simply saying that she's legally an adult and her parents don't have approval or veto rights on her behavior and that the age rule is not reasonable.

What she wants is the right protected by the Constitution to be available to her. That's not changing a law. That's eliminating a conflict between two laws in favor of the supreme US law.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
 
Besides I would think that a good selling point to get the anti's to accept this change is that the pressure is further upon the dealers, not the state to make sure someone is not under 21 for handgun sales
Click to expand...

I doubt that. They want the government doing the background check, not the dealer. For most anti's the government should have the guns, not the people, remember. They trust the government of the people, for the people, by the people, more than they trust the people remember. And that means they want the government in control, not the dealer.
 
Levant, if you wish to quote me, you should note that I am arguing in favor of the plaintiff, and against Wreck-N-Crew. The bit you quoted was a defense of the plaintiff's claim that the court should effectively provide a summary judgement based on the law violating her Constitutional rights.
 
I’ve caught some grief for this, right here on this forum, but I think the Illinois FOID can be a good thing in certain instances. Private sales of firearms being one. Let’s say you are selling a gun. As a responsible person / responsible gun owner, you want some kind of reasonable assurance that the gun you are selling is not falling into the hands of a person with questionable motives. If the buyer has a FOID, you can be some what assured that he is not a felon or has not been convicted of domestic abuse. This doesn’t mean it’s 100% assured but it does mean reasonably assured. Without a FOID, you have no idea. It is in a sense a “cover your butt” thing.

I could care less if some pimple faced kid at WalMart wants to see my FOID before I buy a box of bulk pack .22’s or WWB 9mm. But I do care a bunch if some convicted felon gang banger wants to buy a box of WWB 9mm. Can the gang banger still get the ammo? Sure, he most certainly can. But if it’s just a little bit harder for him to buy ammo, it may mean one less murder or one less robbery. So I can live with a little inconvenience on my part if one less felony takes place.

Let the flames begin…..
 
The following were posts made by someone who used my computer and are not mine. I have taken steps to insure it doesn't happen again and apologize for allowing my security to lack. I also disagree with these post. Once again sorry TFL. I did notify a staff member and since the post's were not refractions I am deleting or editing them.
The entire point of a judicial challenge to a law is both to get an unjust law overturned so the legislature can create a just one in it's place if the law served a just purpose, AND to provide The People with one avenue to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.

I would not disagree with it being her right, just with the path chosen. I don't like the process for the simple fact that the process is flawed and has opened the door for many who have used it similarly to legislate from the bench.

When Law becomes subject to it's intention, it ends up being the same as interpretation from a judicial standpoint, at which point the law could lose it's power. Reason for the "rains on the just as well as the unjust" point.

Though I understand that the law is like a fishing net made for netting shrimp and some fish get caught in it. However the majority of the fish are not harmed and returned. Some however are and when that happens we look to find a solution.

In order for that "net" (LAW) to be better, it must be redesigned, tested, adjusted and tested again. That is the time consuming but proving way.

Having law temporarily changed until a new one can be perfected is for severe cases. I don't see this case as something in dire and immediate need.


Quote:
Are you suggesting a curfew from 1201 PM to 11:59 AM is unjust, but people should not challenge it in the courts, but instead work to change it in their 2 minutes of freedom every day?

I think that is stretched metaphorically. The the idea that the law in this case is that constricting is a little much therefor my answer is yes. If you want something changed, do the work to get it changed.
Click to expand...

Tempest Horsley has claimed that the response defense of the State, led by Madigan's office basically says that her right to abortion(if she was just a year younger 17, she wouldn't need parental consent) is more important than her 2A Rights to self defense.

These are two separate issues and the statement about abortion has no bearing on law, so the abortion statement is irrelevant.

I think the issue then remains her FOID and the Law is the Law. I stand with the law because bending the rules for one person can have more negative consequences than positive. "It rains on the just as well as the unjust".

Do I think the Law should change? Yes but conditionally.

Also I think she went about things the wrong way. She should be fighting to have it changed and accepting why it's in place to begin with.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Put another way, Wreck-n-Crew, why do you think FOID should be tweaked instead of tossed?

Yes I think it needs some fixing and if tweaking gets it there all the better.

My biggest concern is route to fixing it. As much as most people (myself included) would like to see things done more easily, history says the easy path can be a minefield.

The thing complicating our world the most is not simplicity , but the lengths as to which one must go to close loopholes in what should be simple laws that need no interpretation.
Click to expand...

Hope I got them all, sorry again all...:o
 
Last edited:
I’ve caught some grief for this, right here on this forum,
Click to expand...

I can see how you've caught grief here for that. You're going to get some more.

Grief:
An FOID tells you nothing about motive; it only tells you about arrest record up to the time of issuance. Every single repeat gun-crime-felon in Illinois, at one time in their life, had their first felony. Prior to that, they could get an FOID. Besides, those with bad motives that would qualify for an FOID don't go to gun stores and most FOID-based purchases would always be for gun stores.

Since nothing known to man could ever peer into the mind of a gun buyer to get their motives, we can only base decisions on physical evidence. The physical evidence that tells me they're eligible to buy a gun is that they're not in prison or jail. Now, if I know that they had been, I'd be happy to refuse to sell to them but the problem there is not whether I can tell they're dangerous or not, the problem there is that the state let dangerous criminals out of prison to prey on society.

And if a dangerous person has been released on society and I refuse to sell them a gun they can either take the gun from me forcibly or get one somewhere else. In any case, a person who wants to do bad stuff doesn't care about laws requiring FOIDs to get a gun.

But if it’s just a little bit harder for him to buy ammo, it may mean one less murder or one less robbery. So I can live with a little inconvenience on my part if one less felony takes place.
Click to expand...

Well, if murderers spend all of their time murdering then any time we can distract them for a moment does actually prevent a murder. But, assuming murderers spend time doing other things and only murder for a couple of seconds at a time, no inconvenience will even slow them down.

You don't live with a little inconvenience; what you live with is the means by which the state of Government can identify gun owners at worst. At best what you have is simply a completely ineffective and costly government program that does nothing to reduce or prevent crime and distracts those accountable from doing what they really need to do.

Gun laws don't work. Look how well FOID cards are working in Chicago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/07/fourth-of-july-violence-c_n_3558463.html

So there are a couple of arguments that I hope you can see for why you're wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike38,

You could simply do transfers via an FFL; or, you could sell to concealed carry licensees - once you finally get some in Illinois.

Requiring a license to simply own should not be constitutional, and it annoys me SCOTUS has not stricken such laws from IL, NY, MA, et al.
 
Mike38: So you believe, unless they prove otherwise, all people a liers and criminals?

Last I looked the laws in our country work on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. NOT...guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Did you work for the IRS back a few years ago? You do know that their policy that YOU prove your income and expenses was thrown out in court?
 
hermannr, your conceit appears to be that individual-individual interaction should work under the same constraints as government-individual interactions.

Personally, I use angieslist, consumer reports, and similar before buying major products or hiring contractors.

I also would do serious screening before letting somebody watch my child.

You can assume people are honest, etc, all you like - but I do not.

Government and the courts should assume innocence until guilt is proven, but that is as far as I will agree with you.
 
Quote:
Besides I would think that a good selling point to get the anti's to accept this change is that the pressure is further upon the dealers, not the state to make sure someone is not under 21 for handgun sales.
Click to expand...

I doubt that. They want the government doing the background check, not the dealer. For most anti's the government should have the guns, not the people, remember. They trust the government of the people, for the people, by the people, more than they trust the people remember. And that means they want the government in control, not the dealer.
Click to expand...

Actually the govt would still be in charge of the background checks like they are, I'm saying it's real easy to check an ID to see if someone is 21+ or not...
 
Hermannr wrote:
So you believe, unless they prove otherwise, all people a liers and criminals?
Click to expand...

Yep pretty much. I trust no one until they prove to me they are truth worthy. You have to earn my trust and earn my respect. Trust and respect is not something I toss around freely.

A FOID is reasonable assurance that a person is not a convicted felon. It’s not 100% assurance, but your odds as a seller are a touch better.

Sure, you have no idea what the motive of a person buying is. They could load the gun and kill you within seconds of you handing over the gun. But odds are in my favor just a tiny bit more if they have a FOID.

Argue all you want, but I’m correct. Conventional wisdom is on my side.
 
Mike38 said:
Argue all you want, but I’m correct. Conventional wisdom is on my side.
Click to expand...
Pretty arrogant, yes?

BTAIM, can we get back to the case at hand? The question is whether or not an FOID should be issued to adults aged 18-20, without a parent or guardians compliance.

I see much more of this and I'll start deleting all the off-topic posts.
 
I'd imagine one additional argument against the 18-20 group requiring consent is: What about those who were formerly or are wards of the state, foster kids etc? The state would effectively have to consent to itself. I'd have to wonder if they even have a process for that.
 
There are no controls when you are 18...you are a legal adult, and can contract for yourself, you do not need anyone's approval.
 
Sigcurious, according to the pleadings, this question was brought up. There was no means for a person who "aged out" of the system to receive any permission whatsoever.

Hermannr, the State of IL agrees with you, except in the case of an FOID... Then you need parental permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top