Illinois FOID Card Unconstitutional

[Threegoofs]

some anti gun arguments are so stupid, that those who utter them can only be seen as trolling or baiting. Claiming the second is limited to firearms available 230 years ago is one of those moronic arguments

Yes. All the gun nuts say so!

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes. All the gun nuts say so!

Gun nuts being eminent legal scholars such as Eugene Volokh, Akil Amar, Sanford Levinson, David Kopel etc. Oh and the US Supreme Court. Not even the gun haters such as the deceased JP Stevens and RB Ginsburg bought that stupid argument

 

[RF667799]

Havent followed this story so I don't know how accurate the video is but if the blurb from the ruling is accurate I like it, sounds like a good ruling and good thing to me. I have no real clue what the laws and regulations in Illinois are though. Im on record many times saying every state should be open carry though and Id gladly trade passing a version of universal background checks for my CWP to be national like a driver's license.

Open carry is prohibited in Illinois, except for private property and hunting in permitted areas. Concealed carry is by permit that is issued upon completion of a certain amount of classroom and range instruction. Possession and purchase of all firearms and ammunition, and many air guns can only be done by those who have the FOID that was referenced. It is issued upon payment of a fee and completion of a background check. Additional background checks and waiting periods are still required for all sales of firearms, and many air guns. That's off the top of my head; but I believe is more or less accurate.

 

[TurtleDude]

Open carry is prohibited in Illinois, except for private property and hunting in permitted areas. Concealed carry is by permit that is issued upon completion of a certain amount of classroom and range instruction. Possession and purchase of all firearms and ammunition, and many air guns can only be done by those who have the FOID that was referenced. It is issued upon payment of a fee and completion of a background check. Additional background checks and waiting periods are still required for all sales of firearms, and many air guns. That's off the top of my head; but I believe is more or less accurate.

clearly unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald

 

[AGENT J]

Open carry is prohibited in Illinois, except for private property and hunting in permitted areas.

Thanks for that info, like I said Im ignorant of the laws in that state. Been there more than a few times but didn't know the laws.
IMO based on the constitution I don't think any state should be able to prohibit open carry.

Concealed carry is by permit that is issued upon completion of a certain amount of classroom and range instruction.

In general, this doesn't bother me . . . I think it should be an option in all states for training for a CWP.
If I ever got my wish list, id agree making it required if again open carry was national and CWPs were also national.

Possession and purchase of all firearms and ammunition, and many air guns can only be done by those who have the FOID that was referenced. It is issued upon payment of a fee and completion of a background check. Additional background checks and waiting periods are still required for all sales of firearms, and many air guns. That's off the top of my head; but I believe is more or less accurate.

Thanks again

 

[RF667799]

clearly unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald

These cases led to Illinois finally making provisions for concealed carry. (The last state to do so.)

Shepard v. Madigan, 11-CV-405-WDS[edit]​

In 2009, Mary E. Shepard, a member of the advocacy group the Illinois State Rifle Association, was performing volunteer duties as treasurer at her church, when she was assaulted and beaten by an intruder and left for dead. Her injuries were numerous and major, including skull fractures, hearing loss, shattered teeth, and vertebral damage, which required many surgeries and extensive physical therapy. An 83-year-old coworker, unnamed in the suit, was also brutalized and badly injured in the attack. Despite possessing a handgun and maintaining the State-required Firearms Owner Identification card (FOID), Shepard was unarmed as required by Illinois statutes during the attack, and asserts that if she had had access to her weapon, she could have fought off her assailant and avoided the injuries to herself and her co-worker. Shepard and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking an injunction barring Lisa Madigan, in her capacity as Attorney General for the State of Illinois, from enforcing the sections of the Illinois State Statutes that prohibit public carry of a loaded, functional firearm.[1]

Moore v. Madigan, 11-CV-03134[edit]​

On May 12, 2011, plaintiffs Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, IllinoisCarry, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, alleging that the same areas of the Illinois State Statutes mentioned in Shepard were facially violative of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment as interpreted by the landmark Supreme Court Cases D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and sought an injunction barring enforcement of the statutes.[2]

Moore, a Cook County Sheriff's Deputy who retired after 30 years of service, had attempted to obtain the ability to carry a concealed firearm as a retired law enforcement officer under HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, but Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart declined to issue him one, stating that Deputy Moore had been employed as a corrections deputy, not a "road" deputy and did not meet the standard. In 2010, Moore and four other retired officers filed a suit in Federal Court against the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (the agency that administers LEOSA in Illinois) challenging the ID card requirement of LEOSA.[3] The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had no standing, specifically "absent clear statutory intent, a court is precluded from creating a private right of action..." and that "LEOSA does not provide for a mechanism enabling Plaintiffs to sue".

Moore v. Madigan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Chomsky]

Militia Act if 1792 certainly does! Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.

I don't know where you got that from, but it's sure interesting stuff.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't know where you got that from, but it's sure interesting stuff.

some gun banners think that because the militia act specified what potential militia members must own, it also meant that the militia act allowed congress to prohibit anyone from owning other weapons. Clearly erroneous of course

 

[Chomsky]

some gun banners think that because the militia act specified what potential militia members must own, it also meant that the militia act allowed congress to prohibit anyone from owning other weapons. Clearly erroneous of course

Yep.. 'Arms', like 'documents & papers', changes with the times. I think you got it right also, in defining a 'civilian arm' as up to anything our civilian police force can use. After all, we're all civilians and the police work for us.

Did you see this thread? Eco's pounding me in it!

Sitting in your yard with you kid? Not OK if you are black.

Probable cause is now a description "black guy with dreadlocks". Sometimes I wonder if we have come a long way. If "white guy with short hair" was probable cause, we'd be in the streets.

debatepolitics.com

BTW, a long time ago when I was new in here, you got me to clarify my understanding of the 2nd. I didn't see the full Constitutional strength of the arguments, until you explained them. I just wanted to thank you for that.

 

[Rich2018]

smart people understand that the purpose of the people (ie citizens of the USA) being armed was so they could defend against enemies-foreign and domestic, who would also be armed with the weapons of the era.

Yeah, well in the 18th century, armies weren't armed much differently than a colonial farmer

Today, a militiaman's Colt .45 offers about as much protection as a fig leaf at the North Pole

The founders could certainly contemplate firearms that had a higher rapidity of fire than those available when the second was enacted. I doubt they could contemplate the power that an entity such as Face Book or Google could acquire by use of the first amendment.

You think the founders could contemplate drones, stealth fights, attack helicopters, tanks, APCs, MLRS, assault rifles accurate up to 1,000m, laser range finders, RADER, digital communications, fuel-air bombs and nuclear weapons (not to mention nerve gas and blister agent) ?

 

[Bum]

Judge finds Illinois firearm ownership card law unconstitutional as applied to 1 resident

Ruling returns the FOID card constitutionality issue to the Illinois Supreme Court

www.sj-r.com

 

[Rich2018]

Judge finds Illinois firearm ownership card law unconstitutional as applied to 1 resident

Ruling returns the FOID card constitutionality issue to the Illinois Supreme Court

www.sj-r.com

That's news from last month, do you have anything more recent ?