FOID Card Stupidity


PDA






Fleetwood_Captain
June 24, 2010, 09:09 PM
If your like me and live in the People's Republic of Illinois, you get to deal with FOID card loveliness.

One thing that strikes me as odd is the number of people in Blago-land that have no idea what a FOID card even is. In Illinois, before you can take a NICS check to buy a gun, you have to submit to a state and federal background check to get a state ID which says you are qualified to take an additional background check to purchase a gun. It's basically an excise tax for those that exert their right to own firearms. You can't even legally own gunpowder or primers in Illinois without a FOID card.

The real kick in the teeth is that 3/4 times when I use it as an ID for purchasing goods other than guns, clerks act like your handing them a card for the Burger King Kid's Club. I can't even count the times i've had people say "It's not a real ID, anyone could get one of those."

I can almost understand skepticism of the old laminated ones, but the new ones have holographic copy-protection and use the same photo from your DL or State ID. Regardless of the features to assure authenticity, everyone in the Chicago burbs act like their not a "real ID", despite having "Firearms Owners Identification Card" printed in bold, captital letters at the top of the card. My usual reaction to this is "so I can buy a gun with this, but can't buy a pack of smokes?"

Anyone else in Blago-land run into this insanity?

If you enjoyed reading about "FOID Card Stupidity" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BCCL
June 24, 2010, 10:08 PM
Here's a real head scratcher for you.....our FOID card is issued by the Illinois State Police....but our DMV which is ran by the Illinois Secretary of State, will not accept a FOID card as a valid form of ID.

The state won't recognize an ID issued by itself.............. ????????????????

XxWINxX94
June 24, 2010, 10:20 PM
yes, I remember going to get my lisence, and you need a certain type of ID (Birth certificate, Social Security Card, etc.), yet the state wont take it. They only take months to get, and can be revoked for the smallest crime. I don't understand it either.

David E
June 24, 2010, 10:25 PM
It's basically an excise tax for those that exert their right to own firearms.

No, it tells the State who the gunowners are and where they live.

x

bushmaster1313
June 24, 2010, 10:30 PM
New Jersey, which is relatively anti-gun to say the least, accepts its Firearms Puchaser Identification Card as one of the best forms of identification when getting a drivers license.

go figure

wow6599
June 24, 2010, 10:31 PM
I love it when I go to visit the wife's side of the family in southern Illinois and buy ammo; they ask for my FOID card and I tell them I am from the free state of Missouri. 100% of the time I hear how they wish there was a North and South Illinois so they could get the idiots in Chicago out of controlling them.

chicago guy
June 24, 2010, 10:36 PM
Yep, the ever-popular FOID isn't a ID. My banker sister-in-law said it's because you don't have to apply in person for the card. (Not that That makes much sense, but it's the reason given in the bank's policy manual.)

Here in CHICAGO itself, most people don't even know that a FOID is! --Mayor Daley likes it that way, of course!

hurricanej
June 24, 2010, 10:48 PM
So those of you not in Illinois can understand...

On the spur of the moment, I decided to purchase a Remington rifle at our local sports megastore. Present the Illinois-issued FOID card (that took months and money to obtain!), drive home, wait 24 hours, drive back, be escorted to the front of the store. The rifle was a Remington Vantage 1200 Airgun. Yes, a waiting period for an airgun.

Gottahaveone
June 24, 2010, 10:52 PM
The real kick in the teeth is that 3/4 times when I use it as an ID for purchasing goods other than guns, clerks act like your handing them a card for the Burger King Kid's Club. I can't even count the times i've had people say "It's not a real ID, anyone could get one of those."

Please don't take this wrong, but why in the ...heck...would you use that particular card for ID at any time other than when buying a firearm? Why let random strangers know that you even know what a firearm is? I don't wanna be added to anybody's "lets go burgle" list......

Shadow 7D
June 24, 2010, 11:47 PM
Wait, so if you want to purchase a gun, from a reciprocity state (don't know if illinois knows what that is) in illionis, you can just walk up and buy it, but the local guy is stuck waiting for an air gun, sorry, but if I could, I would every time I was in state, just because.

Ditch-Tiger
June 25, 2010, 01:34 AM
And don't forget to add for the people that have never had the "pleasure" of living in the peoples republic of Krook county/IL that if you let your FOID card expire your required to turn in your guns to the state police and aren't even supposed to handle ammo w/o a valid FOID card not to mention that BP & some air rifles (over .18 dia & 1000+ fps) are considered actual firearms and therefor the FOID and waiting period are required.

Man i hate that state.
I lived there for 9months and it felt like a prison term!!!

M2 Carbine
June 25, 2010, 02:56 AM
When I was out of work I was offered a very good job flying for the state of Illinois. When I heard of their ridiculous gun laws I passed on the job.

acdodd
June 25, 2010, 05:14 PM
New Jersey, which is relatively anti-gun to say the least, accepts its Firearms Puchaser Identification Card as one of the best forms of identification when getting a drivers license.

Washington state used to accept a utility bill with your name and address on it to get a drivers license.
They decided that was easy to abuse so they did away with the requirement to show a utility bill.
Now all you have to do is say "I'm me."
We are 1 of I believe 3 states that give DL to the illegals.
On the good side we have no such thing as a FOID.

So those of you not in Illinois can understand...

On the spur of the moment, I decided to purchase a Remington rifle at our local sports megastore. Present the Illinois-issued FOID card (that took months and money to obtain!), drive home, wait 24 hours, drive back, be escorted to the front of the store. The rifle was a Remington Vantage 1200 Airgun. Yes, a waiting period for an airgun.

At lunch one day I found a .38 that I wanted.
Showed them my CHL did the paperwork, paid cash and walked out with the gun and a box of ammo.
Washington isn't all bad.

DT Guy
June 25, 2010, 05:34 PM
Illinoize is about half-way down the sewer in a leaky boat, and Mayor Daley (AKA 'Mayor Shortshanks') is paddling furiously forward.

Chicago leads the nation-in some respects, the WORLD-for the number of cameras in private and public places. There are flashing 'cop cams' in the particularly awful parts of the city, and where the red light cams are placed the yellow lights are purposely shortened to create more tickets.

They've outsourced the parking meters and allow the private company that operates them to issue tickets. Soda has a 'sin' tax on it, and Da Mayor, realizing that everyone with a brain has moved out, has instituted a 'head tax' on businesses so he can tax employees from the suburbs. Honestly, all this stuff comes to light and people just nod and move on.

I'm convinced that the strong spirit of resistance that created America is simply gone; these people are sheep, and Daley, Blago and Obama are their shepherds.

jhansman
June 25, 2010, 05:38 PM
It's basically an excise tax for those that exert their right to own firearms.

This is what the whole thing (and most law) is really about - "revenue enhancement." I live in the PRC, and they have found more creative ways to collect fees and raise taxes than you can shake the veritable stick at. Here, we have to have a DOJ Handgun Safety Certificate to buy any handgun, which you have to study, take a stupid test, and pay for. Apparently, no such safety assurance is needed for long guns, which, as we all know are much safer. :rolleyes:

A reminder that government exists to weaken, limit or eliminate your civil rights, not strengthen or extend them.

jnyork
June 25, 2010, 06:01 PM
Thank you, God, for giving me Wyoming as my home.

BCCL
June 25, 2010, 07:00 PM
100% of the time I hear how they wish there was a North and South Illinois so they could get the idiots in Chicago out of controlling them.

Brother...you have no idea how bad we wish!!!!

some air rifles (over .18 dia & 1000+ fps) are considered actual firearms and therefor the FOID and waiting period are required.

That started in 2007, they snuck it in with an agricultural bill. And it's anything that propels a projectile over 700fps, not 1000.

I had to do a 4473 and 24 hour wait for the same Remington Vantage as Hurricanej. It's insane.

Wal-Marts in Illinois, have all dropped to selling ony air rifles that are below 700fps to avoid the hassle.

Wait, so if you want to purchase a gun, from a reciprocity state (don't know if illinois knows what that is) in illionis, you can just walk up and buy it, but the local guy is stuck waiting for an air gun, sorry, but if I could, I would every time I was in state, just because.

We can buy long guns from an adjoining state, but thanks to threatening letters from the Illinois State Police that were sent to gun sellers along the border, most stores make us wait the 24 hour waiting period, even though their state may not have one.

I tried to buy a .22 rifle in Paducah, KY about 40 minutes from my house, but over the border, at Gander Mountain, and he told me I had to wait 24 hours. I asked why and he showed me a copy of the letter they received from the ISP, stating that if they found anyone from IL, coming back from KY with a gun and a receipt dated that day, they would arrest them. (which for the life of me I am not sure they can actually do???)

Snowdog
June 25, 2010, 07:18 PM
Wow.

Thank goodness North Carolina has no such Stasi imposing iniquitous regulations and registration.

Whew.

ljnowell
June 25, 2010, 07:40 PM
You can purchase ammo components without a FOID in IL. I have done it tons of times, at any and all local gunshops within a 50 mile radius. I always felt that was funny, you cant buy ammo, but you can buy brass, primers, powder, and bullets. I dont get it.

Dnaltrop
June 25, 2010, 07:41 PM
The first handgun I purchased in my life, I had no clue as to how simple it was...

Form, thumbprint... the guy goes to the phone and 10 minutes later comes back sheepishly, saying NICS was down and that I should probably expect to come back tomorrow.

15 minutes into the 20 minute return drive, they call my Cell, the check is through, I loop back, settle bills and walk out with my revolver.

the next 2 had checks under 2 minutes. Maybe it was my infant strapped to my chest, got them to hurry up.

stchman
June 25, 2010, 07:53 PM
You need a FOID card to buy ammo in Illinois? I thought it was only for firearms.

BCCL
June 26, 2010, 12:04 AM
Nope stchman, we have to have (and show) one to purchase ammo also.

Gary G23
June 26, 2010, 12:10 AM
Do what I did...............move to a free state.

Mags
June 26, 2010, 12:11 AM
Thank goodness North Carolina has no such Stasi imposing iniquitous regulations and registration.
Yeah, but you do need a pistol purchase permit don't you?

Geneseo1911
June 26, 2010, 12:22 AM
You can purchase ammo components without a FOID in IL. I have done it tons of times, at any and all local gunshops within a 50 mile radius. I always felt that was funny, you cant buy ammo, but you can buy brass, primers, powder, and bullets. I dont get it.
Think about it. The fecal-heads who write these laws don't know you can load your own. shhhhhhh....

To the OP's question; I very rarely use my FOID as an ID, although the handful of times I have been asked for two forms of ID, it has been accepted without question. In this area, it seems only about 1/2 of the gun owners actually have a FOID. Many let it expire and don't worry about it until they need to buy ammo again, which in the case of the average gun owner could be years. I've had to explain the law to several relatives who are still shooting their dad's .22 with ammo he bought in the 60's.

There is also a small percentage of folks I know who refuse to get a FOID because they don't want to be "on the list". I can't say I blame them, but they don't shoot much either, and it's not really an option for those of us who like to buy/sell/shoot/enjoy our guns.

Snowdog
June 26, 2010, 12:39 AM
Yeah, but you do need a pistol purchase permit don't you?

That's right, I often forget about that. CCW holders simply show their CCW license in lieu of a handgun permit and walk out with their handgun.

It's been many years since I had to apply for a handgun permit, but I remember it was $5 for a permit/voucher from the Sheriff department that was valid for a few months. If it expired before it was used to purchase a pistol, a new one would have to be applied for.

Another reason to have a CCW in NC I suppose.

rodinal220
June 26, 2010, 12:55 AM
(430 ILCS 65/1.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑1.1)

"Firearm" means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas; excluding, however:
(1) any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun or
B‑B gun which either expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter and which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second or breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors;



Yes,you need a FOID to buy/posses air guns that are over .18 caliber or over 700fps,you do not need to fill out a 4473,BATFE does not currently regulate air powered weapons,I have seen some FFLs make you do this,they are in the wrong.You do not need FOID for pellets.





http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2BAct%2E

rodinal220
June 26, 2010, 12:57 AM
430 ILCS 65/16.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑16.1)
Sec. 16.1. A petition for the submission of the proposition shall be in substantially the following form:
To the State Board of Elections
The undersigned, residents and registered voters of the State of Illinois, respectfully petition that you cause to be submitted, in the manner provided by the general election law to the voters of the State of Illinois, at the next State‑wide election, the proposition "Should the General Assembly repeal an Act entitled 'An Act relating to the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms and firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty for the violation thereof and to make an appropriation in connection therewith', approved August 3, 1967, as amended?"
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Such petition shall conform to the requirements of the general election law. The Board shall certify the question to the proper election officials who shall submit the question at an election in accordance with the general election law. Upon request of any citizen for a reproduced copy of the petition and paying or tendering to the State Board of Elections the costs of making the copy, the Board shall immediately make, or cause to be made a reproduced copy of such petition. The Board shall also deliver to such person his official certification that such copy is a true copy of the original, stating the day when such original was filed in its office.
(Source: P.A. 81‑1489.)


(430 ILCS 65/16‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑16.3)
Sec. 16‑3. The Secretary of State shall cause the question to be plainly printed upon separate ballots as follows:
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Should the General Assembly repeal the Act
entitled "An Act relating to the acquisition, YES
possession and transfer of firearms and
firearm ammunition, to provide a penalty ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
for the violation thereof and to make an
appropriation in connection therewith", NO
approved August 3, 1967, as amended?
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
(Source: P.A. 77‑1819.)

bskillet
June 26, 2010, 01:00 AM
Illinois law is intentionally constructed in a way that disarms law-abiding people, while ensuring that criminals have access to weapons (for a "fee" paid to the right individuals). This ensures that organized crime (gangs and mafia) have a relatively unarmed populace they can victimize. The money they expropriate from innocent victims then makes its way into the hands of the Illinois Democrat party.

IL gun control laws have nothing to do with preventing crime. That is not the laws' purpose. The purpose is, like everything else in this !$#^*$@! state, to enrich the limousine liberals in Hyde Park.

Sunray
June 26, 2010, 01:09 AM
"...It's not a real ID..." Happens up here with our Federally issued Possession and Acquisition Licence too. Most shop clerks don't know what it is.

thorazine
June 26, 2010, 10:16 AM
The real kick in the teeth is that 3/4 times when I use it as an ID for purchasing goods other than guns, clerks act like your handing them a card for the Burger King Kid's Club. I can't even count the times i've had people say "It's not a real ID, anyone could get one of those."


Please don't take this wrong, but why in the ...heck...would you use that particular card for ID at any time other than when buying a firearm? Why let random strangers know that you even know what a firearm is? I don't wanna be added to anybody's "lets go burgle" list......

lol because he likes to show off he has guns I guess.

CCW badge type of guy as well -- probably.

rodinal220
June 26, 2010, 02:50 PM
Here is another common scam with the FOID Act. FFLs charge more than the $2 that the State charges them. FFLs will lie to you and say "its State law".Well here ya go,right from the Statutes mouth.


(430 ILCS 65/3.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑3.1)
Sec. 3.1. Dial up system.
(a) The Department of State Police shall provide a dial up telephone system or utilize other existing technology which shall be used by any federally licensed firearm dealer, gun show promoter, or gun show vendor who is to transfer a firearm, stun gun, or taser under the provisions of this Act. The Department of State Police may utilize existing technology which allows the caller to be charged a fee not to exceed $2. Fees collected by the Department of State Police shall be deposited in the State Police Services Fund and used to provide the service.


http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2BAct%2E

05FLHT
June 26, 2010, 03:08 PM
lol because he likes to show off he has guns I guess.

CCW badge type of guy as well -- probably.
Sometimes it is less to show off and more to educate a populace that does not know any better. I have "see ID" on the back of my debit/credit cards and will often show my UT or FL permit as "ID."

In Illinois, citizens being able to carry firearms openly or concealed is unheard of. Showing the permit is almost always a "conversation starter," and a chance to educate another person who was probably indoctrinated with the belief only the police and criminals carry a gun.

Unless you know the reason somebody does something, you may want to hold off on making any assumptions. Although, I will agree that a CCW "badge" warrants ridicule. :D

msb45
June 26, 2010, 10:26 PM
I bought some ammo on vacation with my PA drivers license. Lady was wondering why I bought 6 boxes. I said it was a good deal on Golden Saber 45 for my carry gun. She freaked, manager standing next to here told her to just be quiet and complete the sale. Most people don't know freedom.

Dr.Zubrato
June 26, 2010, 11:10 PM
I think the most ridiculous thing about the FOID, is that it's necessary just to hold an unloaded gun at the store, and first time shooters need a FOID card before they can think about renting a firearm.
I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of throwing out the chicago gun ban, but I think Dailey is going to make things much worse before they get better

stickhauler
June 27, 2010, 03:18 AM
Damn, I'm glad I'm a Buckeye!

Fleetwood_Captain
June 27, 2010, 03:53 PM
You can purchase ammo components without a FOID in IL. I have done it tons of times, at any and all local gunshops within a 50 mile radius. I always felt that was funny, you cant buy ammo, but you can buy brass, primers, powder, and bullets. I dont get it.

Well actually, everyone around where I live makes you show a FOID for primers and powders also. Back in the late 90's, the Lake County gun show was shut down because of a FOID ammunition sting. An undercover cop bought some ammo from a booth, showing his FOID card, bought some ammo, and walked away. He came back a little while later, and bought more ammo from the same guy. Only this time the vendor didn't ask to see his FOID card again, as he had already seen it about an hour earlier. The cop arrested the guy for an illegal ammo sale, and the show has been shut down ever since.

Needless to say, vendors up in the burbs are VERY paranoid about the whole FOID thing.

JoeMal
June 27, 2010, 04:06 PM
I don't use my FOID for anything except for firearms and ammo. However, there was one instance where I was opening a new bank account and they needed several forms of ID with a picture. My DL and FOID was all I had that contained a picture...the bank happily accepted it

lilguy
June 27, 2010, 05:03 PM
I have had a FOID for 38 years, it has not limited my participation in the shooting sports to any extent. I never use it as an ID, no sense announcing you're a gun owner. We will never repeal FOID, It will be allowed under "reasonable gun laws" as per the SCOTUS. The McDonald ruling, expected tomorrow, will allow new regulation everywhere, be prepared.

BCCL
June 27, 2010, 08:26 PM
I have had a FOID for 38 years, it has not limited my participation in the shooting sports to any extent.

Yes it has, it limits participation to those that have payed the fee and been subjected to an Unconstitutional infringement on our rights.

We need to be working to throw it out, not complacently accepting it.

Fleetwood_Captain
June 27, 2010, 09:00 PM
What really gets me though is how SCOTUS has determine it is illegal to charge a "poll tax" for people that exercise their right to vote, yet charging people a tax to own firearms and ammunition is legal?

Like I said, People's Republic of Illinois...

TexasBill
June 27, 2010, 10:21 PM
Doesn't Illinois have elections? Can't the citizens of Illinois (at least outside of Cook County) tap another source to replace the never-ending stream of bozos that seem to get elected? Daley and his antics would be an embarrassment to any city.

Like most of the members of this board, I am hopeful Chicago comes up a big loser when the Supreme Court issues its decision. Perhaps some of the members of this group aren't aware of it, but 58 U.S. Senators and 251 U.S. Representatives went on record supporting McDonald. If this was a law, it would most likely pass easily. Even if the President vetoed it (unlikely), just eight more votes would be needed to override.

Yes, if the Supreme Court rules against Chicago, the pols will do all they can to mess it up. However, the legal die will have been cast and lower courts will be more inclined to rule against restrictions since they have a guiding ruling from the Supreme Court.

The FOID card could become a bad memory in your lifetime...

ljnowell
June 27, 2010, 10:27 PM
Doesn't Illinois have elections? Can't the citizens of Illinois (at least outside of Cook County) tap another source to replace the never-ending stream of bozos that seem to get elected? Daley and his antics would be an embarrassment to any city.


What peopel who dont live in IL dont understand is that we cant get rid of these crooks. Its common knowledge in these parts that you cannot get rid of the chicago corruption and the Daley regime because they will not allow it. Dead people vote, illegal people vote, etc. They keep the poor masses under thier wing with social programs and ensure that they get the vote from them.

The Cook County method of voting is "Vote early and often."

lilguy
June 27, 2010, 10:32 PM
Lighten up BCCL, It's more irritating dealing with the DMV than ISP. Either way tomorrow the SCOTUS will bolster the right of states to enact "reasonable" gun laws. FOID is NOT going away, it's validity will be affirmed. Other left leaning states and locals may move to implement such a registration scheme.

ServiceSoon
June 27, 2010, 10:42 PM
We know the problem of IL, what's the solution?

mustang_steve
June 27, 2010, 11:04 PM
Hey, get used to it....I tried to get the address on my florida driver's license changed in a Florida DMV....apparently my license isn't good enough to get a replacement license.

The joy of federal acts.....I'm not impressed.

TexasBill
June 27, 2010, 11:11 PM
Lighten up BCCL, It's more irritating dealing with the DMV than ISP. Either way tomorrow the SCOTUS will bolster the right of states to enact "reasonable" gun laws. FOID is NOT going away, it's validity will be affirmed. Other left leaning states and locals may move to implement such a registration scheme.

It's possible but I think a successful challenge could be mounted that the state is taxing or licensing a Constitutional right. This is where work needs to be done after Heller. The interesting thing is a favorable incorporation ruling could open the doors to federal preemption of firearms regulation.

Nanook
June 27, 2010, 11:19 PM
In 1971, I bought a Sheridan 5mm air rifle. I had to obtain an FOID to be allowed to buy this air rilfe.

I should have left this lousy state then. I would have been money ahead in Indiana, not to mention more freedoms. A friend of mine moved across the border, and he's saved $3000 every year since in real estate taxes.

He's been there around 14 years now, and that's over $40,000 saved from the clutches of politicians in Illinois.

I'll be joining him soon, but I wish I did it years ago.

lilguy
June 27, 2010, 11:40 PM
Good point TB, we will see where we are tomorrow after the decision and where the fight takes us next.

Good luck to us all.:)

BCCL
June 28, 2010, 12:53 AM
Lighten up BCCL, It's more irritating dealing with the DMV than ISP.

Really? When has the DMV taken 60-90 days to renew your drivers license? In the last year, I've had friends and family that their FOID renewal has taken that long, even though the law mandates that the ISP do it in 30 days. Which made them technically felons while waiting.

Either way tomorrow the SCOTUS will bolster the right of states to enact "reasonable" gun laws. FOID is NOT going away, it's validity will be affirmed. Other left leaning states and locals may move to implement such a registration scheme.

They certainly will as long as they are getting passive acceptance like that.

Toaster
June 28, 2010, 11:26 AM
QUOTE; You need a FOID card to buy ammo in Illinois? I thought it was only for firearms.

In Illinois the clerk at the register has to possess a valid FOID card to ring up the purchase of ammo.

JoeMal
June 28, 2010, 11:28 AM
In Illinois the clerk at the register has to possess a valid FOID card to ring up the purchase of ammo. Yes, BOTH clerk and customer have to possess a FOID for any gun/ammo purchase

BCCL
June 28, 2010, 11:49 AM
JoeMal is right, even the clerk ringing up the same has to have a valid FOID, or go get someone that does to ring you up.

It's completely nuts.

JoeMal
June 28, 2010, 12:24 PM
It's completely nuts. Pretty much. I think it's really crazy that the clerk also has to have a FOID.

Last time I was at Wallys buying .22 ammo, a youngster was ringing me up. Someone older came around the corner and asked him "Do you have your FOID on you?" (asking the clerk). The clerk looked back at the other guy like he had no idea what a FOID was lol. The older man shook his head and told the youngster to go find something to do while he rang me up.

I was amazed that the employee didn't know the laws. I wonder what kind of trouble the clerk could have gotten into if he actually finalized the sale. On top of that, I wonder if anything could have happened to ME since I would have bought from someone who wasn't technically legal

stchman
June 29, 2010, 03:27 PM
Illinois sounds like a very Socialist Nazi state.

I bet the motto is:

People have rights (as long as it does not interfere with the agenda).

russ69
June 29, 2010, 05:51 PM
It sounds like Illinois will be one of the first states to make good use of the new SCOTUS ruling. Making people jump thru useless hoops must be a violation of our second amendment rights somehow. Maybe California can get some help also, we have the stupid handgun safety card and the approved handgun list, I become unsafe when my card expires and have to pay more tax to keep it current, same for the safe gun list. If you don't pay the tax, it becomes unsafe........right.

Thanx, Russ

lilguy
June 29, 2010, 06:59 PM
Illinois is one fd up state but I enjoy the shooting sports without any problem. I use to carry guns to matches on my street bike without any worry. The ISP is understaffed and underfunded so I reapply for my FOID card a year ahead of time. Now they are 10 bucks for ten years, big deal, I don't like it but I deal with it. Chicago folks have a whole different set of issues that the Mcdonald ruling with eventually address. My brother is a suburban police chief and says I'm better armed than his department. All this in Illinois.

wriggly
June 29, 2010, 09:40 PM
For over 35 years, I had no FOID. No one came to confiscate my guns or make me turn them in. And the main reason, was because I did not want to be on the list, that we all know exists here in Sickinois. I had a decent battery of firearms for that 35 year period, and I just ordered my ammo from CTD and Ammo to go once computers came around, before that, I got my ammo from a friends gun shop or when hunting out of state. Always was able to shoot at GAT guns without an FOID, or friends rural property.

I am old now, and dont give a rats a@@ about the state police anymore, and there are cool guns that I wanted bad enough to finally renew my card. So I am legal once again, and back on the list.

wriggly
June 29, 2010, 10:20 PM
Well actually, everyone around where I live makes you show a FOID for primers and powders also. Back in the late 90's, the Lake County gun show was shut down because of a FOID ammunition sting. An undercover cop bought some ammo from a booth, showing his FOID card, bought some ammo, and walked away. He came back a little while later, and bought more ammo from the same guy. Only this time the vendor didn't ask to see his FOID card again, as he had already seen it about an hour earlier. The cop arrested the guy for an illegal ammo sale, and the show has been shut down ever since.

Needless to say, vendors up in the burbs are VERY paranoid about the whole FOID thing.
You obviously know of what you speak. They are starting to have shows again. I was just at a Military and collectors show at the new fairgrounds last month. There was so much paranoia, it was unbelievable. There were at least 10 uniformed cops on hand for most of the 3 days, and at the beginning of the show, the promoter had a meeting with all of us before they opened the doors, and he told us, that they had to pay (the show promoter) for two under cover cops to work the floor.

After the show opened, I sold a bunch of S&B 45 acp to an older guy, and he walked away and then came back to buy more, and I forgot to ask him for his FOID the second time. Thankfully he was not a cop. My cousin and another guy at the table noticed that I did that, and they got on me pretty good for it.

After it was all over, I told the promoters that the show stunk because of the Nazi atmosphere that pervaded the show.

rgwalt
June 30, 2010, 12:33 AM
I lived in Chicago for a year after living in Indiana for 5. As a young, single man, it was a lot of fun socially, but I felt a bit like a sheep surrounded by wolves walking around late at night. Never got mugged, but I have never been harrassed like I was when I lived in Chicago. I have since moved to Texas and have my CHL, and while I still enjoy visiting Chicago, I am glad I don't live there...

wriggly
June 30, 2010, 03:03 PM
I lived in Chicago for a year after living in Indiana for 5. As a young, single man, it was a lot of fun socially, but I felt a bit like a sheep surrounded by wolves walking around late at night. Never got mugged, but I have never been harrassed like I was when I lived in Chicago. I have since moved to Texas and have my CHL, and while I still enjoy visiting Chicago, I am glad I don't live there...
Back in the 1970's and early 80's I drove a Liquor truck in and around Chicago. I was born and raised in the city on the Northwest side. I knew all the ins and outs of the city, and I was very street smart back then. Carrying concealed back in those days was a mere misdemeanor, and I carried a Model 36 Smith with a bobbed hammer in my right rear pocket in the summer, and a Beretta Model 84 .380 in a shoulder holster in the winter. It was no big deal then. I would get spotted by cops all the time, and they never messed with me.

I have elsewhere recounted the story of buying a Winchester 94 Classic from Abercrombie and Fitch on Randolph street, downtown across from the Palmer House hotel, and carrying it home on the CTA train and then a bus, with a cop sitting across the aisle, and never giving me a second glance.

Chicago, once upon a time was a really cool city to live in. The street gangs took it over and the majority of the violence is due to their activities, yet Dumbell Daley takes it out on everybody else, while all the thugs go armed with nary a concern.

I left Chicago in 1983 and have not looked back. I still live in the state, but not for much longer, if I can help it.

Ritchie is having discussions today in fact about implementing new rules about guns, in response to the SCOTUS decision.

lilguy
June 30, 2010, 05:51 PM
As long as zombie serfs in Chicago keep voting for the trolls that feed them Illinois law will not change. They have the numbers at election time, hence continued crime family political dominance.

ThePunisher'sArmory
June 30, 2010, 05:59 PM
Think getting it is hard. Try changing a last name on one. When my wife and I got married she went through the lovely task of changing her name on everything. It came to the poit were I said screw it, let it expire and just change the info then. They couldnt even change it at the State Police Office. It has to be done in Springfield. Dum S@$T.

lilguy
July 1, 2010, 02:00 AM
From the day I wrote the check it took 33 days to get sons FOID card. 23 days from the day it cleared the bank. The time waiting he spent shooting my guns at our club. It has never hindered me in pursuit of my passion for shooting. It does not cause most any problems, as useless as it is.

ljnowell
July 1, 2010, 02:14 PM
Think getting it is hard. Try changing a last name on one. When my wife and I got married she went through the lovely task of changing her name on everything. It came to the poit were I said screw it, let it expire and just change the info then. They couldnt even change it at the State Police Office. It has to be done in Springfield. Dum S@$T.


You can change it on-line now.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/services/foidemailchange.cfm

Hudge
July 1, 2010, 06:41 PM
I am in the Air Force, and I have been threatened with orders to Scott AFB, IL a few times. If I do get orders there, I dread it.

BigDeesul
July 3, 2010, 02:10 PM
QUOTE; You need a FOID card to buy ammo in Illinois? I thought it was only for firearms.

In Illinois the clerk at the register has to possess a valid FOID card to ring up the purchase of ammo.
Funny you bring that up. There's two stores that obviously do not enforce that. One starts with a K in Tinley Park, and the other with an M in Bolingbrook. At K, they didn't ask for anything. I happily walked out with my ammunition purchase without having to show any ID. At M, the illiterate clerk at the register looked at the register and didn't know what to do when the display flashed FOID. She ignorantly asked me for my FOLD card!! Obviously she herself did not have a FOID, and had no clue what she was doing.

BigDeesul
July 3, 2010, 02:29 PM
I'm a lifelong Illinois resident. Away from the city, it is a really beautiful state, with great people and a variety of industry, farming, etc. But... Our gun laws are Bull****!!

I don't mind the FOID card, as I do not want to make it any easier for criminals to buy guns, or ammunition, but the waiting period has to go!! I have multiple weapons at home, just like the majority of gun owners, yet I have to wait 3 days to pick up my handgun. They say it's a "cooling off period". Like I'm gonna get pissed off and go to the gunstore to buy a gun to shoot someone that I had an arguement with!! Their reasoning is very stupid. I've already got firearms at home, yet I have to wait for another one. If I passed the requirements for a FOID, and passed the background check, I should be able to walk out of the store with my newly purchased firearm on my hip!!

Also not allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry a defensive firearm I beleive is unconstitutional!! Every year, the common sense lawmakers from the better parts of the state pass legislation to allow the "Faimily protection act", which allows for shall-issue CCW and common sense self defense law, but it always gets struck down by the "rules committee" It's HB462 if anyone wants to google it.

There are ways a firearm can be carried in IL. The law states that a firearm can be transported "unloaded and enclosed in a case". Technically, that you can have a loaded magazine next to your gun in a fanny pack, and if god forbid it has to be used, it only takes a few seconds to remove the arm, insert the magazine and rack the slide. It's kind of a grey area though. Cops that are ill-informed of the law can arrest you, confiscate your guns, and a legal battle will ensue.

The idiotic Chicago liberals have got to go. They are flushing this nation down the toilet!!

Japman
July 3, 2010, 02:31 PM
Yeah, I came here to post this.

ultraspec
July 4, 2010, 07:30 AM
Try being a guy from another state who has to have a foid for his job in IL. Oh I think it only took me 4 months to get a renewel. That was with dept letterhead and foid application. They sent the whole app back due to not having a picture when the app didnt say a pic was required.

So I then had to resend everything in again and start fresh. At least now its good for 10 years.
Il gun laws suck and daley needs to go.

isp2605
July 4, 2010, 01:50 PM
FOID was passed as a compromised. In 1968 there was a push in the legislature for firearms registration. If you read your history, or for those of us who were old enough at the time, recall the 60s was the time at lot of termoil - 2 Kennedy assassinations, MLK assassination, killings of several other prominent social leaders, riots, etc. There was the push for firearm registration in a lot of states. Several states implemented registration. The IL legislature compromised. Instead of getting firearm registration IL passed the FOID act. Perfect? No, but better than complete firearm registration that other states got.
The FOID law can be removed. The process is explained in the statute. All it takes to get the issue before the voters is to have 2% of the registered voters petition to have it placed on the ballot. But be careful what you wish for. The reason no one has pushed for revocation of the FOID act is because people know that if FOID is revoked then we are liable to end up with registration and more restrictions like a lot of other states.
And contrary to what at least one other posted, FOID is definitely not a money maker for the state. It's a money loser. When you figure the expenses involved in production of the FOID card it costs a bit over 3 times more to produce than the fee generates.

Bigdeesul wrote:
There are ways a firearm can be carried in IL. The law states that a firearm can be transported "unloaded and enclosed in a case". Technically, that you can have a loaded magazine next to your gun in a fanny pack, and if god forbid it has to be used, it only takes a few seconds to remove the arm, insert the magazine and rack the slide. It's kind of a grey area though. Cops that are ill-informed of the law can arrest you, confiscate your guns, and a legal battle will ensue.
Be extremely careful following this advice.
In 2001 the "fanny pack carry" became a popular topic. My agency was getting calls daily from the public and other LE agencies seeking an opinion on the legality of such carry. We contacted the IL Attorney General, Jim Ryan, for an opinion that we could publish for the public so everyone knew. Ryan, who was running for governor at the time and not known for being "gun friendly" refused to render an opinion. Instead Ryan said he would leave it up to each of the state's attorneys to interpret the issue as they wish. There are 102 counties in IL and each county has their own state's attorney which is an independent elected official. They are the ones who decide how they're going to interpret various statutes and which cases get prosecuted. Contrary to what so many believe, including many on this site, the police do not randomly arrest people. They are forced to use the interpretations of their respective state's attorneys.
My agency then contacted every one of the state's attorneys for their opinions. We got a wide range of opinions which varied from "fanny pack carry is illegal and we'll prosecute" to "fanny pack carry is legal so therefore nothing to prosecute". However, the most common response was they would decide on a case by case basis. Most wanted the person's firearm held as evidence, a report written and submitted, then the state's attorney would decide whether to charge or not.
What that meant was that a person could fanny pack carry in one county and the state's attorney in that county considered it completely legal. But if the person crossed the road into another county they could be in a county where the state's attorney considered it illegal and would prosecute. Then the person could cross another road and be in a county where the state's attorney could take take up to 3 years to decide whether to charge the person.
This poll we conducted didn't help anyone. The public still didn't know whether they could legally "fanny pack carry" and the other law enforcement agencies were still in limbo. That poll was taken 9 years ago. IL AG Ryan has been replaced as have many of the state's attorneys. However if the same poll was taken today I doubt the results would be much different. Some counties would no doubt have changed to one position or the other but generally the results would be "we'll decided on a case by cases basis."
The best warning I can give is if a person thinks they want to fanny pack carry then they should contact the state's attorneys in the counties inwhich they intend to carry. Just because a state's attorney in one county gives the opinion one way does not mean any other state's attorney is obligated to that opinion. It won't matter 1 bit if a state's attorney in a county refuses to prosecute if another state's attorney takes a different line and decides to charge. 102 counties, 102 opinions, 102 different rules. While that seems like a PITA it is a double edged sword. The people in each county elect their state's attorney. They elect a person who they believe will represent their beliefs and desires. The people in Massac County may not want the same kind of prosecution as the people in Lake County. The other edge of the sword tho is what a person can be charged with in one county could be different than what the same person can be charged with in another county. People have to decide which way they want it. Do they want the prosecutor to represent their particular wants/desires where they live or do they want statewide universal enforcement. If you want the latter then you end up with majority rules in the state and what all of the state gets is what is decided in the NE section of the state.

rogertc1
July 4, 2010, 01:53 PM
Aint no stinking FOID cards in Iowa. MOVE!!!

SoberSunday01
July 4, 2010, 03:28 PM
I am not worried about the FOID card. As has been pointed out, it only costs ten dollars for ten years. It's good to know about the expiration/subsequent expectation to turn in your guns. I must not have read the fine print on the application close enough. Nope, I'm more worried about no concealed carry law. I know things are looking up, but it may be many years before I can drive to the range without worries about getting pulled over and having to convince a cop that I was going to/coming from the range.

isp2605
July 4, 2010, 03:45 PM
The following is today's (July 4) editorial opinion at the IL State Journal-Register. Of note the SJR is owned by GateHouse Media which is a NYC firm and the paper is controlled out of Chicago. However, the Springfield area has long been very pro-CCW.

http://www.sj-r.com/editorials/x1609348609/Our-Opinion-Reconsider-ban-on-concealed-carry
Our Opinion: Reconsider ban on concealed carry
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Jul 04, 2010 @ 12:05 AM
Independence Day came a few days early this year for gun rights supporters in Illinois.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago means the end of Chicago’s ban on handgun ownership, a prohibition that has been in place since 1982. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the Second Amendment applied to all levels of government — not just the federal government. Therefore, municipal and state governments can’t make laws that nullify the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The decision’s language is unequivocal. It is a striking departure from the confusing legal patchwork that had defined the gun debate previously.
“In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” wrote Justice Sam Alito. The McDonald decision reiterated a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which the court held that “a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States.”
While the McDonald decision will have the greatest immediate impact in Chicago and Oak Park, both of which had outright bans on handgun ownership, we believe it also should mark the beginning of a new tenor in the gun regulation debate at the state level.
For years, the handgun ban in Chicago effectively set the tone for firearm issues in the state. This has been especially true regarding Illinois’ prohibition on carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense. With Chicago having banned handgun ownership 28 years ago, and with Mayor Richard M. Daley acting as the ban’s most aggressive guardian, serious discussion of allowing concealed carry elsewhere in the state never had a chance.
We suspect that is about to change.
In 1995, state Sen. Kirk Dillard tried unsuccessfully to bring concealed carry to Illinois. At the time, 23 states had enacted concealed-carry measures. In the years since, that number has grown to 48, leaving only Illinois and Wisconsin as states that forbid concealed carry. The concealed-carry wave swept the nation in the 1980s, as states followed Florida’s model of a regulated system for lawful gun owners to obtain permits to carry weapons on their person.
Opponents argued that allowing people to carry hidden firearms would lead to Wild West shootouts and an epidemic of road rage murders. That has not happened, but the argument still holds sway in Illinois.
The last real attempt to get traction for concealed carry in Illinois came from then-state Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Peoria, in 2008. Schock’s colleague, Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, said at the time the bill’s quick demise was a forgone conclusion.
“This bill immediately becomes a lighting rod and a very emotional issue for legislators that is seldom debated rationally or calmly. There is generally a lot of screaming back and forth,” Black said.
In light of the McDonald ruling, we believe it’s time for Illinois lawmakers to take a more rational look at concealed carry. This long has been a festering issue among gun owners in Illinois and among downstate lawmakers, and the McDonald decision is sure to rekindle the debate.
There are two points lawmakers should consider here.
First, concealed-carry laws in 48 states have been working for years. Firearm owners willing to undergo state-mandated training and registration simply are not engaging in street-corner shootouts. The Wild West argument is no longer valid.
Second, the McDonald decision leaves open the right of governments to enact “reasonable” restrictions. The next major legal battles surely will involve Chicago’s attempts to define “reasonable.” It’s possible that a concealed-carry law that allows an opt-out clause for municipalities, or allows them to control the granting of concealed-carry licensing within their boundaries, might pass muster. (California has such a system, though the National Rifle Association has threatened legal challenges to what it claims is overly restrictive administration of the program in certain jurisdictions there.)
Regardless, we think one thing is clear. It’s time for Illinois to have a reasoned discussion on this issue.
And as Chicago officials consider handgun regulations that will stand up to the McDonald decision, we believe they should take particular note of one paragraph in the opinion:
“Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.”
Copyright 2010 The State Journal-Register. Some rights reserved

wep45
July 4, 2010, 04:02 PM
Illinois sounds like a very Socialist Nazi state.

I bet the motto is:

People have rights (as long as it does not interfere with the agenda).
__________________
The 2nd Amendment is worth defending.
Do not let ignorant anti-gun liberals take our rights away

rights?? you aint got no rights..............just a bunch of temporary privledges.:eek:

a simple stroke of the pen changes tommorrow what you have today.:uhoh:

BigDeesul
July 4, 2010, 04:57 PM
Great info isp2605. I kind of worded my statement incorrectly. I didn't mean an officer that didn't know the law, but one that has been instructed on an incorrect interpretation of the law. After all, cops know the law better than most people. Being charged and being convicted are two different things, and as I said, a legal battle would ensue. I don't think anyone with a decent lawyer has been convicted from fanny pack carry, but probably gave up the fight due to the cost of the lawyers. There are precedents set in the courts that have proven that fanny pack carry is legal statewide. It's if you can stand to have your guns confiscated for an extended period of time and the money to afford a legal defense that might cause someone to think twice. I personally do not carry in that fashion, or any other. I already work too much overtime to pay the bills and like to spend time with my family too much to chance arrest over something so dumb. I also live in a very good neighborhood, and do not feel that I have to carry. If I lived in a worse area, I do understand why someone would want to do so. Here's a little more info on the subject: http://www.concealcarry.org/illinois-carry/

BigDeesul
July 4, 2010, 04:58 PM
I also forgot to mention in earlier posts that I am glad that we do not have to register firearms in IL. Certain municipalities do, but not statewide.

wriggly
July 4, 2010, 05:11 PM
FOID was passed as a compromised. In 1968 there was a push in the legislature for firearms registration. If you read your history, or for those of us who were old enough at the time, recall the 60s was the time at lot of termoil - 2 Kennedy assassinations, MLK assassination, killings of several other prominent social leaders, riots, etc. There was the push for firearm registration in a lot of states. Several states implemented registration. The IL legislature compromised. Instead of getting firearm registration IL passed the FOID act. Perfect? No, but better than complete firearm registration that other states got.
The FOID law can be removed. The process is explained in the statute. All it takes to get the issue before the voters is to have 2% of the registered voters petition to have it placed on the ballot. But be careful what you wish for. The reason no one has pushed for revocation of the FOID act is because people know that if FOID is revoked then we are liable to end up with registration and more restrictions like a lot of other states.
And contrary to what at least one other posted, FOID is definitely not a money maker for the state. It's a money loser. When you figure the expenses involved in production of the FOID card it costs a bit over 3 times more to produce than the fee generates.

Bigdeesul wrote:

Be extremely careful following this advice.
In 2001 the "fanny pack carry" became a popular topic. My agency was getting calls daily from the public and other LE agencies seeking an opinion on the legality of such carry. We contacted the IL Attorney General, Jim Ryan, for an opinion that we could publish for the public so everyone knew. Ryan, who was running for governor at the time and not known for being "gun friendly" refused to render an opinion. Instead Ryan said he would leave it up to each of the state's attorneys to interpret the issue as they wish. There are 102 counties in IL and each county has their own state's attorney which is an independent elected official. They are the ones who decide how they're going to interpret various statutes and which cases get prosecuted. Contrary to what so many believe, including many on this site, the police do not randomly arrest people. They are forced to use the interpretations of their respective state's attorneys.
My agency then contacted every one of the state's attorneys for their opinions. We got a wide range of opinions which varied from "fanny pack carry is illegal and we'll prosecute" to "fanny pack carry is legal so therefore nothing to prosecute". However, the most common response was they would decide on a case by case basis. Most wanted the person's firearm held as evidence, a report written and submitted, then the state's attorney would decide whether to charge or not.
What that meant was that a person could fanny pack carry in one county and the state's attorney in that county considered it completely legal. But if the person crossed the road into another county they could be in a county where the state's attorney considered it illegal and would prosecute. Then the person could cross another road and be in a county where the state's attorney could take take up to 3 years to decide whether to charge the person.
This poll we conducted didn't help anyone. The public still didn't know whether they could legally "fanny pack carry" and the other law enforcement agencies were still in limbo. That poll was taken 9 years ago. IL AG Ryan has been replaced as have many of the state's attorneys. However if the same poll was taken today I doubt the results would be much different. Some counties would no doubt have changed to one position or the other but generally the results would be "we'll decided on a case by cases basis."
The best warning I can give is if a person thinks they want to fanny pack carry then they should contact the state's attorneys in the counties inwhich they intend to carry. Just because a state's attorney in one county gives the opinion one way does not mean any other state's attorney is obligated to that opinion. It won't matter 1 bit if a state's attorney in a county refuses to prosecute if another state's attorney takes a different line and decides to charge. 102 counties, 102 opinions, 102 different rules. While that seems like a PITA it is a double edged sword. The people in each county elect their state's attorney. They elect a person who they believe will represent their beliefs and desires. The people in Massac County may not want the same kind of prosecution as the people in Lake County. The other edge of the sword tho is what a person can be charged with in one county could be different than what the same person can be charged with in another county. People have to decide which way they want it. Do they want the prosecutor to represent their particular wants/desires where they live or do they want statewide universal enforcement. If you want the latter then you end up with majority rules in the state and what all of the state gets is what is decided in the NE section of the state.

In 1968, the FOID act and the ID were a joke. They really did not have the support for the system in Springfield at the time. It was not till around 1979 that they were even getting any meaningful feedback from law enforcement agencies, the Dept of Mental Health, or the courts. For over 10 years the FOID cards were issued to just about anyone except the very worst offenders.

With the advent of computers, came a different era, and today, they are efficient at maintaining a good database......too good in fact.

Oh, as far as the fanny pack thing, be very careful with that. This State trooper is offering you good advice..

Fact of the matter is, since concealed carry is not a misdemeanor in Ilinois anymore, you are way better off to leave the gun at home, and wait for legal passage of a CCW law or move to a state that allows it.

isp2605
July 4, 2010, 05:13 PM
Here's a little more info on the subject: http://www.concealcarry.org/illinois-carry/
Be EXTREMELY careful about opinions from concealcarry.org. They got their info from the Champaign Rifle Assoc. Hardly a bastion of legal experts. No one from that group have any legal authority. No one from that group is going to be coming to jail to bail you out. None of them are going to pay your legal fees. None of them are going to be the ones sitting in jail when you're the guy picked up on a weapons charge. It's just a group of people who pay dues to belong and have their own agenda.
Even their link to the ISP's info is 12+ years out of date. Sam Nolen and Brent Manning haven't been directors for a lot of years and Ryan hasn't been governor for 8 years. More current brochures have been published.
Had concealcarry.org really wanted to get a legal opinion that had some standing they could have contacted the IL Attorney General's Office or even a local state's attorney's office yet they did not want to do that and publish that info because the info they got was counter to their cause. So they resorted to the Champaign Rifle Assoc. Might as well run down to the local coffee shop and taken a poll of what people think. At least at a coffee shop they might have had a better chance of finding someone who has better training in studying the law.


In 1968, the FOID act and the ID were a joke. I knew someone selling fakes back in the early 1970's and they were as good as the originals. They really did not have the support for the system in Springfield at the time. It was not till around 1979 that they were even getting any feedback from law enforcement agaencies, the Dept of Mental Health, or the courts. For over 10 years the FOID cards were issued to just about anyone except the very worst offenders.
With the advent of computers, came a different era, and today, they are efficient at maintaining a good database......too good in fact.
Do you remember driver's licenses back in the 60s and early 70s? They were a joke too. Those could easily be and were often faked and would look as good or better than the original. And that was well before computer technology.
As far as the feedback from Mental Health it wasn't until the past few years that even that was allowed to be checked. Those were sealed records and that agency would release them to anyone, even another agency. It took a statutory change to get that access.

ilbob
July 4, 2010, 05:27 PM
Fanny pack carry is clearly in compliance with the UUW act. There are no legal gymnastics that are going to change that. The law is actually pretty clear on what it takes to be not illegal in this case. You don't need to be a lawyer or cop to read clear text.

I would not be fanny packing in Illinois, despite its apparent clear legality. It doesn't really mean much in Illinois, or for that matter most states, to be in compliance with the law. If what you are doing is not approved of by "the man", "the man" will make your life miserable, and there is very little that you can do about it, either before or after the fact.

Don't do things that will get you busted. It does not matter one iota whether you are legal or not when you are in handcuffs. You are going to get put through the wringer just because thats the way things work.

Do your best to avoid dealing with cops as if they have the plague and you will be well served. Once they get interested in what you are doing you have lost 99% of the battle.

isp2605
July 4, 2010, 05:47 PM
Fanny pack carry is clearly in compliance with the UUW act. There are no legal gymnastics that are going to change that. The law is actually pretty clear on what it takes to be not illegal in this case. You don't need to be a lawyer or cop to read clear text.

I'm glad you brought this up. You're going to help prove a couple of points.
Point 1. Take any education class and you'll learn that the average American reads at a 3rd grade reading comprehension level. Now, learn to write legal statutes and you'll find that statutes are written at the 8th grade comprehension level. See the problem? Average American reads at the 3rd grade level but the law is written at the 8th grade level.
Point 2. Those who think "Fanny pack carry is clearly in compliance with the UUW act. There are no legal gymnastics that are going to change that. The law is actually pretty clear on what it takes to be not illegal in this case. You don't need to be a lawyer or cop to read clear text." clearly don't understand the law. There's a lot more to it than just reading the statute, even if they are capable of comprehending at an 8th grade level.
When it comes to the law one also has to do a bit more research than just "reading the text". One has to do the research and find out what the courts have said about a particular statute. So no, you don't have to be "a lawyer or a cop" but you do have to be smart enough to do the research do determine the courts' rulings on statutes. Just "reading the text" can end a guy up in jail.

wriggly
July 4, 2010, 06:05 PM
Do you remember driver's licenses back in the 60s and early 70s? They were a joke too. Those could easily be and were often faked and would look as good or better than the original. And that was well before computer technology.
As far as the feedback from Mental Health it wasn't until the past few years that even that was allowed to be checked. Those were sealed records and that agency would release them to anyone, even another agency. It took a statutory change to get that access.

Yes I remember the Drivers Licenses. I still have the paper learners permit I was issued, with the blue label.

You are pretty much correct about the sharing of information between DMHDD and ISP and other agencies, however back in 1978 the Admission social workers at all the Mental Health Facilities were instructed to remove FOID cards from new intakes and forward them to ISP in Springfield. Cofidentiality laws would not allow agencies any linkage to patient records at the time. It was not till the recent spate of shootings by individuals in other states that had history's of mental health problems, that the statutes were changed.

ilbob
July 5, 2010, 11:56 AM
I'm glad you brought this up. You're going to help prove a couple of points.

When it comes to the law one also has to do a bit more research than just "reading the text". One has to do the research and find out what the courts have said about a particular statute. So no, you don't have to be "a lawyer or a cop" but you do have to be smart enough to do the research do determine the courts' rulings on statutes. Just "reading the text" can end a guy up in jail.

I don't actually disagree with you. The courts have twisted the plain text meaning of a lot of things to the point where there is really no way for anyone to know what a court is going to decide the law means in many cases.

That is why it is just best to avoid dealing with cops as much as you can. It is just not a defense that you are not in violation of what the law actually says.

Remember that cops are not usually your enemy, but they are never your friends. They are employees of some unit of government and most of the time they will do what their employer wants of them. What their employer wants them to do is not always beneficial to you.

BigDeesul
July 6, 2010, 12:28 AM
I don't actually disagree with you. The courts have twisted the plain text meaning of a lot of things to the point where there is really no way for anyone to know what a court is going to decide the law means in many cases.

That is why it is just best to avoid dealing with cops as much as you can. It is just not a defense that you are not in violation of what the law actually says.

Remember that cops are not usually your enemy, but they are never your friends. They are employees of some unit of government and most of the time they will do what their employer wants of them. What their employer wants them to do is not always beneficial to you.
Ilbob, I don't know if you realize that you're posting a reply to a cop. I may be wrong, but "ISP2605" I beleive may possibly stand for Illinois State Police and possibly a badge number? Not to poke fun, but you're telling him to not deal with himself. Sorry, but I couldn't help it. Kinda made me laugh, so I had to share it.

If you're a criminal, yes avoiding dealing with the cops is probably a good personal decision. If you're a law abiding citizen, I think the cops are here to serve and protect, just like the quotes on the side of the car say. Sure sometimes you run into one having a bad day, or maybe they're just an ******* (buthole), but the majority of them are hard working people with a job to do, just like the rest of us, and I know at work, if a customer has a bad attitude, that's usually what they get back.

I also don't think they are never your friends. I've known cops to bend the rules to help someone out. It all depends on the situation.

ilbob
July 6, 2010, 09:09 AM
I believe he has said he is retired.

I no longer believe cops are really ever your friend. They may be friendly, they may even let you off on some minor transgression now and then.

I saw a state trooper changing a guy's tire once. Did that make him that guy's friend? Keep in mind ISP has rigid quotas about what their officers have to do and motorist services gets them points against those quotas.

I have to get ready for work so I have no time to elaborate. perhaps I will later on.

05FLHT
July 6, 2010, 09:48 AM
So no, you don't have to be "a lawyer or a cop" but you do have to be smart enough to do the research do determine the courts' rulings on statutes. Just "reading the text" can end a guy up in jail.

So exactly what have the "courts" ruled regarding the statute? Has anybody ever been convicted of UUW for having an unloaded firearm fully enclosed in a case? The only recent case that comes to mind for me is Diggins where the IL Supreme Court ruled that a center console is a "case."

Due to the "confusion" associated with the statute, choosing to transport an unloaded and encased firearm is a personal decision one needs to make. Is it legal? Yes. If not, tell me how I am wrong. Will it get me arrested? Maybe. Although I carry enough documentation and have researched the matter enough to believe I can educate the uneducated, and if need be, enlighten the disbelievers with a 1983 lawsuit.

sctman800
July 6, 2010, 11:18 AM
I think the "fanny pack" depends where you are in Illinois as to what will happen. As far as I know there has never been a conviction for this but several people have been arrested. Also to the best of my knowledge charges have allways been dropped before trial which prevents it from having a clear court decision leaving it still in limbo.
In a neighboring county it is accepted as legal and you can see a lot of FPs being carried, other counties and towns consider it illegal. I can't remember the county which was in the northern part of the state but a few years ago John Horstman was charged for FP. The charges ended up being dropped just before trial so no precident but he did sue and recieved a $50,000 settlement.
My take on this is You probably will never be convicted but you may be arrested and end up spending money and time before you get out of the whole thing. I don't know what affect McDonald v Chicago will have but what we really need is CCW. Jim.

isp2605
July 6, 2010, 06:29 PM
Keep in mind ISP has rigid quotas about what their officers have to do and motorist services gets them points against those quotas.

Another "full of balony" story. Absolutely no truth at all to that.

The only recent case that comes to mind for me is Diggins where the IL Supreme Court ruled that a center console is a "case."
Actually the ILSC ruled the center console a "container" not a case. There's a distinct legal difference.

05FLHT
July 6, 2010, 11:20 PM
Looks like the "transporting" debate may become moot in Illinois.

Now that the SCOTUS has issued the ruling in McDonald, effectively incorporating Heller and the "core fundamental right of self defense," the complete ban on "bearing" arms is being challenged (along with the rest of Chicago's new ordinance).

The relevant section -

28. Section 8-20-020 renders it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a handgun, except when in the person’s home.” Section 8-20-030 renders it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a long gun, except when in the person’s home or fixed place of business.” Section 8-20-140(a) renders it “unlawful for any person to carry or possess a firearm without a firearm registration certificate,” and Section 8-20-180(c) states that “[a] registration certificate shall only be valid for the address on the registration certificate,” and “[e]xcept in the lawful transportation of a firearm, a person shall not carry or possess any firearm at any location other than that authorized by the registration certificate.” Thus the Ordinance imposes a total ban in Chicago on possessing or carrying a firearm outside one’s home for personal protection, except in one’s fixed place of business where long guns, but not handguns, are permitted. For example, if an elderly widow lives in an unsafe neighborhood and asks her son to spend the night because she has recently received harassing phone calls, the son may not bring his registered firearm with him to his mother’s home as an aid to the defense of himself and his mother. Similarly, if a resident of Chicago owns his own business, such as a convenience store, in a dangerous neighborhood, the resident may not carry his firearm each day from his home to his business for purposes of self-protection. Nor may he possess a handgun at his place of business, even if he is disabled or otherwise incapable of operating a long gun.

Edited to add - yippi kay yay!

isp2605
July 6, 2010, 11:26 PM
Looks like the "transporting" debate may become moot in Illinois.
The ordinances you quoted have nothing to do with IL law. Those are Chicago city ordinances and have nothing to do with what happens outside the city limits of Chicago.
Contrary to what a lot of Chicago people think there's a whole lot of state outside their small little world.

ilbob
July 6, 2010, 11:58 PM
Another "full of balony" story. Absolutely no truth at all to that.

So the copy of the memo that was published in a newspaer a few years back was a complete forgery?

You can call it goals, metrics, or whatever else you want to call it, but it is still a quota.

isp2605
July 7, 2010, 12:16 AM
Goals are hardly "rigid quotas" nor "gets them points against those quotas." Care to change your wording or do you want to persist with your paranoid ramblings that are not based on fact?
There's not an business or agency that doesn't have goals nor performance standards for employees. "Rigid quotas" comes from your paranoia and trying to justify your personal beliefs. Your 'stories' may be believed by some who don't know the facts but your paranoia stories are based on what comes out from under the tin foil hat.
Stick with facts. Your paranoid editorial comments show you really don't have a grasp on reality.

Ramman911
July 7, 2010, 02:32 AM
MAN am I glad I do not live in Illinois any more. Was stationed there for a few years and after I got out stuck around for a bit. I did a dance the day I left that forsaken state.

I cant wait til January when Iowa becomes a Shall issue state for CCW!! :)

05FLHT
July 7, 2010, 09:25 PM
The ordinances you quoted have nothing to do with IL law. Those are Chicago city ordinances and have nothing to do with what happens outside the city limits of Chicago.

The lawsuit I referenced deals with the new ordinance passed by the city of Chicago. The point I found interesting is the challenge to possessing a handgun outside of the "permitted" areas for reasons of self defense. If you recall, the SCOTUS was adamant about the "core fundamental right of self defense." The SCOTUS affirmed the individual right to "keep and bear" arms in Heller and now incorporated that right against the States and local governments via McDonald. The game changed.

This suit has everything to do with what happens outside of the city of Chicago. Up until the ruling was issued in McDonald the only available avenue for restoring the right to "bear" arms in Illinois was through the legislature, which is controlled by Chicago Democrats. Now, with the Second Amendment guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms for the core fundamental right of self defense, a second avenue through the courts is possible.

Although, going through the courts may not even be necessary. Even Illinois politicians (and dare I say Chicago politicians, less Daley of course) will not be able to simply dismiss the Second Amendment all together and may decide to address a shall issue permitting system (rather than risk the courts ruling for open carry, no permit required). The Fall veto session may prove to be quite interesting.

So, with all do respect, I do beg to differ that what happens inside of Chicago does indeed cause effect to the rest of the State of Illinois.

Contrary to what a lot of Chicago people think there's a whole lot of state outside their small little world.

I am not going to argue with you on this, I just hope you don't mistake me as being a Chicago resident. The museums and theater are great, but I have not been to Chicago for quite some time now. It seems "my fundamental choice" does not fit well with current Chicago ordinance.

isp2605
July 7, 2010, 09:55 PM
So, with all do respect, I do beg to differ that what happens inside of Chicago does indeed cause effect to the rest of the State of Illinois.

Are you having a bit of difficulty following along with what you wrote? Since apparently you forgot:
"Looks like the "transporting" debate may become moot in Illinois.
Now that the SCOTUS has issued the ruling in McDonald, effectively incorporating Heller and the "core fundamental right of self defense," the complete ban on "bearing" arms is being challenged (along with the rest of Chicago's new ordinance).
The relevant section - "
Then you go on to quote the Chicago city ordinance. Contrary to what you now write, you weren't referencing the law suit. You referenced Chicago city ordinances.
Once again, those are city ordinances and, as I wrote, they have nothing to do with anyone outside the city limits of Chicago. Those ordinances have no bearing on CCW or any other "debate in IL". They apply to Chicago only. Whatever changes may or may not be made in the rest of the state has no relevance to those Chicago ordinances.
What happens in Chicago may influence the rest of the state on some issues but those ordinances aren't what you're trying to imply or seem to think. They have no force of effect for the rest of the state.
If you think Mike Madigan is going to suddenly change his tactics then better think again. Nothing in the USSC ruling forced CCW in any way. The ruling applied to Chicago's method of effectively eliminating handgun ownership by prohibiting registration of firearms. Read the entire USSC ruling and you'll see they also left the door open to regulation by the entities.

BCCL
July 7, 2010, 10:39 PM
If I understand 05FLHT right, I don't think he's saying Chicago's ordinances literally have any force of effect in the rest of the state, but that attitudes about the 2nd amendment in Chicago can have effects in the rest of the state...an example would be a statewide vote on CCW, in theory, Chicago/Cook County could force their view on the rest of the state by shear numbers.

isp2605
July 7, 2010, 11:01 PM
I don't think he's saying Chicago's ordinances literally have any force of effect in the rest of the state,...
But neither are they "relevant" to the rest of the state which is what he wrote in his initial post. Chicago's previous ordinances had no bearing on state law prior to either. Chicago had registration, the rest of IL doesn't. Chicago banned certain types of firearms, the rest of IL doesn't. Chicago banned gun shops, mags, etc but the rest of IL doesn't. Not that Daley wouldn't like the rest of IL to follow Chicago's lead, fact remains the rest of the state's legislators have refused to go along with Chicago's restrictions.
And don't think for a second the USSC ruling changed Daley, et al, position on anything either.
In case you didn't know, CCW bills have been introduced in the IL legislature for over 15 years. Until you get a new speaker of the house, Madigan isn't going to let it happen. It's not Daley who influences what gets done in the legislature, it's Mike Madigan. People blame Daley for a lot of things (not that he doesn't deserve it) but he's often the lightening rod because he's the most visible. People outside of IL, and quite a few people in IL, have no idea just how much power Madigan controls. Daley pales in comparison.

NukemJim
July 7, 2010, 11:29 PM
You know we can debate how many angels can dance on the heads of a pine or the semantics of the prior posts. To me both are about equally usefull.

IMHO Bottom line

McDonald effectively "incorporates" the 2A

The State of Illinois outlaw the carrying of firearms with Chi and Cook County having additional regulations about the keeping of firearms which may or may not be constitutional.

Ill is violating the 2A (before you respond ISP2605 remember both Heller and McDonald speak of the "Right to Keep and bear arms".

If you want to say the courts have not ruled on it yet, you are correct. But 3rd grade, 8th grade, 12th grade, BS, or JD reading level it does not matter, if Illinois does not allow CCW they are playing the role of George Wallace against racial integration after Brown Vs Topeka.

Sorry, short sweet and simple.

If you want to continue bickering about semantics, have fun. But I thought this was a site about firearms, firearms rights, and the legal use of firearms.

NukemJim

isp2605
July 7, 2010, 11:42 PM
(before you respond ISP2605 remember both Heller and McDonald speak of the "Right to Keep and bear arms".
And before you give your 'legal opinion' you should read and understand exactly what the USSC had to say in the latest ruling. Read it completely. You'll see the USSC was anything but hard and fast on the ruling. Read their ruling completely, clear to the end. You'll see they left themselves a lot of wiggle room for future cases and it's not quite as strongly worded as many who have never read the ruling think.

if Illinois does not allow CCW they are playing the role of George Wallace against racial integration after Brown Vs Topeka.

Not hardly the same. Try reading (and understanding) Brown v Topeka and then read McDonald. If you can't tell the difference in the way the USSC worded their ruling then get yourself a constitutional attorney to explain it to you. There's a major difference in the way the court felt about both. McDonald was hardly worded as strongly.
Why don't you ask someone from Hawaii or NYC or Maryland just how well their CCW laws are working out for them. If IL would ever get something like those states do you really think you would qualify for a CCW under their guidelines? Just having a CCW law on the books doesn't solve anything. Just ask someone from Hawaii.

BigDeesul
July 8, 2010, 02:08 AM
Those laws are "may issue", which by many are considered just as useless as no ccw at all. You might want to bring up states with "shall issue" ccw laws.

I think someone in an unincorporated area of a free state such as montana should form a police force and for a fee and proof of training, similar to Florida ccw license process for out of state applicants, offer badges and Identification proving they are LEO. Then they'd be covered under the federal LEO safety act, and could carry nationwide regardless of bull**** local or state laws.

I'm sure it would never happen, but if you read the LEO safety act, I'm sure there's a way to do it.

A qualified law enforcement officer means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

Would be pretty sweet huh?

05FLHT
July 9, 2010, 12:17 PM
Unless I am mistaken, Heller affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms for the core fundamental right of self defense. The SCOTUS ruled in McDonald that the Second Amendment was incorporated (4 DP - 1-P&I - 4 2nd doesn't exist) against the States and local governments. Both of these cases combined mean that the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago must recognize that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms for the core fundamental right of self defense.

Daley can thumb his nose at the SCOTUS and Madigan/Cullerton can play their cards to keep a bill from getting to the house/senate floor, but they cannot stop a challenge from getting to a federal court. Like I said, the game changed. Why did I talk about the Chicago ordinance and cite the suit filed (that thing I attached)? I did that because it shows that Daley is no longer the end all on this matter. A second avenue has presented itself and can (will) be utilized to work around the stronghold Chicago politics has on the State of Illinois.

Gun control in Illinois stems from Chicago. Part of the challenge to the Chicago ordinance is the restriction of bearing arms outside of ones home. Even though the SCOTUS stated in Heller, and again in McDonald, that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right and that CCW is a "privilege" that may be regulated, they also state that complete bans are unconstitutional and refer multiple times to the core fundamental right of self defense. It is only my opinion, but I do not believe "unloaded and enclosed in a case," or a complete ban on open & concealed carry will pass constitutional muster.

ilbob
July 9, 2010, 12:25 PM
I think someone in an unincorporated area of a free state such as montana should form a police force and for a fee and proof of training, similar to Florida ccw license process for out of state applicants, offer badges and Identification proving they are LEO. Then they'd be covered under the federal LEO safety act, and could carry nationwide regardless of bull**** local or state laws.
If nothing else it might well force a court to rule on the dubious constitutional permissiveness of this law. Just where in the powers enumerated to congress does the power to grant special privileges to a few favored government employees exist?

If you enjoyed reading about "FOID Card Stupidity" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!