FOID Card Stupidity
- Thread starter Fleetwood_Captain
- Start date
- Status
BCCL
Member
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.
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
Member
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).
I bet the motto is:
People have rights (as long as it does not interfere with the agenda).
russ69
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 320
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
Thanx, Russ
lilguy
Member
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 308
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 308
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.
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 308
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
BigDeesul
Member
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
Member
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!!
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!!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
SoberSunday01
Member
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.
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
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
- Status
