She couldn't have bought it in Illinois through a retail store transaction without a FOID card.

Very wary of encouraging the proliferation of guns and ammunition.

Even WITH a system which tries to track the identity of who is possessing.

In my opinion, FOID is not a strong enough deterrent to possession.

And here is a Circuit Court judge attempting to weaken it, contrary to the public interest.

Or moved there from another state or inherited it.

I don't agree with that sentiment at all- but I *do* respect your willingness to abandon
the usual gun-prohibitionist mealymouthedness about what your actual goals are.

Book Owners Identification Card?

Balzov don't play dat, son.

...In pari materia.

Equivalent enough for me.

For you, are some rights not really rights?

and truly wonder what rights you could possibly be claiming for yourself or anyone else.

Those are extreme examples of your rights hypocrisy.

The commonplace everyday examples abound.

Aside from gun control advocates, the most notorious current example is the transphobic "bathroom safety advocates"
running amok in Republican polities.

There was also, for example, the notorious Charles Keating, who made a great show of being an antipornography
activist- and later went to prison for looting millions as a white-collar criminal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Decent_Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children



BTW, "it's to save children" is an old, dishonorable political schtick

I have to wonder what 'Rights' -you- are thinking of...

Exactly these: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights

And none of those are more or less and any of the others.

...a few of us were a bit amused with your handle when you joined.
Welcome.

Lots of dangerous ideas in books. Ideas that have literally killed millions.

Surely that requires additional regulation by the government, yes?

I can't imagine this dumb ruling ever standing.

IL Supremes will have to make hay out of it.

She is saying that the weapon is inside her house, and she has a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Past Supreme Court cases would say that is a simple regulation, and it should be Constitutional to require. But who knows what THIS Supreme Court would say?

In the meantime- it’s a thorny issue to deal with.

do nothing that "infringes" on the rights of law-abiding gun owners?

Wait time for a new FOID is approx. 1 yr. at this time. Pre-pandemic was 2-4 months. What if you moved to a new district in September, went to register to vote, and was told it would be 4-5 months, if not longer, before you could vote. What doe "infringe" mean, again? A right delayed, is a right denied right? Poll tax? FOID's cost money. Not a lot, but if they charged a $5 poll tax every year, would that be OK? Forget the free lawyer, need to pay a % of his fee, if you can afford it or not.

Covid, but one year is WAY longer than in my state and any delay will go back go normal soon.

The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response.
.
And, the comparison of the modest fee for a FOID card---similar to other modest fees charged by most governments to defray the expense of the paperwork and record keeping for all sorts of documentation---to a poll tax shows that you are willing to stretch the facts beyond all recognition to fit your preference.

I wonder---are there ANY restrictions or requirements associated with gun possession or ownership with which you agree? Or, are you one of the people who advocates "Constitutional carry" and NO restrictions on who can own any firearm he or she deems necessary and appropriate?

See how this works?

And the state was approx. 5-6 months behind, prior to Covid, so "normal" is a questionable thing. There are lawsuits filed against the state, as it was supposed to be a 1-2 month wait for responses. The state being behind, even with NICS call ins, can cause a delay to purchase, instead of a proceed. This is in conjunction with a 3-day waiting period. If I have a FOID card, and an "Instant" background check, why am I required to wait, also? Heat of the moment? I already have had a FOID for several years, so chances are high I already have a firearm to use.

"The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response."

What, to compare constitutional rights is "silly"? (And yet, you did respond.) Anything else in the Bill of Rights you want delayed, fees applied, or taken away? And, you state that

"similar to other modest fees charged by most governments to defray the expense of the paperwork and record keeping for all sorts of documentation"

could, and have been, applied to poll taxes.

Ahh, restrictions, and "constitutional carry". How about "constitutional speech"? Does that sound like a silly arrangement?

U.S. v Miller: A lot of gun prohibitionists love to use this court case, but basically he was denied in absentia, as he was deceased at the time of the hearing. The court denied the possession of the "sawed off shotgun", as it was "not in current usage by the military." Remember that statement. The court WAS wrong, as shotguns were in use at the time, the "trench broom". Now, if one reads the noted statement above, it would seem that the court at that time would view a "current" military arm as permissible use. Let the meaning of that sink in.

My belief: A "citizen", one of the "people" listed in the 2d, is one who has lawful citizenship, not been convicted of any felony which carries a sentence of over 1 year incarceration, and is of lawful age to vote. This is the base from which I would expound on. Mental patients, those who don't have full control of their faculties (Severe Alzheimers, etc.), temporary bans on assault charges, domestics, etc. Younger children allowed to handle weapons under parental supervision. As far as type of weapon, no extreme mass casualty type. No, I don't want John Brown down the street to keep a Trident III missile with a multi-tipped nuclear payload in his front yard. However, if he has, and can afford, a 155mm howitzer, and has a place to safely shoot it (not likely, anyway), I'd love to see it go off. People legally own machine guns, mortars, bazookas, and even tanks with functioning armaments. Know why you never see these in the news? Because they're LEGALLY owned, by upright citizens, and the cost of the system/fees, and jail time if used inappropriately, keeps them in check. Along with NOT wanting to murder anybody. The machine guns you DO see in the news, are either illegal ones, or not really machineguns. Because few in the media don't know what they're reporting on, with knowledge of firearms. Everything's either a Glock, an AK-47, or an AR-15/M-16. Hope this clears some things up.

to simply ask others to READ your last response.

I thought that's where your head was, but did not want to say something I couldn't back up. You've just taken care of that.

To think that an inalienable right shouldn't be taxed, delayed, fees added to, or outright denied due to your location? I offered the poll tax as an example of government repressing the rights of individuals. Not advocating for it, but to use it as an apples/apples comparison. Also, to add the other rights I mentioned. Why does the 2d mean so little to you? I assumed that's where your head was at, but like you, waited until you made your own case. If you are willing to deny others one right listed in the BOR, what others are you willing to deny? Political enemies? Someone you don't like, personally? Like the freedom of speech, ALL need the right, or it's not a "right", just a "I'll let you know if you can do it or not. Wait until you receive your permission slip."

for the others who may see this thread, let's make a few things clear:

---it should be understood that the inalienable right you mention is "as currently interpreted by a right-wing majority on a SCOTUS no longer concerned with precedent." If our nation survives, that will change.

---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed".

---the "delays" now complained of are due in large part to covid, just like the delays in receiving new license plates or in filing our taxes.

---the "fees" involved are small and are only payable once every 10 years. This is not an obstacle to anyone who wants to legally possess a firearm.

---I can't respond to "outright denied due to your location" because I am unaware that has ever happened---i.e. "You cannot own a firearm because you live in BLANK County."

---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings and was essentially "purchased" by the efforts of right wing extremists over several decades.

---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone. I know that doesn't "fit" with your contrivance, but it is the truth. I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible.

Let's give your various argumenta ad nauseum et argumnta ad declarare a fisking, shall we?

Telepsychology has always been part and parcel of gun control advocacy. Seems "claimed powers of prophecy"
can be added to that list...



The State of Minnesota also tried similar word games , and got slapped down 8-1 by the Supremes
for their trouble:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)





Which "prior SCOTUS rulings" would those be? Kindly enlighten our ignorance, O Wise One.



And then, two sentences later, you do that very thing:



Of course, that's not a self-contradiction to *you*- because you don't think people have a right to keep and bear arms...

Bless your heart!

BTW, speaking of "choirs" who all think alike, you should check out Castle Bansalot. At least this group allow debate...

and I don't even own a firearm, nor want to.

It's understandable- decades of political ineffectiveness tends to make people a bit tetchy.


I recommend the George Aiken approach- declare victory and leave.


No doubt that you'll be quite successful at Castle Bansalot in getting those who already agree with you
to continue to do so

That poster won't be banned here for having an opinion. Maybe they could go over there and ask why they are scared of people voicing an opinion.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/noam_chomsky_108350

That poster won't be banned here for having an opinion. Maybe they could go over there and ask why they are scared of people voicing an opinion.

I never heard of it before.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262

Blocked list currently = 104.

Had no idea what it was and what they were talking about.

Under the topic category: Justice & Public Safety there are 5 specific groups:
Civil Liberties: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1168
Drug Policy: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1170
Gun Control & RKBA: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
Gun Control Reform Activism: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
True Crime: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1201

I am actually interested in two of the topics under the major heading of Justice and Public Safety.
Will go take a look.

Thank you again!

I find the Civil Liberties group interesting and I subscribe to it.

Have a great day.

Thanks!

No rush, we'll wait.

"---firearms are "products" and are subject to tax just as nearly all products are, but the RIGHT to own a firearm is not "taxed". "

Again, the FOID card is a requirement in IL to own a firearm. Has nothing to do with the firearm itself, it is a "fee" (tax) paid by the individual for "permission" from the government to "keep" an arm.

"---the "delays" now complained of are due in large part to covid, just like the delays in receiving new license plates or in filing our taxes."

You wanted others to read my post, but you obviously didn't. Not entirely. You skipped the part about delays for the FOID (and CCW cards) being pre-Covid, and the lawsuits started prior to Covid. It's a staffing issue, the State Police not hiring enough people to handle the caseload.

"---I can't respond to "outright denied due to your location" because I am unaware that has ever happened---i.e. "You cannot own a firearm because you live in BLANK County."

All 50 states have some type of concealed carry law, but some are "May Issue". Which means, you can be denied for any, or no, reason at all. Look up requirements for purchasing a gun in NY City, for example. Nearly impossible for the layman. Chicago had bans until recently, getting slapped by the USSC changed that (McDonald vs Chicago).

"---it is not that the 2nd Amendment means "so little" to me; it is just that there are other rights to be considered and the current out-of-context interpretation of the "right to bear arms" is contrary to about a century's worth of prior SCOTUS rulings and was essentially "purchased" by the efforts of right wing extremists over several decades."

"Other rights to be considered..." Well, we're discussing the 2d, so which rights do you feel take precedent over it in this discussion? You want my exact opinion on this subject, but have given little of your own on how things should be done. Results, and how they are implemented, would be nice.

"---I have not even suggested that any right be denied to anyone. I know that doesn't "fit" with your contrivance, but it is the truth. I simply disagree with your view that denial of the sacred "right to bear arms" to anyone---such as those on the "no fly" list, those adjudicated mentally incompetent or those LEGALLY blind---is impermissible."

You know, that "no fly" list wasn't exactly anything to write home about. You could get on the list, not know you're on the list, until you tried to get on an airplane, and have little in the way to get yourself removed. Re: Ted Kennedy. He was on it. Name similarity. And, if you read my post a little closer, I believe I did cover the mentally incompetent aspect (failure to fully read, again?). I also stated my list was to be expounded on, and was giving just an initial bare-bones starting point.

ETA: And as far as your statement of "that any right be denied to anyone", your post #4 spoke volumes to this. I could hear the condescending tone over the keyboard.

... both are constitutionally protected. Imagine that.

At a recent Wyoming gun show, a friend of mine overheard someone making a failed attempt to sell a vintage S&W revolver (Model 25 in .45 LC) to a dealer. As the guy kept moving, my friend approached him, and after a few minutes of negotiations handed him a thousand dollars and the gun was his. No paperwork, background check, tax, etc.

Had it been an AR-15 the process would have been identical. This is what's called the gun show "loophole", which is silly as an identical transaction between two individuals could have taken place virtually anywhere.

I would remove SBR's and silencers from the NFA.

What's your agenda? Were you to get every gun law you wished for, what would change?

No $200 tax stamp, no waiting for a year (or more) to be approved.

that MANDATE silencers on hunting weapons. Loud noise/public nuisance/bad for game.

Last edited Sat May 1, 2021, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...in certain benighted locales back in the day.

Merely a coincidence, I'm sure...

The Supreme Court will strike down the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts and eliminate all state and local prohibitions to owning or carrying.

shall-issue, and possibly mandate national reciprocity, which would suit me just fine.

I do like the idea of swaths of gun haters choking in fits of apoplexy, though.

Getting rid of all restrictions on what a person may own would be a nice additional slap at the people who consider it their right to have a say about what is in my gun closet, though.

...and other similar systems. I hope soon the line dividing the state's power to reasonably regulate gun access as affirmed in the Heller decision and what is an actual infringement on individual rights will be clearly drawn by the courts.

...excruciatingly slow.

As you said, it remains for the courts to decide whether that amounts to an unlawful infringement.

I'm reminded of the old line: "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence (or stupidity)"