FOID Card Stupidity

[BigDeesul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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?