Not the FOIDs you’re looking for
The new gun series: Illinoising
Challenging the Firearms Owners Identification Cards in Illinois.
12 Responses to “Not the FOIDs you’re looking for”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 19th, 2010 at 11:45 am
The lady should get herself a new lawyer.
FOID or not, Illinoisians are not allowed to carry (except empty, inaccessible, disassmbeled and/or locked, in any place other than their own abode, own land, or fixed place of business.
It’s a silly theory that Illinois must respect Ohio’s gun laws. Why not Vermont’s or Alaska’s?
These kind of cases do more hurt than good.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
@nk
She is not looking to carry. She just wants the ability to possess a functional firearm for self-protection in her friend’s house. She does not meet the non-resident exceptions to the FOID law – not a hunter or target shooter – to possess a firearm in any other way than than unloaded and cased. If she ignored the law and possessed a loaded firearm in her friend’s house, she’d be guilty of a Felony in the 3rd degree.
Should not the visitor to Illinois possess the same level of protection as a resident of the state? If an Illinois resident visited Mrs. Mishaga in Ohio, they would be allowed to possess a loaded firearm for protection in her home. Why can’t she do the same when she goes to Illinois?
August 19th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
@nk: Why not make IL follow VT or AK law with respect to who can carry? My VA license to drive was valid in NJ even though I was issued it a year or so before I would have been able to get an unrestricted license in NJ. If I had driven in NJ I would have been subject to NJ’s traffic laws, but they couldn’t nail me for underage driving.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
All I’m saying, guys, is that I, an Illinois resident, with my FOID, if I go from my house near Brookfield Zoo for a sleep-over at my brother’s house near Wrigley Field, I have the same lack of rights as this lady.
Illinois is a non-carry state, except in your own abode, land, or fixed place of business, and some hunting or other sports shooting.
Federalism. Or whatever.
As far as reciprocity of drivers’ licenses or carry permits is concerned … you do know that they are due to interstate compacts that need to be approved by the federal government, don’t you? The states are not allowed to enter into treaties, without federal permission, even among themselves under the Constitution.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
What you did there. I see it. Nice one, Obi-wan.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Federalism got tossed out of the building by the Bill of Rights on this one.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Neither Heller nor McDonald have recognized a right to carry outside the home. Illinois law, statewide, is more gun-friendly than either decision. (Chicago is an outflier.)
August 20th, 2010 at 9:01 am
one of the interesting things about heller and mcdonald is that Heller decision only mentioned “keep” while McDonald says (paraphrased) “in heller we held that the right to keep and bear was an individual one.”
At any rate, I expect that this decision looks to define the right to possess in “your own” home as the right to possess anyplace you happen to be residing, temp or perm. (hotel rooms, visiting a friend, etc).
At any rate, McDonald rather decisively killed federalism wrt 2A. Now the cases are focusing on the boundaries of the 2A.
There is an important difference between drivers licenses and firearms licenses; “keep and bear” is a “fundamental right”, driving isn’t
August 20th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Illinois law, statewide, is more gun-friendly than either decision. (Chicago is an outflier.)
That is debatable…
1.) Illinois residents still need FOID to exercise a right in their own home, which makes it perhaps just a bit worse than what Heller affirmed.
2.) Non-residents could still run afoul of the law if they defend themselves in an “abode”, even though they have a right to do so.
I guess what is most troubling is that you have a law, the FOID act, which is selective in application – Defend yourself? Claim exigent circumstance and FOID prosecution probably won’t factor in. Invite the cops in because you called 911? FOID issue may apply…
That is bad.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:44 am
True. FOID is a big factor. It’s kind of like a semi-permit. You can own a gun “illegally” in Chicago, but if the police only find out because you used it for self-defense or defense of another person, in your own abode, own land, or own fixed of business, you cannot be prosecuted for violating Chicago’s gun ban.
On the other hand, it’s prosecutorial discretion whether to “charge the victim” for not having a FOID. It has never happened yet — the prosecutors have their hands full with real crimes — but theoretically it can.
If you have a FOID, the rules for transportation are more relaxed, that’s true. But not all that much. FOID or no FOID, you don’t need to take your gun apart. Just unload and lock it, in a gun case or the trunk of your car.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:45 am
can = cannot
August 20th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Claim exigent circumstance and FOID prosecution probably won’t factor in.
No. Neither self-defense nor necessity are defenses to not having a FOID. You are at the mercy of the prosecutor. But it’s still only a misdemeanor and no prosecutor, who after talking to you, has to go into the interrogation room next door to interview a rapist, will choose to charge you, unless you really work very hard to piss him off.