Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/4/2006 5:52:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 5:53:44 AM EDT by 4x4sc]
FOID Repeal SB2963

Synopsis As Introduced
Repeals the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Amends various Acts to make conforming changes.

So what are they planning to do? Change the 30 day turn around to indefinite................


4X4SC
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:43:21 AM EDT
Just a quick (1 minute) overview - the proposal appears to remove all refs to the FOID act, and reverts to the Criminal Code.

Could be a good thing.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 10:44:00 AM EDT
Blago will definitely veto it.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 11:15:53 AM EDT
A snowball has a better chance in hell than this thing does of getting anywhere.


But, just for the record, I like the fact that bills like this are written, if nothing else it gives the antis something to make themselves look stupid about, and it reminds them that we aren't quitting.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 2:38:24 PM EDT
One of the selling points on the repeal of the FOID should be the savings to the state. Wasn't our governor just saying the reason the state police have been tardy about processing our Foids was that personel had been cut back because of budget problems. Well, we all know thats a smoke screen.

Now that we have to endure background checks from private sellers at gunshows the whole FOID administration is redundant. The background checks do the job that FOID was initialy designed for.

JR
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 3:45:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/4/2006 3:46:06 PM EDT by silascobb]


Originally Posted By racecar:
One of the selling points on the repeal of the FOID should be the savings to the state.



Have to be careful about arguing this b/c the counterpoint is simply to raise the processing fee to $100 or some ridiculous amount.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 4:00:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By racecar:
Now that we have to endure background checks from private sellers at gunshows the whole FOID administration is redundant. The background checks do the job that FOID was initialy designed for.



False. FOID was designed to keep guns away from certain people (minorities). It was a racist issue when it was first passed.

Do you really need a backround check to buy a firearm from a private individual now? I knew that you had to comply with the waiting period (which makes it impossible to buy a gun at a gun show anyway) but now you need to use an FFL to sell a firearm at a gun show no matter what?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:08:27 PM EDT
Gee timmy, does the law mention minorities by name or does it just use legal slurs?



JR
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:20:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HRoark:
A snowball has a better chance in hell than this thing does of getting anywhere.


But, just for the record, I like the fact that bills like this are written, if nothing else it gives the antis something to make themselves look stupid about, and it reminds them that we aren't quitting.


Well HRoark, we can HOPE that this gets somewhere right?
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:03:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By racecar:
Gee timmy, does the law mention minorities by name or does it just use legal slurs?



JR



That's not the point.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:17:40 PM EDT
We are all aware that when politicians say one thing they always have an ulterior motive so while grandpa richy said it was to make everyone safer and to regulate firearms purchases, he meant “Make it harder for citizens from minority groups to comply with the new law.” It’s just like when your mom says “ Timm. You sure are taking a long time in the bathroom. Whatever are you doing in there?” And you say.. “Ma, I’m just working on some really deep blackheads in here… OK!” When the real reason is completely different.

To refute the necessity of FOID you cant argue with the secret motive. You have to put down the one they pretend that the law is for.

JR
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 4:05:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 4:08:51 AM EDT by npd233]

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By racecar:
Now that we have to endure background checks from private sellers at gunshows the whole FOID administration is redundant. The background checks do the job that FOID was initialy designed for.



False. FOID was designed to keep guns away from certain people (minorities). It was a racist issue when it was first passed.

Do you really need a backround check to buy a firearm from a private individual now? I knew that you had to comply with the waiting period (which makes it impossible to buy a gun at a gun show anyway) but now you need to use an FFL to sell a firearm at a gun show no matter what?



No, it wasn't. This issue was brought up not too long ago in this very forum. Are you just regurgitating that information, or are you saying that from first hand knowledge? I'm sure you remember it well when the FOID Act was passed.

In 1967.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 5:27:57 AM EDT
I have to check the race/ ethnic box on the Fed. paperwork buying a firearm, after pissing outside with the wind I am tempted to mark Eskimo without snow.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 6:41:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 6:42:46 AM EDT by HRoark]

Originally Posted By deej86:

Originally Posted By HRoark:
A snowball has a better chance in hell than this thing does of getting anywhere.


But, just for the record, I like the fact that bills like this are written, if nothing else it gives the antis something to make themselves look stupid about, and it reminds them that we aren't quitting.


Well HRoark, we can HOPE that this gets somewhere right?



There's being hopeful, and then there's being realistic. You probably hope that the concealed carry bills that are intoduced every year pass, too.

Get a clue, man. Hoping all you want doesn't help. Calling and writing your reps is what works, and no amount of calling and writing will get this thing passed.

It wont even get out of committee.


Not like it really matters to you anyway, or have you actually bought a gun yet?
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 7:39:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 7:42:15 AM EDT by HRoark]
Wait a second...


What the hell are you doing here Deej, I thought you were taking a 2 week break after hitting 10000 posts?


I knew you wouldn't make it.
200+ posts for someone that isn't posting? That has to be a record.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 8:56:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/5/2006 9:02:15 AM EDT by etch11]

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By racecar:
Now that we have to endure background checks from private sellers at gunshows the whole FOID administration is redundant. The background checks do the job that FOID was initialy designed for.



False. FOID was designed to keep guns away from certain people (minorities). It was a racist issue when it was first passed.

Do you really need a backround check to buy a firearm from a private individual now? I knew that you had to comply with the waiting period (which makes it impossible to buy a gun at a gun show anyway) but now you need to use an FFL to sell a firearm at a gun show no matter what?



No, it wasn't. This issue was brought up not too long ago in this very forum. Are you just regurgitating that information, or are you saying that from first hand knowledge? I'm sure you remember it well when the FOID Act was passed.

In 1967.



Yes it was a racial issue and I explained to you how it was and you did not what to here it.

Daley was obsessed with minorities and political enemies getting guns. Why do you think you have to send in a picture and state you race for.

Like I said in the other thread unless you lived back then you do not understand how things worked.

Its almost impossible for younger people to comprehend how it was. They would be stunned how black were treated.

Ok tell us a logical reason for it.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 9:06:06 AM EDT
I don't think too many of us are old enough to remember 1968.

www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2422
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 10:22:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 11:22:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
I don't think too many of us are old enough to remember 1968.

www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2422



And that is the only article you will ever find that says that. Facts are wrong. The FOID act was passed in 1967, prior to those 1968 riots. That article is posted on every extreme right wing gun nut website pertaining to IL gun laws.

You guys keep helping push Jesse and his cohorts' agenda for them, I'm sure they appreciate it
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 12:28:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HRoark:
Wait a second...


What the hell are you doing here Deej, I thought you were taking a 2 week break after hitting 10000 posts?


I knew you wouldn't make it.
200+ posts for someone that isn't posting? That has to be a record.


I'm back bro.

As to getting a CCW, it won't be for a while.
Link Posted: 2/5/2006 1:13:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:

As to getting a CCW, it won't be for a while.



True statement.

Since CCW would be easy compared to legislation dumping the FOID, we're back to my original statement.

Wish all you want, hoping doesn't make things happen.


I was so quiet for a few days...

Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:40:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
I don't think too many of us are old enough to remember 1968.

www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2422



And that is the only article you will ever find that says that. Facts are wrong. The FOID act was passed in 1967, prior to those 1968 riots. That article is posted on every extreme right wing gun nut website pertaining to IL gun laws.

You guys keep helping push Jesse and his cohorts' agenda for them, I'm sure they appreciate it



First off the law did not take effect until 1968 this is off the ISP FOID web site

In 1968, Illinois enacted legislation to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by providing a system of identifying persons who are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms and firearm ammunition within the State of Illinois. The Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) Act established a practical and workable system to identify persons prohibited by Section 24-3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961" as amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition. The Illinois State Police was given the responsibility of administering the Act.

When approved by the the House and Senate Bills do not become law until signed by the Governor and time has to be allowed for public notice. Like you read all the new laws the take effect every Jan 1

Second the riots in Chicago in 1968 had nothing to do with race riots the rioters were hippies. They were all worked up because of McCarthy.

The racial tensions started long before that and continued well beyond 1968.

Third if we are doing are preaching for Jackson and company... How is it every black, Hispanic politician, activist in this state are anti-gun?

Your opinion is result from revisionist history. Someday people will believe the founding fathers are black atheist lesbians instead of white Christian men.

extreme right wing gun nut Damn right and proud of it.


Link Posted: 2/6/2006 6:54:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 6:54:48 PM EDT by Tim84K10]

Originally Posted By etch11:
Someday people will believe the founding fathers are black atheist lesbians instead of white Christian men.



Very foolish statement. You will find the word God nowhere in our constitution (and for a reason). BTW, Thomas Jefferson, among others, WAS an athiest.

<----Christian Libertarian Realist
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:36:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Very foolish statement. You will find the word God nowhere in our constitution (and for a reason). BTW, Thomas Jefferson, among others, WAS an athiest.

<----Christian Libertarian Realist



Jefferson was not an athiest, he maybe touted as on in modern times. He was religious and was actaully a student of Jesus, but he belived that jesus was just a normal man who taught about morals and ethics...he wrote what is now called "The Jefferson Bible", which are passages of his favortie sayings and teachings of JC.

The misunderstanding that he is an athiest comes from the fact that he was skeptical of the governments control in the church, and that the new testament was perverted by those in power. Thats where the fuel for the "Speration of church and state" letter came from. Jeffersons last words were "I resign myself to my God, and my child to my country." So right there he can't be an athiest.

Jefferson was a writing machine, i can only imagine what he would have put to paper if he had a roller ball, reams of paper, incandesent lighting, and an unlimited supply of starbucks. There is no hiding the truth on this and he has been researched to death. He did believe in God as written in the Old testament.

I have no vested intrest in this...I don't buy into organized religion of any sort. I do how ever believe that man should live together in a moral and ethical fashion.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 9:43:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 10:08:00 PM EDT by Tim84K10]
While Jefferson might have been intrigued by the teachings of Jesus Christ, I think it's pretty widely known that he was an athiest. I have seen absolutely no evidence that Jefferson believed that Jesus was the son of God. I admire the teachings of many religious scholars throughout history, but at the end of the day, I'm still a Christian. I believe the same for Jefferson. He might have admired Jesus for his influence on society and history, but he did not believe in him.

It might be safer to say that Mr. Jefferson was Agnostic, not Athiest, but I'm not convinced he believed in any particular God.
Link Posted: 2/6/2006 10:38:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2006 11:15:15 PM EDT by rugger]
Some people.

Anyway keeping a close eye on what happens just south of the boarder.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 4:46:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 4:49:05 AM EDT by 45Ron]

On matters of religion, Jefferson was sometimes accused by his political opponents of being an atheist; however, he is generally regarded as a believer in Deism, a philosophy shared by many other notable intellectuals of his time. Jefferson repeatedly stated his belief in a creator, and in the United States Declaration of Independence uses the terms "Creator", "Nature's God", and "Divine Providence". Jefferson believed, furthermore, it was this Creator that endowed humanity with a number of inalienable rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". His experience in France just before the Revolution made him deeply suspicious of (Catholic) priests and bishops as a force for reaction and ignorance.

Jefferson was raised in the Church of England, at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the American Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." (Letter to Joseph Priestley, April 9, 1803.)



Sorry for the thread drift. For the rcord I am against the FOID and for CCW
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 2:38:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By racecar:
Now that we have to endure background checks from private sellers at gunshows the whole FOID administration is redundant. The background checks do the job that FOID was initialy designed for.



False. FOID was designed to keep guns away from certain people (minorities). It was a racist issue when it was first passed.

Do you really need a backround check to buy a firearm from a private individual now? I knew that you had to comply with the waiting period (which makes it impossible to buy a gun at a gun show anyway) but now you need to use an FFL to sell a firearm at a gun show no matter what?



No, it wasn't. This issue was brought up not too long ago in this very forum. Are you just regurgitating that information, or are you saying that from first hand knowledge? I'm sure you remember it well when the FOID Act was passed.

In 1967.



This can be debated but I grew up in a family that ALL came from Chicago. City workers and some city Cops. The FOID act WAS indeed enacted to keep guns out of the hands of Blacks. It sounds shitty, but it's true.

Remember, Democrats represented the Confederacy in the war of northern aggression.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 2:44:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By codycoyote:
This would be grea if it passed, but we all have to remember that we don't need this to get rid of the FOID law. It's one of the few laws that actually has provisions to get rid of it through statewide referendum. You only need 2% of the voters from each county on a petition to get it on the ballot. Whether the NRA or the ISRA know about that is beyond me, but this was probably the one firearm law in this state that actually gave the people a way to get rid of it.



I never knew that. Cody, you may have the recipe for getting rid of the FOID. I could easily see 2% of voters in all counties, even Cook voting to scrap the FOID.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 6:40:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By etch11:
Someday people will believe the founding fathers are black atheist lesbians instead of white Christian men.



Very foolish statement. You will find the word God nowhere in our constitution (and for a reason). BTW, Thomas Jefferson, among others, WAS an athiest.

<----Christian Libertarian Realist



You are also a victim a revisionist history. What do you think they came here for?

Back TO FOID we need to work at getting it repealed... Problem is even Judy Topinka gets elected would she sign the Bill?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 9:27:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By etch11:
You are also a victim a revisionist history. What do you think they came here for?



They didn't come here. Their ancestors did. It's all fine and dandy for the repubicans to continue this nonsense about christian america, but it's false. Many of the founding fathers didn't believe in religion.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 2:12:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By etch11:
You are also a victim a revisionist history. What do you think they came here for?



They didn't come here. Their ancestors did. It's all fine and dandy for the repubicans to continue this nonsense about christian america, but it's false. Many of the founding fathers didn't believe in THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND's religion.



Fixed that. They were quite in favor of religion. They just did not like being told HOW they should practice it. Freedom of religion was put in the Constitution to ensure that anyone could worship God by whichever religion they chose, and that the country would not be able to specify WHICH religion would be the the national religion. That's what freedom of religion and separation of church and state are about.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 2:25:02 PM EDT

They didn't come here. Their ancestors did. It's all fine and dandy for the repubicans to continue this nonsense about christian america, but it's false. Many of the founding fathers didn't believe in religion.


Sounds like you are trying to justify your antagonism toward God and religion with revisionist history.

You should be thankful (to God) that you live in a country with a Judeo/Christian heritage.

Link Posted: 2/8/2006 2:49:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 45Ron:

They didn't come here. Their ancestors did. It's all fine and dandy for the repubicans to continue this nonsense about christian america, but it's false. Many of the founding fathers didn't believe in religion.


Sounds like you are trying to justify your antagonism toward God and religion with revisionist history.

You should be thankful (to God) that you live in a country with a Judeo/Christian heritage.




Yeah, that Judeo/Christian heritage thing is working out great for England. and Israel. oh, wait, Israel (sorta) has CCW so it's paradise.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:36:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 45Ron:

They didn't come here. Their ancestors did. It's all fine and dandy for the repubicans to continue this nonsense about christian america, but it's false. Many of the founding fathers didn't believe in religion.


Sounds like you are trying to justify your antagonism toward God and religion with revisionist history.

You should be thankful (to God) that you live in a country with a Judeo/Christian heritage.



False. Been a Christian all my life, and don't intend to ever change that.

I am thankful to God that I live in a country where we can choose what religion to practice, or none at all, without fear of persecution.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:52:14 PM EDT
I shouldn't have speculated.

You're still wrong though

Link Posted: 2/8/2006 10:04:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 10:04:56 PM EDT by Tim84K10]

Originally Posted By 45Ron:
I shouldn't have speculated.



Ass/u/me

I mentioned being a christian on page one.
Top Top