Posted: 5/23/2008 7:17:11 AM EDT
|
"Illinois Police Revoke Gun Owner ID of Husband of Missing Mom Lisa Stebic" The cheif requested the card be pulled and it was; Another subject guilty until proven innocent! I am going to double the tin foil! |
|
THIS IS BULLSHIT. Check me if I'm wrong here: ILGA Link HERE Version 1 (current): 
The only grounds I can see them using would be this section:
But who makes that determination? Here's the new version - goes into effect June 1st. The only difference I can find is the inclusion of the "adjudicated" language - nice of them to feel the need to duplicate already existing federal Code... our tax dollars at work:
|
doesnt apply to this case, but in other cases
GCA 68 prohibits persons under indictment for a felony or crime the would result in 1 year or more in jail from aquiring firearms. That would be grounds for revoking a foid card because of the section above. That wouldn't prohibit you from owning by federal law, but it would de facto prevent you from owning in IL because the foid act was written poorly. |
OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Phohibition on the acquisition of new firearms, or the continued ownership & posession of those already in your posession? Too bad all the poster kids for this "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" style legal parody aren't choirboys. With the exception of the commodities guy in Lake Forest I don't think I'd invite either Stebec or Peterson to the corner bar for a beer. |
Agreed, agreed... it's just tough to find someone to throw before the courts on a challenge that the general public isn't already skeptical of. |
Agreed. However, they could argue that the phone AR-15 SBR issue is a cause if he did not register it properly. Ergo-weapons charge. All still bullshit. |
...and that's the winning answer. Illinoisians are the proud owners of the most corrupt state .gov in the country. Shitcago is owned by thug politians period. I firmly believe voting is a joke in this state. I have said before, but been "corrected" before by some here, that we have the worst gunlaws in the 50 states. No CCW of any kind, and the FOID with it's "for-any-reason-we-want" refused/restrictions. What more could a POS liberial want ? Grrrr ! |
|
Thanks to sections e & f my hubby just lost his and all he did was go for an EVAL!!!! Now he needs to find a new field to work in. The DAMNED DR DOES NOT even PLAN on signing for him to get it back. Just really kick someone when they are down. Illannoy my ass this has turned into a COMMUNIST STATE!!!!!! Just venting...need to get $$$ together to finalize getting mine. |
Please provide specifics if possible. Your husband went to the Dr. for work, I assume, and was found to be a danger to someone? and his FOID was revoked? The reason I ask is that I don't go to doctors and this is one reason why. |
For whatever it may (or may not) be worth, I know an extremely 2nd amendment friendly doctor in Alsip, IL (AAMOF, he's a hard-core gun-nut=). |
THAT's the part nobody seems to understand. Sadly, like California, the Chicago area is where the money is at.  If it were as simple as "moving away from that shit hole" it'd be,... well simple. But real live has a way of making the most simplistic ideas complicated. |
|
I moved away. You only really have 2 choices. Move or become uber-activist about your second amendment right. The real issue is the Anti-s outweigh the Pro's. It crosses party lines and in the end it's big money and lobbyists who are in control of Illinois. Lived there all my life. The state just sucks top to bottom from Cairo to Antioch. Getting out of Illinois literally changed my life and entire perspective. |
Well one reason the Anti's out number the pro's, in my opinion, is the FOID card. We all hate it for obvious reasons, but check this one out: Every range Ive been to requires a FOID card. Now... How am I supposed to get an Anti-gun friend to fill out the ap, pay whatever $ it costs now, wait 12 weeks, then come to the range with me? Almost impossibe. Ive passed out Foid apps to a few of my lib friends. I even offered to pay postage and mail it for them. It never gets filled out. The one thats was filled out was denied because the picture didnt pass requirements.  He never sent another one back in.
|
I am going to have to dis-agree with ya on that. I can think of a few cases where they had labeled the wrong person "suspect" and spent a lot of time with them labeled thusly. Examples? OK, Jon Benet Ramsey's murder had her parents labeled suspect, dragged thru hell and back only to be cleared by dna THIS year. How bout that olympic security guard they labeled as a suspect in the Atlanta bombing, dragged thru the media and then whoops, you aren't the one we want.... I am sure there are quite a few more. I live in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty, sorry, if you have enough evidence, arrest, prosecute and incarcerate, but don't strip rights of someone, because you "think" they did something wrong. Just cause someone is found guilty in the media circus doesn't make it true, they might be right, they may be wrong, or they may be out to sell papers and gain more ratings. We know that the media is always concerned about getting all their facts straight before releasing a story right? 
|
Well stated. Peterson may be guilty as sin, but he hasn't been found that in a court yet, and I don't want RechtsanwaltFührer Madigan deciding that by the mere facts that I own an EBR and have been known to make my RKBA position known that I have a "propensity towards violent behavior" and revoke my FOID "for the common good". |
A number of ranges I've been to allow at least one FOID card holder to personally supervise one (sometimes 2) non-FOID holders. I know Gun World (now in limbo) did it. JR Shooting Sports in Aurora may be the same way, I don't recall. Buffalo Rock doesn't require you show a FOID either. Alternatively, you could always go across the border to Wisconsin or Indiana, some nice ranges where they don't need to check your "papieren, bitte". You might ask your local range if they specifically require each person to have a FOID, or just one of your group. |
|
Well stated. Peterson may be guilty as sin, but he hasn't been found that in a court yet, and I don't want RechtsanwaltFührer Madigan deciding that by the mere facts that I own an EBR and have been known to make my RKBA position known that I have a "propensity towards violent behavior" and revoke my FOID "for the common good". Excuse me sir, he "hid" a DUTY ONLY" sbr, that he should have turned in, upon him leaving as an LEO. His ex-wife was exhumed and found to be a homicide victim, and the current one is missing. I'd rather the powers that be error on the side of sensibility, not wait till one or more deed's are done. |
He did not "hide it" as you allege, unles his "buddies" at the ISP were concealing it for him. From the original article (and IL HTF Thread):
And the "illegal" "assault rifle" - note the "Short barrel" courtesy of the ISP removed flash hider: 
I'm not denying that he appears guilty and probably had a hand (or the hand) in past events. What I am stating is that I believe that the barrel length may have been 16" - before the flash hider was removed. I also don't think the ISP is above "doctoring" evidence to "assist" in the prosecution of someone they feel is guilty - kind of like "finding" a weapon next to the pile of coke you just busted the dirtbag for - whether it was there when the warrant was served or not... especially with the attitudes in this state about guns. And what if we relied on the the definition of "sensible" according to Madigan, Daley, Blago, Stroger, Meeks and Jones? Would you blindly accept being stripped of your RKBA (even if it was "only" so-called assault weapons) simply to make the public feel safer, because any of us gun owners could go and commit one more gun crime? For anti-gun politicians, such an action would certainly be "sensible". Peterson got kicked down the slippery slope by a technicality in the FOID statutes, and I really don't want to be forced to follow. |
I believe the JBTs did pay a visit on Richard Jewell and confiscate his guns.....they were constantly leaking private information about him to the mediots as well. |
|
Sir, I tried to put this to rest, with both parties happy, but you wouldn't accomodate that idea. Let it go. Quoting the 'Mein Kampf" (in previous post's) does not make you a scholar. As to the rest...Richard Jewell was screwed, but paid well afterwards, doing appearences on TV, and a comp package from the Gov't. He DID not die a poor man....on a security guards salary. Someone brought up the Benet family....well you'd be hard pressed to find a half-dozen people in America (that don't live in "double wides) that didn't think "someone" in the family was guilty. Now new DNA said it wasn't a family member. So be it. The husband and son will clean up on this as we all know. Using your analogy, they NEVER should have taken the dog's away from Michael Vick, or the gun's away from "Tank Johnson". I'm not doing this to p*** you off, I'd rather put it to rest. I believe in the right to own arms. We live in one of the most restrictive states in the Union. We have to deal with it, or change it. But the old adage of "Where there is smoke, there is fire" must kick in at some time.....I prefer to call it COMMON SENSE! I've been a FFL dealer for 23 years, and if I was a suspect (and innocent) in a case, and asked/told to surrender my arms's, I'd do so. It'd be like Vegas comes to you, and hand the atty. 1/3 of the settlement and move on. Have a good day, MPL |
If you were indeed innocent and despite that would have no issue with being forced to surrender your guns that you may or may never see again, I think that is highly irrational and doesn't seem to reconcile with a RKBA stance at all. You have a constitutional right to keep them, and the government's ability to take them away should be strictly scruitinized. By what authority are they going to make you surrender your guns? You are not a felon in possession, you are not even subject to a (end run around) order of protection, or domestic violence charge. I certainly would not comply with a request to voluntary surrender my firearms for no cause other than I was under investigation or being charged with something I didn't commit. I'm with Tango7 and CosmicOneDer on this. BTW, a friend of mine had his FOID administratively revoked because he broke up with his erstwhile girlfriend over the phone by saying he "didn't want to talk to her again." Whereupon she calls the cops and tells them she thinks she heard a shotgun racking in the background and that she feared he would commit suicide (all unfounded -- he was driving at the time). The cops go to the guys house and force him to go the the ER to get checked out by a shrink. He was cleared within a few hours. Based upon the simple fact of his going to the ER and shrink for a forced evaluation, his FOID was revoked. Now, he was able to get it reinstated through administrative appeal (after like six to nine months), but the point is that it is FAR too easy for them to yank your FOID without cause or due process, not to mention even a (perhaps bogus or case of mistaken identity) criminal investigation or charge. |
MPL, [Drill Sergeant]You don't have to call me "Sir", I work for a living.  [/Drill Sergeant]I owe you thanks and a response for your re-entering the discussion. The sudden conclusion of your posts appeared to be less of a "gentlemanly withdrawl" and more of a "provoke and retreat"; you made certain arguments that were easily disproved by research, and then withdrew from the discussion. I appreciate your response, and I respect your opinion. I do not think less of you for it, and I hope you do not think less of me for mine. This was not meant as a "Calling out" by any means - perhaps it is a defect in my logic processing, or a product of my Jesuit-educated parents and a Socratic method based education, but as my Mother once said - "if you're gonna bring it, you better be prepared to back it up."  I hate to see a person who enjoys the same hobbies as I do, and the same freedoms, who is under the same never ending assaults from Chicago and Springfield operate under what I believe must be misconceptions or misunderstandings of events. That said, I don't know if there's a middle gound that will leave both parties happy - perhaps "equally dissatisfied" is a better rejoinder. If you choose after reading this to cease posting on this issue, or to simply remain assured of the validity of your position, I will respect your wishes. We now return you to your thread already in progress...
Now that I will take as a slam, even if not ill-intentioned. What makes one a 'scholar' in your estimation? Is it the simple pursuit of knowledge, or the ability to regurgitate a specific set of factoids upon command? Must a 'scholar' have a requisite set of core knowledge, and must it be limited to a specific field or diversified in a certain measure? Is it achieving a college degree? A certain Intelligence Quotient? The quote was not meant as a throwout tidbit to attempt to persuade the casual reader of my knowledge, expertise, or education. It was instead intended to display an extreme distaste for what I see as extrajudicial and outright unconstitutional actions by a state government that has already made its opinion of gun owners more than clear. The reference to Hitler was thus an obvious ploy in an attempt to portray the actions of the state as totalitarian. Additionally, it was to serve renewed notice to others in the Illannoys gun community that the ISP is playing "dirty pool" with those they can't rein in by other means, and that they should expect more of this in the future. As for my worthiness to speak on the topic or use the source materials I choose? I allow my history of publication in a variety of media around the country (and the munificent reviews of my IL HTF colleagues  ) to speak for me.
From the sources I found, most of the monies recovered from settlements went to the lawyers who filed the cases. While he was able to find fulfillment in a law-enforcement career, can one ever be "compensated" for doing the right thing in the first place and then being branded a criminal one page one of every national newspaper? Unlike the wrongly convicted people the NU Medill Innocence Project parade before the press, Jewell had no "laundry list" of prior felony offenses to mistakenly steer investigators in his direction. But in a similar fashion, what price can one place on their innocence?
Or will the fourth estate retreat behind the culpability of the information sources they turned to, and suddenly claim that they were mere "pawns of the moment", and are thus not liable for the insinuation and innuendo they conveyed with the false image of fact?
O RLY? I've gotta call  on this one, if only on the most basic difference of situations.Let's review the facts available to the public. 1) Michael Vick was charged with felony level crimes and pled guilty. Wiki Ref
He was also charged with felony level Dog Fighting and Animal neglect under Virginia laws (Surry County), but the charges are pending until he is released from USP Leavenworth. Reference As someone who knows officers who were involved in the Johnson investigation, it's an odd chance you should mention this case. More review: 2) Terrence "Tank" Johnson Okay, they're Wiki Facts, but are correct enough in relating the facts for the purposes of this discussion.
As a part of the plea arrangement, and to avoid a felony - and thus a permanent loss of his RKBA, he willingly surrendered his firearms and agreed to not possess them for the duration of his probation.
Although the articles refer to "unlicensed", what they most likely meant to say was Williams lacked an FOID.
So in the end, he winds up with a costly legal bill (plus $5k additional  to the Gurnee Police and the Gurnee Exchange Club's child abuse prevention program), but only a misdemeanor on his record.The difference between Vick, Johnson, and Peterson? 1) Vick was charged with Felony level offenses on a federal and local level, which both the information, indictment, and conviction of is enough to remove his RKBA, either temporarily or permanently. 2) Johnson was charged with a weapons offense that can be either misdemeanor or felony; as part of a plea bargain to keep it from being "upgraded", he willingly surrendered his RKBA as a part of his probation. He then got caught violating the probation. 3) Peterson has not been placed under information of a pending indictment, charged (indicted) with a felony or convicted of one - yet.
I appreciate that, and thus the non-confrontational tone of this response. As far as "fighting the power"? Agreed 100%. And since my first "Letter to the Editor" was published in 1985, I have been doing my small part to keep Chicago style restrictions out of the rest of the state.
We appear to mostly agree in this regard. Something about Peterson doesn't pass the "Smell test". He may be innocent as the day is long, but he "feels" greasy. If he's truly innocent I won't say such an opinion may be morally "correct", but I can't help but feel he's concealing something. But once we allow our opinions, feelings and hunches to take precedent over a legally guaranteed right, we march in unwitting lock-step with the anti's who would disarm us in the name of "public safety" because they feel "guns have no other purpose than to kill people".
You would comply with the law... which he did - in October of last year. The SBR charge was filed this May while the rifle was still in the possession of the ISP.
 I'm not exactly following that one, but I hope you have a good day as well.  Tango7 |
|
I think the point that needs to be re-iterated here is that Drew Peterson, slimey guy or not, was in posession of the rifle while a member of the Bolingbrook Police Dept. He turned the rifle over to the Illinois State Police in October. He resigned from teh police Dept. in January. In May, with the rifle *still in Illinois State Poilce possession* they charge him with ownership of an illegal Short Barrel Rifle. I think what stinks to everyone here is, assuming it was legal for his duty rifle to be an SBR in the first place, he essentially was put in an untenable position...he couldn't very well pull the SBR upper off while it was in ISP posession. ...and I don't think anyone has the warm fuzzies from Drew Peterson, I think the *real* concern is that the ISP can just yank your FOID with no justification at all if they want to, and you lose your 2nd ammendment rights with no recourse. |
|
And I only made one post in this thread. I was gone from last Wed to tonight, camping, sans computer. So let me chime in now. The points are; 1. No charges have been filed. 2. No violations per code have been charged or resulted in a conviction. 3. No VALID reason to LEGALLY pull his FOID. 4. You seem to have swallowed all the crap the media has spewed in the case. 5. You are upset cause the US has innocent until proven guilty and think that it should be innocent until the media says so? Did I miss anything? |