This is a discussion on FOID poll within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; This kind of stems from another thread, and I figured I'd start a new one to get peoples opinion on the subject instead of getting ...
View Poll Results: Is the FOID unconstitutional?
- 86. You may not vote on this poll
December 14th, 2007 09:56 AM
This kind of stems from another thread, and I figured I'd start a new one to get peoples opinion on the subject instead of getting off topic on the other thread. I just want to get a show of hands here who thinks the FOID card is unconstitutional. Why or why not?
My opinion is simple its a permit for a right. Citizens shouldn't need permits (permission) for rights i.e. CCW or in Illinois case, the FOID card. I think Vermont has the right idea. It would be like having to get a permit to speak freely, or for due process.
Originally Posted by Gunowners.org
What does everyone else think?
December 14th, 2007 10:17 AM
Well unfortunately although it states "shall not be infringed" it does not say we will not stop the states from keeping an eye on you.
Unconstitutional maybe but that would be a very long hard fight, and me I just do not mind jumping though the hoops as it adds a degree of legitimacy to my CCW.
In the long run the training and background checks make us look less like nut cases to the anti gunners (whom most of which could not pass) when we post the argument of the criminals and their intent, and give us a legal status in the eyes of the court.
Do I like the government having a record of my CCW M not really comfortable with it. No more than the AKA registration "Safety inspection" we have to do here in Mi just to buy a hand gun.
"The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
December 14th, 2007 11:24 AM
I too am all for the Vermont/Alaska standard. In practice Alaska is better because you don't need a permit to carry but can get one for reciprocity reasons with the less free states.
Personally, I have a hard time distinguishing the difference between someone being able to own a firearm (ie. anyone not a felon, etc.) and someone's ability to carry (48 states allow to varying degrees, 2 don't). To me its either a can or can't with no middle ground. Does carrying instantly turn someone into a crazed criminal? I don't think so.
I'd like to hear other's theory on this.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
December 14th, 2007 11:44 AM
It's another form of control by the goverment.
Les Baer 45
N.R.A. Patron Life Member
December 14th, 2007 11:50 AM
"No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, or charge a fee therefore."
Murdock v PA 1943
The only thing I like about having a CPL and FFL is that my prints are taken. If evil should find me, they can at least ID my body when they run my prints through AFIS. Trying to be optimistic.
December 14th, 2007 12:01 PM
+1 Liberty violation = unconstitutional IMO
December 14th, 2007 12:05 PM
the FOID is usually state issued and therefor is a matter for the state constitution...
I still believe it is unconstitutional and wrong and that is how I voted but...
IMHO the federal constitution only reserves our rights for us on a federal level not on a state level...
December 14th, 2007 12:07 PM
But the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states.
December 14th, 2007 12:40 PM
I voted "unconstitutional" - but then again the PRI is hopeless. The voters just keep voting in the communists and socialists and that is why they've got what they got. Demographics plays a part in this scenario as, like has been said, VT has no form of license for carrying or otherwise and AK has a license if you want to apply for one. There isn't any shootouts at the o.k. corral in either of those states. In Chicago, it's vote early and vote often. Maybe Ontario could annex Chicago somehow. They would be a lot more comfortable there.
The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
- Winston Churchill
Endowment Life Member - NRA
Life Member - GOA
Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980
December 14th, 2007 02:04 PM
I don't like the fact you have to wait 30+ days to get a FOID.
Either get rid of it altogether
or, have the ILSP farm it out to local PD or ILSP barracks....fill out the same paperwork, do the background check (10 mins), and give you the FOID. Currently the FOID doesn't require fingerprints, so why they can't do it instantly, I have no idea.
Maybe because IL WANTS to be a socialist state?
- know the differencemartyr
is a fancy name for crappy fighterYou have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know
December 14th, 2007 02:32 PM
1943 - 2009
Most of them, but not the Second, as well the Third; the right to a grand jury indictment (Fifth Amendment); trial by jury in civil cases (Seventh Amendment) and the ban on excessive bail & fines (Eighth Amendment).
Originally Posted by Tubby45
These are known as Unincorporated Rights.
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your God like a soldier.
December 14th, 2007 02:44 PM
Lets see, you have to have a card issued by the state to be in posession of a firearm or ammunition, or to purchase a firearm or ammunition. That doesn't seem to go along with what the constituion says, that is the IL constitution. As far as the US Constitution, there is some room for the states to make thier own laws regarding it. But I voted yes.
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.www.ddchl.com
Texas CHL Instructor
Texas Hunter Education Instructor
December 14th, 2007 03:12 PM
The entire BoR is applicable here. I am completely aware what the "unincorporated rights" are.
Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
Clear text of the 14A:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"immunities" have been upheld as being a term for "rights" or "those rights that are unalienable".
What the law says and how it is applied are two entirely different things. The law as it is applied is unconstitutional. The 14A clearly applies the entire BoR to the states. The justices who have voted to the contrary have done a disservice to the Constitution and to the American people. They should be ashamed.
December 14th, 2007 03:32 PM
Pre 14th amendment I would say no, but now yes. Unincorporated just means that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it correct?
...He suggested that "every American citizen" should own a rifle and train with it on firing ranges "at every courthouse." -Chesty Puller
December 14th, 2007 10:25 PM
No, they have. That's why they are unincorporated. Apparently the Supreme Court dictates what parts of the Bill of Rights they want us peasants to have. Cowards.
By hothoog in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: April 9th, 2010, 08:20 PM
By RXtion in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 4th, 2009, 03:56 PM
By denverbear in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 1st, 2009, 10:00 PM
By kentuckycarry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: March 2nd, 2008, 01:37 PM
By rabywk in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: September 21st, 2007, 08:28 PM
Search tags for this page
foid card unconstitutional
foid cards are unconstitutional
illinois foid unconstitutional
poll of should the bill of rights be fully incorporated to the states? poll
Click on a term to search for related topics.