Non-Political Gun Talk (On topic)

[bbsam]

Are you assuming she purchased it in IL and the seller was required to verify the FOID before making the sale?
You know where I’m going.
I had a small arsenal that I’ve taken with me from state to state and I don’t read every dumb law they have on the books.

It wouldn’t matter. Regardless of how she got it Illinois would see it as illegal without the FOID card. That would put FOID and the judge’s ruling in obvious conflict because the ruling at this point applies only to this case. So if the decision withstands appeal, I don’t know how the law can be allowed to stand.

 

[bbsam]

Are you assuming she purchased it in IL and the seller was required to verify the FOID before making the sale?
You know where I’m going.
I had a small arsenal that I’ve taken with me from state to state and I don’t read every dumb law they have on the books.

I also agree there are a lot of dumb gun laws. But the Bruen decision that Justice Thomas wrote is a comical piece of nonsense. It’s like Thomas went to Sovereign Citizen University for his law degrees. I imagine the SCOTUS will spend several more years contorting itself around to reign in what amounted to many gun enthusiasts’ “wet dream” of a decision.

 

[Lineandinitial]

It wouldn’t matter. Regardless of how she got it Illinois would see it as illegal without the FOID card. That would put FOID and the judge’s ruling in obvious conflict because the ruling at this point applies only to this case. So if the decision withstands appeal, I don’t know how the law can be allowed to stand.

Yes it would. Non-resident? Resident within 60 days...
There are multiple caveats, but your direct quote was:

"Interesting ruling. As I understand it, if this judge’s ruling is upheld, the FOID act is difficult to uphold. How would Brown legally obtain a firearm -------bought it out of state
if the ruling is that she legally owned it in her home? As the law stands now, she would have to illegally obtain the weapon to be able to have it in her home.--------key word you used is obtain and that is incorrect
That obviously makes no sense."

Illinois gives 60 days from "establishing residency" to obtain an ID. The gun could have been LEGALLY obtained outside of Illinois.

I'm splitting hairs, but my comments are based on what you wrote, and not what you possibly meant

 

[bbsam]

Yes it would. Non-resident? Resident within 60 days...
There are multiple caveats, but your direct quote was:

"Interesting ruling. As I understand it, if this judge’s ruling is upheld, the FOID act is difficult to uphold. How would Brown legally obtain a firearm -------bought it out of state
if the ruling is that she legally owned it in her home? As the law stands now, she would have to illegally obtain the weapon to be able to have it in her home.--------key word you used is obtain and that is incorrect
That obviously makes no sense."

Illinois gives 60 days from "establishing residency" to obtain an ID. The gun could have been LEGALLY obtained outside of Illinois.

I'm splitting hairs, but my comments are based on what you wrote, and not what you possibly meant

Ok. I agree. You’re splitting hairs. But in doing so you’re opening up another reason that the FOID act could be challenged in its entirety.

If the judge’s ruling stands and your scenario plays out where people move into the state with legally obtained firearms, then the law remaining as it is creates a protected class without the requirement to obtain a FOID card. That creates an additional exemption to FOID for a legal firearm that is not codified in Illinois law.

My overall impression is that FOID is on a collision course with being found either unconstitutional or at the very least impossible constitutionally amend in any coherent manner.

 

[Lineandinitial]

Ok. I agree. You’re splitting hairs. But in doing so you’re opening up another reason that the FOID act could be challenged in its entirety.

If the judge’s ruling stands and your scenario plays out where people move into the state with legally obtained firearms, then the law remaining as it is creates a protected class without the requirement to obtain a FOID card. That creates an additional exemption to FOID for a legal firearm that is not codified in Illinois law.

My overall impression is that FOID is on a collision course with being found either unconstitutional or at the very least impossible constitutionally amend in any coherent manner.

As I said
Illinois gives people 60 days from establishing residency to obtain an ID

 

[burrheadd]

Are you assuming she purchased it in IL and the seller was required to verify the FOID before making the sale?
You know where I’m going.
I had a small arsenal that I’ve taken with me from state to state and I don’t read every dumb law they have on the books.

Good way to get locked up ATF don’t about