Illinois judge rules FOID card 'unconstitutional'

[yagotme]

13. Call a poll tax a "fee" to defray costs of the election...

See how this works?

And the state was approx. 5-6 months behind, prior to Covid, so "normal" is a questionable thing. There are lawsuits filed against the state, as it was supposed to be a 1-2 month wait for responses. The state being behind, even with NICS call ins, can cause a delay to purchase, instead of a proceed. This is in conjunction with a 3-day waiting period. If I have a FOID card, and an "Instant" background check, why am I required to wait, also? Heat of the moment? I already have had a FOID for several years, so chances are high I already have a firearm to use.

"The comparison of the right to vote to the right to own a firearm is just too silly to merit a response."

What, to compare constitutional rights is "silly"? (And yet, you did respond.) Anything else in the Bill of Rights you want delayed, fees applied, or taken away? And, you state that

"similar to other modest fees charged by most governments to defray the expense of the paperwork and record keeping for all sorts of documentation"

could, and have been, applied to poll taxes.

Ahh, restrictions, and "constitutional carry". How about "constitutional speech"? Does that sound like a silly arrangement?

U.S. v Miller: A lot of gun prohibitionists love to use this court case, but basically he was denied in absentia, as he was deceased at the time of the hearing. The court denied the possession of the "sawed off shotgun", as it was "not in current usage by the military." Remember that statement. The court WAS wrong, as shotguns were in use at the time, the "trench broom". Now, if one reads the noted statement above, it would seem that the court at that time would view a "current" military arm as permissible use. Let the meaning of that sink in.

My belief: A "citizen", one of the "people" listed in the 2d, is one who has lawful citizenship, not been convicted of any felony which carries a sentence of over 1 year incarceration, and is of lawful age to vote. This is the base from which I would expound on. Mental patients, those who don't have full control of their faculties (Severe Alzheimers, etc.), temporary bans on assault charges, domestics, etc. Younger children allowed to handle weapons under parental supervision. As far as type of weapon, no extreme mass casualty type. No, I don't want John Brown down the street to keep a Trident III missile with a multi-tipped nuclear payload in his front yard. However, if he has, and can afford, a 155mm howitzer, and has a place to safely shoot it (not likely, anyway), I'd love to see it go off. People legally own machine guns, mortars, bazookas, and even tanks with functioning armaments. Know why you never see these in the news? Because they're LEGALLY owned, by upright citizens, and the cost of the system/fees, and jail time if used inappropriately, keeps them in check. Along with NOT wanting to murder anybody. The machine guns you DO see in the news, are either illegal ones, or not really machineguns. Because few in the media don't know what they're reporting on, with knowledge of firearms. Everything's either a Glock, an AK-47, or an AR-15/M-16. Hope this clears some things up.