Gambi80 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 http://www.lincolncourier.com/newsnow/x868510903/FOID-card-records-focus-of-disputeLong story short, Lisa Madigan-IL Atty General, feels that the names of people who have FOID cards should be public record. Much like a phone book for gun owners. Personally, I don't own a gun nor do I have a FOID card. But sooner or later down the road I might. At any rate, I thought this woman wasn't half bad until this. Most have her pegged for the next gov of IL. With her as governor and her father as senate president...can't wait to see what phucked up crap they come up with. Quote Ever wonder how a blind person knows when to stop wiping? Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 This might not be such a bad idea. At least the crooks who are smart enough to read will know who's house not to go to. I've often thought these liberal bastards pushing gun controls should be required to post a sign in their own front yard that reads "Homeowner does not own a gun". Quote Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/#findComment-73901 Share on other sites More sharing options...
vision386 Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Like this one?????? Quote Mack Truck literate. Computer illiterate. Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/#findComment-73929 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyRebel Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 How do I feel? How the F*** do you THINK I feel about it? Why not publish a list of everyone who chooses to exercise the "right" to an abortion? At least the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is found in the actual TEXT of the Constitution....not "interpreted" in through a series of questionable court decisions. I've been corresponding with my state rep over the proposed conceal carry legislation....used that to reinforce the urgency of one of my points. This reply is in regards to the privacy issue I raised in my previous e-mail, which has only been made more urgent due the recent opinion provided by Attorney General Lisa Madigan that the names of FOID card holders ought to be public record. http://www.lincolncourier.com/newsnow/x868510903/FOID-card-records-focus-of-disputeWhen the attorney general’s office makes the statement that the public has “a legitimate interest” in having the information about who has the right to possess a gun, they are grossly misunderstanding exactly who has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and perhaps the lawyers in the Attorney General's office need to read Article 1 Section 22 of the Illinois State Constitution which CLEARLY states that subject only to the police powers of the state, THE RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. In other words, we do not NEED a FOID card to have the Right to have a gun....only if we choose to have the opportunity to exercise that right.I fully support any and ALL efforts made to keep the names of gun owners confidential. We are not required by the state to "register" before exercising any OTHER rights recognized under the US and Illinois State Constitutions, and Lisa Madigan has clearly demonstrated why the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 1 Section 22 of the Illinois State Constitution should be no different.Codifying the privacy rights of ALL gun owners needs to be a top priority.Sincerely,RowdyRebelVoter, 115th District---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------On 3/1/2011 11:29 AM, Mike Bost wrote:> Dear RowdyRebel:> > Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. I will certainly give a copy of your e-mail correspondence to our research staff. I do appreciate you sharing it with me.> > Again, thanks for your input.>> Sincerely,>> Mike Bost>> State Representative>> 115th District>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->> >> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 12:46:38 -0600>> From: RowdyRebel's e-mail address>> To: RowdyRebel's State Rep's e-mail address>>Subject: HB0148>>>> While I fully support bringing concealed carry to Illinois, there are a few sections of the proposed legislation with which I have serious problems.>>>> First of all, Section 65 on page 12 lines 19 through 25 regarding the privacy of permit holders and applicants where it states that:>>>> 19 >> No State or local law enforcement agency shall provide a>> 20 >> list of names of any or all holders or applicants in the State>> 21 >> of Illinois or a county licensed to carry a concealed firearm,>> 22 >> except that the Department of State Police or sheriff may, upon>> 23 >> proper application and the payment of the required fee, provide>> 24 >> to the requester, in written form only, confirmation that an>> 25 >> individual has or has not been issued, applied for, or denied a>> >> >>>> >> HB0148 - 13 - LRB097 02774 RLC 42796 b>>>> 1 >> permit, or had a permit revoked under this Act. No identifying>> 2 >> information other than the name shall be provided.>>>> The names of permit holders needs to be better protected to ensure that just anyone cannot pay the fee to request this confirmation about another person. For example, what would prohibit a stalker or any other person with criminal intentions from requesting confirmation as to whether or not the target of their criminal actions has a permit? What would prohibit an employer from making a confirmation request on his employees or applicants for employment...and then harassing permitted employees or not hiring permitted applicants? If a news agency makes the request, there should be protections in place which would prohibit them from publishing or broadcasting the name of the permit holder. Our criminal justice system is SUPPOSED to operate under the assumption that a person is "innocent until PROVEN guilty," however the news media tends to convict a person long before the court proceedings ever get under way. I have no problem with this information being readily available to law enforcement to use in the course of doing their jobs...however, whether an individual does or does not have a permit is NOBODY'S business outside of law enforcement. Either the personal information...INCLUDING names...ought to be unavailable, or the fee for requesting confirmation on each individual name ought to be prohibitively high so that these requests for confirmation are few and far between.>>>>>> Then we get to Section 70 on page 13, specifically the prohibitions on where a permitted person may carry within the state. Most of the restrictions are fairly general in nature, common across many states which have passed similar legislation. In some cases, such as subsections viii and ix on page 16, there are exceptions to the prohibition if permission is granted by those in charge of the facility.>>>> 2 >> (viii) Inside any elementary or secondary school>> 3 >> facility without the consent of school authorities.>> 4 >> (ix) Any portion of a building used as a child care>> 5 >> facility without the consent of the manager. Nothing in>> 6 >> this Section shall prevent the operator of a child care>> 7 >> facility in a family home from owning or possessing a>> 8 >> firearm or permit.>>>> However, in subsection xiii regarding religious institutions, there is no allowance for those who run the facility to allow members of the congregation to carry....and it is a misdemeanor to carry where the state has prohibited a permitted person from carrying.>>>> 14 >> (xiii) A church or other place of religious worship.>> 15 >> A violation of this subsection (a) is a Class A>> 16 >> misdemeanor.>>>> There should either be a "without the consent of church authorities" clause added, or line number 14 ought to be stricken from the legislation.>>>> Now on to page 17, subsection ©.>>>> 14 >> © Any owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a>> 15 >> private business enterprise, or any other organization,>> 16 >> entity, or person that prohibits persons holding a permit for>> 17 >> concealed firearms from carrying concealed firearms on the>> 18 >> premises shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal>> 19 >> act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed>> 20 >> firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on>> 21 >> the premises.>>>> While I fully support the property rights of the individual who may wish to prohibit firearms from his or her property....and I also fully support this clause to make the property owner civilly liable for the safety of people on his or her property in the event of a criminal attack should the property owner make the choice to disarm his or her customers....I am curious if the STATE will likewise assume civil liability for injuries resulting from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm if that attack took place in a location where the permitted person was prohibited from carrying (and therefore disarmed) by the State? It only seems reasonable that if the State shall demand property owners to assume civil liability for the actions of criminals when the property owner disarms a person permitted to carry, then the State should also assume civil liability for the actions of criminals when the State is the responsible party for the disarming of the permitted individual.>>>>>> I would like to thank you for supporting this concealed carry legislation. Even though there are portions of it I am concerned about, it is better than what we currently have.>>>> Sincerely,>>>>>> RowdyRebel>> Voter, 115th District Quote When approaching a 4-way stop, the vehicle with the biggest tires has the right of way! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/#findComment-74027 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambi80 Posted March 5, 2011 Author Share Posted March 5, 2011 Boy, that's an interesting twist proposing that an individual be held liable for requiring that a visitor to one's property be 'disarmed' while on said property and in the event that something happened that could have been prevented had said individual remained armed. Freaking lawyer driving truck I tell ya. Quote Ever wonder how a blind person knows when to stop wiping? Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/#findComment-74040 Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyRebel Posted March 5, 2011 Share Posted March 5, 2011 Boy, that's an interesting twist proposing that an individual be held liable for requiring that a visitor to one's property be 'disarmed' while on said property and in the event that something happened that could have been prevented had said individual remained armed. Freaking lawyer driving truck I tell ya.Under the proposed concealed carry legislation, any property owner or business owner could effectively make his property or business a "gun-free" zone by posting signs. If the signs are posted, your permit to carry is nullified....you do not have the right to carry on that property or in that business. However, violation of this is not a crime...you will simply be denied admission or asked to leave if already inside. If you choose to disarm so that you may enter the property or business, and the property or business falls victim to a criminal attack and you are injured, the property or business owner is civilly liable for the injuries you sustain during that criminal attack. In other words, they have the right to post the sign...and you have the right to sue them if a criminal act occurs while you are present.I merely ask that the state assume the same liability in the locations where the state has mandated I be disarmed. I find it to be quite foolish to disarm a law-abiding citizen, since cops are rarely around when you need them and are under no obligation to respond to any individual's call for help.Yeah, that's right. You can't sue the cops for not showing up when you call...even if your life is in danger.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/postsThat being the case, I'd like to have the tools I need to ensure that I can adequately look after my own safety, as well as the safety of my family.I've never quite understood why a bank is allowed to hire an armed rent-a-cop to protect the federally insured (and replaceable) money...but a parent (at least here in Illinois) cannot carry a gun to protect his/her irreplaceable children.Everybody needs a hobby, and I find the law to be quite interesting. If you're going to play the game, you've gotta know the rules. Quote When approaching a 4-way stop, the vehicle with the biggest tires has the right of way! Link to comment https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/18200-rowdy/#findComment-74043 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.