Posted on 09/08/2004 9:42:10 PM PDT by Stew Padasso
The Amendments to the constitution either ALL take precedence over the states or NONE of them take precedence over the states, IMO of course.
Sounds to me like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Ours were made through the republican process of democratic election of lawmakers. Therefore, they (as ill-advised as some are) have more moral weight than Triple George's pronouncements.
Nope - I agree completely. Gun people are notorious - working with them is like herding cats. If 85 million rose up, you'd have something like 84 million "generals" and 1 million privates.
Actually, I also disagree. Not with the facts stated there, but the overall interpretation of the 14th.
I don't agree that the 14th was meant to incorporate any of the BOR. The BOR were written to place restrictions on the federal government. Applying them to the states, which the founders could have done but chose not to, destroys the whole concept of federalism.
For example, each state could decide on freedom of speech. If a state wished to recognize nude dancing as "speech", fine. If not, fine also. As it is, the USSC defined "speech" for all the states. Where's the federalism in that?
So, it's not only applying the amendment to the states, it's also subjecting the states to the identical USSC interpretation.
Ask yourself -- what if the USSC incorporates the second amendment, then determines that the RKBA does not include concealed carry? That you only may "bear arms" as part of a militia activity?
This is not as far fetched as it may seem. Some lower federal courts have already ruled this way. Plenty of precedent to draw on.
Let's be careful what we wish for.
bttt
The statue for firearm possession merely requires one to have a FOID formerly issued by the state police. All other statutes related to FOIDs (transport, purchase, etc.) explicitly require a current, unexpired FOID but the statute for mere possession does not.
In a way this makes sense, as it provides that the state cannot make someone a criminal by sitting on the person's FOID renewal. If the person's FOID expires before the replacement arrives, the person would be unable to purchase firearms or ammunition in the interim, and would be required to disassemble all firearms for transport, but would not be made a criminal provided he complied with the interim restrictions.
It does make perfect sense. Unfortunately, it's not true.
According to my information, the relevant statute states:
"(430 ILCS 65/2) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-2)
Sec. 2. Firearm Owner's Identification Card required; exceptions.
(a) (1) No person may acquire or possess any firearm within this State without having in his or her possession a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act."
Granted, it doesn't say "current" -- it says "previously issued". So, on the surface, it would appear that you are correct.
But it says "acquire or possess" so it must mean current -- you cannot acquire a firearm with an expired FOID.
Can you point me to the relevant statute to which you're referring?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.