Posted on 09/08/2004 9:42:10 PM PDT by Stew Padasso
According to the Illinois State Constitution (above), the state has the power to require a license and registration.
Yes, you must register your firearms with the state. Yes, you must have a valid FOID card to possess these weapons.
But, "when the person's Firearm Owner's Identification Card is expired but the person is not otherwise disqualified from renewing the card, is a Class A misdemeanor".
"Sec. 13.2. The Department of State Police shall, 60 days prior to the expiration of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, forward by first class mail to each person whose card is to expire a notification of the expiration of the card and an application which may be used to apply for renewal of the card. It is the obligation of the holder of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card to notify the Department of State Police of any address change since the issuance of the Firearm Owner's Identification Card."
Effective May 1, 2002, certain, previously legal, guns were banned in the City of Chicago (funny that the above article, while being quite specific about other facts, fails to mention the type of firearm confiscated).
AFAIK, these banned firearms were "assault style" weapons. Owning or possessing handguns within Chicago city limits has been banned for years.
LOL. Why did I know you would show up here standing up for the gun grabbers?
LOL! Stating facts is "standing up for the gun grabbers"?
They are trying to run up statistics in order to be able to say "see what a large problem we have - give us more funding next year." That they are doing this to law-abiding citizens who present virtually zero risk to the "officers" in question is merely cream on the cake for them. Of course, none of this increases the safety of anyone in Chicago, as all of the gang-bangers still have their guns. In fact, since there are now less guns in the hands of the average citizen, the average citizen is LESS safe and more at the mercy of the very criminals that Mayor und Fuehrer Daley professes to want to protect them against.
You are so blinded by the "religion" of being "law-abiding" that you've completely disgarded common sense and morality. Only just or sensible laws need to be obeyed in order to be law-abiding. What if the federal government passed a law that said "In the interest of the health of the nation, and to reduce the levels of harmful stress, effective immediately every resident of the United States must awaken at or before 7 A.M. in their respective time zone, must do 25 pushups and 50 jumping jacks within 15 minutes thereof, and must immediately thereafter utter the phrase "I fart in your general direction" at a volume of at least 87 decibels. Failure to comply with this statute shall be a felony, punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, jail time not to exceed 2 years, or both. The Federal Department of Imbecilic Busybodies shall have the power to enact regulations in furtherance of this law." So, every one of us that failed to obey this "law" would be a felon and would (to stay reasonably on topic) therefore be legally unable to ever own a firearm. The CAGE unit would be on your doorstep faster than Mayor Daley could say "Send zem to ze kooler!"
OK, the above example is a bit absurd, but does the concept of having to obey any law, no matter how absurd, in order to be considered "law abiding" make any sense? For a long time there have been so many laws and regulations on the books that it is virtually impossible to obey all of them - and this becomes a bigger problem every year. I can tell you that I personally break some law at least once a day, yet I don't consider myself a "criminal." The situation reminds me of the following quote:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
You know who the real criminals are? It is the @ssholes that create this entangling web of incomprehensible nearly innumerable and often contradictory laws that no person, not even a federal judge, can know, understand or obey.
I would remind you that the Founding Fathers and all of those who fought with them against the tyrant, George III and his minions were "lawbreakers." Yet they were not criminals by any stretch of the imagination - they were heroes of the first order for having broken the chains of a myriad of unjust and incomprehensible laws, chains which nearly destroyed the freedom of all those living in the 13 colonies. Laws like those being discussed in this thread are the same sort of laws that caused a revolution, and may do so again.
Check out # 47.
If true, where is the ACLU??
PoliceState
Amendment II
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.
Since the US Constitution trumps all state law (whether a state's constitution or a mere law), it would seem that Section 22's subjecting of the right to arms to "the police power" is null and void. Just because some robed, appointed and paid minion of those who want to control all of us hasn't ruled that this is the case, doesn't make it so.
In Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove (7th Cir. 1982), 695 F.2d 261, Circuit Judge Bauer of the federal 7th Circuit Court stated, "Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms".
In the above case, the court cited the decision in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) which stated, "[t]he Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government . . . ."
The second amendment does not apply to state laws -- only federal laws. Your RKBA is protected by your state constitution.
If you've ever read Stephen Halbrook's That Every Man Be Armed, you'd know that the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified principally because the southern states were denying the right to keep and bear arms to their newest adult citizens, the recently freed slaves, based on the same sort of reasoning as Presser. If you want to be in that camp, be my guest. Gun control is, at its root, racist. However, its value has now been understood by those hungry for power, and it is being used as one of the main tools to oppress the people of this nation. We're all Blacks (or Jews, for those who prefer the more modern face of the victims of tyranny) now.
Ping
Well, then there are those who claim that the 14th was never meant to incorporate any of the BOR.
Be that as it may, the second amendment is not yet incorporated, and I'm not sure we want it to be.
Ayn Rand had it right. Today, the Federal Code alone takes up something like 75 feet of shelf space. Most of these "laws" are crafted by committees of unelected bureaucrats.
And while we will be jailed for not "dotting an eye," 15 million illegal aliens roam America unmolested, thumbing their noses at the law.
Parenthetical passages added to accurately convey intent. All rights reserved. Your mileage may vary.
The ability of governments, through technology, to escalate violence, far exceeds that of the citizenry.
The realistic option for armed revolution ended a long time ago and Gulf War II reiterates that fact Loud and Clear.
These are very ignorant statements. First, Randy Weaver had no "followers". His wife and infant child were murdered by ATF sharpshooters on his private property. They were unarmed and had done nothing to provoke their murders. In the case of Koresh, he and his "followers", all free citizens of the states, were murdered on their private property in their church for defending themselves from a federal army that was laying siege to them. Their "crime" was that they were alleged to have had "illegal" firearms on the property.
As far as an armed citizenship being unable to take on the military, you are mistaken. Believe me, 150,000,000 armed citizens could easily throw off a demoralized military serving a tyrant. Take a look at Romania thirteen years ago. The Iraqis were just scared. I suppose if a tyrant wanted to launch ICBMs straight up so that they would turn and go straight back down, he would win. Of course, that begs the question, what would he win?
See Braveheart if you want to understand the concept of being free and unbeaten even if you are in chains. Just because someone kills you doesn't mean you have committed suicide or are wrong.
Yep, typical.
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.