He's entitled under the Constitution.
I notice the constitution does not say “the right to bear arms, if you have a clean police record, shall not be infringed”.
i’d rather see a guy with misdemeanors having a chance than violent felons.
His crimes are misdemeanors and thus he is not a prohibited person. In his particular circuit jurisdiction, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and Ill has been ordered to issue them. He may be a marginal applicant, but this is shall-issue, not may-issue. If we give gov’t discretion, the right will become a privilege.
sounds like he was bickering with a neighbor or something... those charges sound bad but probably mostly harmless. Simply arguing with a cop gets you resisting charges, it’s their ace they keep up their sleeve for when you pi#$@ them off. the other one is disorderly conduct.
Screw this islamocommunist government. I stand by The Constitution.
It gets worse. I have a friend who was denied because of someone elses crime. He has a fairly common name, evidently sharted by a criminal in another part of the state (Illinois). He’s trying to get that mess straightened out but it could take years.
It really should not be a problem, after all, he has a different S.S. number, different finger prints etc. but he’s having to deal with Illinois state government.
Why the hell do ANY of us "need" a permit? What part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?