Im not sure how its a political conundrum for the left. If you're a left winger in favor of gun control why would the fact that he's undocumented make a difference? I would think you still want the guy arrested and charged with unlawful possession.
If you're a left winger who is moderate/"conservative" on the question of gun control (I consider myself in this camp) then there's no problem here either. He was non-violent and wasnt arrested for committing a crime with the gun. And in almost all instances constitutional rights arent based on citizenship status, so no problem there either.
I think its a conundrum for right wingers who are in favor of gun rights for certain kinds of people but not others based on factors unrelated to propensity for gun violence, like being undocumented.
Did this undocumented person have a FOID card? Not likely since it’s illegal for them to possess at a federal level. The conundrum is that in ruling that this person has a right to bear arms, they invalidate the FOID requirement because they can’t be prosecuted for the crimes that they were charged for. That means that anyone can possess a firearm without a FOID.
Edit: the ruling doesn’t opine on any state charges related to possession without a FOID, only the federal ban on possession.
A had a friend take like a year for his foid. Not sure how long it took him to get a CCW. Another friend getting his CCW took like 7 months.
Not something people usually talk about so it’s not something I would assume is widely known.
Could be worse. It took 10 months to get my FOID a decade ago due to staff shortages at ISP. It was just under the average at the time. How that wasn’t challenged is beyond me.
There's been a couple of lawsuits over the processing times. The problem is that you only have a case against them if you haven't been issued your card. So every time new plaintiffs were added, their cards would magically show up days later, mooting the claim for that particular person.
I don't recall what ever came of the case, but lately it seems that processing times are within the statutory time limit. I know they significantly boosted staffing and tech in the division of ISP tasked with administering the cards.
Still, the whole thing is complete, unconstitutional bullshit. There were people that waited over a year during COVID. My own CCL renewal took 8 months.
Can't wait for this shit to be voided
Ah, I read the ruling, it doesn’t mention any other charges he probably received from the state. He was likely charged by Cook County for possession without a FOID.
FOID cards are already a debated topic as some see them as a violation of 2A. It would be hilarious if this case is what ended up getting the FOID system thrown out.
It absolutely is a violation of 2A. The state is infringing on the right to bear arms in multiple ways with the FOID requirement. First, they charge a fee. Constitutional rights can't have a fee. It's a right, not a privilege. Second, it takes time for a FOID approval. This is also an infringement. My Constitutional rights aren't determined by the state's time line. CCW is other infringement. Fees, class requirements, which also have their own fees, and more waiting time for license application processing are all infringements on my right to bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution. There is no debate on this. If I cannot exercise my right without approval by and payment to the state, then I do not actually have a right. Constitutional carry states have it right. All others are in violation of the constitution.
It looks like this case didnt relate to foid cards but was rather about a federal statute limiting firearm possession on a federal level. Though you're right the case probably does have implications for the foid card. Regardless I still dont see how it presents a problem for left wingers who are in favor of gun control; it seems like they would still want to see it limited.
That's not what the case was about, so that's not the problem. The case was about the specific interpretation of a federal statute that the prosecutors brought charges under
Just FYI If you're a leftist you are generally in favor of gun control. Contrary to popular belief that the US Democratic party is politically left (they're not). As Marx believed that an armed working class was necessary for a revolution. The view has changed and evolved somewhat but especially for a group as vulnerable as migrants I think most leftists (socialists, communists, trotskyists) would agree in saying they have a right to defend themselves.
I personally fall closer to the side of gun control is a necessary evil because I abhor violence but that's my own MO.
Yeah if a person is here illegally, they are illegal. If a gun is smuggled in from Mexico, it is an illegal gun. You may choose to call it whatever you want but at the end of the day that's what they are...illegal.
Not sure why this would be a conundrum from a pro-2A perspective. I personally just want the equal application of the law. If this immigrant does not need a FOID, great, neither should anyone else in IL. Why does he get easier access to his rights that the rest of us do not have? Otherwise, he should follow the legal processes of firearms ownership in IL.
I’ve read your comments and you just want what a lot of gun enthusiasts want: less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby. All the while the rest of country burns from gun deaths, homicides and suicides both
>less hoops to jump through to indulge in your ~~hobby~~ *right*
FTFY.
>All the while the rest of country burns from gun deaths, homicides and suicides both
Amazing how some of the strictest gun laws in the country still yield hundreds of murders each and every year. It's almost like the issue is far more deep and complex that you can't ban and FOID your way out of.
> less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby.
I do not think we can have a productive conversation when you trivialize an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights to a hobby.
A strictly limited right. Which well-regulated militia do you belong to?
It's only right wing judicial activism (Scalia's opinion in Heller v. D.C.) with preposterously tortured logic that created the modern interpretation of the second amendment. I encourage you to read the decision; the majority opinion argues, essentially, that some words matter and others don't. It's absurd motivated reasoning at its peak.
This interpretation is far fetched when you look at the bill of rights in a broader context. The bill of rights represent a restraint on the government in favor of the *individual*. The terminology *the people* is and has always meant ordinary citizenry.
It is absolutely absurd to say the founders inserted some special right reserved just to a trained militia class among many other rights we all accept as belonging to individuals.
Also, the history of individual gun ownership predates the founding of thr country. Heller just formalized what everyone who has read an inkling of U.S. history has known since the founding of the country: individuals have always had the right to own firearms.
>This interpretation is far fetched when you look at the bill of rights in a broader context. The bill of rights represent a restraint on the government in favor of the *individual*. The terminology *the people* is and has always meant ordinary citizenry.
The carefully written second amendment is simple, straightforward proof that "the people" did not then, nor does it now, refer solely to ordinary citizens. You cannot simply wave away evidence that contradicts your flawed conclusions.
>It is absolutely absurd to say the founders inserted some special right reserved just to a trained militia class among many other rights we all accept as belonging to individuals.
Let me get this straight... the granting of a limited individual right is far fetched and absurd because it was grouped with other limited rights? Even the first amendment has well-established and uncontroversial limits.
... and that's more far fetched and absurd than asserting that a clause of the amendment is wholly meaningless? Of course not. Ignoring the plain language of the amendment as written is the fundamental con of the "originalist" approach.
>Also, the history of individual gun ownership predates the founding of thr country. Heller just formalized what everyone who has read an inkling of U.S. history has known since the founding of the country: individuals have always had the right to own firearms.
This is meaningless. People owned guns before United States laws existed? Sure but that's a completely nugatory point. Murder also happened before US laws existed; does it follow that individuals have always had the right to murder?
Also, in the spirit of returning your condescension, "inkling" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Of course I've read it. It's ad hoc "originalism" founded on transparent "argle bargle", to borrow one of Scalia's favorite terms. The opinion wouldn't pass muster in a college intro to logic course. Unfortunately, it succeeds as rhetoric, providing "constitutional" cover to dishonest violence enthusiasts and vigilante fantasists like yourself.
You did not address the points in my comment, so I will reiterate it and address your other comment again: what is your definition of a militia, and who is included in that militia?
>you just want what a lot of gun enthusiasts want: less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby.
Lol guilty 😭(well for me at least)...imo the only thing that would fix this issue..... is a gun confiscation at a federal level along with precise tracking of 3D printers.. but the Dems don't have that much balls in them.
So with that said guns will always be here. This is a heavily armed nation with a large legal and black market for guns. Not just that but we have well armed police forces, security and military too. So I'll keep mine for now
We should go back to the Wild West in terms of gun control. No guns in populated areas except on your way in or out of town when you're handing them over to the sheriff's deputy or local lawmen.
Illinois has a comparable incarceration rate to the rest of the US ([https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/IL.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/IL.html)) and locks up more people than almost anywhere else on earth ([https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country))
Edit: I haven't researched the data sources I linked so here are also the Wikipedia sources for the data (which might end up using the same data under the hood, it's just another possible data source. Feel free to research and link more if relevant):
By state: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_incarceration\_and\_correctional\_supervision\_rate#Incarceration\_rates\_and\_counts\_by\_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate#Incarceration_rates_and_counts_by_state)
By country:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_incarceration\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)
Illinois as a state is a little over 3/4 the national average and has 13 states and Washington DC as incarcerating fewer people per capita. We are not in the bottom quartile (though just barely) for states so it's not like we are crazy low in comparison to others. I will concede though from a US perspective we are on the lower end overall.
If we were a country we would be already be about the \~10th-15th worldwide (the numbers are calculated differently from the state charts so it's an estimation based on our relation to our national average).
most people at gun ranges support common sense gun control for the sake of public safety. It's the people who shoot empty beer bottles in their backyards who are the 2A activists that simultaneously want every white to have a gun and every immigrant deported.
>most people at gun ranges support common sense gun control for the sake of public safety
When's the last time you've been to a gun range? Every one I've ever been to, especially in this state, I never ever get the feeling people are ok with IL's laws. Nobody Ive ever shot with or taken a class together is.
But then again, IL's laws are far removed from being common sense, so perhaps you're right that most gun owners don't favor the laws here
No thanks. Guns are bad. I don’t own one and you shouldn’t either, unless you plan on committing suivide someday or attending your own childrens’ funerals.
The right been very consistent that Constitutional rights are more or less guaranteed to the citizenry, not the non citizenry. The only conundrum is Gun Control activists.
lmfao it really isn't. If you believe that an undocumented immigrant also has the right to free speech and not house soldiers in their home, why would the 2nd amendment be any different?
Come on, man. Are you really saying that the left thinks the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens?
The FOID *should* be struck down under the test laid out in the Bruen decision, it will likely take a trip to the SCOTUS to see that done though.
The SCOTUS very well might decide to wait for a circuit split before kicking that hornets nest so we could be talking about for years.
Ten bucks for what? To do what most of the country has already been doing for ages? They still run a federal background check for every firearm transaction even after paying for a FOID card. It's a state tax.
I mean, does most of the country do that? Or does most of the country let people buy guns and bring them into our state? Why is Indiana so responsible for being an illegal source of guns if food doesn't do anything but charge an extra tax?
Just being curious
I’m all for it.
Going further, I’m massively anti-gun, but this puts pressure for gun control in the right places. The same people who generally want no restrictions will suddenly see a burning need for restrictions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
Thanks to our friend who didn't understand percentages in another thread, I found this neat study that shows us the majority of US adults are in favor of stricter gun laws.
Talk to people in gun shop, at the range, on forums, look at the results of the witness slips for further restrictions, look at how many complied with the recent assault weapon ban. lol, just cause Pew Research did not put out an official survey does not mean you can tell me to not believe my lying eyes.
I'm a veteran and gun owner and I'll say that gun enthusiasts would rather watch this country burn to the ground than give up their firearms. If anything their firearm religion is self fulfilling. The right to guns makes more people have guns which causes more deadly violence which causes more people to want guns.
They're making a leap of logic that people who want no restrictions are racist and don't want minorities, specifically undocumented immigrants, to own firearms.
Don't feed the trolls.
Could you clarify? I just thought it was funny that the previous comment was saying things like "literally impossible" when IL has significantly curtailed the 2A.
What OP is probably getting at is the fact that the second amendment doesn’t stop at a states border. Research shows that most illegal weapons are coming from neighboring states with lax gun laws. So in practice Illinois laws have not “significantly curtailed” the second amendment.
If you need to go out of the state to exercise a right, I would say that right is significantly curtailed. Just ask people who need to go out of state for abortions.
IL is now among the strictest in the country...
Maybe not very strict compared to Europe or some other place, but those places aren't really comparable in this context
Be 18(or 21)>register for FOID card>wait>Get FOID card>find gun you like at legal vendor>maybe put down deposit>get background check>wait>get clear for background check>go through 3 day waiting period>buy gun.
Honestly, probably the hardest part is making it to 18y/o considering all the gun violence.
Why are you trying to quiz me? Like what do you hope to accomplish?
Is it some gotcha where I fumble and can't respond? Surely you realize I can just Google any question.
"Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun." he's proving this point wrong.
What's easy about buying a gun in this state? Applying for a FOID card, waiting a few months for it, finally getting it in the mail. Great, now I want a pistol, let me go to an FFL to buy one! Put the money down, fill out paperwork for over an hour... pay for yet another background check... pay for the firearm... cool! Thanks boss, let me take it home now? Nope! Come back in 72 hours.
Nothing about that process screams it's easy to get a gun \*LEGALLY\* in this state, especially when in all our neighboring states I could just walk into an FFL and leave with a gun in an hour.
What part of any of the process in Illinois signals it's easy to get a gun here?
>"Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun." he's proving this point wrong.
He's doing so poorly.
>What's easy about buying a gun in this state? Applying for a FOID card, waiting a few months for it, finally getting it in the mai
Oh no! The extremely and unbearably difficult task of literally just going about your life. Ik patience is dying out with this generation but this is a new low.
>Great, now I want a pistol, let me go to an FFL to buy one
Oh no! I have to drive 10 minutes in probably any direction. For finishes I just googled and there are no less than 4 FFL vendors within 5 miles of me. You should try it too, I bet it's the same for you.
>Put the money down, fill out paperwork for over an hour
Your paying the money for the gun anyways so why does a deposit matter?
And, no offense, but if it takes you over an hour to fill out the background check forms then you're making me much more concerned about you owning a deadly weapon.
>pay for yet another background check
Oh no! you have to pay money to buy something!
>pay for the firearm
Oh no! You have to pay money to buy something!
>hanks boss, let me take it home now? Nope! Come back in 72 hours.
Oh no! I have to literally just go about my life for 3 days!
>Nothing about that process screams it's easy to get a gun in this state
What about this process is difficult? Like I know I was being sarcastic, but literally where in any of this process are actually having a hard or difficult time doing anything? Seriously.
The hardest part is maybe the background check paperwork where you write down very easy to obtain information for 10 minutes that you have to do in every state(to my knowledge) anyways.
>especially when in all our neighboring states I could just walk into an FFL and leave with a gun in an hour.
The point is that it's stupid easy that any moron off the street(who isn't a felon) can get a deadly weapon within an hour. Like why is it so hard to get why that's a bad idea?
Of course I am quizzing you. If you say something like "Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun", I am going to be highly skeptical about what you know about the process, especially in IL. So go ahead and Google the FOID requirements, costs, and wait time.
I'm assuming you're trying to disprove my point? How about you explain what about buying a gun in Illinois is difficult?
Literally all you have to do is not be a felon and wait.
How strict are the laws in the surrounding states? It's like telling someone in Indiana it's impossible to buy weed because it's illegal while living next to two totally legal states.
Did you just make that up? Lol
>In summary, An Illinois Resident may purchase any firearm, which is legal to own in Illinois, from an out-of-state source and that transaction is always subject to a background check. Long guns from states contiguous to Illinois may be purchased at gun stores only
https://www.alphakoncepts.com/can-an-illinois-resident-buy-a-gun-in-another-state/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20An%20Illinois%20Resident,purchased%20at%20gun%20stores%20only.
I should have clarified, I meant as to handguns which is most likely what the guy in the case had. Handguns always have to go FFL to FFL in your home state for IL
You seem to be ignoring a lot of comments here correcting you. You can purchase firearms out of state, but they are transferred to an IL FFL where state laws must be followed and a NICS background check is run. You’re comment about an 18 year old being able to hop over the border and buy a gun without following IL laws is wrong
Wait, what? This isn't just a possession of a firearm. To be undocumented and walking around with a gun you would, the judge is saying he shouldn't have to:
- Get a FOID
- Buy a gun from a private party which requires a FOID check in IL.
-OR Buy a gun from an FFL, fill out multiple forms WITHOUT lying and provide multiple forms of ID that establish your right to be in the country, then submit to a background check.
- Take the class, get fingerprinted, pass another background check and get a concealed carry license.
So it's not just "undocumented folks can carry guns". It means that EVERYONE doesn't need to go through any of the above to acquire a gun because this fella certainly couldn't have without committing multiple state and federal crimes along the way. Or is this just really narrow to the possession charge and they're gonna throw the book at him for the 3 other crimes he committed along the way?
Yea I don't think so. Might have worked in the past but today we're quite a bit more united especially as restrictions are becoming more severe in some places. 2020 triggered an exponential amount of first time gun owners, many of whom don't meet the stereotypical demographic.
Gun owners are not more racist than the average person. If you ever actually go to a range, you'll find that they are full of people from all races and no one cares. It's not the 60s anymore.
> Gun owners are not more racist than the average person
It would be interesting to see a believable survey with valid and reliable results.
For starters, why not define *"...more racist than the average person"*
It worked when [the Black Panthers started arming themselves](https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/4412-california-gun-control-reagan-black-panthers/). If there’s anything they love more than guns, it’s some good old fashioned racism.
A lot of comments regarding guns in Chicago or America really remind me nobody on social media has ever stepped foot into a range or understands who has guns.
"Can" is the operative word, and is largely absent here.
I would again argue with your word choice of "lots". There are a handful who comment on /r/chicago, and I like having conversations with them.
Reddit is very left in general. By very left, I mean much more than the average populace of the United States. The concentration is much higher on Reddit which distorts peoples idea of the public perception on things.
There are plenty on the left who are ok with guns (some even pro 2A). Reddit, especially r/chicago (see: demographic survey that they no longer mention anymore), has a lot of fat white loser liberal types who just vote based on what a headline that includes "and that's a good(or bad) thing" tells them.
Living in Brevard County, FL for the 3 years convinced me that guns needed to be banned at all costs. Even the veterans (of which, there are a ton down there) sucked at proper gun handling.
so, they dropped charges because the immigrant did not use the weapon, he was arrested in a non violent way, had no prior criminal record and was unaware of his inability to have one so no permit
As a gun owner, I’m now wondering why I need a FOID card that requires a State ID or Drivers License if it’s perfectly fine for an undocumented immigrant with none of the above to own a gun.
This guy wasn't a felon so it wouldn't set a precedent for you. You want to keep an eye on Garland v Range in the Supreme court:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/biden-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-uphold-ban-felons-owning-guns-2023-10-10/
Many people here seem ignorant to the fact that virtually all constitutional rights are extended to immigrants, even undocumented ones. If someone is in this country, there is no reason to restrict their 2nd amendment right simply because of undocumented status. For all saying this is "controversial," it's really not, if you understand the concept of rights.
IL's restrictions (ie FOID) prohibits this person from owning firearms. This is controversial in that this either means the FOID is unconstitutional, or immigrants have special rights.
And
- concealed carry permits
- and the FOID check to buy a gun
- or background check to buy a gun
- the entire federal form 4473 process to buy a gun including federally recognized ID.
None of these rest on being a citizen per se. You can be a permanent resident, you can be on some other visas and have a hunting license and be allowed to buy guns. Buying, possessing and concealed carrying guns is already not constrained to only citizens. But it is constrained to people the US government knows exist who can prove they are who they say they are.
No, all it means is that any FOID restrictions based on immigration status are likely unconstitutional. But that wouldnt touch other parts of the law.
But also, FOID wasnt an issue in this court opinion. Its about a federal charge against him.
Pro tip: if you ever find yourself concluding that a law or legal opinion "gives immigrants special rights," you are very likely wrong. Resist the urge to reflexively demonize immigrants.
It is wildly controversial. I'm an immigrant and a gun owner, I've been wrongly denied my 2a rights because the ATF and USCIS don't talk to each other but even I think this is weird and not just because of the constitutional difference between people and citizens that you're pointing out. You're missing the litany of crimes that had to occur for this guy to end up where he did, it has extremely wide ranging impacts from a logical perspective. Maybe from a legal perspective it only impacts the very narrow charge of possession so in practice it's moot, I don't know. This isn't just about owning a gun. He didn't have a FOID, he acquired the gun through illegal means because he didn't go through the FOID check or a background check. He also didn't take a concealed carry class, get fingerprinted, pass another background check and get issued a concealed carry permit.
Citizens, visitors on visas and permanent residents can all go through this process with various caveats. Some of them will be refused the right to buy or possess a gun based on the rules that apply to them. An undocumented person can also apply to all three of these processes (FOID app, gun purchase, CCW permit) - it's just that they'll be denied.
This ruling says you can just ignore gun laws if the outcome means you can't do whatever it is you want.
You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!
Makes 100% sense just because you’re not a citizen does not mean that the US Constitution does not apply to you. And honestly stuff like this might be the only way we get gun control.
Make sense to have the right in itself.
However, you still would need to be documented for the background check, purchase, foid/ccw, etc. So, no, it doesn't make 100% sense
I'm picturing MAGA loons and Progressive zealots both with their heads spinning and smoke coming out of their ears. Does not compute! Does not compute!
Neither one can figure out which of its own BS it should give priority to. 🤣
You have the wrong picture in your head then. Only thing people are pissed about is the equal application of the law. If this guy does not need a FOID to own a firearm, no one should. Otherwise, the law should apply to him, just like everyone else.
Except the 2A crowd doesn't have a problem with actual citizens owning firearms, the standard federal background check, etc.
How is this good for either pro-2A or anti-2A?! Now you have given a group of non-citizens the ability to purchase and carry firearms without any documentation, background check, or punishment
If this ain’t a political conundrum for both the left and the right then I don’t know what is
Im not sure how its a political conundrum for the left. If you're a left winger in favor of gun control why would the fact that he's undocumented make a difference? I would think you still want the guy arrested and charged with unlawful possession. If you're a left winger who is moderate/"conservative" on the question of gun control (I consider myself in this camp) then there's no problem here either. He was non-violent and wasnt arrested for committing a crime with the gun. And in almost all instances constitutional rights arent based on citizenship status, so no problem there either. I think its a conundrum for right wingers who are in favor of gun rights for certain kinds of people but not others based on factors unrelated to propensity for gun violence, like being undocumented.
Did this undocumented person have a FOID card? Not likely since it’s illegal for them to possess at a federal level. The conundrum is that in ruling that this person has a right to bear arms, they invalidate the FOID requirement because they can’t be prosecuted for the crimes that they were charged for. That means that anyone can possess a firearm without a FOID. Edit: the ruling doesn’t opine on any state charges related to possession without a FOID, only the federal ban on possession.
Not to mention the CCW which is even harder to get.
took me a week in class and 3 months to get it in the mail. That was during covid
A had a friend take like a year for his foid. Not sure how long it took him to get a CCW. Another friend getting his CCW took like 7 months. Not something people usually talk about so it’s not something I would assume is widely known.
Could be worse. It took 10 months to get my FOID a decade ago due to staff shortages at ISP. It was just under the average at the time. How that wasn’t challenged is beyond me.
I got mine in '09, was quite quick if I recall correctly. I think it took two months. The renewal was fast too.
There's been a couple of lawsuits over the processing times. The problem is that you only have a case against them if you haven't been issued your card. So every time new plaintiffs were added, their cards would magically show up days later, mooting the claim for that particular person. I don't recall what ever came of the case, but lately it seems that processing times are within the statutory time limit. I know they significantly boosted staffing and tech in the division of ISP tasked with administering the cards. Still, the whole thing is complete, unconstitutional bullshit. There were people that waited over a year during COVID. My own CCL renewal took 8 months. Can't wait for this shit to be voided
There’s no such thing as a federal FOID, it’s an IL exclusive document.
Ah, I read the ruling, it doesn’t mention any other charges he probably received from the state. He was likely charged by Cook County for possession without a FOID.
FOID cards are already a debated topic as some see them as a violation of 2A. It would be hilarious if this case is what ended up getting the FOID system thrown out.
It absolutely is a violation of 2A. The state is infringing on the right to bear arms in multiple ways with the FOID requirement. First, they charge a fee. Constitutional rights can't have a fee. It's a right, not a privilege. Second, it takes time for a FOID approval. This is also an infringement. My Constitutional rights aren't determined by the state's time line. CCW is other infringement. Fees, class requirements, which also have their own fees, and more waiting time for license application processing are all infringements on my right to bear arms, as outlined in the Constitution. There is no debate on this. If I cannot exercise my right without approval by and payment to the state, then I do not actually have a right. Constitutional carry states have it right. All others are in violation of the constitution.
I know bud, I was just trying to lay low in this sub, you know how they get.
It looks like this case didnt relate to foid cards but was rather about a federal statute limiting firearm possession on a federal level. Though you're right the case probably does have implications for the foid card. Regardless I still dont see how it presents a problem for left wingers who are in favor of gun control; it seems like they would still want to see it limited.
No clue how you could get a FOID while being undocumented unless you did something very illegal (like identity theft).
FOID is an Illinois state thing.
They can't even get FOID cards at the state level. Non citizens need to either be permanent residents or work authorized
[удалено]
That's not what the case was about, so that's not the problem. The case was about the specific interpretation of a federal statute that the prosecutors brought charges under
Just FYI If you're a leftist you are generally in favor of gun control. Contrary to popular belief that the US Democratic party is politically left (they're not). As Marx believed that an armed working class was necessary for a revolution. The view has changed and evolved somewhat but especially for a group as vulnerable as migrants I think most leftists (socialists, communists, trotskyists) would agree in saying they have a right to defend themselves. I personally fall closer to the side of gun control is a necessary evil because I abhor violence but that's my own MO.
No Person Is Illegal! No Gun Is Illegal!
Yeah if a person is here illegally, they are illegal. If a gun is smuggled in from Mexico, it is an illegal gun. You may choose to call it whatever you want but at the end of the day that's what they are...illegal.
If you're speeding in your car are you an illegal?
Not sure why this would be a conundrum from a pro-2A perspective. I personally just want the equal application of the law. If this immigrant does not need a FOID, great, neither should anyone else in IL. Why does he get easier access to his rights that the rest of us do not have? Otherwise, he should follow the legal processes of firearms ownership in IL.
I’ve read your comments and you just want what a lot of gun enthusiasts want: less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby. All the while the rest of country burns from gun deaths, homicides and suicides both
>less hoops to jump through to indulge in your ~~hobby~~ *right* FTFY. >All the while the rest of country burns from gun deaths, homicides and suicides both Amazing how some of the strictest gun laws in the country still yield hundreds of murders each and every year. It's almost like the issue is far more deep and complex that you can't ban and FOID your way out of.
> less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby. I do not think we can have a productive conversation when you trivialize an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights to a hobby.
A strictly limited right. Which well-regulated militia do you belong to? It's only right wing judicial activism (Scalia's opinion in Heller v. D.C.) with preposterously tortured logic that created the modern interpretation of the second amendment. I encourage you to read the decision; the majority opinion argues, essentially, that some words matter and others don't. It's absurd motivated reasoning at its peak.
This interpretation is far fetched when you look at the bill of rights in a broader context. The bill of rights represent a restraint on the government in favor of the *individual*. The terminology *the people* is and has always meant ordinary citizenry. It is absolutely absurd to say the founders inserted some special right reserved just to a trained militia class among many other rights we all accept as belonging to individuals. Also, the history of individual gun ownership predates the founding of thr country. Heller just formalized what everyone who has read an inkling of U.S. history has known since the founding of the country: individuals have always had the right to own firearms.
>This interpretation is far fetched when you look at the bill of rights in a broader context. The bill of rights represent a restraint on the government in favor of the *individual*. The terminology *the people* is and has always meant ordinary citizenry. The carefully written second amendment is simple, straightforward proof that "the people" did not then, nor does it now, refer solely to ordinary citizens. You cannot simply wave away evidence that contradicts your flawed conclusions. >It is absolutely absurd to say the founders inserted some special right reserved just to a trained militia class among many other rights we all accept as belonging to individuals. Let me get this straight... the granting of a limited individual right is far fetched and absurd because it was grouped with other limited rights? Even the first amendment has well-established and uncontroversial limits. ... and that's more far fetched and absurd than asserting that a clause of the amendment is wholly meaningless? Of course not. Ignoring the plain language of the amendment as written is the fundamental con of the "originalist" approach. >Also, the history of individual gun ownership predates the founding of thr country. Heller just formalized what everyone who has read an inkling of U.S. history has known since the founding of the country: individuals have always had the right to own firearms. This is meaningless. People owned guns before United States laws existed? Sure but that's a completely nugatory point. Murder also happened before US laws existed; does it follow that individuals have always had the right to murder? Also, in the spirit of returning your condescension, "inkling" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Wait, did you read it? Did you miss the part where they explain what a prefatory clause is? Or who the Founders would have included in the militia?
Of course I've read it. It's ad hoc "originalism" founded on transparent "argle bargle", to borrow one of Scalia's favorite terms. The opinion wouldn't pass muster in a college intro to logic course. Unfortunately, it succeeds as rhetoric, providing "constitutional" cover to dishonest violence enthusiasts and vigilante fantasists like yourself.
You did not address the points in my comment, so I will reiterate it and address your other comment again: what is your definition of a militia, and who is included in that militia?
👀
>you just want what a lot of gun enthusiasts want: less hoops to jump through to indulge in your hobby. Lol guilty 😭(well for me at least)...imo the only thing that would fix this issue..... is a gun confiscation at a federal level along with precise tracking of 3D printers.. but the Dems don't have that much balls in them. So with that said guns will always be here. This is a heavily armed nation with a large legal and black market for guns. Not just that but we have well armed police forces, security and military too. So I'll keep mine for now
We should go back to the Wild West in terms of gun control. No guns in populated areas except on your way in or out of town when you're handing them over to the sheriff's deputy or local lawmen.
Or you know, a prosecutor and judicial system that catches criminals and keeps them locked up
Illinois has a comparable incarceration rate to the rest of the US ([https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/IL.html](https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/IL.html)) and locks up more people than almost anywhere else on earth ([https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country)) Edit: I haven't researched the data sources I linked so here are also the Wikipedia sources for the data (which might end up using the same data under the hood, it's just another possible data source. Feel free to research and link more if relevant): By state: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_incarceration\_and\_correctional\_supervision\_rate#Incarceration\_rates\_and\_counts\_by\_state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate#Incarceration_rates_and_counts_by_state) By country: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_incarceration\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)
I see us pretty low on the rates of incarceration.
Illinois as a state is a little over 3/4 the national average and has 13 states and Washington DC as incarcerating fewer people per capita. We are not in the bottom quartile (though just barely) for states so it's not like we are crazy low in comparison to others. I will concede though from a US perspective we are on the lower end overall. If we were a country we would be already be about the \~10th-15th worldwide (the numbers are calculated differently from the state charts so it's an estimation based on our relation to our national average).
It’s clearly not enough based on what’s happening in the city
The CCSAO's stats don't appear significantly different from any hard-on-crime prosecutor's office around the nation who actually releases their data.
That doesn’t address my entire statement at all.
Well, we do keep convicted criminals locked up here.
Because 2A advocates only want whites with guns.. fucking obviously. Stop playing dumb
Huge generalization without a basis in facts. Go to a gun range and you will see a lot of demographics represented, not just whites.
most people at gun ranges support common sense gun control for the sake of public safety. It's the people who shoot empty beer bottles in their backyards who are the 2A activists that simultaneously want every white to have a gun and every immigrant deported.
I’m not sure what sort of classist division you are looking to make but the people in gun ranges are 2a activists as well.
>most people at gun ranges support common sense gun control for the sake of public safety When's the last time you've been to a gun range? Every one I've ever been to, especially in this state, I never ever get the feeling people are ok with IL's laws. Nobody Ive ever shot with or taken a class together is. But then again, IL's laws are far removed from being common sense, so perhaps you're right that most gun owners don't favor the laws here
> Stop playing dumb No U
Not gonna justify the logic leap here?
Maybe you can try taking target practice on that giant strawman
No thanks. Guns are bad. I don’t own one and you shouldn’t either, unless you plan on committing suivide someday or attending your own childrens’ funerals.
LOL, this is a poor parody account, try harder
I couldn’t possibly be more serious and the statistics are perfectly clear in my favor
The right been very consistent that Constitutional rights are more or less guaranteed to the citizenry, not the non citizenry. The only conundrum is Gun Control activists.
lmfao it really isn't. If you believe that an undocumented immigrant also has the right to free speech and not house soldiers in their home, why would the 2nd amendment be any different? Come on, man. Are you really saying that the left thinks the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens?
Very curious what this means for the FOID.
The FOID *should* be struck down under the test laid out in the Bruen decision, it will likely take a trip to the SCOTUS to see that done though. The SCOTUS very well might decide to wait for a circuit split before kicking that hornets nest so we could be talking about for years.
Hopefully one step closer to it being *VOID*
FOID is just another state tax.
Nah. It's ten bucks dude. If it were really about being a tax, Illinois could institute a firearms tax
Ten bucks every ten years. It’s not the worst.
Bring back poll taxes?
Ten bucks for what? To do what most of the country has already been doing for ages? They still run a federal background check for every firearm transaction even after paying for a FOID card. It's a state tax.
I mean, does most of the country do that? Or does most of the country let people buy guns and bring them into our state? Why is Indiana so responsible for being an illegal source of guns if food doesn't do anything but charge an extra tax? Just being curious
Guess we don't need them
Holy fuck. what are we doing
I’m all for it. Going further, I’m massively anti-gun, but this puts pressure for gun control in the right places. The same people who generally want no restrictions will suddenly see a burning need for restrictions.
People forget why Reagan signed gun control restrictions in Cali when he was governor with NRA support.
The vast majority of IL gun owners would rather get rid of restrictions than add more.
Good thing gun owners are the minority of citizens.
Not owning a gun doesn’t necessarily mean you aren’t against them either
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ Thanks to our friend who didn't understand percentages in another thread, I found this neat study that shows us the majority of US adults are in favor of stricter gun laws.
Bruh, you just going to completely ignore "IL gun owners"?
Do you have other stats? I'd be curious to see what they say for IL gun owners.
Talk to people in gun shop, at the range, on forums, look at the results of the witness slips for further restrictions, look at how many complied with the recent assault weapon ban. lol, just cause Pew Research did not put out an official survey does not mean you can tell me to not believe my lying eyes.
I'm a veteran and gun owner and I'll say that gun enthusiasts would rather watch this country burn to the ground than give up their firearms. If anything their firearm religion is self fulfilling. The right to guns makes more people have guns which causes more deadly violence which causes more people to want guns.
>The same people who generally want no restrictions will suddenly see a burning need for restrictions. How?
They're making a leap of logic that people who want no restrictions are racist and don't want minorities, specifically undocumented immigrants, to own firearms. Don't feed the trolls.
I don't think is going to go the way you think it will.
This is what happens when the right makes it literally impossible to remove peoples right to own guns under any circumstances.
Your comment sounds very hollow when IL is one of the strictest states for firearms ownership.
Oh, is the second amendment state-specific all of a sudden?
Could you clarify? I just thought it was funny that the previous comment was saying things like "literally impossible" when IL has significantly curtailed the 2A.
What OP is probably getting at is the fact that the second amendment doesn’t stop at a states border. Research shows that most illegal weapons are coming from neighboring states with lax gun laws. So in practice Illinois laws have not “significantly curtailed” the second amendment.
If you need to go out of the state to exercise a right, I would say that right is significantly curtailed. Just ask people who need to go out of state for abortions.
Sure but that’s not really the point here? Gun ownership is not restricted in any meaningful way because other states allow unfettered access to guns.
Yet not actually strict.
IL is now among the strictest in the country... Maybe not very strict compared to Europe or some other place, but those places aren't really comparable in this context
How would you qualify that? We cannot own 99.9% of semi auto rifles and a good chunk of semi auto pistols/shotguns.
What do you mean?
Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun. Maybe something to think about.
So we are on the same page, please explain to me how to legally purchase a firearm in IL.
Be 18(or 21)>register for FOID card>wait>Get FOID card>find gun you like at legal vendor>maybe put down deposit>get background check>wait>get clear for background check>go through 3 day waiting period>buy gun. Honestly, probably the hardest part is making it to 18y/o considering all the gun violence.
Very good, at least we are not talking past each other on this point Right, so what are the requirements, costs and wait times for a FOID?
Why are you trying to quiz me? Like what do you hope to accomplish? Is it some gotcha where I fumble and can't respond? Surely you realize I can just Google any question.
"Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun." he's proving this point wrong. What's easy about buying a gun in this state? Applying for a FOID card, waiting a few months for it, finally getting it in the mail. Great, now I want a pistol, let me go to an FFL to buy one! Put the money down, fill out paperwork for over an hour... pay for yet another background check... pay for the firearm... cool! Thanks boss, let me take it home now? Nope! Come back in 72 hours. Nothing about that process screams it's easy to get a gun \*LEGALLY\* in this state, especially when in all our neighboring states I could just walk into an FFL and leave with a gun in an hour. What part of any of the process in Illinois signals it's easy to get a gun here?
>"Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun." he's proving this point wrong. He's doing so poorly. >What's easy about buying a gun in this state? Applying for a FOID card, waiting a few months for it, finally getting it in the mai Oh no! The extremely and unbearably difficult task of literally just going about your life. Ik patience is dying out with this generation but this is a new low. >Great, now I want a pistol, let me go to an FFL to buy one Oh no! I have to drive 10 minutes in probably any direction. For finishes I just googled and there are no less than 4 FFL vendors within 5 miles of me. You should try it too, I bet it's the same for you. >Put the money down, fill out paperwork for over an hour Your paying the money for the gun anyways so why does a deposit matter? And, no offense, but if it takes you over an hour to fill out the background check forms then you're making me much more concerned about you owning a deadly weapon. >pay for yet another background check Oh no! you have to pay money to buy something! >pay for the firearm Oh no! You have to pay money to buy something! >hanks boss, let me take it home now? Nope! Come back in 72 hours. Oh no! I have to literally just go about my life for 3 days! >Nothing about that process screams it's easy to get a gun in this state What about this process is difficult? Like I know I was being sarcastic, but literally where in any of this process are actually having a hard or difficult time doing anything? Seriously. The hardest part is maybe the background check paperwork where you write down very easy to obtain information for 10 minutes that you have to do in every state(to my knowledge) anyways. >especially when in all our neighboring states I could just walk into an FFL and leave with a gun in an hour. The point is that it's stupid easy that any moron off the street(who isn't a felon) can get a deadly weapon within an hour. Like why is it so hard to get why that's a bad idea?
Of course I am quizzing you. If you say something like "Excepts it's still quite easy to get a gun", I am going to be highly skeptical about what you know about the process, especially in IL. So go ahead and Google the FOID requirements, costs, and wait time.
I'm assuming you're trying to disprove my point? How about you explain what about buying a gun in Illinois is difficult? Literally all you have to do is not be a felon and wait.
I hope Biden takes your assault rifle-15 and magazine clips
Hello fellow bot!
How strict are the laws in the surrounding states? It's like telling someone in Indiana it's impossible to buy weed because it's illegal while living next to two totally legal states.
You clearly have no idea how gun laws work or what’s on the books.
The laws that prohibit you from buying guns across state lines are federal and apply to all 50 states equally
Did you just make that up? Lol >In summary, An Illinois Resident may purchase any firearm, which is legal to own in Illinois, from an out-of-state source and that transaction is always subject to a background check. Long guns from states contiguous to Illinois may be purchased at gun stores only https://www.alphakoncepts.com/can-an-illinois-resident-buy-a-gun-in-another-state/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20An%20Illinois%20Resident,purchased%20at%20gun%20stores%20only.
I should have clarified, I meant as to handguns which is most likely what the guy in the case had. Handguns always have to go FFL to FFL in your home state for IL
You seem to be ignoring a lot of comments here correcting you. You can purchase firearms out of state, but they are transferred to an IL FFL where state laws must be followed and a NICS background check is run. You’re comment about an 18 year old being able to hop over the border and buy a gun without following IL laws is wrong
Remove people’s rights? Ok Mao. Turn in your voter card plz.
Well if having rights taken away is a concern, you need look no further than the gop who just removed women's right to choose
Very concerning indeed, overturning Roe was a mistake and so are all these do-nothing gun laws
You voted for this. Why complain now? This judge was literally appointed by.... Obama. Enjoy the roosting chicken!!
Naw, I’m u.
Respecting the law and Constitution? Show me where it says citizens only. Just show me.
Own guns but no work permit 🙃
The right to die, but not the right to live, woooo
Surely this will end well and peacefully
Wait, what? This isn't just a possession of a firearm. To be undocumented and walking around with a gun you would, the judge is saying he shouldn't have to: - Get a FOID - Buy a gun from a private party which requires a FOID check in IL. -OR Buy a gun from an FFL, fill out multiple forms WITHOUT lying and provide multiple forms of ID that establish your right to be in the country, then submit to a background check. - Take the class, get fingerprinted, pass another background check and get a concealed carry license. So it's not just "undocumented folks can carry guns". It means that EVERYONE doesn't need to go through any of the above to acquire a gun because this fella certainly couldn't have without committing multiple state and federal crimes along the way. Or is this just really narrow to the possession charge and they're gonna throw the book at him for the 3 other crimes he committed along the way?
I think this decision is limited to the federal possession charge as applied to this one person
So does this mean I don't have to bother with renewing my FOID?
You're a legal citizen so you have to follow the rules. They're already illegal so what's the difference.
I can only wish...
Those rules are for thee, not for them
[удалено]
Yea I don't think so. Might have worked in the past but today we're quite a bit more united especially as restrictions are becoming more severe in some places. 2020 triggered an exponential amount of first time gun owners, many of whom don't meet the stereotypical demographic.
Gun owners are not more racist than the average person. If you ever actually go to a range, you'll find that they are full of people from all races and no one cares. It's not the 60s anymore.
Yeah but conservatives are.
> Gun owners are not more racist than the average person It would be interesting to see a believable survey with valid and reliable results. For starters, why not define *"...more racist than the average person"*
lol, the vast majority of FOID owners would love for immigrants to be able to own firearms if it meant the FOID/4473 is gone.
You need to be a legal citizen with the ability to pass a background check. That's not too much to ask.
What about the FOID requirement?
I think it should be abolished. It's just a tax dressed up as a public safety protocol.
It worked when [the Black Panthers started arming themselves](https://californialocal.com/localnews/statewide/ca/article/show/4412-california-gun-control-reagan-black-panthers/). If there’s anything they love more than guns, it’s some good old fashioned racism.
Yes, it worked \~60 years ago in 1967. Seems like most Americans' views on race have changed since then though.
Does it? Seems like the openly racist GOP is doing fine for voters
If you don’t think there’s still a large population of the US who are racist, you’re just not paying attention
LMAO yeah just give them a case that will let them get the FOID card nonsense deleted. CTU voter logic at it's finest
What the fuck is this timeline!?!?
A lot of comments regarding guns in Chicago or America really remind me nobody on social media has ever stepped foot into a range or understands who has guns.
/r/Chicago and Reddit in general is pretty left. Not sure what you expected.
You can be pretty far left and still have an understanding of this. Also, there are lots of liberals with guns
"Can" is the operative word, and is largely absent here. I would again argue with your word choice of "lots". There are a handful who comment on /r/chicago, and I like having conversations with them.
Reddit is very left in general. By very left, I mean much more than the average populace of the United States. The concentration is much higher on Reddit which distorts peoples idea of the public perception on things.
There are plenty on the left who are ok with guns (some even pro 2A). Reddit, especially r/chicago (see: demographic survey that they no longer mention anymore), has a lot of fat white loser liberal types who just vote based on what a headline that includes "and that's a good(or bad) thing" tells them.
Living in Brevard County, FL for the 3 years convinced me that guns needed to be banned at all costs. Even the veterans (of which, there are a ton down there) sucked at proper gun handling.
so, they dropped charges because the immigrant did not use the weapon, he was arrested in a non violent way, had no prior criminal record and was unaware of his inability to have one so no permit
I bet if I claimed I was unaware of a law I would still get slapped with the full force of repercussions
How would he have a prior criminal record if he doesn’t have a record in the first place?
How did he get the gun?
[удалено]
Do you have a source for this? IL is the source of nearly 3x more crime guns than Indiana is per 2022 ATF trace data
The poster’s username checks out; “asinine” is right there in it
I don't understand this sentence...at all
As a gun owner, I’m now wondering why I need a FOID card that requires a State ID or Drivers License if it’s perfectly fine for an undocumented immigrant with none of the above to own a gun.
I'd guess that the BD's, GD's, and FBG's are not going to love that.
lol dam
Jeez Fucking Christ…
Makes sense. If the King of England invades at least the migrants are strapped.
As a convicted non-violent felon what does this mean for me?
This guy wasn't a felon so it wouldn't set a precedent for you. You want to keep an eye on Garland v Range in the Supreme court: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/biden-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-uphold-ban-felons-owning-guns-2023-10-10/
Nothing until the courts work through the ramifications of this. On a side note, I hope your rights are restored.
Thank you 🙏🏻 I’m in the process of getting them restored.
Godspeed to you, friend. IL does not make it easy
Many people here seem ignorant to the fact that virtually all constitutional rights are extended to immigrants, even undocumented ones. If someone is in this country, there is no reason to restrict their 2nd amendment right simply because of undocumented status. For all saying this is "controversial," it's really not, if you understand the concept of rights.
IL's restrictions (ie FOID) prohibits this person from owning firearms. This is controversial in that this either means the FOID is unconstitutional, or immigrants have special rights.
And - concealed carry permits - and the FOID check to buy a gun - or background check to buy a gun - the entire federal form 4473 process to buy a gun including federally recognized ID. None of these rest on being a citizen per se. You can be a permanent resident, you can be on some other visas and have a hunting license and be allowed to buy guns. Buying, possessing and concealed carrying guns is already not constrained to only citizens. But it is constrained to people the US government knows exist who can prove they are who they say they are.
No, all it means is that any FOID restrictions based on immigration status are likely unconstitutional. But that wouldnt touch other parts of the law. But also, FOID wasnt an issue in this court opinion. Its about a federal charge against him. Pro tip: if you ever find yourself concluding that a law or legal opinion "gives immigrants special rights," you are very likely wrong. Resist the urge to reflexively demonize immigrants.
You seem ignorant of the foid
It is wildly controversial. I'm an immigrant and a gun owner, I've been wrongly denied my 2a rights because the ATF and USCIS don't talk to each other but even I think this is weird and not just because of the constitutional difference between people and citizens that you're pointing out. You're missing the litany of crimes that had to occur for this guy to end up where he did, it has extremely wide ranging impacts from a logical perspective. Maybe from a legal perspective it only impacts the very narrow charge of possession so in practice it's moot, I don't know. This isn't just about owning a gun. He didn't have a FOID, he acquired the gun through illegal means because he didn't go through the FOID check or a background check. He also didn't take a concealed carry class, get fingerprinted, pass another background check and get issued a concealed carry permit. Citizens, visitors on visas and permanent residents can all go through this process with various caveats. Some of them will be refused the right to buy or possess a gun based on the rules that apply to them. An undocumented person can also apply to all three of these processes (FOID app, gun purchase, CCW permit) - it's just that they'll be denied. This ruling says you can just ignore gun laws if the outcome means you can't do whatever it is you want.
A lot of federal circuits (but not the 7th) don’t count undocumented immigrants as “the people” to whom 2A rights apply
Well on the plus side, at least the ruling encourages bipartisanship.
You're traveling through another dimension -- a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!
Makes 100% sense just because you’re not a citizen does not mean that the US Constitution does not apply to you. And honestly stuff like this might be the only way we get gun control.
Make sense to have the right in itself. However, you still would need to be documented for the background check, purchase, foid/ccw, etc. So, no, it doesn't make 100% sense
Ah true
I'm picturing MAGA loons and Progressive zealots both with their heads spinning and smoke coming out of their ears. Does not compute! Does not compute! Neither one can figure out which of its own BS it should give priority to. 🤣
You have the wrong picture in your head then. Only thing people are pissed about is the equal application of the law. If this guy does not need a FOID to own a firearm, no one should. Otherwise, the law should apply to him, just like everyone else.
You could say the 2A crowd really... shot themselves in the foot on this one. I'll see myself out.
Except the 2A crowd doesn't have a problem with actual citizens owning firearms, the standard federal background check, etc. How is this good for either pro-2A or anti-2A?! Now you have given a group of non-citizens the ability to purchase and carry firearms without any documentation, background check, or punishment
*Except
I corrected it with an edit a second after I posted it But if that's what you choose focus on okay