Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

Apparently you've failed to observe that there are 9 people in long black robes sitting in a fancy building in Washington,
D.C., that disagree with your analysis.

By the way, you do have a "constitutional rights to bare arms." I do not know of any state or municipality that bans
sleeveless shirts. Some fancy restaurants and clubs might, but no government agencies. However, those 9 people don't
think that you have an unlimited right to "bear" arms.

On 2/27/08, Guns wrote:
> Police power. An authority conferred by the American constitutional system in the Tenth Amendment, U.S. Const., upon
> the individual states, and, in turn, delegated to local governments, through which they are enabled to establish a
> special department of police; adopt such laws and regulations as tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime, and
> secure generally the comfort, safety, morals, health, and prosperity of the citizens by preserving the public order,
> preventing a conflict of rights in the common intercourse of the citizens, and insuring to each an uninterrupted
> enjoyment of all the privileges conferred upon him or her by the general laws.
> The power of the State to place restraints on the personal freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of
> the public safety, health, and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity. The police
> power is subject to limitations of the federal and State constitutions, and especially to the requirement of due
> process. Police power is the exercise of the sovereign right of a government to promote order, safety, security,
> health, morals and general welfare within constitutional limits and is an essential attribute of government. Marshall
> v. Kansas City, Mo., 355 S.W.2d 877, 883. This give the right for police power to use foid cards against curtain
> indivuals, but in no way gives them the power to take the rights away of law bidding citizens that do not cause a threat
> in society, to do so is a violation of their constitutional rights to bare arms. Police power has limitations on
> regulations.
>
>
> On 2/26/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
>> This is why we don't want you to have guns. You don't have enough of an attention span to remember the prefatory
>> clause as you read the remainder of the sentence. You know--the part that said, "Subject...to the police power...,"
>> meaning the right of the state to exercise its police powers to regulate the ownership of firearms.
>>
>> On 2/26/08, SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS wrote:
>>> That’s interesting, I think you are right; Illinois is violating the Illinois States constitution. Foid Cards are un-
>>> constitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/21/08, RIGHT TO ARMS wrote:
>>>> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
>>>> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
>>>> Individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>>> (Source: Illinois Constitution.) That is straight forward to me as I read the Illinois constitution “Individual
>>>> citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Foid cards do exactly that, infringe an individual’s right.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/16/08, Captain America wrote:
>>>>> I am mainly talking about the Illinois Constitution. The State of Illinois adopted the Federal constitution by
>>>>> vote, so they must follow it, until they have a re- vote not to. And the Illinois constitution states this.
>>>>> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
>>>>> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
>>>>> Individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>>>> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No problem Captain America, you don't sound mean at all you just sound kind of frustrated that not everyone
>>>>>> agrees with you. As for your suggestion that people who disagree with you should leave the country; well --
>>>>>> that is not a comment that deserves a respectful answer. All I can say is -- you need to understand that your
>>>>>> opinion is not what counts, it is the opinion of the Supreme Court which was established by Article III of the
>>>>>> Constitution. The Constitution you are waving around gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the
>>>>>> Constitution. If you don’t like that part of the Constitution you should seek an amendment that would put you
>>>>>> in charge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to currently applicable Supreme Court holdings, the Constitution does not guarantee that a citizen
>>>>>> may own a firearm. What the Constitution does do is prohibit the federal government from interfering with the
>>>>>> states' right to allow its citizens to own a firearm. The states have the right to allow or prohibit their
>>>>>> own citizens from owning firearms as they see fit without interference from the federal government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should follow a current case before the US Supreme Court. “D.C. v. Heller” is a case where the 2nd
>>>>>> Circuit struck down the DC ban on gun ownership as unconstitutional. The 2nd circuit agrees with your
>>>>>> interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The case will be heard this term by the Supreme Court. Their decision
>>>>>> will put to rest the question of whether the 2nd Amendment is a state right or a personal right. By following
>>>>>> this case you will become informed about the issues involved.