Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

I agree 100% with the definitions of the law. What I do not agree with is the States
ability to remove or revoke a FOID for "any reason we want", which is what was presented
to me. People all around us have mental disorders, from the person who has a short fuse
to the person who would rather stay at home and work in the garden. There are so many
disorders, that if you get marriage counsellings, then you have a disorder. You cant
get along with others and play well. So, we are going to jerk your FOID for 5 years and
even then you have to prove you are not mentally incapacitated. I would rather go
hunting with a person on medication for PTSD, or Bi-Polar disorder, than one who is not
being treated. The treated person is less likely to "go off" than the non-treated one.
At least this new law does offer relief from these types of incidents. They can no
longer use a medical report, information discussed between Doctors and cops, yes it is
not suppose to happen, but it does. And the bottom line is, if you don't have the
funds, then you probably wont find a pro bono to help you out in many cases. Christmas
time is a very hard time mentally for many people who own guns. Let them get help if
they feel the need and keep it off the official police records. It is none of thier
business. Unless a Psychiatrist notifies the Police of a danger and threat, there should
be no intervention. How many people have said "I would just like to kill him/her" or "I
feel so bad about work today, I wish someone would just shoot me and put me out of my
misery."? These things get said out of anger, short term anger or call it exasperation
as an exclamation of frustration and not with any malice or intent. And a regular
Physician is not in the capacity to determine if you are mentally sound or "adjudicated."

However, in all this, you are fighting a corrupt system, yes it is corrupt, when someone
who is PTSD and ADHD, wired and hostile, can get a FOID almost overnight as his father
is a Cop. It is pure B.S. when someone has had his FOID pulled because a Cop said he
was admitted to a hospital because he was suicidal. When did Hired Security Officers
become Doctors with the knowledge to determine the mental capacity of an individual?
Then the poor guy has to fight, almost alone (where is the NRA in all this) and the
chances of getting a FOID is very small no matter how many experts testify or
affidavit's there are to say the guy is ok. It is a lost cause as the State Gun System
is broke, poorly funded and criminal at best.

The NRA-ILA needs to step up to the plate on this one and force the State of Illinois to
amend the way it does business. I think that this is a bigger battle than the fight to
get one or two towns above the 80 line to give the citizens their right back that they
never lost. President Bush signed HR 2640 into law in January 2008. The law gave 120
days to have a program in place. NOTE: It also "earmarks 3 to 10 percent of federal
implementation grants for use in operating State "relief from disabilities" programs."
This is the law that the State of Illinois is going to have to comply with and if the
battle is not brought to their doorstep, they will work around this law and people that
are normal, hard working and have a "disorder" are never going to get to use their
weapons, buy a round, or have the pleasure of teaching their kids or grandkids legally.

I am ready to get my FOID back. Anyone what to go do battle?

On 7/12/08, nope wrote:
> In order to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, it is
> necessary and in the public interest to provide a system of identifying persons who
> are not qualified to acquire or possess firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and
> tasers within the State of Illinois by the establishment of a system of Firearm
> Owner's Identification Cards, thereby establishing a practical and workable system by
> which law enforcement authorities will be afforded an opportunity to identify those
> persons who are prohibited by Section 24‑3.1 of the "Criminal Code of 1961", as
> amended, from acquiring or possessing firearms and firearm ammunition and who are
> prohibited by this Act from acquiring stun guns and tasers.
>
> Being adjudicated as a mental defective" means the person is the subject of a
> determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority that a person,
> as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, mental impairment,
> incompetency, condition, or disease:
> (1) is a danger to himself, herself, or to others;
> (2) lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her
> own affairs;
>
> (3) is not guilty in a criminal case by reason of
> insanity, mental disease or defect;
>
> (4) is incompetent to stand trial in a criminal case;
> (5) is not guilty by reason of lack of mental
> responsibility pursuant to Articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military
> Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a, 876b.
>
> "Counterfeit" means to copy or imitate, without legal authority, with intent to
> deceive.
>
>
>
> On 7/11/08, by paul a. to steven pitts wrote:
>> It can hardly be any surprise that anti-gun House members worked to sneak this bill
>> through before anyone was aware that it was going to be considered. The
>> negotiations have left legislation which is WORSE THAN THE ORGINAL McCARTHY BILL.
>>
>> The worst aspect is, in section 3(2), that it STATUTORILY FREEZES IN regulations at
>> 27 CFR 478.11 which would make you a "prohibited person" if:
>>
>> * You were found by any "lawful authority" (including a IDEA school therapist, a
>> Medicare psychologist, or a VA doctor to:
>> 1. Represent even a minimal suicide risk;
>> 2. Represent even a minimal playground risk to other students; or
>> 3. Be incapable of managing your own affairs; or
>> * Were referred by such "lawful authority" to a psychiatrist or psychologist to be
>> evaluated in connection with child custody proceedings or other contexts in which
>> professional assessment is ordered.
>> This means that a future hypothetical pro-gun administration would be powerless to
>> change the regulations so that they did not apply to:
>>
>> -- Veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder;
>> -- Kids put on Ritalin in connection with the IDEA program;
>> -- Seniors diagnosed with Alzheimer's in connection with Medicare's home health
>> care assistance; or
>> -- Seniors (perhaps with a gun collection accumulated over a lifetime) who continue
>> to live in their homes, but are put under guardianship by their adult children.
>> In the pretense of doing gun owners some huge favor, the bill explicitly
>> recognizes, in section 101(c)(1)(C), that a psychiatrist's finding is sufficient to
>> make you a prohibited person, so long as that finding is based on one of the three
>> criteria listed above. And, incidentally, when a kid is put on Ritalin, mom is
>> diagnosed with Alzheimer's, a vet is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder,
>> or gramps is put under a guardianship, it is ALMOST ALWAYS based, in whole or in
>> part, on one of those three factors.
>>
>> The bill, in section 101(c)(2)(A) and section 105, also requires federal agencies
>> like the Department of Veterans Affairs and states to set up procedures for
>> prohibited persons with "mental disabilities" to "clear their names." There are at
>> least four problems with this:
>>
>> 1. First, prior to this bill, vets suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder
>> were arguably not required to "clear their names." Ditto, seniors with Alzheimer's
>> kids on Ritalin, etc. By statutorily codifying 27 CFR 478.11, this bill, for the
>> first time, makes it statutorily mandated that these persons ARE and SHOULD BE
>> prohibited persons under 18 USC 922 (d) & (g). So the bill makes it absolutely
>> clear that vets, seniors, and adults who were problem kids are statutorily
>> prohibited from owning guns (for life), and then graciously opens the possibility
>> that they may apply for relief, in accordance with unspecified standards based
>> wholly on the discretion of the government.
>>
>> 2. Second, there already is a procedure for persons to "clear their names." It was
>> created by McClure-Volkmer and is contained at 18 USC 925(c). The problem is that,
>> for many years, Congress, on appropriations bills, has barred anyone from using
>> this procedure. So, having blocked procedures allowing people to "clear their
>> names," the House is now creating redundant procedures to do the same thing. And
>> they expect us to trust them?
>>
>> 3. Third, the bill states that "[r]elief and judicial review shall be available
>> according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States
>> Code." But, since Congress has blocked the implementation of section 925(c), there
>> is at least a question of whether this new, redundant procedure would not be
>> similarly automatically blocked, at least at the federal level.
>>
>> 4. Fourth, there is also a procedure for "clearing one's name" in subsection (g) of
>> the Statues-at-Large portion of the Brady Law, when the name is erroneously
>> submitted to NICS. The problem is that persons seeking to invoke this procedure to
>> establish that they were incorrectly classified are routinely sent a form letter
>> denying relief.
>>
>> Ironically, a particularly dangerous person who is actually held in a mental
>> institution may be able to obtain relief after he is "released or discharged,"
>> pursuant to section 101(c)(1)(A). But a person who is found to be suffered from
>> post-traumatic stress disorder, childhood behavioral problems, or Alzheimer's --
>> and who is not held anywhere (or subjected to anything) from which they can
>> be "released or discharged" -- could never take advantage of a provision which is
>> available to the criminally insane. And even this limited provision applies only to
>> federal agencies, and not states.
>>
>> Incidentally, if Congress appropriates NOTHING to implement this bill, the states
>> will still be required to comply with the unfunded mandates or risk loss of DOJ
>> funds under section 104.
>>
>> All of this is on top of the usual concerns that the McCarthy bill would still
>> require the states to turn over 90&37; of all information which was "relevant" to
>> whether an individual was a prohibited person by reason of being "an unlawful user
>> of or addicted to" any controlled substance or a mental defective (as that term
>> will now be defined.).
>>
>> Ironically, given the "tough enforcement" language being used to try to dislodge
>> the "amnesty" bill, the new draft excludes crackdowns on illegal aliens -- a
>> category which, more than any other, includes terrorists who have snuck into our
>> country. But the Attorney General, without a court order, can, at his or her
>> unilateral discretion, demand any information held by any state (or its agent)
>> which would be "relevant" in determining who fell into other categories, including
>> Medicare medical records, IDEA medical records, National guard medical records,
>> drug diversion records, records of drug charges not prosecuted, etc. And, unlike
>> the convicted serial killer, the unprosecuted marijuana smoker, veteran, or senior
>> would not be protected merely because his records were not available
>> electronically.
>>
>> And, finally, having compiled, potentially, the biggest list of dangerous persons
>> in existence, the records could not be used to go after terrorists or other
>> criminals.
>>
>> SUMMARY: It was not the intention of 18 USC 922 (d) & (g) to make veterans,
>> seniors, and misbehaved kids "prohibited persons" with an FBI dossier. Any
>> provision in 27 CFR 478.11 to the contrary is just plain wrong, and should be
>> changed. To freeze these regulations into statutory law is simply evil.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Home
>> Copyright, Contact and Credits
>>
>> On 7/11/08, Steven Pitts wrote:
>>>
>>> However, you all seem to be overlooking the law signed by the President HR 2640.
>>> the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. This ties hand in had with the possession of
>>> a gun, rifle, etc. of persons that have had a "Mental Illness" stigma attached to
>>> their name. According to the law, Federal Agencies must provide "relief from
>>> disabilities", removal of erroneous records, prevents the use of "Adjudications"
>>> when only medical diagnoses without findings that the people involved are
>>> dangerous or mentally incompetent." This means that the use of only purely
>>> medical records or even the report of suspected medical treatments cannot be used
>>> by NICS to deny the use or purchase of firearms. There are many more items of
>>> interest such as the purging of outdated records, allows the awarding of attorneys
>>> fees to applicants who successfully challenge a Federal Agency's denial for relief
>>> in Court.
>>>
>>> Ok, so it seems this is all directed at the Federal level. However wait. In
>>> order for a State to have their own programs and run them at a State level, i.e.
>>> Safety, Environmental, Gun Control, the State is mandated to follow the minimum of
>>> the Federal law requiements. They can be stricter, such as making you have a
>>> locking gun case for transportation, however they must follow the Federal Laws
>>> first.
>>>
>>> So I am anxious for some of the Lawyerly types to take a review of this law and
>>> take it into the Illinois State Courts in a lawsuit. With the NRA going after
>>> Chicago, now would be a good time to bring this out.
>>>
>>> Regards,,
>>>
>>> On 7/07/08, friend of NRA wrote:
>>>> On 7/07/08, Greg Holz wrote:
>>>>> You may want to retract this statement after the Supreme Court's recent 2nd
>>>>> Amendment ruling! The Second Amendment not only applies to states but more
>>>>> importantly to an individuals right to keep and bear arms. It is very much
>>>>> about state gun control.
>>>>
>>>> No need for a retraction. What I wrote was the law at the time I wrote it. In
>>>> DC v. Heller the Supreme Court for the first time ever ruled that the 2nd
>>>> Amendment is an individual right. So that is now the law.
>>>>
>>>> However, DC v. Heller does not say that everyone can now own a gun or that
>>>> states may not reasonably place restrictions on gun ownership. FOID cards seem
>>>> to be well within the limits of the DC v. Heller decision. Don't expect for
>>>> FOID regulations to fall in a court challenge. Maybe the Chicago gun ban but
>>>> not FOID. We'll just have to wait and see how far DC v. Heller goes in
>>>> bringing down gun control laws.
>>>>
>>>> In any event, if you have a psyc or criminal history, the Supreme Court made it
>>>> clear in their opinion that you will not own a gun.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/28/07, friend of NRA wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/28/07, DILLER wrote in part:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Foid cards in my opinion violate the United States Constitution. You
>>>>>>> have a right to bare arms and shall not be infringed; it says nothing
>>>>>>> about firearm identification cards, or any other requirement. Stop them
>>>>>>> from dismantling the Constitution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The applicability of the Second Amendment is often misunderstood. Its
>>>>>> guarantee applies only to the federal government not to state government.
>>>>>> Over the years, much of the US Constitution has been made applicable to
>>>>>> the states by the terms of the 14th Amendment, but still, only certain
>>>>>> parts of it apply to states and the 2nd Amendment is one part that does
>>>>>> not apply to states. For example, the 5th Amendment is now applicable to
>>>>>> the states except for the part where it says "No person shall be held to
>>>>>> answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment
>>>>>> or indictment of a Grand Jury[.]" That part does not apply to the
>>>>>> states. The 5th Amendment has been applied to states piece by piece over
>>>>>> the last 150 years. Believe it or not, it was not until 1969 that the
>>>>>> double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment was applied to state trials by
>>>>>> the decision in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, and the self-
>>>>>> incrimination clause did not apply to state trials until the early
>>>>>> twentieth century. Likewise, the first sentence of the 7th Amendment
>>>>>> says "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed
>>>>>> twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved[.]" That
>>>>>> does not apply to states. As I said above; none of the 2nd Amendment
>>>>>> applies to states. Don't confuse your federal US constitutional rights
>>>>>> with your rights under state law regarding firearms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I make no judgment about your opinion on gun control but want to point out
>>>>>> that the US Constitution does not forbid any type of gun control by the
>>>>>> states, thus, the Illinois FOID card can not be a violation of the 2nd
>>>>>> Amendment. The framers of the Constitution were concerned that the
>>>>>> federal government not take away the right to bear arms from the citizen
>>>>>> militias created by the states. They were not at all concerned at the
>>>>>> time the 2nd Amendment was written about state gun control. It is
>>>>>> unlikely that the Supreme Court will ever hold that the 2nd Amendment
>>>>>> applies to states.