Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

I agree with this below.

On 7/12/08, Steven P wrote:
> I agree 100&37; 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.