Illinois Sheriff Siezing Thousands of Firearms

[allingeneral]

Background: The Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) is required in Illinois for all firearm and ammunition purchases. One must apply for their card and prove that they are legally allowed to own a firearm before making any purchases. This article explains that when a FOID card is revoked, the firearms usually aren't recovered - so they're going out and seizing them.


Article:
An Illinois sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the Chicago suburbs in an effort to seize guns from thousands of people whose right to own a firearm has been revoked, the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

According to the paper, more than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked Firearm Owners Identification Card, or FOID, which is required to legally buy guns or ammunition.

Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of the 3,000 continue to possess firearms.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/28/sh ... z2aS6xqWga

[VACoastie]

Yeah, we'll see how that works out for them. It'll be interesting to see the thousands (divided by 500) of guns they confiscate.

[thekinetic]

I see a lot of dead gestapo coming, they'd better start digging graves!

[dorminWS]

Lets see......

So you apply for and get a FOID card in Illinois, then legally purchase a gun.

Then something happens that causes your FOID to be revoked.

So, by operation of law, it is no longer "legal" for you to own the firearms(s) you purchased legally.

So they come to your house and demand that you turn over your FOID. Then they take your guns away from you, too.

Even if you buy into the whole "FOID-required" business, it seems like a raw deal indeed that you lose your valuable property WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Might be OK if you lost your FOID for robbing a bank or raping someone or for some other reprehensible behavior, but what about the guy who goes to the shrink and gets diagnosed as suicidal? Surely there ought to be some way to avoid forfeiture of the VALUE of the property even while prohibiting continued possession of it. Of course, that assumes anyone is interested in treating gun owners fairly................

[WRW]

That's what "registration" will get you.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

Look at it this way. If you get a license to drive a car in Virginia, and then commit certain offenses, the Commonwealth WILL take your license away from you.

But he doesn't confiscate your car. It is your valuable property which you may dispose of legally.

And guess what? You don't even have a constitutionally-protected right to have a car.

[Swampman]

Yeah, but cars don't use bullets!

[dorminWS]

Yeah, but cars don't use bullets!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cars don't NEED bullets to be dangerous.

[M1A4ME]

Notice they are attempting to seize weapons of lawful gun owners who have for some reason or other not renewed their permit cards or failed to meet some new requirement to obtain a card renewal.

Those weapons are not the ones out on the streets of Chicago every day/night killing and wounding the long list of people the mainstream media does not want to talk about.

While seizing the criminally used guns would do much more to clean up Chicago and reduce the violence and shooting related deaths, it is much more dangerous to attempt to seize a gun in the possession of a non-violent law abiding person that weapons carried/used by violent criminals.

I'll bet the main stream media won't point that out either. They'll just talk about what a great job the Sheriff's office is doing confiscating "illegal" firearms.

[HotD]

......You don't even have a constitutionally-protected right to have a car.

Incorrect. Holding the same argument, there isn't a constitutionally-protected right to hard boil one's eggs, wear a yellow tie, grow a fu-man-chu on one's face, have a tattoo of one's forearm, eat Bacon on Wednesdays, etc etc etc.

The right exists, though the right isn't enumerated.

[moss20]

Not looking forward to being in Illinois at the end of the week and walking around unarmed.

[HotD]

Not looking forward to being in Illinois at the end of the week and walking around unarmed.

Become a criminal. They apparently are the protected one's within the state.

[widefat]

Lobster Boiling.

[MarcSpaz]

Yeah, but cars don't use bullets!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cars don't NEED bullets to be dangerous.

According to the CDC, in 2011, about 34,000 people in total died from gunshots. In that same year, a bit more than 42,000 people that died in car accidents. About 32,000 were drunk driving related and car crashes were the leading cause of death in young people between the ages of 15.5 to 25 years old.

I have never once heard anyone mention we need to ban cars, confiscate cars of known offenders, or deny the privileged of buying a car from anyone... ever.

Even though more people are killed in car crashes than shooting victims, there is still an overwhelming number of people who want to outlaw gun ownership, force background checks at multiple levels, and require registration for those who do have a gun. It's pretty sad.

The truth is, anyone of any age can buy and own a car, even if they don't have a license to operate it on the public roads. The only time a vehicle needs to be registered in when it is operated on public roads. No background checks are done. No testing or training is required. The only thing you need to buy a device that kills more people than guns... is cash.

[TacticalMom]

Lets see......

So you apply for and get a FOID card in Illinois, then legally purchase a gun.

Then something happens that causes your FOID to be revoked.

So, by operation of law, it is no longer "legal" for you to own the firearms(s) you purchased legally.

So they come to your house and demand that you turn over your FOID. Then they take your guns away from you, too.

Even if you buy into the whole "FOID-required" business, it seems like a raw deal indeed that you lose your valuable property WITHOUT COMPENSATION. Might be OK if you lost your FOID for robbing a bank or raping someone or for some other reprehensible behavior, but what about the guy who goes to the shrink and gets diagnosed as suicidal? Surely there ought to be some way to avoid forfeiture of the VALUE of the property even while prohibiting continued possession of it. Of course, that assumes anyone is interested in treating gun owners fairly................

+1 my thoughts exactly.

[dorminWS]

......You don't even have a constitutionally-protected right to have a car.

Incorrect. Holding the same argument, there isn't a constitutionally-protected right to hard boil one's eggs, wear a yellow tie, grow a fu-man-chu on one's face, have a tattoo of one's forearm, eat Bacon on Wednesdays, etc etc etc.

The right exists, though the right isn't enumerated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. Correct.
I didn't say you don't have a right to own a car. Perhaps the term "constitutionally-protected" right wasn't specific enough for you, though. In fact, if we're going to be so painfully specific about it here, ALL your rights are "constitutionally-protected" rights. That's why we have a Constitution, after all. What I was talking about when I said you don't have constitutionally-protected right to own a car is a right that the Constitution specifically enumerates; one the founding fathers regarded so highly as a cornerstone of liberty and human rights that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

[Swampman]

Yeah, but cars don't use bullets!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cars don't NEED bullets to be dangerous.

Dude, calm down.

[MarcSpaz]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. Correct.
I didn't say you don't have a right to own a car. Perhaps the term "constitutionally-protected" right wasn't specific enough for you, though. In fact, if we're going to be so painfully specific about it here, ALL your rights are "constitutionally-protected" rights. That's why we have a Constitution, after all. What I was talking about when I said you don't have constitutionally-protected right to own a car is a right that the Constitution specifically enumerates; one the founding fathers regarded so highly as a cornerstone of liberty and human rights that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

Not only that, but guns are the only materialistic item guaranteed by the Constitution.

Everyone has the God given right to protect them self. The 2nd amendment recognizes that and preserves that right.

[gunderwood]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. Correct.
I didn't say you don't have a right to own a car. Perhaps the term "constitutionally-protected" right wasn't specific enough for you, though. In fact, if we're going to be so painfully specific about it here, ALL your rights are "constitutionally-protected" rights. That's why we have a Constitution, after all. What I was talking about when I said you don't have constitutionally-protected right to own a car is a right that the Constitution specifically enumerates; one the founding fathers regarded so highly as a cornerstone of liberty and human rights that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

Not only that, but guns are the only materialistic item guaranteed by the Constitution.

Everyone has the God given right to protect them self. The 2nd amendment recognizes that and preserves that right.

It's wider than that. It protects arms, which covers a lot more ground than merely firearms.

[HotD]

......You don't even have a constitutionally-protected right to have a car.

Incorrect. Holding the same argument, there isn't a constitutionally-protected right to hard boil one's eggs, wear a yellow tie, grow a fu-man-chu on one's face, have a tattoo of one's forearm, eat Bacon on Wednesdays, etc etc etc.

The right exists, though the right isn't enumerated.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Nope. Correct.
I didn't say you don't have a right to own a car. Perhaps the term "constitutionally-protected" right wasn't specific enough for you, though. In fact, if we're going to be so painfully specific about it here, ALL your rights are "constitutionally-protected" rights. That's why we have a Constitution, after all. What I was talking about when I said you don't have constitutionally-protected right to own a car is a right that the Constitution specifically enumerates; one the founding fathers regarded so highly as a cornerstone of liberty and human rights that they enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

Isn't that what I just stated?