Illinois Firearm Identification card ruled unConstitutional in state court....yes, this is correct.

[JoeB131]

You are an idiot...... not all criminals are Mexican drug cartel soldiers..... and Mexican drug cartel soldiers don't stick up old people on the street.....you moron.

Mexicans? Never mind. Rather not know.

 

[2aguy]

So, when one child died in a car accident, you think cars should have been banned?......good to know.

We'd have a hard time living without cars... but funny thing.

Car ownership is licensed, insured and regulated out the nines. and they aren't designed to kill people like guns are.

Meanwhile, Tiny Dicks like you celebrate when they get rid of something as MINOR as a FOID Card. Like even asking a gun owner to prove he isn't crazy or a criminal is too much because Founding Fathers or something.

Again....Voter I.D.....I know, you head just exploded because you can't stand an I.D. to vote, but demand an I.D. for the 2nd Amendment.....which criminals can't use because they can't buy guns with or without i.d......you moron.

 

[Blues Man]

One of the dumbest comparisons ever.

Lawn darts were marketed as a children's toy
No child can buy a gun

No, but plenty of you dun-der gun nuts who buy guns for kids, aren't there?

The only difference is that the people who made lawn darts were responsible enough to take them off the market when ONE CHILD died.

Almost all parents don't allow their kids to use guns unless under their direct supervision.
If parents were supervising their kids with the lawn darts no one would have died.

 

[hadit]

So, when one child died in a car accident, you think cars should have been banned?......good to know.

We'd have a hard time living without cars... but funny thing.

Car ownership is licensed, insured and regulated out the nines. and they aren't designed to kill people like guns are.

Meanwhile, Tiny Dicks like you celebrate when they get rid of something as MINOR as a FOID Card. Like even asking a gun owner to prove he isn't crazy or a criminal is too much because Founding Fathers or something.

Ah, yes, the 1,789,546th appearance of your phallic obsession. Not helping your case much.

 

[JoeB131]

Again....Voter I.D.....I know, you head just exploded because you can't stand an I.D. to vote, but demand an I.D. for the 2nd Amendment.....which criminals can't use because they can't buy guns with or without i.d......you moron.

YOu can't kill someone with a vote.

That said, I have no problem with voter ID if everyone gets an ID card for free and there is a central national database.

For guns... there is absolutely no good reason for a citizen to own a gun. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

But I'm kind of willing to let people have guns if they undergo STRICT background checks, (not the half-ass bullshit we have now), are required to carry insurance and prove they are proficient with their weapon. This is the standard I had to meet when I was in the armed forces. Kind of makes sense if you are going to cite the Militia Amendment as your reason why you can have a gun.

But guns in the home are more dangerous to the household than the bad guy, and no, you aren't going to overthrow the government with your guns. So those are really stupid reasons to want one.

 

[JoeB131]

Almost all parents don't allow their kids to use guns unless under their direct supervision.
If parents were supervising their kids with the lawn darts no one would have died.

No parents?

Um, more people are shot and killed by kids than by terrorists in the US.

 

[2aguy]

Again....Voter I.D.....I know, you head just exploded because you can't stand an I.D. to vote, but demand an I.D. for the 2nd Amendment.....which criminals can't use because they can't buy guns with or without i.d......you moron.

YOu can't kill someone with a vote.

That said, I have no problem with voter ID if everyone gets an ID card for free and there is a central national database.

For guns... there is absolutely no good reason for a citizen to own a gun. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

But I'm kind of willing to let people have guns if they undergo STRICT background checks, (not the half-ass bullshit we have now), are required to carry insurance and prove they are proficient with their weapon. This is the standard I had to meet when I was in the armed forces. Kind of makes sense if you are going to cite the Militia Amendment as your reason why you can have a gun.

But guns in the home are more dangerous to the household than the bad guy, and no, you aren't going to overthrow the government with your guns. So those are really stupid reasons to want one.

For guns... there is absolutely no good reason for a citizen to own a gun. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense...stopping violent rapes, robberies and murders....those 1.1 million Americans would disagree with your statement.

The 12 million innocent men, women and children in Europe, murdered by the German socialists with the cooperation of most of the goverments of Europe....would disagree with your statement...

The 10s of thousands of innocent Mexican men, women and children murdered by the drug cartels with the help of the Mexican police and military, would disagree with your statement.....

 

[JoeB131]

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense..

Yes, you can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't pass the laugh test... if you have 1.1 million DGU, but only 200 justifiable homicides...

 

[Blues Man]

Again....Voter I.D.....I know, you head just exploded because you can't stand an I.D. to vote, but demand an I.D. for the 2nd Amendment.....which criminals can't use because they can't buy guns with or without i.d......you moron.

YOu can't kill someone with a vote.

That said, I have no problem with voter ID if everyone gets an ID card for free and there is a central national database.

For guns... there is absolutely no good reason for a citizen to own a gun. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.

But I'm kind of willing to let people have guns if they undergo STRICT background checks, (not the half-ass bullshit we have now), are required to carry insurance and prove they are proficient with their weapon. This is the standard I had to meet when I was in the armed forces. Kind of makes sense if you are going to cite the Militia Amendment as your reason why you can have a gun.

But guns in the home are more dangerous to the household than the bad guy, and no, you aren't going to overthrow the government with your guns. So those are really stupid reasons to want one.

Tell the civilians killed in any of our undeclared wars that

 

[Blues Man]

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense..

Yes, you can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't pass the laugh test... if you have 1.1 million DGU, but only 200 justifiable homicides...

All that means is that people with guns aren't as trigger happy as you say they are

 

[JoeB131]

Tell the civilians killed in any of our undeclared wars that

All that means is that people with guns aren't as trigger happy as you say they are

No, it means DGU's don't happen all that often... not that the gun nuts aren't trigger happy. Listening to you people talk all day about how you'd like to shoot you a darkie just like Zimmerman did, (some kid buying candy), but for every 5500 times it happens, 5499 times you don't... just doesn't pass the laugh test.

While the gun makes you feel better about your tiny... hands... incidents where you can actually use it are rare.

 

[Blues Man]

Tell the civilians killed in any of our undeclared wars that

All that means is that people with guns aren't as trigger happy as you say they are

No, it means DGU's don't happen all that often... not that the gun nuts aren't trigger happy. Listening to you people talk all day about how you'd like to shoot you a darkie just like Zimmerman did, (some kid buying candy), but for every 5500 times it happens, 5499 times you don't... just doesn't pass the laugh test.

While the gun makes you feel better about your tiny... hands... incidents where you can actually use it are rare.

Or it means they happen and the gun is never fired or the perpetrator is merely wounded more times than they are killed

 

[JoeB131]

Or it means they happen and the gun is never fired or the perpetrator is merely wounded more times than they are killed

Maybe the gun summoned a herd of rainbow farting unicorns to scare the malefactor away.... but that seems equally unlikely.

 

[Blues Man]

Or it means they happen and the gun is never fired or the perpetrator is merely wounded more times than they are killed

Maybe the gun summoned a herd of rainbow farting unicorns to scare the malefactor away.... but that seems equally unlikely.

Let me ask you this if you were to break into a home with malicious intent ( because we are all criminals just waiting to commit crimes) and the home owner stuck a shotgun in your face would he have to fire it to get you to stop or would you piss your pants and run?

I bet you can guess what I think you would do.

 

[hadit]

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense..

Yes, you can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't pass the laugh test... if you have 1.1 million DGU, but only 200 justifiable homicides...

Then counter the CDC. Post your source so we can debate its credibility against that of the CDC.

 

[iceberg]

Any tax or fee on the exercise of a Right is unConstitutional.....see Murdock v Pennsylvania, and now a judge in Illinois, even with morons in charge of the state, finds the FOID card, unConstitutional.....the card is required in Illinois to own a gun...

Illinois Circuit Judge Rules FOID Card Unconstitutional; Attorney General Reportedly Appealing to IL Supreme Court - The Truth About Guns

The case began with the March 2017 arrest of a now-divorced, 4′ 11″ fifty-something woman for the high crime of possessing a single-shot .22 rifle for self-defense. Obviously, she’s not exactly Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame. She failed to have a FOID card for her rifle, despite eligibility to receive one. In February 2018, a White County judge ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional.

10. In this case the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the purpose of self-defense without a FOID card. To require the defendant to fill out a form, provide a picture ID and pay a $10 fee to obtain a FOID card before she can exercise her constitutional right to self-defense with a firearm is a violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the States and a violation of Article I, Section 22, of the Constitution of the State of Illinois, as applied to this case only.

11. Based upon the forgoing, the Court finds 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) unconstitutional as applied to this case.

Motions and counter-motions poured in, and in October 2018, the judge reaffirmed his ruling and expanded upon it.

3. The Court supplements its ruling of February 2, 2018, as follows:

a. To comply with 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) a person must have a FOID card on their person when in either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition. Owning a FOID card is insufficient to comply with the statute. See People v. Eldens, 63 Ill.App.3d 554 (Fifth Dist. 1978) and People v. Cahill, 37 Ill.App.3d 361 (Second Dist. Second Div. 1976). A person is in constructive possession of a firearm or ammunition when: (1) The person has knowledge of the presence of a weapon or ammunition, and (2) That person is in immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm or ammunition is located.

Due to the language of 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) and the Court’s interpretation of the statute, it is clear that compliance is impossible when one is in ·their own home. No person could have their FOID card on their person 24 hours each and every day when firearms or ammunition are in the house.

In addition, every person in the home (family member, friend, spouse, etc.) who has knowledge of the firearms or ammunition and has immediate and exclusive control of the area where the firearms or ammunition is located, who does not have a FOID card, would be in violation of the statute.

Thus, 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional, as applied to this defendant, because it is impossible to comply in the person’s .own home. As an alternative, if 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is constitutional then it becomes obvious the legislature did not intend the ~tatute to apply in one’s own home due to impossibility of compliance.

Illinois, New York, California are a disgrace to the United States.

right now we're pretty much a collective disgrace.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Tell the civilians killed in any of our undeclared wars that

All that means is that people with guns aren't as trigger happy as you say they are

No, it means DGU's don't happen all that often... not that the gun nuts aren't trigger happy. Listening to you people talk all day about how you'd like to shoot you a darkie just like Zimmerman did, (some kid buying candy), but for every 5500 times it happens, 5499 times you don't... just doesn't pass the laugh test.

While the gun makes you feel better about your tiny... hands... incidents where you can actually use it are rare.

Rare is not never and if rare means saving a life of a loved on then so be it. People have flood insurance on their homes. The odds a flood will take your house are slim...rare but better safe than sorry.

 

[miketx]

The point that sailed right over your head was most murders occur where there are fewer guns per person and the guns used in those murders are mostly illegaly obtained and illegally possessed

And if you can't cut out the racist shit don't bother responding to me I will remind you again that my mother was half "Darkie" you racist fuck

Which means all of nothing to me. The worst racists are the self-hating minorities.

The most gun murders happen because we have 300 million guns out there...

No liar, gun murders happen because democrats and rinos are way easy on crime. Prisons have revolving doors and law breakers are given every break to not go to prison. Just look at your vaunted Obama and how his crime loving hide allowed Nicholas Cruz to keep on going in his crime spree until he shot up a school while coward Democrat cops hid. That's why we have so much violent crime. That and vicious liars like you that promote filth and lies

 

[2aguy]

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense..

Yes, you can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't pass the laugh test... if you have 1.1 million DGU, but only 200 justifiable homicides...

I will repeat the CDC study, and the rest...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..


Self defense with a gun:

Why don't we have a hard number on this....?

Estimates On Defensive Firearm Use Pose A Major Problem. Here's Why.

When a gun owner presents a firearm during a threat to their life, they often don’t even need to pull the trigger. After all, a criminal with a knife or a hammer or something else will rarely decide the few dollars in someone’s wallet is worth being killed over.

As a result, even if the police are called—and they’re often not, which I’ll get into in a bit—there’s nothing for the FBI or other law enforcement to track except for the initial robbery attempt.

And, again, that assumes the police are called. Often, gun owners don’t pick up the phone.

This failure to call the police is often cited by anti-gun crusaders as evidence that it didn’t really happen. However, it’s simply not true. The gun community has plenty of stories of people who appear to have done everything right, only to become the target of an overzealous police department or prosecutor. While these folks usually end up in the clear, it’s a long, arduous, and expensive ordeal.

As the meme says, “Ain’t nobody got time for that.”

So, many continue to just go about their day. No shots were fired, so why risk it?

And even if the police are called, it doesn’t guarantee that a report will be generated. I’ve personally seen that happen, as well.

The result of all of this is a real problem in tracking self-defense statistics. We only have estimates, which vary wildly.

However, it still bears noting that even the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses are several times higher than the number of firearm-related fatalities, even if you continue to add in suicide statistics, which anti-gunners are fond of doing.

Take those out and the difference is an even starker contrast.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Centers for Disease Control state 1.1 million Americans use guns for self defense..

Yes, you can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make it true.

Doesn't pass the laugh test... if you have 1.1 million DGU, but only 200 justifiable homicides...

I will repeat the CDC study, and the rest...

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..


Self defense with a gun:

Why don't we have a hard number on this....?

Estimates On Defensive Firearm Use Pose A Major Problem. Here's Why.

When a gun owner presents a firearm during a threat to their life, they often don’t even need to pull the trigger. After all, a criminal with a knife or a hammer or something else will rarely decide the few dollars in someone’s wallet is worth being killed over.

As a result, even if the police are called—and they’re often not, which I’ll get into in a bit—there’s nothing for the FBI or other law enforcement to track except for the initial robbery attempt.

And, again, that assumes the police are called. Often, gun owners don’t pick up the phone.

This failure to call the police is often cited by anti-gun crusaders as evidence that it didn’t really happen. However, it’s simply not true. The gun community has plenty of stories of people who appear to have done everything right, only to become the target of an overzealous police department or prosecutor. While these folks usually end up in the clear, it’s a long, arduous, and expensive ordeal.

As the meme says, “Ain’t nobody got time for that.”

So, many continue to just go about their day. No shots were fired, so why risk it?

And even if the police are called, it doesn’t guarantee that a report will be generated. I’ve personally seen that happen, as well.

The result of all of this is a real problem in tracking self-defense statistics. We only have estimates, which vary wildly.

However, it still bears noting that even the most conservative estimates of defensive gun uses are several times higher than the number of firearm-related fatalities, even if you continue to add in suicide statistics, which anti-gunners are fond of doing.

Take those out and the difference is an even starker contrast.

All based on Kleck studies. Except I already produced that elusive CDC report that you had never seen before that Kleck was hoping you never would. He used a fictitious report that he said existed. It did, in fact, exist and it didn't agree with what he was saying that CDC reported. Kleck made a lot of crap up. And since both or your sources are from the Kleck "Studies" both are just made up stories. You really need to get another source that doesn't always lead back to Kleck.