Quote of the Day
Mike in comments on Illinois releasing a list of all those authorized to own firearms:
They are always after us to accept “reasonable” regulations. Now, they prove to us–again–that we should resist all forms of registration schemes that create any record of a lawful citizen’s purchases.
Well, reasonable regulations require reasonable people in charge of them.
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:06 pm
reasonable regulations also require that reasonable people always be in charge of them. If you cannot guarantee this, how can it be reasonable?
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
The List should be of who is NOT authorized to own a weapon.
March 2nd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
jon spencer: There should be no list. Because Illinois requires explicit authorization and registration, a list of those not authorized could, with a list of Illinois residents, be used to generate a list of authorized individuals in trivial, if time-consuming, fashion.
March 2nd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Late to the thread ….
Nobody in Illinois is exempt from FOID. Not the police, sheriffs, deputies, coroners, deputy coroners, aldermen or governors (yes, I said governors), among others, as well as citizens.
Let them release the list. My name has been on it since I was fifteen and in ROTC.
March 2nd, 2011 at 8:28 pm
As a recent escapee from Illinois, I kept my FOID to remind me of how lucky I am to be living in a free state now. However, it does have a .451 hole in it. I’m not sure if I want to send it back to the state police (I still have family there) or frame it and hang it on the wall.
As for the list, if they want to publish it, legally they probably can–it is public record. But while they’re at it, they should also publish the list of public aid recipients in the state.
March 2nd, 2011 at 10:05 pm
The trouble with any kind of registration is what happens when new people come into office. The Mayor or Governor or President that ‘promised’ something back when the law was first made is gone. The new person may not honor their promises.
And that is the real problem.
You simply cannot trust governments to have only ‘reasonable’ registration for any promise given will have an expiration date. And that date will be when election time comes around.
March 3rd, 2011 at 1:21 am
jon spencer:
In a way, it IS a list should of who is NOT authorized to own a weapon. The question then becomes why someones name is not on this onerous list?
Even IF you must jump through hoops for the state to “allow” you to be listed as “authorized to own a gun” (sorry, I’m from TX, can someone explain the apparent lack of 2A pre-emption in that?), would not the reverse logic also apply, that if one’s name is NOT on the list, then it could be surmised that THEY are… NOT ON IT FOR A REASON!!!
Sure, some did not bother to “apply” (for their God given right), & some are just not believers in theirs, but are not the other omissions from the list the ones condemned to wear the legally defined term of “criminal”?