Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Refugee Democrat makes appearance at Illinois Statehouse
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Posted in:
* This won’t cause any controversy and over-hyped misinterpretation at all. Nope…
The names of people authorized to own guns in Illinois is public information that the state must disclose, the attorney general has ruled.
The Illinois State Police determines who gets Firearm Owners Identification cards but has always kept the information confidential.
Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s office issued a letter Monday rejecting state police arguments that releasing the information is an invasion of privacy prohibited by the state public-records law or that disclosure would endanger the lives of gun owners.
The State Police say they “respectfully disagree” with AG Madigan’s opinion, which was prompted by a FOIA request by the Associated Press.
* There aren’t any state laws which specifically keep the information private, but you can expect legislators will be moving measures to do so. Gubernatorial candidate state Sen. Kirk Dillard already introduced a bill in January…
“In January I introduced legislation that would declare Firearm Owners Identification information private. I am urging Director Keen by letter to give lawmakers the opportunity to consider my legislation before making this information public,” Dillard said.
He said he is worried the information could be used by criminals and commercial solicitors.
“I will also ask Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan to expedite consideration on this landmark issue of privacy and public safety,” he said. “In this era of Big Brotherism, I am concerned that the list will not only be used by commercial solicitors, but could be used by criminals to identify which homes might contain a firearm, so they know which homes to systematically burglarize.
“The attorney general’s opinion will compromise firearm regulation if people are worried that their names will be identified, which could lead to more straw purchases of guns or total non-compliance,” Dillard said. “This is not about guns — it’s about privacy and public safety.”
* The pros and cons…
Proponents of releasing the information argue that it’s a public policy issue. “There should be public scrutiny on any licensing system, whether it’s to own or to buy or to carry,” Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told the Tribune. “The public has a right to know how well those systems are working, especially when it involves firearms.” But opponents of releasing the information, such as Todd Vandermyde, Illinois lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, think that if people know who has a card who doesn’t, those who own and don’t own firearms alike will become targets. “You potentially make us targets,” Vandermyde told the Tribune. “Or, on the inverse, you could say, ‘These are the homes that don’t have FOID cards so it’s likely they don’t have guns, so therefore they make better targets.’”
* But the fears appear to be at least somewhat overblown. From a Madigan letter to Illinois Review…
The only information our office has advised should be released is the FOID cardholder’s name and the effective date or expiration date of the card. No other personal information is to be released.
So, there won’t be any addresses released. Not even the names of towns would be listed.
* In other Lisa Madigan-related news, the attorney general is part of a probe into alleged foster care discrimination…
State officials are investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly gay parents.
If they are found in violation, Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities in five regions and the Evangelical Child and Family Agency will have to license openly gay foster parents or lose millions of state dollars, potentially disrupting more than 3,000 foster children in their care.
Though Illinois legislators championing the civil union bill earlier this year insisted that religious institutions would not be forced to bless same-sex unions, it said nothing about same-sex parents.
Now, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Gov. Pat Quinn’s legal team and the Department of Children and Family Services are carefully researching the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Civil Union Act and the Illinois Constitution to determine whether they prohibit agencies from considering sexual orientation as a factor in foster care and adoption. In Illinois, all adults who adopt or become foster care providers must obtain foster care licenses.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Refugee Democrat makes appearance at Illinois Statehouse
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think Dillard has a sensible solution. I don’t see any real public interest or need in knowing who has an FOID card. Sure, they’re licensed, but it’s not like you’re trying to find out if your doctor or dentist is legit.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:20 am
I had no idea (nor do I care) if this information is made public or not. I doubt that most folks do either. Just another excuse for the D’s and R’s to battle it out.
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:23 am
As a FOID card holder, I personally can’t think of a reason to care whether or not my name is released. That said, I think it should be treated the same as a driver’s license. Can’t wait to see the tea partiers latch onto this one…
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:24 am
I also think FOID owner information should be private. Alternatively, drivers license information should be public.
As a Catholic, I’m not opposed to requiring religious institutions to comply with anti-discrimination laws in order to receive public funding. If they don’t like it, they can do it with their own money.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:25 am
It is pretty ironic that knowing that people own guns is cited as a deterrent to breaking into their houses, yet knowing that these same people own guns is also an incentive to breaking in their houses! Is there any actual data on crime deterrence from gun ownership? I’m pretty ambivalent about this issue but I do get the feeling that the gun lobby will bluff about any aspect of it. I grew up shooting in a range and overall I think that it’s a great sport. Off the range, with so many damaged meth addict types out there, I have to admit it kind of scares me. Regardless, I get the sense that southern Illinois legislators don’t have much else to push to make them popular. It would be great if they could think of some strategic economic development that doesn’t cost the state a fortune (ie prisons).
Comment by State Worker Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:28 am
The arguments for the release of the FOID card information is at best, fuzzy. There are real concerns about the release of this information, even if it is only the names of the owner. If criminals know where firearms are owned, then the owners could be subject to robberies for these same firearms.
I understand the argument for “only the names without even the town” would be released. However, that is not all that comforting. If your name is “Richard Miller”, there are probably 1,000 people in the state with that name. (Wasn’t saying that to be cute - just a convenient example). There are those of us with pretty unique last names where there is only one of us in the State (I looked it up on the white pages, and there is only one of me in the state). Given the release even the name would put people at risk. There is a lot of downside to this and not a lot of upside.
Comment by Ghost of John Brown Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:28 am
If you favor gun control, just put this sign out front:
“NO GUNS WITHIN”
Comment by Cal Skinner Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:33 am
Releasing the names of FOID owners is a bad idea, addresses and other information can then be obtained from county treasurer’s sites, google, etc. once someone has the names of gun owners.
Comment by 47th Ward GOP Guy Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:33 am
Just another Big Bother intrusion. The excuse we are only releasing the names is asinine. With the internet, a check on a name gives the address and phone number with very little effort. It probably doesn’t make much difference, but why make other government list public. Just another intrusion into our privacy.
Comment by downstate hack Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:34 am
Gun owners are now afraid of burglars?
Defending their castles was always the point of packing a pistol, no?
Comment by Louis XVI Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:40 am
I don’t really see why madigan is doing this. Like the quinn fundraising issue yesterday it seems as if springfield democrats are focused on everything but their jobs.
Comment by shore Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:41 am
=== Just another intrusion into our privacy.===
You didn’t think they’d stop with the Patriot Act did you?
Comment by Deep South Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:42 am
Interesting that Lisa M. went out of her way to make a big mistake. Very uncharacteristic of her.
So now if you’ve got even a somewhat common name, everyone will think you’ve got a weapons stash even if you don’t. Ridiculous.
Reminds me of how Al Salvi blew his race (Senate was it?) at the end because he said Bill Brady (the one who was shot with President Reagan) was a licensed gun dealer. Of course it was a different Bill Brady, and not the other failed Republican either.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:42 am
Talk about peeling an onion. Where I live it won’t matter. Everybody has a gun and everybody knows it. So will municipalities who have gun bans be able to obtain the list and go after people for violating the ban? I wonder how many of the pro-gun control elected officials in Chicago have a FOID card.
It serves no public purpose but could be a big win for the NRA. If people without FOID cards start getting victimized, you will see a push for pro gun legislation like conceal and carrey, even though it is not directly related. Time to get of the fence Illinois. Pick a sign to put in your yard.
1. This home protected by God and a Gun, come in to see both!
2. This gun is protected by local law enforcement, come in and they may be hear 12-25 minutes after I call 911.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:42 am
I guess I don’t see what good it does to share the information if you are just sharing names and dates.
As a guy with an uncommon name it would be fairly obvious if I had a FOID or not.
How in the heck does name and dates help with the public knowing how these systems are working?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:48 am
I’d be more comforted by the fact that only names are being released if my last name were, say, Smith, and not sometime more unique.
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:49 am
Can someone enlighten me as to the value of these names and dates without addresses, or even towns? Seriously, to what ends could this information be put?
Wouldn’t it make as much sense to assign a unique identifying number to each FOID holder and then release those numbers and their corresponding dates?
What am I missing?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:51 am
Is Lisa TRYING to help the NRA with its fundraising?
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:54 am
Didn’t the Terminator find Sarah Connor in Los Angeles with just her name? Kinda spooky.
Comment by Jaded Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:55 am
I need to add to my prior comment. Simply possessing a FOID card does not guarantee that one owns a gun. It mearly indicates that an individual can legally possess a firearm and purchase ammunition. We shouldn’t necessarily jump to the conclusion that FOID card holders automatically own guns. I know several who do not.
Comment by Stones Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:55 am
===I don’t really see why madigan is doing this===
Shore, this is part of her job. Everyone who is angry at Madigan about releasing FOID info should redirect that at the AP, who sued the State Police under the Freedom of Information Act.
This is the result when FOID meets FOIA.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 10:56 am
Haven’t we learned from the abuses when the Secretary of State used to sell driver’s license and auto registration?
Now LM has come up with a new reason that firearms registration is a bad idea.
Uncharacteristically goofy act for LM
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:03 am
While I can understand the fear, I think it’s getting a bit outta hand here.
A gun thief would have to take the time to look up all those thousands of names, then find somebody who might - might - be close enough to him to rob. This isn’t as easy to do as it’s being portrayed in comments here.
Take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:13 am
This may a sort of weird argument, but it seems like there’s a 14th Amendment issue with just releasing names. Some names are more unique than others.
It seems a little goofy that the “I love guns” crowd wants open carry, but then whines about revealing the list of people with FOID cards.
That said, the FOID card list should be as accessible as other lists, like law licenses, LCSWs and dog licenses, no more, no less.
If somebody is worried about a friend or relative’s mental health, it seems reasonable to be able to check if said person has a FOID card. If s/he does, one course of action might be appropriate. If s/he doesn’t, another course of action might be appropriate.
Remember, the “I love guns” crowd doesn’t want any onus on firearm owners or sellers. It’s on cops, school administrators and regular citizens to flag the mentally ill before they unload a 30-round clip into a crowd.
So, giving the rest of us a little information seems fair.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:15 am
While I think the commentary by both sides is a bit overblown (shockingly), I think this is a needless intrusion. I could do without more solicitations (even though I am certain Bass Pro and Cabela’s sell their lists). Data matching isn’t that difficult - even if only names are available.
As long as law enforcement has access to this information, I fail to see why it needs to be public.
Comment by Bill F. Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:18 am
So Lisa Madigan appears to be doing everthing she can to keep the public from asking questions about why her office was complicit in vast workers comp fraud that cost the star millions.
Comment by Fed up Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:21 am
I’m sympathetic with the intent behind Lisa Madigan’s push on religious agencies’ stands on same-sex parents.
The problem is the effect - unfortunately there’s no way the Catholic church allows Catholic Charities to allow same sex partners.
There are more kids in foster system than there are available parents, and effectively kicking out some providers won’t help these kids find parents.
So even if Lisa Madigan is right on the law, I hope she doesn’t pursue it.
Comment by Robert Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:28 am
I’m surprised that foster care agencies have gotten away with this type of discrimination this long-assuming this report is correct, of course. Where was DCFS? This is an agency which has had a lot of oversight through the years, not to mention a well-staffed and well-compensated administrative corps. And DCFS holds the purse springs, not the religious agencies, for its wards, who make up the bulk of most agencies’ caseloads, I believe.
There are many fewer foster kids in Illinois than there used to be, and that’s a good thing. There should be fewer still, but that’s another issue. In the meantime, there is no need for DCFS to bend to the private sector because they are fearful of what would happen if (the agencies) pulled out of the business. We are in a position now to demand the best possible options for our wards. If DCFS cares to make those demands, of course.
Comment by cassandra Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:28 am
A name without more is useless to anyone, except for the very fact of being on “the list” — it sounds like an effort to discourage gun ownership because that is the only way to avoid being on “the list” that gun control activists may calculate will cause your neighbors, kids teachers, and etc. to believe you are a gun totin’ right-winger and thus cancel play-dates and other social interactions.
Comment by Alexander cut the knot. Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:33 am
If a religious denomination operates an orphanage and sometimes places children for adoption, I think that it would be violative of religious freedoms to permit others to threaten legal action to compel the members of the religious denomination to abandon their beliefs and values for the sake of running an orphanage.
Not really sure why Lisa Madigan wants to make the names of FOID card holders public. This could be problematic. Not every card holder necessarily owns a weapon. What is the motive of the AP for wanting this information?
Comment by Honest Abe Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:36 am
Due respect Rich, but I don’t think you honestly “understand the fear.” FOID holders like myself are not worried about random criminals trying to reconcile the list with their local phone book. We’re worried about the teenager next door who is in with a bad crowd and simply needs to look up my name and the names of my neighbors.
Comment by grand old partisan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:38 am
We are $15 ($13,$16??) Billion in the hole, we are persistently delinquent in paying bills, the state pension system is a disaster, our business climate stinks, our infrastructure is crumbling and the state government can barely function, and this is what our elected officials are spending their time on????
Fiddle while Rome burns. Suck up to your progressive base and give the lefties some nice red meat while you continue to neglect the real issues. (And yes, there are things the AG can do to be more focused on fiscal responsibility–this sure isn’t it.)
These are legitimate issues, but so far down the priority list it’s ridiculous.
(My two cent–The Democrats’ drive to get church-affiliated organizations out of the social services realm will help them rationalize demands for more money and more government staff to fill the void and, as an added bonus, it will help get that pesky God out of the business of caring for the needy where She doesn’t belong.)
Comment by Adam Smith Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:48 am
- There are more kids in foster system than there are available parents, and effectively kicking out some providers won’t help these kids find parents. -
But allowing these providers to refuse same sex parents will help?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:48 am
Another example of why concealed or open carry should be prohibited. If the mouth-foamers are up in arms about the simple and clear interpretation of law requiring disclosure of a public record, what will they do w/ disclosure of who is authorized for a carry law. Public is certainly got a right to know what looney has one of those!
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:49 am
I’d think both sides would be a little nervous about this. First, why would thieves go to a FOID list first and determine targets? Wouldn’t they target the home, find out the owner’s name, then look to see if there is a match and potentially guns in the home? If yes, come in with exterme prejudice, if not, you walk in with confidence. This is also the advantage of concealed carry, for everybody. The criminal doesn’t know what they are facing.
Comment by pretty obvious Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:52 am
“Gun owners are now afraid of burglars?
Defending their castles was always the point of packing a pistol, no?”
Trust me when I say, I am not worried about my “castle” when I am at home ( I probably shouldn’t say more). I am concerned about my castle and its possessions when I am not at home.
Comment by Ghost of John Brown Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:59 am
If naming names without other identifying information is as innocuous and useless as some seem to argue, then simply the initial of the surname should suffice.
Otherwise, I’m suspicious of any proclaimed need.
Comment by MikeMacD Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:10 pm
I think we underestimate criminals when we assume they don’t have access/time/ability to go online for 30 seconds and do a little due diligence.
Besides, what’s the rationale again? All licensing sytems demand public scrutiny? I think the logicians call this a “hasty generalization.” Just because one type of license demands public scrutiny does not mean all do. The types of licenses made public are most often commercial, or professional-type licenses where the public has a right to know whether or not they are doing business with a professional or an imposter. Professionals also are incented to make their credentials public to distinguish themselves from the imposters. They aren’t at risk for target by this disclosure, in fact they want that out there.
Here, there is no marketplace argument. Decent people go through the legal process to own guns for either sport or protection, and not for commercial purposes (thankfully). Why risk drawing a roadmap to their houses for the bad guys to get their guns, and then after that, why give them the intel to target their non-gun-owning neighbor for tomorrow night’s burglary?
Will this happen often? No, but if it happens once, then what was the point?
Comment by Rule of Law Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:14 pm
“Gun owners are now afraid of burglars? ”
No, but not really wanting the odds that I have to use it on someone breaking in to be increased.
Comment by Nuance Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:17 pm
I hope that enforcing the law with respect to the nondiscriminatory use of tax dollars for the protection of children will lead these religiously-based groups to examine their irrational and rank policies of hatred. It would certainly be appropriate to ask “What would Jesus Do?”
In answering that question I would think that some these groups might find the justification to step down and let those that actually care for children take over. But I also think they may be able to see how their bigotry is preventing them from caring for the least-of-these.
Comment by 26th Ward resident Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:23 pm
Thieves should go on the assumption that everyone owns a gun.
I don’t like rules and regulations implemented simply to raise revenue, such as the FOID requirement. Then again I don’t care if you know I have a FOID card.
Perhaps I can then query the net for my immediate neighborhood and have a party for gun owners only, and we can show off our stash. Much like we did in Texas.
At least this is a good start for the NRA to get a mailing list for potential contributors. LM is doing them a favor.
Comment by Justice Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:26 pm
This is the dumbest, most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. How many different ways are you going to screw with our 2nd Amendment Rights?
First off, we shouldn’t even be required to have a FOID in the first place! So we obey the law ANYWAY and get them and pay for them, and now you are going to turn around and release our private information to the Public?
You seriously think releasing a name won’t allow criminal or whoever to find out the persons address or town they live in?
We live in the information age, people can find out everything about you by just using your name. It has already been proven.
What interest do the people, or this idiot politician Lisa Madigan have in identifying who the law abiding gun owners are in Illinois?
This stinks of an underhanded Agenda.
Comment by Joe Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:47 pm
And from another point of view, having one’s name as a gun owner go public could convince the intruder to go after the non-gun owning, next door neighbor. Obvious solution is for everyone to get an FOID card and buy a gun. You don’t want to be caught unarmed by a fully informed criminal.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 12:48 pm
If they want to take my information and let everyone see that I am a firearms owner, then I think the best thing I can do for my safety and my families safety is to carry my gun with me everywhere I go.
Comment by Random Person Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:02 pm
its not often that i agree with the state police….My question is what good will it do? Taxpaying law abiding gun owners arent the problem….how many of your chicago gangbangers have foid cards?
Comment by way south of chicago Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:04 pm
– There are more kids in foster system than there are available parents, and effectively kicking out some providers won’t help these kids find parents. –
- But allowing these providers to refuse same sex parents will help? -
@SmallTownLiberal - I think it will, yes. If you are in a same-sex domestic partnership and you want to become a foster parent, you’d know not to knock on the door of the evangelicals. And you’d go to another agency and you’d become a foster parent - no problem. But effectively kicking some orgs out of the business would absolutely have an effect on number of kids placed.
If there were no places available for same-sex partners, or if it was a statewide ban on same-sex partners becoming foster parents, I’d absolutely agree with you. I do think it is a close call and I do agree that religious organizations are discriminating; I just think with limited resources I’d rather they spend their time elsewhere.
Comment by Robert Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:08 pm
This may be a crazy question, but how does requiring people to register and hold a FOID card in the first place square with the second amendment to the constitution?
Comment by Say WHAT? Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:29 pm
Does someone have access to FOID lists already? During the 2010 GOP Primary, I received a call from a Gubernatorial campaign volunteer, “like you I am a FOID card holder and so is candidate xxx” I also received on “like you candidate xxx is a deer hunter”. I appears someone got the FOID and Hunting/Fishing license list.
Maybe someone can clarify for me because I am not sure I follow here.
Comment by lost in translation Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:45 pm
Neither the state nor my neighbors have a right to know what measures I take to protect myself and my property.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:47 pm
Ok, taking out all of the ’safety’ arguments…
Here is a question, using the same logic I should be able to get the name, date(s) on every drivers license in the state of Illinois as well as the name of every voter and the date of their voter registration as an average citizen.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 1:50 pm
Is this really what FOIA is about? Is this how we achieve of “transparency of government” we are looking for?
Comment by Freezeup Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:13 pm
“the” not “of”. Sorry.
Comment by Freezeup Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:14 pm
How nice, law abiding citizens who obtain FOID cards are subject to having their info released as opposed to people like the Springfield city employees caught looking at porn while at work whose names will be kept secret to avoid embarrassment!
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:16 pm
I’m generally against releasing most information to the public and to the press. I think the issue of FOIA has gotten way out of hand in terms of what the media and others think they are entitled to see. The media has no legitimate reason to want the names of FOID card holders - NONE!! Whenever the media wants somebody’s name in the name of FOIA its generally because they want to drag some mud around. My name as it relates to FOID or my service as a public employee, etc., is not the business of the media or anyone else. Period.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:35 pm
Come on in todays tech age - addresses would be easy to find. SO, criminals can try to break into peoples homes who don’t have guns or wait for people who do have guns to leave , break in their homes and take their guns - great idea
At the same time how about the AG release the list of all all driver’s licenses and the cars that are registered to those folks, convicted felons, illegal immigrants that they are aware of, all people on welfare, all people who have had a state or federally funded abortion, all people who have been charged with DUI’s - after all those folks are a danger to anyone on the road.
But wait there’s more how about all people recently released from prison, while we are at it let’s make public all the records of doctors, lawyers and other professionals who have ever received a complaint against them….after all we should know everything…sounding a bit ridiculous…whoever thought up her position on this needs to think hard about it as does she.
Plus, at the end of the day this will cost the state money they don’t have defending a myriad of lawsuits
Comment by Come On... Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:42 pm
Well…Let’s make a FOIA request for the list of all Illinois public aid recipients…also the list of Illinois felons both inside/outside of prison…Then, we could put it all in a database for a new smartphone app.
Why not? It’s public information!
Purpose…1)could help root out fraud , save public $ for those who scam public aid.
2) Public safety, in the naming of Illinois felons.
(just taking the above arguments forward…)
Comment by JoePeoria Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 2:53 pm
Also the general case (searching for people to rob) may not be relevant. But what about the specific case, searching to see if your ex-wife has a FOID or someone you are in a custody battle with? A neighbor you have a beef with.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 3:09 pm
In light of recent U. S. Supreme Court rulings on the federal Second Amendment, the real queston we should ask Ms. Madigan is why the FOID card fee is not a poll tax?
Comment by Enemy of the State Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 3:52 pm
- why the FOID card fee is not a poll tax? -
Last time I checked you don’t need a FOID card to vote. I mean, was that a real question or were you making fun of the hyperbole here?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 4:10 pm
My boss does not like gun owners.
Think he’ll be able to find my name in that list?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 4:32 pm
I would like the names and address of all of the people that have a “low digit” plate. Lets start with 2 digit plates and go up to four digit. I think that will be my FOIA request. Then, lets start looking at D-2 ’s. Just a suggestion.
Comment by Slick Nick Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 4:49 pm
Small Town Liberal..
It does bring up a interesting point, if gun ownership (like voting) is a right, can the state fee/tax you when you exercise that right or to allow you to exercise that right?
It’s a bit of a stretch but it is an interesting question.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 4:54 pm
I don’t think the list of FOID card holders should be made public. For #1, if all the names are on a listing it would not be hard to find out where they lived and …..criminals would work the list like no tomorrow. Gun ownership is not like the right to vote. It protects us for those, foreign or domestic, that threaten our home and families. The powers that be should really think this through or there will be tragic results. Conceal Carry should be legal in Illinois….just saying.
Comment by Ain't No Justice Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 5:44 pm
Forgot to add … Like a couple of other commentators, I have a unique last name … wouldn’t take more than a minute to use first initial last name and know more than you want to about me. So yes, I am opposed to releasing the list.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 5:59 pm
I think the majority has spoken! Ditto “Retired Non-Union Guy”!!
Comment by Ain't No Justice Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 6:20 pm
If anything this action has served to motivate and encourage the gun lobby, maybe even attract new members. Not the most intuitive decision for an anti-gun AG…
Comment by Javorica Wednesday, Mar 2, 11 @ 11:28 pm
In 1994, a hole in the way states handled their driver’s license information was realized by a politician. For whatever reason, congress enacted in 1994, The Federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in order to close that hole.
This hole, allowed information to be disseminated by the DMVs (in Illinois), and make available, for a price, personal information of license plates and driver’s licenses, regardless of who you were. Obviously, it irked one politician enough to write this legislation and slam it through congress 17 years ago.
In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (Reno v. Condon, Jan. 12, 2000) prohibiting states from giving access to these databases, to anyone (unless of course, you’re in the insurance industry….then the information can be used against you in the name of profits).
This nonsense about Attorney General Lisa Madigan saying that Firearms Owner Identification card’s information should be made available to the public, is obviously nothing more than a form of repayment of favors to outgoing Chicago Mayor Dick Daley who lost a career-long fight to ban guns (except for criminals) in Chicago. The pure legal cost of that fight alone, could have put 1000′s of new police officers on the street, but instead, made big money for city attorneys.
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General of Illinois. If she doesn’t recognize that the ramifications of this information going public would mean that the personal address information of every police, fire and public safety employee of this state, who legally own firearms, would then be accessible by anyone (gangs, terrorists etc..), then she should step down from her post immediately as this is almost as embarrassing fir Illinois as Blago trying to sell Obama’s senate seat.
Sorry Ms. Madigan, you’re 100% in the wrong on this one, and the Supreme Court of the United States, says so.
Comment by Bill O'Neill Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:08 pm
Why is it that every time I turn around and hear about new gun legislation, hype, or concern the people being questioned, berated, asked of, or limited too are the people owning guns lawfully?
sweet and sour dispositions:
Will criminals take the time to look up who has a FOID card…you know those who might actually have gun handy(that is sorta hard to do in Illinois as well)? Maybe the Oceans 11 kind…
Will I, as a FOID holder, be ashamed if anyone finds out I have a card and maybe a gun? No. Even my Employer? No, because lawfully I can have one. (Will my employee treat me differently if I do and they know? Possible and that is not right either.
Worse case scenario, will I be afraid to actually use my gun in a life threatening situation in Illinois? Yes… because I am scared crap-less of the consequence I might face in this state just for protecting my life.
A hard issue to resolve, these guns and lawful gun owners, but remember, people kill people. If there were not guns, they would find another weapon.
Peace.
Comment by Elise Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 2:24 pm
===Why is it that every time I turn around and hear about new gun legislation, hype, or concern the people being questioned, berated, asked of, or limited too are the people owning guns lawfully?===
Perhaps because you’re not paying attention?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 2:27 pm