Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Casino/Racino bill in the works?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
Posted in:
* Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s recent ruling that names of FOID card holders must be made public might’ve been calculated as a compromise, of sorts. Just the names would be released, not addresses. The Associated Press likely demanded the list to find out if the cards were being given to people who shouldn’t have them, which is not unreasonable considering reporting in other states…
An investigation by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published in 2007 found that 1,400 people who were given concealed-carry licenses in the first half of 2006 had earlier pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified for guns because of a loophole in the law.
In Memphis, Tenn., The Commercial Appeal found at least 70 people in the Memphis area who had concealed-carry permits despite violent histories including robbery, assault and domestic violence. A firestorm erupted after the newspaper posted an online database in 2008 of names of all concealed-carry permit holders in Tennessee.
Legislatures in Florida and Tennessee have since voted to make information on permit holders private.
The Indianapolis Star found hundreds of people convicted of felonies or other “questionable” cases in which people were subsequently granted concealed-carry permits, often over protests cases from local law enforcement officials and in some instances where it appeared the state police had a legal obligation to deny them.
* And the AG’s office believed that the public interest outweighed minor privacy concerns…
Assistant Public Access Counselor Matthew Rogina, citing federal court decisions as well as Illinois law, wrote in a letter to the state police attorney that disclosing the names “cannot be characterized as highly personal or objectionable.” He wrote that there is a “public interest” in releasing the information, citing the example of an individual who may have become ineligible to carry.
“Therefore, even if disclosure of the names and expiration of the (Firearm Owner’s Identification Card) card owners did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact is outweighed by the public interest that exists in ensuring the integrity of the (police) database,” he wrote.
* The Sun-Times agrees…
Gun advocates would like to keep secret the identity of those who hold the FOID cards, which are supposed to keep people with criminal records or mental illness from buying guns. Anti-gun activists, on the other hand, argue that making the names public is one way to ensure the FOID system is working.
Licensed gun dealers and gun shows are not supposed to sell a gun to anyone who lacks a valid FOID, but who can say the system is working if all records are kept private?
We can’t see how releasing just the names of the state’s 1.3 million FOID holders poses much of a privacy risk, except perhaps for folks with truly unusual names. In a state as big as Illinois, a lot of people share the same name.
* But as we saw yesterday in comments, the backlash is intense…
“The Attorney General’s recent statements place every citizen in Illinois at risk,” contended [Rep. David Reis]. “Citizens without a FOID card could be subject to crimes because criminals will now have a road map to each house in rural communities and neighborhoods unarmed and vulnerable to attack.
“This is a dangerous and short-sighted decision which flies in the face of common sense.”
And…
“Gangbangers and others that want to know where to go to get firearms, they get that Firearm Owner’s ID list and say, ‘OK, this home here in the 13th ward probably has guns, let’s break in this one,’” [Sen. Kirk Dillard] said.
And…
[State Representative John Cavaletto] believes otherwise and says the issue is simple - Privacy is paramount. “It should be a no-no… we shouldn’t do this,” he says. “I’m going to try and help co-sponsor the bill to stop it.”
* An attempt yesterday to nullify Madigan’s ruling failed in the Illinois House…
[Rep. Ron Stephens] is trying to short-circuit the disagreement with legislation. Though he claims Illinois law already bars the police from making the gun permit registry public, he’s pushing a bill that would clearly prohibit that information from being released except in connection with a criminal investigation.
Stephens’ bill narrowly failed in committee on a 5-5 vote Wednesday, but under state law, the committee can reconsider it. Stephens said he’ll bring it back for a do-over in the next couple weeks.
“This is an important issue about freedom. … We will persist,” Stephens said.
* Sensing an opportunity, the Illinois GOP is trying to make hay out of the volatile issue…
Illinois Republicans are organizing a petition drive to block the release of information about people authorized to have guns. […]
[GOP Party Chairman Pat Brady] says taxpayers should not depend on majority Democrats in the Legislature to “shout down this Madigan attempt to take away our right to privacy.” He says they should sign the petition in favor of legislation keeping the records confidential.
* Reporters look at this issue as government refusing to make information public. It’s not all that different from, say, the Chicago Police Department’s refusal to release its files on David Koschman’s death…
Cook County prosecutors say they relied heavily on two “unbiased witnesses” in deciding they couldn’t charge anyone in the death of David Koschman following a 2004 confrontation in the Rush Street area that involved Mayor Daley’s nephew and three friends.
Now, one of those witnesses says prosecutors’ conclusion that Koschman “was the aggressor and had initiated the physical confrontation” is a “flat-out lie.”
The witness — Michael Connolly, an information-technology manager who previously had been interviewed by the Chicago Police Department — came forward Wednesday after reading a statement from prosecutors in Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times.
“The state’s attorney said all the witnesses involved said that David was the aggressor. That was a flat-out lie,” said Connolly, 36, who was drinking on Rush Street with a co-worker, Phillip Kohler.
* Gun owners and their supporters, on the other hand, view the AG’s order as a potentially dangerous government intrusion on their own personal privacy rights…
This would mean the release of your name, as a FOID holder. If you have a unique name, and an anti-gun employer, your job will be at risk.
Perhaps you are a collector, will you be targeted for your firearms collection? Will violent criminals be able to determine which households don’t have firearms for protection?
Lisa Madigan is no friend to firearms owners, she thinks that you need to have your name published to punish you for being a law-abiding gun owner.
I just don’t see how these two completely different world views can be reconciled. Do you?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Casino/Racino bill in the works?
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Would the State of Illinois release the names of all public aid/unemployment comp/workers comp recipients, with names and addresses?
We could use it to root out all kinds of fraud, and save the state of Illinois $$$$.
(No, I don’t think the 2 world views can be reconciled.)
Comment by JoePeoria Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:34 am
Had not really given this issue much thought, but this statement did make me take notice:
–”We can’t see how releasing just the names of the state’s 1.3 million FOID holders poses much of a privacy risk, except perhaps for folks with truly unusual names. In a state as big as Illinois, a lot of people share the same name”.–
Being among the persons fitting into this statement…the unusual name (and I do mean very few of us carry this surname and than add to it a first name)…releasing just the name does indeed id and also id’s to anyone with enough interest as to exactly where I could be located and perhaps have guns in the home. Something I don’t usually announce with a red flag as to deter home invasion among other such things.
I’d hate to think my areas criminal minded and/or in need of quick cash junkie decided ‘whoa, lady down the street has guns, lets go help ourselves her car is not home’.
I do understand the initial purpose of the idea behind the release, but it does indeed ‘red flag’ a small section of citizens with uncommon names.
Doing a quick run this morning using the US Phone Directory Index 1993-2002 via paid subscription Ancestry, there were two in the state with the exact same first/last name…one now deceased via the SS# index. Using Anywho second I could pull still just the two of us, myself and the deceased one. If you give me like two more minutes I can and could pull full obit for deceased and addresses with google map images of homes.
Yeah, right…not a violation of privacy pfft.
Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:47 am
The issue could be reconciled by someone suing the state to eliminate the FOID altogether. I could see the argument being made that the FOID requirement infringes second amendment rights.
Comment by Angry Republican Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:52 am
I’m sure abused spouses have an issue with having their names and addresses released so their former abusers can now know where they live.
Same with prosecutors, cops, judges, and others who put away criminals for a living.
I have no idea why any news agency thinks putting people in danger just because they can is a good idea.
Comment by DanH Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:34 am
Reading this made we wonder how similar State functions are handled. I believe that you can get drivers license information and maybe also vehicle registration information from the Sec of State. It is sold to marketers and political firms. So is voter registration data. Is it intrusive that companies now know my name, address, date of birth, and what cars I drive?
Police arrest records (including mugshots are available. It’s pretty darn intrusive when the Tribune published a rogue’s gallery on its web site.
How about hunting and fishing licenses? Can that be requested from DNR? Other types of state issues licenses? I’d be interested in knowing that.
Thinking about it in this context, I don’t think there is anything unreasonable here. There is always a public interest in transparency about government decisions and transactions.
To the safety argument - you can find out who is licensed to practice law or medicine in Illinois. One could argue that those individuals are at risk for being targeted for theft because they are high income households.
Comment by Don't Worry, Be Happy Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:51 am
Minus Republican Rep. Ron Stephens bill the list will become public. The writing is on the wall. I don’t see how these two completely different world views can be reconciled
Comment by Tom Smith Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:57 am
How would releasing the names of FOID holders help anything? To make sure the system is working, there should be regular external compliance audits of who’s on it. That could be done without releasing any information to the public. Focus on closing the gun-show loopholes. Not this goofy stuff.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:00 am
–”Is it intrusive that companies now know my name, address, date of birth, and what cars I drive?”–
Why stop there? With another click of your mouse one can find my exact amount of wage and exact day of pay. Click click.
Comment by Cindy Lou Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:03 am
reconcile this by allowing a audit of the database by the AP and publish only the discrepancies.
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:43 am
When you have one group arguing that criminals will focus on the homes of FOID holders and another group arguing that criminals will avoid those homes placing everybody else at risk, you have two completely different world views can not be reconciled. If you add another group that thinks the Freedom of Information law should apply as it stands then you have three wold views that can not be reconciled.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:59 am
I just don’t see why anyone would think that these two completely different world views SHOULD be reconciled. Do you?
The gun owners will prevail.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:59 am
I think Lisa Madigan should investigate why FOID cards end up in the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. The privacy issue rules here, don’t release the names.
I can’t see any reconciliation between the two sides, or why there should be.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:08 am
Before they allow the FOID list out, the ISP ought to give a law-abiding gun owners a way to go to the dark side, to renounce their FOID cards, to become anonymous people who may or may not be in possession of firearms, like the great unwashed that the democrats wrap themselves around.
In the meantime,
Dearest Lisa,
Nice job cementing relations with those downstate democrats for your dad.
Thank you for treating law-abiding citizens, err voters, like sex offenders. It will not be forgotten. Enjoy holding the office while you can. In fact, start collecting your personal items so you can travel light.
BTW Lisa: I no longer have a FOID card, so don’t bother listing my name. I misplaced it. It was lost or stolen. In fact, I no longer recall ever having a FOID at all.
Best Regards,
John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:18 am
Obviously Lisa’s never watched ‘Red Dawn.’ lol
Comment by just sayin' Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:22 am
…But I still don’t think we need to reveal the names of who has a license to own a gun. It seems intrusive and alluring to those looking to steal guns.
It’s obvious that Daley stil has a lot of power-he wants to expose the people who have won the battle over guns.
Comment by I Hate Guns Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:23 am
I don’t see how the two world views can be reconciled. The FOID card is another example of how out of step Illinois is with the rest of the nation regarding firearms. Perhaps someone can explain how FOID cards have reduced illegal gun purchases, or gun violence for that matter. It is not realistic to believe that FOID cards can be abolished, but if AG Madigan gets her way, I think non-compliance will be even more rampant than it is now.
Comment by John A Logan (formerly LiO) Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:25 am
If I read it correctly yesterday, Madigan made an interpretation based on current law in an FOIA dispute between the AP and the state police.
She didn’t initiate the action. She’s not on some campaign to take away people’s privacy, as Pat
Brady said.
By the way, Pat, the election was last November. Republicans all over the country made historic gains in statehouses and governorships — with one or two notable exceptions.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:32 am
>>>Madigan made an interpretation based on current law in an FOIA dispute between the AP and the state police.
I thought that Lisa Madigan was supposed to be an advocate of the people of Illinois and was not to put them at risk in order to advocate for John O’Connor from the Associated Press.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:37 am
Lisa madigan is charged wth enorcing the laws of the State of IL. If the people of IL are put at risk by one of those laws, it is the job of the general assembly to change/pass a different law.
Reiss makes a point which demonstartes pefectly how out of touch he is with crime. Does he really think burglars seek out occupied homes to rob when the people are present? Acttually he was travelling donw the path to a good point, and swerved in theopposite direction.
The danger is not that criminals will look for homes of people without guns to rob (criminals rob empty houses) the danger is criminals will target homes of gun owners to steal guns. The guns that are most susceptable to an illegal use are the ones people posses illegally. Your basically road mapping suppliesof wepaons to steal and put on the streets.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:50 am
The Koschman case stinks to high heaven.
In this case, the Chicago Police Department and the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office apparently cannot understand direct and unequivocal statements from witnesses — and, whoops, the state’s attorney has apparently lost the case file. What a coincidence that Mayor Daley’s nephew was involved.
The federales ought to initiate a federal civil rights violation investigation.
Those federal laws were deemed necessary in the 1960s because corrupt local authorities in the Jim Crow south couldn’t be trusted to prosecute lynch mobs.
That they could be necessary more than 40 years later in Chicago tells you all you need to know about the price you pay for the “indispensable” man.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:51 am
- I thought that Lisa Madigan was supposed to be an advocate of the people of Illinois and was not to put them at risk in order to advocate for John O’Connor from the Associated Press. -
Can you take a breath? AG Madigan has to enforce the law as it is written. Do you just want her to start interpreting FOIA law as she sees fit? She is not a lawmaker, there is a pretty important structure called checks and balances built into the constitution, for good reason. Call your legislators, get them to change the law. There’s an old adage about a messenger, but given the state of today’s rhetoric I’m not sure I should use it.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:55 am
Will someone explain to me how just first and last names and expiration dates will help the AP research the effectiveness of the checks unless the focus on unique names (which seems fraught with other issues concerning race and ethnic background)
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 8:57 am
How does releasing FOID data without addresses help verify that the wrong people aren’t getting cards?
Comment by Solomon Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:02 am
The Attorney General is simply enforcing the law passed by the legislature. The blame should be on them, not Lisa Madigan.
Comment by Old Shepherd Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:04 am
I objected to this idea due to privacy related concerns, as did many others.
As for other states having issued concealed carry permits and gun owner cards to unqualified persons or former felons: 1) Illinois doesn’t have concealed carry yet; and 2) the Illinois State Police are supposed to conduct a background check on every FOID applicant already.
Is AG Madigan trying to say that the FOID list needs to be made public because the Illinois State Police are not doing their job by screening applicants?
Comment by Honest Abe Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:08 am
Chicago is not the only place where the politically connected get ’special’ treatment when one of their own get in a sticky situation.
More examples of how the rules are for the little people
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:11 am
- Is AG Madigan trying to say that the FOID list needs to be made public because the Illinois State Police are not doing their job by screening applicants? -
Do you understand what an AG does? All she’s saying is that according to how the law is written the ISP doesn’t have the legal authority to refuse the FOIA requests.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:12 am
The question is whether the FOID process is working to insure that those who shouldn’t have gun don’t. How to police the system to see if its working? The AG would suggest that public disclosure should be the policing mechanism, however privacy rigths get hit in the process. A middle ground would be some independent annual audit review of the FOID list the result of which would be public information as a check to assess if the system is working.
Comment by johnnie come lately Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:14 am
JoePeoria has the right of it. If privacy concerns are irrelevant with the AG’s interpretation of FOIA, then absolutely all state interactions with citizens should be fair game. Start publishing lists of every public aid recipient.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:15 am
>>>Start publishing lists of every public aid recipient.
Do the FOIA request and see how far you get…
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:18 am
Would insurance companies be able to use this new information to raise the rates on my homeowners insurance because they believe there is a possibility that a gun may legally be in the home?
Comment by Homer J. Simpson Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:19 am
you can already foia that information.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:22 am
Lisa madigan is not an advocate for the citizens of Illinois if she was her office wouldn’t of been complicit in workers comp fraud that is costing taxpayers millions of tax dollars.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:23 am
–Would insurance companies be able to use this new information to raise the rates on my homeowners insurance because they believe there is a possibility that a gun may legally be in the home?–
Why? Does your homeowners policy cover incidents involving firearms? I would think you’d have documented the value of your firearms for your policy, just as you would computers, jewelery, electronics, antiques, etc.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:23 am
I think we should take a page out of the medical profession. “First, do no harm”
Applying this principle would allow progress without damage.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:52 am
Illinoisans who live in rural areas and even sparsely populated parts of the collar counties basically live in a different state than city dwellers do. Sometimes only one house per several miles, no neighbor in sight; isolated businesses with small staffs that cannot afford the latest anti crime technology; small town police forces that are willing and competent but surely not able to answer far flung emergency calls in minutes (like in the city and suburbs); and frequent long lonely drives at night over dark roads for folks getting to and from work and events. Those who live or have businesses near the interstates are particularly at risk. Just stop and consider how vulnerable you might feel in these situations and why you might not want it publicly known whether you do, or do not have a permit for guns. Better for the criminals to wonder than to know. And, if you cannot imagine this lifestyle, it does exist. Go re-read Truman Capote’s book “In Cold Blood.
This is at least one of many reasons the gun world views will not ever be reconciled. “Minor privacy concerns”, my eye.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:06 am
There are many women who live in Illinois who have been severely abused or stalked or both by large, strong men fully capable of taking these womens lives. Some of these women have taken self defense classes, and weapons training in order to protect themselves and their children from the man who has threatened to take their lives. These women don’t want the abuser or stalker to know that they are armed. For these women, this is a VERY bad decision.
Before anyone gives me the “call police” line….I personally know what it is to be threatened, to have police tell me to call immediately if I hear from him. I know what it is to call police as instructed and wait SIX DAYS for the police to show up.
Comment by Say WHAT? Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:07 am
Great! Our reps were looking for something to “fix” besides the budget, deficit, etc.
Comment by Highland, IL Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:07 am
LM seems to be simply giving her opinion, nothing more. Unfortunately this rather sensitive info will likely get out and that doesn’t seem to be a prudent thing. It can put innocent folks in harms way.
A friend of a friend bought a gun from a friend of a friend who knew this other guy. Gee, no FOID card.
Seems to me that the 700lb Gorilla in the room is why do we need FOID cards, other than a way to tax gun owners for their right to own?
The investigation should focus on the processes used in screening FOID card applicants. Bet that is full of holes.
Where does that FOID money actually go? Ahhhhh…now that would be interesting. Follow that trail.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:14 am
First and foremost, to all the Madigan defenders here, it’s hard for her to hide behind the ‘she’s just interpreting the law as written’ argument when her office goes so far as to say that even if disclosing the list “did constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, this fact would be outweighed by the public interest.” In other words, her office made a judgment call that was based on their opinions, not just the letter of the law.
As others have pointed out, there are lots of government records that the press and public don’t have access to because of privacy concerns. The question is, should the FOID list be one of them. The AG says no, FOID holders say yes. There’s no middle ground there.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:15 am
The gentleman (I specifically choose this word) who has come forward in the death of David Koschman is a total hero. For his sake, I hope he doesn’t live or is a property owner in Chicago. If he is, he can likely expect many visitors who are representatives of the City of Chicago.
Comment by Belle Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:16 am
This was not a debate we needed to have right now.
Comment by shore Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:23 am
Our tea party friends demand complete gov’t transparency — until their ox gets gored.
Should the state reveal names of licensed doctors and lawyers or keep it secret to protect their privacy?
Comment by reformer Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:23 am
So it’s OK for the state to tell anyone and everyone how much every state employee makes but not OK to say whether someone owns a gun.
Are the GOP lawmakers not concerned that criminals might look up state employee paychecks and target those households?
If you make paychecks public, why not guns? Might prod every public employee to buy a gun for protection.
Wouldn’t that be what the GOP and NRA want? More poeple with guns?
Comment by piling on Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:27 am
==Should the state reveal names of licensed doctors and lawyers or keep it secret to protect their privacy?==
You don’t see the slightest difference between what you just asked and the topic of this thread? Really?
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:33 am
The Attorney General’s opinion is not legally binding, is it? I thought an AG opinion is simply that office’s interpretation of the law. Ultimately, wouldn’t the issue be decided by the courts when a gun owner objects and seeks to enjoin the release of his name/personal info?
Comment by Kyle Orton's Neck Beard Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:37 am
–“Gangbangers and others that want to know where to go to get firearms, they get that Firearm Owner’s ID list and say, ‘OK, this home here in the 13th ward probably has guns, let’s break in this one,’” [Sen. Kirk Dillard] said.–
I wonder if he has a particular home in the 13th ward in mind?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:38 am
To all those who don’t think criminals will peruse the lists to check out who may have guns and who doesn’t, consider this - these same criminals check out the obituary pages to see when a funeral is being held then ransack the home of the deceased while the family is at the services. The criminals do check these things out - not much of a stretch to check out the FOID list. If the push comes, I suspect the NRA and the IRA will file a court challenge to the whole FOID thing as an abridgement of the 2nd amendment.
I don’t think the competing issues can be reconciled. I wonder - could legislation enacted to block access prevent the access?
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:39 am
“Where does that FOID money actually go?”
The $10 for 10 years fee goes to administering the application. Around the year 2006 the Tribune had an article reporting that the processing cost the state somewhere around $7.50 per application. This was when the fee was $5 for 5 years. Nothing sinister.
Comment by MikeMacD Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:43 am
Here is what the purpose of the FOID card really is: cops think your some kind of threat without proof or evidence, they pull the FOID card, show up and intimidate people into turning over their guns. Releasing the database will mean people will be calling the police on people they know simply because they have a FOID card and that will dilute the policing strategy.
Comment by Liberty First Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:47 am
===In other words, her office made a judgment call that was based on their opinions, not just the letter of the law.===
But, the FOIA mandates that judgments/opinions are weighted toward disclosure, so she is following the law.
===The Attorney General’s opinion is not legally binding, is it? I thought an AG opinion is simply that office’s interpretation of the law. Ultimately, wouldn’t the issue be decided by the courts when a gun owner objects and seeks to enjoin the release of his name/personal info? ===
Pre-2010 the AG’s opinion on FOIA cases was just advisory; post-2010 it has the force of law and public bodies must abide. If the public body disagrees, they must file a case in court ASAP.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:49 am
This whole issue is a beard. Next they’ll start arguing about abortion rights and then maybe the ERA. Anything to keep citizens’ minds off the real issues they should be tackling.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:49 am
I think folks on both sides need to take a deep breath. I am an agnostic on whether the FOID names should be released, but I think folks should keep in mind that be licensed to have a gun and having a gun are not the same thing. On the flip side, not being licensed to have a gun and being gunless is not a given either.
The principle of Occam’s Razor tells me that would be criminals searching through the rolls of FOID carriers, correlating them to an address, staking out their house, and then searching it high and low for a gun that should be separately secured in the home is not likely. Should FOID holders have their names revealed? I am not sure, but I think this argument is a bit of a red herring.
On a side note, folks keep bringing up other lists – people that utilize public benefits, doctors, etc. – none of these are apples to apples. Let’s just focus on this group and its unique attributes.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:49 am
To me the central issue here is that a lot of folks don’t trust that state agencies always do what they are charged with doing. If they can keep all info in house and stonewall then John Q Public can never know. If you think another state agency can perform an unbiased audit I disagree. You cover my tail and I’ll cover yours. The media being somewhat outside the flow can be helpful but they also have their own agenda and self interest. Can this be resolved? Laws are only as good as the will to inforce them.
Comment by Bemused Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:50 am
Montrose @ 10:49 a.m. and Bemused @ 10:50 a.m. have summed up this issue beautifully.
BTW.. as Montrose points out… I am one of those people that has a FOID card and does not own a gun. Overall, I think the AG’s decision was correct. Dislcosure, disclosure, disclosure.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:55 am
Itr’s one thing for the government to know who has gun permits, it’s entirely a different matter for the general public to have this knowledge. It seems to me a backdoor method to restrict rights.
Comment by Fed-Up Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:59 am
I really object to the public having access to the list of state lobbyists. What if some gangbangers check the list to see which lobbyists won’t be home during session?
Comment by Bill Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 10:59 am
As I read the comments here, almost everybody doesn’t seem to totally trust these state agencies to be completely competent and to police or investigate themselves for mistakes. So, the best “solution” is to have a “sting” in which many honest and innocent Illinoisans have their privacy invaded in order to ferret out the bad ones? There has to be a better way. Has to.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:04 am
Bill,
Don’t be giving the bad guys ideas, ‘k’?
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:05 am
For all thoe giving Lisa Madigan a pass because she is “just enforcing the law.” Who do you think authored the current FOIA law? Yep one in the same Ms. Madigan and her office came up with this law so she doesnt get a pass in my estimation
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:09 am
I would think that people who need guns would just illegally buy them rather than risk an encounter with an irate, armed householder.
As long as no address info is released, including town, township, county or zipcode, I don’t see this providing a good targeting method for criminal elements, anyway. True, people with truly unique names might be more at risk, but people would have to know of them, know the names is unique, etc.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:17 am
Well, it seems someone last night left the asylum’s door unlocked.
Comment by Louis XVI Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:21 am
===For all thoe giving Lisa Madigan a pass because she is “just enforcing the law.” Who do you think authored the current FOIA law? Yep one in the same Ms. Madigan and her office came up with this law so she doesnt get a pass in my estimation===
While L. Madigan was instrumental in crafting the law, it was done so without a lot of input from various other interests (including public bodies), and ultimately the legislature adopted it. Overall, it is an EXCELLENT improvement over the prior FOIA and provides for much more transparency and oversight over government. It sounds like you — Gen X — want to declare the whole Act a failure because of one controversial opinion. Your reactionary take is scary.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:32 am
==These women don’t want the abuser or stalker to know that they are armed. For these women, this is a VERY bad decision.==
Why wouldn’t these women want the abuser or stalker to know they’re armed? Unless they just want to blast him away if he attempts to enter her home, wouldn’t knowing a woman is armed serve as an incentive to not come attack her?
I’m not saying that this information should be released, but come on. This is a ridiculous argument.
Comment by chuddery Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:34 am
the really troubling part of the FOID law is the my buddy the states atorney loop hole. Under federal law, people convicted of violence/abuse against their spouse can not own or purchase guns. Under the FOID law, they can npot have a foid card unless the local states attorney agrees. In a number of counties donw state th States attorney has approved FOID cards for domestice abusers; in these small communtities the friend of the States attorney can bypass the protection. If your going to close a loophole, close the onethat letc locally elected States attorneys approve foid cards for those convicted o domestic violence. Move the oversight to the AG’s office.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:53 am
I am one with a unique name (exactly one in the state of Illinois), FOID card holder and a gun owner.
So here’s my plan: I will post the following on my door: There are loaded guns in my house, in a large gun safe when I am not home, that you cannot open or carry. Your picture has already been taken by approaching the door by a hidden camera. I do not answer the door to strangers so if you are here to break in, come on in. This could be a life/death decision for you. Am I here or not? Do you feel lucky (in a Dirty Harry tone)?
Of course I am assuming the burglar can read!
Comment by Nuance Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:09 pm
The law in and of itself is not terrible. The application and manner in which it is interpreted by the AG’s office is the problem. Madigan gave her agency too much power and created an inherent conflict of interest. This is not the only controversial opinion
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:12 pm
How about a compromise.
Once a year the state police will release the list to the NRA. The state police will deputize a panel of NRA members to go around to take guns away from those who’ve had their FOID cards revoked for criminal offenses, etc.
It would ensure only law abiding people own guns and would get to the point that we need to enforce the laws we have, not create new ones.
It’d be the annual disclosure of FOID card lists for NRA checks and sweeps.
Sounds like a winner to me.
Comment by piling on Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:12 pm
===Of course I am assuming the burglar can read! ===
I would assume an illiterate burglar can’t look up your name on the Interwebtubes. Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:14 pm
Media lawyers will get the info or provide fodder for stories about media’s attempt to save the ignorant masses.Gun owners forced to participate in the ISP vetting may expect that any audit would be done by state police or AG,not by reporters and anybody else who wants info,for whatever the reason.Madigan might have made her first tactical mistake.compromise is doubtful,loss to Madigan could be considerable.
Comment by Earl Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:14 pm
This whole thing could be avoided by doing away with the costly-duplicative sytem alltogether. There is not even a need for this, and it’s a financial burden on the ISP. The same background checks could be done at the point of purchase with a simple, valid driver’s license or social security card. Police don’t run your FOID card to get your background. They run your DL#.
Then there would be no state “registry” of any kind, and guns can still be kept from being sold legally to those that are forbidden from purchasing them. Another instance where a government program was instituted and has now become a bigger problem the what it was created to solve.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:18 pm
Do the connected kill-and-basically-walk?
So it seems:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-09-14/news/0809130002_1_sentenced-truck-involuntary-manslaughter
Comment by Dooley Dudright Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:28 pm
Reconciliation? Easy.
Pass a law directing that all Illinoisans be issued FOID cards at birth.
“If guns are for infantiles, then infants should have guns.”
Comment by Dooley Dudright Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:31 pm
I’m sorry. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of Republicans spouting off about privacy rights of gun owners when they like to violate the privacy rights of other who participate in activities they don’t like. How many of these guys think that a women’s right to privacy extends to health care and their right to choice? You can’t have it both ways. There is either a right to privacy or there isn’t. You can’t pick and choose what is or is not private.
Comment by Seriously??? Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:31 pm
(The last comment was snark, folks.)
Comment by Dooley Dudright Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 12:32 pm
No. And let’s make all our government health care records public while we are at it. We could root out fraud there too.
Comment by formerpolitico Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:08 pm
License information for many professionals is already on the internet.
https://www.idfpr.com/DPR/licenselookup/default.asp
It is a matter on knowing at least part of the last name and first initial and the particular license the person holds.
You get the person’s name, license number, license status, city of registration, original licensing date, current expiration date and whether or not the person has been disciplined.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:10 pm
== I’m sorry. I can’t stand the hypocrisy of Republicans spouting off about privacy rights of gun owners when they like to violate the privacy rights of other who participate in activities they don’t like. How many of these guys think that a women’s right to privacy extends to health care and their right to choice? ==
I don’t recall any serious action to require the names of those who have had those procedures released as public record and made available to the media.
Nice try however.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:11 pm
compromise - protect the names of foi card holders, but track and publish the names of those who prchase ammo or amo making supplies.
after all, guns dont kill people, bullets do. Its just the guns that make the bullets go really really fast. -(some comedian)
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:20 pm
== “How many of these guys think that a women’s right to privacy extends to health care and their right to choice? ==
Ah, I assume you are referring to the other great irreconcilable issue about which people often talk past each other: “reproductive rights.” Funny thing, I’ve been an active conservative for a long time. And despite what the left seems to believe, I’ve never met someone who was against a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her own body. I have, however, met plenty of people who believe that a “fetus” is actually a living human deserving of their own right, and not simply part of the woman’s body.
I’ve had a FOID card for many years, and it has yet to cause the death of a single human being. If I were party to an abortion, I would not be able to say the same thing according to my own definitions of life and morality.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:25 pm
I love the way snarks sneak into the discussion when the writer has nothing more useful to say!
Truth be told, I have a FOID card myself, but I do not own a firearm. I may at some point, but not yet. Frankly, I don’t care if they print my name or not. I didn’t get it because I was expecting privacy. What does concern me is HOW the list is used.
Comment by LisleMike Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:26 pm
== “License information for many professionals is already on the internet” ==
Okay, we’ve seen this point made at least a dozen times, and it isn’t getting any more relevant. A FOID card is not a license, and FOID card holders are not professionals. They are private citizens looking for “permission” from the state to exercise a constitutional right (ridiculous as the notion seems). That’s a far, far cry from professionals looking for permission to perform a regulated service for consumers. Apples and oranges my friend.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:36 pm
To follow up on my last comment, I have yet to see anyone from the other side address the following head-on:
FOID card holders are private citizens who are compelled by law to get said card in order to exercise a constitutional right. Why shouldn’t they be able to expect privacy in the process? Are there any other examples of
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:40 pm
Now everyone will have the names and addresses of all Police, FBI agents, undercover agents, and any other law enforcement person.
The criminal element will be sure to use this list, not only to know where the law enforcement people are, but where they can break in to find a gun. So many reasons not to publish just two big ones off the top of my head.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Native Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:47 pm
===To follow up on my last comment, I have yet to see anyone from the other side address the following head-on:
FOID card holders are private citizens who are compelled by law to get said card in order to exercise a constitutional right. Why shouldn’t they be able to expect privacy in the process?===
GOP, because the disclosure, in a sense, is not about the FOID card holders, the disclosure is on the government. The State is engaging in an activity — the establishment and issuing of FOID cards and the citizens have the right to provide oversight of that activity.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:49 pm
If the AG didn’t want this to all shake out the way it has, a smart aide at the AG’s office should have suggested the government relations person contact someone in the House and/or Senate to discuss a legislative solution. If legislation were pending before this whole thing blew up, the intensity of the outrage might be a bit tempered. This is a divisive battle that won’t likely be resolved easily, judging by the action taken in committee yesterday.
There is also a very real disconnect between people who grew up in the city - particularly Chicago - and those downstate that were raised around firearms and often considered those firearms as necessary and an as-frequently-used tool as a snow shovel.
I’m a FOID card owner and gun owner, but I don’t see the “fun” in having fully automatic weapons some fellow gun owners might. However, I know MORE city-raised individuals with a completely irrational fear of guns and those comfortable with owning them than I do gun owners with a scary or bizarre obsession with guns. That’s a gap not likely ever to be bridged.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 1:53 pm
== “the disclosure, in a sense, is not about the FOID card holders, the disclosure is on the government. The State is engaging in an activity…and the citizens have the right to provide oversight of that activity.” ==
Pardon me, Just Observing, but I think we both know that’s total BS. The government took it upon itself to engage in this “activity.” People who want to exercise their constitutional rights should not have their rights to privacy taken away because of that.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 2:04 pm
@GOP: Agreed — the government is excercising police powers over the citizenry — the citizenry is giving up rights to the government — in exchange, the citizenry must be able to monitor the actions of the government.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 2:08 pm
JO - exactly. The same cycle is going to play out with healthcare. Once the government takes over the system (in practice, if not in name), then the citizenry must be able to monitor it. Such monitoring will run into the HIPPA laws, and it will be interesting to watch the roles reverse. That’s why conservatives would rather the government not get involved in the first place.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 2:19 pm
=I would assume an illiterate burglar can’t look up your name on the Interwebtubes. Just sayin… =
Good point, Rich. My plan is bullet-proof then so to speak:) I am not overly concerned about the issue or I would install a security system.
Comment by Nuance Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 3:13 pm
–How about a compromise.–
I could care less who has an FOID card. I don’t really see a public interest in that, as long as law enforcement is doing their job in keeping those who can’t have one from possessing, or more importantly, selling firearms.
The more important issue to me is how are illegal firearms getting on the street? Are folks operating under the color of law selling guns to the dopers and bangers?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 3:26 pm
Some people want to exercise their right to earn a living/own a firearm. The state licenses certain professions/issues cards permitting citizens to own firearms. Names of licensees are made public. The burden is on GOP to defend keeping names of FOID card holders secret.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 3:34 pm
@Anonymous — I am playing devil’s advocate and defending both sides of the coin, but the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right — there is no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to practice medicine, law, barbery, real estate, etc. Your argument would fall flat in a court of law.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 3:47 pm
==There is also a very real disconnect between people who grew up in the city - particularly Chicago - and those downstate that were raised around firearms and often considered those firearms as necessary and an as-frequently-used tool as a snow shovel.==
You’re not helping your cause. If you use your firearm at your home as often as a snow shovel, I’d like to know, neighbor.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:01 pm
Anonymous @ 3:34:
There is a huge difference between the decision to enter a profession that is regulated by the state and exercising a personal right that is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:01 pm
===but the right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right===
And that means what to FOIA?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:14 pm
With all due respect, Wordslinger, I’ll almost guarantee that there are people downstate who use their firearms way more than a snow shovel. Between all the hunting seasons, I know guys that hunt as many as 100 days each year. Snow shovels make it out 10 or 15 times in a bad year.
Heck, I am not even a hunting addict and I probably use two different shotguns at least 10 times a year. Guns are not primarily for self defense in fact I pray to God I never have to use one for that purpose. Most gun owners use them for hunting or recreational (target) shooting, so yes, they probably use them a lot.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:38 pm
== And that means what to FOIA? ==
It means that this isn’t simply a transparency issue for the government agency administering the FOID registry. It’s also an important personal privacy issue for FOID holders. The state has essentially painted citizens into a corner, where they must forfeit their right to privacy in order to exercise a constitutional right. I’m sorry, but that’s a problem in my book. The state either needs to get rid of the FOID system or find some way to protect the privacy of those who are forced to participate in that system.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:53 pm
–With all due respect, Wordslinger, I’ll almost guarantee that there are people downstate who use their firearms way more than a snow shovel. Between all the hunting seasons, I know guys that hunt as many as 100 days each year. Snow shovels make it out 10 or 15 times in a bad year.–
Maybe down Little Egypt way, but so what, even if true? Once again, not helping your cause.
If you’re out in public with your gun 100 times a year, your argument for the need for privacy regarding your FOID card rings hollow.
C’mon son, I’m like Foghorn Leghorn, here. I keep pitching ‘em, and you keep missing ‘em.
Seriously, using your gun more than your snow shovel is not a winner in this statewide debate, not after this winter.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:54 pm
Are hunting license records public ?
That would be another list of gun owners
Comment by western illinois Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:57 pm
to add onto my previous comment, Rich, how do you think people would react if the state publically announced the names of all those who did and/or did not vote in the last election? People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the decision to exercise their right to vote. I’d argue that people have a similar expectation of privacy when it comes to their second amendment rights.
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 4:59 pm
–to add onto my previous comment, Rich, how do you think people would react if the state publically announced the names of all those who did and/or did not vote in the last election?–
Ugh, Is that for real? Some of you guys have an argument here, but are really over your heads trying to make it.
It’s quite simple, if you care to, to determine who is eligible to vote, who is registered to vote, who did vote and who did not.
There are very profitable companies built around gathering, analyzing and selling that information.
Enough. Now go home and get your shine box.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:16 pm
==If you’re out in public with your gun 100 times a year, your argument for the need for privacy regarding your FOID card rings hollow.==
Son, I say son, I think you whiffed on that one. I am not sure how many times you have been hunting, but it usually happens in a not so public place. Secondly, if I walk into a restaurant in November wearing an orange hat and orange vest, I am pretty sure everbody in the restaurant knows I own a gun (or that I work for IDOT) but that is a little different than my name showing up in a list in the Sun Times, or being put on a blog site for anyone to download anytime they want. I think you know there is a big difference there.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:43 pm
Although I am impressed, Wordslinger, that you quoted Foghorn Leghorn, and Goodfellas within three posts of each other.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 5:49 pm
Why isn’t Fitzgerald looking into Daley’s nephew possible murder? If you (deservingly) go after Ryan and Blago…..
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:22 pm
Excellent question, Anon. Fitz should be all over it, too.
Comment by Independent Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:25 pm
Regarding Vanecko, I would think after the excellent work of Fusco and Novak in the Sun-Times, the U.S. Attorney has to open up a case.
The CPD and Cook County State’s Attorneys office would be wise to leave those shredders alone.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 6:43 pm
this decision is infuriating. privacy should be of paramount concern. and it extends to a gun card and rights in the doctor’s office. Lisa, this is spectacularly not good. if my house
is burglarized by those who find there might be guns in my home, I’m filing a lawsuit.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:00 pm
What on earth happened to Lisa Madigan? Why is she geting so wierd all of a sudden? This immediately following her push to make enforcment of the ‘prevailing wage’ taxpayer ripoff a felony. Next election is 4 years off…the unions can wait.
What most people don’t understand is that Illinois’ FOID law is unique in the country. Its not like ‘concealed carry’ or concealed weapons registration and laws in other states. high level oversight of those programs is understandable. In this State you have to register with the State Police through the FOID process to have the right to ‘posess’ a firearm, from plinking guns to bird hunting light shotguns. Want to shoot skeet at a range and borrow one of the range’s shotguns for the purpose? have to have a FOID card.
If this is an accurate legal opinion on the new FOIA law, then the law needs to be changed, STAT. The expansioin of FOIA was acutally just a smokescreent to protect legislative leaders from real reform.
But again….what on earth happened to Lisa?
Comment by Park Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:26 pm
Many (most?)gun onwners still hope for the passage of concealed carry in Illinois. If one carries concealed, most states REQUIRE that the firearm actually BE concealed. And that is one of the reasons for concealed carry- a criminal must allow for the chance that the little old lady he wants to rob may be armed.
It is not a stretch to believe that if FOID cards come under FOIA jurisdiction, then so will concealed carry permits. And that may be enough reason to get many (most?) FOID card holders upset.
I simply feel that it is an invasion of my privacy to release my name as a FOID card holder-period.
Comment by Downsate Commissioner Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 7:54 pm
AS gun owners, we are forced to get a “license” to exercise our right. Now the AG is undoing the prior precedent for whatever reason. Vindictive towards gun owners. Mad because the Supreme Court rebuffed are arguments in the Chicago gun ban case, or just a case of the gogos knowing what is best for all of us.
In this case, the balancing test should be with the burden of proof on the requestor as to the compelling interest that seeks the release of the information. The burden should not be on why it needs to be protected. If the state compels us to this activity, then we shouldn’t be forced to be outed just because someone wants to know.
Under FOIA:
(c) “Public records” means all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, electronic communications, recorded information and all other documentary materials pertaining to the transaction of public business, regardless of physical form or characteristics, having been prepared by or for, or having been or being used by, received by, in the possession of, or under the control of any public body.”
There is no public business being conducted. We are forced to get a FOID to exercise a fundamental constitutional right. I’m not a business, I’m not a profession. I’m choosing to enjoy what the constitution provides for, and I am only force to interact with government because of their absurd mandate.
FOIA goes on to say:
“(c 5) “Private information” means unique identifiers, including a person’s social security number, driver’s license number, employee identification number, biometric identifiers, personal financial information, passwords or other access codes, medical records, home or personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses. Private information also includes home address and personal license plates, except as otherwise provided by law or when compiled without possibility of attribution to any person.”
Seems pretty clear that fingering someone as a likely gun owner should meet the definition of “Private information” as FOID information more likely than not provides a unique identifier.
“Sec. 7. Exemptions.
(c) Personal information contained within public
records, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, unless the disclosure is consented to in writing by the individual subjects of the information. “Unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” means the disclosure of information that is highly personal or objectionable to a reasonable person and in which the subject’s right to privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in obtaining the information.”
Seems we clearly fit within subsection c.
So how about I want all the gun owners names in Boone County. I don’t want the whole database, but I want a narrower search for just one county. Armed with Google, you can find most anyone.
Or how about I want all the names of individuals under the age of 18 in Kendall county from the FOID list.
Or an abusive ex spouse wants the name of their ex county by county. They file 102 requests to track them down.
Or I want the names of all FOID cards revoked for mental health issues.
The notion that the press in some how going to be the vanguard of the FOID process is BullSH**. They want to see which state reps have FOID cards. Does Scotty Pipen Have a FOID, how about Urlacher, or Vince Vaughn?
In 2010 there were a record 229,444 background checks on purchases. 1080 were refused. That’s what .005%.
Of those, 175 were for an expired FOID. Another 309 were for cancelled FOID, they were lost, reported lost, then they found it again and tried to use them. So 45% were simply for expired or cancelled cards. Not criminal activity. So now that leaves us .003% of the people that bought a gun retail in 2010.
So the press is going to be the vanguard for 596 people out of 229,444. I would say that is a pretty good rate. Of the remaining 596, 37, were for felonies, 15 for mental health, 61 for orders of protection. 128 outstanding warrants, 20 for domestic battery.
I’ll try to get the FOID revocation numbers in total. Again these numbers were for the background checks run on purchases from what I gather for 2010.
Let me also add that the press have been trying to get this information since Jim Thompson was Governor. And Thompson and his State Police refused to give it up. So has every other State Police administration since then. And no other AG has said it has to be given up till now.
Lisa is attempting to undo 20 years of precedent for no good reason.
If the bill gets to the floor, it will pass. Till then, Lisa may think gun owners should be treated as sex offenders. But we’ll fight her every step of the way.
She just kicked over a very big hornet’s nest.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 9:52 pm
There is a way to reconcile the two views over time: don’t release the current list because it was created with an expectation of privacy but start updating the list by allowing renewing (and current) FOID holders to “opt in” to public disclosure. The “opt in” default allows people to continue to maintain their current privacy expectation without taking an action. Then it would be up to the requester to stage a media campaign to convince enough FOID holders to “opt in” to provide data for a statistical study with appropriate safeguards.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:01 pm
Forgot to add … I won’t be “opting in” …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Thursday, Mar 3, 11 @ 11:02 pm
The REAL questions to be asked are:
“Why is Illinois the only state in the US, with a FOID card requirement?”
“Has Illinois’ FOID card shown any worth at all?”
“Why is Illinois so out of step with the rest of the US, on concealed carry?”
Comment by JoePeoria Friday, Mar 4, 11 @ 4:45 am
I don’t necessarily like the FOID card system but it is, in some ways, better than places where you have to register every gun by serial number. At least this way, while the state knows I could have a gun, they don’t necessarily know how many or what kind.
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Friday, Mar 4, 11 @ 7:19 am
>>>The REAL questions to be asked are:
>>>
>>>“Why is Illinois the only state in the US, with a FOID card requirement?”
MA has a card like that, and I don’t think that it’s “shall issue”, either. But they also have CCW.
>>>“Has Illinois’ FOID card shown any worth at all?”
It has served to tyrannize the law-abiding.
>>>“Why is Illinois so out of step with the rest of the US, on concealed carry?”
THAT’S the real question.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Friday, Mar 4, 11 @ 7:43 am
>>>>>>“Where does that FOID money actually go?”
>>>The $10 for 10 years fee goes to administering the application.
$6 of the fee is a tax towards the state’s animal population.
The ISP gets the rest.
(430 ILCS 65/5) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑5)
Sec. 5. The Department of State Police shall either approve or deny all applications within 30 days from the date they are received, and every applicant found qualified pursuant to Section 8 of this Act by the Department shall be entitled to a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card upon the payment of a $10 fee. Any applicant who is an active duty member of the Armed Forces of the United States, a member of the Illinois National Guard, or a member of the Reserve Forces of the United States is exempt from the application fee. $6 of each fee derived from the issuance of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards, or renewals thereof, shall be deposited in the Wildlife and Fish Fund in the State Treasury; $1 of such fee shall be deposited in the State Police Services Fund and $3 of such fee shall be deposited in the Firearm Owner’s Notification Fund. Monies in the Firearm Owner’s Notification Fund shall be used exclusively to pay for the cost of sending notices of expiration of Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards under Section 13.2 of this Act. Excess monies in the Firearm Owner’s Notification Fund shall be used to ensure the prompt and efficient processing of applications received under Section 4 of this Act.
(Source: P.A. 95‑581, eff. 6‑1‑08; 96‑91, eff. 7‑27‑09.)
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimerschmidt Friday, Mar 4, 11 @ 7:51 am