Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The never-ending mess, Part 9,287
Next Post: And the winners are…
Posted in:
* First, the setup…
Should a 10-month-old toddler, barely able to get around on two feet, be permitted to get a Firearm Owner Identification Card?
That was one of the questions raised last spring in several columns written by Howard Ludwig, the Daily Southtown’s Stay-at-Home Dad columnist. Ludwig applied for and eventually acquired a FOID card on behalf of his 10-month-old son, Howard Jr. - Bubba to his closest friends and readers of his father’s weekly column. […]
A spokesman for the state police said the proposed age limit was based on Illinois Department of Natural Resources guidelines that already require children under 10 to be accompanied by a parent or guardian when they attend gun safety classes.
It has yet to be determined whether the change would require a revision in state law or can be made as an administrative rule change. In any case, the Illinois State Rifle Association objects to any age limit, in part because the ISRA likes to start gun safety training when children are as young as 7. In our view, that objection is absurd. You can teach kids about gun safety without actually putting guns their hands. No one would argue you need real sex to teach sex education. The same applies to gun safety education.
The idea a toddler should be entitled to a firearm owners identification card also is absurd, in our view. There’s no reason for a 10-year-old to have such a card.
They should not be available until a youngster reaches a responsible age - perhaps 16, perhaps 18. Anyone under that age should not be permitted to possess a gun except in the presence of a parent or responsible adult with a valid FOID.
Question: At what age should children be allowed to legally own firearms in Illinois (in other words, obtain a FOID card)? Explain, please.
…Adding… There is some misinformation in comments by a couple of people. The law has a clear exemption for minors from the FOID card requirements. Under “exemptions” in the FOID law…
The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers do not apply to…
Unemancipated minors while in the custody and immediate control of their parent or legal guardian or other person in loco parentis to the minor if the parent or legal guardian or other person in loco parentis to the minor has a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card
[Emphasis added]
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:21 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The never-ending mess, Part 9,287
Next Post: And the winners are…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is 10 motnh even a toddler? Crazy.
I propose the age be 16 so kids can participate in drivebys.
This is really a Chicago vs rest of state issue. I remember some kids hunting (in a different state) @ 14. Does training @ 7 need to have the kid as a gun owner?
Comment by Wumpus Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:29 am
Unless I’m mistaken, no one under 18 can buy a gun in IL anyway, and the FOID status of a minor doesn’t affect his right to hunt or shoot, so the FOID card is basically a non-issue with an attention-grabbing headline. The column was cute, but contributes in no way to an educated debate on Illinois gun laws. I would set no minimum on FOID card issuance (I would abandon it, but that’s another question) and retain the 18/21 longarm/handgun purchase age restriction.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:31 am
I don’t have a problem with children learning about guns at an early age, but owning a gun shouldn’t happen until at least the age of 18 at the earliest or at the latest 21. I guess I could base it on when you should be independent or perhaps the age you’re legally allowed to drink. Of course I’m not trying to combine fire arm ownership with drinking.
Comment by Levois Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:31 am
18 should be the FOID age - there’s not even a reasonable argument against that.
If you want your kids to hunt with you or target shoot or whatever prior to that age, fine, but they don’t need to be able to buy their own ammo or guns prior to that age. There are too many problems with kids and teens and guns already, why do we need to make it easy for them to get them.
Comment by Napoleon has left the building Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:47 am
IL is one of the few (only?) states to require a FOID.
I received my hunters safety certificate from the State of Colorado when I was nine, which is the same time I started target shooting with .22 caliber rifles and trap shooting with .410s.
I have always used my guns lawfully and will continue to do so. Learning how to do so at an early age is part of the reason why.
Comment by Rob Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:55 am
There is a slight flaw with the question and issue as phrased. In Illinois, you can not handle a firearm without a FOID card. So a child, under adult supervision, still need to have a FOID card to be able to posses or hold a firearm. If you let your child hold a gun in your presence, without a card, you can have not only that gun, but all guns present, seized.
The law is very poorly drafted. It needs to be modified so that kids can not get the cards, but that it is not a violation for a child, say 14-18, to be in posession of a firearm if they are with an adult who has a card. As written, however, kids have to have the card.
As for safety classes, the hunter safety class uses BB guns/air guns. You could teach general fireamrs saftey the same way. No need for actual firearms.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:56 am
I don’t see this as an issue. How many kids with FOID cards are shooting up neighborhoods and each other? I would guess not many. There should be a requirement that a parent sign something on the FOID request form for those under 18 stating that they are responsible for their child and any havoc the child may wreak with a weapon.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:59 am
I would think that age 18 would be as appropriate an age as any. I first went hunting (accompanied by an adult male) with a shotgun when I was 14 years old. Prior to that, I had grown up in a rural area where 14 year olds often owned there own 22 caliber rifles for shooting tin cans and small game such as squirrels & raccoons.
That was over fifty years ago and the times and society have changed a great deal for the worse since then. A 14 year old kid raised on a farm was a far more mature and stable 14 year old than what we encounter in the cities and suburbs in today’s society.
Age 18 would be a good starting point.
Comment by Aaron Slick Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:02 am
Ghost wrote…
===So a child, under adult supervision, still need to have a FOID card to be able to posses or hold a firearm.===
Not true. Under “exemptions” in the FOID law…
===The provisions of this Section regarding the possession of firearms, firearm ammunition, stun guns, and tasers do not apply to…
Unemancipated minors while in the custody and immediate control of their parent or legal guardian or other person in loco parentis to the minor if the parent or legal guardian or other person in loco parentis to the minor has a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card;===
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:03 am
As Ghost mentions, you can’t buy until 18 anyway.
It’s TOUCHING, or HOLDING a gun that requires a FOID. With no FOID, how can you take your 7/8 grader hunting? You can’t.
In my view, a series of columns that ignores such a basic fact for sensationalism is bad journalism at best, and flacking for gun control groups at worst.
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:06 am
Pat, you’re absolutely wrong. See my comment above please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:08 am
Napoleon,
Again, I don’t believe the FOID card supercedes the state age minimums for the purchase of firearms. That’s why I think the FOID/age question is a non-issue.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:10 am
As Rich points out, state law treats the use and the purchase of firearms by minors far differently.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:11 am
You need a delete button
But the other
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:11 am
I stand corrected. In that case I would require that you be at least 18 to have a card. There is absolutely no reason a minor would need a FOID card given the exception for unemancipated minors.The exception is very broad, it pretty much allows a child to be with any adult who has a card and is supervising the child or otherwise resposible for them as if they were the childs parent.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:22 am
FOID cards are of little value-except to the bureaucracy they created and now if you seek help from a mental health professional,Dept of human services provides your records to that police bureaucracy-regardless of why the person sought help-frightening but true-and for what?-
Comment by red dog Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:28 am
Transporting the firearm is the issue as I see it.
I think it should be 16. There is no reason why a responsible 16 or 17 year old should not be able to leave school on Friday afternoon, go home, get his shotgun or rifle and meet his friends/relatives who might already be out hunting.
I know about the exception for minors, but I don’t think it would cover this situation where the minor is driving legally (without an adult), but can’t transport the firearm legally (with the firearm unloaded and in a case).
This is an issue where kids grow up hunting, and once they can drive legally, they should be able to obtain a foid card so they can legally transport a firearm.
Comment by Jaded Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:40 am
I just returned from a short trip through Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi. When I showed my FOID card to vendors in antique malls they were astounded and (almost) all - laughed at it.
I agree with their sense of humor. The current FOID card is a joke. It keeps noone who really wants a firearm from getting one. The 10-month old toddler is a perfect example.
Comment by Jechislo Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:45 am
The editorial hits a key sticking point:
“Current state law requires gun owners with children under 14 years of age to keep firearms in a secure location (a vague and entirely subjective requirement) or with a trigger lock in place - unless the child has an FOID card.”
Allowing a child a FOID card at any age may be a way to subvert the safe storage law.
That said, I doubt safe storage or gun safety classes have anything to do with ISRA’s lobbying against this change.
The resounding success of the gun lobby has a lot to do with their policy of never giving so much as an inch on any issue. IMO, this is simply an extension of that policy, and little more, because making 10 the minimum age for a FOID would have minimal effect, if any, on anyone’s right to keep and bear arms.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:47 am
This is rural vs urban issue. In many Illinois counties children hunt on farmland under the ages of 16 or 18. The law allows a hunting license to issue to persons of any age responsible to pass a hunter safety class. As IDNR states in the set up, only children under 10 need a parent to attend hunter safety classes with the child. The law as it currently stands has no problems. In fact with instant background checks mandated before firearm purchaces can be made, the whole FOID card system is unnecessary and should be repealed.
Comment by mock Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:51 am
There’s no need to issue FOIDs until age 18 - the existing exemption does everything needed. It was a silly journalistic (?) stunt on the part of Ludwig.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:54 am
“Unemancipated minors while in the custody and immediate control of their parent or legal guardian”
This is not a question of ownership, but of possession. Anyone younger than 18 cannot and should not legally own a firearm of any type. But can they posses one without being in immediate control of an adult?
It still always amazes me that politicians think that quick fixes will solve the problem.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 10:58 am
So Hillary’s going to give kids a Thousand bucks, Rod’s gonna give em a book, why can’t the State Police get in on this and give them an FOID? The requirement for the card is a borderline violation of the 2nd Amendment and really ineffective. Criminals have very efficient ways of getting the weapons they want. Do away with the FOID card and face reality - it is a sham.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:03 am
Distractions distractions, distractions.
If a toddler has a FOID card, so what. He/she is still not capable of purchasing or using a firearm.
It is purely an academic discussion.
While ink (electrons in this case)is spent on this, the ineffective and inept government of the state of Illinois continues to do nothing about the mess the state is in.
I venture a guess that more people will be hurt by the mismanagement of the State government than from any number of toddlers who possess a FOID card.
Lets not give the legislators any opportunity to grandstand on an irrelevant issue.
Comment by plutocrat03 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:09 am
“Unemancipated minors while in the custody and immediate control of their parent or legal guardian”
This is not a question of ownership, but of possession. Anyone younger than 18 cannot and should not legally own a firearm of any type. But can they posses one without being in immediate control of an adult?
Is it rediculous that a 16-17 year old cannot go out and engage in legal firearm activities (trap, skeet, target shooting, hunting)without being in immediate control of a parent guardian, well unfortuanately it depends on the child and morely so on the parents.
It still always amazes me that politicians think that quick fixes will solve the problem. Unfortunately it is easier for politicians to control guns than hold parents accountable for their children, even though Illinois law (720 ILCS 5/24-9) sort of does….
Comment by hmmm Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:14 am
“There is some misinformation in comments by a couple of people”
What??? Misinformation on issues of gun supervision? Whodathunkit?
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:15 am
You could have made a lot of money off me on that. I well and truly believed there was NO exception to the “need a FOID to touch a gun”. I read the whole link 3x to make sure it was correct.
And, frankly, in the state better safe than sorry with respect to gun laws.
And, from the flip side, why are 40+ states wrong and IL right?
subvert safe storage laws
Please. Poster child for the “makes you feel good and lets us harass gun owners” laws.
Comment by Pat collins Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:37 am
It might be useful for passing down Great-Grandfather’s family heirloom firearm to a child before they’ve reached adulthood, I don’t know if the law makes any provision in such an instance?
Comment by Outatown Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:49 am
Since PC brought up “posterchildren”:
Let’s try this quote. “Criminals have very efficient ways of getting the weapons they want.”
Let’s see what else criminals can do:
1. Break into homes;
2. Sell drugs;
3. Shoot people.
Accoring to Gun-Nut logic, since criminals can do all of those things, the Gun Nut solution would be to simply abolish the laws.
Nice logic you have there.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:50 am
“Please. Poster child for the “makes you feel good and lets us harass gun owners” laws.”
Safe storage is harassment? Really?
When was the last time a warrant was issued to see if someone wasn’t safely storing their guns? The image of a police-state run by jack-booted thugs who kick in the doors of honest, law-abiding John Q. Citizen to ensure he’s not running afoul of the law is a great rhetorical device, but is hardly backed by real-world precedent.
Safe storage laws are probably legislating common sense - I will grant that. Further, every gun owner I know is responsible enough to take precautionary steps, irrespective of the laws.
That said, sometimes common sense needs the full weight and backing of the law.
And for what it’s worth, lest you label me some sort of “gun grabber” or “anti,” I completely support the rights of people to own weapons for sport, home protection or collection.
But I also support common sense.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:52 am
Credit cards given to dogs and cats, a FOID card given to a 10 month old, these are publicity stunts used by extremists to embarrass and shock the general public into believing the worst, and that their “fix” is our only hope from these depravities.
When we allow the tone of our discussions to be reduced by these stunts, we fail to adequately consider all the variables involved and we end up sounding pretty stupid and emotional, instead of rational and thoughtful.
We have a long history regarding firearms that we do not need to throw out the window. We have an even longer history of raising children and hunting. We don’t need to allow these stupid toddler tricks to hijack these discussions.
No, a toddler shouldn’t be given a FOID card anymore than a basset hound or a criminal. Normal people would have never set up our FOID system in this way just to make news either. We expect people to respect us enough not to crap in our party punch, throw up on our hostess, or use loopholes to embarrass us with our laws. Those who thrill themselves by playing class clown to prove their narrow viewpoints need to be swiftly kicked in the pants and throw out the door. We have enough serious discussions to make regarding firearms without their antics.
I will not be suckered into a fight over an age old societal issue because of some jackass.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:53 am
I am 24 now and have been hunting since I was 11 or 12. The first couple years I sat with my grandpa or uncle and got experience with a gun. I harvested my first deer when I was 14 and was sitting by myself at the time. My parents knew I could handle a gun, I took the IDNR hunter safety class, had my FOID card and was equally if not more cautious than “adults” who were hunting around the state. Why should it be illegal for young people to use a gun just because they can’t find a supeprvising “adult”? This issue, like many others in Illinois, is one between urban and rural areas. Mature rural citizens lose rights because of immature urban fools.
Comment by Young Hunter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:00 pm
“Why should it be illegal for young people to use a gun just because they can’t find a supeprvising “adult”? ”
Young Hunter,
Because kids can do dumb things, and when you put something in their hands that can kill people, they really need adult supervision.
Also, please remember that when you hear stories of kids taking guns to school and shooting people, it usually in a rural area (and almost always in a red state for some reason). When you talk about “urban fools”, just remember that those “urban fools” are the ones shooting everyone in their school.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:06 pm
You know, safe storage laws are, as stated largely unenforced legislating of common sense. I would think the fact that your child has killed or wounded himself or another person would be the most devastating thing a person could deal with. The ticket or arrest or whatever for unsafe storage would hardly compare with that.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:09 pm
Skeeter,
I think you should back off on the school shooting/red state connection. Besides being wrong, it’s unnecessarily antagonizing. I remember the 2nd major school shooting in Eugene, near the high school I attended. (Eugene, by the way, is the bluest area of the NW.) The first famous school shooting was in a Denver suburb.
Let’s not get carried away.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:13 pm
Skeeter,
Adults do dumb things as much as kids. You have just as great a chance of being killed by a gunshot from an adult as you do a kid. Some kids should not have a gun but, the same is true for adults. My only point is that some kids below the age of 18 or 16 can safely handle a firearm and should legally be allowed to do so. I think 14 is a better age than 16 for that reason. I don’t think I would have trusted myself alone with a loaded gun before the age of 14. You have to get experience from someone who has it.
Comment by Young Hunter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:13 pm
seems to me we’ve gotten off the original story…a 10 month old, give me a break…trying to defend issuing a FOID card to a 10 month old is just plain stupid!
Comment by downhereforyears Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:17 pm
In the interest of accuracy, my order was a bit off…thought Columbine was a couple years earlier. Point is, they’ve been a cross-section of the country: Cleveland, Essex, Eugene, Jonesboro, NYC, New Orleans, Blacksburg…
It’s a terrible problem, and it can happen anywhere (even Canada.)
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:31 pm
- downhereforyears -
But it does defend the stupidity of the FOID law. What use is it if gov’s enforcers can’t even keep guns out of the hands of toddlers?
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:33 pm
I grew up with guns around all my childhood. I too learned to trap shoot at 7 years of age and spent hours with my father while he worked his loading equipment, trained his English Setters ect. Then my son took his turn at my father’s side. At nine he was allowed out in the field , nope, no gun yet, watched, listened. At 11 or 12 son took the gun safety course and the fall he was 12 was his first real “I get to shoot” trip. My dad taught my son life long lessons in those ‘watch only’ years that my son would not have learned in any other way nor learned half as well. But for me, guns are about hunting, and I do understand where Young Hunter above is coming from, but I think the age for FOID should be 18 as our laws are for across the board and not customized per person.
Comment by Princeville Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:43 pm
Perhaps the real question should be, do the State Police have the statutoral authority to propose this new regulation? The Department of State Police has the power “[t]o promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the administration and enforcement of its powers and duties, wherever granted and imposed, pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act.” 20 ILCS 2605-15. Specifically, the DSP’s Division of Administration has the authority to “[e]xercise the rights, powers, and duties vested in the Department by the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.” 20 ILCS 2605-45(6.5), 2605-120. So, what are the Department’s “powers and duties”? The Department “has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act ONLY if the Department finds that the applicant” is prohibited from receiving a FOID card for one or more of sixteen specific reasons. 430 ILCS 65/8 (emphasis added). Being under 10 years old isn’t one of the specified reasons. The only age limits are for people under 21 without parental consent, and juvenile delinquents.
Comment by Another Pro-gunner Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:47 pm
To A citizen: You make a great point but the Illinois State Rifle Assn defending it by saying there should be no age limit so that children can be trained gun safety at an early age is just as foolish.
Comment by downhereforyears Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:48 pm
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:50 am: “Accoring (sic) to Gun-Nut logic, since criminals can do all of those things, the Gun Nut solution would be to simply abolish the laws.”
No, laws are fine for punishment. The problems I have are with nanny laws that try and ban specific behaviors and are effectively punishment before a crime is committed.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:54 pm
Ken,
Are you then in favor of getting rid of all drug laws and all DUI laws? By your logic, the condition of either being under the influence of drugs or alcohol should not be outlawed. Like putting a firearm in the hands of somebody who shouln’t have on, the drug laws and the DUI laws serve to punish a condition and not to punish (what you consider to be) the actual crime.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:57 pm
- downhereforyears -
Yeah, I agree - my point is that the FOID is simply not necessary. It was a foot in the door attempt at gun control and registration and has proven to be a failed “experiment”. It really is time to abolish it and enjoy the budget savings in these difficult budgetary times. It is wasteful and ineffective. Gov initially wanted to raise the fee to $500. When that failed he simply had the ISP slow down the renewal and application process resulting in law abiding gun owners potentially becoming felons for owning firearms without a “valid” FOID Card. That is simply blatant abuse of power and political brinksmanship. Just abolish it and be done with the sham.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:58 pm
Rich –
there is a problem with the premis of the question. handleing a gun and owning/buying one are two different things.
The state law already says you have to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun or their ammunition. 21 to buy a handgunb or their ammunition.
however, you can be 12 have a FOID card and walk out the back door of the fram and go hunting without an adult and be legal. Very different from owning/buying a gun. That age has already been determined.
Even though it seems absurd that you can join the Army at 18 on your own and not sign for your own FOID card. And before Skeeter jumps up and down, yes I think those 18,19 or 20 year olds inthe service should be able to drink and buy booze.
So the real question is at what age should a parent be able to get their kid a FOID card?
The next question is should young adults old enough to join the military, be able to sign for their own FOID cards?
What the editorial failed to mention, was that by signing for a FOID card, the parent becomes civilly liable for any thing that kid does with a gun. you trade off the criminal liability for civil liability under the law.
And a young hunter would become a felon if they decided to go hunting on their farm. Your suppose to have a FOID card to hunt. The penalties of the FOID are racheted up if you are not eligible to get a FOID. So a 9 year old goes out the back door, out of sight of mom or dad, but with their blessing and they get a felony for hunting squirrels.
todd
Comment by Todd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:09 pm
Are you more likely to be shot by an adult or a minor? Well, first of all you’re more likely to be shot (or killed) by someone you know. Stranger on stranger killings aren’t all that common. Except for for the innocent bystanders from the drive-bys. And an awful lot of those are perpetrated by minors. However, people pulling off drive-bys don’t have FOID cards anyway.
I’d be perfectly content having gun policy set by each individual county with a sign at the entry to the county informing people what the laws in said county are. Then again, I’d be perfectly happy if each US state could set its own monetary policy, make its own trade pacts, and make its own treaties.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:10 pm
As a long time hunter/shooter, I believe that we need some changes.
We already have a law regarding sales (18 for long gun and ammunition, 21 for handgun).
The “Transport/Possession” issue could be handles by the IDNR Hunter Safety Course ID. This should be limited to 10-14 with parent/guardian, 15 and up without.
The FOID be converted to a conceal-carry permit and issued to those above 21 that have passed a handgun safety course similar to what Utah does.
Comment by Healthcare Worker Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:22 pm
Perhaps you are more likely to be shot by someone you know than by a stranger, just like you may be more likely to be murdered in any other way by someone you know than by a stranger. That’s just the nature of murder. What’s your point? Included in the “someone you know” catagory would be rival drug dealers killing each other, violent criminals killing other violent criminals over disputes stemming from their criminal enterprise, and violent criminals killing other violent criminals in order to shut them up from talking to the police. Also included in the “someone you know” catagory would be victims of domestic violence, as well as victims of domestic violence who kill their abusers. Since the real factor in the “someone you know” theory seems to be an existing relationship, perhaps we should outlaw getting to know someone. Or maybe all citizens should register their acquaintances with the government, so if you end up dead, the authorities will have a list of people to question. Failure to register could be a minor infraction, and the police could randomly stop people on the street who are conversing to see if they have complied with the law. If neither are linked by the database, the cop can issue a ticket, or perhaps waive it if the two individuals register on the spot.
Comment by Another Pro-gunner Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:28 pm
The question was asked earlier in the thread. My point was that in these kinds of gun questions, both sides make use of the spectre of the armed stranger–either the armed stranger (minor or not) whose going to shoot you where you stand because he has a ridiculously easy to get weapon or the armed stranger whose going to shoot you where you stand because the government has made it impossible for you to honestly arm yourself.
Reality is that the armed stranger is not a significant threat to most of us.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:34 pm
Statistically speaking, perhaps not. Of course, the people who do run into strangers willing to do them harm, whether armed with a firearm, knife, club, or merely ill-will and a physical advantage, should have the opportunity to use the most effective means to defend themselves they deem necessary. But that, I guess, is a discussion for another thread.
As far as this discussion goes, I still do not believe the police have the authority to propose/impose this rule. Nor do I believe, from a policy standpoint, that it either makes any sense, or would prove to be effective in whatever it is intended to achieve. Unless, of course, it is intended to increase police power and impose unnecessary new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. Oh, wait, I think that is its intention.
Comment by Another Pro-gunner Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 1:50 pm
The problem with preventing someone from getting a FOID card until they are 16 or 18 is that it precludes them from hunting without an adult. Illinois law currently requires a hunter under the age of 18 to have a hunter safety card and be in the immediate control of a supervising adult that has a FOID card. However, if the hunter has both a FOID card and a hunter safety card, they can hunt on their own. I teach hunter safety and have seen ten year olds that I would have no problem letting sit by themselves under a tree at the other end of a ridge. I also know several sixteen year olds that no responsible adult would let out of their reach with a loaded firearm.
The other concern is that under the current Illinois law, if you are in possession of amunition or a firearm with out a FOID card, you have broken the law. What happens if the wife or son takes the truck into town, gets in a accident and the police find the ammunition or firearm in the vehicle and they do not have a FOID card? Sadly, they can be arrested and the firearm and ammunition seized. As a result, the CPO in our county advises everyone in the hunter’s family to apply for a FOID card to preclude such an event from happening. These types of unintended consequences result in bad things happening to good people. They are one of the reasons I oppose the concept of a FOID card.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:14 pm
The father of the 10-month old had to fill out the form for his son, and by signing it, gave the son permission to have a FOID Card. If you’d bother to download the form from the ISP site and read it over, you’ll see that anyone under the age of 21 must have a parent or guardian’s signature and permission to recieve a FOID card!!!
What’s the beef>???? Parents not smart enough to raise their own children?? The state must do it for them???
I was shooting by myself at the age of 7 in the pasture behind our house. Bought ammo at the general store in town when Mom went in to buy groceries.
The FOID card is a worthless piece of bureaucracy that does nothing to stop crime. Call the ISP and ask them how many gun crimes committed by people with FOID cards. Guess what? They don’t keep track of that data!!!! That’s right, all the paperwork for a FOID card, and nobody keeps any data to see to see if it’s worth it!!!!
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:18 pm
Read it again>>>>>>>
If you’re under 21 years of age, you must have a parent/guardian give signed permission to have a FOID card. By giving permission, the parent/guardian accepts liability for any damages resulting from the minor’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition. You must still be 18/21 to buy a long gun/handgun. That’s Federal law.
Tell me again, why do we need further age restrictions????????
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:24 pm
“- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 12:57 pm: “Ken, Are you then in favor of getting rid of all drug laws and all DUI laws? By your logic, the condition of either being under the influence of drugs or alcohol should not be outlawed. Like putting a firearm in the hands of somebody who shouln’t have on, the drug laws and the DUI laws serve to punish a condition and not to punish (what you consider to be) the actual crime.”
No, not my argument at all. DUI is already structured as a punishment - they don’t ban or strictly control alcohol because you might get tanked and then drive, do they? No, they punish you for the crime of DUI, not the behavior of drinking - as it should be.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:28 pm
Here’s the link to the FOID form on the ISP website. Download it, read it and be informed. Also know that the two forms I filled out for non resident PA and NH concealed carry permits were not as complicated at and IL FOID and did not even require a picture.
This state is way too hung up on guns and does not pay enough attention to criminals!!!
AB
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:31 pm
http://www.isp.state.il.us/media/docdetails.cfm?DocID=38
Sorry, forgot the link
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:32 pm
Teaching a minor about gun safety doesn’t have to include a gun. Before they’re 18 talk to them about laws, safety, proper handling (Fake Guns) At the age of 18 they should be practicing the handling of a gun under close supervision for a certain number of hours. It’s just like a 16 year old getting their license. They have to do so many hours behind the wheel, even before they drive by themselves. I have a FOID card, but don’t even own a gun, but I do have the knowledge of gun safety.
Comment by Gun Safety Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:36 pm
Learning firearms safety at an early age, or any age, generally makes safe and responsible gun owners. Obviously a 10 month old doesn’t need a FOID card, and unless the 10 month old is extremely advanced for his/her age they will not even be able to use it. With that said it’s a total waste of time and money to bother changing the FOID card process. This is just another example of the anti-gun, anti bill of rights, far left trying to erode our basic freedoms by putting up a bizzare example such as this.
Comment by JL425 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:38 pm
Ken,
Is it fair to say that the problem with DUI is not the fact that somebody will drive all over the road, but instead the problem is that while driving all over the road, the DUI is likely to hit another vehicle?
Merely having too many to drink and getting behind the wheel need not be a problem. The problem is that the alcohol makes the person much more likely to be a hazard.
The DUI laws aim to combat the accident by getting to it before it happens.
The gun regulations that you oppose have the same basis. The thought is that if you don’t have the proper permits, you are more likely to misuse the weapon.
Just as some people can drive drunk safely, I’m sure some people can own and operate a firearm safely without proper ID, etc.
The analogy remains: If you think one of these laws is wrong, you need to knock out both. They have the same underlying logic.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:45 pm
Ken writes, “No, laws are fine for punishment. The problems I have are with nanny laws that try and ban specific behaviors and are effectively punishment before a crime is committed.”
I suppose you have a problem with laws banning murder plots (not the actual murder, just the plotting)….
Comment by Rob_N Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:47 pm
Perhaps we need to combine the Driver’s License and the FOID into one License. If you can’t have a DL maybe you shouldn’t be allowed to have a firearm. And conversely as both are “potentially deadly assemblies”. I simply can’t believe I survived my first 25 years through the 40s and 50s without these laws to “protect” from whatever it is they protect me from. Last time I opened the paper (this morning) there were still plenty of murders and accidents with fatalities. These laws sure are effective - not!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:01 pm
Come to think of it, most of the murders are committed by those without the requisite FOID. We should require all citizens to apply for the FOID Card. Those being refused should be locked up for the protection of the rest of us. That should reduce gun crime by about 99%. I feel safer already.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:18 pm
Citizen, it would be nice to think that murders are committed by those without FOIDs, and in fact, you’re probably right. But, call the ISP and ask for that data. It doesn’t exist!!! Nobody’s keeping track of it!!! FOID is just another layer of paperwork put on by paperpushers that have no clue of the real world!!! A criminal with a FOID??? NOT!! Just another law they can ignore, and use to plea bargain away if they get caught.
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:28 pm
- Rob_N - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 2:47 pm: “I suppose you have a problem with laws banning murder plots (not the actual murder, just the plotting)…”
Rob, every rule has an exception.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:30 pm
Todd
What is the NRA’s position on getting the FOID law removed from the statutes? When was the last attempt by any entity to do so and the outcome? Is the Chicago anti-gun block too influential to get it accomplished? Perhaps simply having the law apply to counties over a million population might afford some reason being returned and the remaining population relieved of a meaningless burden.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:37 pm
A Citizen,
If it is meaningless, then why object? It cannot be that time consuming to comply.
It seems more likely that you object because you want the bad guys to have guns.
What’s the deal, A Citizen? Are you some sort of gangbanger looking to shoot up a neighborhood? If not, then what’s with all this outrage over something you consider meaningless?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:40 pm
Now, now Skeeter. Put your gun down and step away from your keyboard. Obviously you did not take my advice a couple of months ago about the vitriolectomy. I will refrain from humoring you, meaninglessly!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:44 pm
In all seriousness, A, if it is meaningless (your term — not mine), where is your objection? It looks like your objection is that the card has some meaning and some impact, rather than the other way around.
It does sound like you are on the side of the bad guys. If not, please explain.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:46 pm
Skeeter, I try not to waste my time and money doing “meaningless” things. (This response is an exception) The unlawful firearm possessors ignore the law. It is only a burden on the law abiding citizens. I’m not on the side of the bad guys, either. And I can’t come up with a neighborhood to shootup. Now, about your vitriolectomy . . .
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:53 pm
People who don’t follow this law ignore it?
You mean, sort of like laws against robbery and murder?
The bad guys ignore those laws too.
Since the bad guys ignore them, should we just abolish those laws?
You are the person claiming that this law is meaningless. So far, you haven’t come close to supporting that point.
And stop blaming me for the fact that your argument is weak. You made the argument. Have the common sense to abandon it now that it has been shown to be ridiculous.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:58 pm
Skeeter,
I think he means the effect of the law is meaningless, not the burden. The burden is undisputably real, especially given the often longer than 30 day turnaround (observed multiple times by myself.)
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 3:58 pm
“undisputably”…shoot!
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:00 pm
And I might add, Skeeter, that the effectivness of given legislation seems relevant to the debate on said legislation.
“Have the common sense to abandon it now that it has been shown to be ridiculous.”
Why, just because you say so? I don’t see you retracting the following: “Also, please remember that when you hear stories of kids taking guns to school and shooting people, it usually in a rural area (and almost always in a red state for some reason).”
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:03 pm
Skeeter, I think you may be reading meaning into my position that you put there delusionally. Spending money and wasting time on meaningless things is wasteful and ill advised. I’m afraid we will have to have more than one session for your treatment - a simple vitriolectomy won’t touch the delusional thinking. Trial lawyer syndrome maybe?
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:04 pm
OK, let’s be a bit nicer please. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:06 pm
A Citizen,
There are your words, correct?
“The unlawful firearm possessors ignore the law. It is only a burden on the law abiding citizens.”
Please exlain how that is different from any other law.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:06 pm
Sorry, Skeeter. The voices just told me to clean my guns, so I’ll be busy for a bit!
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:11 pm
Perhaps “meaningless” was intended to mean “meaningless to the criminal element,” Skeeter. Sometimes, one needs to think a little when reading posts, unless you are just looking for “meaningless” wordplay.
Comment by Another Pro-gunner Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:16 pm
A Citizen,
I note the lack of response to the substance. If you have a substantive response, please feel free to share it.
In response to “Another Pro Gunner”:
Laws against robbery are prety meanlingess to the criminal element.
Are you for repealing those laws too?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:20 pm
The bottom line is this…
Any member of JCAR that votes for this FOID age limit is going to be BBQ’ed alive by the gun owners of this state.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the NRA and the ISRA and the NSSF are loading the pit with charcoal as we speak.
Comment by Frosty da Snowman Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:29 pm
Skeeter,
Look, I understand your point. It’s a logical one. But it’s a sweeping way of justifying many laws that we reject. Surely, we ought to have the right to rethink a law–should we conclude it to be an ineffective one–without risking our moral right to outlaw crimes against life and property. This seems to be one basis, for example, of many reformers’ cries for immigration reform.
Or look at it this way: almost no states have a FOID-like process. Maybe they ought to, but they don’t. That alone suggests that FOID statutes are more a regulatory option than anything that affords us protection or punishes crime. For that, we have the normal criminal statutes.
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:30 pm
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 4:20 pm: (snip) “Laws against robbery are prety (sic) meanlingess (sic) to the criminal element. Are you for repealing those laws too?”
Skeeter, I think you’re suffering from the common delusion that laws can control behavior. They can’t. They are only effective as a form of societal redress for unacceptable actions.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 5:43 pm
I’ts called responsibility and most hunters go out of their way to be as careful and safe as possible. We train our children about gun saftey and try to give them the proper understanding of what will happen if they are careless when hunting or driving or anything else that can kill or injure someonelse. On the other hand the children that want to be in gangs and do drivebys are not trained in proper gun saftey,they only use a gun to intimidate or do harm. If you could survey the Gangesters in Chicago or any other town in Il. I would dare say none of them have a Foid card and probably never will have because convicted felons are not allowed to have one!!
Comment by NIEVA Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 6:23 pm
Skeeter,,
The laws against criminal activity do not cause me to change my normal activity. I do not rob or murder. The FOID law causes me to expend time and money that I would not spend in the absence of the law. In spite of that, it does not appear to be having any effect on the criminal element. Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and one of the highest crime rates per capita. Vermont is one of the least restrictive gun law states in the nation, no restrictions other than the Federal ones, open or concealed carry anywhere by anyone that is not Federally restricted from gun ownership. Virtually no state laws pertaining to gun ownership or purchase. It ranks 49th lowest in per capita gun crime. Many states that have enacted citizen concealed carry laws have seen a reduction in crime. None have seen an increase. You cannot control crime by legislating inanimate objects. Objects don’t harm, people use objects to harm others.
Don’t know why I took the time to type this, most here will never understand. Too much Nanny-state mentality.
Comment by ABolt243 Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 6:37 pm
Per Ken in Aurora:
“Skeeter, I think you’re suffering from the common delusion that laws can control behavior. They can’t. They are only effective as a form of societal redress for unacceptable actions.”
Ken,
That doesn’t really answer the question, does it?
Based on what you said, we should legalize all drug use and DUI.
If not, then why not?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 7:12 pm
What is amazing about this debate is that it just shows the true extremes to which the gun nuts go.
There may well be valid reasons to abolish all FOID regs. However, that wasn’t really the issue here, and further, most of the comments by the gun extremists only served to undermine their own cause.
No rational person could ever believe that it is a good idea for an infant to have access to a gun. That the point could even be debates is completely insane.
The ideas supporting the gun owners are also, for the most part, just ridiculous. I am waiting for any reasonable distinction between the DUI laws and the gun laws offered here. The most ridiculous, of course, has been the “criminals will do it anyway” argument. How is that in the least bit relevant? Criminals ignore all types of laws. The solution isn’t to abolish the law. The solution is to enforce the laws. A lot of murder going on? Start enforcing the homicide laws. You don’t say “We have this murder spree going on. Since the criminals keep killing people, let’s just legalize murder.”
The only reasonable point raised was the one that made the 30 day argument — i.e., that although the idea might be good, the way the law is carried out does not serve the intended purpose and instead, does serve to dissuade legal conduct.
The real shame here is that, before these debates start, I always want to come out pro-gun. However, as soon as the gun nuts start tossing out their version of “logic”, it scares the heck out of me and I end up wanting to ban all guns.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 7:47 pm
The FOID has been around since something like 1968 with no age restrictions on it and we don’t have 6 year olds boosting liquor stores or carjacking elderly choir directors. The proponents have demonstrated no practical reason for establishing an age limit. So, just leave it alone.
What it all boils down to is that gun haters like Dan Kotowski and Richie Daley want to make trouble for gun owners any way they can. This is just another example.
Comment by Frosty da Snowman Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 8:00 pm
Once again, those gun extremists are their own worst enemies.
“The proponents have demonstrated no practical reason for establishing an age limit.”
No practical reason? How about “infants should not own a gun.” That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Great. Now I have to get ready to go to sleep knowing that somebody thinks it is reasonable to arm infants. So much for a good night’s sleep.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 8:22 pm
- Skeeter - Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 7:12 pm: (snip) “Ken, That doesn’t really answer the question, does it? Based on what you said, we should legalize all drug use and DUI. If not, then why not?”
Skeeter, are you a bot? You’re starting to repeat yourself. I already answered your question, but you choose not to hear it. Have a good night!
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 8:43 pm
I see that this “Skeeter” character has a flair for the dramatic.
Comment by Frosty da Snowman Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:18 pm
Skeeter,
You haven’t once responded to my attempts to address the arguments you call indefensible, nor have you addressed your own inaccuracies about which I have written. What gives?
Comment by Greg Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 9:31 pm
Illinois is one of three states that have anything like a FOID card. In Massachusetts, if you can own a handgun you can carry one. Their so called FOID is a CCW permit to boot.
Sen. Brady introduced a FOID repeal but it didn’t go any where. The current debate and a few other issues show how uses less the FOID really is.
It’s not so much the Chicago block as it is the feel good security blanket it provides to many other legislators that have simply grown accustom to this level of regulation with no real result to show it works.
You go through the same background check for a FOID that you do when you buy a gun. So what is the point?
People say there is easy access to guns, where? You have to get a FOID, 30 day if they are not running behind and up to 8 weeks even though the law says shall be issued within 30 days. Next if you buy a gun there is another background check, even if the FOID card is a day old, and then the waiting period of 72 hours for a hand gun, 24 hours for a rifle or shot gun. Jesus, you just waited 30 days, how much longer should you have to wait?
The only thing a FOID does is trip up the law abiding guy or gal. Leave home without your wallet and go to the range, your in trouble.
Forget your FOID on a hunting trip, your Illegal.
And for skeeter, we don’t abolish laws for the sake of that, look to their true worth and see if they achieve the desired effect. Is the effect more regulation and red tape to dissuade people from buying guns as Rod said in 1993, or is it to weed out the bad apples which the background checks do?
You still haven’t answered the issue of the trade off that even if a parent signs off on the FOID and maybe absolved of criminal liability, they still take on civil liability per the statute. That is a trade off for the parents to decide upon, yet everyone seems to overlook.
Comment by todd Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:03 pm
Thanks, Todd - a rational voice, finally.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 22, 07 @ 11:20 pm
What does it matter how old a kid is? It’s not like he or she is going to the store to buy a gun or ammo. For all you asshats out there that think a kid is going to be wearing a holster and wearing a gun then you are just a bunch of idiots. You should be happy that a parent wants to 1. Do something with their kid as far as spending time with them and not planting them down in front of a TV. 2. Give money to the state when they really don’t have to (i.e. the FOID card). 3. Educate their kid in gun safety so they shoot themselves or someone else. 4. Teach and give them a sense of responsibility for life and nature. 5. My favorite which would be teaching them something about our basic heritage as American citizens (ie the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights). I would also imagine that someone who would get a FOID card for their child is also a responsible person who locks up or secures their weapons so there will be no discharges.
Comment by Chad Tuesday, Oct 23, 07 @ 7:31 am
Ha, 3. would be DON’T shoot themselves or someone else. Too early but you get the point. Drink your coffee before you type people and before you vote otherwise you may pick someone like Clinton by accident.
Comment by Chad Tuesday, Oct 23, 07 @ 7:35 am
Frosty,
Very perceptive of you for a change. There is even more trouble on the way. Stay tuned!
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Oct 23, 07 @ 7:56 am
Ken,
If you have responded and provided the distinction, I must have missed it. When I read your posts, I don’t see any distinction at all between DUI and the FOID.
Todd,
Initially, once again I must note that you gun people are your own worst enemy. You still have yet to say that infants should not have access to guns.
Second, I already noted that there may be issues with the cards generally. Read my post. I concede that.
However, the one point you apparently believe is strong is in fact pretty weak: You wrote: “You still haven’t answered the issue of the trade off that even if a parent signs off on the FOID and maybe absolved of criminal liability, they still take on civil liability per the statute. That is a trade off for the parents to decide upon, yet everyone seems to overlook.”
Civil liability? Are you kidding?
There is this strange idea out there that if you are wronged, suing will somehow make things better. “I lost a leg in that accident, but I have all this money now.” The problem with the tort system is that there is no way that cash can replace the limb, and any attempt to do so with money is necessarily arbitrary.
Moreover, if a child shoots somebody, the average homeowner either has no real assets to pay a judgment or at best may be limited to being defended by a homeowners policy that may provide $250,000 in coverage. What a deal. You child shoots somebody, and as a result, under a system you consider fair, there may be from zero to $250,000 in recovery.
That’s really your argument? The gun nuts are paying you a lot of money. You need to come up with a better argument than that one.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Oct 23, 07 @ 9:07 am