Illinois Attorney General Wants To Make Public Every Person Who Owns A Gun In The State
37 replies, posted
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/illinois-gun-owners-list-_n_830244.html[/url]
[quote]According to a legal opinion issued by the Illinois Attorney General, the list of people who receive permits to buy firearms should be made public.
To buy a weapon in the state, residents need to apply for a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card. The State Police keep a list of those who are granted FOID cards, but that list has long been kept confidential.
In September of last year, the Associated Press submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the name of each FOID card-holder and the expiration date of his card. When the police refused to comply, the attorney general's public access counselor decided to investigate the matter.
On Wednesday, the AP published a portion of the decision the office ultimately reached:
"The General Assembly has clearly determined that it is in the public interest to provide a system for identifying those who are qualified to acquire or possess firearms through the issuance of FOID cards," assistant public access counselor Matthew Rogina wrote. "The public, therefore, has a legitimate interest in ISP's enforcement of the FOID card act."
Gun control advocates argue that gun licensing laws require public scrutiny. But gun owners' groups were naturally displeased with the decision.
The Illinois State Rifle Association issued a press release in response to the Attorney General's opinion:
The ISRA strongly opposes release of the FOID database information because the association believes that release of such data puts FOID card holders and their families in grave danger.
"Attorney General Madigan has to understand that the safety of real people is at stake here," commented ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. "Once this information is released, it will be distributed to street gangs and gun control groups who will use the data to target gun owners for crime and harassment."
Larry Morse, also on the board of the ISRA, had a more pointed opinion on the subject. "Most of the liberals in this country value their privacy very highly," he said to WSIL-TV. "Except when it comes to revealing the names of gun owners."
The State Police also "respectfully disagree" with the decision, the Quad Cities' KWQC reports. They are asking the Attorney General's office to make it a binding opinion so that it can be challenged in court.
Meanwhile, Republican state legislators are rushing to the aid of gun owners, filing bills that would keep the list of FOID cardholders private, according to the Associated Press. But with Democratic majorities in both houses, and the Attorney General's father Michael Madigan serving as the powerful Speaker of the House, those bills could have trouble getting very far.[/quote]
Great, now gun owners have to deal with dirty looks from people who think they are backwards hicks for owning guns, meanwhile criminals now have a convenience list of who is unarmed to rob
Ill put a large sign over my head telling everyone I have a gun, only if I got to carry it around.
...fuck your guns, I got a full plated armor!
Or who armed to rob for that matter, criminals do love stealing guns. That's why most people [i]don't fucking tell people they have guns[/i]
It is a gross violation of trust for people who have followed the law to the letter, disgusting.
Why was the FOIA request denied in the first place, this isn't national security.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28397750]Why was the FOIA request denied in the first place, this isn't national security.[/QUOTE]
Oh look, the Canadian thinks he knows American laws without actually reading them! Isn't that cute?
But the fact is it has more than one fucking exemption, 3 of which these records fall under
[url]http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/foia/exemptions.htm[/url]
[quote=(b)(6) EXEMPTION]
Personal Information Affecting an Individual's Privacy:
This exemption permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information " would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This exemption cannot be invoked to withhold from a requester information pertaining to the requester. [/quote]
[quote=EXEMPTION 7(C)]Personal Information in Law Enforcement Records. This exemption provides protection for personal information in law enforcement records. This exemption is the law enforcement counterpart to Exemption 6, providing protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."[/quote]
[quote=EXEMPTION 7(F)]Physical Safety to Protect a wide Range of Individuals. This exemption permits the withholding of information necessary to protect the physical safety of a wide range of individuals. Whereas Exemption 7(F) previously protected records that "would ...endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel," the amended exemption provides protection to "any individual when disclosure of information about him or her "could reasonably be expected to endanger [his/her] life or physical safety."[/quote]
Why Is Your Title Typed Like This Anyway
Most Of Those Words Aren't Even Nouns Or Pronouns.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;28397958]Why Is Your Title Typed Like This Anyway
Most Of Those Words Aren't Even Nouns Or Pronouns.[/QUOTE]
Maybe He Likes It Like That, Although I Cannot See Why.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28397822]Oh look, the Canadian thinks he knows American laws without actually reading them! Isn't that cute?
But the fact is it has more than one fucking exemption, 3 of which these records fall under
[url]http://www.osec.doc.gov/omo/foia/exemptions.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Thank you for politely demonstrating how I am wrong
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;28397958]Why Is Your Title Typed Like This Anyway
Most Of Those Words Aren't Even Nouns Or Pronouns.[/QUOTE]
Aren't all worlds in a title supposed to be capitalized?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28400686]I see someone failed English class
All words of a title are required to be capitalized[/QUOTE]
Actually, they aren't. Words like "In" and "The" aren't supposed to be.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;28397958]Why Is Your Title Typed Like This Anyway
Most Of Those Words Aren't Even Nouns Or Pronouns.[/QUOTE]
Because usually titles are typed like that, maybe?
Well actually some words shouldn't be capitalized now that I look at them, but still.
My state is trolling everyone.
[img]http://www.gunmyths.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ccw_map-570x352.png[/img]
Wisconsin is currently voting on their policy if I recall correctly. We will be the only state with no concealed carry.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28397476]
Great, now gun owners have to deal with dirty looks from people who think they are backwards hicks for owning guns,[/QUOTE]
i'm opposed to this proposal but do you really think that people are going to look up and memorize the names of gun owners (somehow recognizing them on the street) just so they can give them dirty looks for owning guns? there are lots of good reasons to oppose this but that ain't one of em
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28400686]Aren't all worlds in a title supposed to be capitalized?[/QUOTE]
not conjunctions or articles or particles
This will help people rob guns from other people.
Okay, but only if everyone who doesn't own a gun has to put up a sign in their front yard saying as much.
Oh, and one on your car, and one on your person.
This seems silly and unnecessary. From what I have gathered from living in Illinois for the past 17 years of my life (read: My whole Life), guns laws are far stricter than any other state that allows you to own a gun.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28404170]Okay, but only if everyone who doesn't own a gun has to put up a sign in their front yard saying as much.
Oh, and one on your car, and one on your person.[/QUOTE]
If this passes why would you advocate for the identity of non-gun-owners be made even more public than the identity of gun owners
That is asinine
Cool, now it'll be 100% easier to know who to steal guns from, thats really fantastic!
[QUOTE=darkedone02;28397570]...fuck your guns, I got a full plated armor![/QUOTE]
Yep. Then the bullet goes right through that thin little layer of false protection and kills you, pooling the blood in the armor. Nice, you just got killed.
this is a ridiculous idea
[QUOTE=Broseph_;28397476]
Great, now gun owners have to deal with dirty looks from people who think they are backwards hicks for owning guns, meanwhile criminals now have a convenience list of who is unarmed to rob[/QUOTE]
you are a really strange person, you know that right?
[QUOTE=thisispain;28407706]you are a really strange person, you know that right?[/QUOTE]
tbh guns are one of the best things you can steal from a house, and only occasionally will the homeowner be in a position to use them on an intruder
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28406856]If this passes why would you advocate for the identity of non-gun-owners be made even more public than the identity of gun owners
That is asinine[/QUOTE]
Oh and telling everyone who has a firearm isn't?
What purpose does it serve other than to make people targets?
I intentionally do not give out information to people I personally know about what firearms I own. I generally don't openly admit to owning firearms in the first place because it may make my house a target for theft. Specifically of the firearms.
Telling everyone who owns guns and who does is basically giving criminals a list of which houses are undefended, and which houses they can steal firearms from.
You want asinine? There you go.
Funny that most of these states that have tight gun restrictions is a liberal state.
Gun control is a double edged sword. Most people freak the fuck out when they think of "guns in public". Because, guns obviously kill people. The news, fills the airwaves of shock and fear. Guns are going to kill your kid tonight. Kids getting shot down...
The thing is, these problems could be reduced by a shocking number if everyone carried a gun around. I was in Texas a few weeks ago, and I never felt more comfortable. The trick of it is, you don't know who you're messing with. if you're going to rob someone by gun point, that guy may have a gun too and may kill you first. It boils down to the value of your life.
Gun control on the other hand is a dangerious side of a weapon. Why? Because now you know that there is a small chance of that opposing person in having a gun. So shoot away, because they probably can't shoot back.
Oh yeah, I own a gun, and I will admit to it.
[QUOTE=darkedone02;28397570]...fuck your guns, I got a full plated armor![/QUOTE]
Gonna cast lightening bolt?
OH WAIT! You don't have magic.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;28409938]The thing is, these problems could be reduced by a shocking number if everyone carried a gun around. I was in Texas a few weeks ago, and I never felt more comfortable. The trick of it is, you don't know who you're messing with. if you're going to rob someone by gun point, that guy may have a gun too and may kill you first. It boils down to the value of your life.[/QUOTE]
The problem a lot of people have with a group packing heat is you have no idea how many are actually competent with their piece. If I had a dollar for every guy I know who owns a gun and passed some sort of training course but still has no idea what kind of penetration their round of choice gets and can't shoot for shit, I'd be a rich man. You might feel safe in that situation, I'd be terrified.
By 'making public' it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, everyone has a big arrow over their heads saying "I HAVE A LICENSED FIREARM!". By 'making public' they mean that one can request a list of who legally owns a firearm in the state, and that list still doesn't even contain the full amount of citizens in the state.
However, it is very easy to leak the information, which is why only law enforcement should be able to view the list.
This law is fucking retarded, 99% of gun crimes are committed by illegal, unlicensed and unregistered weapons. And don't look at me like I'm some gun toting republican, I'm not.
Not to mention you can drive just over the border to any surrounding state, purchase a firearm, and never register it. Nothing they do compels other states to adhere to their policies.
This is the very definition of law abiding gun owners being screwed over by a law that doesn't inhibit criminals in any fashion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.