Posted on 07/26/2013 3:40:30 AM PDT by rellimpank
A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked.
More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Exactly like conservatives said could happen with the state issuing various licenses to own firearms. At any time, they can confiscate those guns.
/sarc
Whodathunkit?
My question is, were those who had their cards revoked adjudicated by a court? Or were they deemed unauthorized by a nurse comment or a bureaucrat? The devil is in the details. and the article is not very informative.
Ummm... Some of us have FOID cards without actually owning a firearm. There are a number of reasons, the first being that we want to keep the option of owning a firearm on short notice open. It also has to do with reasons as varied as being able to go shooting with friends, purchasing ammo as presents, etc. Not everyone with a FOID card is a FO.
Gun Registration is gun confiscation in slow motion:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html
Ask the Deputy for a warrant. If they don’t have one don’t let them in your home and don’t answer any questions.
What difference does it make? the 2nd amend reads "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't add the phrase "as long as you have a FOID card."
And where are the FR cop suckers telling us how the sheriffs are "on our side." The police are there to enforce the will of the government bureaucrats, not to protect citizens.
“And where are the FR cop suckers telling us how the sheriffs are “on our side.” The police are there to enforce the will of the government bureaucrats, not to protect citizens.”
They have been very quiet recently, for some reason. Well, actually, for a LOT of reasons.
Would be nice if the Cook County Sheriff’s office would fan out and harass gang bangers. But alas, no. Sternly worded letters are all they are willing to do.
Meanwhile, in central Illinois counties of Peoria, Tazewell and Woodford, we have had concealed carry for about 6 weeks now, while the rest of the states waits for the state police to set up a process to issue licenses.
The state’s attorneys in those counties have stated that they will not prosecute anyone for concealed carry as long as they have the FOID. I have an FOID.
I’m getting it on the cheap because you can bet that when the state gets their way it will be an expensive and long process.
Nazi alert. Warrantless searches
Can't say that I've missed them and their statist drivel.
“What difference does it make?”
—
Well, there is a difference in being judged insane by a court action and being judged insane by the scribble of an admitting nurse. California has used the latter and it is clearly unconstitutional.
Now, you really do not want an insane person to have a gun do you? But it is important that a jury of our peers are involved in making that determination, not a bureaucrap.
Ping for later
I would far rather have an insane person have access to firearms than have the government determining who can have one. I'd rather take my chances with the occasional wack job than surrender my rights to the government. If you have to ask the government's permission to do something then it is NOT a right. It's a privilege. The possibility of an inppropriate person being armed is the price of freedom, a freedom that a nation of bedwetters threw away with the passage of the so-called "Brady bill." You don't see criminals being discommoded by gun laws do you?
Huh? That old thing?!? I turned it into one of those gun buyback programs months ago for $50 bucks....
The question is irrelevant because if an insane person (or a felon, or an illegal alien or any other barred class) really wants a gun, and they have the cash, they can and will quickly and easily get one on the street. Simple law of supply and demand, if there is a demand, there WILL be a supplier (see illegal drugs).
Doctors and courts are a poor determiner of mental stability.
It’s an eye opening experience to see the inconsistent results of people Baker Acted in Florida. Both extremes of error.
Good intentions aside, the legal process of determining the quality of a person’s mental health can be a political process with all sorts of problems. At the very best, it is a maze of bureaucratic errors and incompetency. Scary.
When I was young and naive I might have believed that the state could determine if a person was mentally competent to do many things, including owning weapons BEFORE they actually committed some offense. I do not think that now. Now, particularly with those running this country, I know that it would not be much different than in places like the USSR. Current and potential political dissidents and non PC individuals (TEA Party??) would be tagged as mentally ill and firearms confiscated. Eventually they will start incarcerating those same people, saying their potential “danger” to the state is too great for them to be left free.
Don’t doubt me on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.