|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
IL: New law protects FOID card holders
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gov. Bruce Rauner Friday signed legislation that gives gun owners a 60-day grace period to keep their Firearms Owners Identification Card active while their renewal application is being processed, even if the processing period extends beyond the card’s expiration date. Previously, FOID cards were deemed invalid if they expired during the renewal process.
“We shouldn’t punish gun owners who make every effort to get their renewal applications in on time,” Rauner said. “This grace period will ensure there is no interruption in their rights to keep their firearms.” |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(8/18/2018)
|
I predict that processing times will increase to more than the "grace period", so as to penalize FOID-carrying citizens.
Anybody want to bet against me? |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/18/2018)
|
Good point XQ's, why put a 60 day limit on civil rights?
If you reapply before the due date, then your license should be valid until such time as it's denied for good reason. (that's assuming that it's OK to make you apply and renew a license to exercise a civil right in the first place, but that's a different matter) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
