The Associated Press has apparently convinced the Illinois Attorney General that the names of FOID holders are a matter of public record. Full details from AP themselves, who are tediously picky about copyright and will therefore not be quoted here (I'll replace the link with a non-AP-content one if I can find it; IMO they're jerks on so many, many levels). But you may interested to learn which .il.gov entity disagrees. --Here's a TV news story with the basic info. And a bit of local opinion from the Quad Cities area.
AP and the IL AG: Helping move guns from the law-abiding to criminals. Awwww. They care about the underprivileged!
(H/T to Midwest Chick)
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
13 comments:
Laws are like spiderwebs, Swift said. They catch the flies, but let hornets and wasps pass right through.
Unintended Consequences Dept.
According to Second City Cop:
As most of our readers are aware, being employed by a law enforcement agency requires you to have a valid FOID card. Releasing this list would be like a giant arrow on a map pointing criminals directly to your house.
Unintended Consequences Dept. Inverse Logic Division: Persons not on the heater list may be presumed to be less than optimally armed, if at all, thereby negating the "vaccination effect", the uncertainty over which individual might be better armed than the average picnic basket.
WV:unaming-no, don't do that.
You couldn't pay me enough to live in IL.
E.) All of the above!
This is one of many reasons why I chose the Iowa side when I moved to the Quad Cities.
Last year's shall-issue victory just ices the cake.
It seems likely that the announcement was timed to break the momentum for right-to-carry and take some air out of the room, as Thirdpower hypothesized over at Days of Our Trailers.
However, it also seems likely that the current backlash is not only putting a rush order on House Bill 7 (prohibiting the public release of FOID information) but probably also adding at least another vote or two to HB 148 (right-to-carry.) One ultra-insider said today that if people had gotten as outraged by our carry situation as they have over this FOID data threat, we'd have had right-to-carry legislation years ago. I think he's right, but there are indications that Lisa Madigan's timing has led to people associating the two issues.
The only problem I see with the FOID becoming public record is some might try legal harassment. This is no worse than requiring open care only.
Unless we are worried about already armed robbers coming in to sill our guns and and property.
I object on the grouds of invasion of privacy only, not on if this would make me less safe.
This could also have a back fire effect where those who dont or are not on the list want to get on the list so their house are not a target for thiefs.
Just some thoughts,
Josh
Care about the underprivileged? I always thought it was professional courtesy.
Turk Turon -
Anyone that breaks in to an cops house deserves what happens to them. A good early warning/alarm system and a saferoom for the family.
Not saying the cop wants the hassle, just saying.
:-)
Josh
Roberta, can you help me? I recall there was a newspaper in Indiana that published a list of CCW owners. But I can't recall which paper and am looking for links to the incident. I thought you had a few choice words on the matter also. Any help would be appreciated.
Lumpy, the Indiana Star had such a list, for one, though they stripped specific addresses out of it and made bad guys look them up in the phone book: here's my post about it. The Bloomingtoon Herald-Times tried the same trick and got blogged, too.
Did that help?
Thank You. That just the items I was looking for!
Post a Comment