JackDaWack

Nothing has ever prohibited you from filing for NFA items(im not aware of a carry license providing any benefit there), but being 100% illegal here in state there is no where in NJ to transfer them.

Why would the FPID be wrong?

You have to be charged to even have a preliminary hearing.

I have no intention of telling anyone(PD DA) what ammo I carry. If they want to send it off for forensic evaluation, so be it.

So we should expect state charges? Let's see when that happens.

Illinois FOID is required for POSSESSION. It's also required to even apply for your CCW. He was charged with illegal possession under their FOID and Carry laws, so I'm not seeing how they are seperate.

I think the judges opinion was extremely short sighted, even if agreed upon. 99% chance this gets overturned in appeals when everyone realizes the FOID isn't going anywhere, and in concept is allowed under Bruen.

Yes possession, a state the makes it illegal to possess firearms without a FOID. Hence, defacto. So, I can't figure out how the FOID law stands when a judge just ruled he didn't need one post Bruen to exercise his right.

My argument is..... what happened to Illinois FOIP? Did she just say it's unconstitutional? Can anyone just go out and grab a gun off the street in Illinois if they don't have a criminal record, let alone a violent one? Bruen allowed for state licensing requirements,so I don't see how this OBama judge came to this conclusion .

I wonder if they realize all this data is going to show how racist the permitting system us? How do you say... unintentional consequences lol

Thr current fees are high enough.... anything over 20 bucks at this point is egregious

You basically do.... Proving you have standing otherwise has shown to be extremely difficult as they work on hypothetical situations that have to basically be certain to occur. Either way, he still would have had to most likely meet the requirements of the current permitting system, and also been denied a permit under their "draconian" system. Say he met all the requirements except for a "justifiable need" and was thus denied, I would say he easily has standing if he was arrested while carrying. That's what Bruen was explicit on.

That's kinda how the law works. He would have applied, and when denied the constitutional issue has standing.

I haven't read the ruling, but Bruen was very clear that permits were "constitutional".

I haven't read the ruling, but it implicates a stay on federal law, it's universally applied in all jurisdictions.