Maryland Judge Upholds Ban of Weapon Hardly ever used in Murders

3 Comments

A federal judge last week upheld Maryland’s “assault” weapons ban – a prohibition on nebulously-named “assault” rifles and and magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

State officials claim the law will ward off mass shootings (like the 1994 “assault weapons” ban prevented Columbine), and Judge Catherine C. Blake agreed.

The burning stupid of this is… well… stupid.

Nationwide, rifles – just regular rifles – not even specific “assault rifles” about which Blake and the Maryland officials are shitting their pants are barely ever used in homicides. FBI data shows that rifles were used in just 2.5 percent of all murders nationwide – 323 times out of 12,665 murders in 2011. Hell, hammers and other blunt objects were used in more murders that year!

Nonetheless, Blake (whose opinion has nothing to do with her political views, nothing at all, move along, citizen, nothing to see here) opined from the bench that she doubts these rifles “are commonly possessed for lawful purposes” – even as store owners in Ferguson used AR-15s to defend their property from looting hordes of savages.

MDA’s latest blood dance shows absolute stupidity

3 Comments

If you live outside Virginia, you probably haven’t heard about a murder-suicide that took place in Culpeper last week. According to reports, the bodies of Clarence and Shauna Washington, both 35, and their three daughters — 4-year-old Olivia, 6-year-old Onya and 13-year-old Omesha — were found in their house. All dead of gunshot wounds.

Family and friends told authorities the couple had been having an ongoing domestic dispute that apparently grew more heated Saturday night. Authorities did not receive any calls for help from the home.

Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins said the death investigation has been preliminarily classified as a murder-suicide.

And if you didn’t think Moms Demand Action Attention would be on this story like Oprah on a baked ham, using it to promote their latest ineffective disarmament efforts, you’d be sadly mistaken.

Some hysterical Virginia mommy named Gena Reeder penned an editorial, which ran in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, whining that if ONLY Virginia had stricter gun control laws…

Well, we’ve heard this all before, haven’t we? So let’s examine Reeder’s claims a bit more closely.

More than half of mass shootings committed in the United States are incidents of domestic violence. Every month, 48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners. A recent report from Everytown for Gun Safety found that American women are 11 times more likely to be killed by guns than women in any other developed nation. Armed stalkers also put women at risk: Nine out of 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the murder attempt, according to a study in 10 major U.S. cities.

How does one define “mass shootings?” We’ve already seen Everytown’s claim about 74 school shootings having taken place since Sandy Hook debunked so thoroughly, that even PolitiFact kicked Bloomberg’s hoplophobic hordes in the nuts. But mass shootings? Generally, unless you have a political agenda, when you think of a mass shooting, you think of random shootings in public places, not just any slaying involving multiple bodies and a gun. This would, in any sane circle, be considered an intimate partner homicide that tragically involved the couple’s children. Clarence Washington, who apparently shot his wife and his daughters, wasn’t out to murder as many people as he could before taking his own life. He wanted to end whatever demons he had in his head, and in the process took the lives of his family.

Tragic? Yes. Mass shooting? Only if you have a political agenda.

But let’s look a little further into the statistics cited by the sniveling Momtard.

“48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners.” 

I tend to take any statistic Everytown and its hoplophobic spawn feed me with a grain of salt, so I did my own bit of digging.

National data on intimate partner violence reveals a few things:

1,818 women in the US were killed by men in single victim/single offender incidents, as reported to the FBI’s 2009 Supplementary Homicide Reports.  Where the victim/offender relationship was known, 63% were killed by an intimate partner (likely an underestimate, as ex-girlfriends were not included) – 550 of them with a firearm – most often a handgun.

Out of the 1,818 women in the United States who were murdered, 63 percent, or 1145, were killed by an intimate partner, and 550 of them -48 percent – were killed with a firearm, and if we go by the numbers provided by New York’s Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, the number of women shot by current or former intimate partners per month is closer to 46. Regardless of the gun grabbers’ usual inflation of numbers (a single violent death is a tragedy, no matter what the implement used to commit said murder) one has to wonder why the Mommies and Bloomberg are more concerned with the 48 percent of intimate partner homicides that are committed with firearms, than the 52 percent committed via other violent means!

Apparently only “gun violence” is bad. Screw the rest of you ladies victimized by abusive shitbags!

Despite these statistics, which Reeder helpfully manipulates to support her cause, Virginia’s lax laws apparently are somehow responsible for the murder suicide. But are they? According to the Virginia State Police, the following people are prohibited from purchasing or owning firearms.

  1. You are under indictment for a felony offense.
  2. The subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state.
  3. You have been convicted, as an adult, in any court of a felony offense?
  4. You are 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult.
  5. You were adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.)
  6. You have been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received.
  7. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner. (emphasis mine)
  8. There is an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member?
  9. You are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any controlled substance? The Federal Gun Control Act defines an addicted person, or unlawful user, as a person who has a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.
  10. You have been acquitted by reason of insanity?
  11. You have been adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, or adjudicated an incapacitated person?
  12. You have been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
  13. You have been the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntarily admission for mental health treatment?
  14. You have been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable discharge?
  15. You are an alien illegally in the United States?
  16. You are a nonimmigrant alien? A nonimmigrant alien is prohibited from receiving a firearm unless he or she falls within an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit; waiver).
  17. You are a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced your citizenship?
  18. You have been convicted for the misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? This includes all misdemeanors that involve the use, threat of, or attempted use of physical force (e.g., simple assault, assault and battery) if the offense is committed by one of the following parties: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim. (emphasis mine)
  19. You are person who, within a 36 month period, within the last 5 years, has been convicted under Virginia law of 2 misdemeanor offenses for Possession of Controlled Substance, Possession of Marijuana, and/or any offense involving synthetic marijuana? (Handgun Purchases Only)

Apparently that’s not enough for Reeder, who snivels about being a Virginia mommy, who is just not “certain about our future in a state that does so little to protect women and children from perpetrators of domestic violence.”

Lady (and I use that term very loosely), you’re either a paranoid loon, a liar or some nefarious combination of both!

There is nothing lax about Virginia’s firearm laws! All manner of violent scum is covered, but you and your Mommy friends won’t rest until everyone is disarmed or inconvenienced to such a point when exercising their rights, that the cost/benefit analysis reveals it’s no longer worth bothering.

But Reeder goes on, and the absolute total bullshit that spills over from her poisonous keyboard is appalling and easy to fact check.

Just a week ago in Emporia, Va., Lamont George shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Roper, while her teenage son watched. According to reports, a restraining order had been issued in the past, yet George had no problem obtaining the gun he used to kill Roper.

This is the type of incident that the February legislation could have prevented. This is exactly why Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be fighting this fall to get the legislature to protect all Virginia families.

 The U.S. Marshals apprehended Lamont George a few days ago, and guess what! No February law (in February, Virginia’s General Assembly rejected legislation that would have prevented anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or physical assault of a family member from having a gun for a period of five years.) would have prevented this tragedy. Know why? Here’s why:

The man faces charges of murder; the attempted murder of Wakki Roper; breaking and entering of a residence with the intent to commit a felony; possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a violent felony; larceny of a motor vehicle; two counts of using a firearm while committing or attempting to commit murder.

Lamont George was already a felon in possession of a firearm. By law, he was not allowed to have one! He already violated the law by merely possessing said gun. In addition to that, he was also already prohibited by law from owning a pistol, because according to reporting, he was under a restraining order.

So how would an additional law have stopped him from obtaining said gun and shooting his girlfriend, Gena?

It would not have. And had you done a shred of research, you would have known that. But maybe you did know that, eh? Maybe you just decided to spout lies in your froth-flecked zeal to push your gun control agenda, you lying, hysterical sow!

Let’s now take a look at the Culpeper murder-suicide, which Reeder uses to emphasize her claim that Virginia’s gun laws are weak, and that the February proposal would have prevented this crime.

Clarence Washington had a clean record. He was not a convicted criminal in any way, shape or form. He was not subject to a restraining order, and police had never been called to the home, even after the last fight, which was loud enough for the neighbors to hear. There was nothing legally preventing Washington from owning one or several firearms. No amount of maneuvering, twitching or spinning by Gena Reeder or her MomTard team of statist snotwads would have prevented Washington’s legal purchase.

Perhaps if guns were banned altogether… But that’s exactly what these shrews want! They don’t want “common sense” laws. We already have them and more.

And considering that the vast majority of criminals don’t purchase their firearms via any kind of legal manner anyway, and I suspect Reeder and the Shrews Demanding Attention know that, their ultimate goal seems pretty clear.

And one final thing, because this woman is so completely ridiculous and ignorant that she claims that a woman who gets a restraining order against a former intimate partner is clearly making every effort to “get away from him”  – a restraining order is a piece of paper. A goon intent on doing a woman harm is already willing to violate several laws, like, say… ASSAULT and MURDER, will not be deterred by yet another legal document. But does Reeder want to give women a real chance at defending themselves? Of course not!

When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense.

Words cannot properly describe how despicable I find these self-righteous ignorami, who spread egregious lies and misinformation about armed self defense (remember, Reeder’s prevaricating hero Shannon Watts claims that defensive gun uses do not exist)! Virginia’s women don’t need disinformation, deception and deceit thrown at them by the likes of this screeching harpy. Fact of the matter is Tammy Duvall, Ltuanya BallardJessica Cothon, this unnamed ladyJoni Prater, Elsie Thomas,  Shawna Brush, and scores of others whose lives were saved by armed self defense after attacks by violent exes would tell Reeder to screw herself.

I know I would.

I’m back, and here’s an update

7 Comments

Those of you who were hoping I’ve died off or got sick of blogging, too bad! I’ve just been working hard at three jobs – you know… Millions of liberals rely on my taxes!

No, I’ve just been tired and busy, and having thyroid issues with no response from my doctor. So I’m off to find a new doctor who will actually call me back with blood test results.

I’ve written several essays for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, and there’s a lot of cool stuff going on there.

I wrote a reply to the sniveling, drooling, perpetually outraged and ignorant Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, who claimed an NRA lobbyist should be fired for linking the disarmament of Jews in Nazi Germany to their subsequent mass slaughter and berating Jews who demand disarmament in the US for forgetting that inconvenient fact.

Jews should be the last people to advocate for government control of their means of self-defense and resistance. They should remember the disarmed Jews who were deprived not just of the right to defend themselves, but also their very lives in Nazi Germany. They should remember the abuses they suffered at the hands of the Soviets.

And they should oppose efforts to give the government control of their means of self-defense in the United States, instead of disparaging and belittling those who remind them of what they’ve chosen to ignore and trying to get them fired for stating an inconvenient truth that doesn’t jive with their political agenda.

Brian Judy should not apologize. He should stand strong on his convictions and remind Dvorchik and those like him that those who cannot or will not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

We, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership will never forget.

I wrote a profile of young shooting champ Shyanne Roberts after having a fun conversation with her and her dad Dan for nearly an hour. I consider this sweet, unassuming, determined child the future of gun rights in America, and I’m proud to know her and her family.

I’m still running a fundraiser for the Homeless Animals Rescue Team (HART) in Northern Virginia. I’ve given them $250 so far to help them work to save homeless, abused, sick and neglected pets. I did it in Mac’s name, and the fundraiser is still up. If any of you can, please do donate and spread the word about the link, because LOVE. For those of you who have already donated, I cannot thank you enough or properly convey my gratitude without literally bursting into tears! Thank you!

Been actively engaging with gun grabbing lunatics on Twitter. And I do mean LUNATICS! If you don’t already, follow @JPFO_Liberty on Twitter. You will see unhinged crazy like you’ve never seen before. It’s hilarious. Trust me.

I can't count or read or put a coherent sentence together, but GUNZ BAD!!!

I can’t count or read or put a coherent sentence together, but GUNZ BAD!!!

 

IMG_1444

I dislike the Second Amendment almost as much as I dislike the First

 

IMG_1424

This is how I debate. No logic. No reasoning. Just spew.

 

IMG_1425

Because telling people who are politely asking you a question about an opinion requires telling them to fuck off. Stayin’ classy!

 

IMG_1421

I’m unhinged, and there’s nothing you can do about it. GUN NUT!

Yeah… I love my job.

Oh, almost forgot. JPFO is running a lot of incredibly cool auctions. Until Tuesday, August 12, you have a shot at winning a unique, gorgeous piece of JPFO history: a Mossberg “Battle of Athens” shotgun once owned by the legendary Aaron Zelman, engraved and ready for you to bid on. As a bonus, the winner of the auction will receive Aaron’s own personal copy of the now out-of-print hardbound book on the Battle of Athens, autographed by author C. Stephen Byrum and dated 9/26/1994. Pretty cool, right?

There’s also a chance to win some autographed novels by passionate gun rights supporters and friends Michael Z. Williamson and Larry Correia, who generously donated their signed books for you to bid on.  I’ve often told Mike that I would kill him off in a few years and make a fortune selling his signed novels on Ebay. He doesn’t take me seriously… I don’t know why!

In other news, the EU finally got off its ass and sanctioned some major Russian banks and individuals who provide weapons and money to the Ukrainian separatist scumbags. In the aftermath of the Malaysian Airlines destruction and the impassioned speech by the Dutch Foreign Minister to the UN Security Council, it’s impossible to imagine that they would do nothing.

The president of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy, and the head of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, issued a joint statement describing the EU measures as a strong warning that “Illegal annexation of territory and deliberate destabilisation of a neighbouring sovereign country could not be accepted in 21st-century Europe.

“When the violence created spirals out of control and leads to the killing of almost 300 innocent civilians in their flight from the Netherlands to Malaysia, the situation requires urgent and determined response,” they said. “The European Union will fulfil its obligations to protect and ensure the security of its citizens. And the European Union will stand by its neighbours and partners.”

Following a meeting of the emergency Cobra council of ministers on Tuesday, Downing Street said the UK will push for even harsher sanctions against Russia than the ones agreed by the EU if the country does not change course.

Balls. They found them. Good.

As a result, the IMF has cut Russia’s economic growth forecast in 2014 from 1.3 percent to 0.2 percent. Putin doesn’t seem to have been swayed yet. What I’m wondering is how long will the Russians citizens tolerate Putin’s ego getting in the way of economic development before they start revolting full on. They’re certainly used to misery, but when their government promises them to focus on economic development and growth and winds up annexing part of a neighboring country and spending money to destabilize the eastern portion of said neighbor, you have to wonder just how long the nationalism will carry them.

Still love work, although I sometimes feel like a mom rather than a boss. From a conversation with one of my guys, whom I’ll call Pigpen:

Me: dude, I’m not a neat freak but seriously… wrappers, empty Starbucks cups, snot rags, socks…. can we clean up the pigpen?

Pigpen: Uh… OK… I didn’t think it was that bad, but I’ll clean it up.

Later

Pigpen: Look! I cleaned my desk up! (Opens overhead bin) Everything put away!

Bin stuffed full of napkins, random medications, cans of food…

Pigpen: The napkins are clean

Me: FACEPALM

About those sanctions

7 Comments

If you haven’t heard, the Treasury Department has released the latest round of sanctions against Russia for its activities in Ukraine, and some Second Amendment advocates are suspicious, to say the least.

Earlier today, the Department of Commerce announced new sanctions against Russian products and companies operating in the United States. Previous sanctions only tangentially impacted the import of cheap and reliable firearms from Russia into the United States, but now the Obama administration is specifically targeting the makers of Saiga rifles and shotguns, as well as other companies. 

There’s going to be a lot of information out there in the next few days, so let’s get a few facts out of the way.

This is not in any way, shape or form an assault on your Second Amendment rights. The sanctions impact companies, banks and entities that have been supporting Ukrainian separatists and destabilizing the region.

The U.S. moves to impose restrictions on the Russian state-controlled oil giant OAO Rosneft and other top firms are aimed at squeezing Russia’s already struggling economy and financial system. They followed weeks of U.S. threats that Russia would face repercussions unless it helped defuse the crisis in eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russia separatists have been fighting the Ukrainian government for months.

The sanctions stop well short of crimping international business ties or blocking deals with entire sectors of the Russian economy.

The U.S. and Europe say separatists in Ukraine are getting significant support from Russia, an accusation Moscow has denied. 

And yes, the U.S. government has plenty of information confirming Russian involvement, funding and support of Ukrainian separatists. These entities include the Russian firearms company Kalashnikov, as well as Almaz-Antey, Uralvagonzavod, Novatek and several banks.

Is this an attempt to limit imports of firearms in the United States? Absolutely not.

This is an attempt to cut off companies and entities that are involved in destabilizing Ukraine off from the U.S. financial system and punish them for their actions.

This means that U.S. companies and individuals can do no further business with the sanctioned entities. No. Further. Business.

That means the AKs that you love so much that are already here in the stores are perfectly legal to buy and sell – UNLESS the store still owes money to Kalashnikov for an order. You can still buy, sell, trade, whatever your AK or your Izmash-produced firearms. What you are NOT  allowed to do is start new business with these companies.

Given the number of other companies that produce inexpensive AK-like and other firearms, this really shouldn’t affect your everyday right to keep and bear arms.

Is this an indefinite ban on imports of AKs and other inexpensive firearms? The sanctions will stay in place until the illegal activities cease. Some Second Amendment advocates claim once the government implements these sanctions, they will continue, because BAN! That’s not true. OFAC has de-listed a myriad of different companies and entities once they’re deemed to no longer be involved in illegal activities, or with a successful appeal.

This is all about Russia’s activities in Eastern Europe, and it has nothing to do with our right to keep and bear arms.

A list of frequently asked questions is here.

374. If I own a Kalashnikov product, is that product blocked by sanctions?  Am I able to resell a Kalashnikov product at a gun show or other secondary market? 

If a U.S. person is in possession of a Kalashnikov Concern product that was bought and fully paid for prior to the date of designation (i.e., no payment remains due to Kalashnikov Concern), then that product is not blocked and OFAC sanctions would not prohibit the U.S. person from keeping or selling the product in the secondary market, so long as Kalashnikov Concern has no interest in the transaction.  New transactions by U.S. persons with Kalashnikov Concern are prohibited, however, and any property in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest is blocked pursuant to OFAC’s designation of Kalashnikov Concern on July 16, 2014.  If a U.S. person has an inventory of Kalashnikov Concern products in which Kalashnikov Concern has an interest (for example, the products are not fully paid for or are being sold on consignment), we advise that U.S. person to contact OFAC for further guidance on handling of the inventory. [7-16-2014]

There are other answers that may be of concern to gun owners as well. Please go read the release closely and understand it. Misinformation helps no one.

“Being Honest Messed Up My Life”

4 Comments

This is my latest for JPFO. When the judge and the police officer who stopped you both say you should have just kept your mouth shut about that firearm you were legally carrying in your state, but which became illegal when you mistakenly took it across a state line, and then insist on prosecuting you…

…there’s something really wrong with the system! REALLY wrong!

via “Being Honest Messed Up My Life”.

Winning!

2 Comments

The gun grabber desperation is getting palpable and smelly. I mentioned the thieving piece of shit who wants to defraud businesses that respect their patrons’ rights before.

My latest alert for JPFO expands on their desperation a bit – without all the cursing.

Although, I still think “assplunger” describes the would-be thief and his supporters perfectly.

via Winning!.

Chicago police superintendent proves he’s insane

11 Comments

Or an idiot. Or both.

Chicago’s police superintendent lashed out at what he called lax state and federal gun laws after a violent Fourth of July weekend that saw 11 deaths in dozens of shooting incidents in a city already known for frequent shootings.

He might be both, because to blame lax gun laws for what is obviously a much greater, more complex problem in the city of Chicago is beyond absurd!

Now, let’s explore what is required to purchase a firearm in Illinois, shall we?

A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.

So. You need to get a FOID card even before you purchase a firearm in Illinois. To get this little piece of statist heaven permission to exercise your rights, you must apply for one through the State Police.  Here are the requirements to possess a valid FOID:

(i) He or she is 21 years of age or over, or if he or she is under 21 years of age that he or she has the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and that he or she has never been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent, provided, however, that such parent or legal guardian is not an individual prohibited from having a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card and files an affidavit with the Department as prescribed by the Department stating that he or she is not an individual prohibited from having a Card;
(ii) He or she has not been convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(iii) He or she is not addicted to narcotics;
(iv) He or she has not been a patient in a mental health facility within the past 5 years or, if he or she has been a patient in a mental health facility more than 5 years ago submit the certification required under subsection (u) of Section 8 of this Act;
(v) He or she is not intellectually disabled;
(vi) He or she is not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(vii) He or she is not subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
(viii) He or she has not been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(ix) He or she has not been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this clause (ix) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying the issuance of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card under this Section;
(x) (Blank);
(xi) He or she is not an alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a) (26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), or that he or she is an alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government’s mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(xii) He or she is not a minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiii) He or she is not an adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(xiv) He or she is a resident of the State of Illinois;
(xv) He or she has not been adjudicated as a mentally disabled person;
(xvi) He or she has not been involuntarily admitted into a mental health facility; and
(xvii) He or she is not developmentally disabled; and
(3) Upon request by the Department of State Police, sign a release on a form prescribed by the Department of State Police waiving any right to confidentiality and requesting the disclosure to the Department of State Police of limited mental health institution admission information from another state, the District of Columbia, any other territory of the United States, or a foreign nation concerning the applicant for the sole purpose of determining whether the applicant is or was a patient in a mental health institution and disqualified because of that status from receiving a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. No mental health care or treatment records may be requested. The information received shall be destroyed within one year of receipt.

An applicant for a FOID must consent to the Department using the applicant’s digital driver’s license or Illinois ID card photograph, if available, and signature on the FOID, and must furnish the Department with his driver’s license or Illinois ID card number. The Department must approve or deny the FOID within 30 days, and is authorized to deny the FOID only if the applicant does not meet the listed qualifications. The FOID fee is $10 and it is valid for five years from the date of issuance. The Department shall forward to each FOID holder, a notice of expiration and a renewal notice application, 60 days prior to expiration.

A FOID may be revoked and seized if the holder made a false statement on the application, is no longer eligible, or whose mental condition poses a clear and present danger to self, others, or community. A written notice must be given with the grounds for denial or revocation and seizure.

A person whose FOID has been revoked or seized or whose FOID application was denied or not acted upon within 30 days may appeal the decision to the Director of the Department of State Police, unless it was based upon certain violent, drug, or weapons offenses. In that case, the aggrieved person may petition the circuit court in the county of his residence. If the Director upholds the Department’s decision, the applicant may appeal to the courts. Any judicial review generally will be limited to the question of whether the Department’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.”

And those are just the state requirements, which mirror federal gun laws with a few more tyrannical bells and whistles!

So, in order to become a gun owner in Illinois, one needs to be clean, sober, in the country legally, without a criminal record, a state resident, not crazy, not mentally deficient, not violent, not a minor and not a felon. Then, once you have received permission to become a gun owner in Illinois, you must wait several days before you can take possession of your purchase.

Oh, and if you want to actually BEAR said arm…

Well, that’s another set of requirements that includes a $150 fee, fingerprinting for an additional fee in order to avoid delayed processing of one’s application, and 16 hours of training (which includes a “live fire” component), for which you will also pay.  (Eight hours of prior training may be credited   if it is “approved by the Department [of State Police] and recognized under the laws of another state or if the applicant is an active, retired, or honorably discharged member of the Armed Forces.”)

But apparently, the unhinged and quite possibly retarded Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy, that’s not enough, because Chicago’s violence is through the roof.

Maybe… just maybe if you actually made it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants, the problem would be mitigated. But no…

More infringements and tyrannical kicks to the metaphorical balls of every law-abiding citizens are obviously necessary, according to this buffoon!

At this rate, what we need is to fence off Chicago a la “Escape from New York,” trapping all the savages inside, along with their corrupt mayor and fuckwitted police superintendent, with no way out, and let them kill one another. After a while, just move in, clean up the bodies and ensure some kind of common sense intelligence test is administered before another douchebag takes charge and proceeds to turn the city into yet another warzone.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: