Advertisement
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Burns , 2014 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Still a Hollow Hope Anthony D Cooling, 2022-09-29 The U.S. Supreme Court increasingly matters in American political life when those across the political spectrum look at the Court for relief from policies they oppose and as another venue for advancing their own policy agendas. However, the evidence is mounting, to include this book in a big way, that courts are more of a sideshow to the culture war. While court decisions, especially Supreme Court decisions, do have importance, the decisions emanating from the Court reflect social, cultural, and political change that occurred long prior to their decision ever being made. This book tests how much political and social change has been made primarily through Gerald Rosenberg’s framework from his seminal work, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change, but it also utilizes Daniel Elazar’s Political Culture Theory to explain state level variations in political and social change. The findings indicate that while courts are not powerless institutions, reformers will not have success unless supported by the public and the elected branches, and most specifically, that preexisting state culture is a determining factor in the amount of change courts make. In short, federalism still matters. |
| foid card unconstitutional: State of Illinois V. McFadden , 2014 |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Williams , 2014 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Coram V. People of the State of Illinois , 2012 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Newsletter , 1999 |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Mosley , 2014 |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Shinaul , 2015 |
| foid card unconstitutional: The People of the State of Illinois V. Holmes , 2016 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Illinois Appellate Reports Illinois. Appellate Court, Stephen Davis Porter, 2008 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Handguns and Handgun Ammunition S. Bergman, E. Bunten, P. Klaus, 1977 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Hands Without Guns Shannon Pete, 1999 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Gangs Noah Berlatsky, 2015-01-14 The primary source writings in this anthology have been selected to provide your readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints on gangs and gang violence. Readers will evaluate the causes of gang formation and gang violence, and whether the number of gangs and gang violence is increasing in the United States. An important question about the topic is presented in each chapter, and viewpoints are organized based on their response. Fact boxes summarize important information for researchers, and an extensive bibliography is included. |
| foid card unconstitutional: West's Smith-Hurd Illinois Compiled Statutes Annotated Illinois, 1992 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Press Summary - Illinois Information Service Illinois Information Service, 2002-03 |
| foid card unconstitutional: It's How We Play the Game Ed Stack, 2019-10-08 For readers of Phil Knight’s Shoe Dog and Howard Schultz’s Onward, an inspiring memoir from the CEO of DICK’s Sporting Goods about building a multibillion dollar business, coming to the defense of embattled youth sports programs, and taking a principled—and highly controversial—stand against the types of guns that are too often used in mass shootings and other tragedies. Ed Stack’s memoir tells the story of a complicated founder and an ambitious son—one who transformed a business by making it about more than business, conceiving it as a force for good in the communities it serves. In 1948, Ed Stack’s father started Dick’s Bait and Tackle in Binghamton, New York. Ed Stack bought the business from his father in 1984, and grew it into the largest sporting goods retailer in the country, with 800 locations and close to $9 billion in sales. The transformation Ed wrought wasn’t easy: economic headwinds nearly toppled the chain twice. But DICK’s support for embattled youth sports programs earned the stores surprising loyalty, and the company won even more attention when, in the wake of yet another school shooting—at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida—it chose to become the first major retailer to pull all semi-automatic weapons from its shelves, raise the age of gun purchase to twenty-one, and, most strikingly, destroy the assault-style-type rifles then in its inventory. With vital lessons for anyone running a business and eye-opening reflections about what a company owes the people it serves, It’s How We Play the Game is “a compelling narrative…In a genre that can frequently be staid, Mr. Stack’s corporate biography is deeply personal…[Features] surprising openness [and] interesting and humorous anecdotes” (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Aguilar , 2011 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Case Report Illinois. General Assembly. Legislative Reference Bureau, 1997 |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Davis , 1996 |
| foid card unconstitutional: State of Illinois V. Rizzo , 2015 |
| foid card unconstitutional: North Eastern Reporter , 2000 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Illinois Outdoor Highlights Illinois. Dept. of Conservation. Information/Education Division, 1984 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Harvard Law Review , 2014 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Illinois Municipal Review , 2010 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Illinois Issues , 2013 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Congressional Record United States. Congress, 1991 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Decennial Digest, American Digest System , 2002 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Weapons in Schools , 1993 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Words and Phrases , 1940 |
| foid card unconstitutional: English Grammar Digest Trudy Aronson, 1984 |
| foid card unconstitutional: People of the State of Illinois V. Colyar , 2011 |
| foid card unconstitutional: Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment Andrew E. Taslitz, 2009-03 The modern law of search and seizure permits warrantless searches that ruin the citizenry's trust in law enforcement, harms minorities, and embraces an individualistic notion of the rights that it protects, ignoring essential roles that properly-conceived protections of privacy, mobility, and property play in uniting Americans. Many believe the Fourth Amendment is a poor bulwark against state tyrannies, particularly during the War on Terror. Historical amnesia has obscured the Fourth Amendment's positive aspects, and Andrew E. Taslitz rescues its forgotten history in Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment, which includes two novel arguments. First, that the original Fourth Amendment of 1791—born in political struggle between the English and the colonists—served important political functions, particularly in regulating expressive political violence. Second, that the Amendment’s meaning changed when the Fourteenth Amendment was created to give teeth to outlawing slavery, and its focus shifted from primary emphasis on individualistic privacy notions as central to a white democratic polis to enhanced protections for group privacy, individual mobility, and property in a multi-racial republic. With an understanding of the historical roots of the Fourth Amendment, suggests Taslitz, we can upend negative assumptions of modern search and seizure law, and create new institutional approaches that give political voice to citizens and safeguard against unnecessary humiliation and dehumanization at the hands of the police. |
| foid card unconstitutional: Evaluating Gun Policy Jens Ludwig, Philip J. Cook, 2004-05-13 Compared with other developed nations, the United States is unique in its high rates of both gun ownership and murder. Although widespread gun ownership does not have much effect on the overall crime rate, gun use does make criminal violence more lethal and has a unique capacity to terrorize the public. Gun crime accounts for most of the costs of gun violence in the United States, which are on the order of $100 billion per year. But that is not the whole story. Guns also provide recreational benefits and sometimes are used virtuously in fending off or forestalling criminal attacks. Given that guns may be used for both good and ill, the goal of gun policy in the United States has been to reduce the flow of guns to the highest-risk groups while preserving access for most people. There is no lack of opinions on policies to regulate gun commerce, possession, and use, and most policy proposals spark intense controversy. Whether the current system achieves the proper balance between preserving access and preventing misuse remains the subject of considerable debate. Evaluating Gun Policy provides guidance for a pragmatic approach to gun policy using good empirical research to help resolve conflicting assertions about the effects of guns, gun control, and law enforcement. The chapters in this volume do not conform neatly to the claims of any one political position. The book is divided into five parts. In the first section, contributors analyze the connections between rates of gun ownership and two outcomes of particular interest to society—suicide and burglary. Regulating ownership is the focus of the second section, where contributors investigate the consequences a large-scale combined gun ban and buy-back program in Australia, as well as the impact of state laws that prohibit gun ownership to those with histories of domestic violence. The third section focuses on efforts to restrict gun carrying and includes a critical examination of efforts in Pit |
| foid card unconstitutional: European and US Constitutionalism Georg Nolte, 2005-09-29 European constitutionalism is not merely an intra-European phenomenon but it can also be compared to other major forms of constitutionalism. Over the past decade or so issues have emerged which seem to indicate that European constitutional theory and practice is becoming aware that it has developed certain rules and possesses certain characteristics which distinguish it from US constitutionalism and vice versa. This book explores whether such differences can be found in the five areas of 'freedom of speech', 'human dignity', 'duty to protect', 'adjudication' and 'democracy and international influences'. The authors of this book are constitutional scholars from Europe and the United States as well as from other constitutional states, such as Canada, Israel, Japan, Peru and South Africa. |
| foid card unconstitutional: The War on Guns John R. Lott, 2016-08-01 When it comes to the gun control debate, there are two kinds of data: data that's accurate, and data that left-wing billionaires, liberal politicians, and media want you to believe is accurate. In The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies (Regnery Publishing; $27.99; 978-1621575801), nationally-renowned economist John R. Lott, Jr. turns a skeptical eye to well-funded anti-gun studies and stories that perpetuate false statistics to frighten Americans into giving up their guns. In this, his latest and most important book, The War on Guns, Lott offers the most thorough debunking yet of the so-called “facts,” “data,” and “arguments” of anti-gun advocates, exposing how they have repeatedly twisted or ignored the real evidence, the evidence that of course refutes them on every point. In The War on Guns, you’ll learn: Why gun licenses and background checks don’t stop crime How “gun-free” zones actually attract mass shooters Why Stand Your Ground laws are some of the best crime deterrents we have Women now hold over a quarter of concealed handgun permits How big-money liberal foundations and the federal government are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into “public health” studies, the sole purpose of which is to manufacture false data against guns How media bias and ignorance skew the gun debate—and why it will get worse From 1950-2010, not a single mass public shooting occurred in an area where general civilians are allowed to carry guns |
| foid card unconstitutional: Transforming Free Speech Mark A. Graber, 2023-11-15 Contemporary civil libertarians claim that their works preserve a worthy American tradition of defending free-speech rights dating back to the framing of the First Amendment. Transforming Free Speech challenges the worthiness, and indeed the very existence of one uninterrupted libertarian tradition. Mark A. Graber asserts that in the past, broader political visions inspired libertarian interpretations of the First Amendment. In reexamining the philosophical and jurisprudential foundations of the defense of expression rights from the Civil War to the present, he exposes the monolithic free-speech tradition as a myth. Instead of one conception of the system of free expression, two emerge: the conservative libertarian tradition that dominated discourse from the Civil War until World War I, and the civil libertarian tradition that dominates later twentieth-century argument. The essence of the current perception of the American free-speech tradition derives from the writings of Zechariah Chafee, Jr. (1885-1957), the progressive jurist most responsible for the modern interpretation of the First Amendment. His interpretation, however, deliberately obscured earlier libertarian arguments linking liberty of speech with liberty of property. Moreover, Chafee stunted the development of a more radical interpretation of expression rights that would give citizens the resources and independence necessary for the effective exercise of free speech. Instead, Chafee maintained that the right to political and social commentary could be protected independent of material inequalities that might restrict access to the marketplace of ideas. His influence enfeebled expression rights in a world where their exercise depends increasingly on economic power. Untangling the libertarian legacy, Graber points out the disjunction in the libertarian tradition to show that free-speech rights, having once been transformed, can be transformed again. Well-conceived and original in perspective, Transforming Free Speech will interest political theorists, students of government, and anyone interested in the origins of the free-speech tradition in the United States. Contemporary civil libertarians claim that their works preserve a worthy American tradition of defending free-speech rights dating back to the framing of the First Amendment. Transforming Free Speech challenges the worthiness, and indeed the very e |
| foid card unconstitutional: Strengthening the Military Family Readiness System for a Changing American Society National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on the Well-Being of Military Families, 2019-09-25 The U.S. military has been continuously engaged in foreign conflicts for over two decades. The strains that these deployments, the associated increases in operational tempo, and the general challenges of military life affect not only service members but also the people who depend on them and who support them as they support the nation †their families. Family members provide support to service members while they serve or when they have difficulties; family problems can interfere with the ability of service members to deploy or remain in theater; and family members are central influences on whether members continue to serve. In addition, rising family diversity and complexity will likely increase the difficulty of creating military policies, programs and practices that adequately support families in the performance of military duties. Strengthening the Military Family Readiness System for a Changing American Society examines the challenges and opportunities facing military families and what is known about effective strategies for supporting and protecting military children and families, as well as lessons to be learned from these experiences. This report offers recommendations regarding what is needed to strengthen the support system for military families. |
| foid card unconstitutional: A Well-Regulated Militia Saul Cornell, 2008-08-04 Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. Now, in the first and only comprehensive history of this bitter controversy, Saul Cornell proves conclusively that both sides are wrong. Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern collective right view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern individual right view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the collective rights theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century. A Well Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read. |
| foid card unconstitutional: Under the Gun Peter H. Rossi, 2017-09-29 In 1978, the Social and Demographic Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, received a grant from the National Institute of Justice to undertake a comprehensive review of the literature on weapons, crime, and violence in the United States. The purpose of the project is best described as a sifting and winnowing of the claims and counterclaims from both sides of the Great American Gun War - the perennial struggle in American political life over what to do, if anything, about guns, about violence, and about crime. The review and analysis of the available studies consumed the better part of three years; the results of this work are contained in this volume.The intention of any review is to take stock of the available fund of knowledge in some topical area. Under the Gun is no different: our goal has been to glean from the volumes of previous studies those facts that, in our view, seem firmly and certainly established; those hypotheses that seem adequately supported by, or at least approximately consistent with, the best available research evidence; and those areas or topics about which, it seems, we need to know a lot more than we do. One of our major conclusions can be stated in advance: despite the large number of studies that have been done, many critically important questions have not been adequately researched, and some of them have not been examined at all.Much of the available research in the area of weapons and crime has been done by advocates for one or another policy position. As a consequence, the manifest intent of many studies is to persuade rather than to inform. We have tried to approach the topic from a purely agnostic point of view, treating as an open question what policies should be enacted with regard to gun, or crime, control. Thus, we have tried to judge each study on its own merits, on the basis of the routine standards normally applied to social-scientific research, and not on the basis of how effectively it argues for a particular policy direction. It would, of course, be presumptuous to claim that we have set aside all our own biases in conducting this study. Whether or not our treatment is fair and objective is clearly something for the reader, and not us, to decide. |
| foid card unconstitutional: The Fragile X Zombies Alan J. Weberman, 2018-05-08 This book puts forth the theory that autism is congenital brain disorder not a neuro-developmental disorder. Autistic humans are the defectives of nature's factory and are not wired right. They should be institutionalized if they show violent tendencies because they lack empathy for other human beings as their illness makes them think only of themselves as in the word auto. Automobile. Self Moving. These misfits have taken more lives in the mass shootings than any other group and it is time for the public to do something about it. This book examines the most gregarious cases one by one and demonstrates that if not for the Politically Correct BS generated by Obama's Department of Miseducation and Autism Speaks, a lobby group for mass murder, a lot of these attacks could have been prevented. It is not worth sacrificing the lives of normal young people so a bunch of miscreants can be accepted by society. Autistic people should NOT be allowed to own guns nor should they have access to others guns. Look what happened to Nancy Lanza. She let Adam have access to guns and he killed dozens of little children after killing this mother varmint with a varmint gun. |
FOID Card Found to be Unconstitutional Yet Again - Illinois ...
Feb 10, 2025 · The FOID card is a requirement to obtain a permit to exercise 2 nd Amendment rights in the home, and today Judge Webb found that to be unconstitutional again. Additionally, …
Major 2A Ruling Strikes Down Unconstitutional Firearm Owners ...
Feb 11, 2025 · A significant Second Amendment ruling has emerged from Illinois, where the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court has again declared the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card Act …
IL: FOID Card Requirement found to be Unconstitutional for ...
Feb 10, 2025 · This is the third time an Illinois White County Circuit Court has found the requirement to have an FOID card, merely to possess a firearm in their home, to be …
Southern Ill. judge rules parts of state’s FOID Card Act are ...
Feb 11, 2025 · Judge Webb also ruled the $10 fee to receive a FOID Card is unconstitutional while conceding the fees are administrative and not a charge or tax to exercise Second Amendment …
Illinois court finds FOID card law unconstitutional as ...
Apr 29, 2021 · Retired Second Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Stanley dismissed Brown’s charge in October 2018, finding the FOID card law was unconstitutional as applied to her.
Are FOID cards unconstitutional? | News | Illinois Times
Jun 23, 2022 · It could be a court case that expands Illinois gun-owner rights, but the state Supreme Court has twice avoided making a decision. At issue is whether the Illinois Firearm …
Illinois FOID Card Requirement Found to be Unconstitutional ...
Feb 12, 2025 · In a 2018 decision, the FOID card was found to be unconstitutional. From Illinois v. Brown: 10. In this case, the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the …
FOID Card Found to be Unconstitutional Yet Again - Illinois ...
Feb 10, 2025 · The FOID card is a requirement to obtain a permit to exercise 2 nd Amendment rights in the home, and today Judge Webb found that to be unconstitutional again. …
Major 2A Ruling Strikes Down Unconstitutional Firearm Owners ...
Feb 11, 2025 · A significant Second Amendment ruling has emerged from Illinois, where the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court has again declared the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card Act …
IL: FOID Card Requirement found to be Unconstitutional for ...
Feb 10, 2025 · This is the third time an Illinois White County Circuit Court has found the requirement to have an FOID card, merely to possess a firearm in their home, to be …
Southern Ill. judge rules parts of state’s FOID Card Act are ...
Feb 11, 2025 · Judge Webb also ruled the $10 fee to receive a FOID Card is unconstitutional while conceding the fees are administrative and not a charge or tax to exercise Second …
Illinois court finds FOID card law unconstitutional as ...
Apr 29, 2021 · Retired Second Judicial Circuit Judge Mark Stanley dismissed Brown’s charge in October 2018, finding the FOID card law was unconstitutional as applied to her.
Are FOID cards unconstitutional? | News | Illinois Times
Jun 23, 2022 · It could be a court case that expands Illinois gun-owner rights, but the state Supreme Court has twice avoided making a decision. At issue is whether the Illinois Firearm …
Illinois FOID Card Requirement Found to be Unconstitutional ...
Feb 12, 2025 · In a 2018 decision, the FOID card was found to be unconstitutional. From Illinois v. Brown: 10. In this case, the facts show the defendant possessed a gun, in her house, for the …
