In a showdown over the privacy rights of gun owners, the Illinois State Police are refusing to release a list identifying all firearm permit holders in the state after Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that the information "must" be made public.
Again, everytime we hear about 'reasonable, common-sense' laws that 'gun control' advocates claim will save the children, we keep getting examples of how they deliberately try and screw firearm owners over each and every chance they get. So when you hear about how mean and unreasonable we are for not 'compromising', remember this.
Next week (3/10) is IGOLD, where 7000+ of us are going to march on the state capitol. And we're going to use this as a rallying cry. Illinois residents who want to protect their rights should all meet there. Join us.
3 comments:
Some may remember the case of a southern Oregon teacher who sued to be able to carry a gun on campus
One of the local fish wraps filed a FOIA request in order to publish the names and adresses of those who held a CHL.
I called my county sheriff while the courts were debating and talked to him for about a half hour.
He said that if ordered by the courts, he would be obligated to release the info, but that he was 100% against it.
My county sheriff sent out a survey to those holding current CHLs asking how they felt about disclosing this data.
99.98% said hell no.
I got him on speed dial in a good way.
I'm kinda surprised and relieved that the ISP is taking this position. As difficult as they were being just a couple of years ago with regard to issuing FOIDs, I expected them to rollover and give the list up without a fight.
I have marched at 3 of the last 4 IGOLDs. And this is why I believe, and have said to ISRA members before, that the ISRA and the previous IGOLD marches have been mistargeted. Instead of pushing for a permit to carry that is still highly unlikely, we need a bill passed that will 1: eliminate the IL FOID card, 2: require the destruction of all FOID card related information held by state agencies, 3: provide for criminal punishment for the proper authorities if 2 is not completed. Once we have eliminated this whole prior restraint upon the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, then we can go after preemption and carry. Before then we are held hostage to the implied threats of release of personal information that could endanger families and also confiscations.
Post a Comment