Illinois Gun Owner ID Publication Exemption Approved

[mikeb302000]

http://illinoisobserver.org/2011/07/02/gov-pat-quinn-oks-illinois-gun-owner-id-publication-exemption-easing-fears-in-armed-illinois-households/">The Illinois Observer reports

Governor Pat Quinn today quietly signed legislation that exempts Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification Card holders from the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, easing the fears in armed households around Illinois.

“As Governor, I have made increasing openness and transparency in government one of my top priorities,” said Quinn, who released the news Saturday afternoon. “…owever, it should not come at the expense of the public’s safety.”

It's a fascinating discussion. Gun owners have long claimed that having a gun is a deterrent to crime. They ridicule gun control folks for their attempts to establish gun-free zones, claiming that criminals flock to such places to do their thing.

But, in Illinois, they mounted a tremendous and successful opposition to Attorney General Lisa Madigan's attempt to make public the list of FOID cardholders. Does that make sense? Wouldn't burglars and home invaders avoid the addresses where gun owners live in favor of those unarmed sitting ducks?

What could be the reason behind this? I would think if the reason for having guns in the first place is for personal protection, there'd be no better way than to advertise the fact.

One interesting result, I'm sure it's not their chief motivation, is that when those burglars and home invaders do come in, gun owners can have the element of surprise, all the easier to blow the bad guys away in the dark.

(cross posted at http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[gejohnston]

1. this one should cover it

Outside of being part of a legitimate law enforcement investigation, no personal information should be released about anyone for any reason. Certainly not a newspaper who wants to put names and addresses of FOID holders. Or put it this way, how about your drivers licence records, putting your name, address, and drivers licence number in the paper? This is the same thing. The AP wanted personal information about individuals.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x433504

Then there are things like the Privacy Act of 1974.

No liberal would tolerate it when it came to drivers licences or AIDs patients, why be hypocritical about FOID holders? Perfect example of faux liberalism.

[mikeb302000]

21. it's not hypocrisy

what about the non-gun-owning neighbors? Don't they have a right to know?

[GreenStormCloud]

25. No, they don't have a right to know. N/T

[gejohnston]

26. Yes it is hypocrisy

unless you support putting personal information about every other group of people. Liberalism is about protecting privacy. The state has no business in my daughter's body and the neighbors have no business in my gun safe. You have been living under Berlusconi for too long.

[geckosfeet]

2. But it 'works' for sex offenders. And I think that the motivation is that people

will know who has a license, and be better able to,,, do something that makes them feel better. I am not sure. But it does seem an unwarranted attempt to disclose personal information - and I never understood why it is OK to publicly disclose sex offender information. Yes they are/were offenders, and yes they have a high repeat offense and recidivism rates, but disclosing personal information publicly is not going to help that. Sane treatment programs will help.

If people really want to know who owns guns in their community, they can join a local gun club or two. Some clubs require a GOAL or NRA membership, but those are easy enough to come by.

[spin]

5. An honest gun owner is not the same as a sex offender ...

The public has little to fear from an honest gun owner, especially one who has had a background check. To get a FOID card, a person has to undergo a background check.

The Firearms Services Bureau is responsible for administering the Firearm Owner's Identification Program (FOID) and the Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program (FTIP). The FOID card is required for any resident of Illinois to possess or purchase firearms. During the FOID application process, the applicant’s identification and background information is checked. Individuals with prohibiting factors are disallowed from obtaining a FOID card.

Through the FTIP program, background checks are conducted on prospective firearms purchasers attempting to acquire a firearm from an Illinois firearm dealer. Potential violations of law uncovered by these programs are quickly referred to law enforcement entities. These efforts contribute to a comprehensive strategy intended to reduce the availability of illegal firearms in Illinois.
http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/

On the other hand, many gun owners do not want the fact that they own firearms to be public information as they feel it may make their home a target for thieves while they are not home. Even the best gun safe can be defeated by a professional criminal.

[mikeb302000]

22. yeah, little to fear

until he has a negligent discharge and I live next door. Little to fear until my 7-year-old goes over there to play and the kids find a gun in the night stand. Little to fear when there's a raging domestic squabble and I live accross the street and my kids are riding their bikes on the sidewalk.

[PavePusher]

23. Perhaps you should move.

Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do?

[eqfan592]

27. Yeah, sounds like he lives in a pretty nasty neighborhood... nt

[eqfan592]

28. Do you feel the same about people that keep...

...poisonous cleaning supplies and other chemicals in the home? I only ask because those are responsible for about 3 times the number of unintentional deaths of children from the ages of 1-17 than firearms are....

[X_Digger]

3. I'll just leave this here..

Why should we not do the same for FIODs that we do for driver's licenses?

http://epic.org/privacy/drivers/

The Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Public Law No. 103-322 codified as amended by Public Law 106-69, was originally enacted in 1994 to protect the privacy of personal information assembled by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs).

The DPPA was passed in reaction to the a series of abuses of drivers' personal information held by government. The 1989 death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer was a prominent example of such abuse. In that case, a private investigator, hired by an obsessed fan, was able to obtain Rebecca Schaeffer's address through her California motor vehicle record. The fan used her address information to stalk and to kill her. Other incidents cited by Congress included a ring of Iowa home robbers who targeted victims by writing down the license plates of expensive cars and obtaining home address information from the State's department of motor vehicles.
...
The DPPA survived a Constitutional challenge in Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000). In that case, the state of South Carolina challenged the DPPA arguing that the Act violated principles of federalism. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act as a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. EPIC filed an amicus brief in that case that argued in part:

The Drivers Privacy Protection Act safeguards the personal information of licensed drivers from improper use or disclosure. It is a valid exercise of federal authority in that it seeks to protect a fundamental privacy interest. It restricts the activities of states only to the extent that it concerns the subsequent use or disclosure of the information in a manner unrelated to the original purpose for which the personal information was collected. The states should not impermissibly burden the right to travel by first compelling the collection of sensitive personal information and then subsequently disclosing the same information for unrelated purposes.

[ileus]

4. So the AG wants a list to intimidate current and future owners...

Why is the government so eager to release what should be private information if not to intimidate current owners and use it as a threat to potential new owners? What exactly is the State gaining from releasing what should be private information? What would they like to release next?

[DonP]

6. The short answer is they see Concealed Carry coming ...

... and at this point, with only 6 votes to change, they seem to want to throw everything and the kitchen sink against the wall to stir up the "less informed" and scare them one way or another.

Now that the FOID card privacy issue is put away - by a major bipartisan vote - I'm sure there will be some new "terror" about private gun ownership that will hit the news.

The Brady group aided and abetted by their local groups like the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, has lost every single battle where they have tried to block CCW. Now they only have Illinois left to try and stop or look utterly impotent on thei core issue. With Daley leaving the picture they are further weakened.

Rahm seems to be a little more pragmatic about things then Daley, who foamed at the mouth and threatened to shove a rifle up a reporter's ass at one of his raging press events.

With only a handful of hard core Cook County based representatives and state senators holding firm, some of the "collar county" reps around Cook County are already starting to give in rather than face serious primary challenges in the next round of elections. Mike Madigan, speaker of the Illinois House and the "Boss" of the Illinois Democratic party lost seats in 2010 and would rather give in on the issue than lose his Speaker status that also put his daughter in as State AG.

I expect all kinds of ugly stuff to start coming up, supported by the newspapers that have decided hat even if the other states can handle CCW, Illinois citizens are either too stupid or dangerous (or both) to have the same rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Word. They are going for the Anslinger-Wertham (moral panic) approach.

For those unfamiliar with the ....work of Harry J. Anslinger and Frederic Wertham:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent


Lord knows, we've seen plenty of it here from certain posters:

Guns cloud thought...

Guns embolden criminals...

Guns pollute society...

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[spin]

7. Imagine that you have a gun collection ...

You go on a two week vacation. A professional thief finds out that you are on vacation from a posting you made on Facebook. Even a good gun safe can be defeated by a professional.

Or perhaps both you and your wife work during the day. The thief enters your home while it's empty and cleans out your gun safe. Not all thieves are foolish enough to enter occupied homes.

[S_B_Jackson]

8. "Even a good gun safe can be defeated by a professional"...

It doesn't take a professional. A rank amateur equipped with nothing more than a hammer, and 20-25 minutes uninterupted can get into all but the very highest end gun safes which are housed in steel or in reinforced concrete. And even then if the time allowed is increased, they can be defeated by the simplest of tools.

[spin]

9. I once asked a locksmith how good gun safes were ...

he just laughed. He said most people think a thief will try to attack the door but the pro would attack the sides with a sawzall. Gun safes are not bank vaults.

[RSillsbee]

10. That's why placement is key

Bolt your safe down in a closet and the thief has no choice to but to enter throught the door.

Plus you get the advantage of not having the safe out in plain site

[spin]

12. Mine is in a closet and is bolted down just as you suggest.

It's a good enough safe to keep the amateurs out. My collection is not valuable enough to attract a true professional.

[mikeb302000]

24. so, what's your solution?

pistol under the pillow and shotgun in the closet?

[eqfan592]

29. How does that address the issues brought up by the poster at all?

Sorry, but it's clear you have no interest in rational discussion on the topic, just more of the usual hyperbole your side seems to be expert at generating.

[ileus]

13. finds out...hell most post it on FB and Latitude.

[PavePusher]

14. "...from a posting you made on Facebook."

Or by simple observation of your house....

[one-eyed fat man]

11. I think you don't own anything worth stealing

If you did, you, naturally, would want to advertise the fact.

If, as you claim, gun owners are looking for the flimsiest excuse "...to all the easier to blow the bad guys away in the dark," you'd be bitching gun-owners are shooting over bait if criminals targeted homes with guns to steal from your list.

You entire motivation has nothing to do with public safety and any of the pious bullshit melting in your mouth. You want lists of people to OUT as those "despicable gun owners." Why not make them wear little yellow stars on their clothes so you and the rest of your self-righteous fellow hypocrites can avoid the "unclean?"

For decades police have warned people that professional burglars use notices of weddings and funerals to target homes when people are less likely to be home. In fact, burglars usually take pains to avoid breaking into occupied homes in the US as they fear getting shot by irate homeowners. In England, by contrast, most of the burglaries are committed while people are there because British burglars do not labor under such apprehension.

[MicaelS]

15. If I lived next to you, I'd post this sign.

/

[Blown330]

17. DU moderators must have taken the weekend off...

...this exact topic was posted three days ago. Mr. Mike should do a better job of reading existing thread topics. I know he'll have very little to add to the discussion but at least keep the drivel in one place.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. He only posts here to adverstise his blog.

Everything he posts includes (cross posted at Mikeb302000)

Link disabled on purpose.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. Why give burglars a shopping list of portable, valuable, easily fencible items?

The issue here isn't worry over burglars paying a visit while the homeowner is home to defend his property.

The issue here is worry over burglars paying a visit while the homeowner is NOT home to defend his property.

If you publish a list of homes that are likely to contain highly portable, easily sell-able, highly valuable property, you are just ASKING for firearms to end up in the hands of criminals.

[Tejas]

20. "easier to blow the bad guys away in the dark" - daytime too.

scum is scum.