Talk:Firearm Owner's Identification

Supposed slang expression

I have deleted the sections of this article describing the supposed slang expression "foid", a person who "[spends] large amounts of time researching specialist and often obscure subjects via the internet." I've been unable to verify that this slang term is actually in use, and there were no references for it. Perhaps that part of the article was added as a joke. If "foid" really is a slang term with that meaning, and someone wants to document it on Wikipedia, they should create a new, separate article with a different title -- something along the lines of "Foid (slang)". This hypothetical new article should cite reliable references. — Mudwater 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Other definitions

In the travel industry, FOID is Form of ID. Might need a placeholder page and disambiguation entry. 38.98.183.33 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Guest Jennifer.

FFLs and NICS checks

Recently the following sentence was added to this article: "With a few limited exceptions, FFLs in all states must request a background check through the NICS before selling a firearm." There's also a reference, to "Guide to the National Instant Check System", on the NRA web site. I'm going to remove the new sentence, because it's not true. The NRA article, which is from 1999, says, "[Question] My state has a permit-to-purchase system. What can I expect under the NICS system? [Answer] Permits that meet the criteria established by BATF will exempt purchasers from a NICS check at the point-of-sale, and handgun permits that meet the criteria will be accepted for long gun purchases. New buyers who do not have a permit will have to undergo a NICS check, but all 'permit states' are expected to incorporate a NICS check into the permit application process by Nov. 30, 1998...." Also, look at the "Permanent Brady Permit Chart", on the ATF website, from 2008. It lists state permits that "qualify as alternatives to the background check requirements of the Brady law for no more than 5 years from the date of issuance." Quite a few states have them now, as you can see from the chart. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "With a few limited exceptions, FFLs in all states must request a background check through the NICS before selling a firearm" has been clarified. It is an important sentence to include so the FOID point-of-sale process can be understood in the context of the processes in other states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulderlaw (talk • contribs) 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The new statement in the article, as amended, is now definitely more accurate than before. But, could you please explain more about why it's important to include this information? In general, putting things into context can be a good idea, but I'm not clear on how this particular addition improves the article. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The context is important because without it the reader might be unclear about how the Illinois firearms purchase process compares to the rest of the country. The FOID is somewhat unique, but this fact would be lost on the uninformed reader without the context provided by explaining the general NICS process. Perhaps there is a better way to convey this to the reader? Boulderlaw (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Boulderlaw

I guess that makes sense. But I'm still not sure that the extra info improves the article, which is of course about the Illinois FOID system. Let me think about it some more. As always, other editors are encouraged to give their opinion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FOID (firearms). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116063153/http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/ to http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"...in a ruling that applies only to the defendant..."

The current wording restored by u/Terrorist96 says:

On February 14, 2018, in a ruling that applies only to the defendant, a circuit court in Illinois found that...

...with the comment that the court ruling itself itself states "it's unconstitutional as applied to the defendant". However, I still contend that is always the case - judges decide the case in front of them on its merits and rule on that only. However, such cases are often used as precedents and applied to future similar cases. The long and short of it is that its plain silly imho to have this "applies only to the defendant" wording, but I'm not interested in an edit war, so unless someone else takes this up it will stand... - Snori (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment, however, until the court rules more broadly, we should leave it the way it is. Many times when courts rule, they rule a statute in general to be unconstitutional, or sometimes they rule more narrowly as applied to a certain person (maybe that person has a particular trait that makes the statute unconstitutional as applied to them but not unconstitutional to the public at large). The case is before the Illinois Supreme Court so we will likely get a more general ruling in the near future.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The ruling was for the particular case. IMO the best route is a straightforward statement of such, e.g. "On February 14, 2018, a circuit court in Illinois found that, for that particular case, the requirement to obtain a FOID in order to acquire or possess a firearm is unconstitutional. The "applies only" is an unsourced overreach in one direction, if it were simply removed, it would be an unsourced overreach in the other direction. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The ruling specifically says it only applies to the defendant though, so it's not an overreach. Direct quote: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 430 ILCS 65/2(a)(l) is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant herein.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point. But it can be read that there are two statements in there:

1. The scope of the ruling
2. The possible overall unconstitutionality of the law with respect to others

He ruled on the constitutionality with respect to the defendant. He did not rule on #2 and thus did not rule out #2. IMO as written it can be read that he also ruled on / ruled out #2. I'm just trying to help here, I'm not overly concerned about what y'all decide. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)