Get And Sign Illinois Foid Card Application Pdf Form
Quick guide on how to complete printable foid card application
SignNow's web-based service is specifically created to simplify the arrangement of workflow and enhance the process of competent document management. Use this step-by-step guideline to fill out the Firearm owner form promptly and with ideal accuracy.
Tips on how to complete the Firearm owner form online:
- To get started on the blank, utilize the Fill & Sign Online button or tick the preview image of the document.
- The advanced tools of the editor will guide you through the editable PDF template.
- Enter your official identification and contact details.
- Apply a check mark to indicate the answer where demanded.
- Double check all the fillable fields to ensure total accuracy.
- Make use of the Sign Tool to add and create your electronic signature to signNow the Firearm owner form.
- Press Done after you finish the document.
- Now it is possible to print, save, or share the form.
- Address the Support section or get in touch with our Support crew in the event you have got any questions.
By using SignNow's complete service, you're able to execute any required edits to Firearm owner form, make your customized electronic signature in a few quick steps, and streamline your workflow without the need of leaving your browser.
Create this formin 5 minutes or less
Video instructions and help with filling out and completing Illinois Foid Card Application PdfForm
Instructions and help about Illinois Foid Card Application Pdf
Why are teddy bears more strictly regulated than guns?As someone who has been published in The Huffington Post, I can tell you that it is a hard left (very liberal) signNow. What they are reporting here isn't news. They are, instead, advocating under the guise of news. For what it's worth, this isn't me claiming this. Allsides did a pretty good job of evaluating them: Huffington Post. I'm not saying that HuffPo is a terrible signNow, run by terrible people. Instead, you should remember that what you've just read is a public service announcement.Teddy Bears are more carefully regulated? You're kidding, right? This doesn't even pass on first glance. I doubt anyone who understands gun control could argue that teddy bears are more regulated.Do they regulate how big of a teddy bear you can buy? Do they tell you that you can buy a black teddy bear, but not a silver one? Do you have to wait ten days to pick up a teddy bear you've already paid for? Can you be arrested because the laws about teddy bear configurations have changed, and you didn't know? No? No need to keep abreast of the TONS of teddy bear legislation? Surprising. Be careful crossing state lines with your Teddy Ruxpin. You have no idea how New Jersey will react. Or New York. Or California. Firearms are far more regulated than just about anything, probably up to and including pharmacology.And, I should point out, this is all to regulate a constitutionally protected right which is never supposed to be infringed.Teddy Bears are regulated only in their manufacture. You, as a citizen and consumer don't have to worry about anything. On the other hand, as a gun owner, you constantly have to be on guard. I don't disagree with the necessity of this, but I do laugh at the outrageous assertion that it is otherwise.So all that being said, let’s look at what the Illinois Counsel Against Gun Violence has to say: Ah. They listed maybe three dozen lines of laws regulating teddy bears and one law which hits guns. Well. That’s pretty damning.Except for one thing. The federal government, per our constitution, doesn’t regulate guns. Not that it really doesn’t, mind you. It just isn’t supposed to.So here’s the rub! Let’s look at all 50 states’ laws regarding teddy bears:ZERO.Let’s look at just California state laws regarding guns:Well… I would, but I’m not sure that Quora could handle it. In fact, it’s such a byzantine set of laws, they have an entire governmental department (the Bureau of Firearms) to regulate it. There are laws on the books regarding just about everything concerning firearms.To sum things up, teddy bears aren't more heavily regulated. Nothing of the sort. But maybe they should be. You have no constitutional right to a teddy bear.
Why couldn't the pro gun camp and the anti gun camp sit down and hash out a plan that finds a livable compromise?I have several issues here, with the concept of compromise, and how it is being presented.The first is about the subject matter. Too many people set up the straw-man that all Gun Owners care about is our guns, and that we are defending our guns, for whatever reason, and why would you do so in the face of so much tragedy and death.The straw-man is that this is about guns. Its not about guns at all. Its about individual rights. Protections against the actions of those acting on behalf of the greater good that might usurp the rights of the Individual.Guns are a Right. Not a novelty. Not a toy. Not an extension of our penises. They are a right. Some of us value that right. Some of us do not. The difference is that those who do not value that right as a civil and human right, are demanding of those who do value them, to give them up, or give them up piecemeal.Now that we’ve established what it is that we are effectively talking about, lets do some lateral comparisons.Would you like to sit down and discuss how your fifth amendment rights to due process obstructs law-enforcement? How you don’t need protections against search and seizure, because we could lock up and capture more criminals if police could just enter any home they wanted to? I think that you should be willing to compromise on those points in order to make our society safer. It’s for the greater good.I will not EVER start, engage in, or legitimize a debate on the basis of how much of my Rights that I can keep and how much I am willing to give away. There will never be a compromise on that point. I want to be a free man. Not somewhat free. Not “Free Enough.” All the way free.Secondly, I do not think that anyone on the anti-gun side wants a compromise. Compromise is just a weapon to gradually strip gun owners of their rights and their property.Compromise has two sides. Both sides usually get something in a compromise. For example: We sit down at the table, and you offer to de-regulate silencers (Supressors) and short-barreled rifles, or repeal the Hughes Ammendment, in exchange for comprehensive background checks. You get your background checks. We are able to buy new-manufacture machine guns. Or we are able to buy Suppressors and SBRs without having to go through regulatory BS.Both sides walk away happy.Nobody has offered to give us back any part of our rights. They’ve instead held a figurative gun to our head, and told us to pick which ones we want to live.Thirdly, this also assumes that guns are the cause of all this death and devastation. Or that Ownership is the cause. I just can’t abide that. There are root causes to this, and focusing on guns as the answer is intellectually lazy.We want to limit these types of issues for EVERYONE. Not just those who are would-be victims. But the broken souls shooting up these places too. Solutions that signNow to the core of the issues would have a longer lasting effect on society than ever taking guns away. Restricting guns is just the easy way out.There's a difference in discussing how we will compromise our rights, and how we can fix things moving forward.
What do you think of Dick's Sporting Goods announcing it will stop selling firearms completely?From what I hear, they are only pulling guns from some stores, and most of those are stores where gun sales are quite low. So basically, a store that still has high gun sales will likely still offer them with no change. This does not appear to be a politically-driven act, but more of an economic reason.However, Dick’s shot(no pun intended) themselves in the foot after the Parkland school shooting, when they announced they would refuse to sell a gun to anyone under 21. This was a clear message that they were afraid of the rabid part of the “anti-gun left”, and they were caving in to the societal pressure. That or they simply wanted to earn “brownie points”. In response, gun sales dropped quite a bit, and some pro-2nd Amendment supporters stopped shopping there altogether.Thus, this announcement is immediately taken by many on the right as “Dick’s first raised the age to buy a gun, and now they are refusing to sell any guns at all. Let’s boycott them fully.”Whether this mindset is correct, or rational, or totally wrong is irrelevant. By raising the age to 21, Dick’s was making a statement. They were saying the national law was not enough and that they were going to do their part in further restrictions(as is their right to do). However, as our dear friends on the left love to remind us…actions have consequences. In this case, those consequences appear to include a loss in revenue, and also a tendency for their customers who lean right politically to “jump to conclusions”.
Can you buy a machine gun at a gun show as many Democrats are suggesting?This question unwittingly I believe exposes the problem with the overall gun control debate better than most from both sides. That is we are often talking past each other and not paying attention to each other at all, not to mention that we are entrenched in our points of view and aren’t really having a debate or a discussion.Yes, you can buy and legally own a fully automatic machine gun in the United States. You can even buy one at a gun show, as long as you follow the rules established by Federal and local law. Machine gun ownership is highly regulated and requires an extensive background check. The gun is in a national database and you have to report transportation of the weapon across state lines. There are criminal penalties if you violate the law, which is the National Firearms Act of 1934.The NFA was very successful at getting machine guns out of the hands of criminals and was in fact supported by the National Rifle Association. Sure, there will be the occasional criminal who will violate the law but outside of a Miami Vice episode fully automatic weapons are rare and, when privately owned, in the possession of a law abiding citizen who pays taxes and follows the rules administered by the ATF. The rules are tough but most people accept them as reasonable. The weapons in question are not used in the execution of a crime and can be considered safe and “well regulated.”The so called “anti-gun” position, and for the record you can count me in that group, tends to focus on relatively cosmetic and emotional appeals to gun control. That’s understandable due to the horrors we’ve seen, but things like the assault weapons ban and, here in New York, restrictions on magazines, tended to annoy the more knowledgeable gun enthusiast and lead to a breakdown in dialogue between those who are upset about the carnage and those who have a desire to own and use firearms. There was always going to be some disagreement, but that there is no discussion just compounds the tragedy.The recent events in Las Vegas were horrible. No reasonable person will deny that there needs to be some kind of rational debate and discussion. There will be people on both sides who might disagree with that of course, but if you accept the premise of the NFA in regulating weapons from the Al Capone era you already have a basis for dialogue. The problem is that Las Vegas is an outlier and it doesn’t address most of the actual carnage.Most gun deaths in the United States are not like Las Vegas. We have approximately 33,000 each year. 2/3 of them are suicides. Women firearms deaths are largely from domestic violence. In these cases the good guy with the gun might just be, due to mental illness or uncontrolled anger, actually the bad guy. Then there’s the deaths due to accidents or misuse. Ironically, the gun purchased for self defense is far more dangerous to the owner and their loved ones than it is protection against a violent stranger.To me, as a person who thinks guns should be regulated more rigorously, the questions about bans and appeals to the Second Amendment are distractions. I think the NRA acts like those tobacco companies back in the day that paid doctors to opine on the health benefits of cigarettes or who paid celebrity endorsers to smoke. We have a trade organization representing an unscrupulous group of businessmen who are exploiting our emotions, fears, and yes, our self-image as Americans, to sell a dangerous consumer good and avoid appropriate oversight.These businessmen, like their counterparts in the tobacco industry, would like to sell a large amount of product at a profit that depends on people having an image of themselves and of the world around them that beggars reality. It requires that we buy into it. There isn’t a huge market for the kinds of firearms you use to get a gold medal in the biathlon at the Winter Olympics, nor is there a big enough market for guns used to put meat on the table. Hunting as a sport is shrinking every year and we don’t do particularly well at international shooting competitions considering. The market where there’s money and profit requires that people see themselves in need of a weapon that can be used for self-defense or that mimics the kind of weapon designed and used for war. It’s a market that benefits from minimal regulation and not even the most reasonable requirements for education, insurance or screening. To push this marketing the trade organization paints a picture of a dystopian, dangerous America where you need a gun on you at all times and where you have to be afraid of your government and of strangers when if you want to see the real threat of gun ownership you just have to look in a mirror.So, do I think that we should ban guns? Absolutely not. I think a law abiding adult should be able to own one subject to the law and with a clear understanding of the risks. I also think you should be allowed to enjoy a cigar.I tend to think the Democrats are more often right on the issue, but then I also remember when Republicans like Governor Ronald Reagan were on the forefront of gun control. In the current situation where we are polarized and not talking to each other and each national party in entrenched it’s important to keep in mind that maybe what we really need is to start a discussion and that the consensus we’ve had since 1934 on automatic weapons might be a good place to start. Yes, we can have reasonable gun laws that work for all of us, but maybe we better start looking at the bigger problems, which aren’t what makes the headlines. We can start by having a discussion and respecting each other.
What are some of the strangest gun control proposals you can come up with?Banning guns based on how they look versus how they function.Banning guns based on a projectile being 1/1000th inch bigger than others equally capable.Banning guns based on the diameter or markings on their barrel that have no bearing on its ability to function.Making existing gun owners wait 8 days to take possession of a gun as a “cooling off” period.Banning possession of sheet metal or plastic boxes with springs because these, after all, are some of the most dangerous objects on the planet.Banning and not banning aforementioned boxes based on the number of rounds they hold but allowing the exact same box to be sold legally if it possesses the correct markings on the bottom.Having a one-gun-a-month law to prevent gun trafficking or straw purchases but allow anyone a lifetime waiver of that restriction by simply sending a form to the state saying they are a collector. Any reason for collecting is permissible (“In the event of a zombie apocalypse” is an acceptable reason).Where you live determines your ability to own a gun in the same state.Telling victims of home invasion they are to be arrested and treated as criminals because of the property someone else took from them.Being so concerned about privacy rights that you demand any would-be gun owner waive their HIPAA rights for life to make sure they aren’t “dangerous”.Declaring 18 through 20 year olds children and barring them from exercising their right to own a gun. But that’s the only right they are too immature or unable to exercise as a legal adult at those ages.Compiling lists of guns and gun owners in the utterly illogical belief that a couple pieces of signNow solves crimes.Banning the publication of computer code or plans for firearms that are freely available in printed form without restriction. Hating two parts of the Bill of Rights is pretty impressive stuff.Demand that we have noise dampening devices on vehicles and hearing protection on around machinery that can damage hearing in an instant as a public safety measure but regulate the same for firearms to the point it takes 9–10 months and Federal and State permission to own. And not all states will allow you to protect your hearing.Requiring a person to be fingerprinted, photographed and provide a background check and at least two days of training at their own expense and submit the application within 3 days for a license to allow them to apply to purchase a handgun. It is not a “permit-to-possess” but merely a permission slip to fill out a form.Declaring that items meant to safely hold a firearm in order to use it are too dangerous to have fitted to a gun.Buttons are verboten.Changing the color or finish on a gun makes it illegal to sell as “unsafe”.Declaring any semi-automatic rifle an “assault rifle” regardless of age, caliber or feed type.Declaring a Marlin or equivalent tube-fed .22LR semi-auto rifle an “assault weapon”.Allowing anyone via hearsay to claim someone is suspicious or may have violent tendencies and have their guns taken away from them without Due Process.I can go on. And on and on. All strange and ones I could have never come up with on my own.Note for the Irony Challenged: Every single item on this list is an actual law or regulation in force today somewhere in the United States.
Why are some gun owners against licenses for different gun types?Because licenses are used as a means of limiting or controlling what people can do or own. They do not serve a public safety purpose and have historically been used along with registration lists to later take away guns when they become inconvenient to those in power.I don’t need a license to tell me which end the bullet comes out of.I don’t need a license to figure out the myriad of complex controls (button, switch, spring) on a firearm and how to use them.A license will not make me a super accurate, non-innocent harming shooter.The notion that a single shot, tube-fed pump action, magazine fed bolt action or magazine fed semi-auto are all radically different gun types that need specialized training on before one can possess or use them is patently ridiculous. A semi-auto has one extra control, the bolt/slide release. Ohh, ahh, I need a license to figure that out.Uhh, no.No one can articulate a rational reason for licensing in general. The reason they give is public safety but the so-called vetting they believe a license gives is the same vetting the NICS instant background check provides. Essentially each NICS check is a one-time per firearm license supplied at the time of purchase.I live in a state with a license for certain gun types. Handguns. I have to have a state-issued license to purchase a handgun. It takes two months and over $300 in fees and training to acquire and what magic power does this license give? The ability to go online and fill out a form. That’s it. It gives you the privilege of starting the purchase process, nothing more. It does not waive a background check. It does not waive the waiting period. It does not waive the one-gun-a-month law. It just says I am worthy enough to fill out a form.So that’s why I am against licensing. All it is a burden on the law-abiding.
Should there be a public map of gun owners in the US available online?Sure, let’s violate people’s right to privacy, just so people who know nothing about the amazing usefulness and need for firearms can “feel” safer, because they can point a finger at someone and tell themselves that RIGHT THERE is one of those evil gun owners, liable to snap at any given moment, and kill the innocent…or some such useless drivel.Seriously, what goes through your mind, OP, when you pen such a ludicrous (and useless) question? What makes you - or any sane person - think this is a good idea? Are you so ignorant on the subject of firearms that you feel that you will be safer if you know who has them?Try this: Assume everyone you meet is armed. Try that for a week. At the end of the week, examine your feelings, your reactions, etc. Did your activities change? Did it actually matter to you at all? I’m betting it won’t, for the simple reason that in some states, most people are armed, and no one really cares.If you think you’re safer when you’re more defenseless, I’ve got two things to say about that:1 - You need to explain the logic of that to me, and others who support the 2nd Amendment (which is, by the way, the law).2 - Don’t ask others to “feel” the way you do about the subject. We’re not asking you to change your life, so don’t ask us to change ours.And lastly, before posting such nonsense in the future, do some research on the subject, and learn a bit more about firearms. You might be surprised. The only one who can change your mind is you, and only facts are going to help with that.
How do ordinary people go about buying a gun in your country/state?TEXAS:There is no gun registration, or gun permit required to purchase a gun in Texas. Usually, there is no additional fee, beyond the purchase price of the gun. The exception would be when the two parties to a private transaction use the services of an FFL to transfer the firearm ownership. In that case, there would be whatever fee that FFL charges, and there is no set rate for that. Fees tend to run between $10 and $25 or so, depending on who they are and where they are. Texas uses the NICS instant background check system run by the FBI for people who do not possess a permit to carry concealed. Unless you are otherwise unqualified for lawful gun ownership (felony convictions, psychiatric history, known gang affiliations, etc.), you walk into the store, choose the gun, fill out the BATFE Form 4473, hand over your driver's license or other state issued photo ID, and wait for 10-15 minutes while they call in your information to NICS. (I believe this can now be processed online too, rather than just by phone.) When the background check clears, you pay for the gun and leave with it. The entire process usually takes 15-20 minutes.If you have a Texas CHL (Concealed Handgun License), you have ALREADY gone through a far more stringent background check than that required by NICS, so NICS is not involved in the purchase. When you choose your gun for purchase, you hand the sales clerk both your TDL and your CHL, you fill out Form 4473, you pay, and you leave with your gun. Assuming you know what you want, time in and out depends on how much time you spend shooting the breeze with the salesperson.....and that is entirely up to you.Funny thing is..... ever since leaving California, I have purchased far more guns than I owned when I still lived there, and despite not having to wait 10 days, and despite not having to purchase emasculated "Calfornia Only" versions of those guns, not one single one of them has ever been used in a criminal manner, or stored in an unsafe manner. Not one of them has ever jumped up of its own accord and massacred an entire school yard full of children........and our murder rate is lower than California's.....Guns: Texas vs CaliforniaKeep in mind that there are 48% more people in California, but California suffers 56% more gun murders than Texas. Similarly, of all ways to murder people, Californians murder people with guns 69% of the time, while Texans murder with guns only 65% of the time. This indicates that the average Californian is more likely to murder or be murdered with a gun than the average Texan.No-one knows for sure how many guns exist, are owned, and who owns them, but I did find a 2001 survey that purportedly broke down likely gun ownership by state. According to these numbers, Texans as a whole own 45% more guns than Californians. That’s total guns, not guns per capita. So it would seem that even with fewer total guns spread among more people, more are still murdered with guns in California.If you break down the number of gun murders per 100,000 people, we see the likelihood of gun murder relative to the size of the population. This is the actual likelihood that you will be murdered with a gun in that state. With this measure, we see that your chance of murder by gun is 1 in 29,674 in California, compared to the less likely 1 in 31,348 in Texas.Interestingly, the most violent gun crime area in America by far is Washington DC. No state comes anywhere close. There is almost an order of magnitude more gun murders in Washington DC than any state. Your chance of being murdered with a gun in Washington DC is 1 in 6,250. Washington DC is infamous for its long standing ban on legal gun ownership by private citizens, in direct violation of the Second Amendment. This ban was partially lifted a couple years ago, but the restrictions on private gun ownership are still severely limited.At the other end of the spectrum, the city of Kennesaw, Georgia has had a city ordinance since 1982 requiring all households to own at least one gun and ammunition for it, with the reasonable exceptions of the mentally handicapped, religiously convicted against guns, and known criminals. Their overall crime rate is half the US average.Why do you suppose that is? And don't give me poverty, immigration, and race as issues. We have poor people, immigrant people, and ethnic people in Texas too.....probably in similar proportions to California. I think, and this is a very generalized statement, that the reason is a greater sense of personal responsibility among Texans, both for their personal station in life as well as the role of government in their lives than among Californians. We trust ourselves with guns because we are not ignorant about responsibility. This difference exists because Texans still have a healthy mistrust of overbearing government, while Californians welcome it, abdicating their personal responsibilities in the process. Again, these are very general statements, and I recognize that there are many Californians who think like I do, but are simply trapped there by job and/or family circumstances and history, and are not likely to leave the state like I did.Anyway, I apologize for the soapbox, but I thought it necessary to explain why Texans, as a whole, tend to be far more libertarian than some other states about controls on gun purchases. It is not sufficiently libertarian (in my view) in other areas, specifically in the matter of Open Carry, both of handguns and long guns.By way of explanation, I am not a rabid open carry advocate, but I do support it. If we had open carry, I would still most likely conceal my pistol most of the time. I would just be a lot less concerned about perfect concealment on a 102º day with 85% humidity, or while driving, for instance. But we don't have open carry here, at least not yet, and there is a statist wing of the state's republican party which colludes with democrats to keep that from happening. Hopefully, we'll remove that roadblock in the next legislative session (2015, our legislature only meets on alternate years). As far as long guns go, there is no law against carrying a loaded long gun anywhere that firearms are allowed, but there is a law against the open display of a firearm in a manner intended to cause alarm......and that is a subjective standard directly correlated with just how tightly the observer's panties are twisted up about firearms, because the observer gets to decide what causes alarm, not the person whose intent is at stake. I may carry a shotgun from the trunk of my car in the parking lot, into a gunstore 20 yards away, intending to have it repaired, and not at all intending to cause alarm——but to the socialist twat driving by, that display may be very alarming, and a "man with a gun" call goes out to the local PD.........and socialists LOVE it when they can enforce their illiberal and repressive attitudes onto other people, so I'll be the one taking the ride to the local cop shop until it all gets sorted out, and not the person whose complaint had me falsely detained.So in those kinds of respects, Texas is not yet perfect; but it is a DAMNED sight better, and a LOT more common sense than California, most particularly with respect to the process of buying a gun.
How can Ariel Winter be a "licensed gun owner" when California doesn't issue or require licenses to own a gun?I live in Calif and purchased two handguns over the last three years. I took the Firearm Safety Test and was issued a certificate (not a license) proving I had passed the test. I then filled out the background check form, paid for the guns and waited 10 days for the check to be completed and then came back and picked them up. There is no license for firearms in Calif. Howevr……that doesn’t mean your ownership is completely hidden. The FFL salesperson/retail store must keep a record of the sale and your ownership. This is a traceable ownership. When a gun is manufactured the company (Ruger for instance) establihes its ownership of that gun. When the gun is shipped to the FFL retail store the ownership is transferred to the store but Ruger keeps a record of where it was shipped. When the FFL retail store sells the gun to me they must then keep a record of who and where it was sold to….and so on for each sale/trnasfer. This is a way the gun can be traced if ever need be but there is no government agency that keeps record of my ownership. If I am wrong on this I would like someone to please correct me.An example - My DIL’s father passed away two years ago. His residency was Nevada. He wanted her to have his 9 mm (Taurus I believe) as a memento from him. The gun had to be taken to a Nevada FFL dealer who then filled out the signNowwork to make a transfer to her who is a resident of California. She had to show a death certificate, I believe. the gun was then shipped by the Nevada dealer to a Calif dealer (selected by her) and when it arrived she was notified. She then went to the dealer and retrieved the gun. She did the transfer legally and proper. What people don’t talk much about is the hand over as a gift of a decedants gun to a friend or family member. Traceability of the gun is mostly lost at that time. I believe there are a huge number of these untraceable guns in the US.
Related searches to Illinois Foid Card Application Pdf
How to create an e-signature for the firearm owner form
How to create an e-signature for your Firearm Owner Form online
How to create an e-signature for the Firearm Owner Form in Google Chrome
How to generate an electronic signature for putting it on the Firearm Owner Form in Gmail
How to create an e-signature for the Firearm Owner Form straight from your mobile device
How to make an electronic signature for the Firearm Owner Form on iOS devices
How to create an electronic signature for the Firearm Owner Form on Android devices
People also ask
What states can a felon own a gun?According to the National Rifle Association's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Washington ban felons from possessing firearms.
How long does it take to get a FOID card?A FOID card legally must be granted within 30 days from the date the application is received, unless the applicant does not qualify. However, by January 2006, the backlog had increased and the State Police were taking as long as 50 days, in violation of the law, to issue or deny the FOID.
Can I get a FOID card if I have a felony in Illinois?FOID Applications for Convicted Felons In Illinois, one of the rights a person stands to lose upon conviction of felony charges is the right to firearms ownership . While the loss of this right is not technically permanent, the law makes it difficult for a convicted felon to regain the ability to legally own a firearm.
Can you get a FOID card with a felony in Illinois?FOID Applications for Convicted Felons. ... In Illinois, one of the rights a person stands to lose upon conviction of felony charges is the right to firearms ownership . While the loss of this right is not technically permanent, the law makes it difficult for a convicted felon to regain the ability to legally own a firearm ...
Can I renew my FOID card online?Applicants can visit the ISP's Firearms Services Bureau website at ispfsb.com to renew online, or call ISP at 217-782-7980 and a call-taker will complete the application over the phone. The cost of the card is $10. Applicants must be Illinois residents and include their driver's licenses or state ID card numbers.