.png)
California’s Mulford Act was designed to target African Americans and prohibit them from open carrying while exercising their first amendment rights. Yes, the NRA of the day even supported it (maybe that’s why anti-gun lobbying groups have began claiming the NRA isn’t what it used to be, god forbid they evolve and stand up for all Americans who want to be legally armed). Now, a month after the Mulford Act was passed in 1967, Illinois passed a law that, according to some state politicians, was even better. Let’s take a time machine back to May 23, 1967 and visit this article from the Chicago Tribune, which was the day the FOID card act passed the Illinois Senate (also note that waiting periods in CA were used to target blacks):
We paid for a subscription just to unlock all
of this, so here’s page 7, column 11 (continued):
Here’s Chicago Mayor Daley (mentioned above) speaking with President Johnson (LBJ) one year prior in 1966. Here’s his reasons for supporting it and other gun control measures. More on the importance of this regarding the FOID later:
“Well, as good as they can be, but we need some kind of federal help to shut off this gang situation. This gang situation in New York, in Los Angeles, in Philadelphia, in Cleveland, in Pittsburgh, in Detroit, in San Francisco, is no good. And if it’s allowed to go unabated, if it’s allowed to go and fester the way it is . . . The majority of them are headed, as you know, by ex-convicts: dope pushers, robbery with a gun, all of this kind of business. And there—something has to be done, Mr. President, on the sale of the guns. We—Outside [in] the suburbs—in the city we have control—but what the hell, in the suburbs that are—you go out to all around our suburbs and you got people out there, especially the non-white, are buying guns right and left. You got guns and rifles and pistols and everything else. There’s no registration; there isn’t a damn thing.”
Well, simple as that. Illinois legislators enacted the FOID card originally as a means to target blacks during the racial tensions of the 1960’s much like California used the Mulford Act to do so. Also stated, it was to protect lawmakers (referring to CA) because the armed groups of blacks couldn’t be arrested since they broke no law. Isn’t history fun? Gun control is rooted in racism, not “safety“ as they say these days. I hope civil rights activists and the Illinois Supreme Court take all of this into consideration when they likely here the potential upcoming case (more in link below, including how legislators want to raise FOID fees/make harder to acquire and also how they see the funds used to process FOID cards as a piggy bank for other pet projects):
Be it knows that there is currently a bill in committee that aims to “fix the FOID”. That bill (supported by state and national anti-gun organizations) is nothing more than ludicrous fee increases and requiring mandatory fingerprinting to legally posses a firearm. It’s nice to know the below legislators are continuing on the tradition of this racist legislation and requirement that’s needed to “legally” exercise your right to bear arms in the state of Illinois........
Be it known that even when it first was being “enforced” in 1968, there was issues and pushback (even by some in law enforcement). From June 16, 1968:
Also be it known that on November 21, 1968 via the Freeport Journal, the true purpose of the FOID card legislation is shown (created prosecution opportunity for the targets of the legislation). Also, when you get to the highlighted parts, refer back up to Mayor Daley’s comments in 1966:
And why did they want “other characteristics of the registrants“ in inner cities like Chicago?
Chicago's African-American population grew rapidly from 230,000 in 1930 to 810,000 in 1960 or 7% to 23% of Chicago's population. The huge population growth lead to mass overcrowding in Chicago's black belt.
Lastly, how much it cost in 1968:
And the kicker for getting caught without one (easy to see it’s meant to keep the poor and city dwelling minorities in “Chicago’s black belt” locked up if they get caught for non-compliance):
UPDATE: and there it is, via the 8/20/1969 issue of the Edwardsville Intelligencer (page 4) under the ”Most Officials Favor Owner Registration“. How was the new law being enforced?
