Bring It On!

Start ‘Em Young- Illinois Toddler Gets State Gun ID Card

May 15th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |

Here’s one for the pro-gun crowd. In Illinois, apparently there is no age limit for obtaining a state Firearm Owner’s ID Card.

According to Illinois state law, anyone who wants to own or purchase a firearm needs to get an FOID card. And even though you can’t legally buy a gun until you are 18 years old, you can own a gun at a younger age. Case in point…

Howard Ludwig’s 10 month old son, affectionately nicknamed “Bubba” was gifted a 12-gauge Beretta shotgun shortly after his birth. Grandpa bought the gun and his father registered his drooling infant for an FOID online and shortly thereafter received his son’s ID card in the mail, complete with a picture of the toothless child, his age, height, and weight. Dad included the info (20 lbs, 2 ft, 3 ins, and a toothless photo) and even got his kid to scribble a “signature” in the appropriate box.

Now little “Bubba” can legally transport his unloaded firearm, and purchase ammo. Too bad he can’t yet walk!

I wonder if little Bubba will one day be lugging his shotgun off to school one day…

[tag]gun+laws, toddler+with+gun+ID, Illinois+gun+laws, Howard+Ludwig, kids+with+guns[/tag]

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 13 Responses to “Start ‘Em Young- Illinois Toddler Gets State Gun ID Card”

  2. By SteveIL on May 15, 2007 | Reply

    Count me in!!!

    Doesn’t matter though. People can’t have a gun legally in the city of Chicago, so it doesn’t matter if you have a card. And while the police and politicians go out trying to keep the legally purchased guns off the street, those acquired by nefarious means (by nefarious people) continue to be used to murder people. What a great system. Only the cops and the crooks have the guns. And there are never enough cops to stop the crooks.

    Liberalism at its finest.

  3. By Steve O on May 15, 2007 | Reply


    That’s not liberalism, many liberals own guns and agree with the second amendment. You only paint as a liberal opposition but really it’s just sound judgement.

    Gun ownership should be regulated at the federal level. Case in point the amount of guns that get sold legally in Virginia and flow illegally into New York. Virginia is single handedly arming criminals in NYC with their lack of gun control yet we are powerless to stop them.

    We have the right to invade a country with “WMDs” but I can’t even regulate another state on how they sell and export their own form of terrorism?

    I think everyone should have a right to own a gun but I think we need to really take a look on how they go about getting them on a national level.

    The country is getting smaller day by day, the days of individual state rights are over. Call me a federalist or whatever you want but the central government really needs to have a hand in things that cross state borders.

  4. By steve on May 15, 2007 | Reply

    Jesus Christ Steve O, first you want to be able to kill them before they are by choice and now you want to take their gun rights away? Are there any other parts of the Bill of Rights you do not like?

  5. By SteveIL on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    Steve O said:

    I think everyone should have a right to own a gun but I think we need to really take a look on how they go about getting them on a national level.

    The problems of violent gang crimes in the city of Chicago are the problem of the city of Chicago, not the Federal Government. The City government violating the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution isn’t helping their crime problems where they are the worst, and targeting legally owned guns without offering better protection of the citizens of those areas doesn’t mean gun ownership needs to be further regulated at the federal level. That’s ridiculous.

  6. By Steve O on May 16, 2007 | Reply


    You have a better way of solving the problem? We are about to invade Iran on the basis of the flow of weapons from Iran into Iraq, so, we are going after the supply of weapons.

    The same is true here, you have to go after the supply of illegal guns into Chicago to stop the violence. More gun laws for law abiding citizens on a local level is not the answer, Chicago cannot stop it at a local level and neither can NYC.

    Well, NYC could, they simply mobilize their police force, which happens to be one of the largest military forces in the world, and invade Virginia.

  7. By manapp99 on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    Steve O says:

    “You have a better way of solving the problem? We are about to invade Iran on the basis of the flow of weapons from Iran into Iraq, so, we are going after the supply of weapons.

    The same is true here, you have to go after the supply of illegal guns into Chicago to stop the violence.”

    So Steve O, are you advocating the invasion of Iran?

  8. By Steve O on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    No, because there is no substantial proof that they are doing any such thing.

    And also, maybe we should build a wall between Iraq and Iran since we think the wall between Mexico and America will work so well.

    And hey, I give you an A for trying to change the subject.

  9. By Lazy Iguana on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL - just a question here. What do you think a “well regulated militia” is? That IS part of the Second Amendment you know. “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is only half of the sentence.

    On my site I wrote about how I think the Second Amendment does NOT provide for individual gun ownership. Unless you are part of a “well regulated militia”.

    States are what allow gun ownership. Take this story for example. In IL you have to get an ID card to own a gun? Has the NRA attacked this clear violation of the second amendment yet? And if so, they clearly failed!

    This is because the 2nd amendment does not provide protection for individual gun ownership. States do.

    Even in the great State of Texas you MUST apply for a CWP to pack heat. In FL same thing. In Alabama same thing. But while Texas will accept my Florida permit as valid, and Florida will accept a Texas permit - Florida will not accept an Alabama permit. And states with no concealed carry laws will not accept my Florida permit.

    Compare that to the 1st Amendment. Do I need a permit to speak freely? How about a state CMID (church member ID) card? No. I do not need any of those things. Because the 1st Amendment DOES provide for these rights.

    If you are going to blame liberalism, blame the ORIGINAL LIBERALS. The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

    States provide gun rights. States make up gun laws. If this were not the case, then gun laws would be uniform across the Nation. QUICK! Without looking it up! Can I legally carry a concealed weapon in Arizona? Nevada? Utah? Colorado? Does it matter if I have a Florida permit?

  10. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    The problem with criminalizing the ownership and transferal of firearms is that it merely means that law abiding citizens are left defenseless. Criminals, by definition, do not care what the laws are. They are not stopped from obtaining and transferring weapons by laws that outlaw such activity. Instead of preventing crime, the state prevents self-protection.

    When society transfers responsibility for their protection to the state, they have a right to demand that the state defend them. When the state proves itself incapable of protecting it’s citizens, after transferring to the state the sole responsibility for protection, then what? Then we have the pernicious absurdity of a state incapable of providing protection for its citizens then making criminals of citizens who seek to protect themselves.

    Regardless of what the second amendment means by a “well regulated militia”, this is the fatal flaw of reading the second amendment as though it were a collective right vested in the state, rather than in the people themselves, to maintain a militia. The state is not capable of protecting its citizens. Since the state is incapable of protecting its citizens, it must allow its citizens to protect themselves or it is failing in its duty to protect its citizens.

  11. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    And, yes, Lazy Iguana, if you intend to exercise your freedom of speech in public protest, you DO need a permit, license as it were, from the government to do so. The government has the right not only to tell you when but where you may and may not exercise that right. And it reserves the right to regulate what you may and may not do in the exercise of that right. For example, while the government cannot stop you from burning a flag or incarcerate you for having done so, it certainly can stop you from burning someone else’s flag while it is attached to the flag-owner’s house and it can incarcerate you for having done so. Speech is merely the human right that is most free from regulation by the state. It is not completely free from regulation.

    Regulation by the state of an individual right, as I have just shown, does not cause that right to cease to be an individual one and therefore, the fact that the state regulates firearm ownership does not prove that firearm ownership is not an individual right. It just means that the courts have recognized that that states have an interest in regulating the exercise of that individual right.

  12. By Craig R. Harmon on May 16, 2007 | Reply

    Who says we’re about to invade Iran?

  13. By Lazy Iguana on May 17, 2007 | Reply

    I do not have a “permit” to post crap to this website. And I know my First Amendment rights are the same no matter where in the USA I am. Even overseas territory.

    Can’t say the same for guns. I can carry them in some states, others I cant. My Florida permit is good in some places, and not valid in others. Some states say I can open carry, but carry concealed. In Florida weapons must be concealed.

    The hodgepodge of laws, and the fact that the Federal Government and the courts have done nothing about is is all the “proof” I need to claim that gun laws are the business of States. If this were not the case, the laws would be uniform.

    Just like my 1st Amendment rights. Or my 5th Amendment rights. Or my 4th Amendment rights. And so on in that manner.

    Unless you have a better way to explain why my “Constitutional rights” vary from place to place just because I cross some imaginary line.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on May 17, 2007 | Reply


    As I said, speech is one of the least restricted rights, not an unrestricted right. It’s a matter of permitted variation.

    As for overseas territory, I’m not sure what you mean. Try posting anti-Islam information on a website in Saudi Arabia and see what your speech rights are. Try opposing the Chinese Government within China and learn how far your first amendment rights extend. I imagine you mean, like US protectorates in which case you’re right but, again, you still have to comply with local laws when engaging in speech in public. For example, there was a recent ruling in some Federal court that upheld a ruling against a preacher for preaching, using a bull-horn, on street corners. Free speech, apparently, doesn’t allow you to speak freely at high volume. The regulation even of speech are not universal. Some places may have no law against volume assisted street-corner preaching, others may. That variance of regulation does not stop speech from being an individual freedom.

    Just saying that regulations on individual rights don’t mean that that right isn’t an individual one, as witness the many regulations on speech. Most rights allow regulation, including speech and search and seizure. For example, schools are allowed to restrict free speech of students and to run locker checks unannounced and drug tests of their athletes and without warrants. Those are, nevertheless, individual rights.

    Let’s take another example: abortion. Recognized since 1973 as a fundamental right yet it, too, is different in different states. No one, including you, I would presume, would say that abortion is anything other than an individual right and yet the regulations regarding abortion differ in the different states. Differing regulations do not mark a right as being not an individual right.

    Your first amendment rights are not the same in every jurisdiction since one municipality might have different laws regarding protests or even no laws at all. Again, hodgepodge of regulations does not mean a right is not a personal one. It just means that, within what the courts will allow, it is up to each jurisdiction to institute laws in accord with what is thought to be just and right. Same with gun restrictions and abortions.

    My explanation: a majority of people in one place have different ideas about what restrictions ought to be placed upon the exercize of various rights and the courts have allowed them to do so. It’s quite simple, actually. Just because the Supreme Court declares something a right, it does not prevent states from instituting different regulations in their jurisdiction than other jurisdictions do.

Post a Comment