Jump to content


Photo

Willis: Gun restraining order could prevent tragedies


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,401 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:52 AM

Full story at link

http://www.dailyhera...event-tragedies

..."A suburban lawmaker has legislation pending in Springfield that she believes could prevent gun-related tragedies like the mass shooting last week at a Florida high school.

For three years, state Rep. Kathleen Willis has been working on a bill that would allow family members to petition the courts to temporarily remove firearms from loved ones believed at risk of hurting themselves or others.


The emergency Lethal Violence Order of Protection would suspend the individual's Firearm Owners Identification card and concealed carry license and would prohibit him or her from owning, purchasing or having control of a gun for up to a year, she said.

"The whole idea is it's a temporary thing. It's to protect people from themselves and from harming others," said Willis, an Addison Democrat. "This is more a proactive type of thing instead of reactive."

If passed, the law would require family members or law enforcement officers to explain their reasoning for filing the petition, Willis said. Perhaps the individual is going through depression or facing serious personal problems, she said, or maybe is in the early stages of dementia.

"It's hard to say, how do we know for sure that person would be harmful to themselves or others?" she said. "We don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution."

Representatives from the Illinois State Rifle Association could not be reached for comment Sunday. However, in a March 2017 newsletter, Executive Director Richard Pearson called the bill "unconstitutional" and said relatives could use it for unintended purposes, such as an act of revenge.

"This act is a weapon against law-abiding gun owners," he said.

Willis said the legislation includes a provision that petitioners found guilty of lying could be charged with perjury. The person subject to the emergency order also can petition to have it rescinded."...
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#2 biggun 1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:57 AM

just another ploy to take our rights away.



#3 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:59 AM

 

 

"It's hard to say, how do we know for sure that person would be harmful to themselves or others?" she said. "We don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution."

 

Sure, let's err on the side of caution. I want the person who files the petition to pay for the full cost of the mental health evaluation that should be a mandatory requirement as a part of filing the petition. 

 

 

 

Willis said the legislation includes a provision that petitioners found guilty of lying could be charged with perjury. The person subject to the emergency order also can petition to have it rescinded."... 

 

The legislation should be amended to say that anyone found guilty of lying will be charged with perjury, could is not enough because if we leave it to someone's discretion we'll get a lot of "oh they were just concerned, they shouldn't be charged". Nope. Not buying it one bit. 

 

If we require the petitioner to pay for the mental health evaluation, there's less of a need for an the subject to have to file a petition to have the order rescinded as well. If a mental health provider does the evaluation and believes the person is a danger to themselves or others, then there's no need to rescind the order either. 


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#4 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,401 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:01 AM

On a related AP story at article above

http://www.dailyhera.../news/302189946

...Only five states have laws enabling family members, guardians or police to ask judges to temporarily strip gun rights from people who show warning signs of violence. Supporters of these measures, deemed "red flag laws" or gun-violence restraining orders, say they can save lives by stopping some shootings and suicides....
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸

#5 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,281 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:25 AM

 
 
"It's hard to say, how do we know for sure that person would be harmful to themselves or others?" she said. "We don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution."

 
Sure, let's err on the side of caution. I want the person who files the petition to pay for the full cost of the mental health evaluation that should be a mandatory requirement as a part of filing the petition. 
 

 
 
Willis said the legislation includes a provision that petitioners found guilty of lying could be charged with perjury. The person subject to the emergency order also can petition to have it rescinded."... 

 
The legislation should be amended to say that anyone found guilty of lying will be charged with perjury, could is not enough because if we leave it to someone's discretion we'll get a lot of "oh they were just concerned, they shouldn't be charged". Nope. Not buying it one bit. 
 
If we require the petitioner to pay for the mental health evaluation, there's less of a need for an the subject to have to file a petition to have the order rescinded as well. If a mental health provider does the evaluation and believes the person is a danger to themselves or others, then there's no need to rescind the order either.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I urge caution in advocacy of mental health evaluation. Who's doctor? Will that doctor be willing to say you're safe to own guns in the face of liability for being wrong? Does the doctor hate guns too? Does being evaluated get you otherwise banned under other laws because you're being evaluated for mental health?
Due process is the answer. Let the accused stand with counsil in front of a judge. If the judge gets a sense that there's need to act based upon what is seen in court along with other evidence then let him decide upon that.
And yes, make the petitioner pay if they're playing games.

#6 wjs81866

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 15

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:25 AM

I see this being abused by a lot of vindictive women during a divorce. Everyone knows during a contested divorce the attorneys representing the females tell them or at the very least support claiming that she was abused regardless of true or not. Just a reality and this would probably be just another tool thrown into the mix. 



#7 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,281 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:29 AM

I see this being abused by a lot of vindictive women during a divorce. Everyone knows during a contested divorce the attorneys representing the females tell them or at the very least support claiming that she was abused regardless of true or not. Just a reality and this would probably be just another tool thrown into the mix.

Also a tool of spousal abusers to disarm their prey before they violate their restraining orders one final time.

#8 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:44 AM

Full story at link

http://www.dailyhera...event-tragedies

..."A suburban lawmaker has legislation pending in Springfield that she believes could prevent gun-related tragedies like the mass shooting last week at a Florida high school.

For three years, state Rep. Kathleen Willis has been working on a bill that would allow family members to petition the courts to temporarily remove firearms from loved ones believed at risk of hurting themselves or others.


The emergency Lethal Violence Order of Protection would suspend the individual's Firearm Owners Identification card and concealed carry license and would prohibit him or her from owning, purchasing or having control of a gun for up to a year, she said.

"The whole idea is it's a temporary thing. It's to protect people from themselves and from harming others," said Willis, an Addison Democrat. "This is more a proactive type of thing instead of reactive."

If passed, the law would require family members or law enforcement officers to explain their reasoning for filing the petition, Willis said. Perhaps the individual is going through depression or facing serious personal problems, she said, or maybe is in the early stages of dementia.

"It's hard to say, how do we know for sure that person would be harmful to themselves or others?" she said. "We don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution."

Representatives from the Illinois State Rifle Association could not be reached for comment Sunday. However, in a March 2017 newsletter, Executive Director Richard Pearson called the bill "unconstitutional" and said relatives could use it for unintended purposes, such as an act of revenge.

"This act is a weapon against law-abiding gun owners," he said.

Willis said the legislation includes a provision that petitioners found guilty of lying could be charged with perjury. The person subject to the emergency order also can petition to have it rescinded."...

Agree with Pearson. This bill conflicts with the 4th and 5th Amendments. Don't need to be a Supreme Court Justice to see that. Probable cause? Due process?
----------------------------------------------
"suspend the individual's Firearm Owners Identification card and concealed carry license and would prohibit him or her from owning, purchasing or having control of a gun for up to a year, she said."

"If passed, the law would require family members or law enforcement officers to explain their reasoning for filing the petition, Willis said. Perhaps the individual is going through depression or facing serious personal problems, she said, or maybe is in the early stages of dementia."
-----------------------------------------------
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 



#9 solareclipse2

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,258 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:02 AM

 

 

I appreciate the sentiment, but I urge caution in advocacy of mental health evaluation. Who's doctor? Will that doctor be willing to say you're safe to own guns in the face of liability for being wrong? Does the doctor hate guns too? Does being evaluated get you otherwise banned under other laws because you're being evaluated for mental health?

Due process is the answer. Let the accused stand with counsil in front of a judge. If the judge gets a sense that there's need to act based upon what is seen in court along with other evidence then let him decide upon that.
And yes, make the petitioner pay if they're playing games.

 

 

This is a bill that is advocating for people losing rights without anything more than "concern" and the filing of some paperwork. The bill is trying to let some "concerned" citizen speculate the state of someone's mental state without any basis for that claim.

 

Why would the doctor have to say anyone is safe to own guns? That's not the question, the question is whether or not they're a danger to themselves or others and that's one that mental health professionals regularly answer when presented with a patient. Their liability is the same. The result of answering that question is unfortunately someone losing their ability to buy, own, or possess a firearm. 

 

This shouldn't even get to a court. There's no crime being committed here, why waste the time of a judge and the court? Why is a judge a more fitting person to make a decision to act on this than a mental health care professional?


I WILL LOSE EVERY ARGUMENT FROM NOW ON, I WILL WALK AWAY FROM EVERY FIGHT OR CONFRONTATION, I WILL TAKE THE HIGH ROAD.

#10 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,281 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:31 AM

You appear to be approaching this from the position that no claims will have merit.
The proposed legislation would skip due process and suspend one's rights for a year based upon claims of family members and/or law enforcement. (Talk about a new way to get Darted).
You propose having to go to a mental health professional for evaluation. I'm concerned that existing or future legislation could make the act of being evaluated also a disqualifying factor in regaining rights once they are stripped without due process.

#11 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,062 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:54 AM

How would she feel about the same threat to her 1A rights?  Her comments are a threat to the country's safety and I believe she should be muted for the next year.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#12 biggun 1

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 492 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 19 February 2018 - 10:00 AM

as i said in post 2,she is a liberal who is anti gun and is probibally being funded by soros or bloomberg.if this passes every guy going through divorce will loose his rights and have to jump through hoops to get them back.nothing good can come from this bill.



#13 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 19,137 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:51 PM

Even victims advocacy groups have opposed Ms. Willis' bill. That should tell her something.
.
 
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

 
Difficult days demand decisions of faith (Max Lucado)
 
On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.

#14 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 19 February 2018 - 06:35 PM

Idiots will be idiots, and Willis is a shining example of stupidity.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#15 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 19 February 2018 - 07:00 PM

Well, then for ALL our sakes' HELP her OPPONENT unseat her.

Anthony Airdo is running unopposed in the March 20, 2018 Republican primary.

Willis is unopposed in the March 20, 2018 Democrat promary.

Thus he WILL face Willis in the general election November 6, 2018 this fall.

 

He got 8762 of 29,568 votes, thirty percent. 21 percent more would do it. Six thousand  more votes.

Illinois House of Representatives, District 77 General Election, 2016
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Kathleen Willis 70.37% 20,806
Republican Anthony Airdo 29.63% 8,762
Total Votes 29,568
Source: Illinois State Board of Elections


Edited by markthesignguy, 19 February 2018 - 07:02 PM.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
 


#16 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,165 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 19 February 2018 - 11:47 PM

just another ploy to take our rights away.


+1
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#17 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,165 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 20 February 2018 - 12:09 AM

"Perhaps the individual is going through depression or facing serious personal problems, she said, or maybe is in the early stages of dementia."

"It's hard to say, how do we know for sure that person would be harmful to themselves or others?" she said. "We don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of caution."

So if you don't know for sure that means everyone will be at risk of losing their Constitutional rights since you don't care about their Constitutional rights and want to err on the side of caution. Mere suspicion and hearsay will cause people to loose their constitutional right without due process which is scary and tyrannical.

Anyone can say about anybody that they're a danger to themselves and others especially since you own a firearm. This is America and you are innocent until proven guilty and we don't take people's rights based on suspicion. This is the same law people are complaining about in California and is meant to disarm as many people as possible and advances the Bloomberg Soros agenda and is funded by them.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#18 Kaeghl

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,468 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 05

Posted 20 February 2018 - 02:56 AM

Isn't Willis the candidate that was tanking in the polls and was on track to lose big-time, until Bloomturd bought himself a Rep by staking her with enough cash to win? I seem to recall a member here saying that the candidate he worked for was steamrollered by Bloomturd cash in this fashion.

 

Or was that some other bought and paid for anti-rights bigot?



#19 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 20 February 2018 - 04:08 PM

TRJ - if only one doctor does the evaluation, their personal bias about guns will color their judgement.  It should be at least a tribunal with one appointed by the prosecution, one by the defense, with the third doctor agreed upon by both sides.  That could still cause some bias but probably not as much a single doctor.


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#20 TRJ

    The Original TRJ, Accept No Impostors

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,281 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 14

Posted 20 February 2018 - 06:59 PM

TRJ - if only one doctor does the evaluation, their personal bias about guns will color their judgement.  It should be at least a tribunal with one appointed by the prosecution, one by the defense, with the third doctor agreed upon by both sides.  That could still cause some bias but probably not as much a single doctor.


I vote for no medical evaluation at all because of the potential for bias and fear of liability. It's just another avenue ripe for abuse should some mandatory evaluation be imposed.

#21 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,129 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 22 February 2018 - 01:19 PM

TRJ - if only one doctor does the evaluation, their personal bias about guns will color their judgement.  It should be at least a tribunal with one appointed by the prosecution, one by the defense, with the third doctor agreed upon by both sides.  That could still cause some bias but probably not as much a single doctor.


I vote for no medical evaluation at all because of the potential for bias and fear of liability. It's just another avenue ripe for abuse should some mandatory evaluation be imposed.

 

Agreed !!


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#22 357

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,165 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 12

Posted 22 February 2018 - 03:23 PM

Giving police the power to take away people's rights is the definition of a police state.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
George Orwell

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will loose both"
Benjamin Franklin

#23 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 24 February 2018 - 10:22 AM

How would she feel about the same threat to her 1A rights?  Her comments are a threat to the country's safety and I believe she should be muted for the next year.


The vile crap these people spew from their mouths is a MUCH larger problem than guns. Period. You can cause far more harm with bullying and what have you (protected speech). Why did he shoot up the school? Bullying! Why did the Columbine students shoot up the school? Bullying! Why did Hodgkinson shoot Scalise? Because of PROTECTED SPEECH. The right to free speech is far more dangerous than the right to keep and bear arms. Wanna "do something?" Fine and jail journalists who make **** up (repeal Smith-Mundt Modernization Act which makes fake news legal, propaganda legal). Modify laws to make companies like CNN liable for the crap they lie about, someone acts on it and harms another person. Fine and jail people who get people all violent, riled up.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#24 TriumphRider

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 10

Posted 24 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

Here's a thought - Put some real teeth in the bill.  If someone lies in their 'petition', and it is proven - they get 5 years in State Prison.  NO parole.


The Problem is not the problem.  The Problem is your Attitude about the problem.


#25 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,870 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 24 February 2018 - 11:13 AM

The antis have wanted to include some sort of psych evaluation for gun owners, e.g. as part of the FOID application process, pretty much forever. Willis's bill would move us one step closer to their dream.


Ad utrumque paratus


#26 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,342 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 24 February 2018 - 11:21 AM

Restraining Order - a legal term most often used the sentence "Victim was attacked by someone against whom they had a restraining order."

 

As functional an item as a plastic sign demanding No Guns Inside and as contrary to 'truth in advertising' as the Virgin Islands.



#27 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 24 February 2018 - 11:29 AM

Here's a thought - Put some real teeth in the bill.  If someone lies in their 'petition', and it is proven - they get 5 years in State Prison.  NO parole.

 

All they have to do is state an articulable fear.  It's ENTIRELY based on feelings.  Can't prosecute someone for saying "I felt like he was gonna kill me."  It'd be a nightmare to get a perjury conviction (assuming the state would even attempt to do so, which it will not) for someone who lies on a petition for an EOP or one of these LVROs/GVROs ("lethal violence restraining order"/"gun violence restraining order").  THAT is why this is so bleepin' dangerous.  Your rights could be stripped based on another person's emotions.


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#28 Tip

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 461 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 14

Posted 24 February 2018 - 12:34 PM


...

Your rights could be stripped based on another person's emotions.


Or irrational fears.
You might be mentally sound but another, whoâs not mentally sound, can take your rights based upon their mental instability.
All they need to be is suitably eloquent.

Edited by Tip, 24 February 2018 - 12:35 PM.

Never Engage in a Battle of Wits with an unarmed person.

#29 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,540 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 24 February 2018 - 08:20 PM

Or irrational fears.
You might be mentally sound but another, whoâs not mentally sound, can take your rights based upon their mental instability.
All they need to be is suitably eloquent.


Anyone who has ever interacted with someone suffering from a "cluster B" personality disorder (borderline, histrionic, etc) knows this legislation is BAD NEWS. Cluster Bs are also co-morbid with other mental illnesses (major depressive disorder, bipolar, whatever) so you're usually getting two disorders for the price of one. I've dated a borderline before (yes, diagnosed by a licensed head shrinker) and she would lie about...whatever it takes to get you out of her way (or in her way). I've dated a histrionic...drama, drama, drama, made me feel like I was losing MY mind. Nope, just her. Now, these are extreme examples, but these two women seemed completely normal, well-adjusted, until about 3 months later when the "real" person came out. They could stand there and lie to someone's face without batting an eye. Find someone with a bad case of narcissistic personality disorder, make em look like an idiot, and you will pay dearly. This is not a catch all but a simple "Here's what can happen." You never hear "good things" about people with these types of personality disorders, so I'm sure there's more who aren't toxic than are toxic. Just never hear about the people who have it under control because it's under control.

All one really has to do is look at the process for obtaining an ex parte order of protection. Look at how abused it is. They wanna extend that to gun rights. Yeah, no thanks.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#30 springfield shooter

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 154 posts
  • Joined: 18-February 16

Posted 24 February 2018 - 08:43 PM

Even victims advocacy groups have opposed Ms. Willis' bill. That should tell her something.

 

She'd have to be listening first.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users