Jump to content

HB2354 Update - Firearm Restraining Order - Emergency Intervention


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

First, this discussion isn't to discount or discredit the work you have put into this bill. I see the care you have put behind it and I honestly can't remember the last time what is essentially a gun control bill has ever actually included so much common sense. This is the kind of thinking TRULY needed in Illinois.

 

~

 

Second, In what situation would you want to temporarily remove firearms without either

1) A court order for a mental evaluation

2) An arrest warrant

 

I feel like both of these cover everything. If someone is a criminal then issue an arrest warrant. If someone is crazy, issue a mental evaluation. Outside of that everything that a "suspect" has committed is a thought crime. Where exactly does this "new tool" fall into place between these two other options and why should we give our judges that already do such an amazing job keeping us safe additional tools?

 

 

Thank you for the kind words.

 

When I made this argument, and I did, the legal pros explained to me that laws are not all written together in one place in the statute and they are not exclusionary of each other. The problem in seeing this written by itself, the tendency is to see it used by itself and not in conjunction with other aspects of the Mental Health and Disabilities Act or criminal statutes. Is there a judge out there who might do such a thing as remove firearms from a dangerous person and do nothing else? Well, we see judges who sentence people who have committed egregious crimes to just weeks in jail, so yes, it could happen but this would a rare thing. The level of evidence required would bring all sort of legal action into play.

 

I

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tom and Mag, now you're just being silly.

I Luv ALL you do for the cause. But really??? Silly?? To give up some Freedom for some perceived security?

 

May want to rethink that.

 

ALSO, State Senator John Curran told me all of the Bills he voted for he believed would be found Constitutional!!

 

 

 

The silly part is "bumping" your own response . . . and did you miss the part that we have run this by some of the top Second Amendment attorneys and experts in the country??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom and Mag, now you're just being silly.

 

I love you Molly...

But I dont think I'm being 'silly'....

All you need is a judge to claim 'hate crime' which in and of itself can be a subjective accusation...then you get jacked up and in the system to 'prove your innocence'...

Hate crime? Yes...'Your crazy'... If you dont think that can 'bleed' over...then...well....I'm willing to bet hard earned money here and now that there will be a case under such a new law that an innocent gun owner will get charged, it will cost them a ton of cash, and the accuser will walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Guys and Gals,

 

I'm betting that Molly and whomever she enlists in these causes has way more expertise than you guys. I'm not saying it's not ok to challenge her, because she will answer any challenge,...but some of what's being done here in this thread is just a waste of time.

 

These are serious legal issues that are immensely complicated. Unless you have a J.D. or LLB. maybe you ought to let the professionals, or especially, Molly, handle it.

 

Q J.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Guys and Gals,

 

I'm betting that Molly and whomever she enlists in these causes has way more expertise than you guys. I'm not saying it's not ok to challenge her, because she will answer any challenge,...but some of what's being done here in this thread is just a waste of time.

 

These are serious legal issues that are immensely complicated. Unless you have a J.D. or LLB. maybe you ought to let the professionals, or especially, Molly, handle it.

 

Q J.D.

 

My apologies...

I'm just a moron looking at things at face value and having an opinion...

My monkey brain just simply can not comprehend yet another vector with the end goal of removing 2A rights...

'Call me silly"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If someone is apparently so immediately dangerous that you need to take away their constitutional rights, why are they not in a jail or a hospital?

Why is there this middle ground? :bug:

I don't know why you think they wouldn't be either in a hospital or jail. This is not really designed as a stand alone option. This is an extra tool to use in addition to the other options. It would be, in my opinion, a very irresponsible judge to use this as a stand alone action.

 

and we know their are a lot of these judges that will do just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Guys and Gals,

 

I'm betting that Molly and whomever she enlists in these causes has way more expertise than you guys. I'm not saying it's not ok to challenge her, because she will answer any challenge,...but some of what's being done here in this thread is just a waste of time.

 

These are serious legal issues that are immensely complicated. Unless you have a J.D. or LLB. maybe you ought to let the professionals, or especially, Molly, handle it.

 

Q J.D.

Understood . But Never Good to give up Freedom for some little perceived security!

 

Those much smarter than me have said, fought, bled, and died for !!

 

Get on the train, all will be OK !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tom and Mag, now you're just being silly.

 

I love you Molly...

But I dont think I'm being 'silly'....

All you need is a judge to claim 'hate crime' which in and of itself can be a subjective accusation...then you get jacked up and in the system to 'prove your innocence'...

Hate crime? Yes...'Your crazy'... If you dont think that can 'bleed' over...then...well....I'm willing to bet hard earned money here and now that there will be a case under such a new law that an innocent gun owner will get charged, it will cost them a ton of cash, and the accuser will walk away.

 

never underestimate the power of the left.imo it,s not will it happen,it,s when will it happen.answer,as soon an an anti gun judge gets it in his court room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Property is returned without need to petition the court.

 

Is "returned" clearly defined, as in a timeline within the law? Otherwise expect Dart to never return anything without a lawsuit.

 

I would add unaltered and undamaged.

 

Nobody wants an antique, extremely rare, or high value gun to have a case number or some other identifier carved into the gun.

 

Also police need to take care with people's property, nobody wants their high value guns piled carelessly in the back of a police SUV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hey Guys and Gals,

 

I'm betting that Molly and whomever she enlists in these causes has way more expertise than you guys. I'm not saying it's not ok to challenge her, because she will answer any challenge,...but some of what's being done here in this thread is just a waste of time.

 

These are serious legal issues that are immensely complicated. Unless you have a J.D. or LLB. maybe you ought to let the professionals, or especially, Molly, handle it.

 

Q J.D.

 

My apologies...

I'm just a moron looking at things at face value and having an opinion...

My monkey brain just simply can not comprehend yet another vector with the end goal of removing 2A rights...

'Call me silly"

 

Done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a community, here are our options:

 

Say this bill is no good, even though it's been looked over by 2nd amendment friendly attorneys, and is being advocated for by someone who has done a tremendous amount for 2nd amendment rights in this state

 

OR

 

We can say "this bill sucks, it takes away our guns!" and not support it, and instead get a bill down the road that is MUCH less sympathetic to our needs and rights.

 

The choice is pretty simple here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a mental illness, the judge can issue an order for a mental health evaluation.

 

This their 'in'... What constitutes 'convincing evidence'...

An argument with a neighbor where he claims "he 'said' he was gonna kill me'??

 

I dont buy it....

A 'he said she said' situation can have you tossed into a booby hatch and your 2A rights STRIPPED from you...

Funny....I recall an eastern country carrying out such 'mental health' judgements as a matter of course not so many decades ago....

 

This guy gets tossed in jail for a 'hate crime'...

“You should not be wearing that in the United States of America,” Trybus tells her.

The cop who thought nothing serious of it...resigns...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-cook-county-forest-preserves-investigation-20180710-story.html

Gee..I can only image what would happen to somebody who owns guns!

 

Just another 'law' that takes another piece of our 2A rights 'cake' and leaving us with crumbs.

 

 

 

Unequivocally, that idiot Trybus who harassed and intimidated that 24-year-old woman, who is an American citizen, by the way, DID commit a crime motivated by animus towards that woman's race. She also had a permit to be holding a party in that area, which she had to at the very least spend the time and effort to apply for, if not pay a fee.

 

He is UNQUESTIONABLY in the wrong and committed an illegal act, against someone who was female, smaller, and weaker than he was, and did so under the influence of alcohol and drugs, which reduces impulse control and makes aggressors much more likely to engage in physical violence.

 

He should be convicted and given the maximum possible sentence for his CRIMINAL behavior and for the psychological trauma that his threatening behavior inflicted on that SMALLER, WEAKER FEMALE victim.

 

She should also sue him civilly for his actions, and take a lot of his money as recompense for what she had to endure.

 

The officer, whose job it is to SERVE AND PROTECT, failed his duty at minimum out of incompetence, and likely because he shared some sort of inherent bias towards the "foreign" female—who is an American citizen.

 

Therefore, he FAILED to do his job, miserably, and deserves to be fired. However, he was such an absolute coward, he resigned rather than act like an adult and face the music for his inaction, and explain why he failed to do his job for the woman, whose taxes pay his salary.

 

I dealt with female domestic violence victims of male attackers on a very regular basis, teaching them self-protection and doing security for getting them out of dangerous environments, so I know extremely well what situations such as this can cause on a victim who is threatened and harassed repeatedly, and has no idea whether that violent imbecile will escalate to physical harm.

 

ANYONE who disagrees with that is a worthless, spineless piece of **** deserving of absolutely ZERO respect. They are also likely a bigot and do not respect the Constitutional and civil rights of the person who was threatened in this incident.

 

Quite simply, they are a failure as an American and as a human being.

 

So, who thinks that Trybus isn't a scumbag and that the officer who failed to do his job in such a way, that if his inaction were put in the context of failing to help a firearm owner who is being harassed by some anti-gun social justice warrior, should be held accountable and removed from his position?

 

Anyone?

 

Incidentally, here is the fine, upstanding citizen that Trybus is:

 

Cook County court records indicate that Trybus has arrests dating to 1997, when he was charged with criminal trespass to a residence a few days after an order of protection was issued against him. The same year, he was charged with domestic battery, but both cases were later dropped and the order of protection dismissed, records show.

In 2001, he was again charged with domestic battery, but that case was also dismissed; five years later, he was convicted of battery, causing bodily harm, and was sentenced to probation, according to the records.

A violent, repeat offender who has a history of causing harm against women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years, North Shore politicians and police departments have claimed that even though they knew Laurie Dann was dangerously mentally ill and had access to firearms, their hands were tied. And they've used her rampage to justify everything from their pre-McDonald gun laws to their current ridiculous semiauto bans. A law along these lines would have given them the tools they claim they needed to prevent her crimes. Whether they would have used it is anybody's guess. Had they done so, a lot of people would have been better off. Even if they hadn't used it, its existence still would have prevented them from attempting to hang Laurie Dann's crimes around our necks.

 

Let's get this law on the books. If there's some unforeseen loophole that tramples our rights, then let's fight that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The officer, whose job it is to SERVE AND PROTECT, failed his duty at minimum out of incompetence, and likely because he shared some sort of inherent bias towards the "foreign" female—who is an American citizen.

 

Therefore, he FAILED to do his job, miserably, and deserves to be fired. However, he was such an absolute coward, he resigned rather than act like an adult and face the music for his inaction, and explain why he failed to do his job for the woman, whose taxes pay his salary.

By quitting before any disciplinary action could be initiated, Connor (the officer) can now apply for a law enforcement job in another jurisdiction and say truthfully that he has not faced disciplinary action. There's no information to determine if Connor has done so repeatedly, but so-called "nomad cops" travel from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, doing a bad enough job at each that eventually disciplinary action is about to be taken, then resigning and moving on to the next before any action actually begins. Even if this is his only time, he has more options available to him by quitting and avoiding the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years, North Shore politicians and police departments have claimed that even though they knew Laurie Dann was dangerously mentally ill and had access to firearms, their hands were tied. And they've used her rampage to justify everything from their pre-McDonald gun laws to their current ridiculous semiauto bans. A law along these lines would have given them the tools they claim they needed to prevent her crimes. Whether they would have used it is anybody's guess. Had they done so, a lot of people would have been better off. Even if they hadn't used it, its existence still would have prevented them from attempting to hang Laurie Dann's crimes around our necks.

 

Let's get this law on the books. If there's some unforeseen loophole that tramples our rights, then let's fight that.

This. In the opening post, Molly even said she previously had a situation where this proposed law could have helped her when already existing law at the time did not.

 

Most of us here own guns. Most of us here are not criminals. (I possess no verifiable demographic statistics to back those statements up, but they're probably both true.) This law targets specific people (people engaged in escalating behavior toward violent crime) rather than broad classes of people (everybody who owns a gun, which in constitutional terms is everybody, because everybody can own a gun). Those specific people do not have their 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights suspended just because someone complained about them. Most especially the accused get to face their accusers; the anonymous tip line is gone; and people who file false complaints face consequences.

 

There are no mag bans, semi-auto bans, ammo bans, or any other bans in this law. There's no registration, universal or otherwise, in this law. It's not taking our collective cake, but it might be a way to get some of it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Molly B., December 5, 2018 at 12:30 AM - No reason given
Hidden by Molly B., December 5, 2018 at 12:30 AM - No reason given

 

For years, North Shore politicians and police departments have claimed that even though they knew Laurie Dann was dangerously mentally ill and had access to firearms, their hands were tied. And they've used her rampage to justify everything from their pre-McDonald gun laws to their current ridiculous semiauto bans. A law along these lines would have given them the tools they claim they needed to prevent her crimes. Whether they would have used it is anybody's guess. Had they done so, a lot of people would have been better off. Even if they hadn't used it, its existence still would have prevented them from attempting to hang Laurie Dann's crimes around our necks. Let's get this law on the books. If there's some unforeseen loophole that tramples our rights, then let's fight that.

This. In the opening post, Molly even said she previously had a situation where this proposed law could have helped her when already existing law at the time did not.Most of us here own guns. Most of us here are not criminals. (I possess no verifiable demographic statistics to back those statements up, but they're probably both true.) This law targets specific people (people engaged in escalating behavior toward violent crime) rather than broad classes of people (everybody who owns a gun, which in constitutional terms is everybody, because everybody can own a gun). Those specific people do not have their 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights suspended just because someone complained about them. Most especially the accused get to face their accusers; the anonymous tip line is gone; and people who file false complaints face consequences.There are no mag bans, semi-auto bans, ammo bans, or any other bans in this law. There's no registration, universal or otherwise, in this law. It's not taking our collective cake, but it might be a way to get some of it back.

Agree

Link to comment
By finding the people involved in the park incident guilty, you commit the act that people fear will become commonplace with the law. The accused are presumed innocent at this point. The video is certainly damning but it is only a snippet in time and we do not know what happened before or after. Many are concerned that a judge will make the leap to guilty on a domestic violence claim just like you have on this assault charge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can’t simultaneously support the 2nd amendment and support ANY form of control over it. It is simply impossible. Will we now be able to restrict people’s 1st amendment for the exact same reasons? If you can’t equally apply the same law across all of the bill of rights then you can’t apply it to any of the bill of rights. It literally states “shall not be infringed”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Father Pleger tonight stated that he “could own firearms”!!

 

He also stated that he was “against the NRA”.

 

I personally feel threatened !!!

 

Anybody see a problem??

 

Yes, just because you feel threatened does not mean you have clear and convincing evidence that you are in danger.

 

no need to feel threatened by the good father,he has no power and he is not crazy.he thought he could shut down an interstate highway for a march against gun violence that we all know would be against the law.he has stated that he has much bigger plans in the works but does not feel the need to show his cards now.why would anyone feel threatened by him?let,s face it,this guy is a total nut job who is on a mission and nothing will stop him,NOT EVEN THE LAW.in this communist state the law is behind him.if you don,t feel threatened by that maybe it,s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Father Pleger tonight stated that he “could own firearms”!!

He also stated that he was “against the NRA”.

I personally feel threatened !!!

Anybody see a problem??

 

Yes, just because you feel threatened does not mean you have clear and convincing evidence that you are in danger.

no need to feel threatened by the good father,he has no power and he is not crazy.he thought he could shut down an interstate highway for a march against gun violence that we all know would be against the law.he has stated that he has much bigger plans in the works but does not feel the need to show his cards now.why would anyone feel threatened by him?let,s face it,this guy is a total nut job who is on a mission and nothing will stop him,NOT EVEN THE LAW.in this communist state the law is behind him.if you don,t feel threatened by that maybe it,s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

But that is quite different than clear and convincing evidence that some one is an imminent danger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

molly,you are correct,i feel no threat of physical violence from him but i see a strong threat of loosing 2nd amendment rights partially because of his ability to spew lies and he has the power to break the law to the extent the top cop in the cpd is doing it not only with him but in front of the law breaking pack leading the way.i know how hard you work to protect our rights and i very much appreciate that and i know if you approve of this bill it must have some good but i have a problem accepting any bill that cuts into my 2a rights,or any rights for that matter.in my mind if you give an inch they will come back wanting 10 miles.i am not one that believes we must act just because people like the good father say we must.imo we need to protect all of our rights to the best of our ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a community, here are our options:

 

Say this bill is no good, even though it's been looked over by 2nd amendment friendly attorneys, and is being advocated for by someone who has done a tremendous amount for 2nd amendment rights in this state

 

OR

 

We can say "this bill sucks, it takes away our guns!" and not support it, and instead get a bill down the road that is MUCH less sympathetic to our needs and rights.

 

The choice is pretty simple here.

So the choices are either be poked in the eye or be punched in the throat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...