HB2354 - Firearm Restraining Order - Amendments

[Molly B.]

HB2354 has undergone some very significant changes since first introduced under several different bill numbers as a Lethal Violence Order of Protection bill. We have fought hard against little burden of proof, restraining orders lasting a year before being able to petition to dismiss, lack of search warrants, no option to transfer firearms to trusted friend, family, or FFL and many other serious objections.

 

 

The original Lethal Violence Order of Protection language in HB772 was designed as a gun grabbing, easy to obtain, virtually no-penalty for false testimony ploy to take firearms away from nearly anyone by almost anybody for any reason. It blew out of the Senate with a veto proof majority of 40-14.

 

It was set to sail through the House but hit a wall of opposition from gun owners. With the proposed amendments, it becomes a hard to get, high penalty for false testimony, roadblock that prevents vindictive grudges being used to take firearms from lawful gun owners while providing a process to curb mentally ill respondents - like the Parkland High School and Waffle House killers - from legally possessing firearms who are a danger to themselves or others. And provides those same individuals a clear and timely process for restoration of their rights.

Thanks to all your calls, emails, and visits with your legislators, the bill’s sponsors realized what a fight they had on their hands and have now negotiated some serious amendments to the bill which will be heard in committee this week:

1. The bill is now rightfully named what it is – a Firearm Restraining Order.

2. Ex Parte/Emergency Orders now require probable cause as burden of proof instead of reasonable cause.

3. Ex Parte order’s time limit for a hearing is now ‘as soon as possible, not to exceed 14 days’ and allows the respondent to request a continuance.

4. A search warrant issued by a judge is now required, rather than law enforcement search based on probable cause.

5. There is now an option to transfer firearms to a trusted friend, family member, or FFL. There was no option for this in previous versions of the bill.

6. ISP shall return the respondent’s FOID/CCL upon expiration or termination of the order rather than the respondent having to notify the ISP and request/appeal for return of the cards.

7. Restraining orders are for 6 months instead of a year.

8. Burden of proof has been increased to Clear and Convincing Evidence instead of preponderance of evidence.

9. Burden of proof for respondent to terminate the order is only preponderance of evidence.

10. Burden of proof for renewal of the order is increased to Clear and Convincing Evidence.

11. Penalty for petitioner filing false testimony has been increased to felony perjury instead of misdemeanor.

12. Denied orders will be expunged immediately.

13. Granted orders will be sealed after 3 years.

House Amendment 2 adds:

1. A suspension instead of revocation of a FOID/CCL .

2. Removes the ban on owning firearms while subject to a Firearm Restraining Order, so transferring to another person to hold does not require a transfer of ownership.

The amendments now provide most of the protections we were seeking. There is still a gaping hole in the mental health aspects and it falls short of addressing the need for mental health evaluations like Florida’s Baker Act. However, that will be another bill, another battle, for another day.

Thank you for all your hard work to bring about these changes to a bill that could have been used to easily strip people of their Second Amendment rights based merely on an unfounded whim or a vindictive motive. Stay alert, stay engaged, stay tuned right here to IllinoisCarry! The legislative session is not over and neither is the fight to defend our rights.

[TRJ]

Is this to say we are neutral or support this bill if amendments are adopted?

[Molly B.]

Because there are still problems and gaps, we do not support but the protections we were fighting for are in the amendments. Things could change if the amendment language changes, so we need to keep a close eye on it and watch out for shenanigans from the House sponsors or the Senate side if it makes it over to that chamber.

[SleepingBirdDog]

Thank you, Molly B!

[BobPistol]

Let's hope those amendments will actually make it into the final bill.

 

And definitely need more protections as you mentioned. Keep up the good fight!

[IH8IL]

I think we shouldn’t support it. They start there and it won’t end there.

[tricolor]

This is welcome news. Thanks for all of your hard work Molly!

[Molly B.]

I think we shouldn’t support it. They start there and it won’t end there.

 

 

We do not support the bill.

[Euler]

Because there are still problems and gaps, we do not support but the protections we were fighting for are in the amendments.

So support the amendments (since for now they make the bill less bad) and oppose the overall bill (since it's still not where it needs to be)?

 

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet 15 May. HFA2 isn't listed yet.

[Molly B.]

Is this to say we are neutral or support this bill if amendments are adopted?

 

 

IF the amendments are adopted, neutral.

[Molly B.]

The original Lethal Violence Order of Protection language in HB772 was designed as a gun grabbing, easy to obtain, virtually no-penalty for false testimony ploy to take firearms away from nearly anyone by almost anybody for any reason. It blew out of the Senate with a veto proof majority of 40-14.

 

It was set to sail through the House but hit a wall of opposition from gun owners. With the proposed amendments, it becomes a hard to get, high penalty for false testimony, roadblock that prevents vindictive grudges being used to take firearms from lawful gun owners while providing a process to curb mentally ill respondents - like the Parkland High School and Waffle House killers - from legally possessing firearms who are a danger to themselves or others. And provides those same individuals a clear and timely process for restoration of their rights.

[Lou]

 

Is this to say we are neutral or support this bill if amendments are adopted?

 

 

IF the amendments are adopted, neutral.

Neutral sounds about right. The original bill totally deprived firearm owners of their due process rights.

IF the amendment are added, it becomes far more reasonable.

 

I say IF because I don’t trust Madigan.

[cybermgk]

 

 

Is this to say we are neutral or support this bill if amendments are adopted?

 

IF the amendments are adopted, neutral.

Neutral sounds about right. The original bill totally deprived firearm owners of their due process rights.

IF the amendment are added, it becomes far more reasonable.

 

I say IF because I don’t trust Madigan.

 

I don't trust the vast majority of ILGA members.

 

What will be interesting is what comment from the other side is made on these amendments AND any proposed changes.

 

Because, IF their true purpose is to allow for separation of people dangerous to themselves or others, to protect people, then, they more or less have that bill. Hpwever, if their true intentions (and we know what those are for many) is something else, we will see it in debate or outright opposition to these amendments.

 

Then there will be a bunch that will have no clue as to what any of the bill does, and just vote.

[cybermgk]

Oh, and Molly et al on your side, thank YOU for your work on this. Still don't like the entire concept of bills like this, but you helped [knock wood] make the best lemonade out of lemons, it seems possible. Let's hope it stays in the bill.

[dukemason]

Thank you Molly!

[Just some guy]

Thanks for the hard work, Molly, et al.

[vito]

We are lucky to have you on our side Molly! Keep up the good work.

[civilone]

If HB 2354 language currently contains the "emergency" language wherein a petitioner presents information without the respondent present then I will not support the bill. The 6th amendment allows a respondent to confront witnesses which the "emergency" language does not allow.

[357]

Don't we already have restraining order laws on the books or they want to make it more illegal? This is just another ploy by Bloomberg who is pushing these laws in all states to disarm as many people as possible but thankfully people in Illinois are not falling for it as people in other states have.

[NotEnoughSand]

This is still godawful. Depriving someone of their freedom with no notice or opportunity to defend, and on a probable cause standard, is unconscionable.

I appreciate that this is a better version than where it started, but ex parte orders are a hill worth dying on.

[Bitter Clinger]

Are we getting anything in return?

[BigJim]

Are we getting anything in return?

Yes, bent over.

[Molly B.]

Are we getting anything in return?

 

 

When suburban republicans are willing to cross-over to the anti-gunners side, it does not create an atmosphere conducive to our side getting anything. We need the republicans to hold the line on negotiating something for our side.

[tricolor]

Yep, when you have people like Nybo that are actively selling us down the river to try and score political points with people that would never support him because he has an R by his name we lose leverage.