InterestedBystander Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:52 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:52 PM Full story at link http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180219/suburban-lawmaker-gun-restraining-order-could-prevent-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 The person subject to the emergency order also can petition to have it rescinded."... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggun 1 Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:57 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:57 PM just another ploy to take our rights away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:59 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 01:59 PM "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InterestedBystander Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:01 PM Author Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:01 PM On a related AP story at article above http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20180218/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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:25 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:25 PM "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjs81866 Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:25 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:25 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:29 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:29 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:44 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 02:44 PM Full story at link http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180219/suburban-lawmaker-gun-restraining-order-could-prevent-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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solareclipse2 Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:02 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:02 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:31 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:31 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:54 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 03:54 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggun 1 Posted February 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 04:00 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted February 19, 2018 at 08:51 PM Share Posted February 19, 2018 at 08:51 PM Even victims advocacy groups have opposed Ms. Willis' bill. That should tell her something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrTriple Posted February 20, 2018 at 12:35 AM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 12:35 AM Idiots will be idiots, and Willis is a shining example of stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted February 20, 2018 at 01:00 AM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 01:00 AM 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, 2016Party Candidate Vote % VotesDemocratic Kathleen Willis 70.37% 20,806Republican Anthony Airdo 29.63% 8,762Total Votes 29,568Source: Illinois State Board of Elections Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:47 AM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:47 AM just another ploy to take our rights away.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted February 20, 2018 at 06:09 AM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 06:09 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaeghl Posted February 20, 2018 at 08:56 AM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 08:56 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted February 20, 2018 at 10:08 PM Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 10:08 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRJ Posted February 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM Share Posted February 21, 2018 at 12:59 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted February 22, 2018 at 07:19 PM Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 07:19 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 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
357 Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:23 PM Share Posted February 22, 2018 at 09:23 PM Giving police the power to take away people's rights is the definition of a police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 24, 2018 at 04:22 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 04:22 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriumphRider Posted February 24, 2018 at 04:34 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 04:34 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hap Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:13 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:13 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandyP Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:21 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:21 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:29 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 05:29 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted February 24, 2018 at 06:34 PM Share Posted February 24, 2018 at 06:34 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 25, 2018 at 02:20 AM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 02:20 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
springfield shooter Posted February 25, 2018 at 02:43 AM Share Posted February 25, 2018 at 02:43 AM Even victims advocacy groups have opposed Ms. Willis' bill. That should tell her something. She'd have to be listening first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.