Jump to content

SB2387 SFA1 - sanity check


wig

Recommended Posts

I hope I'm quoting the right bill, this is in regards to family transfer of firearms and registering and releasing by the court...

 

But pardon me, isn't that technically in place TODAY?

 

1) owner has FOID

2) owner acquires firearm

3) owner loses FOID due to reason X

4) ISP comes and gets FOID and asks for firearms to go away

5) owner still has no FOID...

6) during period #5 ... temporary custodian from #4 gives them back

 

Technically owner is not entitled to have firearms at the time they are given back so it's already a broken law.

 

So why create a new law? Can someone please bring up that logic to the reactive people who drafted this amendment?

 

Because in a lawful situation, where owner is released from whatever caused the pullback of firearms... let's resume at 6....

 

6) owner is allowed firearms by ISP and is re-issued their FOID

7) custodian returns firearms

 

In this scenario, they are already doing what this new amendment states... so why create more ridiculous legislation (rhetorical question).

 

Net-net, current FOID and firearm transfer rules, already do all of this. No clarification or other action is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a feeling in Springfield that something should be done to prevent another Tennessee type occurrence where the father may have given the firearms back to the son. This bill is one of those "somethings". Given what we think we know of the intent, there are some technical problems with the way it's written. Maybe it can be fixed, maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a feeling in Springfield that something should be done to prevent another Tennessee type occurrence where the father may have given the firearms back to the son. This bill is one of those "somethings". Given what we think we know of the intent, there are some technical problems with the way it's written. Maybe it can be fixed, maybe not.

Was the son Illinois resident? My understanding was he lived in Tennesseee and why would he not get his guns back as FOID was no longer required? Seem like the bill is meant to fix something that was not broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There's a feeling in Springfield that something should be done to prevent another Tennessee type occurrence where the father may have given the firearms back to the son. This bill is one of those "somethings". Given what we think we know of the intent, there are some technical problems with the way it's written. Maybe it can be fixed, maybe not.

Was the son Illinois resident? My understanding was he lived in Tennesseee and why would he not get his guns back as FOID was no longer required? Seem like the bill is meant to fix something that was not broken.

 

 

Word is the Feds had something to do with his firearms being taken - if he was on the federal prohibited list and the father returned the firearms then he violated a federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

There's a feeling in Springfield that something should be done to prevent another Tennessee type occurrence where the father may have given the firearms back to the son. This bill is one of those "somethings". Given what we think we know of the intent, there are some technical problems with the way it's written. Maybe it can be fixed, maybe not.

Was the son Illinois resident? My understanding was he lived in Tennesseee and why would he not get his guns back as FOID was no longer required? Seem like the bill is meant to fix something that was not broken.

 

 

Word is the Feds had something to do with his firearms being taken - if he was on the federal prohibited list and the father returned the firearms then he violated a federal law.

 

What is federal prohibited list? Is that something determined by a court? I could understand if that were the case, then federal charges against father would be in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he couldn't pass a NICS check. Plus, if he was no longer a resident of Illinois, not sure the father could legally transfer the firearms to him without going through an FFL.

ooooohhhhhh

 

now THAT'S an angle!!

 

 

WELL DONE Molly!!!!!!!! :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he couldn't pass a NICS check. Plus, if he was no longer a resident of Illinois, not sure the father could legally transfer the firearms to him without going through an FFL.

 

If the father knew he was a prohibited person, he could not transfer the firearms no matter what. The question is, did his status change back? Also is gets a lot more fuzzy as there was no financial transaction and with a "long" gun you don't need to use a FFL anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Was the son Illinois resident? My understanding was he lived in Tennesseee and why would he not get his guns back as FOID was no longer required? Seem like the bill is meant to fix something that was not broken.

 

Do our over Educated and Super smarter than us peasants really care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys and gals,

 

Re: the Tn shooter, I think I read his firearms were taken away because he tried to get access to the White House, so that would be a federal issue. Lots of stories on the net and 100 different stories about it on the radio, each version slightly different.

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...