Jump to content

Under the new laws can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation?


Recommended Posts

Under the new laws in Illinois can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation that you may be "dangerous"? Does an accused person have any due process or do they just believe the accuser and strip you of your guns? It seems like this could be abused by so many people to get even with people they dislike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the new laws in Illinois can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation that you may be "dangerous"? Does an accused person have any due process or do they just believe the accuser and strip you of your guns? It seems like this could be abused by so many people to get even with people they dislike.

 

There are wildly differing opinions on this. IMO, it has the ability to be abused, it has been abused in other states, but only time will tell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you refer to the "red flag law". You do not get "due process" until after your rights & property have been taken.

and “ex post facto due process” is contrary to intent of “due process”

 

And the onus is on the gun owner to prove they are not a risk. In other words you are assumed guilty until you are able to prove you're innocent. Proving you are not a risk will be a big uphill battle as judges will want to error on the side of protecting the public over the rights of an individual least they restore your rights and you do something bad resulting in the judge being blamed for allow you to have a gun. There is a clause in the law where someone making a false claim can be prosecuted but that will probably never happen because the state will not want to risk scaring people from reporting out of fear of being prosecuted over a false flag. Besides how do you prove someone didn't truly feel you were a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(725 ILCS 5/) Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.

 

(725 ILCS 5/110-10) (from Ch. 38, par. 110-10)

Sec. 110-10. Conditions of bail bond.

(a) If a person is released prior to conviction, either upon payment of bail security or on his or her own recognizance, the conditions of the bail bond shall be that he or she will:

(5) At a time and place designated by the court,
surrender all firearms in his or her possession to a law enforcement officer designated by the court to take custody of and impound the firearms and physically surrender his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card to the clerk of the circuit court when the offense the person has been charged with is a forcible felony, stalking, aggravated stalking, domestic battery, any violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, or the Cannabis Control Act that is classified as a Class 2 or greater felony, or any felony violation of Article 24 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012; the court may, however, forgo the imposition of this condition when the circumstances of the case clearly do not warrant it or when its imposition would be impractical; if the Firearm Owner's Identification Card is confiscated, the clerk of the circuit court shall mail the confiscated card to the Illinois State Police; all legally possessed firearms shall be returned to the person upon the charges being dismissed, or if the person is found not guilty, unless the finding of not guilty is by reason of insanity; and

It appears they may confiscate FOID and firearms under certain conditions.Although this isn't new law,as far as I know this is still valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the new laws in Illinois can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation that you may be "dangerous"? Does an accused person have any due process or do they just believe the accuser and strip you of your guns? It seems like this could be abused by so many people to get even with people they dislike.

 

No, the person making the claim must have clear and convincing evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge: what “clear and convincing” evidence can you present for us to proceed with this lethal order of protection?

 

Plaintiff: well your honor, the person in question has guns, many guns, and well.... I’m afraid that person may harm or kill me. In fact, the friend I brought with me today will attest to the fact that the person has threatened to do so.....

 

Judge: well, if you and your friend both say so, then that seems pretty “clear and convincing” to me...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Under the new laws in Illinois can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation that you may be "dangerous"? Does an accused person have any due process or do they just believe the accuser and strip you of your guns? It seems like this could be abused by so many people to get even with people they dislike.

 

 

 

No, the person making the claim must have clear and convincing evidence.

How do you prove someone's lieing?

 

Wife: "he pointed his gun at me and said he could shoot me and make it look like an accident."

 

How do you prove she made it up?

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one does not need a law degree to understand how unfair this law is.no one should be presumed guilty without a trial,EVER.a lot of law abiding gun owners are going to be wrongfully stripped of their 2nd amendment rights and will need to spend thousands of dollars to prove they are innocent.the law said if a person lies they are breaking the law and will be prosecuted.i wonder if they will be liable for the costs the innocent person spent to prove they were innocent.imo this is just another ploy to strip law abiding citizens of their 2nd amendment rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Under the new laws in Illinois can you lose your gun rights with just an accusation that you may be "dangerous"? Does an accused person have any due process or do they just believe the accuser and strip you of your guns? It seems like this could be abused by so many people to get even with people they dislike.

 

No, the person making the claim must have clear and convincing evidence.

 

in reality all they have to do is convince a anti gun judge that her hubby threatened her,a fake tear and a bat of the eye and the judge is convinced.believe me,it happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judge: what “clear and convincing” evidence can you present for us to proceed with this lethal order of protection?

 

Plaintiff: well your honor, the person in question has guns, many guns, and well.... I’m afraid that person may harm or kill me. In fact, the friend I brought with me today will attest to the fact that the person has threatened to do so.....

 

Judge: well, if you and your friend both say so, then that seems pretty “clear and convincing” to me...........

 

This is exactly what happened to one of my buddy's friends.

 

His ex wife got their daughter to go with her to petition to have the guy's guns taken from him. I know the guy, and there's absolutely no way he did what they're claiming he did.

 

One day the sheriffs show up, and then proceed to take all of his guns.

 

All based on the lies of his ex wife and daughter.

 

They literally provided the court with zero proof, and it was all hearsay.

 

This is exactly what I was afraid of when this law was passed. What happens when the court realizes that the ex and daughter were both lying? Nothing, that's what will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Judge: what “clear and convincing” evidence can you present for us to proceed with this lethal order of protection?

 

Plaintiff: well your honor, the person in question has guns, many guns, and well.... I’m afraid that person may harm or kill me. In fact, the friend I brought with me today will attest to the fact that the person has threatened to do so.....

 

Judge: well, if you and your friend both say so, then that seems pretty “clear and convincing” to me...........

 

This is exactly what happened to one of my buddy's friends.

 

His ex wife got their daughter to go with her to petition to have the guy's guns taken from him. I know the guy, and there's absolutely no way he did what they're claiming he did.

 

One day the sheriffs show up, and then proceed to take all of his guns.

 

All based on the lies of his ex wife and daughter.

 

They literally provided the court with zero proof, and it was all hearsay.

 

This is exactly what I was afraid of when this law was passed. What happens when the court realizes that the ex and daughter were both lying? Nothing, that's what will happen.

 

 

PM the specifics to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Judge: what “clear and convincing” evidence can you present for us to proceed with this lethal order of protection?

 

Plaintiff: well your honor, the person in question has guns, many guns, and well.... I’m afraid that person may harm or kill me. In fact, the friend I brought with me today will attest to the fact that the person has threatened to do so.....

 

Judge: well, if you and your friend both say so, then that seems pretty “clear and convincing” to me...........

 

This is exactly what happened to one of my buddy's friends.

 

His ex wife got their daughter to go with her to petition to have the guy's guns taken from him. I know the guy, and there's absolutely no way he did what they're claiming he did.

 

One day the sheriffs show up, and then proceed to take all of his guns.

 

All based on the lies of his ex wife and daughter.

 

They literally provided the court with zero proof, and it was all hearsay.

 

This is exactly what I was afraid of when this law was passed. What happens when the court realizes that the ex and daughter were both lying? Nothing, that's what will happen.

 

 

PM the specifics to me.

 

PM Sent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Judge: what “clear and convincing” evidence can you present for us to proceed with this lethal order of protection?

Plaintiff: well your honor, the person in question has guns, many guns, and well.... I’m afraid that person may harm or kill me. In fact, the friend I brought with me today will attest to the fact that the person has threatened to do so.....

Judge: well, if you and your friend both say so, then that seems pretty “clear and convincing” to me...........

 

This is exactly what happened to one of my buddy's friends.

 

His ex wife got their daughter to go with her to petition to have the guy's guns taken from him. I know the guy, and there's absolutely no way he did what they're claiming he did.

 

One day the sheriffs show up, and then proceed to take all of his guns.

 

All based on the lies of his ex wife and daughter.

 

They literally provided the court with zero proof, and it was all hearsay.

 

This is exactly what I was afraid of when this law was passed. What happens when the court realizes that the ex and daughter were both lying? Nothing, that's what will happen.

I had 2 friends go through this nearly exact same thing as this, before the red flag law was in place. Both lived in my town, both close friends of mine, neither was guilty, both were going through a nasty breakup of a marriage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friend X-cop bad marriage lawyer tactic to motivate him to settle, FOID revoked for an OP that was BS. This before red flag. It was easy then, but had to be family, wife, partner, child, now it can be just anyone with an axe to grind and you really think if someone claims fear for life that they won't rubber stamp it in this state? Pfft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friend X-cop bad marriage lawyer tactic to motivate him to settle, FOID revoked for an OP that was BS. This before red flag. It was easy then, but had to be family, wife, partner, child, now it can be just anyone with an axe to grind and you really think if someone claims fear for life that they won't rubber stamp it in this state? Pfft.

 

(a) A petitioner may request a 6-month firearms restraining order

 

Definition of petitioner:

 

"Petitioner" means:

(1) a family member of the respondent as defined in

 

this Act; or
(2) a law enforcement officer, who files a petition
"Family member of the respondent" means a spouse, parent, child, or step-child of the respondent, any other person related by blood or present marriage to the respondent, or a person who shares a common dwelling with the respondent.

 

http://www.ilga.gov/...77&ChapterID=39

 

alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been threatened by a family member to use this law for revenge.

 

Politiscians who voted for this law don't care about the Constitution or due process and confiscation of property or that this country is turning into a police state. All they care about is getting contributions from Bloomberg to pass these laws and impose his agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be accused then punished immediately as if convicted has beed a serious problem for a long time with our legal system. There should be a much higher standard than an accusation. Even then the state should pay for all your legal defense.

Our legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty. This law says you are guilty until proven innocent. Allegation is not evidence and anyone can make an allegation. This law goes against the legal system and the Constitution and is hard to believe how it became law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, is this law being challenged in court for violating multiple aspects of the Constitution and laws, as listed above?

 

If not, then WHY isn't it being challenged? There appear to be several instances mentioned above where outright abuse or threatened misuse have occurred already, providing provable harm that should be sufficient basis for a court challenge. In addition, the harm cannot be rectified by merely giving the innocent but accused back their firearms and punishing the false accuser, since it cannot be taken back that the falsely accused were, if even temporarily, deprived of their rights and property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know how the judicial system works, right? You know the need for a good plaintiff, the process of challenging/appealing a ruling in court, etc., for a law that just went into effect on January 1 that would be a hard push if no one has been denied their rights yet and come forward to request help.

 

In the thread above, there's at least one person who said that actually happened to someone they know well (DD123) and one person (357) who said he has been threatened by someone with the abuse of the law. That would to me seem to be a curtailment of rights resulting from that law right there.

 

Also, one of the viable grounds for having standing for a legal challenge is . . .

 

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called "chilling effects" doctrine.

 

And if a law that violates the First Amendment can have a "chilling effect" on speech, then a law that violates the Second Amendment can, by inarguable definition, have a chilling effect on the right to keep and bear arms, as ruled on by the Supreme Court in Heller, McDonald, et cetera.

 

How can this law NOT have a directly chilling effect? Also, it's already been demonstrated by actual deaths of individuals who were falsely accused in other states, with this sort of law, that there is a real and undeniable risk for harm that requires relief provided by enjoining these kinds of laws. That guy in Maryland who had a relative call one of these out on him, ended up being killed by the police.

 

Surely, SURELY, there must be viable grounds based on that alone for a whole slew of law-abiding firearm owners to join together and file a lawsuit to get this enjoined and thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know how the judicial system works, right? You know the need for a good plaintiff, the process of challenging/appealing a ruling in court, etc., for a law that just went into effect on January 1 that would be a hard push if no one has been denied their rights yet and come forward to request help.

 

In the thread above, there's at least one person who said that actually happened to someone they know well (DD123) and one person (357) who said he has been threatened by someone with the abuse of the law. That would to me seem to be a curtailment of rights resulting from that law right there.

 

 

 

Actually happened to someone they know - but we don't know that someone - did it happen before the law passed or after? Being threatened by someone is not actionable to challenge the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

To be accused then punished immediately as if convicted has beed a serious problem for a long time with our legal system. There should be a much higher standard than an accusation. Even then the state should pay for all your legal defense.

Our legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty. This law says you are guilty until proven innocent. Allegation is not evidence and anyone can make an allegation. This law goes against the legal system and the Constitution and is hard to believe how it became law.

 

I'm not surprised this became law. This is just another way to attack ALL law abiding gun owners. the plan is to make owning firearms so inconvenient, costly, or shameful that we just give up and get rid of them. look at the proposed legislation right now.... want LEO reading your social media ? that may be embarrassing . CCL costs a lot for the license and classes so many on a budget may not be able to afford this Constitutional right. the ISP is doing great job jerking everyone around with ridiculous wait times for a renewal of a FOID or CCL and even have a phone number nobody answers. how about the semi auto ban bill ? better get rid of those guns while you can or you go to prison ( real criminals get probation ). this red flag garbage is just for you guys and gals that may have a bitter ex, goofy family member who doesn't like you ( who doesn't ? ), or ???. Now you have to wonder and maybe worry you'll get a knock on the door and surprise !!! you get to sit in a police car while the cops scoop up your stuff. that'll look good won't it ? the neighbors looking out the windows as the cops walk out of your house carrying your firearms and you're sitting in a police car probably cuffed. those are things law abiding respectable people wish to avoid and that's why the ILGA is doing this, it's too get you to voluntarily give up your rights.

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...