School administrator's must report students who are a danger to themselves or others

[Molly B.]

Did we really just pass a bill that will allow school administrator's to make a call and have anyone's foid revoked? And no legal repercussions for it as well? sb114?

 

It's important that we be careful about our subject titles and posts. It's easy to create a panic response or send out information that is not quite correct. School administrators cannot revoke a FOID, anonymously or otherwise. They are now required to report a student who they determine is a danger to themselves or others. the ISP will then make a determination whether to revoke the student's FOID card or not. The same legal process of appealling a revoked card is available to the card holder in these circumstances..

[KarlJ]

So if my kid talks about hunting deer, and the administrator is some rabid anti-gunner and tries to get my foid revoked for being a hunter, I could sue them for willful & wanton misconduct?

 

 

[tkroenlein]

Okay, I'll dissent. I'm not sure that this is that big of a deal. They can only report *students* as a danger to themselves or others, just like they always could, only now it's directly to ISP within 24 hours, instead of DCFS or wherever they did before. Willful and wanton misconduct is explicitly excluded from civil immunity so you absolutely have the ability to take legal action against an individual who is abusing reporting privileges.

 

ETA: I should add that I don't believe this does one single thing to affect the safety of anyone. Just another feel good.

[jon70]

Your right I missed the student part. I still think reporting with no repercussions by un trained personel is a bad idea. Can your kid being reported lead to the revocation of all foids in the house hold? And if it is false how do you prove it?

[jon70]

Thanks molly. Coming here and asking questions really helps finding out what's hyperbole and what's fact.

[lockman]

The person reporting is immune but the school district is not.

[il.bill]

... "Clear and present danger" has the meaning as provided in paragraph (2) of the definition of "clear and present danger" in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

 

 

...

 

I understand the application of the 'clear and present danger' definition, but I see nothing in Public Act 098-0600 http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=098-0600 where the amended FOID Card Act (430 ILCS 65/8.1) in (d)(2) says the object of the administrator's determination applies to only student - it states "person".

[il.bill]

Having the right to appeal the revocation of one's FOID Card in this procedure is at least something, but the whole process involving an anonymous school administrator does not appear, to me, to be a positive thing, on balance.

[Molly B.]

I'm not seeing the identity of the person doing the reporting as being kept "anonymous" . Am I missing something here?

[skinnyb82]

The problem (well the one that says "abuse this") is the civil immunity provision unless willful or wanton misconduct. Good luck proving that in court if you do file a lawsuit. Evidence that an administrator or LEO has it out for someone? They'd be stupid to leave a paper trail or tell anyone. This will be abused, it will be challenged in court, it will be stricken from the books as unconstitutional. Giving school administrators and LEOs, who have about zero training in the field of mental health, a blank check to report people and the burden of proof is placed on the person who was reported and the person reporting is given de facto absolute immunity. Leaving it up to the ISP to decide whether to revoke? Well we know there's only one option there...revocation. The question is, would these same people be considered experts for purposes of judicial proceedings. Answer, not a chance.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[borgranta]

Did we really just pass a bill that will allow school administrator's to make a call and have anyone's foid revoked? And no legal repercussions for it as well? sb114?

They are only allowed to report students as a possible danger and it said nothing about them reporting parents.

[tkroenlein]

I'm not seeing the identity of the person doing the reporting as being kept "anonymous" . Am I missing something here?

 

Nope. It's "privileged and confidential," but not anonymous. It won't be public record, but I would think that the reporting individuals name would be available, should the need for scrutinization arise.

[mostholycerebus]

Honestly, I would rather they report to ISP than DCFS. DCFS is a much more difficult organization to fight, they often have a lower burden of proof to remove rights and many lawyers dont even understand their system, which is not standard law.

[pdpsc]

Did we really just pass a bill that will allow school administrator's to make a call and have anyone's foid revoked? And no legal repercussions for it as well? sb114?

 

It's important that we be careful about our subject titles and posts. It's easy to create a panic response or send out information that is not quite correct. School administrators cannot revoke a FOID, anonymously or otherwise. They are now required to report a student who they determine is a danger to themselves or others. the ISP will then make a determination whether to revoke the student's FOID card or not. The same legal process of appealling a revoked card is available to the card holder in these circumstances..

 

 

What she said.

[mullet man]

Even more reason to home school my kids.

 

 

[GWBH]

So if my kid talks about hunting deer, and the administrator is some rabid anti-gunner and tries to get my foid revoked for being a hunter, I could sue them for willful & wanton misconduct?

 

I guess they could try, but his or her feelings about hunting should be well known among the school personnel, which could be used as a proponent of willful misconduct if nothing else your kids did was justifiable.

We do have a DNR in Illinois that sets dates and laws for hunting seasons - are they also going to aledge the state is a present danger to iteself and others because it speaks about hunting? (On second thought - I guess one could argue that the state is a danger to others!!)

 

Without some oversight, this could become an apple with a worm in it for the state.

[sirflyguy]

This was in the carry law. It is intended to reduce the chances of the young disturbed killers like the Colorado movie theater and Newtown school mass murderers from slipping through the cracks

 

We objected to untrained school officials making this determination. However, the appeal/review process for revoked FOID cards is still the same and can't be denied.

You beat me to it, MollyB. You have to read the whole bill to catch it.

[borgranta]

I wonder if 1983 lawsuits would come in to play to fight this.

[borgranta]

We are going to have to keep an eye on this. Depending on how things play out we may see a lot of minority students being disenfranchised. If minorities are disproportionately impacted it will be a compelling case.

[AdamRos19]

How does this pan out w a fight in school, even in self defense? I can't begin to tell you how many times I have been in situations throughout high school that I've defended myself, or others and have gotten in just as much trouble as the aggressor. Same with several others I know. So in many cases the dean would force students to the counselor a office and discipline according to whatever they deemed fit, but at the end of the day even if the counselor determined self defense, there was equal penalty for violation of code of conduct. Many times LE are brought in even to shake up the fighters if hostility continued on top of it all.

 

So a kid starts a fight or is provoked, and comes out on top in his own defense, is he now a threat and to be reported?

[pdpsc]

Not one report has been made under this provision and we are already talking about lawsuits?

 

You are talking about people with 6 or more years of higher education making a 6 figure salary. Do you really think they will take this lightly? I've worked with school administrators on issues in the past and I can tell you first hand that they don't take any decision of consequence lightly. By the time they make this report, the school's social worker and/or counselor and the school board and their attorneys will have been consulted. No school administrator will risk their career over a BS report under this section. Yes, they have immunity, but they don't have immunity from bad publicity/public outrage.

[pomme333]

thanks for the clarification molly

[AJR]

"except for willful or wanton misconduct"

That is for a jury of our peers to decide. I am sure the school lawyers will inform them that this is not a free ticket and that their actions better be what a jury would do or they can be sued.

[DoktorPaimon]

I was under the impression that this wasn't a big deal because you needed a "physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner" to make the determination and the school official would just report a determination that had been made. Seems they added "school administrator, or law enforcement official" to the list of people qualified to make a determination that someone "(1) communicates a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or poses a clear and imminent risk of serious physical injury to himself, herself, or another person as determined by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner; or (2) demonstrates threatening physical or verbal behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior..."

 

This is some serious BS.

[mauserme]

Dok, the law enforcement and school administrator duty to report a clear and present danger was established under the FCCA. The trailer bill changed to what department those two would make the report.

 

The limitation to a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner was, and remains, when a person is determined to be developmentally disabled.

[pdpsc]

"except for willful or wanton misconduct"

That is for a jury of our peers to decide. I am sure the school lawyers will inform them that this is not a free ticket and that their actions better be what a jury would do or they can be sued.

 

 

That's the standard to sue any government actor, such as a police officer, in this state. It's a very high standard that causes lawsuits to rarely get past summary judgment.

[il.bill]

I have started breathing normally again, after reading several of the above responses and clarifications. I guess the sky is not actually falling - the overcast just has not cleared up as much as I had hoped.

 

While 'anonymous' does not appear to be a strictly accurate adjective used to describe a 'school administrator' making such report, it is not that far off the mark when you read parts of (430 ILCS 65/8.1). These two lines are from (d)(2): "... Any information disclosed under this subsection shall remain privileged and confidential ... The identity of the person reporting under this Section shall not be disclosed to the subject of the report. ..." - the emphasis is mine. I can understand the need to protect the person making the report from vindictive reprisals, but this just does not feel right to me. Along with the 2nd Amendment, I suppose if I live in this state I should also begin to narrow my application of the 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. Since losing my FOID Card through being reported by a school administrator is not actually a criminal proceeding, this law in effect says that I have no right to face my (unknown to me) accuser.

 

Life is very rarely black and white, and I realize that making a law that covers everyone's rights and responsibilities is oft times very difficult, if not impossible. In a non black-and-white world, this one just seems to fall in the darker shade of gray to me, whether it is a new law, or a provision of long standing.

[borgranta]

@il.bill

A 1983 lawsuit would be one means to hold the school and the ISP and possibly Lisa Madigan accountable.

Another way would also be report it to the FBI for them to investigate as criminal deprivation of rights and/or conspiracy to deprive of rights depending on situation.

Also report it to the media to bring such abuse to light.

[DoktorPaimon]

Dok, the law enforcement and school administrator duty to report a clear and present danger was established under the FCCA. The trailer bill changed to what department those two would make the report.

 

The limitation to a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner was, and remains, when a person is determined to be developmentally disabled.

 

I really hope I'm wrong, but the FCCA refers to the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code which talks about a "Clear and Present Danger" at (405 ILCS 5/6-103.3). The definition used by the MHDDC is "For the purposes of this Section: "Clear and present danger" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act." Section 1.1 is long, but down at the bottom we find

 

"Clear and present danger" means a person who:

(1) communicates a serious threat of physical

violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or poses a clear and imminent risk of serious physical injury to himself, herself, or another person as determined by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner; or

(2) demonstrates threatening physical or verbal

behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior, as determined by a physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, school administrator, or law enforcement official.

 

(2) seems to suggest that a "school administrator...or law enforcement official" can determine who is a "clear and present danger" through demonstration of "threatening verbal or physical behavior." Its not necessarily how the FCCA is written thats causing the problem, but how these different laws link up with and reference one another. Now, I'd argue that a cop or principal would be working way out of their competency doing something like this, but it still looks like the law (as a whole, not just the FCCA) backs them if they decide to overstep. Please tell me I've missed something.

[mauserme]

(405 ILCS 5/6-103.3) is the part of the MHDDC that's newly created/amended by the FCCA so citing it is the same as citing Section 100 (if you look at that statute you'll see the very last line of that section says "(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)").

 

You might view this is a distinction without a difference - I'll call it a subtle difference. I read "determined" as a "having a reasonable belief" that a person represents a clear and present danger since it is up to the ISP to act upon the report and, if that action is a revoked FOID card, it is up to them to implement the appeal process.

 

Keep in mind that gun owners and gun groups have long argued law abiding gun owners should not be held responsible for the actions of those who are criminals or those with mental health problems. Part of that argument has been that potentially violent mental health issues should be addressed before they become action.

 

I don't know if this language accomplishes that without being too open to abuse. It's certainly not the wording we would have offered had it been up to us and, as with any law, abuse is a possibility . As Molly B pointed out earlier in this thread, we did voice an objection.

 

At this point my feeling is that they probably have good intentions but that we should be watchful for signs of mental health being used as a new form of gun control at either the state or national level since this is being discussed there too. There are those on both sides who honestly want to fix this problem and, as always, there are those who might try to use it against us. We will endeavor to work with the former, and stand in the way of the latter, since we don't need more gun control and shouldn't discourage people from seeking help if they need it.