powderhead Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:06 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:06 AM I've been searching the net looking for the new private party firearms transfer law with no luck. I can find plenty of articles about the law, but not the law itself. Any one have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikemilitaria Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:20 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:20 AM http://www.ilga.gov/...AID=12&Session= excerpts: a-10) Any person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer and who desires to transfer or sell a firearm or firearms to any person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer shall, before selling or transferring the firearms, contact the Department of State Police with the transferee's or purchaser's Firearm Owner's Identification Card number to determine the validity of the transferee's or purchaser's Firearm Owner's Identification Card. This subsection shall not be effective until January 1, 2014. Sec. 24-4.1. Report of lost or stolen firearms.(a) If a person who possesses a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and who possesses or acquires a firearm thereafter loses the firearm, or if the firearm is stolen from the person, the person must report the loss or theft to the local law enforcement agency within 72 hours after obtaining knowledge of the loss or theft. more info: http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Illinois-Gun-Law-HB1189/State-Law/9493 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:30 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:30 AM Anyone know if the ISP has set up a phone number to contact them for FOID validity? Based on my (and others) previous attempts to contact them for FOID issues/concerns I'm not holding my breath that anyone will actually answer the existing public numbers even if you tried to call... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:38 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:38 AM A private firearm transaction approval number can be requested 24/7 from the Illinois State Police preferably through the ISP website at http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/foidp2p.cfm, or by calling 217 524-3847 during normal business hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:47 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:47 AM i still dont know how to gift my wife a firearm. guess i will have to go through the normal sale process by tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:54 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:54 AM i still dont know how to gift my wife a firearm. guess i will have to go through the normal sale process by tomorrowThe new transfer law does not apply to your gift to your wife. You can just give it to her without doing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:30 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:30 AM So, nothing changes at all for non-FOID holders...? SMH.... Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAS3987 Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:38 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:38 AM I'm going to sleep better knowing this law is in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:46 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:46 AM I'm going to sleep better knowing this law is in place. Me too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powderhead Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:30 AM Author Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:30 AM What's the penalty for non-compliance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulgl26 Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:44 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:44 AM What's the penalty for non-compliance?No penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:48 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 04:48 AM If you break the law with no penalty and later they add a penalty can the penalty be applied retroactively? It's not ex post facto as you broke the law when it was law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:25 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:25 AM It's not ex post facto Any newly added penalty clause would be ex post facto to the previous/existing violations and thus wouldn't apply to those... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:26 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:26 AM For reals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM Say, for example, Mr X kills Mr Y in 2013. In 2015 Illinois revives the death sentence. Mr X is tried and convicted of the killing of Me Y in 2016. Could Mr X face the death penalty or not? IDK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM For reals? Sure, when they raise the penalty for speeding do you get a bill to pay the difference from your previous fine and the new fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:28 AM IDK I am a law abiding citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradS Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:34 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:34 AM Can I gift the gun to anyone after the first without making the phone call... Then charge say like $500 for the very highly collectible box it originally came in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:10 AM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:10 AM Can I gift the gun to anyone after the first without making the phone call... Then charge say like $500 for the very highly collectible box it originally came in? Why play silly games like that, that in itself could be deemed as fraud or even tax evasion if they wanted to push the issue? Just sell it like you always have with or without the call, the law is just words on paper as it stands, essentially a recommendation since there is no penalty... Or make the call if you are concerned and want to walk the straight line... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNS&LAWYERS Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:31 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:31 PM I'll ask this again, but where does everyone assume there is no penalty? There are at least 2 places where the law mandates the "call in" and one place where it requires record keeping. I only see one exception to punishment. So, the unlawful sale or transfer statute, 720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1, requires you comply with the new law. However, it says you cannot be punished under 720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1 in 720 ILCS 5/24-3c7. So I follow you all there, no punishment for a violation of the Criminal Code. However 430 ILCS 65/3-3 a-10 is the part of the FOID Act which requires the call in, and there is no punishment exception to be found there. This provision of the FOID Act would normally be punishable by a Class A misdemeanor. Now, maybe you could argue that since the illegal activity is the exact same in both statutes that the exemption in the Criminal Code should be applied to the FOID Act...you might be able to get someone to buy that. But I think that is at best a gamble with good odds, not a foregone conclusion. Finally, I have no doubt that a failure to comply with this new law is punishable as a petty offense when it comes to record keeping. The law directs you to get an approval from the ISP...whether that is punishable or not. Then the law also directs you to record that approval, found in 430 ILCS 65/3-3 b. Your failure to record an approval number which the law directs that you must get is punishable as a petty offense, usually a fine. Maybe $1,000 per occurrence. So, if I were an anti-gun prosecutor, I would charge you with 3 crimes...violation of the unlawful sale statute (720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1), violation of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3-3a-10), and violation of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3-3b). Assuming I can meet the standard of proof, I get a conviction on all 3, but no punishment on the unlawful sale statute. Maybe I get a Class A misdemeanor on 430 ILCS 65/3-3a-10, maybe I don't. It's going to come down to whether the legislature intended to exempt that punishment also under the law, because the clear language isn't that clear. I certainly get you on a fine because you failed to keep a record the law requires you to keep...so, do you want to pay $1000 for each illegal transfer? I could certainly be wrong, but that is how I see it if you are somewhere where the SA prosecutes this kind of nonsense. I certainly wouldn't say there is no penalty for violating this new law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:54 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 02:54 PM Why would the sellers lack of proper record keeping / or reporting make the sale unlawful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:15 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 03:15 PM I'll ask this again, but where does everyone assume there is no penalty? There are at least 2 places where the law mandates the "call in" and one place where it requires record keeping. I only see one exception to punishment. So, the unlawful sale or transfer statute, 720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1, requires you comply with the new law. However, it says you cannot be punished under 720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1 in 720 ILCS 5/24-3c7. So I follow you all there, no punishment for a violation of the Criminal Code. However 430 ILCS 65/3-3 a-10 is the part of the FOID Act which requires the call in, and there is no punishment exception to be found there. This provision of the FOID Act would normally be punishable by a Class A misdemeanor. Now, maybe you could argue that since the illegal activity is the exact same in both statutes that the exemption in the Criminal Code should be applied to the FOID Act...you might be able to get someone to buy that. But I think that is at best a gamble with good odds, not a foregone conclusion. Finally, I have no doubt that a failure to comply with this new law is punishable as a petty offense when it comes to record keeping. The law directs you to get an approval from the ISP...whether that is punishable or not. Then the law also directs you to record that approval, found in 430 ILCS 65/3-3 b. Your failure to record an approval number which the law directs that you must get is punishable as a petty offense, usually a fine. Maybe $1,000 per occurrence. So, if I were an anti-gun prosecutor, I would charge you with 3 crimes...violation of the unlawful sale statute (720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1), violation of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3-3a-10), and violation of the FOID Act (430 ILCS 65/3-3b). Assuming I can meet the standard of proof, I get a conviction on all 3, but no punishment on the unlawful sale statute. Maybe I get a Class A misdemeanor on 430 ILCS 65/3-3a-10, maybe I don't. It's going to come down to whether the legislature intended to exempt that punishment also under the law, because the clear language isn't that clear. I certainly get you on a fine because you failed to keep a record the law requires you to keep...so, do you want to pay $1000 for each illegal transfer? I could certainly be wrong, but that is how I see it if you are somewhere where the SA prosecutes this kind of nonsense. I certainly wouldn't say there is no penalty for violating this new law.I agree with most of your analysis. It definitely seems like a person could be convicted of a Class A Misdemeanor under the FOID Act if they do not comply with the firearm transfer provisions. As you mentioned, it's not clear whether the exception in the criminal code can be applied to a violation of the same conduct under the FOID Act (probably not, in my opinion). Some points of disagreement: I don't think a person can be prosecuted for a violation of the unlawful sale statute (720 ILCS 5/24-3Ak1) when the same section specifically states that a violation of that section cannot be punishable as a crime. If a prosecutor attempted to bring such charges, it would likely be met with a quick motion to dismiss that would be granted. Also, I'm skeptical that a person can be prosecuted for failing to record an approval number, where an approval number was never obtained. I don't believe that provision is capable of being violated unless and until an approval number is provided by the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNS&LAWYERS Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:00 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:00 PM In retrospect, I tend to agree that I couldn't get the conviction on the 720 charge. That was a bad use of words. No conviction, however, I do believe in an anti-gun jurisdiction, the charge would be brought. It would be up to your defense to get that charge thrown out. The violation of the law still happened, which justifies the charge...there is just no punishment. I still think that you get a petty offense on the failure to record...its strict liability. The law requires you to obtain an approval number even if it doesn't punish you for not getting it. And because you didn't obtain it, you didn't record it...a violation you are culpable for because you violated the law. Saying I didn't record because I performed an illegal transfer in the first place is like saying I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because my speedometer didn't work. You get dinged for speeding, and the faulty equipment ticket. Thanks for helping me not be the only one who sees the pitfalls of saying there is no punishment for this now crime. I think that is a dangerous way to think if you live in one of these anti-gun communities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fubarud Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:38 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:38 PM What's the penalty for non-compliance? The same penalty the ISP faces for taking longer than 30 days for FOID & longer than 90/120 days for CCW permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:46 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:46 PM Boot to the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatty Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:53 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:53 PM I still think that you get a petty offense on the failure to record...its strict liability. The law requires you to obtain an approval number even if it doesn't punish you for not getting it. And because you didn't obtain it, you didn't record it...a violation you are culpable for because you violated the law. Saying I didn't record because I performed an illegal transfer in the first place is like saying I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because my speedometer didn't work. You get dinged for speeding, and the faulty equipment ticket.I don't think your hypothetical is an accurate analogy, but I'm struggling to come up with one of my own. A good hypothetical would involve a situation where the law requires a specific action to be taken, and then a separate law requires another action to be taken that is only possible if the person has complied with the first law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:56 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:56 PM I still think that you get a petty offense on the failure to record...its strict liability. The law requires you to obtain an approval number even if it doesn't punish you for not getting it. And because you didn't obtain it, you didn't record it...a violation you are culpable for because you violated the law. Saying I didn't record because I performed an illegal transfer in the first place is like saying I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because my speedometer didn't work. You get dinged for speeding, and the faulty equipment ticket.I don't think your hypothetical is an accurate analogy, but I'm struggling to come up with one of my own. A good hypothetical would involve a situation where the law requires a specific action to be taken, and then a separate law requires another action to be taken that is only possible if the person has complied with the first law. Like driving on a suspended license when you never bothered to get one in the first place ? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:57 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 05:57 PM FOID must go. Gort. Klaatu barada nikto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullet man Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:05 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:05 PM FOID must go. Yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNS&LAWYERS Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:36 PM Share Posted December 31, 2013 at 07:36 PM I still think that you get a petty offense on the failure to record...its strict liability. The law requires you to obtain an approval number even if it doesn't punish you for not getting it. And because you didn't obtain it, you didn't record it...a violation you are culpable for because you violated the law. Saying I didn't record because I performed an illegal transfer in the first place is like saying I shouldn't get a speeding ticket because my speedometer didn't work. You get dinged for speeding, and the faulty equipment ticket.I don't think your hypothetical is an accurate analogy, but I'm struggling to come up with one of my own. A good hypothetical would involve a situation where the law requires a specific action to be taken, and then a separate law requires another action to be taken that is only possible if the person has complied with the first law. I agree...the analogy is not quite there...lets consider the following situation: Seller and Buyer want to conduct a private transfer. S does not make B display his FOID Card, thus S has no information on B's FOID card number. S is charged with failing to have the buyer display a valid FOID card, violating 430 ILCS 65/3a, a class 4 felony, and failing to record 430 ILCS 65/3b, a class A misdemeanor. Is S exculpated from the record keeping violation because he failed to even have B display his FOID card, thus he had no knowledge of the FOID number he was required to keep? Let's say that B had no FOID card at all, is S exculpated from the record keeping provision because B didn't have a FOID number to record? This is pretty analogous, though I hate to use another requirement of FOID to illustrate the absurdity of FOID. S was legally obligated to take an action which would have produced B's FOID number, thus being able to record it. Whether there is a punishment or not is really not at issue...the law still directs the action. Now the law directs the action that you call in the FOID...I'm not sure an argument that you broke the law by not calling in the FOID is going to exculpate you from the record keeping requirement. And now...I think I've yet found a way for anti-gun prosecutors to be even more evil. Bear with me... The law requires that the Seller can only transfer to a Buyer who displays a currently valid FOID. The law now states that in order to determine validity, you must call the ISP. The ISP will then issue an approval if the card is valid. So...even if you have the Buyer display his FOID, the law now states:"any person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer shall, before selling or transferring the firearms, contact the Department of State Police with the transferee's or purchaser's Firearm Owner's Identification Card number to determine the validity of the transferee's or purchaser's Firearm Owner's Identification Card." So, by not calling it in, have you complied with the section of the law which says the Seller must have the Buyer display a currently valid FOID card? If you haven't, that is back to the Class 4 felony for the 1st offense. I'm not trying to make mountains out of mole hills...I'm just trying to think like a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney. Of course, if the exception in 720 can apply across statutes, this would put my mind a little more at ease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.