HB2354 Update - Firearm Restraining Order - Emergency Intervention

[steveTA84]

 

I’m so confused. So is Rauner signing the MDA approved bill, the one in V’s original post, or both??

There is only one HB2354.

MAJOR brain fart on my end lol. So, Rauner is singing the improved one, but MDA is celebrating it as a victory on their part. Got it

[Molly B.]

I’m so confused. So is Rauner signing the MDA approved bill, the one in V’s original post, or both??

 

 

LOL, they started out with HB772 which was a horrible gun-grabbing bill. We stopped it and they came out with HB2354 that we pushed back on very hard and achieved getting almost everything we wanted in it. They are trying to save face by touting victory on a bill we were neutral on and we're okay with the Gov. signing. Politics is such a strange world.

[steveTA84]

 

I’m so confused. So is Rauner signing the MDA approved bill, the one in V’s original post, or both??

 

 

LOL, they started out with HB772 which was a horrible gun-grabbing bill. We stopped it and they came out with HB2354 that we pushed back on very hard and achieved getting almost everything we wanted in it. They are trying to save face by touting victory on a bill we were neutral on and we're okay with the Gov. signing. Politics is such a strange world.

Well done maybe I should point out to them (MDA) the changes and try to cause a little Infighting?????

[Euler]

Well done maybe I should point out to them (MDA) the changes and try to cause a little Infighting?????

It would be more fun if, after he signs 2354, Rauner asked Molly or someone from SAF or GOA to say a few words about how it's a good law.

[steveTA84]

 

Well done maybe I should point out to them (MDA) the changes and try to cause a little Infighting?????

It would be more fun if, after he signs 2354, Rauner asked Molly or someone from SAF or GOA to say a few words about how it's a good law.

Ill hold off until after its law. And ISRA, Todd, MollyB, this is a fantastic idea. Release a public statement afterwards

[kevinmcc]

 

 

 

So you can't charge someone with a crime unless they commit a crime, but you can deny them their constitutional rights?

 

What if we could apply this to you, I mean you might slander someone so I guess you don't get free speech.

 

It's asinine when you view it this way.

 

 

You cannot deny someone their constitutional rights without due process. This bill has due process.

 

I disagree this bill has due process.

 

"An emergency firearms restraining order shall be issued on an ex parte basis, that is, without notice to the respondent."

 

"An emergency hearing held on an ex parte basis shall be held the same day that the petition is filed or the next day that the court is in session."

 

"The respondent shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm."

 

"If the court finds after the hearing that the respondent has met his or her burden, the court shall terminate the order."

 

This is not a trial, there is no jury, just a magistrate and petitioner deciding to take away a person's rights and property.

 

The last part is also total garbage.

 

"Any act of omission or commission by any law enforcement officer acting in good faith in rendering emergency assistance or otherwise enforcing this Act shall not impose civil liability upon the law enforcement officer or his or her supervisor or employer, unless the act is a result of willful or wanton misconduct."

 

I read that law enforcement will be free of any civil liability from any damage done to your firearms or other property, unless you can prove willful or wanton misconduct.

 

 

My opinion, commit the person for a psychological evaluation. No risk to property being damaged. Fail the evaluation, adjudicate the person, issue warrant for firearms, get the firearms, release the person if they should be released. Personalty if you are too dangerous, why release? Guns are not the only weapons they will have available.

[Molly B.]

Kevin,

 

The order is not confirmed until the respondent has their day in court - the best Second Amendment attorneys in the nation say this bill does not violate due process. Do you have a law degree that can supersede that?

 

The evidence to issue the order must be CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence.

 

The respondent's evidence to prove he is not a danger is only preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower bar.

[kevinmcc]

Kevin,

 

The order is not confirmed until the respondent has their day in court - the best Second Amendment attorneys in the nation say this bill does not violate due process. Do you have a law degree that can supersede that?

 

The evidence to issue the order must be CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence.

 

The respondent's evidence to prove he is not a danger is only preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower bar.

"An emergency firearms restraining order shall be issued on an ex parte basis, that is, without notice to the respondent."

 

"An emergency hearing held on an ex parte basis shall be held the same day that the petition is filed or the next day that the court is in session."

 

You do understand what ex parte means right???

 

The respondent gets court date for the 6-month firearms restraining order later, that is after ex parte firearms restraining order has already been issued.

 

The ex parte firearms restraining order the respondent does not get a day in court and they lose their rights and property for up to 14 days.

 

Their property maybe damaged in the process.

 

What is "CLEAR AND CONVINCING" will vary from judge to judge...

 

I could care less what a two bit lawyer says. There is a reason garbage like this goes to court to court to court until the supreme court has to make a final ruling.

[borgranta]

 

Kevin,

 

The order is not confirmed until the respondent has their day in court - the best Second Amendment attorneys in the nation say this bill does not violate due process. Do you have a law degree that can supersede that?

 

The evidence to issue the order must be CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence.

 

The respondent's evidence to prove he is not a danger is only preponderance of the evidence which is a much lower bar.

"An emergency firearms restraining order shall be issued on an ex parte basis, that is, without notice to the respondent."

 

"An emergency hearing held on an ex parte basis shall be held the same day that the petition is filed or the next day that the court is in session."

 

You do understand what ex parte means right???

 

The respondent gets court date for the 6-month firearms restraining order later, that is after ex parte firearms restraining order has already been issued.

 

The ex parte firearms restraining order the respondent does not get a day in court and they lose their rights and property for up to 14 days.

 

Their property maybe damaged in the process.

 

What is "CLEAR AND CONVINCING" will vary from judge to judge...

 

I could care less what a two bit lawyer says. There is a reason garbage like this goes to court to court to court until the supreme court has to make a final ruling.

 

If what you say is true then we may see push back from police unions when law enforcement officers and their loved ones start getting targeted by this. This may be another tool for families to harass cops with.

[Euler]

I could care less what a two bit lawyer says. There is a reason garbage like this goes to court to court to court until the supreme court has to make a final ruling.

The lawyers you disparage as two-bit would be the same lawyers arguing for the 2A on some other case before the Supreme Court.

[Raw Power]

 

As a community, here are our options:

 

Say this bill is no good, even though it's been looked over by 2nd amendment friendly attorneys, and is being advocated for by someone who has done a tremendous amount for 2nd amendment rights in this state

 

OR

 

We can say "this bill sucks, it takes away our guns!" and not support it, and instead get a bill down the road that is MUCH less sympathetic to our needs and rights.

 

The choice is pretty simple here.

So the choices are either be poked in the eye or be punched in the throat.

 

 

Have you actually read the bill?

 

If so, what parts do you feel are an issue?

[Raw Power]

I’m sorry that we disagree. I think the rational of the lesser of two evils should never be used as far as legislation against our human rights. There is either support for EVERYONE’S right to keep and bear arms or there isn’t. This topic can’t be covered with shades of gray.

 

I don't see how this bill interferes with someone's right to keep and bear arms. What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm. Would your intimate partner turn you in on a false statement? Well, guess what, that's a class 3 felony according to this law. Also, if you're worried that your intimate partner would turn you in on a false statement, maybe it's time for a new intimate partner, or some therapy?

[Twostarrz]

 

I’m sorry that we disagree. I think the rational of the lesser of two evils should never be used as far as legislation against our human rights. There is either support for EVERYONE’S right to keep and bear arms or there isn’t. This topic can’t be covered with shades of gray.

 

I don't see how this bill interferes with someone's right to keep and bear arms. What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm. Would your intimate partner turn you in on a false statement? Well, guess what, that's a class 3 felony according to this law. Also, if you're worried that your intimate partner would turn you in on a false statement, maybe it's time for a new intimate partner, or some therapy?

I have ZERO worry about being accused by anyone. Who’s burden of proof is it to prove false accusation? I’ll tell you, the accused. It is another “feel good” legislation. Any legislation can be and does get abused.

[Molly B.]

 

I could care less what a two bit lawyer says. There is a reason garbage like this goes to court to court to court until the supreme court has to make a final ruling.

You should excuse yourself from this discussion. You have lost any and all credibility now.

[lockman]

Two-bit?

 

More like either pro bono, or $500-750/hr. Not much middle ground here.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[InterestedBystander]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-gun-violence-laws-orders-of-protection-20180713-story.html

 

Aiming to prevent gun violence, proposed laws would extend no-contact orders, allow weapon removal by courts

 

..."The Illinois State Police declined comment. In a report the agency issued about the proposed legislation, state police noted that if the new law causes a lot of FOID card suspensions, the agency may have to hire additional analysts for about $100,000 a year each to process the paperwork."...

[Illinois Sucks]

What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm.

How does it do that?

[Twostarrz]

 

What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm.

How does it do that?

I would like to know how the bill works better or faster than a psych evaluation or an arrest and hold? Since the accuser HAS to PROVE that the accused is a danger to themselves or others it seems that a hold or eval would be just as easy to achieve. Isn’t irrefutable proof of threatened harm enough evidence to achieve arrest?

[SiliconSorcerer]

 

 

What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm.

How does it do that?

I would like to know how the bill works better or faster than a psych evaluation or an arrest and hold? Since the accuser HAS to PROVE that the accused is a danger to themselves or others it seems that a hold or eval would be just as easy to achieve. Isn’t irrefutable proof of threatened harm enough evidence to achieve arrest?

 

 

You can't beat your chest or cause political turmoil with the other....

[Twostarrz]

 

 

What the bill actually does is allow for people to be stopped from hurting someone if they have already threatened harm.

How does it do that?

I would like to know how the bill works better or faster than a psych evaluation or an arrest and hold? Since the accuser HAS to PROVE that the accused is a danger to themselves or others it seems that a hold or eval would be just as easy to achieve. Isn’t irrefutable proof of threatened harm enough evidence to achieve arrest?

I want to clarify, clear and convincing evidence of threat to yourself or someone else should be enough to have someone evaluated or jailed. Either way you want to define evidence, it makes it possible for your CCL, FOID, AND firearms to be removed from you.

[MSD]

Evaluated maybe. That requires a LEO or other authorized person to commit someone which commitment is brief. At some point a State's Attorney would have to file an action in court for involuntary commitment.

 

Jailed cannot happen until after a crime is committed.

[Twostarrz]

Evaluated maybe. That requires a LEO or other authorized person to commit someone which commitment is brief. At some point a State's Attorney would have to file an action in court for involuntary commitment.

 

Jailed cannot happen until after a crime is committed.

Can you not be detained for 72 hours on the basis of suspicion? You can be cuffed and detained for merely not revealing your legal name to an officer upon request. We are talking about “clear and convincing evidence” being presented.

[Euler]

Rauner signs Firearms Restraining Order Act, 72-hour gun purchase waiting period, will veto gun shop regulation bill

 

Rauner OKs bill so families can cite mental issues to take guns from loved ones

[Hap]

It will be interesting to see how this law is used. Should we have a stickied thread to track reported uses?

[markthesignguy]

Tribune link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-gun-violence-laws-orders-of-protection-20180713-story.html


Relevant details from inside the paywall:

On the other side of the issue, the Illinois State Rifle Association initially opposed the new order of protection bill but negotiated limits on the proposal that allowed the group to drop its opposition.

 

Sponsors agreed to shorten the period of gun removal from one year to six months, to provide an avenue to appeal such orders and to allow prosecutors to lodge perjury charges against anyone making false accusations. To appease gun owners’ concerns that a false accusation could haunt them, the law also provides that if the petition to take the guns is denied, the court file will be expunged, and if the order is granted, it will be sealed after three years.
The hearing and order to do so may be done ex parte, or without notice to the person who is the subject of the hearing, but the subject can petition for a hearing within two weeks. The measure serves an important goal to help to prevent suicide and has provisions to ensure due process, rifle association Executive Director Richard Pearson said, though he still worries it may be misused.

“I’m concerned that people will use this maliciously,” Pearson said. “You’ve got to be extraordinarily careful with these rights. You need a way for (those accused) to get out if they did nothing.”

Ultimately, the laws will fall on police to enforce. If a judge finds a person is a threat, the judge will issue a search warrant allowing police to seize the person’s firearms and firearm owner’s identification card.

Local police already have the right to ask the state to revoke firearm owners’ identification cards. This new proposed law would only suspend someone’s FOID card, and it would be automatically reinstated after six months unless the court finds grounds to renew the suspension.

In determining whether someone poses a danger, a judge may consider the following factors: unlawful or reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm; history of use of force or threatened force; prior felony arrests; abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; a recent threat or act of violence; a violation of a domestic violence emergency order of protection; or a pattern of violent acts or threats.

The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a danger to himself or herself or to someone else by having a firearm.
The person whose guns are taken may petition to give them to a friend with a firearm owner’s ID card. That person must swear not to give the firearms back without authorization.

The Illinois State Police declined comment. In a report the agency issued about the proposed legislation, state police noted that if the new law causes a lot of FOID card suspensions, the agency may have to hire additional analysts for about $100,000 a year each to process the paperwork.
rmccoppin@chicagotribune.com

and now the BAD news:

also Rauner signed SB3256.

essentially 72 hour wait on long guns - more details to be edited in...

SB3256 (72 Hour Waiting Period/Repeals Nonresident Exemption)

Oppose

Senate Sponsor: Sims, Morrison, Collins

House Sponsor: Carroll, Connor, Skillicorn

Status: Senate/Motion to Concur with House Amendment 1

House Amendment 1 - Approved for Consideration

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that a person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly delivers any firearm, incidental to a sale, without withholding delivery of the firearm for at least 72 hours after application for its purchase has been made (current law permits delivery of a rifle, shotgun or other long gun, or a stun gun or taser after 24 hours after application for its purchase has been made). Retains 24 hour withholding period for stun guns and tasers. Provides that a violation is a Class 4 felony. Eliminates the exemption from the waiting period requirements for the sale of a firearm to a nonresident of Illinois while at a firearm showing or display recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police.

On the full text page, there is an amendment 2 by Skillicorn that never made it into the bill, It would have eliminated the waiting period for valid fccl's.

[Euler]

It will be interesting to see how this law is used. Should we have a stickied thread to track reported uses?

I would expect that there may be a few initial uses where friends, family, and neighbors now have a civil process where before they had to wait for a crime and the criminal process. After that, probably not so many cases that would warrant tracking them individually. Maybe periodic, depersonalized, FOIA-able statistics would be good to see if the law is being abused or ignored.

[Twostarrz]

Yup, even the ISRA sees where this could be misused. A neighbor or local SJW decides to snap a photo of you legally handling firearms on your own property, coupled with a statement has police knocking on your door and depriving you of your rights. All of a sudden you are having to prove you did nothing wrong.

[Euler]

Tribune link:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-illinois-gun-violence-laws-orders-of-protection-20180713-story.html

...

[Executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Vickie] Smith gave a hypothetical example of a mother who gets an order of protection to take guns away from her son because he’s doing drugs and acting irrationally. She said the concern is that when police try to confiscate his guns, he could lash out angrily, creating a potentially dangerous situation.

 

"I appreciate what they're trying to do, but I don't think an order of protection is the way to go about it," Smith said. She suggested that other measures aimed at gun control would be more effective.

Wow. Somebody isn't happy that the law isn't extreme.

[markthesignguy]

 

 

Yup, even the ISRA sees where this could be misused. A neighbor or local SJW decides to snap a photo of you legally handling firearms on your own property, coupled with a statement has police knocking on your door and depriving you of your rights. All of a sudden you are having to prove you did nothing wrong.

Yes, and when said SJW finds themselves on the receiving end of a Felony charge that has every indication of sticking, they'll need a new set of shorts.

[Euler]

Yup, even the ISRA sees where this could be misused. A neighbor or local SJW decides to snap a photo of you legally handling firearms on your own property, coupled with a statement has police knocking on your door and depriving you of your rights. All of a sudden you are having to prove you did nothing wrong.

A photograph of a legal activity would not constitute clear and convincing proof of dangerous intent.