HB2354 Update - Firearm Restraining Order - Emergency Intervention

[Molly B.]

quote " announces to his wife, "I'm off to kill my sons", SO how do you PROVE he said that ?

in our case it was letters and voice messages.

[G214me]

Basically YOUR Constitutional rights could be suspended and your legally owned property could be taken from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS or even a chance to tell your side of the story when the complaint is filed ( ex parte ) ??? yes or no ??? if yes then this isn't a good thing and we shouldn't be celebrating it.

[capotwosix]

Basically YOUR Constitutional rights could be suspended and your legally owned property could be taken from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS or even a chance to tell your side of the story when the complaint is filed ( ex parte ) ??? yes or no ??? if yes then this isn't a good thing and we shouldn't be celebrating it.

Bingo.

https://imgur.com/a/wResaXi

[2A4Cook]

 

 

quote " announces to his wife, "I'm off to kill my sons", SO how do you PROVE he said that ?

 

In an ex parte hearing? You look at the judge and say, "Your Honor, my (whomever) looked at me with a crazed look in his eyes. He was angier than I've ever seen him. He said, "I'm off to kill my sons," and I believe him, because he was so crazed and he has guns. I'm afraid for those kids!"

What's a judge supposed to do? If he doesn't grant the order and the kids are shot, he is going to take a lot of heat. THAT will be his primary consideration. At best, you could hope for, "You realize that you are under oath and could be charged with perjury if you are not telling the truth." How would she respond? "I lied, Your Honor, nevermind and please don't have me charged with perjury?"

In an actual hearing later, it's a he said she said. Whoever the judge believes, unless there is additional evidence.

Now i'm just spit balling because i'm not a pro at every law, or any law for that fact. But before this law, couldn't the person do the same thing previously, but instead of FOID and CCL be suspended and getting a trial in 14 days or less, they would have been revoked and not gotten a court date for months if not years?

 

I"m trying to understand the differences between previous law, this current law, and the anti's prospected law (which we all know was way worse with a toll free number). So more so pre and post HB2354.

Are you referring to orders of protection? In that case, you get a temporary, ex parte OP entered against you, cops take your guns, final hearing is often continued forever (and the temporary order extended), if the gun owner wins, he pretty much needs a court order granting return of the guns, and what happens after that depends on the "temperment" of the PD holding them (in Chicago, likely, never, unless you sue them directly for return of your guns with evidence numbers crudely etched into them and likely looking 40 years old). As far as being a suicide risk, etc., that's a long process I don't know about, except I don't THINK they go after your guns unless and until you are adjudicated disabled or unfit or what have you.

 

This makes me wonder what role this would play if there was a related petition for an order of protection brought and heard at the same time. Molly?

 

If this process takes precedence as far as the firearms are concerned, it is much better for the respondent gun owner, IMO.

 

****THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE****. *** RELIANCE ON INTERNET ADVICE IS IDIOTIC ***

[2A4Cook]

 

Basically YOUR Constitutional rights could be suspended and your legally owned property could be taken from you WITHOUT DUE PROCESS or even a chance to tell your side of the story when the complaint is filed ( ex parte ) ??? yes or no ??? if yes then this isn't a good thing and we shouldn't be celebrating it.

Bingo.https://imgur.com/a/wResaXi

It's not a permanent seizure at that point, so it's not a "taking." The hearing afterward is due process. Believe me, you would be surprised at what courts have found to constitute due process. Ever been before a hearing officer in Chicago for a violation of a city ordinance? The hearing officer, the witness(es) and the charging official are all employed by the City of Chicago, what wants its fine revenue ...

[ChicagoRonin70]

Why isn't there a mandatory civil asset penalty in this directed towards false accusers, such as if the respondent is found not to be a threat, the accuser is required to pay all legal costs and everything necessary to restore to the non-dangerous, thus falsely accused, respondent, as well as punitive damages?

 

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

That, at the very least, should be a remedy allowed to someone who disagrees with this legislation and believes that they are potentially likely to be targeted by someone trying to harass them with this. That way, there will be forewarning and anyone who files this sort of order will have an uphill battle to get this put onto anyone who should not have it.

 

I am literally the last person who anyone is going to likely file something about this on, given that it's well documented what I do in teaching domestic violence and sexual abuses victims self-protection and harm avoidance, but I will say that I unfortunately have personal knowledge of numerous occasions where someone either considered, voiced, or even attempted to have an order of protection filed against an intimate partner out of spite, anger, malice, or legal strategy.

 

I think I might have to contact my attorney and get together with them to draft something up as a boilerplate defense against this to file with the court system, and if it's refused, see what legal and civil action can be taken regarding the inequality of treatment for defending one's self against the potential abuse of this type of thing.

[Lou]

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

 

Which every likely abuser would do preemptively..

 

There is a criminal penalty written into the law to punish those who falsely accuse someone.

 

I can't help but think that this is one of those feel-good laws that will very rarely get used.

I hope I'm right on this.

[G214me]

Why isn't there a mandatory civil asset penalty in this directed towards false accusers, such as if the respondent is found not to be a threat, the accuser is required to pay all legal costs and everything necessary to restore to the non-dangerous, thus falsely accused, respondent, as well as punitive damages?

 

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

That, at the very least, should be a remedy allowed to someone who disagrees with this legislation and believes that they are potentially likely to be targeted by someone trying to harass them with this. That way, there will be forewarning and anyone who files this sort of order will have an uphill battle to get this put onto anyone who should not have it.

 

I am literally the last person who anyone is going to likely file something about this on, given that it's well documented what I do in teaching domestic violence and sexual abuses victims self-protection and harm avoidance, but I will say that I unfortunately have personal knowledge of numerous occasions where someone either considered, voiced, or even attempted to have an order of protection filed against an intimate partner out of spite, anger, malice, or legal strategy.

 

I think I might have to contact my attorney and get together with them to draft something up as a boilerplate defense against this to file with the court system, and if it's refused, see what legal and civil action can be taken regarding the inequality of treatment for defending one's self against the potential abuse of this type of thing.

I don't think it's possible to file something saying a certain person may come in and commit a crime ( perjury ) without rock solid proof of some kind. But you sure can have your property removed and your 2a rights suspended without rock solid proof of some kind.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

 

Which every likely abuser would do preemptively..

 

There is a criminal penalty written into the law to punish those who falsely accuse someone.

 

I can't help but think that this is one of those feel-good laws that will very rarely get used.

I hope I'm right on this.

 

 

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the case of someone who believes that it is a justifiable necessity to preemptively protect themselves against blind-siding abuse of this sort of thing. If the court has a problem with someone who is ostensibly an abuser filing to protect themselves against false accusations and misuse of this law, then innocent until proven guilty provides that the government provide proof that is what the abuser is doing to prevent them from doing so.

 

I think that my plan to come up with something and test the system needs to be seriously explored.

 

And while there is a criminal penalty, there needs to be a CIVIL protection and penalty that is automatically applied, to make sure that the innocent accused is not harmed or loses in any way anything as a result of being accused and found not to be a danger. It would also provide further dissuasion for those who would use this with anything less than sincere intent to try to do so.

 

As well, if any government agent or actor initiates this, they should have any immunity stripped from them and be prosecuted with equal or GREATER penalty both criminally and civilly, since they are public servants and thus would be not only acting against the interests of the public, but wasting taxpayer funds to do so.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

Why isn't there a mandatory civil asset penalty in this directed towards false accusers, such as if the respondent is found not to be a threat, the accuser is required to pay all legal costs and everything necessary to restore to the non-dangerous, thus falsely accused, respondent, as well as punitive damages?

 

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

That, at the very least, should be a remedy allowed to someone who disagrees with this legislation and believes that they are potentially likely to be targeted by someone trying to harass them with this. That way, there will be forewarning and anyone who files this sort of order will have an uphill battle to get this put onto anyone who should not have it.

 

I am literally the last person who anyone is going to likely file something about this on, given that it's well documented what I do in teaching domestic violence and sexual abuses victims self-protection and harm avoidance, but I will say that I unfortunately have personal knowledge of numerous occasions where someone either considered, voiced, or even attempted to have an order of protection filed against an intimate partner out of spite, anger, malice, or legal strategy.

 

I think I might have to contact my attorney and get together with them to draft something up as a boilerplate defense against this to file with the court system, and if it's refused, see what legal and civil action can be taken regarding the inequality of treatment for defending one's self against the potential abuse of this type of thing.

I don't think it's possible to file something saying a certain person may come in and commit a crime ( perjury ) without rock solid proof of some kind. But you sure can have your property removed and your 2a rights suspended without rock solid proof of some kind.

 

I wrote this above:

 

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the case of someone who believes that it is a justifiable necessity to preemptively protect themselves against blind-siding abuse of this sort of thing. If the court has a problem with someone who is ostensibly an abuser filing to protect themselves against false accusations and misuse of this law, then innocent until proven guilty provides that the government provide proof that is what the abuser is doing to prevent them from doing so.

I think that my plan to come up with something and test the system needs to be seriously explored.

 

What you wrote shows the absolute justification for exactly what I described to be an available remedy, or vaccine if you will, against this being abused.

 

Equal protection under the law. For everyone.

[Looper]

 

quote " announces to his wife, "I'm off to kill my sons", SO how do you PROVE he said that ?

In an ex parte hearing? You look at the judge and say, "Your Honor, my (whomever) looked at me with a crazed look in his eyes. He was angier than I've ever seen him. He said, "I'm off to kill my sons," and I believe him, because he was so crazed and he has guns. I'm afraid for those kids!"

 

What's a judge supposed to do? If he doesn't grant the order and the kids are shot, he is going to take a lot of heat. THAT will be his primary consideration. At best, you could hope for, "You realize that you are under oath and could be charged with perjury if you are not telling the truth." How would she respond? "I lied, Your Honor, nevermind and please don't have me charged with perjury?"

 

In an actual hearing later, it's a he said she said. Whoever the judge believes, unless there is additional evidence.

 

BUT this law states it must be PROVEN before a judge, not talking messages or letters but what someone SAYS - no witness, Cook County judges, NO CHANCE for a gun owner.

[G214me]

Uh Oh, Someone better tell Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence ( and ownership ) that the expanded 3 day wait and HB2354 are our "big wins" not theirs !!!! http://www.facebook.com/ILGVP/

[capotwosix]

Uh Oh, Someone better tell Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence ( and ownership ) that the expanded 3 day wait and HB2354 are our "big wins" not theirs !!!! http://www.facebook.com/ILGVP/

 

The 2nd Amendment "Comprising" since 1934!

 

What do we have to show for our continued "comprise" you might ask? Just the continual decay of our rights, until one day, there is nothing left.

 

Sorry but my rights come from God and are non-negotiable, no matter what some control freak of a politician legislates. No matter how they cherry pick and choose to misinterpret the Constitution whenever it fits their narrative. Seizing property without due process? Innocent until proven guilty?

 

I want to live in America, not some utopian dream world. When are people going to wake up and realize that they will never stop?

[CILhunter]

 

 

Also, can someone have an attorney file something preemptively to guard against this sort of thing in the first place? Such as going to the court and petitioning to have placed in their legal record that they believe and feel that someone (named or unnamed) will unlawfully and falsely use this sort of order against them in a malicious manner?

 

 

Which every likely abuser would do preemptively..

 

There is a criminal penalty written into the law to punish those who falsely accuse someone.

 

I can't help but think that this is one of those feel-good laws that will very rarely get used.

I hope I'm right on this.

 

 

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the case of someone who believes that it is a justifiable necessity to preemptively protect themselves against blind-siding abuse of this sort of thing. If the court has a problem with someone who is ostensibly an abuser filing to protect themselves against false accusations and misuse of this law, then innocent until proven guilty provides that the government provide proof that is what the abuser is doing to prevent them from doing so.

 

I think that my plan to come up with something and test the system needs to be seriously explored.

 

And while there is a criminal penalty, there needs to be a CIVIL protection and penalty that is automatically applied, to make sure that the innocent accused is not harmed or loses in any way anything as a result of being accused and found not to be a danger. It would also provide further dissuasion for those who would use this with anything less than sincere intent to try to do so.

 

As well, if any government agent or actor initiates this, they should have any immunity stripped from them and be prosecuted with equal or GREATER penalty both criminally and civilly, since they are public servants and thus would be not only acting against the interests of the public, but wasting taxpayer funds to do so.

 

It's been a long time since law school, but I THINK a case could be made that such a false accusation rises to the level of the tort of Defamation. Not sure what kind of damages a Court might be willing to award, but I'm sure that a loss could be proven.

[BigJim]

 

 

5. Anyone working in a professional environment where having a clean record is a condition of employment will be screwed. Also in Illinois you can be let go without being given a reason other then we don't need your services.

 

 

 

 

 

BigJim: You have not read the bill. If the order is dismissed, it is expunged from your record. If it is issued, it will be sealed after three years.

The fact is all it takes is someone, anyone, to post on their blog that XXXX had to defend themselves in court today against charges they were a danger to themselves or others and that person is screwed for life. So what if in three years the record will be sealed? Once it's on the web it's out there forever and will follow that person forever. A potential employer or someone hired by a potential employer is going to find the story. Also what happens when a coworker of XXXX stumbles across the story? How long until the story is the subject of water cooler gossip? Or what are the neighbors going to think when the cops show up at XXXX's home to take their guns or what will the people that attend the same church as XXXX or whose kids attend the same school as XXXX going to think and how will they react when they read the blog posting? Once the accusation is out there it will stay out there for the world to read and XXXX's life and that of his family is ruined.

[Molly B.]

The fact is all it takes is someone, anyone, to post on their blog that XXXX had to defend themselves in court today against charges they were a danger to themselves or others and that person is screwed for life. So what if in three years the record will be sealed? Once it's on the web it's out there forever and will follow that person forever. A potential employer or someone hired by a potential employer is going to find the story. Also what happens when a coworker of XXXX stumbles across the story? How long until the story is the subject of water cooler gossip? Or what are the neighbors going to think when the cops show up at XXXX's home to take their guns or what will the people that attend the same church as XXXX or whose kids attend the same school as XXXX going to think and how will they react when they read the blog posting? Once the accusation is out there it will stay out there for the world to read and XXXX's life and that of his family is ruined.

 

 

 

This is no different than the Firearm Seizure Act which has been law since, I believe, 1986:

 

(725 ILCS 165/1) (from Ch. 38, par. 161-1)

Sec. 1. When a complaint is made to any circuit court that a person possessing a firearm or firearms has threatened to use a firearm illegally, the court shall examine on oath such complainant, and any witnesses which may be produced, reduce the complaint to writing and have it subscribed and sworn to by the complainant. If the court is satisfied that there is any danger of such illegal use of firearms, it shall issue a warrant requiring the apprehension of such person, hereafter referred to as the defendant, for appearance before the court. Such warrant shall also authorize the seizure of any firearm in the possession of the defendant.

(Source: Laws 1965, p. 2693.)

 

Your same worries could happen to people in this situation as well, except the emergency intervention bill is designed more toward the mentally ill and provides more constitutional protections.

[Upholder]

This thread in particular is being discussed (and not very favorably) on The Truth About Guns

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/07/john-boch/it-might-surprise-you-who-helped-write-illinois-new-lethal-violence-order-of-protection-law/

[Euler]

This thread in particular is being discussed (and not very favorably) on The Truth About Guns

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/07/john-boch/it-might-surprise-you-who-helped-write-illinois-new-lethal-violence-order-of-protection-law/

Because it's based on the following false statement by the NRA:

House Bill 2354, sponsored by Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-77), will allow for the issuance of protective orders to infringe on Second Amendment rights based on third party allegations with little, if any, real evidence and limited “due process” for the respondent. Hearings for the orders will be ex parte, where the respondent is not present to challenge the accuser and defend against allegations made against them.

There's a heavy burden of proof required, not "little, if any, evidence."

The hearings are not ex parte.

 

The initial filing of the petition is ex parte, but so is the initial filing of every restraining order everywhere.

 

The initial bill was bad. It got amended. Boch seems butthurt that he wasn't in on the amendments.

[InterestedBystander]

Stuff like this will sure help the pro 2A effort leading up to the election...*sigh*

 

"...Therefore, I am calling for Richard Pearson to step down as Executive Director of ISRA. Recently, Richard has been to easily swayed by the leftist in the general Assembly into the act of compromise and it must end. No more silly excuses,

 

As for Illinois Carry; I ask ALL gun owners across the state to cease their support for this organization. Hopefully due to a lack of funds they will just go away."...

[G214me]

This thread in particular is being discussed (and not very favorably) on The Truth About Guns

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/07/john-boch/it-might-surprise-you-who-helped-write-illinois-new-lethal-violence-order-of-protection-law/

Collen Daley of Illinois Council Against Gun Violence sure has a big smile on her face in one pic and then she's at the podium on the mic in the next pic. I thought this was our win ???

[Evil Porkchop]

I wonder how much the author of that article and the peanut gallery commenting really understand the politics regarding the 2A in Illinois. In my estimation they have no clue.

[Euler]

I wonder how much the author of that article and the peanut gallery commenting really understand the politics regarding the 2A in Illinois. In my estimation they have no clue.

The author of the article is John Boch, executive director of Guns Save Life. I hesitate to call him clueless. I think he's just angry.

For the record, Valinda Rowe's "Second Amendment community" did not include Guns Save Life. It didn't include the leaders in the gun rights fight in Illinois, the National Rifle Association, either. ... Given how Eddie Sullivan, one of the Illinois State Rifle Association's lobbying team was also present, it would seem they too were quietly involved in these negotiations. Neither John Weber, the NRA-ILA's Illinois liaison, or myself, were aware that the two groups had a hand in crafting the HB-2354. Frankly, I thought we all were on the same page in opposition to the bill.

As for the "peanut gallery," welcome to the Internet. They're probably just taking Boch's word. FWIW, I don't perceive the NRA to be the leader of 2A advocacy in Illinois, but I believe saying so is a message that plays well on a friendly national stage, like TTAG.

[Evil Porkchop]

 

I wonder how much the author of that article and the peanut gallery commenting really understand the politics regarding the 2A in Illinois. In my estimation they have no clue.

The author of the article is John Boch, executive director of Guns Save Life. I hesitate to call him clueless. I think he's just angry.

For the record, Valinda Rowe's "Second Amendment community" did not include Guns Save Life. It didn't include the leaders in the gun rights fight in Illinois, the National Rifle Association, either. ... Given how Eddie Sullivan, one of the Illinois State Rifle Association's lobbying team was also present, it would seem they too were quietly involved in these negotiations. Neither John Weber, the NRA-ILA's Illinois liaison, or myself, were aware that the two groups had a hand in crafting the HB-2354. Frankly, I thought we all were on the same page in opposition to the bill.

As for the "peanut gallery," welcome to the Internet. They're probably just taking Boch's word. FWIW, I don't perceive the NRA to be the leader of 2A advocacy in Illinois, but I believe saying so is a message that plays well on a friendly national stage, like TTAG.

 

 

He can be angry all he wants. He needs to take a step back and realize what we were facing on Black Wednesday. While we got a few scrapes and bruises in these 2 bills. We were very close to a proverbial "head shot".

[Lou]

Before the conversation goes too much farther, please be advised we don't usually give Mr. Boch a narrative here on IllinoisCarry. If anyone is interested in what he has to say, they are welcome to go to read his posts, but as with anything posted on the internet, be sure to verify. There are several misinformed statements in just the small snippet quoted above.

[chancemccall]

Before the conversation goes too much farther, please be advised we don't usually give Mr. Boch a narrative here on IllinoisCarry. If anyone is interested in what he has to say, they are welcome to go to read his posts, but as with anything posted on the internet, be sure to verify. There are several misinformed statements in just the small snippet quoted above.

 

Disclosure: In addition to a Life Membership in the NRA, I am also a Life Member of Guns Save Lives.

 

A while back I warned some of the people on the GSL website about the dangers of pro gun organizations getting involved in fights with each other, even as I had warned John earlier. I also understand that there is some benefit of private disagreements on some things and said so. I was heavily involved in putting together an alternative organization in 1981 in Illinois because a number of us were very unhappy with ISRA and GoPAC and because many of the people willing to put up serious money did not want any public disclosure of their contributions. We held a private meeting in Springfield with the blessings of the NRA and raised more money than ISRA and GoPAC had raised in their total existence. The ISRA and GoPAC were invited to the meeting as were every local and special pro gun organization we could identify. Every other organization but two were very much in favor of a new "cover" organization. They put up such a fight that they embarrassed themselves and created a mess at the statehouse. The "cover" organization was disbanded and money returned to avoid further difficulties in Springfield. The pro gun movement lost a lot because of the infighting. The only good that came out of the experience is it did shake up some people that had more or less been coasting. Our gun owners do not need a repeat of that in Illinois and I hope that whatever caused this rift between the feuding groups can be mended.

 

Now, with all of that said, I agree that all gun owners and the pro gun groups that represent them were, and still are, in a very tough spot in Illinois. Sometimes, compromise is necessary, especially with an eye on the longer term. That does not mean we have to like it, but it does mean that sometimes it has to be done in order to remain viable. What was done in this situation was probably the best gun owners could get, especially if we wanted Rauner to have any chance at all in beating JB. The truth is, if we had a pure 2A candidate for Governor, he/she would have very little chance of winning, and we need Rauner to win.

[mauserme]

Though I'm sure it was unintended it would be easy to conclude from that article that the NRA was, at all times, opposed to HB2354. It would be easy to read blame being cast on other groups, however unintentional, with the implication that the NRA was working against the bill.

The legislative record will reflect that, in the words of Representative Breen, all the relevant groups were given the final language about 3 weeks prior to House debate. The record will further reflect that the NRA was among the groups given the language, and it will reflect that the NRA was neutral on that final language.

It was on the day of House debate, at about 3 PM and during actual debate on the bill, that the NRA's position is said to have changed from neutral to opposed. Representatives Willis, Breen, and Reick acknowledged this change in debate, with Mr. Reick going so far as to point out to those House members concerned about their NRA score, that their vote on this bill would not be scored. He encouraged them under these circumstances to vote their conscience. Many did.

[Molly B.]

And IllinoisCarry was in close communications with the NRA throughout the entire process.

[steveTA84]

All of you anti-Rauner folks read this VERY carefully. This is some MDA leaders, along with Willis and Morrison. They are never going to stop. Knock off the crying and do your duty, vote, and halt this stuff

 

http://i.imgur.com/uDVzGx9.jpg

[Euler]

Lest there be any misperception, I don't agree with Boch. I quoted what I considered to be the nugget of his anger, basically that he seemed to feel left out of the final result. I think it's better to be forward-looking now. Rauner signed the bill. If there are cracks to be filled or details to be specified, it would be good to get the promised trailer bill in the fall. I have no doubt that the fall is going to be all about posturing for the election, but stay optimistic, anyway.

[Evil Porkchop]

FWIW GSL just posted another article on their website... basically saying don't blame Illinois Carry or ISRA and instead blame the turncoat republicans. Seems to me that little TTAG article should be retracted...