4,212 FOIDs revoked for C&PD

[Euler]

WCIA 3 Champaign said:→

In a release, ISP highlighted the agency's Office of Firearm Safety reviewing more than 10,000 Clear and Present Danger Reports.

Law enforcement agencies, school administrators, and medical professionals can file a clear and present danger report to ISP to alert state police of people potentially threatening to hurt someone or themselves. ISP then reviews the report and can revoke a FOID card or application and confiscate any firearms.
...
ISP officials said they review around 30 Clear and Present Danger reports each day.

Between January and September 2023, ISP investigated 10,144 Clear and Present Danger Reports. From those, 4,212 resulted in revoking a card or an application. 4,912 individuals involved in a Clear and Present Danger investigation were found to not have a FOID card or a pending application.
...

There's nothing in the article about the remaining 1,020.

Also, the law specifies that a physician, clinical psychologist, qualified [mental health] examiner, law enforcement official, or school administrator can file a Clear and Present Danger report on someone.

[Jeffrey]

Great work ISP.  Are they avoiding Chicago though?  Last I checked they still have a gang problem.

[Tango7]

How many were returned at the hearing that's required after the initial revocation order?

 

<crickets>

 

 

[Euler]

What hearing? I'm unaware of any hearing.

[mab22]

On 11/29/2023 at 8:27 AM, Jeffrey said:

Great work ISP.  Are they avoiding Chicago though?  Last I checked they still have a gang problem.

You mean gang members "multi-precinct-frequent-voter" program members?

 

[MHR89]

"Also, the law specifies that a physician, clinical psychologist, qualified [mental health] examiner, law enforcement official, or school administrator can file a Clear and Present Danger report on someone."  

 

But what exactly does it mean to be a "clear and present danger?"   Seems like a simple label to slap on someone that results in the loss of their 2nd amendment right.    

[Tvandermyde]

this is where that SEC case can be real helpful if decided the right way, add that to a positive Rahimi decision about dangerousness. and C&P is on life support 

[Euler]

430 ILCS 65 said:

...
Sec. 1.1. For purposes of this Act:
...
"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.

...

[BobPistol]

On 12/1/2023 at 11:23 AM, mab22 said:

You mean gang members "multi-precinct-frequent-voter" program members?

 

or cronies of the city council. 

[Molly B.]

Unless I'm mistaken, a court hearing is provided in the case of a firearm restraining order.  It is not provided for in the Clear and Present danger revocations. Those cases are appealed to the FOID Card Review Board and the FOID holder is at their mercy.  If denied, they can appeal in circuit court but only in an administrative review hearing, they cannot enter evidence, provide witnesses, or question their accuser . . . unconstitutional?  You bet it is.

 

The FOID Card Review Board is refusing to reinstate FOID cards even after the person has done the forensic psych evaluation and been given a clean mental health review.

[BobPistol]

On 11/30/2023 at 7:08 PM, Tango7 said:

How many were returned at the hearing that's required after the initial revocation order?

 

<crickets>

 

 

 

No due process of law = totalitarian state of Illinois.

[MHR89]

4212 who have no right to question their accuser!   

[MHR89]

I had my FOID revoked, and eventually reinstated, for C&PD as the ISP mistook me for a different individual.    I can't help but believe there are a lot of people that are in similar situations.   Some bureaucrat in Springfield doing their job poorly, using antiquated systems can cause people serious problems.    

[mab22]

On 12/5/2023 at 4:26 PM, Molly B. said:

Unless I'm mistaken, a court hearing is provided in the case of a firearm restraining order.  It is not provided for in the Clear and Present danger revocations. Those cases are appealed to the FOID Card Review Board and the FOID holder is at their mercy.  If denied, they can appeal in circuit court but only in an administrative review hearing, they cannot enter evidence, provide witnesses, or question their accuser . . . unconstitutional?  You bet it is.

 

The FOID Card Review Board is refusing to reinstate FOID cards even after the person has done the forensic psych evaluation and been given a clean mental health review.

1. Maybe they need to make this an actual class action court case. 
2. We need to get FOID declared unconstitutional.

 

[Tvandermyde]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:26 PM, Molly B. said:

Unless I'm mistaken, a court hearing is provided in the case of a firearm restraining order.  It is not provided for in the Clear and Present danger revocations. Those cases are appealed to the FOID Card Review Board and the FOID holder is at their mercy.  If denied, they can appeal in circuit court but only in an administrative review hearing, they cannot enter evidence, provide witnesses, or question their accuser . . . unconstitutional?  You bet it is.

 

The FOID Card Review Board is refusing to reinstate FOID cards even after the person has done the forensic psych evaluation and been given a clean mental health review.

thats my point on the SEC case. Especially if you listen to Thomas on the individual liberty stuff

[Tango7]

On 12/5/2023 at 5:40 PM, mab22 said:

1. Maybe they need to make this an actual class action court case. 
2. We need to get FOID declared unconstitutional.

 

 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

 

And, of course, Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
 

Quote

 

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

 

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

 

Substitute "Second" for "First" and "fee" for "tax" in the above quote? You have our situation. The background check argument used to pass the FOIDA (even though the goal was Daley's disarming of non-whites) is void with the implementation of the NICS.

[mab22]

On 2/11/2024 at 5:37 PM, Tango7 said:

 

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 “The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491 “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 “If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and charge a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

 

And, of course, Murdock v Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
 

 

Substitute "Second" for "First" and "fee" for "tax" in the above quote? You have our situation. The background check argument used to pass the FOIDA (even though the goal was Daley's disarming of non-whites) is void with the implementation of the NICS.

I agree, is there also a 5th amendment issue with self incrimination, and the state police having access to records of people who MAY own firearms, in a registration like scheme? Referring to Haynes V United States.