Jump to content


Photo

A good week for reasonable gun regulation - Oak Park


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 GarandCollector

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 23 June 2021 - 09:07 AM

https://www.oakpark....gun-regulation/

A good week for reasonable gun regulation


by Ray Heise
June 22, 2021

Two significant pieces of reasonable gun regulation legislation are headed to Governor Pritzkers desk for signature after having been approved by substantial majorities in the House last week.

Firearm Restraining Order
The first piece of legislation is HB1092. It amends Illinois version of a Red Flag law known as the Firearm Restraining Order (FRO) Act. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted Red Flag laws so far. They vary greatly from state to state, but they tend to have one thing in common. They are intended to give local authorities the opportunity to prevent gun tragedies before they occur. The Illinois FRO Act as originally enacted into law on 1/1/2019, allowed family members of a respondent gun owner to petition the police or the courts to temporarily remove guns from the respondent owners possession because they present a danger to the owner or to others. The owner has the right to contest the petition. The local authorities can seek to extend the temporary time of removal of the gun or guns, due to the continuation of the circumstances that gave rise to the removal of the gun(s) in the first place. Under the law, once the danger has passed, the gun is to be returned to its rightful owner.

HB1092 only somewhat expands the scope of the FRO Act, but it significantly strengthens the administrative and enforcement processes. Substantively, the bill expands the class of people who will be able to petition the police or the courts from just the immediate family to both ex-spouses of, and common parents with, the children of the respondent gun owner. Ammunition was being removed along with guns under the original act. Now ammunition and gun parts to build a weapon are specifically called out for removal under the amendment to the act.

The strengthened administrative framework for the act will:

1) Now require the IDPH to create a program to promote public awareness of FRO.

2) Require the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Board to create a standardized FRO training program for officers.

3) The Illinois State Police will now be required to file a report annually on their enforcement activities under FRO.

4) Finally, the director of the Illinois State Police is authorized to create a commission to review all aspects of the FRO law and to develop policies for its effective enforcement.

These are the kinds of administrative underpinnings that we have needed for the last couple of years to assure that the goals of the Firearms Restraining Order Act will be met. We owe much to Rep. Denyse Stoneback, as primary sponsor of the bill, and Speaker of the House Chris Welch, and Senate President Don Harmon for successfully shepherding HB1092 into law.

Fixing the FOID
The second piece of legislation adopted last week by the House in a concurrence vote is the bipartisan compromise bill, SB562. It had a slightly more complicated path to the finish line, and, while containing substantial and important gains for the reasonable regulation of guns in Illinois, it also leaves us with the significant and necessary task of continuing to pursue the incorporation of mandatory fingerprinting into the FOID (Firearm Owner ID) application background check process.

Some of the gains under SB562 include:

1) Authorization of the State Police to remove guns from owners who no longer possess valid FOID cards. This corrects one of the major flaws existing in the law at the time of the Aurora mass murder. This provision was carried over from HB1091, known as the BIO Bill.

2) SB562 also carried over from HB1091 the requirement that background checks be conducted on all gun sales. The elimination of all remaining gun sale loopholes is a huge step forward for the FOID card background check process in Illinois.

3) A permanent record will now be required to be maintained of all lost, stolen and recovered guns.

4) $9M will also be budgeted for mental health care in areas of the city that have been impacted by gun violence. While this does not advance the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors, it does contribute to addressing one of the harsh realities that accompanies the tragedy of gun violence in the city the mental health of people forced to live in such a war zone. It also begins to address racial equity issues by focusing this mental health funding on the areas most impacted by gun violence, which happen to be both minority and poor.

There are also important pieces of the BIO (Block Illegal Ownership) HB1091 that were left on the cutting room floor when the Senate spliced together compromise Senate Bill 562. One of the most important provisions in HB1091 that did not to survive the transition is mandatory fingerprinting. The impetus for the FIX the FOID/BIO Bill was born of tragedy and driven by the intention to fix the flaws in the law that allowed it to happen in the first place.

A brief description of that tragic event demonstrates the important role that fingerprinting played in it, and how, if mandatory fingerprinting had been in place at the time, the tragedy may have never taken place at all.

On Feb. 15, 2019 a mass shooting occurred at a manufacturing plant in Aurora that left the shooter and five civilians dead, and six wounded, including five courageous Aurora police officers. Five years earlier, in January of 2014, the shooter was issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card (FOID) in spite of the fact that he had a 1995 felony conviction for aggravated assault in Mississippi. This felony conviction should have prohibited the shooter from being issued a valid FOID Card, but the background check conducted at that time did not require fingerprinting, and, therefore, did not reveal the felony conviction. Instead, on March 6, 2014, the shooter purchased a Smith and Wesson .40 caliber handgun, which he eventually used to kill those five people and wound six others.

On March 16, 2014, five days after the shooter obtained possession of his handgun, he applied for a concealed carry permit. As a result of that application, the shooter chose to be voluntarily fingerprinted to expedite the background check process, and it revealed the shooters 1995 felony conviction for aggravated assault in Mississippi. As a result, the shooters concealed carry permit was rejected and his FOID card was revoked. The then Aurora police chief indicated that a letter was sent to the shooter notifying him that his FOID Card had been revoked and further notifying him that he was required to relinquish his firearm to the local authorities. The shooter did not comply with the letter and no apparent action was taken either by the State Police or the Aurora Police to recover the shooters handgun so the shooter retained possession of this handgun until he used it to commit mass murder on Feb. 15, 2019.

The incentivized fingerprinting offered in SB562 as a replacement for mandatory fingerprinting, is not an acceptable substitute. The incentive for volunteering to be fingerprinted under SB562 is a free first-time FOID card renewal worth $10. Since any applicant who has a felony conviction virtually guarantees that his felony conviction is discovered during the course of a fingerprint check, his FOID card will be rescinded or denied, or his concealed carry permit will be denied and any gun he may have will have to be relinquished to the authorities.

How likely is it that a FOID card applicant with a felony conviction will volunteer to be fingerprinted to save a $10 permit fee? I would suggest that, aside from the Aurora shooter and his odd behavior, not many in their right mind will step forward.

HB1091 proposed FOID card renewals every five years with a $20 fee. SB562 instead held firm on the existing 10-year renewal period and the $10 fee. Ten years is a long time for any authorizing permit to remain in place).

If the bottom-line purpose of the BIO Bill is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors (and it is), then there can be no doubt we need to begin pursuing mandatory fingerprinting as an absolute requirement for FOID card background checks.

If you need further incentive to renew your active support for mandatory fingerprinting and shortened FOID card renewal periods, just remember that these provisions are proposed because they can save lives, while those who oppose them do so to either avoid minor personal inconvenience or out of irrational paranoia.

The sooner we have the reasonable and rational tools we need to prevent gun violence from continuing unabated, the sooner we can gain control over this epidemic and really begin to save lives.

Ray Heise, the former Oak Park village attorney, is a member of Gun Responsibility Advocates.

#2 2A4Cook

    Old and Cranky

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,381 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 23 June 2021 - 09:10 AM

Written by a so-called attorney who clearly understands that this is unconstitutional, but allows his left wing agenda to override truth and legality.  F Oak Park!


The Constitution doesn't define what our individual rights are -- Democrats do.


#3 ragsbo

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,124 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 05

Posted 23 June 2021 - 09:23 AM

AND nothing in either bill will stop the "gun violence" going on because neither will matter to those gang bangers shooting the place up! They DO NOT have the stupid foid, and they will never worry about getting it. NO one will ever "red flag " them unless it is another gang banger and they would just shoot them first.

 

I think they need to look up the word "reasonable" in a good old fashion dictionary; because it is very plain they do NOT know the meaning of that word. Just more lies



#4 EdDinIL

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 532 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 14

Posted 23 June 2021 - 09:47 AM

1) It's HB562, not SB562.

2) HB562 hasn't been declared as passed yet because the Dems are playing games hoping for a bigger bite of the apple.

3) The writer can go.... hey, look at that code of conduct!


Life Member: NRA, ISRA, SAF

 


#5 Hatchet

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 10

Posted 23 June 2021 - 09:53 AM

He sounds mentally unstable and unsafe. Sure hope he doesn't own any firearms...


"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." (Winston Churchill).

#6 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 23 June 2021 - 10:08 AM

Written by a so-called attorney who clearly understands that this is unconstitutional, but allows his left wing agenda to override truth and legality.  F Oak Park!

Job security for the typical scumbag.  They'll rehire him later to come back and try to defend his case.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill

#7 Bubbacs

    #Fear The Clown

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,155 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 14

Posted 23 June 2021 - 10:30 AM

Oak Park
Another post about Oak Park
We’ve said it long ago F Oak Park

#8 Mr. Fife

    Nip it

  • Members
  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: 03-July 10

Posted 23 June 2021 - 01:56 PM

Foak Park
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
Have all boated who fish?
 
 

#9 Grayhawk

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 12

Posted 23 June 2021 - 04:49 PM

I stand by my rights.  Oak Park is a joke (and I was raised in Elmwood Park, socially down scale, but ethically, uh, even handed).


Grayhawk

IL, FL, AZ, UT CCL

GOES Trusted Traveler, Commercial Pilot

Member: ISRA, GOA, NRA, GSL, USCCA, Legal Defense Network, IL Carry

Graduate Citizens Police Academy - Oak Brook PD and DuPage County Sheriff;  DuPage CERT

 

 


#10 Kipp Jones

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 07

Posted 23 June 2021 - 05:54 PM

Want to bet Ray is not squeaky clean...
C&R FFL 03

#11 DoYouFeelLucky

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,133 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 08

Posted 23 June 2021 - 06:03 PM

How are you going to remove guns from a household that no longer has a FOID card if the IL Supreme Court ruled that you don't need a FOID card to possess guns in your home?


Freedom has a cost, and a free society must always be vigilant and ready to defend themselves against those that would misuse those freedoms to harm others. You cannot legislate the protection of free people, they must turn to themselves to preserve and maintain their freedom. Copyright 2012 Niner8Zulu Consulting

#12 Nanook

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,381 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 11

Posted 24 June 2021 - 07:58 AM

How are you going to remove guns from a household that no longer has a FOID card if the IL Supreme Court ruled that you don't need a FOID card to possess guns in your home?

 

That's an excellent point, but the opposition never lets facts stand in the way of the agenda. 

 

These bills will do NOTHING to address "gun violence" and both sides know it. 


“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices.” -- George Orwell

 


#13 Flynn

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,145 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 18

Posted 24 June 2021 - 06:39 PM

How are you going to remove guns from a household that no longer has a FOID card if the IL Supreme Court ruled that you don't need a FOID card to possess guns in your home?

 

In addition to this what if another resident of that house has a valid FOID, what gives them the right to seize private property that isn't contraband but is still lawfully possessed by someone else at the residence?

 

Seems ripe for a 2nd and 4th challenge to me.

 

Even though it's not a right, just imagine the screaming if they say for example seized all vehicles at a home because someone at the residence lost their DL.


Edited by Flynn, 24 June 2021 - 06:41 PM.

Anonymous leakers, leak anonymously about the anonymous leak.
 
—Anonymous

#14 oohrah

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 15

Posted 25 June 2021 - 07:06 AM

Adding ex-spouses.  Yeah, that'll work.  Having witnessed the vindictive legal BS my brother's Ex continued to throw at him, you don't want to get near that possobility.


USMC, Retired
Waco, Texas
Texas LTC
Illinois CCL
SASS "Trickster Dick"


#15 Jeffrey

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,388 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 08

Posted 25 June 2021 - 07:44 AM

 

How are you going to remove guns from a household that no longer has a FOID card if the IL Supreme Court ruled that you don't need a FOID card to possess guns in your home?

 

In addition to this what if another resident of that house has a valid FOID, what gives them the right to seize private property that isn't contraband but is still lawfully possessed by someone else at the residence?

 

Seems ripe for a 2nd and 4th challenge to me.

 

Even though it's not a right, just imagine the screaming if they say for example seized all vehicles at a home because someone at the residence lost their DL.

 

Fortunately the book says The right to keep and drive cars, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


...and justice for all

YOUR WALLET, the only place Democrats care to drill




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users