* Illinois State Police…
The Illinois State Police (ISP) received a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card application from Gary Montez Martin, DOB: 04/28/73, on January 17, 2014. A FOID background check, which consists of a name and date of birth check, was then conducted. The Firearm Owners Identification Act does not allow a FOID card applicant to submit fingerprints as part of the application process. On his application, Martin answered “NO” to the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony?” The search of records conducted by FOID staff only produced Martin’s Illinois criminal history information, which revealed no prohibiting factors. Martin’s FOID card application was then approved on January 31, 2014.
On March 6, 2014 a firearm transaction for Martin to purchase a handgun was approved after the name and date of birth background check was again cleared. Any purchases of ammunition would have required Martin to show his valid FOID card, however, Illinois law does not require a check of a person’s FOID card to complete the purchase.
The ISP received a Firearm Concealed Carry License (FCCL) application for Martin on March 16, 2014. Unlike the FOID application, FCCL applicants may choose to submit fingerprints as a component of their application. If fingerprints are submitted, statutory processing time is reduced to 90 days from 120 days. Martin submitted fingerprints with his application. A fingerprint background check produced an FBI number.
The FBI number ultimately led FCCL staff to a Mississippi Department of Corrections entry noting a charge of aggravated assault, with incarceration for 5 years. FCCL staff then obtained Mississippi court records, which included a criminal disposition plea of guilty for aggravated assault, showing a sentence of 10 years, and a requirement to undergo psychological screening. Martin was reportedly released from custody on April 18, 1997.
Upon receipt of the court documents, Martin’s FCCL application was denied on March 26, 2014. A letter dated April 15, 2014 was sent to Martin notifying him of his FCCL application denial as well as indicating he was no longer eligible for a FOID card. Martin was notified he was responsible for surrendering his FOID card and any weapons in his possession. FCCL staff notified FOID staff for purposes of revoking Martin’s FOID card. Martin’s FOID card was subsequently revoked on April 17, 2014.
The ISP’s procedure at the time was to notify local law enforcement where the FOID card holder resides by means of the Illinois Law Enforcement Agencies Data System (LEADS). The ISP is also currently examining Illinois, Mississippi, and FBI records and systems to determine how Martin’s Mississippi conviction was discovered after his fingerprint response was returned for his FCCL application.
Once an individual’s FOID is revoked, Illinois law requires a revoked FOID card holder to surrender their FOID card and complete a Firearm Disposition Record within 48 hours of receiving notice of the revocation. The Firearm Disposition Record would document the name, address and FOID number of the individual receiving any transferred weapons from the revoked FOID card holder. A revoked FOID card holder can lawfully transfer their weapon to a valid FOID card holder or to the local law enforcement agency in the area in which the revoked FOID card holder resides. The Firearm Disposition Record requires that the revoked FOID card holder must obtain signature from the local law enforcement agency receiving the Firearm Disposition Record. The local law enforcement agency is required to mail the completed form to the Illinois State Police.
The ISP has no record of receiving a Firearm Disposition Record for Martin or Martin’s FOID card at this time, however a review of paper and electronic files continues.
If a revoked FOID Card holder fails to comply with these requirements, the county sheriff or law enforcement agency where the individual resides may petition the court to issue a search warrant for the FOID card and any firearms in their possession; however, Illinois law does not require them to do so.
The Illinois State Police issued 10,818 revocations to FOID card holders in 2018 alone. The Department is reviewing its records to determine how many outstanding Firearm Disposition Records remain for 2018, however, in most instances, the Firearm Disposition Record does not get returned to the Department.
* Tribune…
Aurora police Chief Kristen Ziman said a criminal background check would not necessarily detect a 20-year-old conviction. But Martin’s aggravated assault is easily found in public record databases used by the Chicago Tribune and news organizations across the country.
* But…
The chief executive of the company that owns the warehouse where an employee gunned down five co-workers says a background check on him when he joined Henry Pratt Co.15 years ago did not turn up a 1995 felony conviction for aggravated assault in Mississippi.
* Sun-Times editorial…
When Martin’s concealed carry permit was denied, the state revoked his FOID card as well.
But Martin — and this is everything — kept his gun.
No one went to his home and took the gun away, despite an Illinois law that empowers the State Police to do so. Sadly, that’s the norm: Law enforcement authorities routinely fail to confiscate guns from people who have had their FOID cards revoked.
This is not a new revelation. We, the Sun-Times Editorial Board, first wrote about this problem in 2015.
Dart, in fact, has been so frustrated by the problem that he put together his own team to seize guns from people whose FOID cards have been revoked. Last year, the team retrieved about 100 weapons. Hundreds more, Dart estimates, are still out there.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:29 am:
Would a more fully staffed ISP have made a difference?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:29 am:
–Once an individual’s FOID is revoked, Illinois law requires a revoked FOID card holder to surrender their FOID card and complete a Firearm Disposition Record within 48 hours of receiving notice of the revocation. –
Or what?
Nothing.
This law needs an enforcement mechanism.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:30 am:
The FOID is a waste of resources. Compare the few states that require a similar process to those with none.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:33 am:
Better enforcement is clearly needed and a clear chain of responsibility so each agency knows which is responsible at each step. I do perhaps understand the reticence of local law enforcement to go to the homes of people they know are armed, and are felons and/or mentally unstable and demanding their guns. Places officers in harm’s way.
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:35 am:
==The FOID is a waste of resources. Compare the few states that require a similar process to those with none==
And we spend what, maybe $350 million per year for these results? Seems like that money would be better spent elsewhere, FOID appears to be a “feel good” program that doesn’t give us much return on investment.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:36 am:
–The FOID is a waste of resources.–
That’s your concern after this massacre? Thoughts and prayers for you.
A revoked FOID card allows law enforcement to legally take guns from powder kegs like Martin.
The law could have been enforced and people would still be alive.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:37 am:
This is IL. Politicians are more concerned with passing more laws to pander to the left, than actually enforcing them. Most gun owners to not oppose reasonable gun laws, but when we don’t take reasonable steps to enforce laws on the books, telling law abiding citizens to turn in their guns makes no sense.
Very few mass shooting occur without there being a preceding gun law violation that was not prosecuted. Simple truth is our legislature has an addiction to passing laws, but no interest in funding their enforcement.
- Birdseed - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:38 am:
=== Any purchases of ammunition would have required Martin to show his valid FOID card, however, Illinois law does not require a check of a person’s FOID card to complete the purchase. ===
I’ve read this 3 times and can’t figure it out.
Help, please.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:39 am:
Is it routine to collect guns when a FOID card is revoked? I’ve never heard of that as a sole action… only as part of an arrest or stop for some other reason.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:44 am:
Yes. I do pray. Doesn’t seem to help much these days. 10,818 revocations. About 100 guns. MN,Mi,Wi,IA. Bordering states that don’t require FOID. What are they doing different.
- Duopoly - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:44 am:
=–The FOID is a waste of resources.–
That’s your concern after this massacre? Thoughts and prayers for you.
A revoked FOID card allows law enforcement to legally take guns from powder kegs like Martin.
The law could have been enforced and people would still be alive.=
Unfortunately the attitudes like BDD and SBB is creeping towards “guns, like corporations, are people too with rights” so there is lethal reluctance in enforcement.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:45 am:
…close to bordering…
- Terry Salad - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:46 am:
Didn’t some downstate DA recently say they would not enforce new gun laws if passed? This is the result.
- OneMan - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:49 am:
== I’ve read this 3 times and can’t figure it out. ==
From what I understand they don’t have to “call it in” the physical card is sufficient, the retailer does not have to validate it is still valid.
Not too long ago, the card use part of the handwritten form you submitted, it looked like something you could make with a laminator at home.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:50 am:
Duopoly. I am totally in favor of enforcement. I got one better. Commit a felony with a gun. 25 yrs. no parole. Murder with a gun. Life.
- C Ball - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:54 am:
@Birdseed
I think this means that ammunition seller does not do a check with ISP to see whether the FOID has been revoked.
If your driver’s license was revoked but you had not surrendered it and then went to rent a car, the rental agency would not check with the Sec. of State to see if the license was in fact valid.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:55 am:
=Blue Dog Dem
“Commit a felony with a gun. 25 yrs. no parole. Murder with a gun. Life”
that is already on the books - lookup the “Armed Violence” Prosecutors are empowered to impose this Class X charge on any felony committed while armed
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:00 am:
Slight correction. ISP revoked 10k FOID. I am sure Dart only dealt with his jurisdiction. I have in the past, requested from ISP that exact data, and have never once gotten a number of confiscations.
- Not It - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:01 am:
Way to go there, Illinois.
And for everyone who says gun problems are only in Chicago, what is your response to this?
- NoGifts - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:01 am:
How would they even know whether you received the notice? Is it certified mail? What if you refuse?
- Duopoly - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:03 am:
=Duopoly. I am totally in favor of enforcement. I got one better. Commit a felony with a gun. 25 yrs. no parole. Murder with a gun. Life. =
Commit violent felonies without guns and get to acquire all the guns and ammo you want. - Uhmmm.
- Reserved - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:03 am:
Props to the Pritzker administration for releasing this today, they could have just released a “we’re investigating “statement until the story was less fresh. Sure it helps it was a prior administration, but it is refreshing to see an apparently legit explanation and revelation there are thousands more similar cases out there.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:06 am:
===Or what? Nothing.===
Class A Misdemeanor. Almost nothing.
- JAH - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:06 am:
It still doesn’t answer the questions - exactly what databases were searched by ILSP in connection w/ the FOID card and it does not explain how he passed a background check when we obtained the firearm from the retailer.
It also doesn’t explain why he wasn’t arrested and prosecuted for lying on the FIOD form, the 4473 and the CCW form.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:10 am:
Yes, because not having a FOID card would’ve definitely stopped him.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:11 am:
== And for everyone who says gun problems are only in Chicago, what is your response to this? ==
As far as us downstaters go, Aurora is part of Chicago.
Seriously, I know Aurora is Naperville’s poorer neighbor to the west. Been to both towns.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:11 am:
==No one went to his home and took the gun away, despite an Illinois law that empowers the State Police to do so.==
This is not wholly correct. The Illinois law empowers the county Sheriff or local police, not ISP, with the ability to *seek* a warrant to do so. They can’t just barge into someone’s house.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:13 am:
==I’ve read this 3 times and can’t figure it out.==
When someone purchases ammunition they are required to show their FOID card, but retailers do not run a check on it, nor does the law require them to.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:16 am:
===Or what? Nothing.===
Class A Misdemeanor. Almost nothing.–
And that’s not enforced, either.
It’s going to take some leadership to provide an enforcement mechanism for the current law.
Pritzker, that’s why you spent the big money to get the Big Chair. Tweets and showing up at press conferences ain’t going to cut it. Get on it.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:18 am:
My 2 cents.
Whether you love or hate the Foid, it exists & isn’t going anywhere. & ISP should be commended as they’ve greatly improved the renewal process from what it was 10yrs ago.
Since we have the FOID we should take the steps to ensure the revocation process is enforceable & actually works. We should require the County Sheriff, or other LE, to process the firearm disposition. This shoudn’t be a heavy lift honestly.
This would be a bit more of a lift but, IMHO, we should raise the FOID fee to $20. $20 for 10 years isn’t unreasonabe. Perhaps it’s time to include prints in the application. (Assuming it’s technically physical)
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:23 am:
Regrettably i know two individuals that received their revocation notices. Both because of drug dependency/selling felonies. Do you know what both individuals immediately did? Hid their guns. I wish i didnt know this. But i bet they are in the majority.
- west wing - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:37 am:
In Iowa there is a bill in Des Moines to eliminate the FOID card altogether … there are some strong cultural and political divisions at work … maybe Cook County Sheriff Dart needs to convene a blue-ribbon panel with Governor Pritzker?
- SAP - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:41 am:
==I do perhaps understand the reticence of local law enforcement to go to the homes of people they know are armed, and are felons and/or mentally unstable and demanding their guns. Places officers in harm’s way.== Going into harm’s way is part of what you sign up for when you become a police officer. When a team of police officers recover a gum from a revoked FOID licensee, at least they have some control over the situation when they are acting proactively rather than reacting to a shooter. Law enforcement officers are better able to respond to armed felons than warehouse employees.
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:42 am:
Notice of revoked foid card should be sent to State Attorneys then a notice or summons to appear in court where guns turned over failure to appear would be warrant for arrest
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:46 am:
==In Iowa==
Huh? Iowa has nothing to do with FOID cards
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:47 am:
–Yes, because not having a FOID card would’ve definitely stopped him.–
Read harder. Once his card was revoked, his guns could have been lawfully confiscated.
–Regrettably i know two individuals that received their revocation notices. Both because of drug dependency/selling felonies. Do you know what both individuals immediately did? Hid their guns.–
And what’s the responsibility to the community of a law-abiding citizen like yourself who knows of drug dealers hiding illegal guns?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:49 am:
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:23 am:
Regrettably i know two individuals that received their revocation notices. Both because of drug dependency/selling felonies. Do you know what both individuals immediately did? Hid their guns. I wish i didnt know this. But i bet they are in the majority.
If you know this then you are just as guilty for not passing the information on to a law enforcement agency.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:51 am:
==Do you know what both individuals immediately did? Hid their guns. I wish i didnt know this.==
So you personally knew they were breaking the law and did absolutely nothing about it? You’re a heck of a citizen there Blue Dog. Wouldn’t you have felt awful if those individuals would have committed a gun crime?
I’m unclear as to what you are saying in any of this thread Blue Dog. Because your callousness in your comments is really unbelievable. Try and focus on what happened instead of your rantings about the FOID card.
- skeptical - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 11:57 am:
Feds also dropped the ball, the ATF performed a background check when the handgun was purchased.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:02 pm:
Wordslinger, try a little harder to access your common sense. An individual hellbent on killing as many innocents as possible is incapable of obtaining a gun illegally?
- Todd - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:05 pm:
The FOID check starts with a soundex run for name & DOB.
The Fingerprint check runs through some different databases, and as ISP said turned up a FBI number which when checked yielded the felony conviction.
The real issue, beyond the FOID surrender and confication of the firearm is the guy was roaming around and had another 6 arrests post the revocation of the FOID. and usually as a condition of bail, must not possess a firearm. But it looks as no ASA asked the question in court if he had a FOID or firearm.
You also have him running aorund having committed not only the state felony for lying on the FOID app, but a felon of being a felon in possession. Then there is the federal felony for lying on the 4473. 5 years lapsed and not one prosecutor or LE did anything about those.
Rich is right that these don’t get enforced. There are plenty of ways to catch this without impinging on anyone’s rights. But ASA probably just check the boxes to get through the court call without putting a lot of thought into the other outside issues like do they have a FOID or firearms.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:06 pm:
To my fellow concerned citizens. Our drug awareness team does act in the best interests of public safety and was reported to authorities.
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:07 pm:
He committed perjury to obtain a FOID, later to purchase a firearm, and failed to comply with the revocation of his FOID after he was found to have obtained it illegally. His perjury was not pursued for prosecution, his revocation was not enforced and the State bears full responsibility for this happening.
Who is going to accept the responsibility of failure? Or will the blame be laid at the feet of lawful firearm owners who had no part in this?
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:10 pm:
These people seek revenge and infamy. A FOID card isn’t going to stop them. Taking their guns is not going to stop them. Until we have as much gun regulation as Europe, and the media stops sensationalizing these events, these tragedies are inevitable.
- SOIL M - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:11 pm:
Perhaps if Illinois utilized the federal data base for background checks on firearms purchases instead of just isp, the sale would have been denied. The change that is needed is for Illinois to use NICS instead of their own system. That would catch out of state records and be a much smoother process as well.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:23 pm:
Stuntman Bob. You are correct.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:27 pm:
==Perhaps if Illinois utilized the federal data base for background checks on firearms purchases instead of just isp, the sale would have been denied.==
Sales, and FOID checks, are run through the Federal database. ISP is the pass through entity for the Federal background check. but unless you have fingerprints it’s not going to be 100% certain everything matches.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:27 pm:
SOIL M
He went through an NICS check when he bought the firearm, the Feds failed to catch him to.
This was a tragic list of errors.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:29 pm:
–Wordslinger, try a little harder to access your common sense. An individual hellbent on killing as many innocents as possible is incapable of obtaining a gun illegally?–
The ol’ criminals-will-find-a way-to-break-the-law gag, good for use against any and all laws.
Amazing that you believe it’s a drop-the-mic argument.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:34 pm:
== Perhaps if Illinois utilized the federal data base for background checks on firearms ==
You have obviously not bought a firearm in Illinois. Last time I bought one, both s FOID and Federal check was run the day I purchased / paid for it. Since it was a pistol, 3 days later another FOID and Federal check was run before I could actually pick it up and leave the shop with it.
== That would catch out of state records and be a much smoother process as well. ==
Only if the other states have properly reported to the Feds. Heck, even the Feds don’t get everything reported to the Feds. One mass shooter this past year would have been denied firearms purchase if the Army had reported his invalidating status.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:43 pm:
WS,
Amazing you think this is akin to any other sort of crime.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
–To my fellow concerned citizens. Our drug awareness team does act in the best interests of public safety and was reported to authorities.–
Then the FOID served its purpose, as you would have had nothing to report if the FOID were not revoked.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:51 pm:
If the ISP and/or the local police are too swamped to confiscate firearms, then perhaps we ought to consider adding a surcharge on to firearm purchases to cover the cost of actual enforcement. Call it a user fee. Or increase the cost of FOID applications. Whatever, but let’s have a dedicated team to handle this public health threat.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 12:58 pm:
Word. The guns were not located i am told.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:02 pm:
But the question still remains. Most states dont require a FOID, yet their gun crime stats are comparable or less. What are they doing right that Illinois is doing wrong
- Thomas Paine - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:03 pm:
I see a few obvious changes:
1. Make fingerprinting mandatory for conceal carry, reduce all permit times to 90 days.
2. Require fingerprinting for FOID.
3. Put state police in charge of confiscating weapons.
4. Do not allow weapons to be handed off to friend or family member.
5. Require sellers to verify FOID is still valid.
6. Permit employers to include questions about FOID card/fire arm ownership on job application.
7. Publish a monthly report through ISP of the number of FOID cards revoked by county, number weapons related to those FOID cards, and the number of FOID cards and weapons recovered.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:25 pm:
== 5. Require sellers to verify FOID is still valid. ==
That already happens if you buy through a FFL.
- TP - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:28 pm:
TP, that’s pretty funny, what do you do for an encore. 3,4, and 5 are already happening, the rest is just nonsense. Which other constitutional rights should we get fingerprinted for before exercising?
- Cornfed - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:32 pm:
Sorry, TP was me.
- FreqOwnIdahoan - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:39 pm:
Current Illinois laws are not being enforced. So, why would even more Illinois laws work?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:43 pm:
==That already happens if you buy through a FFL.==
Guns, yes, but not ammunition sales.
==TP, that’s pretty funny, what do you do for an encore. 3,4, and 5 are already happening, the rest is just nonsense. Which other constitutional rights should we get fingerprinted for before exercising?==
Regarding 5, see above. 3 is not current law, locals are charged with that duty under the FOID act. Regarding 4, you can indeed transfer to a family member if they have a FOID, see the Waffle House incident for proof of that.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:44 pm:
==Current Illinois laws are not being enforced. So, why would even more Illinois laws work?==
They could be better enforced with fingerprints, but Gun groups don’t want to require fingerprints.
- Nonbeleiver - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 1:56 pm:
Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 10:44 am:
“Yes. I do pray. Doesn’t seem to help much these days. 10,818 revocations. About 100 guns. MN,Mi,Wi,IA. Bordering states that don’t require FOID. What are they doing different.”
That statement sums up rather well this whole issue.
- Cornfed - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:00 pm:
— Regarding 5, see above. 3 is not current law, locals are charged with that duty under the FOID act. Regarding 4, you can indeed transfer to a family member if they have a FOID, see the Waffle House incident for proof of that. —
It’s been state law since 2013 or so that the FOID in all private sales must be checked via the ISP.
- Mason born - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:03 pm:
TP
I can see the value of 1 & 2. 5 is a pretty big stretch to extend that to ammo.
Really curious what your point of #6 is. Was his employer supposed to catch something ISP & NICS missed?
As for #7 I’m not sure a data base would help much. Not all Foid holders own guns & even if they did wouldn’t one guy having 10 hide 9 with only 1 who didn’t surrender them?
- Peace - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:15 pm:
Terry Salad
==Didn’t some downstate DA recently say they would not enforce new gun laws if passed? This is the result.==
That is incorrect. They said they would not enforce NEW laws that violated our U.S. Constitutional rights. All gun owners I know would agree with me that the Aurora shooter should not have had a FOID card or firearm. Our current system failed. The system needs fixed, and the current laws enforced properly. New laws will not fix anything other than have a temporary “feel good” effect.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:16 pm:
==It’s been state law since 2013 or so that the FOID in all private sales must be checked via the ISP.==
Again…see above: they are *not* verified in ammunition sales.
- Peace - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:19 pm:
Thomas Paine
==6. Permit employers to include questions about FOID card/fire arm ownership on job application.==
As others have mentioned, please explain. Why should employers be permitted to factor in FOID ownership when determining employment? I’m not a lawyer but that sounds incredibly un-Constitutional.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:41 pm:
–WS,
Amazing you think this is akin to any other sort of crime.–
I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
Your argument is that the law won’t prevent those willing to break the law from doing so.
That, on it’s face, is an argument to any and all laws.
- Roger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:53 pm:
Another sign that laws aren’t being obeyed by criminals. But we continually want to punish the honest.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 2:58 pm:
–Word. The guns were not located i am told.–
Such a serially evolving story. You should pitch it to Netflix. They’ll take anything.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:25 pm:
We both know what each other’s argument is. But I won’t argue like a child, so allow me to attack your argument while granting more nuance to your argument than you did mine.
By suggesting that the attack could’ve been prevented by taking his FOID card away, you are diminishing this attack to something like a “crime of opportunity.”
This shooting, and others like them, can’t be stopped with half ass gun control measures. It’s like saying we could’ve stopped 9/11 by suspending the hijacker’s Expedia accounts.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:33 pm:
–By suggesting that the attack could’ve been prevented by taking his FOID card away, you are diminishing this attack to something like a “crime of opportunity.”–
Again, read harder. Martin’s guns should have been taken away, as allowed by law, after his FOID card was revoked.
- wondering - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:38 pm:
Seems to me there are a couple of liabilities here. Some agency has the job to retrieve, not sure which because of all the wriggling. Which ever should be sued and have to pay up, just for disciplinary purposes. The company has a liability. When you can someone, put them on leave, fire them over the phone, don’t go through an ego termination exercise, don’t allow them on the property….put in metal detectors to the brass’s office floor. Founded in 1901, Pratt should have had systems in place. And RNUG, I invite you to compare “poor neighbor Aurora” to uppity Parkland….cops and fireman, pure courage. To quote Rich, “bite me”. From Aurora and proud of it. Sensitive issue with me…had Martin in class.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
What’s your point?
- Perrid - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:43 pm:
Name/Nickname/Anon, use YOUR common sense. Making it harder to buy a gun makes it harder to commit crimes with said gun. Period. Some people are going to be deterred, are not going to be able to get a gun. Just because we won’t have 100% success we shouldn’t try at all? Seriously, have you actually thought about your words before you type them?
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:47 pm:
Perrid. As many say here ofte. Show your facts. A FOID card is supposed to be a deterrent, but neighboring states,w/o, FOID card are as safe or safer. So i say. Not so.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:55 pm:
Agreed - and I never said that we shouldn’t.
But you’re saying it might have stopped this shooting. I am saying that’s nonsense.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 3:59 pm:
–A FOID card is supposed to be a deterrent, but neighboring states,w/o, FOID card are as safe or safer.–
You’re playing games with this massacre.
In this instance, Martin’s guns could have been taken from him, lawfully, after his FOID card had been revoked, if an effective enforcement mechanism was in place.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:00 pm:
== I invite you to compare “poor neighbor Aurora” ==
-Wondering-, no insult intended … just comparing it by the financial demographics. It was meant as a joke.
- Name/Nickname/Anon - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:02 pm:
Wordslinger, we can read. He illegally buys more guns.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:08 pm:
Word. Your wrong. I want effective means of dealing with these issues. Hiding behind a ludicrous 50 cent/yr card is quite honestly. Insane. Ask ISP for their data.
- Bruce( no not him) - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:19 pm:
If my FOID is revoked, it is my understanding that all that has to be done under the law, is my wife (or someone else) can take possession of them. I have been told the law doesn’t require confiscation, only that “I “ don’t possess weapons.
- wondering - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:27 pm:
RNUG: accepted, besides, you and OW are my blog heroes. I am overly sensitive on the issue and as a good Auroran repulsed by the transient commmunity of overaged yuppies to the East.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:48 pm:
–I want effective means of dealing with these issues. Hiding behind a ludicrous 50 cent/yr card is quite honestly. Insane. –
Then effectively enforce the revocation law.
You’ve been whining about the FOID card fee — $10 — forever. You’re now using this massacre to ride your hobby horse.
- Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 4:50 pm:
God bless our first responders.
- Blue Dog Dem - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 5:46 pm:
I don’t care what the fee is. It’s,to quote an earlier poster, a feel good thing. Compare it’s effectiveness,as a tool, to states close by.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 6:40 pm:
If I could, I build a cadet class or two ai ISP and dedicate the bunch of them to firearms law enforcement. They come t your door because of one of these violations, and you say you don’t have the weapons any more but you don’t have the receipt or paper trail, you go to jail, RFN. If you become unqualified to possess, you could have the option of storing your arms at a local gun shop’s safe, for a fee, until such time as you can sell them or re-qualify to own Like pawning them, in that, if you stop paying the storage, the gun shop then owns them or surrenders them to ISP for disposal. They give you a receipt to show the ISP or Sheriff. Gun nuts are always complaining we don’t enforce the existing laws; well, I wanna see them enforced with extreme predjudice.
- revvedup - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 6:53 pm:
Many law enforcement agencies are much smaller operations that Aurora; fewer officers mean Chiefs and Sheriffs aren’t going to chase down FOID violators. Tying up an officer to see the State’s Attorney, then go before a judge to present the probable cause for the warrant, can run up the overtime quickly. They also are concerned about the safety of officers, and legal liability of serving the search warrant and taking the firearms, even with court orders and warrants, because they are not immune from civil rights suits if it turns out badly.
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Tuesday, Feb 19, 19 @ 7:09 pm:
Anonymous at 6:40:
Part of the problem is that there is no way to know how many guns a person owns - except for the weapons purchased since a background check for the purchase became law. And even those could be legally “unaccounted for”, I believe FOID only requires records of a private sale to be kept for what, seven years? After that, the records can be tossed. For instance, I have serviceable firearms in my possession that I inherited many years ago, that no one knows about, and that there is no record of, because they are “antiques”, in existence when a rifle could be bought at the corner hardware store with no FOID or other registration. So unless the state passes a full on “Give us an inventory or you go to jail” law, the state would never know whether someone is armed or not.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Feb 20, 19 @ 12:43 am:
== For instance, I have serviceable firearms in my possession that I inherited many years ago, that no one knows about, and that there is no record of, because they are “antiques”, in existence when a rifle could be bought at the corner hardware store with no FOID or other registration. ==
Actually, that brings up another point. What about true antique firearms as defined by the Feds, ie, pre-dating 1880 that are Federal exempt. There are a lot of those around, and see some of them are even in common revolver calibers used today like 22, 38 & 45.