Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Exelon still pushing hard for state help
Next Post: The fight begins over graduated tax
Posted in:
* From the Illinois State Rifle Association…
HB 3160 would allow an individual’s family members, law enforcement or roommates to petition the court for an ex parte restraining order if they consider the individual to be a danger to themselves or others simply because the individual owns, possesses or purchases a firearm. According to the summary of the bill, an ex parte order would be issued by a judge based solely on a brief, unsubstantiated affidavit made by a petitioner and absent any input made by the individual on which the order is targeted. If enacted, this legislation would require the surrender of FOID cards, concealed carry licenses as well as the seizure of all firearms by law enforcement. This legislation is ripe for abuse by individuals that disagree with the Second Amendment, and the mere insinuation that gun ownership makes you a danger to yourself or others is offensive and insulting.
* Oh, c’mon.
This isn’t about targeting people “simply because the individual owns, possesses or purchases a firearm.” This bill appears to about troubled, even bad people who happen to own guns. It’s mainly aimed at domestic violence perpetrators, but could also give the cops a way to stop somebody from committing a mass shooting if family members have cause and, more importantly, evidence…
At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving, by preponderance of the evidence, that the respondent poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
* And this is what they have to demonstrate…
In determining whether to issue a lethal violence order of protection under this Section, the court shall consider evidence of:
(1) A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the respondent directed toward himself, herself, or another.
(2) A violation of an emergency order of protection issued under Section 217 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 or Section 112A-17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 or of an order of protection issued under Section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 or Section 112A-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963.
(3) A pattern of violent acts or violent threats, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence by the respondent directed toward himself, herself, or another.
* Also, if somebody does try to “abuse” this law (if it becomes law), there’d be a steep price to pay…
Every person who files a petition for an emergency lethal violence order, knowing the information provided to the court at any hearing or in the affidavit or verified pleading to be false, is guilty of perjury under Section 32-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012.
Perjury is a Class 3 felony. That’s a prison sentence of 2-5 years.
* Look, I don’t know if this bill is exactly the right way to go. Maybe it could be narrowed here or there. But ridiculing a bill designed to take guns from people who violate orders of protection sure ain’t helping matters.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Exelon still pushing hard for state help
Next Post: The fight begins over graduated tax
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The I.S.R.A. does not have many issues to raise money off of now that R.T.C. was passed. Gotta spook the base somehow if you wanna pay the bills I guess.
Comment by Saluki Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:26 pm
I used to think the term “ammosexual” was really stupid and yet now I find there are people who are abnormally “thrilled” by guns. Such a strange activating world we live in.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:27 pm
Long term, the gun fanatics will prove to be their own worst enemy. Not gun owners….gun fanatics…”the ammosexuals.”
Comment by Bronco Bahma Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:34 pm
This is why you can never have a rational discussion about guns. One side or the other immediately takes it to the extreme.
It would have been nice if the ISRA would have said we disagree with how this bill is written but we support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. The fact that they didn’t mention supporting even the concept says a lot.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:36 pm
How would you know if an individual surrendered all of his/her guns?
Comment by Union Dues Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:37 pm
“This is why you can never have a rational discussion about guns. One side or the other immediately takes it to the extreme.”
How can you claim to care about an issue if you’re not willing to lie about it?
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:52 pm
It’s a little hard to comprehend that some facsimile of this situation doesn’t already exist.
Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:53 pm
== the mere insinuation that gun ownership makes you a danger to yourself or others is offensive and insulting ==
ISRA: offended and insulted by basic statistics.
Got it.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:56 pm
–It’s a little hard to comprehend that some facsimile of this situation doesn’t already exist.–
The ISRA statement is exhibit A why such a law doesn’t already exist.
Comment by King Louis XVI Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:57 pm
=== This is why you can never have a rational discussion about guns. One side or the other immediately takes it to the extreme. ===
Basically agree with one minor modification. This is a problem with all controversial issues.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:57 pm
Also, notice the words “emergency”, this is something that would be issued when there is an “emergency.” Since it is an ex parte order, I would also assume that the gun owner would have opportunity to respond and demonstrate to the court why they are not a danger.
Comment by Dread Pirate Roberts Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:00 pm
i support the concept. there needs to be two additional provisions. the rt to a hearing in 24hrs to dispute it. and the police have to return anything seized within 24 hrs or face saily sanctions. also expunge the record automatically if the perition is overturned. no need to petition the court. as a side add on the court should also be allowed to find that there may have been a short term basis tonsupport the remcal, but that whatever was the concer has passed/no longer a threat, or was based on a good faith beleif of a problem, and allow a return w/o finding the original request was deficient.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:14 pm
It’s tax return season, ISRA has to gin up the donations somehow.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:16 pm
Brucie learned his negotiating skills from ISRA…
Comment by D.P.Gumby Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:19 pm
+++ - Dread Pirate Roberts - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:00 pm:
Also, notice the words “emergency”, this is something that would be issued when there is an “emergency.” Since it is an ex parte order, I would also assume that the gun owner would have opportunity to respond and demonstrate to the court why they are not a danger. +++
Dread Pirate Roberts - an ex parte order is one entered without one side participating. So the one who is targeted would NOT have a chance to present any evidence.
Comment by titan Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:49 pm
==Since it is an ex parte order, I would also assume that the gun owner would have opportunity to respond and demonstrate to the court why they are not a danger.==
Not true initially. An EOP does not require a hearing for the person to respond for up to two weeks after its entered
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:49 pm
Anon and Titan -
True, the ex parte order will be obtained with only one side showing, but usually the ex parte order will be only issued for a short time and a hearing will be scheduled to issue another order. The EOP last for 14-21 days, then the respondent can attend the hearing to determine if a longer term order will be issued. So, in an emergency situation, someone can go to court ask for an emergency order and the gun owner will not be there, but that emergency order will expire in a short period of time and the gun owner will be able to go to the next hearing regarding a longer term order? If so, I think that’s fair and I think using the language that it’s an ex parte order that will take your guns away without you being able to do anything about it is misleading.
Comment by Dread Pirate Roberts Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 4:11 pm
but…but…hunting! however will they find their food?!?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 4:12 pm
(430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8)
Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:
A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community
Comment by Liberty Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 4:12 pm
All the reasons mentioned are more than enough to place the person in custody. Do that first and then remove the firearms. Don’t take the firearms and leave the person to further stew and grow more resentful and angry, then they will follow through on the threat in any manner they can. Or am I missing something?
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 6:45 pm
The subject of the order has no chance to defend themselves before the cops show up to seize property and permits. I understand the intent, but this seems like guilty until proven innocent. Are there other laws that allow property and rights to be taken prior to wrongdoing?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:20 pm
In committee, the lovely gentleman from the NRA testified that this bill “looks like a way for abusers to disarm their victims.”
Interesting take.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 8:41 am