Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » It’s just a bill…
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      Mobile Version     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
It’s just a bill…

Monday, Apr 18, 2016

* 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        

22 Comments
  1. - Saluki - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:26 pm:

    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.


  2. - Honeybear - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:27 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.


  3. - Bronco Bahma - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:34 pm:

    Long term, the gun fanatics will prove to be their own worst enemy. Not gun owners….gun fanatics…”the ammosexuals.”


  4. - Demoralized - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:36 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.


  5. - Union Dues - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:37 pm:

    How would you know if an individual surrendered all of his/her guns?


  6. - @MisterJayEm - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:52 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


  7. - A guy - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:53 pm:

    It’s a little hard to comprehend that some facsimile of this situation doesn’t already exist.


  8. - crazybleedingheart - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:56 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.


  9. - King Louis XVI - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 2:57 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.


  10. - Norseman - 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.


  11. - 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.


  12. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:14 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.


  13. - Precinct Captain - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:16 pm:

    It’s tax return season, ISRA has to gin up the donations somehow.


  14. - D.P.Gumby - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:19 pm:

    Brucie learned his negotiating skills from ISRA…


  15. - titan - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 3:49 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.


  16. - Anonymous - 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


  17. - Dread Pirate Roberts - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 4:11 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.


  18. - Amalia - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 4:12 pm:

    but…but…hunting! however will they find their food?!?


  19. - Liberty - 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


  20. - FormerParatrooper - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 6:45 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?


  21. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 18, 16 @ 9:20 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?


  22. - AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Apr 19, 16 @ 8:41 am:

    In committee, the lovely gentleman from the NRA testified that this bill “looks like a way for abusers to disarm their victims.”

    Interesting take.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Harold and Raoul battle it out at the Tribune
* Rauner talks about gaming and marijuana
* Rauner makes his pitch to Crain's
* "Spare me the mea culpa"
* CBS 2 fact-checks new Rauner digital ad "JBahamas Bank"
* AFSCME's latest contribution to Madigan appears to be its largest ever
* Question of the day
* Rauner claims "moderation" is how "Illinois can be saved"
* Chicago poll looks at positives, negatives of new candidates
* *** UPDATED x1 *** Paid Rauner consultant appears in new Rauner TV ad
* Thirteen months later, Pritzker still hasn't kept his promise to release his "full" tax plan
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............
<


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0
WordPress




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller