Bipartisan “gun reform” bill introduced
Tuesday, Jun 21, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This bill, introduced today, has bipartisan co-sponsorship, including some NRA supporters and a bunch of liberal Chicagoans. Emphasis added…
Amends the Illinois Police Training Act. Provides the annual training of police chiefs must include at least one course on the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, and firearms investigations. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. In the definition of “clear and present danger” that the person demonstrates threatening physical or verbal behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior, adds that it includes any act that is intended to cause or create a risk and does cause or create a risk of death or great bodily harm to one or more persons. Permits the Department of State Police to notify the FBI if a person on the Terrorist Watchlist submits an application for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID card). Requires the Department of State Police to, within 3 business days, provide notice and reason for the disqualification of a person from a firearm purchase or FOID card revocation to all law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction to assist with the seizure of the person’s FOID card. Adds as grounds to deny an application for or to revoke or seize the person’s FOID card that the person is charged with making a terrorist threat or soliciting or providing material support for terrorism under State law or a similar offense of another state or under federal law. Provides if the Department of State Police has not received the FOID card or Firearms Disposition Record from the person, the Department shall send notice of noncompliance to the sheriff and law enforcement agency where the person resides.
It’s obviously not a panacea, but it’s a whole lot more than DC has been able to do so far.
- DGD - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:16 pm:
LOL, nope. As long as there is no due process for the terror watch list, this is a non-starter.
- FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:22 pm:
I took the time to read the Bill as it was submitted.
The only issues I have are the facts you only have to be charged and not convicted of making a terrorist threat or providing terrorism support. If you are charged and the evidence is overwhelming, you should be in custody, not out in society. A terroristic threat does not have be religious ideology, it could be something as stupid as telling your neighbor to turn down the music or you will cut the power lines to the house.
The other issue is being listed on the Federal watch list. I previously stated my reasoned opposition to the list. Again, it is not due process to be listed, the ability to be removed from the list if you are wrongly listed is expensive, time consuming and there is no clear way to challenge it. Very few have been able to navigate the system successfully. This one of the many parts of the Patriot Act that our Government made as a knee jerk reaction and passed with very few understanding the implications.
The rest actually makes sense. Having the Police trained on the current FOID and CCW law is a great idea, common sense, but to actually require it.
Questions about material support to terrorism, could one argue that if drugs being sold on the street originated from terrorist places, that the act of having purchased and then reselling these drugs be considered material support?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:31 pm:
===this is a non-starter===
Eddie Sullivan is one of the chief co-sponsors. Not sure you can stop it.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:44 pm:
Pretend-to-do-something CYA nonsense. How’s about some “thoughts and prayers” with that? I’m sick of it.
“But we told the FBI, blame them……”
There are 50,000 Illinoisans who have had their FOID cards revoked, after due process of law, for mental illness.
Yet no one has a clue, or wants to have a clue, as to whether they’re still armed, or how much load they have, or what they’re up to.
No one, at the state or local levels, is enforcing a state law designed to protect the public from the mentally ill who are highly likely to be armed.
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/the-watchdogs-police-failing-to-ensure-mentally-ill-dont-have-guns/
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 6:47 pm:
Being charged with a felony already prohibits you from purchasing. You’re prohibited so long as the charges are pending, and if you’re not convicted your rights are restored. And it just says they can notify the FBI if they’re on the list, it doesn’t say that status will revoke or deny a persons foid card.
Seems like a pretty solid middle ground to me.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 8:14 pm:
Let’s see … one of the given reasons one or more of the DC bills was voted down was that the 10 days specified wasn’t long enough for the FBI to do their job … but ISP can and does get it done in 1 to 3 days. Guess Illinois really is more or less competent at something after all.
Seriously, the bill is pretty decent. The use of the one list without due process, as noted by others, is a concern but I’m not sure it is within Illinois’ power to address / change that.
- DGD - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 8:18 pm:
sure it is, don’t pass the bill.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 8:41 pm:
==The use of the one list without due process==
It doesn’t say it’s being used for anything, just notifying the FBI. That doesn’t mean any transaction would be denied, it would then be up to the FBI on how such information should be used. They already have a lot of that information for transactions in most cases, since background checks are run through them. unless something changes on the federal level of how the list is dealt with, ISP notifying them really doesn’t change anything, IMHO
- JarJar - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 8:44 pm:
Make sense to me, and I am a very liberal Chicago Democrat who thinks everyone should own a gun.
I wish they would add something to reduce the wait time for a concealed carry license, or possibly reduce the three day handgun wait period for concealed carry licensees.
- Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 9:34 pm:
If the person has a FOID Card and is on the Terror Watch List, the FBI should know and the State Police should investigate.
The idea that you can be detained or have property seized without formal charges bothers me. A requirement for prompt action on the charges and return of seized property if charges don’t hold would help.
- Freezeup - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:01 pm:
LBM,
I missed the tie in but I believe in Illinois the states attorney has to have what amounts to a probable cause hearing for seized property within 14 days. The judge has to make a finding of reasonableness or the property needs to be returned. Law is a couple years old by now.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:17 pm:
This is the type of middle ground we need.
I’m an NRA member, but this is palatable.
Charged but not convicted is fine. You already lose an enormous amount of constitutional rights.
And notifying the FBI is fine. The terror watch list should be fixed up anyways, but no loss of liberty here. In fact, it may even be helpful as they get needed intel immediately.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:17 pm:
Illinois doesn’t get it done in 1-3 days and certainly won’t with the added guidelines. That aside, I have no problem whatsoever with this
- Amalia - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:27 pm:
blip. get real and enact an assault weapons ban. those guns are used to kill. simply that. ban them.
- Former hillrod - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:36 pm:
And “assault weapons” are?
- blue dog dem - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:49 pm:
We talk about this FOID card like its the cure all for gun violence. can anyone out here tell me how many convicted murderers had this card?
Let’s round these folks up on the watch list and detain them. Who gives a darn about due process. Sounds like Trump is running the Illinois GA.
- Tom K. - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 10:53 pm:
Amalia, what is your definition of an assault weapon? Do you mean a firearm that can shoot multiple rounds by simply pulling the trigger over and over again? If so, you just described a model (year) 1899 Colt revolver. Or do you mean anything that’s “scary lookng”? Do yourself a favor and watch a skeet shooting exibition sometime, and see how fast a double-barrel shotgun can be reloaded by someone with a high level of proficiency.
Also, does anyone know how many of the guns used in Chicago’s 300 or so murders this year, were owned by somene with a FOID card? Wordslinger is correct, unless you do something about the people who possess guns who have no business doing so, you’re just pandering to the “gotta do something” crowd.
- Term Limits - Tuesday, Jun 21, 16 @ 11:08 pm:
The main thing is to hire more folks, pay them a
generous salary with platinum health care and
pension benefits.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:30 am:
“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..”
So cops are shrinks now and qualified to label people as outlaws. This is what happens when you let police unions write bills.
Watch NRA and ISRA sell out to police on this bill like they did on the concealed carry bill. We’re all “on the same side” against “bad guys” after all.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 5:51 am:
that sig the guy in Orlando used, with the folding stock, with the ability to load big clips, is a semi aut. what is it used for besides killing people? also these types of guns can be converted, there are lots of kits on line. and if you say used for killing coyotes, my husband as a hunter thinks you are laughable. there must be a way to decide whether guns are used for military type action and ban them. unless you like police and citizens being mowed down.
- FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 6:09 am:
It is not the weapon used, it is the user of the weapon.
- Term Limits - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 7:26 am:
VeteransToday.com MK-Ultra Triple Play in Orlando
by Preston James
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 7:27 am:
People that can’t even support a bill like this are perfect examples of why you can’t ever have a reasonable debate about guns. On the one side you’ve got people that want to ban most guns and on the other you’ve got the people who oppose anything that doesn’t give anyone and everyone absolute unfettered access to any firearm they want.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 8:11 am:
- Demoralized - has a good point. But, having watched this debate for over 45 years (back before you even needed a FOID in Illinois), I would say the NRA’s over-reaction is just an equal response to the gun banker’s over-reach in the first place.
Specifically to Illinois, the current generation of gun banners don’t even know that the FOID card was a compromise between the two sides … so I can see the pro-gun side taking exception to additional restrictions when they already compromised. On the other hand, if the gun ban side proposed reasonable (and not THEIR definition of reasonable) minor changes, there could be some common ground.
In some ways, the fight over guns mirrors the budget fight, with the gun banners as Rauner and the gun lovers as Madigan. Now there is a simile for you …
- DGD - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 9:09 am:
That would be, Dem, because the antis never stop. Give them one thing, then they want another and another, therefore we give them nothing without a fight.
- m - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 9:57 am:
And part of the problem with the debate is that there are very few people who support things like “assault weapon” bans that have any real knowledge or perspective on guns.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jun 22, 16 @ 12:33 pm:
see what U.S. House of Representative Democrats did today….sit in right in the well of Congress. #dosomething