44 Comments - blue dog dem - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:53 am: Can someone help me find out “how do you get on the terrorists watch list”? - Dan S - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:56 am: A common sense approach, that’s new. - SAP - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:57 am: Bravo to the ISRA for behaving much more reasonably that its national counterpart. - DGD - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:58 am: SAP - this bill is entirely different than the federal bill that totally disregards due process. This bill is notification only. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:07 am: @DGD - is that a certainty? =It would add people involved in terrorist threats to the list of those who can have such a card denied or revoked.= That sentence sounds like being on the watch list, aka =involved in terrorist threats=, would be cause to deny gun ownership rights. Does this bill require some type of legal conviction before being denied those rights? - Amalia - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:11 am: as detailed in the Tribune today, there is more of a problem with mass shootings done by white males born in the USA, not the kind of terrorism that Wayne La Pierre thinks is all that should make us afraid. it is insulting to the victims of, for example, the Sandy Hook shooting that this is all the action that can be agreed to in Illinois. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:11 am: ===State Rifle Association is on board with gun proposal=== This might be the first time those eleven words have ever appeared together in that order. ISRA supports it because this is among the more meaningless efforts designed to prevent bad people from legally buying firearms. I hope the sponsors don’t hurt themselves patting each other on the back if this passes. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:11 am: Sorry, nine words. Math is hard. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:21 am: Page 19 =(v) A person who is charged= =Charged.= Not convicted, as required in the other subsections disqualifying someone from ownership. =Charged=. A person could be declared =not guilty= on all charges yet be permanently deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights under this bill. - titan - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:21 am: The concept is good - but the terror watch lists have some really nasty due process problems when used to deny people rights in other contexts (no notice that one is on it, no reasonable process to get off of it if erroneously put on it). - Illinois Bob - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:23 am: @amalia =it is insulting to the victims of, for example, the Sandy Hook shooting that this is all the action that can be agreed to in Illinois.= That’s nonsense, amalia. what IS insulting to them is that the only thing that could’ve protected them, trained, armed school employees ready to take out the murderers of children, has not moved forward at schools like Sandy Hook. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:35 am: ==@DGD - is that a certainty? =It would add people involved in terrorist threats to the list of those who can have such a card denied or revoked.== You left out the part where the person has to be charged formally with such a crime. It’s already law that a person can be denied purchase and their foid revoked if they are charged with a felony. - Belle - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:35 am: It’s a very nice start but we need more. No one ever mentions Columbine, Brown’s Chicken or Laurie Dann….way back in the beginning of all of this slaughtering. It’s all good that we have a right to have a gun but most people don’t need one. Actually, most people don’t want one. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:38 am: ==Page 19 =(v) A person who is charged= =Charged.= Not convicted, as required in the other subsections disqualifying someone from ownership. =Charged=. A person could be declared =not guilty= on all charges yet be permanently deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights under this bill.== People keep saying this and throwing up their arms as if it’s something new. It’s not. Being charged with a felony punishable by a year or more is already a federal prohibitor, and, as a result, already an instance where a foid card can be revoked or denied. All this does is clarifies that a charge of terrorism (or however it’s phrased) is such a disqualifying charge. - Amalia - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 11:51 am: @Illinois Bob, the mentally ill guy got the big weapon to mow down the children. that is the problem. - Mongo - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:04 pm: Illinois Bob, thanks for trolling on this. Armed school employees? Might some be the same small number of employees occasionally sleeping with students, arriving at work under the influence, enjoying a toke in the car at lunch, and some of the other security issues we see in all environments, not just schools? We think it is a good idea to arm them with live rounds? No one needs weapons like that for hunting or self defense. I am OK with a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, but as has been pointed out numerous times, that isn’t an unlimited right. And no one, in my opinion, should have a weapon at a school. Or a park. Or a sports stadium. Or a bar. /rant/ sorry about that - Mike - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:05 pm: Boarding a airplane is not a constitutional right. Owning a firearm is constitutionally protected. - hockey fan - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:19 pm: This is meaningless from ISRA. Illinois Democrats are weak on gun safety. They even took away the rights of cities to ban assault weapons when far more conservative states have banned them statewide. Those innocent children who were murdered at Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech had a constituional right to live. Why does a mentally ill person’s supposed constitutional right to any fire-arm they choose supercede a child’s constituional right to live? - Harry - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:20 pm: That Vox piece is good. If we want to use a govt list to prohibit people from acquiring guns, maybe it needs to be a list designed and implemented for that purpose, rather than trying to adapt a different list that was developed to serve different purposes? - Harry - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:22 pm: That Vox piece is good. If we want to use a govt list to prohibit people from acquiring guns, maybe it needs to be a list designed and implemented for that purpose, rather than trying to adapt a different list that was developed to serve different purposes? Then we can talk intelligently about what it takes to get on that list and have your Second Amendment rights curtailed (and I agree there are such circumstances). - Where is - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:38 pm: Where is the ACLU on this, I thought they hate this watchlist. - Expletivedeleted - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:44 pm: @Mongo. I’m glad you are “ok” with the 2nd Amendment- our founders considered it rather important. I am dismayed, however, that you think it has anything at all to do with hunting or that it is just another way of saying “self-defense.” One does not “bear arms” when stalking a rabbit or deer. Nor does one bear arms when throwing a pistol in a night stand in case of intruders. The founders of this nation believed in the idea of a country where the collective self-defense in times of peace was the right and responsibility of the citizenry. To the post. As long as there is a FOID law, this makes sense as part of it. Due process exists in FOID cases, so why not? - Jon - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:49 pm: All in all the amendment is pretty weak considering the reporting requirement only applies when a person applies for a card. There is no provision to compare to issued FOID card list to the watch list and no provision for ISP to revoke a FOID card if a person ends up on the watch list after their card has been issued. Plus adding in the fact that FOID cards are valid for 10 years, I can’t really see many positives from the amendment. Also, keep in mind, it has been reported there are about 5,000 Americans on the watch list so if you do the math, Illinois has roughly 4% of the US population so everything else being equal (which it’s probably not) Illinois should have roughly 200 citizens on the list. That is a fairly significant number when you think there could be 200 individuals in the state the Feds think could commit an act of terrorism and I have my doubts that a one time check every 10 years would be able to catch anything. I doubt the ISRA would be on board will more frequent checks against the watch list, or perhaps real time reporting, but if the state were to have 200 individuals who may be seeking to purchase weapons legally to commit a terrorist act, maybe more frequent list checks is a change ISBA can live with. - DGD - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 12:51 pm: ** They even took away the rights of cities to ban assault weapons when far more conservative states have banned them statewide. ** Such as ? - Get a Job!! - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:10 pm: @ Mongo, I’m just not sure what you mean by ” weapons like that” . To what weapons are you referring to? I’m going to assume that you’re referring to the very popular sporting rifles (such as the AR15). I’m curious what about an AR15 makes in unfit for use in hunting or home defense? People who don’t know much about guns often rally on about the popular AR15 not realizing that it’s no different than many hunting rifles in terms of performance. In fact, the AR15 is less powerful than many similar rifles that are often used for hunting. Like the AR15, the other hunting rifles are also semi-automatic. Really the only thing that differentiates the AR15 from many popular hunting rifles is the ability to customize the rifle by adding accessories. These accessories do virtually nothing to make the weapon more deadly, most of the customizing is done for aesthetics purpose to give the owner the coolest looking gun possible. The fact is though that there’s virtually nothing that can be done to ban the AR15 without simultaneously banning most hunting rifles, including many .22 rifles, given that the features of these guns are very similar. - RNUG - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:11 pm: == Actually, most people don’t want one. == Sources / supporting fact based data? - Mama - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:24 pm: ===State Rifle Association is on board with gun proposal=== “This might be the first time those eleven words have ever appeared together in that order.” This is great news! - illibama - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:26 pm: @Illinois Bob I don’t think you go far enough. Schools and daycare centers should have phalanx cannons in the hallways and claymore mines behind each reinforced vault of children, who of course are strongly encouraged to open-carry Desert Eagle .50cals and ampules of live anthrax (or white phosphorus grenades, if they are vegan). Only when we live in constant, abject terror of each other will we truly be free, right? - Qui Tam - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:29 pm: =Can someone help me find out “how do you get on the terrorists watch list”?= According to Ed Snowden, the NSA folks had various named programs to place people on terror watch surveillance lists. These people included ex-wives, girlfriends, romantic interests, etc. As far as I know it continues as no one got in trouble for this waste and abuse, except Snowden and a couple other analysts for revealing it. So at the criteria amounts to “whatever they feel like at the time.” - DGD - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:38 pm: Illibama - how many straw-men and red herrings can you put up in one post ? - Huh? - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:42 pm: “mentally ill guy got the big weapon” by stealing it from his mother. - Qui Tam - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 1:48 pm: =I am OK with a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, but as has been pointed out numerous times, that isn’t an unlimited right= Do you mean the prefacing clause of the amendment that limits armament to a “well-regulated militia” or all the other fabrications we currently deal with. - Todd - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 2:19 pm: Some people seem a little unclear on the concept or process. Ever see those stats of how many times people on “those” lists bought a gun? Where do you think they come from? Whenever a gun is sold from an FFL, they call FTIP at State Police who then contact the DOJ and the NICS system. DOJ runs all those names, even against the watch lists, which is where the state comes from touted by anti-gunners. They know if someone in the “list” is attempting a retail purchase. So the stuff is bounced against things more often then you think. And if I recall, there were 485,000 FTIP inquiries last year. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 3:13 pm: If these people are too dangerous to board aircraft with or without guns, what makes them less dangerous to circulate among the rest of us, with or without guns in schools, malls, theaters, and other populous places? - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 4:12 pm: =It’s already law that a person can be denied purchase and their foid revoked if they are charged with a felony.= Is this a misunderstanding or an attempt to be misleading? Illinois law requires a person must be =convicted= of a felony. Not =charged=. See 430 ILCS 65/8/c. =A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction= - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 4:16 pm: ===Illinois law requires a person must be =convicted= of a felony.=== Nope. I personally know somebody who had to turn in his FOID card and his guns when he was charged with a gun-related felony. Charge was dropped down to a misdemeanor (where it shoulda been all along), but he never got his guns back. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 4:25 pm: =People keep saying this and throwing up their arms as if it’s something new.= Because this IS something new. See 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Federal law prohibits anyone =who has been CONVICTED in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;=. Not charged. Convicted. - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 4:33 pm: Rich, that is odd. I wonder if there was more to it? Or if some records were never corrected to show it dropped down? Everything in the code requires =convicted=. Maybe someone else knows where the authority to revoke on =charged= comes from? - anon too - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 5:14 pm: @ blue dog dem- “2013 Watchlisting Guidance” published by the National Counterterrorism Center. I have a copy that I gladly send to Rich as a PDF. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 9:18 pm: ==Everything in the code requires =convicted=. Maybe someone else knows where the authority to revoke on =charged= comes from?== Incorrect. 18 USC 922(n). “It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 9:22 pm: Follow up, authority of ISP to revoke based on 18 USC 922(n): 430 ilcs 8(n): “A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;” - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 9:26 pm: That should be 430 ilcs 65/8(n) - Formerly Known As... - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:22 pm: Nothing provided addresses the concern in the original comment: the remedy for someone who has been charged but acquitted. Federal and State law bar someone who has been convicted of a felony. It should be understood that bar also applies to individuals =under indictment=. Once someone is acquitted, they are no longer =under indictment= and no longer barred from ownership. However, the language in this bill says =charged=, not =under indictment=. =Charged= endures into perpetuity. It applies both past tense and current tense. This may just be a semantic difference, but using the Fed language of =under indictment=, or even =actively charged= or =currently charged with= could be better phrasing if the intent is to restore full ownership rights in the event of an acquittal. - Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 23, 16 @ 10:26 pm: @12:49 p.m. “I doubt the ISRA would be on board will more frequent checks against the watch list, or perhaps real time reporting,” You give “the ISRA” too much credit. Richard Pearson is an insurance salesman in Chatsworth, not an expert on geopolitics and counter-terrorism. ISRA will sell out on this bill to police unions as they did on the concealed carry bill, and trade off their own members constitutional rights for silencers or some other nonsense the good old boys want at the moment, to sell memberships. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.