Question of the day
Friday, Feb 22, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
To ensure the public is better protected from those who lose their right to carry deadly weapons, Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart proposed legislation Thursday to create countywide police units to recover those weapons and to improve information sharing about those firearms.
The move would close loopholes in state law and processes that Sheriff Dart and anti-violence advocates have long pointed out. Currently, Illinois law relies on an “honor system” when an individual’s firearm license (FOID) is revoked, which often happens because of an arrest, an order of protection or a court’s determination that the person is a danger to themselves or others.
Under the law, such an individual is sent a letter by state police directing them to turn their weapons over to police or another person lawfully able to carry weapons. Additionally, critical information about whether the person attempted to purchase weapons – before or after the revocation – is not shared with local law enforcement.
Sheriff Dart’s proposal requires such information to be shared with local police within 24 hours of a revocation or attempted purchase.
The legislation also mandates the creation of countywide units to recover weapons from those who have their FOID cards revoked. The units will be led by the county sheriff and include members of the county state’s attorney office and local law enforcement. The legislation directs a portion of existing state FOID fees to the effort. Plus, the proposal increases the penalty from a misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony for those who fail to relinquish their weapons when their FOID is revoked.
In 2013, Sheriff Dart created a specialized unit to recover weapons and revoked FOID cards in Cook County. So far, the unit has recovered more than 1,000 firearms.
Additionally, the Sheriff is proposing an increase in the FOID card application fee from $10 to $15, the additional money would be deposited into a fund dedicated to revocation enforcement.
“Last week’s tragedy at the Henry Pratt Company serves as a stark reminder of these dangerous loopholes in our current laws,” Sheriff Dart said. “Too many times there are clear warning signs about deadly violence. We must do more as a state to ensure law enforcement is reacting to those signs and has the information and tools necessary to do so. As we are constantly and tragically reminded, lives are at stake.”
* The Question: Your opinion of Dart’s ideas? Make sure to explain.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:00 pm:
What prevents LE from doing some of this today? It seems like it would be best practice already.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:01 pm:
===Additionally, the Sheriff is proposing an increase in the FOID card application fee from $10 to $15, the additional money would be deposited into a fund dedicated to revocation enforcement.===
At first I thought this was a really good idea. But after all of the back and forth on the other thread, Todd and the boys convinced me that this is precisely the kind of government tyranny that makes it necessary to arm ourselves.
Not one penny more. From my cold, dead hands. Thoughts and prayers. Etc.
- wordslinger - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:02 pm:
It’s a good start. I imagine that some smaller counties might need to go a regional route to muster the necessary resources.
This will take some leadership from Pritzker to bring everyone to the table and make something happen.
You wanted the gig, this is it.
- West Wing - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:05 pm:
Good, concrete steps from Sheriff Dart. In the larger counties, where this is a larger problem, this needs to be a public policy and policy implementation priority. It’s public safety 101.
- Chris - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:05 pm:
Doesn’t the NRA tell us all the time that licensed firearm owners are the good guys, and they all obey the law?
I find it hard to believe that so may good guys are having their licenses revoked, and then illegally keeping their firearms [/snark]
- Fixer - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:05 pm:
I agree with wordsligner regarding the smaller counties. Otherwise I like the idea as it is a proactive step to help the situation and it closes some glaring loopholes.
- Anonymous - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:11 pm:
This is great. Finally a serious solution that doesnt involve attacking law-abiding citizens, doesnt involve onerous fees. Most importantly, it is literally enforcing the existing law. Gun violence needs concrete solutions like this, not more goofy ill-conceived legislation.
This is a no-brainer. Get guns out of the hands of criminals.
- 2A is Obsolete - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
Just start going door to door and confiscate them all and be done with it.
- Mason born - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:14 pm:
I’m not against it but agree with Word that I doubt Callhoun Co with 5k residents needs a dedicated unit at least not one full time.
Might make more sense to have Isp handle it outside the Chicago Metro. Perhaps some sort of joint venture with localities. But a good start.
- Just Observing - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:15 pm:
=== Doesn’t the NRA tell us all the time that licensed firearm owners are the good guys, and they all obey the law? ===
Technically speaking, if their FOID is rescinded, they are not licensed (even though it’s not really a license anyway, but same point).
- Just Observing - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:17 pm:
I do wonder, since there is no gun registration, how the police know if they recovered all your guns, or any if you say you don’t have one. For example, I have a FOID but don’t own any guns. If my FOID was rescinded I would have nothing to give the special unit that showed up at my door.
- Thomas Paine - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:20 pm:
It’s a good proposal, particularly the increase from a misdemeanor to a felony for ignoring the law. I would like to see the penalty for lying on application bumped up to Class 4 if it is not already.
Ultimately, the problem is that we have Sherriffs and State’s Attorneys who believe that gun laws should not be enforced. I don’t know how we are going to enforce this? Maybe hold any sheriff or SA personally liable if they refuse to enforce the law and a firearm is subsequently used in a crime?
I also do not like the provision that allows you to have your friend hold your guns for you. Take the guns, sell them, give the cash back minus costs.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:24 pm:
One of the problems for local LE is this task goes beyond the normal scope of duty for the average patrol officer. I like the idea of having specialized units to handle the recovered of these weapons, especially if they receive specific training on how to handle the people they will be approaching and how to engage if they meet resistance.
It would also be a good idea to share information with these recovery units about why they lost their FOID (mental illness, violent behavior, etc.), any weapons purchased by the person who had their FOID revoked and provide them with automatic search warrants so they have the ability to ensure that no weapons remain in their hands.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:27 pm:
===I would have nothing to give===
A search warrant would be involved.
- Last Bull Moose - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:31 pm:
Seems useful to me. Not sure how to handle the situation when there are multiple FOID holders in the household. Don’t see how police can confiscate weapons then.
- Been There - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:31 pm:
I think it is more sellable than the fingerprint requirement mainly because the fee increase is a lot smaller.
To the point about smaller counties I would bet that the smaller downstate ones have a much higher ratio of FOID cards to residents than Cook. But obviously those smaller counties would still have to do a regional approach.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:34 pm:
Good solid and simple proposal. Incredibly dangerous job, too.
- the Patriot - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 1:41 pm:
It is almost like he has been paying attention to why courts strike down gun laws, they usually don’t work due to lack of enforcement.
Gun owners(me) say criminals don’t turn in guns, true so go get them. I fully understand the special unit issue because very specific protocols will have to be in place like allowing opportunity to verify you don’t have weapons, or what happens when you go in to get guns and find a meth lab outside the scope of the warrant. It can be done, and this is a good idea.
Not in favor of more fees, but we need to get funding into enforcement and computer systems that have real capability to check backgrounds. I don’t see finding the money elsewhere and it probably withstands challenge.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 2:06 pm:
Never in favor of fees for rights, to include the 1A. As a realist 15.00 dollars will not be a greater burden on the average person. I do favor exempting the most poor who may be gifted or inherited firearms from these fees.
Special units already exist I thought. SWAT and tactical team could execute the warrants, counties with them should utilize them. If a a County doesn’t have one, make the special unit. Use existing resources when practical, less cost.
- Todd - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:13 pm:
1. the law in question was Dart’s. he had it introduced back in 13 and it was rolled into the carry bill at his request from my recollection. So what flaws exist were there from the drafting.
2. if this is a public safety measure than the state can fund it. quit trying to tax gun owners for their right.
3. How are you going to mandate this and what is the mechanism? County Board and Sheriffs are independently elected officials. How is the State going to tell them what the priorities for enforcement are? How do you mandate they dedicate X officers or dollars to it? Logistically, I don;t see it working.
Not to mention, how do you mandate locals doing this? Each town has their own elected council and who decides what the priorities are?
Schools and public health departments deal with unfunded mandates, but this isn’t the jail you’re talking about this is day to day street ops. So how does that? drop the child porn taskforce, felony fugitives only works Monday wed, Friday and they do guns the other 2 days?
lastly Dart wants access to FTIP and or notice of buying guns i.e. registration. that’s not gonna fly.
Dart already makes more objections, many times on flimsey grounds to carry licenses. Letting him see what gun stores and how many times people are going there isn’t gonna go over real well.
- anon - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 3:16 pm:
To get a search warrant you need probable cause to believe the item to be seized is at the location to be searched. The case law for drugs/contraband require recent information the item was at the location. Courts don’t favor the “of course the person would keep the item at his house, where else would it be theory”.
- QuickDraw - Friday, Feb 22, 19 @ 4:40 pm:
Todd - you mean it was Sheriff Smith’s law. Dart doesn’t do any of his own work.