This problem has to be fixed
Thursday, May 23, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Annie Sweeney, Stacy St. Clair, Cecilia Reyes and Sarah Freishtat at the Tribune…
As many as 30,000 guns may still be in the possession of Illinois residents deemed too dangerous to have them, according to a Tribune investigation.
In an analysis of data released for the first time, the Tribune found the state has repeatedly failed to ensure that people surrender their weapons and gun permits after their Firearm Owner’s Identification cards are revoked, resulting in the breakdown of a system put in place to deter gun violence.
In all, nearly 27,000 Illinois residents over the past four years have not informed authorities what they did with their guns after state police stripped their licenses, according to the analysis. That means law enforcement has no idea whether 78% of revoked cardholders since 2015 still possess guns. […]
Among those with dismal compliance rates are residents convicted of domestic violence or people who had their cards rescinded because of mental health concerns, the Tribune analysis shows. About 3 out of 4 such revokees failed to tell the state where their weapons are, despite making a combined 5,000 serious inquiries about purchasing guns before the revocation. […]
Before the Tribune finished its analysis, gun rights advocates predicted it would be a waste of time, insisting most people had their cards revoked simply because they moved out of state. In reality, less than 4% — or 1,332 of 34,221— lost their FOIDs for that reason.
Lots more data in that story, so go read the whole thing.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:11 am:
===“This convoluted mess was not by accident. This was by design,” Dart said. “Everybody knew. Logical, thoughtful people knew very well this was a train wreck. But they were OK with that because underlying it, they wanted an ineffective gun system.”===
Thanks Todd. Keep up the good work.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:17 am:
For gun owners who aren’t opposed to stricter regulation, this is what we mean when we say “we don’t need new laws, we need to enforce the laws that we already have”. Massive enforcement failure by the ISP here. They don’t want to do confiscations, and yeah it’ll be hugely unpopular among the ISRA crowd, but it needs to be done because this is the law. “We’re making serious inquires” doesn’t cut it. If ISP isn’t going to enforce the law, then why even have a FOID requirement?
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:18 am:
==Before the Tribune finished its analysis, gun rights advocates predicted it would be a waste of time, insisting most people had their cards revoked simply because they moved out of state. In reality, less than 4% — or 1,332 of 34,221— lost their FOIDs for that reason.==
Who knew that a movement based in compete zealotry and violent idolatry wouldn’t be telling the truth?
- George - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:18 am:
I find the irony interesting in this discussion. If you commit a crime there is a defacto assumption that you are too dangerous to own a gun; however, restorative justice advocates claim that once you serve your time for a crime then that record should not matter in terms of other factors. Double standard??
- anon2 - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:19 am:
This is an argument for jacking up FOID card fees to pay for adequate enforcement.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:21 am:
===Double standard?===
You can’t shoot somebody with an infused Gummi Bear.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:21 am:
…Well, maybe you can, but it wouldn’t do much damage.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:24 am:
If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you are too dangerous to live in society.
The Sheriff speaks of inefficiency, but does not offer a way to be more sufficient. What would make the system more efficient?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:27 am:
Great work by the Trib news.
This problem does need to be fixed, and we have to be serious about it.
That means a real commitment to giving law enforcement the necessary tools and public support to undertake what could be very hazardous duty. Walk a mile in the shoes of those we expect to do the job and commit accordingly.
Lip service and half-measures won’t cut it. Nor will the usual weepy editorials or “thoughts and prayers” after the fact if we don’t get it right.
- Smitty Irving - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:29 am:
Monday Rich commented on anti-marijuana folks’ “willingness of the oposition to just make stuff up.” They’re pikers compared to the Second Amendment crowd.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:31 am:
==This is an argument for jacking up FOID card fees to pay for adequate enforcement.==
“Adequate enforcement” funding should already be built in to the ISP’s yearly budget. Presumably they’ve been using it to pay for other things, because they obviously haven’t been using that funding to enforce FOID violations. What are the fee increases going to pay for, exactly?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:38 am:
–I find the irony interesting in this discussion. If you commit a crime there is a defacto assumption that you are too dangerous to own a gun;–
I find your willful omissions of fact revealing.
Revocations are not made solely due to convictions for crimes; they are also made for reasons of mental health, people who have been found after due process of law to be dangers to themselves and the community by possessing firearms.
- SSL - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:39 am:
What a mess. All you need to do to keep score is watch the 10pm news.
- Huh? - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:40 am:
Wonder of the police and sherrifs in the gun sanctuary counties will refuse to confiscate the guns of those whose FOID cards have been revoked.
- Enemy of the State - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:47 am:
Imagine the flood of FOID card surrenders when the FOID holders choose to give up guns to use marijuana.
- Manpower - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:50 am:
ISP’s budget and staffing has been decimated and they get very little fee ($) to process FOID Cards
The recent Tribune story highlighted this problem,
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-illinois-state-police-staffing-numbers-fall-20190407-story.html
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:53 am:
Nothing keeps ISP and local LEO from following up on the revocations. Willis bill has huge overreach - New FOID bill would require FOID/guns to be turned in upon felony indictment - not conviction
- PJ - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:58 am:
It doesn’t have to be fixed, because the people responsible for this mess don’t want it to be fixed. Gun extremists don’t care a lick whether mentally unstable and/or people with violent felonies have guns. Their only goal is to make sure the most people have the most weapons. We can’t violate the sacrosanct right of a domestic abuser to keep a pistol in the bedroom.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:04 am:
–If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you are too dangerous to live in society.–
Really? So what do you intend to do with those who have Alzheimer’s or mental illnesses that you claim are “too dangerous” to live in society? Or should they have guns?
Do you intend to lock up for life every convicted felon and domestic abuser? Or should they have guns?
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:06 am:
==New FOID bill would require FOID/guns to be turned in upon felony indictment==
It’s not really new. If you’ve been indicted for a crime punishable by more than a year imprisonment (pretty much any felony) you’re prohibited under Federal Law from receiving or transferring a firearm.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:11 am:
PJ that is untrue. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I also believe that those who are violent and prey on others have surrendered that right and the right to participate in a civil society.
What many of us also care about is due process and the treatment of all rights equally.
As far as what seems to have created this urgency, Aurora, it was not a lack of money, but failure of two States and the Federal Government. He should not have ever recieved a FOID, which allowed him to purchase a firearm. Had those failures not occured, those people would still be alive.
- Blue Dog Dem - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:11 am:
The FOID card does not make us safer. More statistics on Google thsn i could ever reference.
- A Jack - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:14 am:
I suspect hiking the FOID fee will result in many people not renewing and an even greater challenge to enforcement as well as legal challenges to the law. The cost should remain minimal so that that people will continue to comply. If not, people will go out of state and the tracking component, as flawed as it is, will be lost completely. You need to think of this like weed legalization. The point is to keep the legal gun market intact, not make fees so high it drives normally law abiding citizens underground.
Fingerprinting would be okay as long as it is at no cost to the FOID holder.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:15 am:
–What many of us also care about is due process and the treatment of all rights equally.–
No one’s FOID card has been revoked without due process.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:20 am:
If a person is deemed dangerous because of a mental illness, they should be placed in a place where they can receive humane care and not be in society where they can cause harm, with or without a firearm. Do you think a violent person will not be violent if they don’t have a firearm? Do you think violent people should be allowed to remain in society, or maybe if they are not in your neighborhood that’s ok?
As far as alzheimers, admittedly I didn’t consider that. Alzheimers is not a violent disease. Maybe responsible adults would see that in a relative and take proper measures to safeguard the firearms.
Do I want to lock up every violent person? If they are deemed too dangerous to be in society why would we allow them to create more victims? Do you want more victims?
- Buford - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:24 am:
“Wonder of the police and sherrifs in the gun sanctuary counties will refuse to confiscate the guns of those whose FOID cards have been revoked.” Good point, you can be sure that informants and relatives of cops and county employees are not having their guns seized in rural counties with biased good old boy system of “government.”
How many cops should have their FOIDs revoked for alcoholism or mental health reasons, let’s see those stats? Prediction: “revocation task forces” will be used as death squads against political enemies in corrupt rural counties like Whiteside with aggressive mentally imbalanced psychos like sheriff John Booker at the helm. Leave this duty to the pros at the ISP if you want to avoid a Waco type disaster.
- Todd - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:32 am:
No one’s FOID card has been revoked without due process.
Word actually they have and we have a Court case with one of those very plaintiffs where the State says he has a conviction, the gun guys never been convicted of anything and the State Won’t produce the records, because they say they can’t find them.
So we’re in Court, and have a hearing tommorow. Along with the New York case, hoping the FOID card will be no more in the new year. As the Courts set down some standard of review for things like this and f you go back to the debate on the voter ID amendment the state passed, the FOID can’t pass strict scrutiny and this bill makes that case easier.
- anon2 - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:32 am:
== What are the fee increases going to pay for, exactly? ==
The Willis bill would increase funding for revocation teams statewide.
- Gantt Chart - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:56 am:
My position (and that of many others) is that Illinois’ FOID Card is, and always has been, unconstitutional. Cases working their way through the courts may eventually be decided by the US Supreme Court. Ask yourself why 49 other states do not have FOID cards? They are not less safe than Illinois.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 11:57 am:
Todd, in your example, it seems due process is ongoing.
Quite a stroke of luck for you, circumstances like that for standing fell right into your lap.
- Mason born - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 12:16 pm:
Kind of feel like discussing whether or not the FOID is constitutional is missing the forest for the trees. If the FOID was struck down by SCOTUS Tomorrow most of these individuals would still be prohibited purchasers under federal & State law. They should not have a firearm & LE knows about it.
Whether it’s ISP, a county sheriff, or a local PD someone should be following up on this.
Just saying.
- Jocko - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 12:22 pm:
==residents convicted of domestic violence or people who had their cards rescinded because of mental health concerns==
Given the shortcomings of FOID (and the other seven states that require a permit), I shudder to think what condition the other 42 states are in.
- Todd - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 12:34 pm:
Agree mason with or without FOID they need to get a handle n this
- Chester - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:05 pm:
-Shudder to think-
It’s safe to say they aren’t the shooting gallery Chicago is every weekend, so there’s that. There’s no reason for a FOID other than to make the anti-gun crowd feel like they “did something”
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:33 pm:
–It’s safe to say they aren’t the shooting gallery Chicago is every weekend, so there’s that. There’s no reason for a FOID other than to make the anti-gun crowd feel like they “did something”–
You’re deluded to think that violent crime in Illinois is restricted to Chicago.
https://herald-review.com/news/state-and-regional/most-dangerous-cities-in-illinois/collection_3477ce57-e3e2-5d9b-b564-258113eb6171.html#8
- Todd - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:45 pm:
Word — the state overreaches and gives us what they do.
I look forward to SCOTUS giving us strict scrutiny for the 2A and outside the home with the New York case, then we can go back and litigate the other issues, no. Mag bans, no semi-auto bans, no FOID card reduce fees on carry, reduce gun free zones just for starters.
- Chester - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:46 pm:
— You’re deluded to think that violent crime in Illinois is restricted to Chicago. —
Nice try, but I didn’t say it was. It was merely an example. How many of those shooters had a FOID…my guess is zero.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:53 pm:
Jocko -
On the other hand, CA allows for psychological testing https://www.sjpd.org/pdf_forms/bof_4012_ccwapplication_112012.pdf
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 1:55 pm:
===How many of those shooters had a FOID===
That’s a completely separate issue. Stay on topic.
- Moira - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 2:08 pm:
===If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you are too dangerous to live in society. … If a person is deemed dangerous because of a mental illness, they should be placed in a place where they can receive humane care and not be in society where they can cause harm, with or without a firearm.===
I have dealt with chronic depression since my early teens. Suicidal ideation is a part of my illness. Because of this, I believe it is not safe for me (to be clear, for my own safety, not that of others) to own a hand gun.
Despite my illness, I have a family, a good job and, generally, a very happy life.
But I guess I should pack it in and have myself committed for the rest of my natural life because I am unable to safely own a gun and therefor not fit for society./snark
- Former Cadet - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 2:40 pm:
I find it ironic that here in Illinois there is a push to expand a right not specifically named in the constitution (abortion) while at the same time pushing to curtail a right that is specifically named (keep and hear arms).
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 2:44 pm:
===If you are too dangerous to own a firearm, you are too dangerous to live in society===
Says the guy who is always going on and on about rights. Stop arguing like a child here.
- FormerParatrooper - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 2:48 pm:
Rich if you feel my opinion is without merit I will out of respect stop posting.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 3:11 pm:
===a right that is specifically named===
Do you know what else isn’t specifically named in the U.S. Constitution?
Women.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 3:36 pm:
“Federal Law from receiving or transferring a firearm“
That is Apple to oranges. The new law will prohibit way more than receiving/transferring - you will have to surrender card and weapon upon felony indictment- without due process.
- Former Cadet - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 3:42 pm:
“Do you know what else isn’t specifically named in the constitution?
Women”
Neither are men. Your point is?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 3:47 pm:
===Neither are men===
Sure about that?
- Former Cadet - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:00 pm:
Not the word men or man that I can determine. Although I did see in section 7 that the president is referred to as him or he.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:03 pm:
===Your point is?===
The right to privacy is as valid as the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is neither more nor less important than the 14th Amendment. No one is seeking an “expanded” right, but pro-choice supporters are resisting efforts to erode or limit that right.
Also, I don’t think you know what irony means. Because if you did, you’d know that what is truly ironic is that gun supporters like yourself should be on the same side as pro-choice supporters. But that would require logical consistency, and if you can’t grasp irony, might be too much for you.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:16 pm:
“Do you know what else isn’t specifically named in the U.S. Constitution? Women”
Women, men they both are covered by the penumbra of the term “people”
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:27 pm:
===Women, men they both are covered by the penumbra of the term “people”===
Not in 1789, you know, back when “arms” meant muzzle loading rifles. A lot has changed since then, wouldn’t you agree?
- Rebel13 - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:30 pm:
Anyone remember,
That is for the ever illusive California carry permit, not the right to own a firearm.
Apples and oranges.
- Todd - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:37 pm:
47, you know what else wasn’t around in 1789, the internet, TV, radio, but somehow they fall under the First Amendment.
Following that would require you to be logically consistent as modern firearms are protected. You might want to go read Duncan.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:43 pm:
Todd, do you think the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 14th Amendment? Because that’s what I was talking about.
- Smitty Irving - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 4:50 pm:
Todd-
1789 “rifles” were smooth bore muskets accurate to 50 yards. Infantry lines were, essentially, “human shotguns” … . Mano e mano, if a single patriot with a musket missed a Native American, they’d be taken out by a hatchet. AR 15s (and civilian equivalents) are a different animal.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 5:05 pm:
Smitty
Muskets and AR style rifles have more similarity’s than you think. Both were/are weapons in “common use “in their day. They are thus protected by 2A as reaffirmed in Heller.
- Flapdoodle - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 5:15 pm:
==Gun extremists don’t care a lick whether mentally unstable and/or people with violent felonies have guns. Their only goal is to make sure the most people have the most weapons. We can’t violate the sacrosanct right of a domestic abuser to keep a pistol in the bedroom.==
Talk about extremism . . . I’ll wager a majority of gun owners are perfectly content with restrictions based on criminal history, mental health, and domestic violence. I’ll also wager a majority of gun owners are perfectly content with rigorous background checks. And I’ll also wager a majority of gun owners are perfectly content with due process enforcement of existing gun laws. The inability of the ISP to accomplish the latter is no reason to excoriate or punish gun owners who obey the law.
- Todd - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 5:53 pm:
47 I actually think they are ALL important I have an infinity for the 2nd
Smutty — you’re wrong and Heller says so. Duncan put the Kabosh on the Cali mag ban, And New York City at SCOTUS is going to do the same to a lot more.
Soon we will have a 2A that gets treated like the 1A and we’ll be taking a big red pen to a bunch of Illinois and local gun laws
- Former Cadet - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 6:02 pm:
Rich,
Thank you.
- Illinois Gun Owner - - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 6:26 pm:
Revoke my FOID card…. The ISP has NO IDEA how many guns I may or may not have. FOID as it’s acronym, is a Owner identification, although one is needed by an Illinois resident just to hold or posses the firearm in the field. So if someone has a FOID card, that does not necessarily mean the holder actually owns firearms or has access to them. It makes no sense.
The only way an Illinois FOID card would EVER be useful to law enforcement, is if the FOID holder, dropped their card at the scene of a gun crime they committed.
Just get rid of the FOID card and institute a firearm state tax stamp….which is what a FOID card really is…..a recreational use tax.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 7:48 pm:
–Women, men they both are covered by the penumbra of the term “people”–
Dude, please.
“We, the people” in 1789 did not include the great majority of people.
- Last Bull Moose - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 8:33 pm:
The one person I knew who had his FOID card revoked for mental instability now has it back. His medicine made him suicidal. Changed meds and his doctor cleared him.
Not sure who kept his guns.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 8:49 pm:
Poor Todd. So mistreated
- Robert0117 - Thursday, May 23, 19 @ 10:56 pm:
I find the most frightening thing is that 30,000 people in Illinois were determined to be too dangerous to own guns. That is an excruciatingly large number of neighbors.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, May 24, 19 @ 7:07 am:
30,000 divided by 12.8 million is only 0.2%.
- logic not emotion - Friday, May 24, 19 @ 9:02 am:
I am looking forward to some decisions by SCOTUS and implementation of strict scrutiny to officially recognize the 2nd amendment as it should be. Many of these misguided and unconstitutional laws will go away.
I’d like to see tort immunity stripped away from elected officials who write / pass laws which conflict with the constitution too. It’d put an end to some of these infringements if the perpetrators would incur personal liability.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 24, 19 @ 10:38 am:
–I am looking forward to some decisions by SCOTUS and implementation of strict scrutiny to officially recognize the 2nd amendment as it should be.–
You mean differently than the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by the Supremes for more than 200 years? You judicial activist, you.