* SJ-R…
After firearms owners identification card and concealed carry license applications backed up over the last year, lawmakers are trying to address the delay and make the renewal process more efficient with support from Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly.
“The ISP is requesting legislation to consolidate the FOID and CCL card into a single card,” Kelly said at a Wednesday press conference.
If passed, House Bill 745 and Senate Bill 1165 would allow FOID and concealed carry cards to be renewed at the same time to make the process faster and easier for the state police. It would also provide a way for the card to be automatically renewed.
State Sen. Dave Koehler, D-Peoria, said this would “modernize the FOID card.” It would also allow for the card to be digital.
The bill would also allow gun owners to voluntarily submit their fingerprints to expedite renewal. Normally, this idea draws sharp criticism from Republicans. However, state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur, said the voluntary nature of this bill can help the ISP deal with the backlog without forcing people to submit fingerprints for state record.
Other Republicans also voiced support for the ISP bill.
* However, G-PAC hates the legislation…
Today Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC) Illinois released the following statement in anticipation of Senator David Koehler’s press conference on SB 2889, a gun-lobby backed bill that guts critical background check provisions included in real gun safety legislation:
“Senator Koehler’s gun lobby-backed bill guts real universal background checks in exchange for nothing,” said Kathleen Sances, President of Gun Violence Prevention PAC Illinois. “24 Democrats in the Senate are cosponsoring our bill because of their commitment to a safer Illinois, unlike the NRA and ISRA who continue to push desperate legislation like this bill that does nothing to actually close dangerous loopholes in our gun laws.”
COMPARISON: SB568/HB3245 (The Block Illegal Ownership and Fix the FOID Bill) and SB2889/HB745 (The Gun Lobby-Backed Bill)
How do these two differences change the ability of these bills to block Illegal guns from entering the criminal market?
Without background checks on all gun sales and fingerprints to verify the criminal histories of FOID applicants, illegal guns can be sold to prohibited people when:
• A gun is sold by an unlicensed dealer without a background check
• A gun is sold to a prohibited person who has obtained a FOID card with an incomplete criminal history.
Why is Universal Background Checks for All Gun Sales in Illinois Important?
• Current law requires that unlicensed gun dealers see a valid FOID card, but does require them to run the background check to verify a potential gun buyer’s mental health and criminal history.
• Requiring a background check for every gun sale is the foundation of a strong and effective gun violence prevention policy and a valuable tool to help reduce illegal firearm trafficking. For example, a 2009 study found intrastate gun trafficking was 48% lower in cities in states that regulated unlicensed handgun sales.
• Polling shows that 81% of Illinois support expanding background checks to all gun sales.
Why are Fingerprints as Part of FOID Application Important?
• Fingerprinting is the only form of background check search that verifies the identity and criminal history of FOID card applicants. This would better protect the public through rapid completion of background checks and efficient processing of FOID applications. The live scan fingerprint vendor fee is capped at $30 in HB3245/SB568.
• Fingerprints as part of FOID applications would have prevented the Aurora, IL shooting because the shooter’s criminal history was not accurately verified when he applied for and received his FOID card. He was then able to buy and keep illegal guns.
• Polling shows that 88% of Illinoisans support requiring fingerprints to acquire a firearm.
SB2889 is now SB1165.
* Director Kelly was asked yesterday for the ISP’s position on universal background checks at the above-mentioned press conference…
So, after Aurora, the position of the administration has been clear and it continues to be clear and consistent that we support universal background checks. We absolutely do that. That is the position of the administration that we support universal background checks. I think the governor has been very clear that that is the policy of this administration to support legislation that has universal background checks.
But by eliminating and reducing waste in a government system, the background check process, is not one which is mutually exclusive from improving the requirements of the background check.
* Asked about negotiations on the bill, Kelly said…
We will provide information and give feedback and provide specific statistical analysis of the statute as they are based on how they are operating within the Illinois State Police and we provide that to legislators all the time. … We don’t do negotiate. That’s what these these folks do. And I’ll leave it in their capable hands. We will talk to anybody on any issue, whatever the perspective is, as it relates to information from the police, they can make informed decisions about about whatever legislation they’re discussing.
* The ISP later emphasized in a statement that it also supports the G-PAC bill…
The lessons of the Henry Pratt shooting clearly exposed gaps in the state and federal background check system. The FOID processing system and statutes desperately need amending and we support those legislative efforts, while the administration continues to advocate and strongly support stricter, universal background check legislation contained in the BIO bill.
* Sun-Times…
The Illinois State Rifle Association denied backing Koehler’s bill, saying that they were “neutral.”
But Pearson’s group is firing blanks, said a spokesperson for the gun control PAC.
“The gun lobby speaks pretty loudly on just about every piece of gun legislation under the sun, so their silence or claims of neutrality on this bill is deafening,” the spokesperson said.
*** UPDATE *** G-PAC…
“We appreciate the Illinois State Police clarifying yesterday that this administration supports universal background checks and the BIO Bill.”
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 9:48 am:
The ISRA is neutral on a gun bill?
If you are paying dues to this outfit, you’re a sucker.
- H-W - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 9:56 am:
Director Kelly: =We don’t do negotiate. That’s what these these folks do. And I’ll leave it in their capable hands. We will talk to anybody on any issue, whatever the perspective is, as it relates to information from the police=
I actually like this statement. It suggests Director Kelly is knowledgeable of both bills, and knows that the Legislature will do what the Legislature will do. The Director seems to be rising above politics by providing perspective on both bills, rather than playing politics. Am I reading this correctly?
- Precinct Captain - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:01 am:
Having all white dudes being my bill announcement is not what I would do
- ID10T Problem - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:07 am:
What other constitutional rights require fingerprinting?
- @misterjayem - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:12 am:
“What other constitutional rights require fingerprinting?”
Right to a fair trial.
– MrJM
- fs - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:23 am:
== I actually like this statement. It suggests Director Kelly is knowledgeable of both bills, and knows that the Legislature will do what the Legislature will do. The Director seems to be rising above politics by providing perspective on both bills, rather than playing politics. Am I reading this correctly?==
He’s versed in spreading something alright, but it’s not “rising above politics”
The State Police, or any agency, doesn’t negotiate bills? Lol
Please.
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:35 am:
In Illinois, there is currently no way to legally purchase a firearm without having ISP verify the FOID is valid. Unlike other states there is no gun-show loophole or private sale exemption - all sales/transfers must include FOID verification. - the only exception is the following :
transfers as a bona fide gift to the transferor’s husband, wife, son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, brother, sister,
nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law;
The person receiving the gift must have a valid FOID as well
- Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:43 am:
Don’t know about what other constiutional rights require fingerprinting, however most jobs that require wearing a firearm do.
- Fav Human - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:52 am:
A gun is sold by an unlicensed dealer without a background check
I wonder how many existing laws are being broken if you are an “unlicensed dealer”??
Does anyone really think criminals/straw buyers check FOID?
- Gs - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:53 am:
Illinois already has universal background checks with limited exception. Not sure how combining 2 things into 1 without changing the requirements for either results in “gutting.” Lots of defensive hyperbole in their response.
- Jocko - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 10:58 am:
==What other constitutional rights require fingerprinting?==
What steps have YOU taken to keep your militia well regulated? Or do you (and everyone else) simply disregard that part of the amendment.
- We've never had one before - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 11:30 am:
@Jocko
The “well-regulated” verbage has to do with being able to shoot and reload as a group, in time with direction from the squad leader.
“Well-regulated” as in clock regulation.
- thisjustinagain - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 11:33 am:
“Optional fingerprinting”…for a FOID card? Nothing like paying still more taxes, fees, and delays etc for fingerprinting to exercise a Constitutional right. Time to get rid of the FOID card entirely. Illinois leads the way backwards yet again.
- M.W. - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 11:42 am:
How “voluntary” will fingerprinting be when the delay to renew without fingerprints is excessively long (by intent)?
- bob - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 11:59 am:
“Polling shows that 88% of Illinoisans support requiring fingerprints to acquire a firearm.” Would you be so kind to post the name of this poll so I can find out how it was conducted and who they asked?
- Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 12:16 pm:
=How “voluntary” will fingerprinting be when the delay to renew without fingerprints is excessively long (by intent)?=
Agreed - JB is already putting no real pressure on the ISP to streamline the FOID and CCL renewals. From a political viewpoint that I understand that firearm owners are not his base. This legislation would codify the purposeful slow-walking of renewals.
- Commie Cola - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 12:31 pm:
Jocko, regulated doesn’t mean the same thing now as it did in 1780. Maybe study up on the subject rather than burp out anti gun propaganda.
- Jocko - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 12:38 pm:
==doesn’t mean the same thing now as it did in 1780.==
and ‘Arms’ should apply to an AR-15 created in 1959? Must be nice having it both ways.
- H-W - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 1:31 pm:
For those arguing “a well-regulated militia” no longer means the same thing, then by definition, your advocacy of the 2nd amendment is moot.
You would advocate that militias are no longer relevant, much less, in need of regulation.
In that context, why would you suggest that the right to own weapons is no longer a condition clause? The 2nd Amendment was in fact a conditional clause. It advocated on behalf of a National (Federation of States) interest, not, an unconditional, individual right.
To strike the first clause on the grounds it is now irrelevant does not by definition broaden the intent of the Founders. It only broadens the interests of individuals.
I am not opposed to owning guns. But I am opposed to arguments that ignore the Constitution in order to advocate for unstated Constitutional rights. You need a better argument.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 1:42 pm:
If the “well regulated militia” clause is no longer valid then, by the same logic, the “shall not be infringed” claus is no longer valid.
As a CCL holder I see that as a fair trade.
To the post: I appreciate Director Kelly’s statement on these issues and I think the combination of the CCL and FOID makes sense.
- We've never had one before - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 1:44 pm:
@H-W: The interests of individuals were blown wide open in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
It’s been decided.
- Commie Cola - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 1:55 pm:
* Must be nice having it both ways. *
Like we haven’t heard that one before too, and the answer is always the same, if the 2nd only applies to muskets, the first only applies to actual speech, a quill pen, and antique printing presses.
- SAB - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 2:00 pm:
I’m a little confused and maybe not reading this correctly, but this seems to be a combination of a FOID and conceal carry card, does this mean that if you only want to purchase a gun and ammo for home defense, sport, plinking or hunting and not conceal carry, because this new card is for both, people will now have to spend the time and money to take a concealed carry course to get the combination card? If that’s the case, this seems to be a way for our state to restrict and or discourage a lot of people from applying for a combo card. I know quite a few people who have a FOID card but don’t own guns. They buy their own ammo only to take shooting with people who own guns just for fun.
The FOID card should be gotten rid of, it does nothing to provide any type of public safety, it’s main purpose is to discourage gun and ammo purchases. Most legal gun purchases are done through a dealer or a private seller who has to run a background check anyway. Criminals are not doing any of this. A legal gun owner will follow the law and purchase their gun the way it should be done and a background check will happen. If you want to conceal carry then take the course, pay the fee’s needed, again legally. Criminals buy and carry guns illegally and will continue to do so regardless of any new laws or changes to the current system, that’s why they are called criminals. If this is indeed a combo card, and the CCL course will need to be taken just to have the ability to purchase a gun and ammo, this is nothing but another hurdle for the law abiding.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 2:28 pm:
=* Must be nice having it both ways. *
Like we haven’t heard that one before too, and the answer is always the same, if the 2nd only applies to muskets, the first only applies to actual speech, a quill pen, and antique printing presses.=
Only if you are an “originalist” or a “strict constructionist” or a “contextualist”.
The rest of us know that the USSC has always interpreted the the constitution, its meaning, and the context of the times.
- H-W - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 2:36 pm:
@We’ve never had one before: You are half-correct (i.e., you are quibbling).
In Scalia’s own words: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The right to possess weapons is a conditional right.
- Mason born - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 2:52 pm:
SAB
No they aren’t going to require you to get a CCL Most likely it would be something like the endorsement on your drivers license. Perhaps a bit easier to read for the authorities but basically the same. Like having a CDL versus a regular drivers license.
- The Dude Abides - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 4:44 pm:
The 2nd Amendment is settled law. Individuals have a right to own a handgun, shotgun or rifle. That said, I don’t have a problem with reasonable regulations and restrictions.
- MyTwoCents - Thursday, Apr 15, 21 @ 5:16 pm:
First of all, The Dude Abides, any SCOTUS decision is settled law until it’s not (see Abood/Janus). Secondly, the hypocrisy of conservative “originalists” is breathtaking. To a certain degree it is used solely as an excuse to use the judiciary to implement a conservative agenda that could not be achieved through the legislative process, Commie Cola’s comments being a perfect example of that. Either you take the language of the Bill of Rights at it’s original meaning or you don’t.