* Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling and special agent in charge for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Chicago Field Division Christopher Amon penned a Tribune op-ed yesterday…

Earlier this month, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced an initiative to help combat the alarming proliferation of machine gun conversion devices (MCDs), commonly referred to as “switches” or “auto sears,” in communities across the country. This is welcome news.

Here in Chicago, we are at ground zero on this issue. More and more each day, these devices are being used by violent offenders, threatening the public and our police. The data doesn’t lie. The number of MCDs recovered by the Chicago Police Department has skyrocketed from 81 in 2020 to 551 in 2023. This year, we are on pace to surpass 600 recoveries. […]

Shockingly, the number of shell casings recovered at crime scenes has increased by 48% since 2020, and, on average, a machine gun is discharged seven times a day in Chicago. While people are dying, gang members are flaunting their possession and use of these devices against rivals on open-source social media.

Despite this grim reality, possession of a machine gun alone is not a detainable offense under Illinois’ SAFE-T Act, and the absence of pretrial incarceration for mere possession emboldens criminals. Make no mistake. There is no lawful reason to possess a machine gun conversion device in Chicago — or anywhere. When a criminal modifies a firearm with an MCD, they do it to generate maximum harm to their victims. Again, the data supports this: Nearly 50% of recovered MCD-modified firearms are ballistically linked to one or more shooting events.

* ACLU Illinois Communications Director Ed Yohnka responded…

CPD Superintendent Larry Snelling’s claim in his Tribune op-ed published today that “possession of a machine gun alone is not a detainable offense under Illinois’ SAFE-T Act,” is simply false. Possession of a machine gun is and always has been a detention-eligible offense under the Pretrial Fairness provisions of the SAFE-T Act, and is detainable under both the safety and willful flight bases. The section of the law that facilitates this 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(1), because possession of a machine gun is a non-probationable felony (meaning it carries a mandatory sentence to IDOC). In addition, people accused of possessing a machine gun will generally be charged with “Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon,” which is separately detention-eligible under 110-6.1(a)(6)(O) found at the same link. The latter charge is what makes virtually all gun possession cases (unless someone has a FOID) detention-eligible.

Additionally, 720 ILCS 5/24-1(b) provides in relevant part that “A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(7)(i) [Selling, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing or carrying a machine gun] commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years, unless the weapon is possessed in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle as defined in Section 1-146 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, or on the person, while the weapon is loaded, in which case it shall be a Class X felony.”

The Superintendent further uses this false statement of the law to argue that “the absence of pretrial incarceration for mere possession emboldens criminals.” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, possession of any gun without a license is detainable, and gun possession cases make up a plurality (if not a majority) of all people currently being ordered detained on any given day in Cook County Circuit Court’s Pretrial Division.

Examples of people being detained for gun possession abound. A Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office press release documenting the first month of the Act’s implementation captures that 64% of people they sought to detain for possession of any gun were denied release. There are also numerous individual examples of people being denied pretrial release since the law changed when they are charged with possession of a machine gun or any other gun, both in Chicago and other jurisdictions.

The Illinois Appellate Court has issued no fewer than three opinions affirming the pretrial detention of people arrested by the Chicago Police Department and charged with possession of a machine gun: Vance, Smith, and Walker. The published court decisions each describe someone who was arrested by the CPD, charged with possession of a machine gun, denied release, appealed that detention decision, and received appellate court review affirming the detention. In the case of Martice Walker, the allegation was that he possessed a gun with an “automatic switch attachment” of exactly the kind focused on in Superintendent Snelling’s op-ed. It simply could not be a more precise demonstration of the falsity of Snelling’s claims about the Pretrial Fairness Act.

Examples of people detained for possession of machine guns are available from other jurisdictions as well: DuPage County 1, DuPage County 2, Peoria County (with switch).

* But wait, it gets better. I had all the above by late yesterday afternoon and decided to hold it until this morning. Last night, I received this email from the ACLU…

In working with the Tribune to get a letter in Sunday’s paper, we learned that the authors had offered the paper a “clarification” after objections were raised about the suggestion that possessing a machine gun is not detainable under the SAFE-T Act.

Here is the addendum we got from the Tribune:

Despite this grim reality, possession of a machine gun alone is not a mandatory detainable offense under Illinois’ SAFE-T Act and the absence of pretrial incarceration for mere possession emboldens criminals.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has struck down the notion of something being a “mandatory” detention. This is unconstitutional and just wrong.

*facepalm.emoji*

* Meanwhile, St. Louis Public Radio interviewed the chief judge of St. Clair County about one year without cash bail…

Will Bauer Bauer: Maybe one of the most common things that you might have heard from critics — I heard it quite a bit — was that the elimination of cash bail could make the state less safe. And the simple theory behind that is because people accused of less egregious crimes no longer have to stay in jail under this new system. Do you think Illinois has gotten less safe in this one year since?

Judge Andrew Gleeson, chief judge of Illinois’ 20th Circuit: The idea that we are assessing that level of danger to the community at large and or to any individual person before we allow someone to be out on bail is, I think, the counterargument. We’re safer under this present system. And then, probably just as important, is now we are upholding our obligations to the Constitution of the United States and the rights of us as individual citizens in this country. We are deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. Bond is only set to make sure that you appear in court. So, when we talk about these things, we’re talking about somebody who has not been adjudicated guilty in a court of law yet. So, the assessment of how dangerous they are to us — and whether they’re going to reappear for court — is what we should have probably been doing all along.

Bauer: As we go forward, what lessons, if any, are we learning in a world without cash bail, and what changes or improvements need to be made here in St. Clair County?

Gleeson: The first one we already talked about, and that was the concern about having dangerous people on the street and the community being less safe. That would have been one thing that, obviously, it’s a giant concern to both the courts and to the community at large. The second is: Are people going to show up to court? So, the purpose of bond is to ensure that they show up for their court dates. And I think everyone who’s been involved in the system as long as I have was leery of the thought that we’re going to let people go with really — to a degree — with no catch to bring them back in. And, surprisingly, the academics were correct. There is no meaningful difference at this point that we can discern as to whether you post bond, or you don’t, as to whether you’re going to show up in court. And, actually in some ways, the recidivism is down as opposed to up. I don’t know that any of those things are statistically valid yet. I don’t know that we have a big enough data set to make that [claim], but those are our initial observations. I am periodically making those inquiries because I think it’s important for me to be able to have that understanding and ability to give feedback to the administrative offices and to my colleagues.