* From a Capitol News Illinois story after the governor signed Karina’s Law…
House Bill 4144, also known as Karina’s Law, clarifies that local law enforcement must temporarily remove guns from a person who has an order of protection against them when the alleged victim successfully seeks firearm removal as a remedy in court.
Current law allows people asking a court for an order of protection to request a “firearm remedy” that would lead to law enforcement removing guns from the alleged abuser’s possession. Karina’s Law closes the loophole that made it unclear who was responsible for removing the gun from the situation.
Under the law, the person who seeks an order of protection can also ask the court to issue a search warrant that will allow local law enforcement to seize firearms from the alleged abuser. The petitioner or state’s attorney must demonstrate probable cause that the alleged abuser poses an immediate threat to the petitioner. Law enforcement would then be required to execute the warrant within 96 hours of it being issued.
“Taking lethal weapons from those who have already done harm and are an immediate and present danger to do further harm is simply common sense,” Pritzker said.
* Shaw Local’s Tom Collins interviewed several area law enforcement officials about enforcing the law. While they agreed that “temporarily disarming firearm owners charged with domestic violence is a worthwhile and a noble goal,” and that “Anything we as law enforcement can do to help protect victims will be welcome by our agency without question,” they had concerns about implementation…
“The biggest concern is officer safety: You don’t know if the guy is standing behind the door ready to blow somebody away,” [La Salle County State’s Attorney Joe Navarro] said. “We have good officers, but we don’t always have good people who need their guns taken away.” […]
For La Salle County, that might not be a small number of warrants. La Salle County Circuit Court records about 250 domestic violence charges a year – a figure that does not include orders of protection filed in civil court – which could require police to seize dozens of firearms from suspects not keen on giving them up.
Susan Bursztynsky, executive director at Safe Journeys, which assists victims of domestic and sexual abuse, said not many victims request for firearms to be removed in an order of protection situation. […]
“We have a lot of domestics in Streator,” [Streator Police Chief John Franklin] said. “It’s going to seriously overtax our investigators and patrol officers to get these warrants, go into houses and retrieve these weapons.” […]
One possible solution is to persuade the domestic suspect to release his firearm not to police but to a friend or family member with a valid firearm owner’s ID card.
“We currently see this happen a lot when someone has their FOID or concealed carry permit revoked or suspended,” [Spring Valley Police Chief Adam Curran] said, “and I would anticipate this will occur with Karina’s law.”
Go read the rest.
- Macon Deliberations - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:35 pm:
Not trying to understate how difficult of an objective this is for officers, it really is. That said, makes sense why the assault weapon ban passed before this. Godspeed to all officers tasked with enforcing this law meant to protect victims.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:39 pm:
Totally get that it can be dangerous. Isn’t that what cops signed up for?
- just because - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
Domestic cases are very dangerous for law enforcement, and they are even more dangerous when firearms are on site. However this is the reason the victims need the guns to be removed. It is better to have the police remove them than have them remain in the home as the victim is trying to move out. Additional training for law enforcement in de-escalation tactics is probably going to be needed.
- VK - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
I’m forced to agree with Joe. Isn’t the point of the police to be our line of defense against dangerous people? I understand wanting to protect your officers and make sure that they get home to their families safe, but if you all aren’t capable of getting a deadly weapon away from a person a judge has ruled too dangerous to have it…
Well, what is it exactly that you would say you do here?
- Amalia - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:57 pm:
everyone around law enforcement knows that domestic violence cases are the worst in every way. victims of course. but coming to the scene of a domestic always problematic. sure, police signed up for it. but there has to be some way to get the person who must surrender to surrender, bring it out, bring it in, give it to someone. more to the point, sad so many legal purchasers do things that require they need to give up their weapons.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 12:59 pm:
- You don’t know if the guy is standing behind the door ready to blow somebody away -
So what, no more serving warrants for anything?
I’m more understanding of the manpower concern, but as another commenter pointed out this is the kind of thing police sign up for.
- Leslie K - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
While I do see challenges with enforcing this law, I am disappointed that some in LE keep focusing on officer safety. Not making light of it, but there is always a chance someone is standing behind the door ready to blow someone away. Knowing the person has weapons actually takes away one of the unknowns and allows more thorough preparation.
I think a greater issue, in addition to possibly overburdening less resourced departments, is knowing when you have recovered all the firearms.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
Safety for the officers is a legitimate and important concern. However, law enforcement is a risky job and folks know that coming in. Not performing important duties that protect the public because of that risk is not a way to address the problem. Planning and training is the approach to be taken. The state should make resources available to help with that training.
- Give Us Barrabbas - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:03 pm:
Letting the gun owner surrender the weapon to a family member or friend ain’t gonna cut it, because those people could just hand it back over at any time. No, it’s got to be a third party, uninvolved with the gun owner. I would say you could have the owner take the guns to a gun shop for temporary storage. Who pays for that? I think the owner should. But you might argue the gun shop could send the cops a bill, or you make it part of court costs. If the owner breaks any rules, the guns get sold. If they keep their nose clean and a judge releases the gun, he can go claim them back.
- Dance Band on the Titanic - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:12 pm:
“We have a lot of domestics in Streator,” Franklin said. “It’s going to seriously overtax our investigators and patrol officers to get these warrants, go into houses and retrieve these weapons.”
Wouldn’t a domestic shooting investigation also “seriously overtax” said officers?
- DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:28 pm:
As part of the court order the abuser should have to list all firearms that he/she owns so the police know how many. Any not listed would be a violation of order and punished accordingly and non listed guns found should be destroyed
- levivotedforjudy - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:30 pm:
My dad was in law enforcement his entire career. He always talked about how the most dangerous calls were domestics and pulling people over for moving violations. The St. Clair County Sheriff’s Dept. made them go to annual seminars on the protocols to be safe. My dad’s partner still till a round through a door on a simple domestic. They deal with that everyday. It is unfortunately part of the job.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:39 pm:
=Not performing important duties that protect the public because of that risk is not a way to address the problem. Planning and training is the approach to be taken. The state should make resources available to help with that training.=
As usual, Norseman is spot on. The police are supposed to keep us safe, that has and always will come with risk. It doesn’t make me happy to put anyone in danger.
- Leap Day William - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:47 pm:
== Well, what is it exactly that you would say you do here? ==
This is a fair question. We hear a lot about how dangerous being a police officer is, and there’s no doubt they put themselves on the line every day. That’s why they are paid the high salaries and provided the expensive equipment at taxpayers expense. I don’t mind paying for these things, but at some point, they have to, y’know, do the job they signed up for.
- Papa2008 - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 1:48 pm:
The issue is not “where are the guns?” The issue is “where is the guy?”. The solution to domestic issues and restraining orders is tracking the potential attacker. Put an unremoveable ankle bracelet on the perp, give the victim a phone tracker, and monitor the situation until it’s resolved. The cops don’t need to remove any weapons, they need to keep track of the perp.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 2:35 pm:
Domestics are dangerous. But 250 less than 1 a day a day. Maybe slack off on speed traps to make time.
- Leslie K - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 2:38 pm:
I think Norseman @ 1:00pm says it best. Said less well by me: yes it’s dangerous, but the answer isn’t to just not do it.
- Ebenezer - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 2:42 pm:
I have concerns about making armed robbery illegal. Those folks by definition have arms, and if my officers attempt to enforce the law, we are putting them in harms way. /S
[Half of murdered women are murdered by partners(34%) or family(16%). It’s not an inconvenience, it is what we pay police to do.]
- Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 2:44 pm:
If the cops are scared to go get this guy’s guns…. Maybe that guy should not have guns in the first place.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Mar 4, 25 @ 2:50 pm:
== The police are supposed to keep us safe … ==
== do the job they signed up for. ==
There may be a moral obligation but, according to SCOTUS, police have no specific legal obligation to protect you. See Warren v District of Columbia (1981) that says a general duty exists, but no specific legal duty.
More relevant to this discussion, see Castle Rock v Gonzales (2005) that involved a domestic order of protection (among other issues) where the court stated there was no specific obligation to protect.
-Papa2008- makes a valid point; track (or detain) the person.
If someone is arrested, there may be grounds to deny release if a specific threat exists. Domestic Violence, Home Invasion, and Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault are all specific crimes that are listed as detainable.
From a rights perspective, I’m not real comfortable with detention without a trail, but at least there is a hearing and judge involved in the detention.