Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: $117.7B In Economic Activity: Illinois Hospitals Are Essential To Communities And Families
Next Post: Three referendums proposed for fall ballot (Updated x2)
Posted in:
* From yesterday’s press conference…
Q: Some are saying to look at Karina’s Bill, which would require police to confiscate firearms in domestic [violence] types of situations with protective orders. Your thoughts on that issue?
Gov. Pritzker: “Well I want to say in general I support the concept of the bill. I will say that if you listen to the State Police and actually all the other police departments too, it’s quite difficult to remove a firearm from somebody, even if they have given up their FOID card. But in the instance where you’ve got to go confiscate the firearm, literally you have to bring sometimes four officers to one situation in order to remove the weapon. And if somebody doesn’t want to give it to you, it becomes quite complicated and maybe dangerous.”
* From Amanda Pyron, Executive Director of The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence…
“Karina’s Bill would strengthen the law allowing domestic violence survivors to request the firearm remedy during the order of protection process while also clarifying that judges can issue a search warrant to retrieve a gun from an accused abuser if they deem it necessary. We strongly support giving law enforcement the tools they need to carry out any resulting search warrants quickly and safely, and we are proud to have the support of the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, who serves the highest number of orders of protection in the state.
“We agree with Gov. Pritzker’s comments that domestic violence must be something that is taken very seriously by our lawmakers and criminal justice system, and we appreciate his support for the concept of Karina’s Bill. Gov. Pritzker rightly points out that domestic violence and firearms can be an extremely dangerous and too often deadly combination.
“We understand that removing a firearm in these situations is sometimes difficult for law enforcement, but we cannot ignore the serious peril many domestic violence survivors endure when requesting an order of protection with a firearm involved. Research shows that risk of intimate partner homicide increases 500% when abusers have access to a firearm. We also cannot abide by domestic abusers illegally possessing firearms with revoked FOID cards, a situation that has resulted in the recent murders of Julie Elguezabal, Adriana Lopez, Maria Roque, Karina Gonzalez and Daniela Alvarez, and others.
“Karina’s Bill (SB2633) is a common sense step to protect domestic violence survivors, one that is in place in several other states, and we strongly urge its passage this session.”
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: $117.7B In Economic Activity: Illinois Hospitals Are Essential To Communities And Families
Next Post: Three referendums proposed for fall ballot (Updated x2)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If the person with a gun poses a danger to the cops if/when they come to take possession of the gun, it seems incredibly likely the person poses a danger to everyone around them already.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:27 am
“risk of intimate partner homicide increases 500% when abusers have access to a firearm” seems like a good reason to make the effort to remove weapons.
Comment by loyal virus Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:28 am
I certainly don’t want to put cops in harms way if there is no need for it but disarming people with domestic violence certainly warrants the risk in my opinion. I don’t think anyone in this article is suggesting they should not perform that action, to be clear.
Comment by DuPage Dad Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:29 am
I appreciate the Governor’s comments and support of this bill. Unfortunately, I have personal experience in this area. My alcoholic father beat my mother severely enough to be hospitalized. He also threatened to shoot her. He was arrested and while he was in jail, I removed his three guns from their home and destroyed them. I didn’t wait for legal action and I’m so glad I didn’t. He bailed out of jail the same day for a measly $500.
Comment by Manchester Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:37 am
- it becomes quite complicated and maybe dangerous. -
I’m sorry, but that’s the job. It’s complicated and dangerous when firefighters go into a burning building, but they do it anyway.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 11:38 am
- but they do it anyway
Significant funding would be needed to put a law like this into effect.
Comment by lloyd Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:00 pm
ISP should have dedicated units for this
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:00 pm
There already is a provision in the law that requires individuals who have had their FOID revoked to transfer weapons out of their possession.
“Your FOID Card has been revoked. Within 48 hours of receiving notice of the revocation, the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65/9.5) requires you to: (1) surrender your FOID card to the local law enforcement agency where you reside; (2) transfer all firearms in your possession or control; and (3) complete this Record. Please list all firearms in your possession at the time of revocation, indicating with whom they have been secured/transferred. If you do not have any weapons in your possession, please mark No Weapons”
https://isp.illinois.gov/Foid/FoidRevoked
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:01 pm
Could possibly be yet another law that your local Sheriff feeds his base, and ultimately his ability to keep his job, by declaring he won’t enforce it.
Comment by Consider this Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:04 pm
@ Donnie Elgin -
and you think someone who is going to kill his wife is going to follow that law?
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:20 pm
= someone who is going to kill his wife=
See that’s the thing - if a person is disturbed enough to kill their wife they will find a way to do it with or without a gun.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:44 pm
==significant funding would be needed==
Funding for what? Can’t you ask the victim for permission to search for and, if necessary, safeguard said firearms?
I understand the presumption of innocence, but we’re currently just taking FOID holders charged with crimes at their word when their card is revoked?
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 12:46 pm
See that’s the thing - if a person is disturbed enough to kill their wife they will find a way to do it with or without a gun.
Research shows that risk of intimate partner homicide increases 500% when abusers have access to a firearm.
Comment by Steve Polite Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 1:17 pm
My dad spent the majority of his career in law enforcement and he always said they needed to be extra aware during traffic stops and domestic calls. His partner took a couple of rounds during a domestic call. They were dangerous when that happened in the 1970s and they are still dangerous, but the job is dangerous. FYI - my dad’s partner survived.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 1:27 pm
=== State Police and actually all the other police departments too, it’s quite difficult to remove a firearm from somebody, even if they have given up their FOID card. ===
Can we wait until they go to work to remove their firearms from their house?
Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 1:48 pm
“See that’s the thing - if a person is disturbed enough to kill their wife they will find a way to do it with or without a gun.”
I can assure you that it is a lot easier for an abuser to kill the victim through a locked door, from 100 feet away or from a moving vehicle, with a gun than without one. The presence of a gun makes it exponentially easier to inflict mortal wounds and to discount the significance of the presence of a weapon in these circumstances is indicative of either willful ignorance or just plain indifference.
Comment by Retired School Board Member Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 2:30 pm
It feels like some people are treating “cops in danger” as a created state that we don’t want cause, but “intimate partner in danger” as a natural state that happens on its own, so we have no responsibility to interfere with nature taking its course.
But if you’re saying cops shouldn’t be put at risk by removing these guns, you’re saying that women SHOULD be put at risk. You’re choosing to create risk for those women. You’re saying that women don’t have the right to be free from violence in their homes if it mildly inconveniences someone they have a restraining order against, or if it puts cops at risk. What other groups in society would you say cops should be exempt from protecting, because it puts the cops in too much danger?
Comment by Suburban Mom Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 2:33 pm
“if a person is disturbed enough to kill their wife they will find a way to do it with or without a gun”
I don’t see why that means we should make her killing as easy as possible.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 2:47 pm
Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has the Rahimi case pending on IF the law about civil orders prohibiting guns is constitutional. My bet Mr. Rahimi looses as he should for being a dangerous individual and general scumbag. But the Court could possibly put some more checks in place on things like ex parte hearings and orders.
If they do, then it could be a sticky proposition where the GA passed a law that is partially or mostly unconstitutional and the Governor can sign it and deal with the courts or veto it and deal with that.
prudent thing for the bill might be to wait till the ruling comes down and see what passes muster with the court.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 3:42 pm
====“if a person is disturbed enough to kill their wife they will find a way to do it with or without a gun”
Guns are very efficient at killing people and reducing that efficiency seems like a good thing in such instances.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 3:45 pm
Operationally speaking, sending police to homes without a search warrant to collect firearms will not work.
Statewide it would require incredible amounts of police officers. (If you could get warrants.)
If this was the only job that the state police had, there wouldn’t be enough officers to respond to the locations, secure the weapons and then properly document and store them.
It would be an incredible legal and public relations quagmire.
Please don’t shoot the messenger. This won’t work.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, May 1, 24 @ 4:24 pm