Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Figure it out and pass a bill

Posted in:

Illinois

* Rep. Mike Zalewski has introduced legislation to increase minimum sentencing for repeat offenders of the Unlawful Use of a Weapon statue and more prison time for those who violate the Aggravated Use of a Weapon statute The outline from Zalewski’s spokesperson…

* UUW Carry/possess (this section is not applicable to Concealed Carry Licensees)

1st offense remains a Class A misdemeanor

A second offense remains a Class 3 felony but now will be non-probationable and the person “shall be sentenced to no less than 3 years and no more than 10 years”.

* UUW by felons or people in DOC custody (Probationers, Parolees, Mandatory Supervised Release)

Currently a Class 3 felony for the 1st offense and mandatory imprisonment of 2-10 years. Subsequent offenses and violation by parolees are Class 2 felonies with mandatory sentences of 3-14 years

Will remain a Class 3 felony with mandatory imprisonment of 4-10 years. Subsequent offenses will remain Class 2 felonies with mandatory 5-14 year sentences

* Aggravated UUW (as amended under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act)

Currently, if the weapon is in close proximity, loaded, and the offender does not have a CCL, it is a Class 4 felony. A 2nd or subsequent offense is a Class 2 felony a mandatory 3-7 year imprisonment.

Will remain a Class 4 felony for the 1st offense with a mandatory 3-7 year imprisonment and Class 2 felony with a mandatory 4-10 year imprisonment for subsequent offenses

* Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Streetgang Member

Currently, a Class 2 felony with a mandatory prison sentence of 3-10 year

This is currently not probationable when the firearm is loaded

Will remain a Class 2 felony, but require a mandatory 4-10 years in prison

* Affirmative Defense

It will be an affirmative defense to the AUU/no FOID card offense if there are no prohibitors to their FOID card being renewed, and the card is simply hung up in processing. The same defense is acceptable for CCLs hung up in processing.

* The Department of Corrections estimates big costs for Zalewski’s proposal…

The concept, designed to crack down on gun violence in the state’s largest city, would add 3,860 inmates to the state’s already overcrowded prison system, the Illinois Department of Corrections estimates.

That surge would require more space for inmates than is currently available, as well as more than $700 million in additional operational costs, the agency says.

“Based on current inmate population, IDOC does not have sufficient capacity to take on another 3,860 inmates,” Corrections spokesman Tom Shaer noted Monday. “The state would need to build at least one prison.”

Shaer did not have an estimate on how many additional prison guards would be needed.

“Hundreds of new employees, to be sure,” he noted.

I’m with Zalewski in not being so sure those numbers are accurate.

First, a big chunk of that prison population increase is likely made up of inmates who are either already in prison or will be. So, there could be a lot of double-counting going on.

Secondly, Zalewski points out that IDOC’s figure includes the cost of incarcerating some AUUW violators who would normally get probation, but, he says, the folks they are pointing to shouldn’t have legally received probation in the first place.

* I am no fan of mandatory minimums. But it’s more than obvious that the justice system, particularly in Cook County, is allowing way too many people off for what ought to be serious illegal weapons crimes.

So, perhaps legislators could tweak the minimums in the bill a bit and then repeal some other mandatory minimums - particularly on drug possession crimes - which are currently crowding our prison system in exchange for passing some version of this bill.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:32 pm

Comments

Ditto and amen!

Comment by Downstate Illinois Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:41 pm
At first blush I always have a hard time trusting gun bills from Zalewski. He has tended to know little about the existing laws and shown ignorance of how guns work, how people carry and transport etc.

With that said, if we can ensure this targets CRIMINALS and not some guy who left his FOID at home, or had a gun in his glove box and a FOID but no CCL, etc. I could deal with tougher sentences.

Then I remember the articles about the guy in jail for 14 months with an otherwise clean record for have a gun in his car with him and a FOID and having to be released after the latest Illinois Supreme Court ruling.

Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:42 pm
To clarify: the increase in the prison population will not come so much from adding new prisoners to the system, but increasing current prisoners’ length of stay.

While I think this bill is a bad idea–the evidence is clear that taking discretion away from judges and increasing prison sentences will not prevent crime–there are ways we could reduce the prison population. We could start with making all class 4 drug possession and retail theft into misdemeanors, regardless of prior offenses. Not sure if this will offset the mandatory minimums, but it’ll probably come close

Comment by John Howard Association Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:47 pm
I was told be a guy who self-ID’d as a drug dealer that $1,500 could make a gun arrest go away in Chicago, even after being taken into custody.

Perhaps the problem is not entirely that the laws are inadequate but that Chicago PD isn’t really enforcing the law.

If the problem is people who have ready access to $1,500 cash can make firearms arrests go away then increasing penalties is not going to affect the problem.

Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:50 pm
Mandatory minimums tend to create unintended consequences. If the mandatory sentence is too high, prosecutors and judges may “undercharge” - which means that the defendant’s record does not reflect the actual crime. I’d rather give prosecutors and judges some deference, if it means people will be charged with their actual crimes.

Comment by Soccermom Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:07 pm
Part of the problem with mandatory minimums is that they are not really mandatory–rather they take away discretion from judges and vest more power and discretion in prosecutors.

Comment by John Howard Association Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:15 pm
And because I know somebody will eventually mention it in comments, federal mandatory minimums have absolutely nothing to do with state prosecutions.

So, please do not bring up that goofy red herring here.

Thanks.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:20 pm
===The concept, designed to crack down on gun violence in the state’s largest city, would add 3,860 inmates to the state’s already overcrowded prison system, the Illinois Department of Corrections estimates.===
Does anyone know how many inmates there are for possession of marihuana? Any idea if the new med-mar law is expected to cut down on the number of those who have been convicted.
Rather have violent criminals in jail.

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:31 pm
–So, perhaps legislators could tweak the minimums in the bill a bit and then repeal some other mandatory minimums - particularly on drug possession crimes - which are currently crowding our prison system in exchange for passing some version of this bill.–

Good idea Rich, reduce mandatory minimums on non-violent crimes and increase prion time for violent offenders. That sounds like pretty good policy to me that could be a cost neutral solution that helps keep our neighborhoods safer.

Comment by Ahoy! Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:56 pm
The $700 million figure is the cost of operations which would include the cost of feeding, housing and staffing facilities. Another $250 million would be needed for additional facilities. I briefly worked at DOC under a previous Gov and that is how I read their fiscal note.

Comment by Safer Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 3:09 pm
Couple of problems.

First with Aguilar the thinking of Zalewski and others has to change. Before it was against the law to have a gun in public except for certain circumstances. Aguilar said that it was a right to be able to carry a gun in public. They talk about affirmative defenses, where WE have to prove we are entitled to do X conduct. That is now backwards. The burden of proof shifts to the prosecutors to prove we were acting outside the law.

Second, do we really think that people like Scotty Pippen should do 3 years in prison? How about the 17 year old who had a gun to protect himself from the gangs? Do we really want to wreck his life for that poor judgement? From published reports, I haven’t seen anything that says he was a bad kid.

Currently it look like ISP is only going to recognize about 5 other states for people being able to apply for non-resident carry permits. That means people with carry permits from 40 someother states could be at risk of spending 3 years in jail.

With carrying a gun being a right, the carrying of a gun in many instances should be treated in a regulatory offense not a felony. And with Cook SA having to drop over 100 cases, do you really think that they won’t up charge someone with AGUUW for a violation under the carry law? They have not been shining examples of prosecutor discretion.

If it AGUUW for those with a felony conviction, no problem, those are the bad people who shouldn’t have a gun. But 3 years for a first offense is over the top in light of the Court and the way things are currently going.

And let’s see, will it have an immediate effective date? If not then it won’t take effect until July. So why the rush? We can work on it till January, find a compromise bill and pass it then with an immediate effective date and it will take effect sooner.

It took 7 months to hash out a carry bill after a court ruling. Certainly we can take a few more months to analyze the Aguilar decision.

And lastly, isn’t it funny how this problem with AGUUW only seems to be happening in one county? I don’t hear about these problems in Madison, Dupage, Kane or Lake. So we are going to upend a criminal statute for one county?

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 3:26 pm
If it AGUUW for those with a felony conviction, no problem, those are the bad people who shouldn’t have a gun. But 3 years for a first offense is over the top in light of the Court and the way things are currently going.

Where oh where does Aguilar say that?!?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 4:11 pm
There are no inmates in IDOC under mandatory minimums for possession alone. They are there for possession with intent to deliver. Simply put they are drug dealers who got caught with a substantial amount of narcotics that exceeded personal use. It makes a great talking point, put the reality is that there aren’t a bunch a drug users locked up for possessing their vice.

If you like the crime drop since 1990 then you like mandatory drug sentences. if you don’t like the crime drop then you don’t like them. Now legalization is a different topic and one I can get behind, but I don’t see that happening

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:12 pm
Rich - For argument’s sake, lets assume IDOC’s figures are overstated. Lets cut them in half and say the impact is approximately $450 million. Where does that money and space come from?

Comment by Magic Dragon Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:53 pm
@Magic Dragon, the money will come out of the pension funds.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 10:32 pm
Nothing says the states attorney cannot drop charges and use a lesser charge. The mandatory sentences will not work. Like the report a few months ago comparing New York city to Chicago. The majority of the gun crimes in Chicago, where never sent to prison, with many never being prosocuted. Unless we get tough on the gun crimes, the murder and shooting will not end. Lets face it the street gangs in Chicago have power. They could make break a local politician. So you cater to the gangs or you don’t get elected in certain area’s

Comment by UUW Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:02 pm
UUW writes, “Unless we get tough on the gun crimes, the murder and shooting will not end…”

So, we’re not tough on murder and shooting people?

Let me offer you a clue, Mr. UUW: Do you, or anyone else, really think a hoodlum intent on hurting or killing other people really gives half a thought about gun laws?

Really now.

Comment by John Boch Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 7:30 am
Let me offer you a clue, Mr. UUW: Do you, or anyone else, really think a hoodlum intent on hurting or killing other people really gives half a thought about gun laws?

Really now.

Actually, Yes. Former Federal Prosecutor Rep. Drury testified in committee that they have wiretaps where criminals decline to carry guns because of stiff federal sentencing.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 9, 13 @ 9:59 am