Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

* UPDATED x1 * Why was Travis Reinking allowed to keep his guns?

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

At Sunday’s new conference, [Tazewell County Sheriff Robert Huston] released all the reports his office had filed with regards to Reinking. He also said Reinking’s weapons were taken from him but then returned to his father, who had a valid FOID card. That was done, the sheriff said, because it was a “constitutional” issue regarding property rights.

“Constitutional” property rights issue, eh?

* SJ-R…

Newspapers in an 11-county area that make up GateHouse’s Western Illinois Division have completed an in-depth news project looking at spending of money seized in drug busts. Each city police department, sheriff’s office and state’s attorney’s office gets a share of the money. The project gathered itemized expenditures out of those funds from 38 agencies in the 11 counties between Aug. 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012.

Number one county on that list? Tazewell, at $12,300.

* And it’s not like the county didn’t know about Reinking’s many mental problems. Click here for the local police reports going back to May of 2016. Pantagraph…

“The police reports speak for themselves. I think anyone can conclude after reading them that there’s evidence (Reinking) has mental health issues,” said Tazewell County Sheriff Bob Huston.

And yet, Reinking kept legal possession of his guns until he showed up at the White House.

* Newsweek…

Jeff Reinking, Travis’s father, owns a crane rental service in Illinois. His son was described as “delusional” in another police report from 2016.

The Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office report for an incident referred to as “suicide attempt by firearms” said Travis Reinking “was delusional and believed the famous entertainer, Taylor Swift, was harassing him via stalking and hacking his phone. Travis believes everyone including his own family and the police are involved.”

It noted that his father, his mother, Judith, and his grandmother Marilyn all had concerns about him.

“Travis is hostile towards police and does not recognize police authority. Travis also possesses several firearms,” said the incident report. It also said Reinking believed he has autism, had made “suicidal comments” and was eventually taken away for mental evaluation.

And yet Reinking kept his guns.

* He was forcefully taken by the police to that mental evaluation…

The former Morton man had several run-ins with police over the past several years. In May 2016, police responded to the CVS parking lot in Morton, where Reinking was in his vehicle allegedly having delusions about singer Taylor Swift harassing him, stalking him and hacking his phone. The delusions had allegedly gone on since August of 2014. His family was also at the parking lot and feared for his safety because he had made comments about killing himself earlier in the day.

Officers tried to convince Reinking to seek help at UnityPoint Health-Methodist, and told him he could not leave the scene because he was in protective custody due to suicidal comments he made. Reinking allegedly attempted to leave again before he was made to go to [UnityPoint Health-Methodist].

No word on what that evaluation found, but Reinking kept his guns.

* The police had lots of forewarning. WAND…

Reinking also told the officer he believed people were trying to goad him into breaking the law, alluding to an out-of-state incident where a van had a sign which read “Don’t steal the van on it.” Reinking thought the sign was directed at him specifically. Reinking appeared to be serious and concerned when filing the August 2017 report, the officer said. The officer assured Reinking a report would be on file.

And the cops let Reinking keep his guns.

* NY Times…

In reports, the sheriff’s department in Tazewell County, Ill., had described Mr. Reinking as a man who was hostile to the police, had threatened suicide and believed his family was harassing him. […]

In August 2017, Travis Reinking, driving a blue Mitsubishi, pulled up alongside a police car and said he wanted to file a report. About 20 to 30 people were hacking into his phone and computer, he told the police. He could hear people outside his home barking like dogs, but didn’t know who they were. At a Walmart recently, he felt that a man in a black shirt was watching him, and no one else.

Hostile to the police, suicidal and clearly delusional, but Reinking kept his guns.

* CNN…

On June 16, 2017, an employee of his father’s business, J&J Cranes, called the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office to report that Reinking came down from his apartment wearing a pink dress and holding a rifle, an incident report states.

The employee told police Reinking yelled “Is this what you f—–g want?” before he threw his rifle in his trunk and left, according to the report.

Around the same time, the Tremont Police Department responded to a call to a public pool, according to another incident report. The pool director told the responding officer that a man in his 20s barged into the pool wearing a pink women’s housecoat, the report states. The man dove into the pool and took off the coat and swam around in his underwear. When he got out of the pool, he shouted at lifeguards that he was a man and exposed his genitals to them, the report states. […]

The officer said he also called Reinking’s father, who was out of state. Jeffrey Reinking told the office he had taken three guns from his son before and locked them up “when Travis was having problems,” the report states.

Later in the day, the officer said in his report, “I called back Jeff Reinking and advised him of what happened and when he gets back home he might want to lock the guns back up until Travis gets mental help, which he stated he would.”

He “might want to lock the guns back up.”

* Meanwhile, the Tribune reports that the father returned his son’s guns three times. There may be a legal loophole…

Transfers of weapons from one family member to another as a “bona fide gift” are exempt from a requirement under Illinois law that the owner first verify with state police that the recipient of the gun has a valid FOID card.

More information is required before a decision on whether to charge Jeffrey Reinking is made, Tazewell County State’s Attorney Stuart Umholtz said Monday in an email to The Pantagraph.

At the very least, that loophole needs to be closed.

*** UPDATE *** I didn’t initially see this Sun-Times editorial on this very topic…

In the wake of the Waffle House shooting, the Legislature also should draw up a bill that would prevent weapons from being returned to anybody after police take them away, unless a court signs off on it. As the Waffle House case shows, we can’t always rely on family members to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:45 am

Comments

–That was done, the sheriff said, because it was a “constitutional” issue regarding property rights.–

If the guns were not the father’s property, he had no “right” to them at all.

Spare us the pathetic spin, sheriff. Do your job next time. Look what happened this time because you did not.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:49 am
Not only that, but the guy just got a bond.

Check out @ShannonSharpe’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/ShannonSharpe/status/988622892924518400?s=09

Comment by FarandWide Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:53 am
Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime:
https://tinyurl.com/y72zwy8v

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:54 am
With all this going on, glad to see county boards getting after things by creating gun sanctuaries. /s

Comment by The Way I See It Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:58 am
==Officers tried to convince Reinking to seek help at UnityPoint Health-Methodist==

It appears they were one Reinking short in this suggestion. Just amazing.

There’s enough evidence here that this should have gone well beyond a “recommendation”. The local law messed this up tremendously.

I feel sorry for the entertainer being referred to here. So sorry, I refuse to use the person’s name.

Comment by A guy Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 11:59 am
If the reports are correct, there was no legal way for the father to transfer possession of the firearms to the mentally disturbed son. How is that a loophole?

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:00 pm
–Jeff Reinking, Travis’s father, owns a crane rental service in Illinois.–

I expect that will be past tense before long.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:00 pm
=“Constitutional” property rights issue, eh?=

This is what happens when “guns” are given more standing than people. The Sheriff has no problem violating the 4th amendment but has a perverse adherence to the 2nd Amendment? Please.

And all of this “i called his Dad” stuff is all about local politics and the kid is from a good family instead of making sure that he gets the help he needs and keeping people safe. The Sheriff should be thrown out.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:01 pm
===If the reports are correct===

Um, did you see what the local state’s attorney said? Which “reports” are you referring to? Some random Facebook friend?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:03 pm
It’s not a bonafide gift. Bonafide legally refers good faith, free from fraud or deceit. Both parties in this exchange knew the firearms could not be legally possessed by the son.

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:13 pm
The 2A supporters downstate (both republican & democrat) need to take a hard look in the mirror. As recently as yesterday, community members were still attributing this to violent video games. The NRA has been noticeably quiet on Travis and the WI decision against armslist.com https://tinyurl.com/y854nn4w

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:14 pm
I am not sure that is a loophole, he became a prohibited person once his FOID was revoked. His Father knew his FOID was revoked. Considering the younger probably did not have the resources on his own to have his FOID reinstated, his Father knew he was prohibited and ineligible to have the firearms.

At the very least his Father knowingly transferred firearms to a prohibited person. For that he should be prosecuted.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:15 pm
–The 2A supporters downstate (both republican & democrat) need to take a hard look in the mirror. As recently as yesterday, community members were still attributing this to violent video games. The NRA has been noticeably quiet on Travis and the WI decision against armslist.com–

Does the NRA have to release a statement on every illegally possessed firearm thats used in a killing? Not sure the relevance here

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:19 pm
–That was done, the sheriff said, because it was a “constitutional” issue regarding property rights.–

What about the “consitutional” issue of the 2nd A where gun possession is in the context of a “well regulated militia”? What makes the Rienkings a well regulated militia?

Comment by DBC Held for moderation Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:20 pm
This whole story makes me so angry. No rational person knowing all of the circumstances referenced above would have thought this man should have possessed a gun, yet here we are.

This isn’t a political issue. People died because of this. This suicidal, mentally ill person was not fit to own a gun, and is not entitled to own a gun under the law. Yes his father, one of the people who should be looking out for his own child’s best interests, gave his son several guns.

The legal loopholes need to be closed and heads need to roll. This is completely unacceptable and the father and the Sheriff should be held accountable for their gross indifference to the situation.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:20 pm
Keep in mind the Tazewell County Sheriff’s office is a keystone cop operation. Hopefully Umholtz does the right thing. How did he afford to live in TN?

Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:22 pm
Does the NRA have to release a statement on every illegally possessed firearm thats used in a killing?

I don’t believe the NRA thinks there is such a thing as an illegally possessed firearm. And yes, they should be releasing statements every time someone is killed by someone using a gun.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:25 pm
The question is ridiculous, it’s like asking “Why was Alek Minassian allowed to rent a van in Canada?”

People have rights. The focus of any conversation on the topic of violence should not be on the instruments used, but on the factors driving individuals to commit these acts. Mental health, unstable childhoods, lack of economic opportunity. You know, all those issues politicians, newspapers and voters seem to treat as cursory.

Public policy should never advocate stripping away the freedoms of decent people. It’s important to look at issues like this objectively and not let an irrational fear of firearms drive decision making.

Comment by DuPage89 Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:38 pm
===never advocate stripping away the freedoms of decent people===

Travis Reinking is not a decent person.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:38 pm
===not let an irrational fear of firearms===

I’m a gun owner.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:39 pm
==This isn’t a political issue.==

Yes, it is. It’s a political issue and a social issue.

There is a sizable group of people in the U.S. who place a very high value on the personal possession of firearms. While the data indicate that firearms are more likely to be used for self harm than self defense, the belief that people need to possesses military-style firearms to protect themselves from harm persists. This is encouraged by the firearms industry, which has seen sales soar over the past two decades. This has been supported by political leaders who make decisions based on the need to appease voters who determine who to vote for based on NRA endorsements. Want that endorsement? Give people their guns and don’t ask questions.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:40 pm
Isn’t the loopholes here that this young man should have been seen by certified mental health staff earlier in this process and any guns gathered up by due process sold to pay for his continued maintenance? His dad screwed up. the local law screwed up. The NRA nor any other lawful organization did not cause this.

Comment by Matt Vernau Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:41 pm
The sheriff never returned the weapons to TR, they were returned to JR with the understanding that he would control access. JR illegally gave them to his son. Loophole? or poor judgement and illegal act?

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:42 pm
===Loophole? or poor judgement and illegal act? ===

We’ll find out when the state’s attorney finally makes up his mind.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:43 pm
===The sheriff never returned the weapons to TR, they were returned to JR ===

Thanks for the mansplain. But it’s in the post. Right at the top.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:46 pm
Maybe the new “laws” that need to be considered are directed at the consequences of law enforcement and family members not following the laws we already have.

Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:46 pm
I don’t understand how not needing to verify Travis had a FOID card is a loophole when the father knew the FOID card had been revoked. At least I am assuming the cops or his son told him so, need to confirm he knew but come on. And @DuPage89, we take away people’s rights when they are dangerous to themselves or others all the time. Anyone who is not an a*****e can see that this guy probably should not have been allowed to play with knives unsupervised, let alone own 3 or 4 firearms.

Just as an aside, I would say anyone with any kind of assault conviction (domestic or sexual or even a bar fight) should also be considered as too dangerous to be trusted with weapons. If you prove that your judgement can not be trusted then we should not trust you with a gun, that’s not a hard concept to understand.

Comment by Perrid Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:52 pm
=Public policy should never advocate stripping away the freedoms of decent people. It’s important to look at issues like this objectively and not let an irrational fear of firearms drive decision making.=

This isn’t about policy it is about the law. This Sheriff allowed this family to be handled differently because he was concerned about the 2nd amendment or, even worse, because he or his deputies knew the family.

The Sheriff’s constitutional argument falls flat because of his abuse of the 4th amendment. Can’t have it both ways.

BTW- I have my CCL

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:53 pm
=== Yes, it is. It’s a political issue and a social issue. ===

Let me clarify - Whether or not this man’s father should have been allowed to give the guns back to his son under these circumstances should not be up to political debate. This was 100% wrong - period.

Now you may be referring to gun control generally, but in this case, there were laws in place, and they were either not followed, or so poorly crafted as to allow for the exploitation of that law. That needs to be immediately fixed.

=== People have rights. ===

Yes they do. But rights are not absolute. Every “right” that you have may be limited in furtherance of the betterment of society. You cannot scream “fire” in a crowded theater. You cannot break a non-discriminatory law and then claim religious freedoms protect you from prosecution. We can have a debate as to where the line should be, but I think we can all agree that this kid shouldn’t have had guns.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:55 pm
Who owns these guns? The son or the father? You can’t ‘return’ property to someone who doesn’t own it to begin with.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:56 pm
The system broke down. Looks like multiple parties may be responsible for various fsilures. You can try to close the loop holes, but you can’t fix people ignoring laws.

I’ll come back to my one alternative yesterday: 3rd party escrow of the firearms with a FFL holder.

And since the police haven’t always done a good job safeguarding seized property, let the cost be split 50/50 between local law enforcement and the firearms owner.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:58 pm
In my country, guns are more valued than human life.

Comment by 33 ward Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 12:59 pm
It’s time for the independent prosecutor (appellant prosecutor) to take this case instead of allowing the Tazewell State’s Attorney.

Comment by Claud Peppers Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:03 pm
I think the constitutional property rights issue is a 5th Amendment takings clause issue not the 2nd Amendment. One simple solution is to pay fair compensation. Take the guns and sell them at auction. The seizures are theoretically from ongoing criminal activities, like dealing drugs. It is hypocritical, but I don’t see how the police could seize the guns in the same way they seize drug money.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:04 pm
===simple solution is to pay fair compensation===

Meh. Just hold ‘em until they get their FOID cards back. If that’s never, it’s never.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:11 pm
Does Tennessee even have a FOID card system? If someone moves from Illinois to Tennessee, what happens to the Illinois “gun prohibited person” designation? A gun dealer in Wisconsin told me if someone shows them an Illinois I.D., they require the Illinois FOID card to sell them a shotgun or rifle. Handguns are not sold to out of state residents, even with a FOID card.

Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:14 pm
=== what happens to the Illinois “gun prohibited person” designation?===

Since teleportation has not yet been invented, he’d have to somehow get that gun through Illinois to Tennessee.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:16 pm
How long and how many times are we going to blame “the system for breaking down”? When the system doesn’t work (and it doesn’t), we need a new system! Period, end of story.

Comment by Broken record Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:24 pm
Were the physically given back here, or did his dad visit him and return them in Tennessee?

Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:25 pm
==Does Tennessee even have a FOID card system? If someone moves from Illinois to Tennessee, what happens to the Illinois “gun prohibited person” designation? A gun dealer in Wisconsin told me if someone shows them an Illinois I.D., they require the Illinois FOID card to sell them a shotgun or rifle. Handguns are not sold to out of state residents, even with a FOID card.==

If he was a resident of another State, which he may have been, some Illinois restrictions may not have applied, but he would likely have needed to transfer the firearms through an FFL in whatever State he lived in, or it could be a violation of Federal law. Just a guess, but I doubt the dad did that.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:26 pm
“Meh. Just hold ‘em until they get their FOID cards back. If that’s never, it’s never.” Absolutely!
A long time ago, my sister-in-law bought a revolver from a suburban shop. When she innocently tried to register it in Chicago, it was seized and she got “fair compensation” of $25 or $50, it forget which, for her new $500 pistol.

Comment by Streamwood Retiree Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:35 pm
== Just hold ‘em until they get their FOID cards back ==

Could still be a regulatory taking under Penn. Central especially if they never get the FOID card back.

We could just ban assault weapons like the rest of the world and not worry about these problems.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:40 pm
===especially if they never get the FOID card back===

Never is a long time.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:41 pm
I agree with 3d chess, this is a possible 5th Amendment issue. The State can’t just take your private property without compensation. They have to give you the ability even if narrowly tailored like the FOID revocation law to transfer it.

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:42 pm
===The State can’t just take your private property without compensation===

Did you not read the post? Of course it can and it does. A lot. Your guns have no rights.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:44 pm
—-We could just ban assault weapons like the rest of the world and not worry about these problems.—-

So the guy who violated the illegal possession of a weapon as well as the murder statutes is going to care about the law banning “assault weapons?”

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:46 pm
we should go back to the time these problems did not happen each and every day, there may still yet be guys locked up from trying to send home m16 from viet nam

Comment by jwI Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:51 pm
I read the post Rich but more importantly I read the Statute. Seized guns can be transferred, which is in there because you can’t just seize private property

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 1:54 pm
Rich: we should be careful making judgments about whether the shooter is a “decent” person. He certainly appears to have a significant mental illness. He committed a horrific act, but it would seem that many of the people closest to him at best underestimated his illness, and at worst completely failed him.

Comment by Jen Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:15 pm
===we should be careful making judgments about whether the shooter is a “decent” person===

Um, no.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:16 pm
it’s clear that way too many people regard guns as “the precious.” and this guy is one of a bunch of people who have guns legally but end up doing bad things. over and over, the authorities viewed the guns as important materials and overlooked reality.

Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:19 pm
I have greater moral outrage for the family and law enforcement that looked the other way and gave him his guns than for a man who thought Taylor Swift was stalking him and tried to jump the fence at the White House.

Comment by Jen Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:27 pm
===for a man who thought Taylor Swift was stalking him and tried to jump the fence at the White House===

And then murdered four people at random.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:40 pm
As I spent time looking through the FOID statute I read it as you just didn’t have to do a background check but person still has to have a valid FOID

Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in Section 3a, no person may knowingly transfer, or cause to be transferred, any firearm, firearm ammunition, stun gun, or taser to any person within this State unless the transferee with whom he deals displays either: (1) a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card which has previously been issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the provisions of this Act; or (2) a currently valid license to carry a concealed firearm which has previously been issued in his or her name by the Department of State Police under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. In addition, all firearm, stun gun, and taser transfers by federally licensed firearm dealers are subject to Section 3.1.

Comment by DocNoyes Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:40 pm
(a-10) Notwithstanding item (2) of subsection (a) of this Section, any person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer and who desires to transfer or sell a firearm or firearms to any person who is not a federally licensed firearm dealer shall, before selling or transferring the firearms, contact the Department of State Police with the transferee’s or purchaser’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s or purchaser’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. This subsection shall not be effective until January 1, 2014. The Department of State Police may adopt rules concerning the implementation of this subsection. The Department of State Police shall provide the seller or transferor an approval number if the purchaser’s Firearm Owner’s Identification Card is valid. Approvals issued by the Department for the purchase of a firearm pursuant to this subsection are valid for 30 days from the date of issue.
(a-15) The provisions of subsection

(a-10) of this Section do not apply to: (2) 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;

Comment by DocNoyes Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 2:41 pm
Every time this happens, we ask well what would have stopped this, the answers always vary. Assault weapons need to be outlawed and collected, if the compensation required is over a billion, so be it.

Comment by Rutro Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 3:07 pm
***===for a man who thought Taylor Swift was stalking him and tried to jump the fence at the White House===

And then murdered four people at random.***

Obviously, the insane are not held to the same standards, especially if this person has an obvious mental condition. Were his actions abhorrent? Most definitely. Was he in complete control of his actions? Most likely not based on all the examples Rich has included in his post, he’s suffering from schizophrenia or a related disorder.

His actions weren’t decent, but when your brain chemistry is so out of whack that you are running around naked shooting people randomly, I think it’s fair to say that if he wasn’t sick that his actions would likely have been different.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 3:52 pm
=Every time this happens, we ask well what would have stopped this, the answers always vary. Assault weapons need to be outlawed and collected, if the compensation required is over a billion, so be it.=

Tell that to the victims at Virginia Tech were a guy killed 32 with two handguns with no magazines bigger than 10 rounds?

Should we ban vans too to stop someone like the guy in Canada who killed 10?

You had laws in place banning this guy from having any gun. They weren’t followed, they didn’t work. I don’t think a new law just banning the guy from having a specific type of gun is going to be more effective.

If it was legal for the father to transfer, then change that law. And enforce it. And maybe enforce the existing laws that would have stopped this guy or previous shooters from having guns. Get your guv to release mental health funding. Create better screening programs. Assault weapon ban is a simple minded solution to an awful and complicated problem.

Comment by m Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 4:07 pm
Slightly o/t, but Taylor Swift really seems to attract these nutcases. I hope she has USSS-level security.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 4:19 pm
“(a-10) of this Section do not apply to: (2) transfers as a bona fide gift to the…” I amend my previous statement that no new laws are needed. Repeal this section.

Comment by Streamwood Retiree Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 4:23 pm
- Streamwood Retiree - Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 4:23 pm:

“(a-10) of this Section do not apply to: (2) transfers as a bona fide gift to the…” I amend my previous statement that no new laws are needed. Repeal this section.
=======

but all that means is they don’t have to be background checked, thy still need to have a valid FOID card

Comment by docnoyes Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 4:40 pm
To me this case is a poster child for the one of the NRA’s most often stated positions:

it was clearly was not lawful for the father to transfer ownership of the guns to the son.

Comment by Leave a Light on George Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 8:52 pm
“The NRA nor any other lawful organization did not cause this.”

The NRA laundered Russian money to spend on American elections. I dispute “lawful organization.”

Comment by Suburban Mom Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 10:00 pm
—–The NRA laundered Russian money to spend on American elections. I dispute “lawful organization.”—–

This is a great point. Other little known facts about the NRA:

Started Chicago Fire, supported the Great Plague and funded Yosemite Sam’s war on Bugs Bunny

Comment by Generation X Tuesday, Apr 24, 18 @ 10:24 pm
==Should we ban vans too to stop someone like the guy in Canada who killed 10?==

This is an asinine point. Your ignoring the fact that we do ban vehicles from going certain places where they could cause harm by placing vehicle entry barriers.

Comment by chuddery Wednesday, Apr 25, 18 @ 8:40 am
As far as the Sun Times article goes, I have little faith that judges will do any better making this decision.

So far RNUGS plan to hold them in trust to be sold by FFL holds the most promise to me.

Comment by Freezeup Wednesday, Apr 25, 18 @ 8:59 am
And I will add that if a homes resident has his FOID revoked there should be a requirement that no weapons can be posessed stored on premises regardless of FOID status of any other resident of the home.

Comment by Freezeup Wednesday, Apr 25, 18 @ 9:04 am