Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: February inaction is no grand conspiracy
Next Post: If you want this done, you probably have to get involved
Posted in:
* This isn’t a bad idea…
Ensuring that guns don’t remain in the possession of unauthorized owners is a challenge. Illinois allows police to get search warrants to confiscate these firearms, but they rarely do so.
On Friday, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said law enforcement agencies should go after owners who have lost their FOID cards, as his department does. Over the past five years, he said, it has seized about 1,000 guns. But even that is a small share of the total: Last year alone, there were 3,610 revocations in Cook County. Dart also proposed a fee for gun licensing to finance gun recovery efforts by police.
Illinois may not be ready for Dart’s approach, which would involve not only expense but danger to both cops and the individuals they would have to confront. But there is another sensible option: Issue arrest warrants for anyone whose FOID is revoked but who fails to relinquish his guns and file a Firearm Disposition Record.
Police wouldn’t necessarily go after those who don’t comply, but they could arrest anyone they stop who has an outstanding warrant. That policy would be simple and inexpensive to administer, and it would serve as an incentive for compliance. If it had been in effect, it could have stopped Martin, who was arrested several times in Illinois, most recently in 2017.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 9:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: February inaction is no grand conspiracy
Next Post: If you want this done, you probably have to get involved
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As I pointed out last week, FOID does not necessarily equal gun ownership, nor does it detail the number of guns owned. So someone can own seven guns, turn in one gun and escape further scrutiny, while someone with a FOID that owns zero guns (and I myself am in that camp) could be arrested for not turning in any guns that I don’t own in the first place.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:01 am
This is a good idea, in that it potentially would catch the offender off guard, say during a traffic stop, rather than having to go to their residence to serve the warrant.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:03 am
Now if your FOID is withdrawn and there is someone else in the household with a FOID do all guns in the household have to be turned in?
I guess you see where I am going with this.
Not that some sort of requirement to declare you don’t own any or hand any in you have, but can you legally transport a gun to the PD if you don’t have a FOID anymore?
Comment by OneMan Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:04 am
Wait a minute. This needs a wee bit more thought.
Many have had their cards revoked because of a history of violence or mental illness. They are, by definition, potentially dangerous.
Just throwing them in with pile of warrants for non-violent stuff like Failure to Appear is way too simple-minded.
How does this idea remove the danger to cops? Say a cop pulls over a for-cause revoked cardholder on a traffic violation. Are the troncs confident that this person isn’t some powder keg ready to go off on the officer?
No surprise that the troncs are looking for something simple and cheap. But for the safety of the officers serving the warrants, I think a lot more game-planning is in order in serving these potentially high-risk warrants.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:11 am
Just Observing has a good point, but I’d like to add how the cops would know if the person gave up their guns to another individual, which I believe is currently allowed?
And wordslinger, catching someone out and about could be less dangerous than going to their homes. As long as the warrant mentions guns the officer would be warned about it. Granted there would only be 1 or 2 cops invloved in a traffic stop, where there could be many more involved in a planned raid on a guy’s house, but if you want to have SWAT raid gun owner’s houses, well I think that would both be more dangerous and much less politically viable.
Comment by Perrid Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:20 am
My partner and I both have an FOID card, and we each own various guns. But, of course, none are “titled” to us.
And, my FOID card lapsed for more than a year before I renewed it.
Seems like this opens up the possibility for the police to seize guns that aren’t even mine.
In a similar vein, I note that the CPD solved the Jussie Smollett event through the use of public and private video cameras. Seems like that could be employed in the problem areas of Chicago to solve more of the murders.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:21 am
Executing the search warrant while the individual is at work seems like the way to go.
I will say, it seems contradictory to believe that these unlicensed gun owners pose a huge risk to law enforcement and so…we do nothing?
How about a hybrid approach: up it to a felony to make false statements on the application, issue an arrest warrant for the felony, AND send someone to the house to confiscate the guns while they are at work.
Also, get rid of the “holding for a friend” move. I have seen that movie, I know how it ends.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:28 am
–In a similar vein, I note that the CPD solved the Jussie Smollett event through the use of public and private video cameras. Seems like that could be employed in the problem areas of Chicago to solve more of the murders.–
And how would cameras have taken guns away from the Aurora and Waffle House murderers? Which is the subject at hand.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:30 am
@Downstate:
You raise an excellent point. Let’s register the sale or transfer of a firearm with the state police so that we know who the guns belong to.
Also, putting a one-year expiration on the FOID card would help prevent someone from purchasing firearms or ammo with a revoked license.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:32 am
If a FOID is revoked notice should be sent to State Attorney of county. A notice to appear should be sent to gun owner, failure to appear resulting in arrest warrant. If FOID revoked because of a court case, respondent should be given 24 hours to turn in guns, if not contempt proceedings start.
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:36 am
Any Tibbie idea starts as a bad idea so let’s slow down. How aboutwe try enforcing the current law? Maybe Sheriff dart could roam around a few country towns (as the late Mayor usually said) and see what can be picked up.
Automatic arrest warrants flashes images of tragic ends to routine traffic stops to us.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:57 am
Good grief, Downstate - really? Jussie Smollett? Got anymore strawmen, low hanging fruit, or other grievances of the day?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:57 am
Like the saying goes, “Simple solutions are usually neither”.
I’d welcome gun owners thoughts on the issue, given that they are painted with the same brush as Jeffrey Reinking, Nancy Lanza, and Nikolas Cruz.
Comment by Jocko Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 10:57 am
I believe that currently if I were to give or sell a firearm to anyone, including family members, I need to check with the ISP that that person has a valid FOID card and I need to keep a written record of that transfer for ten years.
That is how the cops know who has the guns.
Comment by Enemy of the State Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:01 am
This would go a long way towards establishing the understanding that a warrant does not mean guilty.
After presenting themselves to the judge, they’d have an opportunity to elaborate on the circumstances.
If they don’t like the arrest, well, welcome to how Illinois has been treating black folks for a long time.
Comment by Anon Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:02 am
TP –
Sorry, the ISP can’t process 2.3 million FOIDS a year. It never ceases to amaze me how those of you who don’t like firearms want to keep turning the Right in to a privilege to be handed out on whims by government.
We gun owners are not going to support registration. Boulder got like 150 people out of a population of 150,000. Mass got 17% compliance on their semi0auto ban/registration.
1/2 the sheriffs in Washington State are refusing to enforce their ballot initiated gun ban. And now you have states attorney’s and Sheriffs here refusing to enforce some of the crazy proposals being kicked about in the GA.
So when you get a 80-85% non compliance rate what are you gonna do? That’s abut 2 million people. even if Illinois got 50% compliance, you’re still looking at a million people saying NO.
Lets not forget that maybe a registration scheme runs afoul of Section 6 of Illinois’ Bill of Rights.
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:12 am
==want to keep turning the Right in to a privilege==
Are you really whining about this again today? Nobody is trying to take away your rights here. You’re the type that gives gun owners a bad name with the hysterical way you approach everything. “Oh my goodness, they are taking away my rights.” Bull. Nobody is taking your rights away Todd. Grow up.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:30 am
I definitely think we should be going after the guns of those who have had their cards revoked. The system failed miserably in the Aurora case. Not sure an automatic arrest warrant is the way to go though.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:34 am
a one year FOID card isn’t turning a right into a privilege ? Then what do you call that suggestion?
Yup I approach all of it as a ight to be protected, where the restrictions need to be judged against strict scrutiny and judged accordingly.
While you can look at individual proposals in a vacuum, we tend to look at all of them in total
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:38 am
My mention of Jussie was to offer kudos to the CPD for their use of low-cost technology to help solve crimes. The same can be applied to the high crime areas of Chicago. It was my only point. I wasn’t trying to make any political statement. I WAS fascinated by the various sources the CPD was able to put together with few, if any, eye witnesses.
Comment by Downstate Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:39 am
==A tax==
I know some of you like to view the 2nd Amendment as some special amendment that sticks out from the rest of them and attempt to make the argument that somehow absolutely no restrictions may be placed on gun ownership. Of course, that’s nonsense. There isn’t a Constitutional right that doesn’t have some restrictions associated with it.
And if you want to talk about fees to exercise your rights, they exist in other areas as well. In many cases you can’t exercise your 1st Amendment right to assemble without paying a fee. Is that an outrageous restriction? I don’t think so.
Nothing is absolute. Nothing.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:45 am
–It never ceases to amaze me how those of you who don’t like firearms want to keep turning the Right in to a privilege to be handed out on whims by government.–
So you guys like lawsuits — are you planning to bankroll the Aurora and Waffle House shooters in a claim that their rights were violated when their FOID cards were revoked?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:46 am
==a one year FOID card isn’t turning a right into a privilege ==
No. But I agree 1 year isn’t the way to go.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:46 am
==those of you who don’t like firearms==
And why does supporting certain restrictions make someone a person who doesn’t like firearms? You can be pro-gun and an advocate for reasonable restrictions at the same time. It’s not mutually exclusive.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:48 am
=We gun owners are not going to support registration. =
As a member of the “we” you reference I do not remember asking you to speak on my behalf. You don’t.
I support a registration process.
Rights have limitations, just ask the USSC or the framers of the “Patriot Act”.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 11:58 am
==You’re the type that gives gun owners a bad name with the hysterical way you approach everything.==
Dude kind of has a point here, and it’s why I don’t belong Todd’s organization. My right to own the firearms that I currently own wouldn’t be infringed by this because I comply with the laws of this state. If GR orgs and their reps spent less time worrying about owners who for whatever reason cant seem to comply with the law, and spent more time representing those of us who do, it might be better for everyone involved. Orgs might even see a membership bump.
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:00 pm
D — yes a one year FOID is viewed by a great number as being a tax and infringement on the rkba, And I have a feeling that your idea d “reasonable” restriction and the large number of 2A supporters is vastly different. taxes, fees licenses on the possession don’t fly with the vast majority of us. We have a name for those of you who claim to supporters of owning guns but think all kinds of restrictions are just fine — Fudds.
No one said it s absolute. You keep leaping to conclusions or assertions no one is making.
Word — did you get much air when you jumped that shark? the idea that those mentally unstable/dangerous or those with felony convictions can be restricted really hasn’t been contested by the 2A crowd.
Js– we as those of us organized who make up GOA, SAF, NRA, ISRA and a whole host of other organizations. 2500 members of my gu club and I am unawre of a single one who supports registration so yea we.
Les — its not about those who can’t comply. we have offered up several suggestions about what can be done. as stated above simple solutions are usually neither. This shooting was a failure on all levels of government. And should be addressed their first.
Our job is to make sure that the solution proposed doesn’t create more restrictions, traps or problems for gun owners. one such group are those who move out of state. They get their cards revoked once they get their new DL and Illinois is notified. Should they get an arrest warrant filed because after the moved out of state they chopped up their FOID and tossed it n the garbage?
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:23 pm
Having watched the “gun control” fights from the pre-FOID era (before 1968) to now, I’m OK with the current level of laws, which happen to be some of the tougher ones in the nation … a point the local “gun control” people tend to overlook or downplay; they also ignore the lack of enforcement. So when I hear calls for more laws, the sometimes over the top counter rhetoric from “gun rights” advocacy groups like NRA and GSL (and Todd) strike some truths also.
I don’t think we need lots of new laws, mostly just enforcement of the existing ones, both state and federal. That said, I could see altering the procedure as suggested by -Dupage Saint- might be a reasonable approach to encouraging more voluntary compliance and oversight. But, in the end, I suspect it will come down to search and seizure … and that might prove legally interesting if valuable firearms are taken, given the recent federal “excessive fine” court decision.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:26 pm
@Enemy of the State
This is exactly right. If a person’s FOID is revoked he/she can/should legally transfer those guns to someone with a valid FOID. It’s that individual’s responsibility to legally transfer those firearms. If police show up to confiscate and find that they’ve been legally transferred & that the individual no longer possesses them, then no crime has been committed. no harm, no foul.
If that individual still is in possession or if there is no documentation of a legal transfer, he/she should be prosecuted.
If the “transferee” hands those guns back over to the individual with the revoked FOID they should both be prosecuted.
It’s really pretty simple, if the Police would do their jobs. IL has many of the “common sense” gun laws that everyone clamors for. Unfortunately law enforcement has done a poor job enforcing them in certain cases.
Comment by Get a Job!! Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:30 pm
–The vast majority of gun owners do not believe in registration,–
Half
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:47 pm
–Word — did you get much air when you jumped that shark? the idea that those mentally unstable/dangerous or those with felony convictions can be restricted really hasn’t been contested by the 2A crowd.–
What then is your mechanism for restricting them other than FOID revocation?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 12:49 pm
==Should they get an arrest warrant filed because after the moved out of state they chopped up their FOID and tossed it n the garbage?==
No, of course not. But those are not the people the tribune is referring to here, and certainly not those I was referring to. If a judge issues an order for a citizen to turn over their firearms, I trust that the reason is not because they simply moved or let their foid card lapse. If an owner does something serious enough to warrant an order like this, and they also then refuse to comply with the order, I think an arrest warrant is perfectly justified. I don’t see the reason to automatically assume that this supposed order would be because someone moved or forgot and let the foid lapse
Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:03 pm
–The vast majority of gun owners do not believe in registration,–
Pardon, something got garbled in previous post.
Half does not equal “vast majority.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-12/most-gun-owners-support-stricter-laws-even-nra-members
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:09 pm
===Half does not equal “vast majority.”===
Word, as I am sure you know, Todd and the boys are referring to REAL gun owners, which they define as strict 2nd Amendment absolutists, not some effete, craft beer drinking suburbanite who only joined the NRA to get the bumper sticker.
Todd speaks for the righteous, the aggrieved, the persecuted downstate, rural, “from my cold dead hands” crowd, the vast majority of whom do not believe in registration.
Hope that clears things up. Carry on.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:15 pm
Funding source?
Comment by Not It Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:22 pm
Todd, I and many law-abiding gun owners appreciate your attempts at injecting rational argument into the conversation. It’s eye-opening to read how many posters on this site exhibit a “statist” bent and vehemently argue to tax and register folks into submission. It’s also interesting how easily the name-calling is trotted out; on Friday one of the regular posters referred to us as “gun fetishists.”
Comment by Just a guy Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:25 pm
Everyone needs to read the first post by Just Observing. It explains why this is a non-starter. A better idea would be to require the State Police to actually contact everyone in person. They won’t het all the guns, but they will at least get some.
Comment by Pelonski Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:26 pm
===“gun fetishists.”===
If the leather holster fits…
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:38 pm
Word –
after Martin’s FOID revocation, he was in the court system 6 times. why didn’t anyone of the ASAs ask if he had a FOID or a gun? they could have delt with it then and there. Once he was determined to be a felon in possession, why was there no follow up.
FOIDs get revoked for four basic reasons 1, disqualifying conviction. 2. OOP 3 Mental health 4. move out of state.
#4 there isn’t much to do and penalizing them seems ridiculous. But we don’t know how many of the 11,000 those were. So lets deal with the rest. If you are convicted of an offense, you are in the system. at some point, bond, arraignment they can work on the front side. at conviction, if they don’t report to jail then the judge and ASA should deal with it there and set a status hearing in say 7-14 days to make sure everything has been complied with.
For OOPs as some point they get served. so right then and there the LE should mandate the surrender of FOID — they are already serving the person. That should also come with a summons to appear in court to address the issue of firearms, they storage/removal.
Lastly is the mental health revocation, there its gonna take more resources to deal with it. Remember Illinois MH law is very different from most other states and federal law.
cases like Martin’s — out of state convictions I would think are the outlier and not the norm. That’s why I believe that any notice provision should deal with the local LE agency, Sheriff and SA. and then figure out the best approach. is there an on going court case to use to address the situation? do they need a warrant?
And I agree you can up the penalty to a felony for failure to return the card, but remember for 5 years Martin was a felon in possession and no one went after that or the class 2 felony for lying on the FOID card or the Felony for lying on the 4473. There were ample times to do so and he was in the system as a defendant more than a couple of times
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:42 pm
= If the leather holster fits =
…and the Friday poster re-emerges.
Comment by Just a Guy Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:44 pm
=Word, as I am sure you know, Todd and the boys are referring to REAL gun owners, which they define as strict 2nd Amendment absolutists, not some effete, craft beer drinking suburbanite who only joined the NRA to get the bumper sticker.
Todd speaks for the righteous, the aggrieved, the persecuted downstate, rural, “from my cold dead hands” crowd, the vast majority of whom do not believe in registration.=
These are people of the land, simple farmers, the common clay of the new west, you know, morons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvT2r828QY
=so yea we.=
No, just you unless you were elected to speak. Just you.
=2A supporters is vastly different.=
What about the other 26 Amendments let alone the seven articles of the constitution? Or are y’all just 2A purists?
In that case you are talking about muskets.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:48 pm
Dart and the Tribune should know better. Given that the issuance of a FOID card does not equal gun ownership, that pesky (/s)Fourth Amendment (which protects all of us from an overreaching government) stands in the way of Dart’s proposal. There’s no such thing as an “automatic warrant” because a “neutral and detached magistrate” (a judge in Illinois) has to be presented with an affidavit showing that a crime has been committed and that the subject of the proposed warrant has evidence, i.e. the warrant has to specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Comment by Bourbon Street Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:51 pm
Todd
So I only “claim” to support gun rights? Why? Because I don’t share your hysterical viewpoints? I have a name for your type as well. But it would get me banned.
You aren’t a good representative of the gun rights groups. Your hysterics only play into the hands of the anti gun crowd.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 1:53 pm
- Demoralized -
I just view Todd as giving a partly theatrical response to some of the over the top statements the gun control / gun ban groups issue. Fighting fire with fire.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:08 pm
D — I really don’t give a rats rump of your opinion of what I do or don’t. If you are a gun owner, you’re a Fudd.
Word — what 1/2? the article says 79% of “NRA” members don’t support registration, but Bloomberg’s reporting on guns still suspect. The polling you cite has no access to NRA membership lists so all the “NRA” types are done via self reporting. just like the gun owner’s survey. So those numbers are still suspect. Tell you what I take a quick poll at IGOLD next month and we’ll see how many there support registration, taxes on guns/ammo ad anyone of the bills filed. that will be a larger sample of Illinois gun owners and 2A supporters than Bloomberg has ever done.
Js — No were not talking about muskets. You guys keep trying that tired old lie but seem to be illiterate as unable to read the basic tenants of Heller.
Elected, no employed to. However, I have been elected to the ISRA board in past years and currently sit on the Board of my gun club. Largest in Nothern Illinois and I am much closer to the average gun guy than you are. Come by IGOLD and ask
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:18 pm
Felons were able to own muskets before 911
Comment by Rabid Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:24 pm
===Felons were able to own muskets before 911===
They still are apparently. The gang bangers in Chicago seem to have little difficulty getting firearms and ammunition.
Keep up the good work Todd.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:28 pm
–Word — what 1/2? the article says 79% of “NRA” members don’t support registration,–
Read harder, cipher better.
–Comprehensive background checks are considerably more popular among gun owners than is a national firearms registry, a policy proposal often raised after mass shootings. Among those who don’t own guns, 79 percent support a firearms-purchase database, but only half of gun owners back such a proposal. The level of support drops to 31 percent among NRA members. –
– but Bloomberg’s reporting on guns still suspect.–
Take it easy, Pavlov didn’t ring a bell. But here’s Newmax reporting the same results of the same poll.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nra-background-checks-gun-legislation-monmouth-university/2018/03/08/id/847656/
And Time:
http://time.com/5197807/stricter-gun-laws-nra/
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:33 pm
==to read the basic tenants of Heller.==
From the Supreme Court website on Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:39 pm
==”Read harder, cipher better” and “Take it easy, Pavlov didn’t ring a bell==
Thanks for mostly hiding your disdain for us reactionary simpletons, kind sir.
Comment by Billiam Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:43 pm
Todd -
My only rationale for a one year FOID card is that the renewal process keeps people with revoked cards from purchasing more guns and ammo with a card that is no longer valid. Also, it is an opportunity to keep addresses current. And I can’t think of a reason offhand why you could not do the renewal online just like your car license plates, so I do not understand your objection.
This seems like much less of a burden than requiring retailers to validate your FOID card every time you make a purchase, but maybe you are right we should go to a chipped or magnetic stripe FOID card that retailers can scan with every purchase.
My goal isn’t to prevent lawful gun ownership but achieve the shared goal of keeping guns out of the hands of unlawful gun owners in the least restrictive means necessary. If you have a better idea how, please share.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 2:50 pm
Some commenters seems somewhat cavalier about someone being arrested on the street or at their place of employment based upon this proposal. Are these no bond warrants? Will the person remain in custody until they are brought before a judge? That might be a couple days in some settings. If the person never owned a weapon but had a revoked FOID card, how do they prove they don’t own/possess a weapon? Do we really want to arrest persons in these situations for failing to turn in their FOID card? Spending a day or two in jail under some likely scenarios could result in loss of employment and the anger (danger?) that might flow from that. Simple solutions to longstanding complex problems usually indicates they aren’t solutions at all or else they would have already been implemented.
Comment by Tommydanger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:02 pm
Minnesota, currently regarded as a very progressive state, has very modest statistics regarding annual gun crimes. I think we should emulate MN’s FOID card rules and immediately pass legislation in Illinois to mirror those laws.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:06 pm
===Do we really want to arrest persons in these situations for failing to turn in their FOID card?===
Yes. If they lied on their app, it’s a felony. If they committed a felony after they received their card, then they need to turn it in or face the consequences.
Y’all talk about law abiding citizens. Well, these ain’t.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:11 pm
==”Read harder, cipher better” and “Take it easy, Pavlov didn’t ring a bell==
Thanks for mostly hiding your disdain for us reactionary simpletons, kind sir.–
I have no idea who you are, so I have no opinion as to whether or not you are a simpleton. You’d know best.
I was just clearing up Todd’s misreading of the poll. He gives as good as he gets.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:29 pm
word — I was commenting on the registration, yet as I said the poll is still suspect de to the self reporting. They don’t have the NRA membership list.
and look at the vote total on those referendums. they never hit those numbers. NVs passes by 50.4% as I recall. A far cry from the 79% Washington passed by less than 60% so real life doesn’t match up the suspected polling on the issue.
47 — I will. 60% of those guns come from out of state. the Aurora shooting was a failure of the system at all levels. The gang wars in Chicago are something else. Either way 46 other states don’t have a FOID so I think they will be doing just fine going forward. And I look forward to the New York case this fall and taking a few more options off the table.
wolf — once again no one is saying unlimited I certainly haven’t. But you like to skip over some of the important parts and cherry pick that passage. yet you ignore others :
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
And one of my favorites. …
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
TP — you do do a renewal online and you can do a change of address online as well. The State Police could not handle 2.3 million cards a year. this year alone they are looking at 350,000. Cards have an expiration date so they issue a new one.
I have shared the other ideas they can do that don’t infringe on anyone’s rights, create new taxes on those rights and have accountability.
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:29 pm
46 other states dont have a FOID?
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:45 pm
I’m not going to overheat Rich’s server to put the whole text of Heller on these comments. People can look the whole thing up. That’s not “cherry picking”.
By the way, registration and enforcement, background checks and even taxes and fees don’t take away the “the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 3:56 pm
“If they lied on their app, it’s a felony. If they committed a felony after they received their card, then they need to turn it in or face the consequences.”
That’s all well and good Rich, but the proposal would also affect persons who got their FOID card prior to any bad acts. It also includes persons convicted of domestic battery. Since sentencing provisions do not allow for supervision for domestic battery, all persons pleading or found guilty on a domestic battery charge will lose their FOID card privileges.
And remember not all batteries are created equal, they include physical harm cases as well as insulting or provoking cases.
My point is only to suggest be careful of a one size fits all approach to a multi-faceted problem and make sure your approach deals with the persons who pose the greatest risk to the public.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 4:09 pm
@ 4:09 is me
Comment by Tommydanger Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 4:10 pm
Let’s put the Church back into the Village. It’s been reported that Mississippi submitted to NICS Martin’s felony. Under current law he should have never received a FOID card.
Comment by JAH Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 5:21 pm
BDD — correct. Illinois is one of 4 states that has something like a FOID, Maryland, New Jersey, Mass, Illinois, New York has something else that is being heard by the Supremes
Comment by Todd Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 6:28 pm
In the first line of the article, it again makes the misstatement === Illinois allows police to get search warrants to confiscate these firearms, but they rarely do so.===
Police can apply for a search warrant.
They don’t automatically get them.
Police still have to have reason to believe the items to be searched for have been recently at the location to be searched by warrant.
Police apply for a warrant. A judge issues the warrant. Upon cause.
Comment by Winderweezle Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 7:09 pm
==If the leather holster fits…==
Kydex is more functional
Comment by Flapdoodle Monday, Feb 25, 19 @ 7:37 pm