Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Here’s how you can help
Next Post: The defunct assault weapons ban and mass shootings
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Authorities said Crimo legally purchased the high-powered rifle he allegedly used to shoot more than three dozen people, including seven who were killed. And he did so even after a threatening episode was reported to Highland Park police, who in turn notified Illinois State Police, and after authorities had been alerted to him being suicidal.
It appeared that existing law — including the state’s so-called red flag law — wasn’t used to take weapons away from Crimo, long before he allegedly perched atop a roof along the parade route and opened fire. And current laws did nothing to head off his purchase of weapons, even in politically blue Illinois. […]
Crimo would have had to pass a criminal-background check, both to secure an Illinois gun permit, or FOID card, and to make the purchase. Generally, it takes a felony conviction or committal to a mental facility to bar someone from having a firearm in the state, experts said.
But an emerging picture of a very troubled background, including not only chilling online video postings about gun violence but also an attempted suicide and a threat on a family member with knives, raised questions about Illinois’ gun-permit system. […]
[Sgt. Chris Covelli, the spokesman for the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force] said police did not have probable cause to make an arrest and also that no one signed a complaint against Crimo. But Highland Park police did notify Illinois State Police, the agency that issues Illinois gun permits, about the incident.
“Highland Park police notified Illinois State Police,” Covelli said, when pressed by reporters for details. “Where it goes from there, I don’t want to speak to.”
* The attorney retained by the alleged mass murderer’s parents also tried passing the buck to the ISP, even though the father is the one who sponsored his son’s FOID application…
ISP should ask why did THEY approve a FOID card and why do THEY allow the sale of assault weapons?
— Steve Greenberg (@SGcrimlaw) July 6, 2022
* Illinois State Police statement issued July 5, 5:50 pm…
In September 2019, ISP received a Clear and Present Danger report on the subject from the Highland Park Police Department. The report was related to threats the subject made against his family. There were no arrests made in the September 2019 incident and no one, including family, was willing to move forward on a complaint nor did they subsequently provide information on threats or mental health that would have allowed law enforcement to take additional action. Additionally, no Firearms Restraining Order was filed, nor any order of protection.
At that time of the September 2019 incident, the subject did not have a FOID card to revoke or a pending FOID application to deny. Once this determination was made, Illinois State Police involvement with the matter was concluded.
Then, in December of 2019, at the age of 19, the individual applied for a FOID card. The subject was under 21 and the application was sponsored by the subject’s father. Therefore, at the time of FOID application review in January of 2020, there was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger and deny the FOID application.
* ISP statement a few hours later…
In our continued investigation into the shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, the Illinois State Police (ISP) looked into the criminal background of the individual charged in the crime.
The individual passed four background checks when purchasing firearms, through the Firearms Transaction Inquiry Program (FTIP), which includes the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS):
• June 9, 2020
• July 18, 2020
• July 31, 2020
• September 20, 2021The only offense included in the individual’s criminal history was an ordinance violation in January 2016 for possession of tobacco.
ISP has no mental health prohibitor reports submitted by healthcare facilities or personnel.
The September 2019 Clear and Present Danger report made by the Highland Park Police Department was made in response to threats allegedly directed at the family, but the report indicates when police went to the home and asked the individual if he felt like harming himself or others, he responded no. Additionally and importantly, the father claimed the knives were his and they were being stored in the individual’s closet for safekeeping. Based upon that information, the Highland Park Police returned the knives to the father later that afternoon.
ISP will continue to provide as much information as possible in an effort to be fully transparent.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Here’s how you can help
Next Post: The defunct assault weapons ban and mass shootings
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The fix of the day will be passed by the IL General Assembly and then will find a new loophole or another lawsuit by gun worshippers to thwart efforts to save lives.
Do I sound frustrated? Yes, there is a sickness in our culture that cares more about self than community.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:35 am
Perhaps Pritzker could’ve waited till all the facts came out before he gave his exceedingly political speech the day of the tragedy.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:36 am
Some blame to go around, but my overarching thought is that all the agencies involved are shoveling information out the door as fast as they can find and confirm it. There will need to be new legislative and executive actions, but both policymakers and the public know the facts.
A really stark contrast to Uvalde.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:38 am
There’s plenty of blame to go around. The HPPD seems to have been blasé about letting him be during the knives incident. Did they call in the events to see if he should be charged with UUW, disorderly conduct, reckless conduct or a flimsy assault? Did the Lake County State’s attorney tell them don’t bother? If the ISP felt the HPPD report wasn’t enough to deny, why even cite it, unless it’s a CYA mechanism.
I saw a Trib reporter yesterday on twitter swearing she’d been reporting on FOID problems for years and politicians never acted. The General Assembly has had a FOID debate almost every year. It’s a messy law where the gun crowd always finds a way to impede progress. The fact is he found a way to weave through several tacklers to end up with an assault weapon.
There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Comment by Altgeld Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:38 am
@Soapbox: yes, wait until long after the tragedy to speak of your frustrations. Now is “too early.”
That’s what the 2A crowd always says.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:39 am
@Soapbox Derby - thank you for making this tragedy political right out of the gate. Irrespective of the party of any elected official, no governor wants to have to make comments about a horrible event happening in their jurisdiction. Ever.
Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:39 am
Ah yes, the we can’t talk about how our country’s obsession with guns is killing us. The reason this guy could get a FOID card easily is because the gun advocates have fought to weaken our laws at every turn.
Comment by hmmmm Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:40 am
The attorney blaming ISP for the sale of “assault weapons”?
Comment by Vote Quimby Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:41 am
I am not “blaming” anyone other than the 22-year-old killer.
However, I must ask “where was the family?” They knew the kid was unstable, with a suicide attempt in the past. And he made chilling comments about hurting (killing) others as well, so worrisome that the HP Police were called to the residence twice. And then the father co-signs an FOID card for the kid when he was under 21? What the heck?
Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:45 am
=== his exceedingly political speech ===
Derby, the truth is that there’s no such thing as a non-political speech about a tragedy like this. If he hadn’t said a word about public policy, that would be politics by omission. It’s a category error to demand apolitical government in a democracy.
And it’s a good thing to talk about solutions in response to a crisis. “Don’t talk about how to prevent this tragedy” isn’t a rule for failed hurricane responses, condo building collapses or terrorist attacks. It’s not a rule for plane crashes, heat wave deaths, or veterans home disease outbreaks. Why should it be a rule for gun deaths?
Comment by vern Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:45 am
The FOID Card system depends on local law enforcement doing their part. Local law enforcement, especially elected local law enforcement, have made it very clear that they do not believe it is their responsibility to make sure that the FOID Card system works. They don’t seek to confiscate firearms when felonies or committals occur, and in the instances where they do they haven’t show a strong commitment to preventing them from being returned to the owner through their family. At least this is what we can gather from the failures.
Highland Park can blame the State Police all they like, but they seem to be pretending that they had no jurisdiction over the issue. For whatever reason being suicidal didn’t result in an involuntary commitment? It didn’t result in any commitment? How was that whole instance handled by the local responding LEOs?
We spend hundreds of millions of dollars on state and local law enforcement in this state. When they fail to protect us and resort to passing the buck instead of taking ownership for their failures to protect their community and their failures to fully embrace state law and policy designed to prevent the very thing that lead to the slaughter of their residence due to their failure of duty we need to start cutting their budget.
We have no business paying salaries to public servants that punt their public safety responsibilities because they have more concern about looking like they love the 2nd Amendment more than protecting and serving their communities. A concept which the Supreme Court has demonstrated they aren’t actually expected to do.
Our police forces have failed us. That’s why they’re finger pointing. It doesn’t matter how many back the blue bumper stickers are in your community, it’s not going to make them any better at their job or beholden to a sworn duty.
We have paid them handsomely, outfitted them expensively, and prioritized their budgets over K-12 Education and all we have wound up with is a police force of entitled individuals that do not take their responsibilities seriously enough to actually do their jobs and have effectively lobbied to create many legal and policy preferences that make it impossible to hold them accountable.
The Highland Park Police failed to protect their communities. Blaming the State Police is a lackluster and corrupt response.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:48 am
To the post:
Family members and loved ones are the first line of defense on stopping people like this. His FATHER after the threats and all his knives are taken (and returned) is the one who “sponsors” his FOID card application.
He’s the one who should know everything about his troubled son, he allowed him to get these guns and then was either blind to the mounting rage or willfully ignored it.
A whole side speaks out about big government and taking guns or being a nanny state. And then something like this happens and those folks say the ISP or city cops should have been ready to act. Nah, this is on the shoulders of that family and his father for not doing everything they could to protect their son and their community.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:53 am
First, and as is the case in almost all of these shootings, the family was in a much better position than ISP to prevent him from getting the guns and they failed to take any action. I am at a loss for words as to how the father agreed to assist him in obtaining firearms. With that being said, and with hindsight, it is not unfair to say that the information available to the ISP was enough (or should be enough) to flag any FOID application or background check for this person. If those police reports were not a basis for ISP to deny or revoke his FOID, then changes need to be made, which should include but not be limited to a social media and reference interviews for FOID Cards and firearm purchases. A three day waiting period is too short of a time to conduct a meaningful investigation. This is coming from a gun owner.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:54 am
=Perhaps Pritzker could’ve waited till all the facts came out before he gave his exceedingly political speech the day of the tragedy.=
We’ve had 300+ mass shootings in the U.S. this year. At what point will we have “all the facts” to allow commenting?
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:55 am
State ban of semiautomatic rifles and extended mags. Dare the courts to throw it out.
Comment by ChicagoVinny Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:55 am
===should include but not be limited to a social media and reference interviews for FOID Cards and firearm purchases===
lol
How are you going to do that with hundreds of thousands of applicants?
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:58 am
First thought when I saw the family connection to getting firearms was the TN Waffle House shooting (with the shooter from Morton) a few years back. Father helped that shooter son, too. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-morton-20180423-story.html
Clearly that was before the 2019 law. What do we do about the family workaround?
Comment by Livco Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:59 am
=== Of course Lake Co. cop, Covelli, won’t disparage his fellow cop “brothers” in the ISP ===
Elmer, I’m sympathetic to your skepticism but you’re reading this one wrong. ISP had a PIO at most of those availabilities, Covelli was just saying that it’s up to ISP to comment on ISP procedure. ISP has released a lot of info (as you can read in the post), and those releases are the reason we can all see the “obvious” failures. Like I said, blame to go around, but it doesn’t look like anything is being covered up here.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:59 am
While different, there is a similar vibe to what happened with the Waffle House shooting. The family knew there were issues but still allowed/supported a FOID and allowed possession of weapons.
I don’t see a lot of blame for the ISP or even local law enforcement here. If what they are saying is true, there wasn’t much for them to base a denial on from a legal standpoint. WHy didn’t the family do more??
=Perhaps Pritzker could’ve waited till all the facts came out before he gave his exceedingly political speech the day of the tragedy.=
Care to comment on bailey’s message, made with people holding campaign signs? Hypocrite.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:59 am
This is the type of tragedy that red flag laws were designed to prevent. But apparently even explicit threats this guy made against his family were not enough to prompt law enforcement to issue the order. That needs to change.
There will be a lot of talk about assault weapons bans and I suspect Illinois will pass one in response to this shooting. I think that’s misguided for two reasons. First, it’s looking very likely categorical bans on semi auto weapons are going to be found unconstitutional by this Supreme Court. Second, substitute weapons of comparable lethality are still available under such bans. The main issue with our gun laws are weak vetting, weak background checks, and weak licensing. The Bruen decision left open the door to appropriate licensing and background checks; strengthening these areas is more likely to survive legal challenges. It’s not an area explored enough in gun control legislation, there’s too much focus on bans that are circumvented.
Comment by Matt B Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:01 am
Frustrated because I’ve been repeatedly told on this blog that the lobbyists for the gun industry are such nice people. And yet, here we are.
Comment by Springfieldish Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:01 am
=== interviews for FOID cards===
I appreciate your cynicism and realize this would be a significant undertaking, but this is why I suggested an extension of the three day waiting period. A three day waiting period is not enough time to conduct a meaningful background investigation.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:02 am
===But apparently even explicit threats this guy made against his family were not enough to prompt law enforcement to issue the order===
The family retracted it. Red flag laws rely on family and friends. If they won’t cooperate, what are the cops to do? Not saying there’s nothing, but you’re asking for a big leap here.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:04 am
I am so tired of this happening.
Politicians on both sides of this argument are failing us.
Compromise is and should always be the way forward, but the heels have dug in so far, that is no longer possibel.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:04 am
- ChicagoVinny - Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:55 am:
“State ban of semiautomatic rifles and extended mags. Dare the courts to throw it out.”
They will. Possibly before Illinois can even get around to passing a ban. Scotus already vacated and remanded a circuit court decision that previously upheld an assault weapons ban. We need to tighten up overall ownership of guns, categorical bans are going to be taken off the table by this court.
Comment by Matt B Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:04 am
The fact that the killer was homegrown– raised and educated within the community makes it all the worse. The oft used “how could anyone possibly have known?” just does not work in this case as more info is released. So many balls were dropped and clues missed. So much overlooking of mental instability.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:06 am
===How are you going to do that with hundreds of thousands of applicants? ===
We should avoid anything that involves throwing many millions of dollars more at the police force. They have the budgets they need to effectively carry out the laws in our communities. They just need to reassign some of their priorities to actually doing their jobs.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:07 am
===So much overlooking of mental instability. ===
You’re missing one thing: So much firepower.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:08 am
===this is why I suggested an extension of the three day waiting period===
You’d need a three-year waiting period for all that.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:08 am
THIS from Candy @ 9:48
The FOID Card system depends on local law enforcement doing their part.
Comment by Out Here In The Middle Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:11 am
==So much firepower==
Exactly. What possible need is there for the average citizen to possess a firearm that has that much power. And what legitimate reason is there for an average citizen to be able to access high capacity magazines. I want someone to explain that to me. And don’t give me the whole 2nd Amendment argument. That amendment doesn’t give you the right to own whatever the heck you want. The Supreme Court has acknowledged as much. The only reason I can think of that anyone would want that sort of stuff is so they can play Army at their local gun range. Not a good enough reason.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:11 am
Through his attorney, the father says he was unaware of the threats made and the clear and present danger designation.
ISP says the father claimed the knives taken from the son were his and that Highland Park police returned them to the father.
Both of these statements cannot be true at the same time.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:11 am
Highland Park P.D. passed the buck to the ISP who in turn passed the buck to the feds. Sad because they all bear a large level of responsibility for failure to act on an initial report of very disturbing information. How do they all drop the ball and not continue to monitor and follow-up on the initial report even with the family apparently subsequently refusing to cooperate or follow through on their reported concern? Once again all of the signs were there too see if all of the authorities had just opened their eyes.
Comment by Bob Meter Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:14 am
==State ban of semiautomatic rifles and extended mags.==
I can see mags being more regulated, but a majority of firearms are semiautomatic and there’s no way they’re getting banned. We need a realistic solution. This isn’t it.
Comment by Make It Make Sense Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:17 am
With so many of these cases starting with threats against people at home it really stands out how completely ill-suited the police-to-court system is not built for those situations. This is where dispatched crisis counselors and something kind of like a drug court kind of system steering people into the support systems they need (on all sides) would serve everyone better. But that’s a bridge no one in the system is really willing to cross, especially police.
Comment by In 630 Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:18 am
=== Three year waiting period ===
More like six months, and to decrease the number of applications, increase the age to obtain a FOID or firearm to 25 (with some exception relating to military service, law enforcement, and hunting). I’m just spit balling here…but if you are not even able to rent a car prior to 25, possessing a high caliber semi-automatic rifle should probably also be on the list of things you can’t yet do.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:21 am
=Second, substitute weapons of comparable lethality are still available under such bans.=
And yet, they are not using these alleged “options”. What you are saying is inaccurate or at least disingenuous from the word go.
There are far more powerful guns than an AR-15 (5.56/.223 caliber) or it’s cousin the AR 10 (7.62/.308 caliber) available for sale. The differences are cost (of ammo since .223 and .308 can be purchased in bulk/surplus in ways other rounds cannot be) availability, and the biggest is magazine capacity. WIth few exceptions, other weapons weapons (aside from assault weapons and a few handguns) are not made to support high capacity magazines. Most hunting style rifles and shotguns have limited internal magazine capacity. There simply is no need (military or otherwise)for a drum magazine that has a 100 or two hundred round capacity. Likewise for a magazine that has a 15 or 25 round capacity. Limiting the proliferation of high capacity magazines is one reason why there was some impact from the assault weapons ban.
I don’t know how you put that genie back in the bottle, but we need to try.
Had the family pushed forward with charges when they were threatened, this killer may not have been able to legally purchase guns.
Funny how the usual people are not talking about that here today.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:22 am
// How are you going to do that with hundreds of thousands of applicants? //
Let’s begin by making the registrant pay for every cent of the costs instead of the 5/10 bucks and some nics fees, whatever it is now to get legal. If it costs a gun lover $4500 every few years to cover the costs of psychiatric exams to get and stay legal, I’m kinda ok with it. I mean it’s not like we’re forcing them to join a well regulated militia or something. But it would be good to know they’re not crazy, because a lot of them act pretty crazy these days.
Comment by XonXoff Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:23 am
=With so many of these cases starting with threats against people at home it really stands out how completely ill-suited the police-to-court system is not built for those situations.=
Probably because our system doesn’t focus on crime prevention. The emphasis is on crisis response and incarceration. Neither of those objectives have ever been shown to actually lower crime.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:24 am
Let’s game this out.
A police officer gets a call from someone that so-and-so said, last week, that he wanted to kill himself. The officer shows up. The person in question denies that he made that statement. No one in his immediate circle is willing to sign or verify that he did make that statement. The officers look around, decide taking his collection of dangerous implements (knives) is a good temporary solution, and leave. They report all of this as required.
What would you have them do? Arrest the man based on one person’s unverified statement? Bar him from ever owning a weapon because things didn’t seem right? Both of those are incredible infringements on a person’s rights.
For the record, I want all assault weapons banned from private use and ownership. And I am extremely skeptical of official police statements these days. But that doesn’t mean that in this specific case, the local officers appear to have handled themselves appropriately.
Side note: Ofcr Covelli has been outstanding.
Comment by Concerned Observer Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:25 am
I’m not a huge fan of the Foid card but if we’re going to have it, it would seem wise to put a 5yr moratorium on issuance after a suicide attempt. Not sure how you put that into legislation and you’d need more than someone’s word but that would seem proper.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:33 am
“And yet, they are not using these alleged “options”. What you are saying is inaccurate or at least disingenuous from the word go.”
Not at all. Look at a mini 14 or any “featureless” AR that is still allowed under standard AWB language. What you say may have been more accurate a few decades ago, but there are a plethora of rifles now that now take STANAG (AR) magazines; and many are designed to get around AWBs already in place in California and NY.
You can get around the games by passing a wholesale semi auto ban but that makes it an even easier shoo in for Scotus to strike it down.
Comment by Matt B Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:41 am
“What possible need is there for the average citizen to possess a firearm that has that much power. And what legitimate reason is there for an average citizen to be able to access high capacity magazines. I want someone to explain that to me.”
My family harbors strong left-leaning views and we live in a region that is full of MAGA chuds. After living through the insanity of the last five years, we have zero faith that our safety can be guaranteed by our nation’s crumbling institutions. So we own several guns. And my wife, in her “smash the patriarchy” tank top, can hit a 2 inch target at 100 yards with our AR’s iron sights.
Go listen to Kinzinger’s voicemails in the other thread and then tell me how safe you feel in this country.
Comment by sulla Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:43 am
==== Game this out ====
I agree that there was not probable cause for an arrest, however, that is not (nor should be) the standard for the issuance of a FOID Card or background check for a firearm. When reports like those appear on an individuals background check, a more thorough inquiry into the person’s capacity to own or possess a firearm should be demanded. This would not be unworkable. For instance, the current system for appeals of FOID denials and revocations already requires an applicant to waive their HIPAA rights in furtherance of the ISP’s investigation into the basis for the denial or revocation. Also, as I suggested earlier, this inquiry should include interviews with references or the applicant and/or social media searches (law enforcement has access to software that can run social media searches, it is not as tedious and time consuming as it sounds).
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:47 am
=- Matt B - =
You don’t read very well.
Ban high capacity magazines again. You probably cannot do anything about the ones in existence, (outlawing drum mags seems like low hanging fruit, as they are totally unnecessary) but cutting production of new mags would start to slow the proliferation.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:53 am
I sincerely hope that those who have disturbed family members will take action to get them help. Don’t wait for things to excellate. The family is the first line of defense.
Comment by Because I said so.... Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:54 am
Can FOID sponsors be charged for the crimes committed by the people they sponsor?
If not, what is the point of FOID sponsorship?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:57 am
Turns out Steve Green was the same (former) R. Kelly attorney that hit us with such classics as “Where were these girls parents?”
Follow Steve on Twitter for more quality victim blaming after a tragedy.
Comment by Commissar Gritty Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:57 am
“See something, say something”. Even if it’s your own kid or family member.
Comment by Colin O'Scopy Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:59 am
=So much overlooking of mental instability.=
And exactly how are you going to fix that? There are millions of Americans suffering varying degrees of mental illness every day. The vast majority are not violent. Do we demonize all of them just to be sure? And where on this spectrum would we put those that stormed the capital. Is that mental illness or legitimate political discourse?
It seems that not allowing people to have this kind of firepower would be a wee bit easier.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:02 am
===How are you going to do that with hundreds of thousands of applicants?===
Massachusetts manages to interview every applicant for a gun purchase. And in the land of Tim Hortons & hockey excellence, they contact your family members to inquire about your state of well being. But all that cost$ more than a FOID card.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:02 am
* What possible need is there for the average citizen to possess a firearm that has that much power. *
An AR is actually a small caliber weapon, not to mention that I have a right to own one without explaining why I need it to you. Its called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.
Comment by Crusty Oatmeal Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:03 am
These mass shootings don’t happen anywhere else in the world with the same frequency as the United States.
Pointing the finger at law enforcement when current law allows cops to be outgunned at the crime scene is not an acceptable response.
Let’s fund the police and enforce current laws aggressively 2while we change the law to support law enforcement like they do in Canada and Britain.
Comment by Heather Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:06 am
@ Colin O’Scopy
Pritzker made his remarks 2 days before I commented on them. His politicized the tragedy, I didn’t.
Comment by Soapbox Derby Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:07 am
As stated here many times, I would support magazine capacity restrictions. As stated here many times the FOID process is useless.
As a side note. Do you know night time hunting with IR is legal in Illinois?And I know dozens and dozens of shooters who are equipped on AR style guns.. kinda ironic and kinda stupid.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:09 am
// An AR is actually a small caliber weapon… //
… utilizing a cartridge bullet that didn’t exist until 50+ years after 2A was ratified. You good with ray guns in the general population eventually?
Comment by XonXoff Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:16 am
== what legitimate reason is there for an average citizen to be able to access high capacity magazines. ==
Statistics. Even highly trained police rarely hit the target in high stress situations, something like 1 in 10 or 1 in 15. Somewhat anecdotal but reported in the local papers, one recent shooting had 75 she’ll casings recovered but the shooter only hit the target with 5 bullets, none of which were fatal. to to
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:20 am
====What would you have them do? Arrest the man based on one person’s unverified statement? Bar him from ever owning a weapon because things didn’t seem right? Both of those are incredible infringements on a person’s rights.
For the record, I want all assault weapons banned from private use and ownership. And I am extremely skeptical of official police statements these days. But that doesn’t mean that in this specific case, the local officers appear to have handled themselves appropriately.====
I was going to write almost exactly what Concerned Observer wrote at 10:25. We can’t just start cherry picking and profiling people. Whether we like it or not during our Monday morning quarterbacking the kid had rights. But we can and should have stricter rules that apply to all. But that is a huge uphill battle.
Comment by Been There Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:20 am
== If it costs a gun lover $4500 every few years to cover the costs of psychiatric exams to get and stay legal, I’m kinda ok with it ==
I suspect the current SCOTUS would find that an unreasonable fee to exercise a Constitutional right, similar to some of their previous rulings on poll taxes.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:25 am
=== His politicized the tragedy, I didn’t. ===
It would be helpful if you would clarify your definition of “politicize.” I don’t understand why it’s somehow improper for the Governor to talk about preventing future tragedies. I also don’t understand what a “nonpolitical” response would be. “We shouldn’t do anything until some specified mourning period has passed” is itself a political response.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:31 am
==Its called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.==
And the Bill of Rights Second Amendment’s first four words are “A Well Regulated Militia”. Are ANY of these guns being used for such a purpose??
Comment by Vote Quimby Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:32 am
// I suspect the current SCOTUS would find that an unreasonable fee to exercise a Constitutional right, similar to some of their previous rulings on poll taxes. //
No doubt, you’re right. Which is why it’s so important to vote before it doesn’t even matter anymore.
Comment by XonXoff Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:37 am
The NRA just people to go down this mental health or social media rabbit hole because it allows their funders to continue to manufacture assault weapons. The mass shooters have a bunch of different motivations, but they all had easy access to assault weapons. It is also not illegal in this country to make weird videos on Youtube, spend too much time online, or have a mental illness. The state or federal cannot regulate this behavior, and if they tried, they would just end up punishing completely innocuous conduct. The government can effectively ban assault weapons, and the ban would save live and prevent more of these mass shootings from occurring.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:37 am
We should consider tying police funding from the state to enforcement of FOID Card revocations within their jurisdiction. Something reasonable, like 60 to 70%.
If you don’t want to carry out the law, we need to use that funding for people that will. That’s how federalism is supposed to work.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:45 am
* A Well Regulated Militia *
in 1790, it meant “in good working order” and had nothing to do with laws. And before someone brings up the musket nonsense, SCOTUS has already ruled that the BOR applies to advancements in technology.
Comment by Crusty Oatmeal Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:46 am
==SCOTUS has already ruled that the BOR applies to advancements in technology.==
SCOTUS has also ruled that established precedents can be overturned.
Comment by Heather Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:50 am
==AR is actually a small caliber weapon==
The AR is military assault weapon because of it’s velocity.
Knock down power is a combination of caliber and velocity, not just caliber.
Comment by Heather Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:52 am
==in 1790, it meant “in good working order” and had nothing to do with laws==
From your advanced studies in centuries-old American english?
==brings up the musket nonsense, SCOTUS has already ruled that the BOR applies to advancements in technology==
Except when it comes to medical procedures
Comment by Vote Quimby Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:55 am
===So much overlooking of mental instability. ===
=You’re missing one thing: So much firepower.=
Rich is right its the guns. It always has been. You don’t think folks in Canada have mental health problems, or Great Britain or France or Russia? Come on - it’s the guns.
And since the population pretty much suffers mental health problems at the same rate - why are these shooters so overwhelming young and WHITE?
The mental health deal is such a red herring, only being used as a distraction by a group with a particular viewpoint.
60 Minutes had a very good story a ways back on the AR-15 and the type of damage it inflicts. The muzzle velocity and the way the bullet enters a person makes the damage done so much greater than what’s fired out of even a 9 mm handgun.
For the people in the back this time - It’s the fire power.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:02 pm
For the musket argument, I like to ask whether the government can restrict speech to modes available in 1790?
Comment by Original Anon Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:04 pm
As long as assault rifle owners consider the lives of innocent citizens, including school children, an acceptable sacrifice to be able to own their guns, nothing will change.
I do find it hypocritical that the right’s outrage over abortion is absent over the deaths of mass shooting victims. Respect for life only extends to the unborn, I guess.
Look, Republicans are more terrified of their base than ever, and probably with good reason, judging from the voicemails to Adam Kinzinger.
Nothing’s gonna change. Nothing’s gonna change.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:15 pm
Dear old dad, who knew his son had violent inclinations, sponsored his FOID application.
Dear old dad “liked” a tweet that urged folks to “defend the 2nd amendment with their life” following the Uvalde massacre.
Dear old dad. It starts at home.
You “protect the 2nd amendment with your life” folks should notice the company you keep.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:19 pm
===“in good working order”===
By any measure, mass shootings like this prove our militia is not in good working order.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:31 pm
A lot pointed out here is the very holes in the existing mental health system. Police and even medical personnel have a process to assess an individuals risk to self and others. As covelli said it is evaluated case by case. If a person presents in the ER it is also an assessment call by staff. It is not easy. Sometimes all get it wrong. Often it is the family and how much they know their rights and responsibilities. Even then not easy.
Comment by Illinifan Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 12:38 pm
More people are killed with knives than rifles of any kind.
FBI:
https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
Comment by Crusty Oatmeal Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:05 pm
Give me a break Crusty Oatmeal. At least with knives the person is toe to toe with the victim. Do you honestly think If this young man had stood in the crowd and started stabbing folks he would have injured and killed as many? Time to start a new batch of oatmeal and not develop the crust.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:15 pm
What the father had to attest to in 2019-
https://www.ispfsb.com/public/Documents/AffidavitGuardian.pdf
The last line… “(2) I hereby give my consent for this minor applicant to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and understand I shall be liable for any damages resulting from the minor applicant’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition.”
His son may now be 21 and not longer a minor, but the enabling of this tragedy began years before.
Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:38 pm
ISP seems to be saying that the Clear and Present Danger report was not enough to do anything because the shooter did not have firearms or a pending FOID application at the time.
The regulations say that ISP “shall maintain a record of those persons who are determined to present a clear and present danger for the purpose of denying or revoking a FOID Card . . . but shall not maintain a record of those persons who are not determined to present a clear and present danger for these purposes.”
That means if ISP has a record of the HPP notification, they DID determine that he was a clear and present danger, and SHOULD have denied the FOID if one was applied for at the time. If they determined that the HPP notification was meritless, they should not have a record of it.
Serious question 1: why the hell aren’t these clear and present danger warnings valid for say, 5 years, like it is for someone previously convicted of assault or in a mental institution? Even if we need to protect Due Process rights, we could do that by either decreasing the length a clear and present danger determination acts as a valid State prohibitor, or by placing the burden of proof on the ISP during an appeal to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the danger continues and is a valid basis for FOID denial.
Another serious question: If ISP did see this in their checks, why not just deny the FOID and let the guy and his dad appeal? Better to risk a loss in court than let a clearly mentally ill person have a gun.
A final serious question: is anyone going to take a real look to see if ISP screwed something up here?
For the trolls, I say all of this as a CCL holder and a gun owner.
Comment by NotNotAStateEmployee Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:49 pm
A robust red flag law *should* be unobjectionable - provided it has due process, puts burden on the complainant, and can address nuisance complaints. But none of that can work if families don’t act.
Comment by Original Anon Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:53 pm
“We have an ad hominen attack on Crusty Oatmeal; illinifan attacked the player instead of the facts. The facts are what they are, and Crusty retained control of the facts throughout the post. The result of the play is a first down.”
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 1:56 pm
@Crusty…. “rifle” sure.
==Type of weapon involved by offense
Sort By: Category
Handgun 3,500
Firearm 3,208
Knife/Cutting Instrument 877
Unknown 415
Personal Weapons 415
Rifle 302
Blunt Object 203
Handgun (Automatic) 166
Other 150
Shotgun 124
Other Firearm 90
Drugs/Narcotics/Sleeping Pills 88
Firearm (Automatic) 71
Asphyxiation 51
Fire/Incendiary Device 48
Rifle (Automatic) 16
Other Firearm (Automatic) 5
==
You win because knife isn’t broke out by sword, samurai sword, fixed blade, flip open knife, switch blade, razor blade, bowie knife, swiss army knife.
If a knife is a knife - a gun is a gun.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:14 pm
=More people are killed with knives than rifles of any kind.=
Well if you’re going to argue like a child, might as well throw cars into the mix as well? Because more people are killed by those.
Sad that this is what is offered up as “logic” for defending the illogical ownership of automatic weapons.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:18 pm
Pundent, AR’s are not automatic weapons.
If you are going to argue about guns, at least bone up on the terminology, and have a basic understanding of what it means.
Comment by Crusty Oatmeal Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:36 pm
My grandpa used to advocate for no eating sections at restaurants because more people die from obesity than smoking.
I hadn’t thought about that since this knives argument.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:40 pm
I concede more homicides occur by other weapons including hands and fists. But those events usually are one on one or with limited numbers. When we look at mass casualty events where is the data that says these events were perpetrated with knives, fists, etc.? My focus has not been on the weapon of choice for any homicide but rather the weapon of choice for mass casualty events. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:42 pm
Crusty Oatmeal
No one is arguing about your beloved guns. There are sensible people who know they are too easily accessed by troubled people looking to do harm, and then there are folks like you, who build your entire fragile identity around them.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:43 pm
I should have known I was getting dragged into a Facebook argument.
Sorry to everyone else for taking the bait.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:44 pm
=An AR is actually a small caliber weapon,=
Caliber and power are not the same thing. If you do not know that you should not own a gun of any kind, squirt or otherwise.
The .223 caliber is essentially .22 but with a much longer and heavier projectile and much more gunpowder in a bigger shell casing. And purpose designed to cause significant post impact damage to hard and soft tissue. The standard .22 lr does not do anything of the kind.
=in 1790, it meant “in good working order” and had nothing to do with laws.=
Given it was written into the Bill of Rights the wording had EVERYTHING to do with laws.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
The first half of the 2nd Amendment was not about “good working order”. Where ever you found that interpretation, you should ask them for your money back.
To the Post-
Solving this issue, which is only getting worse right now, is not going to be the result of a single action. People will have to take action when a family member has access to guns and exhibits aggression/mental health/threatening behavior. Limiting magazine capacity, reducing access to assault weapons, police take action when a FOID is revoked, sheriff’s (especially rural) take our laws seriously and not selectively, we actually invest in a real mental health infrastructure, stop expecting schools to fix everything, people are held accountable, legislature shows a backbone, and on and on. Many parts to the puzzle but at 300 plus and growing we have to start real action. enforcing the FOID is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:45 pm
=If you are going to argue about guns, at least bone up on the terminology, and have a basic understanding of what it means.=
Says the person that does not know the difference between power or caliber, and does not know the words to the first half of the second amendment.
Pundent is respected here. You are not.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 2:47 pm
This guy out here fighting killer emails
For the musket argument, I like to ask whether the government can restrict speech to modes available in 1790?
Comment by Sonny Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 3:00 pm
* Says the person that does not know the difference between power or caliber, and does not know the words to the first half of the second amendment.*
Oh, I’m pretty sure I understand those better than Mr. Avid Hunter.
* Where ever you found that interpretation, *
Its on the googles, all you have to do is look. The meaning of words change over time, a superintendent should know that.
CPB - its easy, stop turning it into a FB argument.
Comment by Crusty Oatmeal Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 3:07 pm
==stop turning it into a FB argument==
Says the guy who brought up knives. You’re attempting to be cute with that argument and it’s asinine.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 3:31 pm
“Exactly. What possible need is there for the average citizen to possess a firearm that has that much power. And what legitimate reason is there for an average citizen to be able to access high capacity magazines. I want someone to explain that to me.”\
Demoralized – First off it’s the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs. What you call high capacity is actually the standard mag size in most cases. I don’t _have_ to explain a “need” I use mine for hunting, target shooting, competition and self defense. I don’t play army, I did for 18 years. But I keep my skills sharp. Having seen police all over this country get hamstrung by political leaders and let cities burn, riots go unchecked, looters and mobs attacking people, I will keep and have the best tools for the job of protecting me and my family. Whether you approve or like it or not.
You’re right the Heller and New York decisions re-enforce its not an unlimited right for any weapon in any manner, but semi-auto rifles are the most common and are protected. But I’ll conceded handgrenades, mortars and howitzers
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 4:22 pm
the right is not unlimited. and a case agains an assault weapons bans in the suburbs was turned away by the USSCt. Illinois, ban assault weapons.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 4:25 pm
==the right is not unlimited. and a case agains an assault weapons bans in the suburbs was turned away by the USSCt. Illinois, ban assault weapons.==
Amalia — please keep up. the case was decided on intermediate scrutiny, which the Court in New york just tossed out when reviewing gun control laws and Second Amendment claims. they said Heller is the standard of review so lets do a little review for you:
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. Pg8 Heller
Moreover, Heller and McDonald expressly rejected the application of any “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry’ that ‘asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to
the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.’” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634 (quoting id., at
689–690 (BREYER, J., dissenting)); see also McDonald, 561 U. S., at 790–791 (plurality opinion) (the Second Amendment does not permit—let alone require—“judges to assess the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions” under
means-end scrutiny). We declined to engage in means-end
scrutiny because “[t]he 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.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional
guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.
Not only did Heller decline to engage in means-end scrutiny generally, but it also specifically ruled out the intermediate-scrutiny test that respondents and the United States now urge us to adopt. — NYSRPA v Bruen
In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second
Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that
the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” NYSRPA v Bruen
The previous cases have no value as precedent are without value for. Yes the SCOTUS turned away the case, but it has been determined to have been judged on a standard the Court rejected.
2 semi-auto cases have been kicked back to lower courts in light of Bruen 2 mag bans have been GVR and sent back with instruction — see New york.
Heller and new york are clear modern firearms are protected, including AR-15s
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 5:21 pm
=== but semi-auto rifles are the most common ===
Because you and your groups have been pushing the sale of these killers. If automatics were allowed, they’d be the most common.
Again, how do the phony originalists justify the possession of one, but not the other based on the language in the 2nd amendment. By the few millisecond difference in the kill rate? C’mon man, people still get slaughtered quickly.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 5:57 pm
Norseman –
Semi-autos have been around for over 100 years, you’ve heard of John Browning’s 1911. The AR platform is 60 years old.
You make an interesting argument, the whole Dangerous and unusual argument is going to go to a chicken and egg thing. Are they unusual, and not in common use, because a law or regulation prevented people from obtaining them? Or are they unusual because not many were produced. I doubt this is going to go to production numbers/runs of firearms but to types. I expect to see questions like this raised about the Hughes amendment from 1986. But Scalia eluded to what you mention –
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi nary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
But what ever you think, semi-autos have become the most popular firearms people choose. There are over 15 million ARs It would not surprise me that there are over 500,000 mags
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 7:13 pm
Todd, as I said before. I hold people like you just as accountable for mass shootings as those that commit them. The fact that you defend this stiff is sickening. Now you go ahead and go back to playing army and using that 50 round magazine so you can feel all macho
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 9:01 pm
A mentally ill nephew killed himself recently after his father gave him his own guns when told by his own psychiatrist that he shouldn’t have guns anymore. His son was 24 and would not have been able to purchase a gun legally (even in Texas, where he lived). The love of a sense of a gun’s swift sovereignty over life and death is an idol of our time.
Comment by Yooper in Diaspora Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 10:49 pm
IMHO any system that depends mostly on family reporting family is going to have very limited success. Nobody wants their son/father/cousin to commit a mass shooting but many also don’t want to tattle to the authorities and get their family member in trouble with the law or have their guns taken away.
Different subject but similar sentiment, I have been reading subreddits like PersonalFinance and LegalAdvice for years now and I am shocked at how many people ask things like ‘My mom has twenty thousand dollars of delinquent credit cards taken out in my name. How can I get this off my credit report without getting her in trouble. Update: I just checked with my sister and she has another fifteen thousand in my sister’s name’. They want to get their credit report cleaned up but they don’t want to turn the family member into the police because their family member just made a mistake.
In both of these situations where it is a family member who committed fraud or a family member showing warning signs of committing a heinous act like the shooting in Highland Park, family members should but often do not want to get a family member into trouble. Until people do start forcing family members to face the consequences of their actions these sorts of things will continue to happen.
Comment by Aaron B Wednesday, Jul 6, 22 @ 11:52 pm
=Oh, I’m pretty sure I understand those better than Mr. Avid Hunter.=
All evidence to the contrary.
=The meaning of words change over time, a superintendent should know that.=
You don’t seem to know many. Even a fifth grader would know that.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 8:17 am