Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* Synopsis of Rep. Deb Conroy’s newly introduced HB5766…

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that a minor who causes or attempts to cause physical self-harm or harm to another is subject to the denial of an application for or the revocation and seizure of a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card. Provides that until the age of 24 years, such a person is presumed to be a person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger. Provides that a physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, law enforcement official, school administrator, or other person who has knowledge of a minor causing or attempting to cause physical self-harm or harm to another shall report the incident to the Department of Human Services. Effective immediately.

* Rep. Conroy explained her proposal to NBC 5…

This will give us that added layer of protection, and kind of close a loophole within the Red Flag Law and hopefully make some difference while we try to figure out socially what is happening in our country.

* You’ll recall earlier this year that a man was arrested for allegedly making threats against Rep. Conroy. He apparently paid his bond, but his movements are being tracked as he awaits trial. Conroy told me this today…

As I was driving to Wisconsin and working with staff to file this, I was contacted by the county and told the man arrested in my case had penetrated the perimeter of my home. A few minutes later, my son called to say the police were at my home and needed to confirm I was safe. I had protection and still do. I had warning. These innocent families and so many around the country have no warning and no protection.

She later received an all-clear from the county.

* The Question: Do you support this bill? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.

online polls

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:28 pm

Comments

I voted yes, but…
“kind of close a loophole…”
Close or don’t close, kind of close seems weak.

Comment by Bruce( no not him) Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:36 pm
Ambiguous at best. Doesn’t survive a court challenge.

Comment by NotRich Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:41 pm
===Doesn’t survive a court challenge===

You need to write a better explanation than that.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:42 pm
Yes, but put this in the better than nothing category. I’m also dubious of its chances to survive a court challenge.

Oh what contortions we perform and money we spend to accommodate America’s worship of the gun.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:46 pm
It is unconstitutional because it revoke an express constitutional right without due process and has no provision for reinstatement of that right if the law is misapplied or the subject of the revocation can show rehabilitation before the age of 24. And it is ambiguous, as state by Not Rich.

Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:47 pm
I voted yes. Unlike what someone else has said I don’t think it’s ambiguous at all. It’s pretty straightforward. If you’re a minor and you’ve attempted self-harm or harm to others you’re assumed to be a risk until the age of 24. I guess we can argue about the age being set at 24 but the concept is a good concept.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:51 pm
The problem is whether there is some adjudication process. We don’t see that in the synopsis and my hotspot is too spotty to read the bill.

Comment by Norseman Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:51 pm
The “other person” prong seems awfully broad. If I see kids fighting, am I supposed to now call the state and report them?

Comment by mjrothjr Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:53 pm
==It is unconstitutional because it revoke an express constitutional right without due process==

First of all unless you wear a black robe and can rule on these sorts of things your opinion on the constitutionality doesn’t particularly matter.

Second, this just adds another reason to the existing list of reasons one can be denied a FOID card. An appeals process exists to challenge any of those reasons.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:56 pm
Voted no: we’ve learned from rampant cop suicides that the stigmatization of people going through mental health crises exacerbates the problem. People are less willing to seek help.

The problem is guns. No more semi-automatic rifles with extended magazines. None. Start there, or we’re spinning our wheels.

Comment by AlfondoGonz Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:57 pm
I voted yes and think this is the direction where gun control needs to go. Mass shooters are passing our current background checks and we need a systematic way to tighten them up.

I also think this is more defensible in court vs assault weapons bans (which are highly likely to be struck down under the new Bruen decision). The court explicitly left open the door to background checks and restrictions around mental health.

Comment by Matt B Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 1:58 pm
I voted yes. Given how immature many are in Generation Z , one could make the case that the number should go higher than aged 24.

Comment by Steve Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:02 pm
@Anonymous, this is not about a school yard fight.

Comment by Game Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:02 pm
yes. gotta start somewhere with those who are dangerous.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:03 pm
I voted yes, we have to do something to slow this rampant escalation of gun violence in this country.

Comment by Gruntled University Employee Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:08 pm
It’s a start, but a better law would not limit this by age (yes, some of our most recentshootings have been by young people, but they by no means hold a monopoly), but rather require these types of findings to be reported in all cases and provide for a means of appeal when initial findings are disputable.

Comment by NotSoCivilEngineer Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:08 pm
Voted no til we hear from some actual mental health practioners. Might need to tune ISP system to allow for a review of any non qualifying risk reports when someone is buying the heat.

Comment by ANNON'IN Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:13 pm
Voted no. Psychologists and teachers already have obligations when people express interest in self harm. I do not think we need DHS to create a database of these incidents. More importantly, there is real momentum to ban assault weapons, and this milquetoast proposal is just a distraction from that.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:16 pm
I voted no. I’d prefer a hard cap on 21 and make sure police do a better job of pressing charges on persons 18 and up.

In 2019, an 18yo Crimo admitted to being a depressed drug user and all the police did was make a DCFS call.

Comment by Jocko Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:20 pm
Yes. What we currently have isn’t working.

Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:23 pm
Voted yes- though details on reporting and verifying basis for denying FOID are important.

On the other hand, it seems it could be simpler to incorporate parts of the Concealed Carry Application process into the FOID application process. 430 ILCS 66/15 provides a way for ISP to notify all law enforcement agencies of a pending CCL application, and provides them 30 days to object if they have reasonable suspicion the applicant is a danger to themselves or others. Using a process that exists already but applying to FOIDs, not just CCLs, would be simpler, though this may be a more rigorous FOID application process than some would prefer.

Comment by LUC Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:24 pm
I voted yes, but my real policy preference is to just ban possession until 25 regardless of mental state. Barring that, this law has a place within the comprehensive overhaul that hopefully gets passed in the next 6-12 months.

As for the continued thuggery against Rep Conroy, my question of the day is this: will HGOP help prevent their colleagues from being physically threatened, or is that still contingent on legislative concessions?

Comment by vern Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:25 pm
I applied for a FOID card several years ago and I was surprised that it didn’t ask if you planned to use the weapon for self harm. I don’t know that having that question would make a huge difference, anyone could lie, but I was still surprised it wasn’t on there.

Comment by The Captain Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:27 pm
Anyone who went to law school and took the mandatory con law class will be able to attest that this satisfies the “ Strict Scrutiny” standard and will likely withstand a court challenge

Comment by Sue Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:32 pm
The constitutional challenge I think would be pretty easily fixed. The bill should follow the time frame for denial of a FOID for a person that is a patient in a facility which is 5 years. The bill needs to define “rebuttable presumption”. And the bill should follow subsection (u) for Section 8 that defines the procedures that a person could get their FOID reinstated.

Comment by Constitutional Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:38 pm
Yes, but also just ban people under 25 from owning firearms that hold more than two bullets

Comment by A Well-Regulated Commenter Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:40 pm
@Sue

===Anyone who went to law school and took the mandatory con law class will be able to attest that this satisfies the “ Strict Scrutiny” standard and will likely withstand a court challenge===

The recent supreme court decision that dealt with the New York case basically did away with the two-part test that allowed for intermediate and strict scrutiny. It’s a whole new ball game.

Comment by Constitutional Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:42 pm
==from owning firearms that hold more than two bullets==

Barney Fife only needed one to be a menace. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:51 pm
I voted no. Banning a person under the age of 24 does not mean they will not have access to guns. Parents, siblings, illegally bought, etc.
A better route to go is stop talking about banning guns and assult rifles, etc. That argument goes nowhere. Allow all guns. make a rounds per minute law allowing only x amount of bullets to be fired per minute for a firearm. Create harsh penalties for anyone who does not comply and anyone selling that does not abide by the law. that will take care of the self defense argument as well as “they are taking our guns”. I like to come wiht a solution when a problem is presented to me and this is much better in my opinion.

Comment by T.S. Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:52 pm
Voted yes, but want a change and hopefully my association will engage to get change. The law needs to take school administrators out of the equation. Teachers and counselors would know about suicide attempts etc. before we would. Schools in general have no place in this law. we are subject to other laws that require confidentiality with regard to students. The law is in conflict with those laws.

=Second, this just adds another reason to the existing list of reasons one can be denied a FOID card. An appeals process exists to challenge any of those reasons.=

Ditto this.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 2:59 pm
What does harm mean? In society today you look at someone crossed eyed and they might say you caused them harm

What about guys getting into a fight for a stupid reason as teenagers do

Comment by Harm???? Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:04 pm
Voted yes… Japan has had 10 shootings in the past year, and has a population of 135M+. We need to do something… this is not what we want normal to look like.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:05 pm
(f-5) A minor who has caused or attempted to cause physical self-harm or harm to another. There is a rebuttable presumption that a person who is ineligible for a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card under this subsection is also ineligible under subsection (f) until the age of 24 years;

**So every 11B from the 82 who earned a CIB – Combat Infantryman’s Badge can have an anonymous complaint filed with DHS

**Every 18, 19, 20 year old in a fist fight

**Every young Marine who gets into a bar fight

Any person can file what appears to be an anonymous complaint with DHS for “physical — harm to another” awful broad and vague term.

The rebuttable presumption is a whole other can of worms for an enumerated fundamental constitutional right and flipping the burden to the individual again flies in the face of New York where the burden of proof is on the State.

This doesn’t get past the new test (4 parts) the State must prove in order for a gun control law to survive.

Comment by Todd Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:06 pm
There’s Todd again. Doing everything he can to make sure we can keep our mass shooting streak going. Pathetic.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:12 pm
I voted yes, based on what I know about brain development, the Highland Park shooting, and what both Google and anecdotal evidence tell me is the trend of young man committing a large percentage of mass shootings.

However, I’m neither a psychologist, a lawyer, nor an epidemiologist, so I can’t offer an informed professional opinion. This seems like a commonsense approach that might pass constitutional muster, but I don’t really know.

On a related note, there’s an interesting article on The Atlantic’s online site by David Graham, titled “Why Illinois’ Red-Flag Laws Didn’t Stop the Highland Park Shooting.” It discusses the limitations of such laws, and suggests limiting guns and ammo works better. (Apologies if someone has already mentioned the article.”)

Comment by Crispy Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:15 pm
I voted yes. It’s a step. The language could be cleaned up a bit with clearer definitions, which I hope is done before calling it for a vote. From my reading, it’s borderline on constitutionality as written, but a bit of tightening up of the definitions w
may let it pass court review.

Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:25 pm
Voted a reluctant yes. Haven’t been able to access the full bill, but am concerned because the synopsis does not say anything about hearings or appeals. It may be an easy fix just be incorporating already existing procedures. The list of people required to report knowledge of actual or attempted harm to self or others mirrors reporting requirements already existing in other contexts, but that “or other person” caveat is troublesome. It’s simply too broad and vague to let stand. But this is what the legislative process is for, to fine tune and iron out wrinkles as a bill moves forward. Despite the proclamations of some posters, with some clarification what’s in the synopsis will likely stand constitutional muster. The bill is not ideal, but we can’t wait for that.

There is another, broader point to be considered here, however. Mental illness (of which harming self or others may be a symptom) seems to have become the main focus in addressing gun violence. If we can just do something about mental illness, the chorus goes, we can overcome this scourge. Certainly much more needs doing to address mental illness in this country, but the plain facts are that doing so won’t have much impact on gun violence.

The following is from today’s Washington Post: “But three decades of research has established that people with mental illness are responsible for just a small percentage of interpersonal and gun violence.”
https://wapo.st/3NPMIC5 (This is a “gift article” link — hope it works.) (Main link is https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2022/gun-deaths-per-year-usa/?itid=hp_desktop-dont-miss)

Again, this not at all to suggest red flag laws are worthless. They can save lives, especially if they are publicized and enforced. But we seem to be putting a great many eggs into one basket that can’t hold the weight, forgetting that gun violence is very complex phenomenon that requires multi-dimensional solutions.

Comment by Flapdoodle Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:28 pm
“”The recent supreme court decision that dealt with the New York case basically did away with the two-part test that allowed for intermediate and strict scrutiny. It’s a whole new ball game.”"

What Watcher said. Many of the traditional assumptions about our Supreme Court that allowed us to think they wouldn’t abruptly change direction are now dashed.

Comment by walker Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:31 pm
== we are subject to other laws that require confidentiality with regard to students. The law is in conflict with those laws. ==

The State and Federal Legislatures need to decide which is more important, student / patient confidentiality or preventing firearms access by troubled person’s?

Comment by RNUG Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:33 pm
==because it revoke an express constitutional right==

A constitutional right to join a well regulated militia. Is there a well regulated militia that wants people as unstable as these?

I’m serious. The text of the second amendment matters, doesn’t it?

Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 3:36 pm
I would extend it to 26 since that’s where the thinking on emerging adult court draws the line.

Comment by Rayne of Terror Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:01 pm
Yes, but there is one part of the restrictions for FOID card and that is if someone voluntarily goes to rehab for alcohol ot substance abuse, that should not be a reason to deny that person a FOID. If they were committed or sent by a judge, then I could understand but not if they went of their own accord.

Comment by low level Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:01 pm
Follow up question, for all the people who vote no:

What would you do to curb mass shootings?

Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:03 pm
I’d like it to expand and say you can never buy an assault weapon, especially if you’re a white male.

Comment by Lurker Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:04 pm
A person like Crimo is much more likely to cause harm then someone who voluntarily went to rehab. If those restrictions were done away with, then I’d support Rep Conroy’s proposal.

Comment by low level Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:07 pm
@Socially DIstant Watcher

===A constitutional right to join a well-regulated militia. Is there a well-regulated militia that wants people as unstable as these?

I’m serious. The text of the second amendment matters, doesn’t it?===

It actually matters if you would read the decision in the New York case. I have.

“In Heller, we began with a “textual analysis” focused on the “‘normal and ordinary’” meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. 554 U. S., at 576–577, 578. That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”—“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” that does not depend on service in the militia.”

Comment by Constitutional Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:08 pm
If you supporting this then you should be supporting more aggressive bail tactics by Kim Foxx.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:18 pm
Socially DIstant Watcher —

(sigh) for all the “smart” people here how can some many not read. . .

From Heller:

“Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

@Demoralized — I just apply the words they write. you and Ms. Conroy can justify your anti-veteran positions anyway you like.

You can attempt to continue to turn a right into a state granted privilege. In the end, you’re likely to end up with less on the books than you have today.

Comment by Todd Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:20 pm
@Todd: Alright, then. So what would you do to address mass shootings?

Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Friday, Jul 8, 22 @ 4:24 pm