Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Post-session press releases (Live updates)
Next Post: Deficit spending reported as revenues plunge, salaries and debt increase (Updated)
Posted in:
* Two press releases from yesterday. The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence…
Today, the Illinois General Assembly ended its spring session, again declining to take action on Karina’s Bill (SB2633), legislation that would strengthen the law to protect domestic violence survivors from firearms. The bill is supported by dozens of domestic violence and gun violence prevention advocates, healthcare organizations, and legal aid groups. The bill is also supported by Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart and has received supportive comments from Gov. JB Pritzker.
Amanda Pyron, Executive Director of The Network: Advocating Against Domestic Violence, released the following statement:
“It is crystal clear that our laws must be strengthened to empower domestic violence survivors, judges, and law enforcement to keep people safe. Karina’s Bill is an important step in the right direction, and while we are disappointed the General Assembly did not act this session, we are encouraged by the significant progress made to address concerns about the bill and educate the legislature.
“For months, we have talked with stakeholders including law enforcement, advocates, and legislators to understand concerns and discuss improvements. We are confident that the legislation is both constitutional and enforceable. We have also heard concerns about the upcoming Rahimi decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, and believe our state will be well positioned to respond no matter the outcome of that case.
“When domestic violence survivors go to the courts for protection, we must ensure that protection works. The Network, along with our allies in the domestic violence and gun violence prevention spaces, will continue to fight for this legislation, and we hope the legislature will act on this bill during the upcoming veto session.”
More background on the upcoming US Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision is here…
Mr. Rahimi was convicted of possessing a gun while subject to a domestic violence protective order, issued after he violently assaulted his domestic partner in a parking lot and shot a gun when he noticed that others had witnessed his abuse. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
One of the counter-arguments I’ve heard from the Senate about that highlighted passage above is it might be better to wait until after Rahimi is decided to see if there is room for state action. But proponents aren’t buying it.
* And G-PAC…
The Gun Violence Prevention PAC (G-PAC) today released the following statement from President and CEO Kathleen Sances after adjournment of the Illinois General Assembly’s spring session.
“After a holiday weekend marked by over 40 shootings, including one that tragically killed 5-year-old Reign Ware, the General Assembly concluded its spring session without acting on any gun safety measures. This is unacceptable. Although shootings and gun homicide rates have decreased, there are still too many incidents of violence that are tearing apart families and communities. We have more work to do.
“I join with over 200 organizations of the Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition in expressing our disappointment that lawmakers did not pass Karina’s Bill to remove firearms from known abusers once an order of protection has been filed. Our laws should work to protect survivors and their safety – not the rights of their abusers.
“The fight to end gun violence will continue this fall, and we will consider this inaction in upcoming general election endorsements. We must protect survivors of domestic violence, curb illegal gun trafficking of lost and stolen guns, and strengthen our laws to ensure safe storage of weapons in Illinois.”
I followed up on the passage I highlighted above, asking them to flesh it out a bit. Since there was no vote in the Senate or the House, how could that impact an endorsement?…
With every endorsement decision, G-PAC considers a lawmaker’s voting record, which we track with our gun safety report cards, as well as a candidate’s questionnaire responses and their commitment to advancing gun safety legislation each session. Advocates and constituents work hard to push for gun safety measures by contacting their legislators, and it’s incumbent on legislators, including rank-and-file members, to continue that work in Springfield. That’s why our electoral work is the most important work G-PAC does, because although there are Democratic super majorities in both chambers, we do not have gun safety simple majorities in both chambers.
…Adding… From ISRA lobbyist Ed Sullivan…
Hey Rich,
I saw your post on Karina’s Law and the discussion around Rahimi. The attachment lists what was said in oral arguments before SCOTUS. What is missed by the advocates of Karina’s bill is what took place before the IL Supreme Court last week. The AG’s office argued a gun case, Adams v Yencheko, before the IL Supreme Court and in essence asked the court to delay issuing a ruling pending the Rahimi case for further guidance from the SCOTUS. The ISRA shares the value that dangerous people should not have access to firearms. I have been talking with the advocates on various parts of Rahimi over the last year. Part of the discussion has always been that the Rahimi case should be settled first.
It would have been a bad look for the General Assembly to move forward on the various anti-gun bills that were in play at the end of session, including Karina’s Law, when the AG’s office made the exact same argument that the ISRA made to delay decisions. There is a potential for the Rahimi case to have a substantial effect on the current and future laws around possession of a firearm in Illinois.
EOS
The attachment is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 30, 24 @ 1:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Post-session press releases (Live updates)
Next Post: Deficit spending reported as revenues plunge, salaries and debt increase (Updated)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
FWIW, I think Rahimi is going to be a victory for gun control proponents.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Thursday, May 30, 24 @ 1:22 pm
Three Dimensional,
I hope you are right. If the Supreme Court were to uphold the 5th Circuit ruling, essentially every restriction on gun possession goes out the window.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit invalidated the law on its face, holding that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns.
…
The Fifth Circuit’s rationale denies governments any ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and would presumably invalidate even pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the law has been in place.
Comment by Unwatchable content Thursday, May 30, 24 @ 1:28 pm
3, unwatchable — I bet you guys are wrong. It will be nuanced, but the gun guys will get more out of it than we loose.
I believe the facial challenge will fail and as applied to Mr. Rahimi, a real dirt bag, will be upheld. However, I believe they will flush out more on the text tradition and history application being bungled by the lower courts, especially the 2nd, 4th, 7th & 9th.
I believe they will come down with a definition of dangerousness that will narrow how DV stuff is applied. they may even take one some of the misdemeanor stuff and civil orders which if I am right, trashes much of the bill being talked about and elements a of the FOID act
look at this q & A from the orals”
JUSTICE THOMAS: General, would you
just briefly define what you mean by “law-abiding and responsible”?
GENERAL PRELOGAR: Of course, Justice Thomas. So I would break that into its two constituent
components. With respect to those who are not law-abiding, history and tradition shows that that’s
defined by those who have committed serious crimes defined by the felony-level punishment that can attach to those
crimes.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Is it –are you making a misdemeanor/felony distinction?
GENERAL PRELOGAR: That’s the line that history and tradition reflect, and so, yes, I think that that is the relevant category with respect to law-abiding citizens.
But, again, I would just emphasize here we’re not directly invoking the law-abiding aspect of the principle because Mr. Rahimi didn’t have the kind of –of criminal record that would justify disarmament on that basis. Instead, our arguments here are directed at the aspect of the standard focused on those who are not responsible.
Comment by Todd Thursday, May 30, 24 @ 2:39 pm
Hey, Todd, according to you guys, under Obama the FBI was going to bust down the door and take my gun. That never happened. Why should I believe anything you say?
Comment by low level Thursday, May 30, 24 @ 5:31 pm