Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Intent is where the home is
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** This just in… Koehler adoption bill goes down in Senate Exec
Posted in:
* An interesting bill…
(T)he House approved legislation to end 72-hour waiting periods to buy a gun for state FOID cardholders who have obtained an interim or plenary order of protection.
“This is going to help people, typically woman, protect themselves when the police can’t be there to protect them,” said Rep. David Harris (R-Arlington Heights), who was the chief House sponsor of the bill that passed 78-34 and now moves to the Senate.
Gun-control advocates disputed that assertion.
“What you are creating is a loophole to our already porous gun-control laws, and I fear we’re not going to provide any additional help to victims of domestic violence,” said Rep. Will Burns (D-Chicago), the 4th Ward alderman-elect.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Intent is where the home is
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** This just in… Koehler adoption bill goes down in Senate Exec
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Sounds good to me. If you are a FOID holder, you have entitled to purchase a firearm. If you have a order of protection, it clearly demonstrates that your life is already in some sort of jeopardy.
I see no reason why you shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm for personal protection.
Rep. Burns isn’t makeing much sense. There are plenty of folks that have been assulted/killed even though they have taken out an order of protection against the person that ends up assulting/killing them. Now at least they can have some protection if they so wish.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:45 am
if this bill passes, it will make a very interesting case for people in Chicago. Chicago residents must now go through more hoops to own a gun, newly created registration obligations post SCOTUS decisions. So, they would be in violation of the Chicago law if they took advantage of this new provision. quite interesting.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:45 am
Seems like a reasonable exception to the rule. A judge has determined there’s an existing danger. I don’t really see much possibility for abuse.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:51 am
amalia,
Makes one think that SCOTUS may have some new case law to consider once someone from Chicago files an appeal re this conflicting law. Yes, interesting.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:52 am
Rep. Harris has a lot of confidence in law protection?! And are there then laws in the works that would help these people who take the law into their own hands and have an order of protection on file and shoot the individual(s) they have the order on?
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 11:54 am
Seriously? Porous, gun laws? What because we let people own them?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:00 pm
@double d: agreed.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:03 pm
Seems strange that a FOID holder would not already own a firearm. Maybe the press needs the FOIA to check into how well this works out. Jeez, crazy ratchets up more crazy.
Comment by vole Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:05 pm
Sounds good to me. Police can’t be everywhere all the time, especially when cuts and layoffs to police departments are what they are. In rural counties there are oftentime no more than one or two officers patrolling at a time. When one emergency occurs the entire sherriffs department is consumed with the situation at the time and is incapable of responding to other emergencies.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:06 pm
@vole, I know several people that have FOID cards (Person A) because someone in the household owns a firearm (Person B), butPerson A does not personally own any firearms.
The reason for this? If Person A is driving Person B’s vehicle and the vehicle has a firearm in it, Person A is in violation of the law without a FOID card. If you think this does not happen think again. There have been numerous instances in my area, especially during planting and harvesting seasons, when the state police set up a roadblock and farm wives taking their husband’s truck to the field were cited for illegal possession of a firearm because there was a gun in the truck and the wives did not know about it and did not have a FOID card.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:12 pm
@ vole: my husband had a FOID card for years without owning a gun. he got the FOID card to learn to shoot, go to the shooting range with family, who also hunted. but he did not have plans to go hunting so there were no guns in our house for a very long time.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Ryan:”There have been numerous instances in my area, especially during planting and harvesting seasons, when the state police set up a roadblock and farm wives taking their husband’s truck to the field were cited for illegal possession of a firearm because there was a gun in the truck and the wives did not know about it and did not have a FOID card.”
Can you document even one of these “numerous instances?” I can’t imagine the state police setting up roadblocks in rural areas where farmers are planting and harvesting crops, unless that would be in Humbolt County, California.
Comment by vole Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:56 pm
Yes, Ryan, please provide specifics before commenting here again. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 12:57 pm
I was a victim of domestic abuse for two long years. I had to obtain an order of protection for myself and young daughter. I spent many sleepless nights worrying that if I were attacked in the middle of the night, “would the police be able to get there in time?”, “would I be able to escape with my daughter?”, etc. I even slept with a hammer under my pillow.
I see the reasoning behind the bill, however, I don’t think that I personally was in any state of mind to have a gun readily available to me. I have a FOID card, but I do not own a gun of my own. While I never had to use the hammer, I have to wonder if a gun would have made me feel any safer, either. Regardless, I do know, that with a child in my home that gets up in the middle of the night, makes noise, etc., and as jumpy as I was, I doubt having that gun would have been safe for either of us. But, that is just me.
Comment by my opinion Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 1:43 pm
I’ve always wondered if the waiting period saved any lives. If I’m angry enough to want to shoot you I’m probably going to be angry enough to stab you or run over you in my car. I already had to wait 30 days to get the FOID card. Since a FOID is required to purchase a firearm or ammunition in Illinois it seems to me the waiting period is a waste of time, again if I’m angry enough to want to shoot you I’m probably going to be angry enough to stab you or run over you in my car.
Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 2:06 pm
I don’t remember the exact date or who all was involved but it was at the intersection of US 67 and Illinois Route 108 (67 may have been renamed 267 by then). I think that it was in the fall of the year. That is a common place for ISP to do roadblocks in our area. It’s in district 19 I believe.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 2:57 pm
A lot of trucks use the roadway because it is a more direct route between Jacksonville and Alton. The police will set up portable scales there to test for overweights especially when a lot of grain is moving between the fields and the elevator. Because it is an agricultural area and annhydrous ammonia is widely used and stored, there have been a lot of problems with people stealing annhydrous and producing meth with it.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 3:06 pm
Full disclosure: I know Dave Harris (although don’t live in his district), think he’s a good man, and am glad to see him back in the GA.
Certainly we’ve all read stories of individuals — usually domestic situations — where (most often) a woman has been seriously injured or killed by the man against whom she has sworn out an Order of Protection. Why leave these women vulnerable with nothing more than a piece of paper by which to defend themselves?
Improvement 1: Individuals granted an Order of Protection may request and receive, subject to an immediate background check, a temporary FOID that remains valid for the duration of the Order of Protection or until they apply for and receive a permanent FOID, whichever comes first.
Step 2: Individuals granted an Order of Protection may request and receive a one-day training course in firearm handling and safety.
Step 3: Individuals granted an Order of Protection may request and receive us of a .38 caliber revolver and gun safe for the duration of the Order of Protection or until they purchase a firearm of their own, whichever comes first.
That at least gives a woman a fighting chance against an individual who has already demonstrated a willingness to threaten her safety and security.
Comment by A Good Bill That Could Be Better Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 4:40 pm
Yes, there are people who have FOID cards who don’t “own” firearms. My wife also has a FOID because (a) I own firearms, (b) the guns are locked up in a jointly owned house, (c) the guns are occasionally transported in jointly owned vehicles and (d) in case I should die (hopefully not soon!), she would then be in compliance with the law and could choose to either retain them or legally sell the guns. It’s called planning …
Comment by Retired Non-Union Guy Wednesday, Apr 13, 11 @ 5:57 pm