Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Will Pritzker stiff the Tribune editorial board?
Next Post: If you thought Dorothy Brown’s office was a mess before…
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Illinois judges would have discretion to temporarily suspend the gun rights of someone who displays violent warning signs if family members, housemates or police seek court intervention, under a proposal that cleared the state House on Wednesday.
Proponents have billed the legislation as a way to prevent mass shootings and other common gun-related deaths. Opponents, meanwhile, question its necessity and whether it would interfere with law-abiding gun owners’ civil liberties.
Sponsoring Rep. Kathleen Willis, D-Addison, said the measure would create a way to prevent gun violence before it occurs by getting guns away from someone who raises “red flags,” such as concerning posts on social media or threatening remarks.
She said families and friends of people who show signs of mental illness or distress “oftentimes feel powerless” and would rather not put their loved ones in a situation where they could face arrest. […]
Under Willis’ proposal, a judge could suspend someone’s gun rights for up to six months.
The bill passed with 80 votes.
* Other bills…
* Carle-initiated bill to help those working while on public aid heads to Rauner: The pilot program is intended to help boost financial self-sufficiency among 500 future entry-level Carle employees also participating in Carle’s job-readiness and learning program. Some may also be participating in Carle’s healthy-beginnings program.
* Rauner gets bill legalizing industrial hemp: Rebecca Osland is a lawyer with the pro-farming Illinois Stewardship Alliance. She says the move can add hundreds of new jobs and up to $100 million in state revenue.
* Illinois Senate panel endorses wage-equity plan: A showdown between two Democratic measures to close the wage gap ended with Illinois senators rejecting one considered more business friendly. The Senate Labor Committee voted 11-6 Wednesday to approve legislation prohibiting employers from asking applicants their salary history. It has stiffer penalties for violators than one supported by business interests.
* Lawmakers debate non-death penalty parts of Gov. Rauner’s safety rewrite: But, Rauner spokeswoman Rachel Bold later walked back Risley’s claim, saying the administration would like the General Assembly to consider the comprehensive package that ““Believe it or not the University of Wisconsin did a study and deer can see blaze pink less than they can see blaze orange and people can see it more,” said Costello. gets to the heart of critical public safety issues.” “A motion to accept the governor’s changes to House Bill 1468 has been filed by the sponsor,” Bold said. “There is a clear opportunity for the House to consider the package in its entirety.”
* Illinois Lawmakers Send Blaze Pink Hunter Bill To Gov’s Desk: “Believe it or not the University of Wisconsin did a study and deer can see blaze pink less than they can see blaze orange and people can see it more,” said Costello.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:33 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Will Pritzker stiff the Tribune editorial board?
Next Post: If you thought Dorothy Brown’s office was a mess before…
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I am pretty sure it’s not a civil right to go around threatening people. And it’s just temporary.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:39 pm
What about Due Process ? hello 4th amendment
Comment by NorthsideNoMore Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:45 pm
re: the Willis proposal -
A friend of mine, a self employed professional, had a property line dispute with his neighbor. He owned his home for close to 30 years, about the same as his neighbor who suddenly decided that he was wrong to be maintaining a part of property that she maintained belonged to her.
Long story made short - as her lawsuit against my friend progressed over a three year period - she maintained that she felt threatened by him. He was required by the court to surrender all his guns until the resolution of the suit she initiated and eventually lost. But he missed out on two deer seasons.
So this option is already available to those who feel “threatened”.
Comment by illini Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 2:49 pm
==What about Due Process==
That’s why it goes to a court.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 3:02 pm
In a perfect world family members would come forth. However i feel like this is just like an order of protection. Once the person subject to having guns taken finds out who the complainant is, look out.
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 3:15 pm
Yes, it seems just like a temporary order of protection initiated by family members or roommates, not some random neighbor. If a relative of mine seems a bit disturbed and makes specific threats, I would rather they be mad at me then reading about how they caused a mass shooting. I own guns myself and don’t fear them being randomly taken away from me.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 3:52 pm
@Rich - FYI, you have the quote about the blaze pink hunter bill embedded in the previous bill’s summary.
Comment by DAK Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 4:06 pm
==temporarily suspend the gun rights of someone who displays violent warning signs==
How about requiring gun owners have them in a safe or use a trigger lock on their weapons when not in use? In the past three months we’ve had three men (17, 19, and 29) who had no business holding a weapon.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 4:42 pm
@DAK: For a minute, I thought the deer were going going to have to wear pink vests, or Legislators would…
On gun turnover orders: “It’s just temporary”…”it’s to protect the children”…it will stop people from doing violence to themselves or others…”. But if you’re the one falsely accused, you’ll need a lawyer and a psychiatrist to get your guns back. And the false complaints will be filed, just like in Orders of Protection cases. Gun owners have rights too, and this bill runs roughshod over Due Process.
Comment by revvedup Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 6:28 pm
==Gun owners have rights too==
Yes, they do. But, as with anything, rights have to be balanced. No right is absolute. In this case safety outweighs your concern. Those will mental illness have no business having access to guns. How anyone can oppose this is beyond me. There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about this proposal.
You got a better idea to deal with this issue?
If this saves even one life I think the trade off is worth it.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 11:36 pm