This Passed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday


PDA






Jeff White
May 2, 2008, 08:28 PM
Basically if you have a child with a mental disorder and the child accesses your firearm twice, they can revoke your FOID card.






HB5191 Engrossed LRB095 15204 RLC 45977 b

1 AN ACT concerning firearms.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 5. The Firearm Owners Identification Card Act is
5 amended by changing Section 8 as follows:

6 (430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8)
7 (Text of Section after amendment by P.A. 95-581)
8 Sec. 8. The Department of State Police has authority to
9 deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm
10 Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act
11 only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person
12 to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:
13 (a) A person under 21 years of age who has been convicted
14 of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged
15 delinquent;
16 (b) A person under 21 years of age who does not have the
17 written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and
18 possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or
19 guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent
20 or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's
21 Identification Card;
22 (b-5) A parent or guardian of a person under 21 years of
23 age who is unable to prevent his or her child under 21 years of




HB5191 Engrossed - 2 - LRB095 15204 RLC 45977 b

1 age from gaining access to a firearm or ammunition, or both,
2 when (1) the child upon 2 occasions has had possession of his
3 or her parent or guardian's firearm or ammunition, or both,
4 without the parent or guardian's permission as evidenced
5 through documentation in any arrest record, Department of
6 Children and Family Services investigation, school record,
7 juvenile court record, or other public record, and (2) the
8 child met the criteria for severe or major mood disorder or
9 severe conduct disorder (evidenced by behavior such as forced
10 sex, physical cruelty, use of a weapon, stealing while
11 confronting a victim, breaking and entering), or both, as
12 defined in the DSM-IV-TR published by the American Psychiatric
13 Association, or the child is an adjudicated delinquent minor
14 for acts involving aggressive or violent behavior;
15 (c) A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this
16 or any other jurisdiction;
17 (d) A person addicted to narcotics;
18 (e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution
19 within the past 5 years or has been adjudicated as a mental
20 defective;
21 (f) A person whose mental condition is of such a nature
22 that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any
23 other person or persons or the community;
24 For the purposes of this Section, "mental condition" means
25 a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or
26 assaultive behavior.




HB5191 Engrossed - 3 - LRB095 15204 RLC 45977 b

1 (g) A person who is mentally retarded;
2 (h) A person who intentionally makes a false statement in
3 the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application;
4 (i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United States
5 under the laws of the United States;
6 (i-5) An alien who has been admitted to the United States
7 under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section
8 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
9 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i-5) does not apply
10 to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United
11 States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:
12 (1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or
13 sporting purposes;
14 (2) an official representative of a foreign government
15 who is:
16 (A) accredited to the United States Government or
17 the Government's mission to an international
18 organization having its headquarters in the United
19 States; or
20 (B) en route to or from another country to which
21 that alien is accredited;
22 (3) an official of a foreign government or
23 distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by
24 the Department of State;
25 (4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly
26 foreign government entering the United States on official




HB5191 Engrossed - 4 - LRB095 15204 RLC 45977 b

1 business; or
2 (5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney
3 General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
4 922(y)(3);
5 (j) A person who is subject to an existing order of
6 protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
7 (k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years
8 of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order
9 of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another
10 jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
11 (l) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery or
12 a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction
13 committed on or after January 1, 1998;
14 (m) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years
15 of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in
16 another jurisdiction committed before January 1, 1998;
17 (n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing
18 firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or
19 by federal law;
20 (o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520
21 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a
22 delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if
23 committed by an adult would be a felony; or
24 (p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor
25 under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an
26 offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.




HB5191 Engrossed - 5 - LRB095 15204 RLC 45977 b

1 (q) Notwithstanding any other rulemaking authority that
2 may exist, neither the Governor nor any agency or agency head
3 under the jurisdiction of the Governor has any authority to
4 make or promulgate rules to implement or enforce the provisions
5 of this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly. If,
6 however, the Governor believes that rules are necessary to
7 implement or enforce the provisions of this amendatory Act of
8 the 95th General Assembly, the Governor may suggest rules to
9 the General Assembly by filing them with the Clerk of the House
10 and the Secretary of the Senate and by requesting that the
11 General Assembly authorize such rulemaking by law, enact those
12 suggested rules into law, or take any other appropriate action
13 in the General Assembly's discretion. Nothing contained in this
14 amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly shall be
15 interpreted to grant rulemaking authority under any other
16 Illinois statute where such authority is not otherwise
17 explicitly given. For the purposes of this Section, "rules" is
18 given the meaning contained in Section 1-70 of the Illinois
19 Administrative Procedure Act, and "agency" and "agency head"
20 are given the meanings contained in Sections 1-20 and 1-25 of
21 the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act to the extent that
22 such definitions apply to agencies or agency heads under the
23 jurisdiction of the Governor.
24 (Source: P.A. 95-581, eff. 6-1-08.)

If you enjoyed reading about "This Passed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Picard
May 2, 2008, 08:38 PM
It makes sense. I don't really see this as an attack, but a call for parents to be responsible if they have children at home.

jlbraun
May 2, 2008, 08:49 PM
Uh, no it doesn't make sense at all.

Note that it says "or ammo". Leave 2 9mm rounds on the floor, and you've just lost your firearm rights permanently. Sound good to you?

How about if we revoke your driver's license if you leave your keys laying around? Make sense to you?

mekender
May 2, 2008, 09:03 PM
i dont like the idea of requiring ammo to be locked up... thats an unnecessary hassle, but the safe storage of guns with children present is fine by me...

what bothers me is that they do not seem to have an exception for HOW the child gains access... if a parent has a locked hardcase and the child cuts the lock off, the parent shouldnt be held liable

Jeff White
May 2, 2008, 09:05 PM
this is just another way to take a person's RKBA from him. And it won't make society any safer.

Jeff

RP88
May 2, 2008, 09:10 PM
what is the definition of 'child' exactly?

Last time I checked, your nine-year old shooting someone with your gun compared to your fifteen-year old shooting someone with your gun are treated differently in terms of who is held with liability, since one is deemed aware and capable while the other is not.

If it is the first assumed, then this sounds like a good idea, although I'm sure the the methods of storage entailed are not.

edit: apparently 'child' in this case means someone is under 21. Okay, that is ridiculous. People of Chicago, gun owner or not, get out while you can.

Ninja.of.Love
May 2, 2008, 09:25 PM
Is this designed to prevent mentally disturbed teenagers from accessing a parent's firearms to shoot up a school? Is it designed to keep convicted felons from accessing their parents firearms?

If that's part of the idea, this is ineffective legislation, at best. As a high-school student, I don't know of anyone who has taken their parents' guns or ammo while high or mentally ill. I definitely don't know of anyone who has two recorded instances of doing this.

FTA84
May 2, 2008, 09:27 PM
Is this reaction to NIU shootings?

mp510
May 2, 2008, 09:47 PM
Is the term mental condition as defined:
means
25 a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or
26 assaultive behavior. the applicable status?

If so, it does not sound that outlandish. Gun owners have the responsibility to not allow violent, suicidal, threatening, or persons who bahave in an 'assaultive manner' from accessing their firearms.

bumm
May 2, 2008, 10:14 PM
My problem with this is that I don't like seeing every common sense situation we can possibly face being written into law with consequences to be meted out by the government.
However, anyone having any perception or indication that their offspring may be potentially dangerously unbalanced had DAMNWELL better keep their firearms well locked up or someplace else. We're talking life and death here.
Marty

Picard
May 3, 2008, 12:07 AM
The only way that they can enforce this is if your child uses the guns in a crime already, in which case, the parents should have some responsibility. Is that wrong? How many times would a child have to misuse their parent's guns before they are considered a liability to public safety?

jimbob86
May 3, 2008, 12:14 AM
You have not escaped the PRoI yet? There is still time. They have not closed the lidImeanborder yet....... the water is definitely rotating in the bowl, though......

Picard
May 3, 2008, 12:28 AM
I hate my state's gun laws. I agree that they don't make any sense. I don't see this law as much of a loss, nor do I have kids, but if I ever do, they will know not to mess with my firearms.

If I get pessimistic over every single law that doesn't go my way, I would have lost hope a long time ago. At least I understand the reasoning behind this one, which is more than I can say as to the lack of concealed carry laws.

I feel like things will change in Illinois eventually. We just need more people working together to fight it. I will do everything that I can to help out.

Picard
May 3, 2008, 12:58 AM
Dude, don't call me names. Does shall not be infringed apply to criminals? What about people who are a risk to society when they are allowed to own firearms, such as people with mental disorders? Their rights are infringed, but for good reason.

If an irresponsible parents allows a child to play with weapons, take them to school or things like that, should they be punished? Are they not a risk to society and to their children? This isn't just a one-time mistake since it has to happen repeatedly for the law to take effect.

I'm not saying that this is the best law. If it were up to me, it would have been different. I wouldn't have taken their FOID card away but rather have a stiffer penalty for such a behavior. I just don't want to blow it out of proportion like I feel you guys have. Some restrictive laws do make sense since not everyone has the responsibility required to own guns in a way that doesn't put society at risk.

I do understand where you guys are coming from. The 2nd Amendment, being a personal right, should not be taken away. It would be like saying, you committed a crime, therefore you no longer have freedom of speech. It is this type of lax regard to the Bill of Rights that we need to be vigilant for. Again, I would not have passed the law in this way. My state does need some major reform in terms of 2A but I don't want to run away from it. Somebody needs to fight this battle to keep this "plague" from spreading to the rest of you guys.

Wildfire
May 3, 2008, 02:32 AM
Hey there:
My sister in law is mentally handi-capped . She is 42 years old and still classed as a child. She only has a 3rd to 4th grade level. So what do they call a child ? Take a wild guess.
I agree 100% it is my job to see that no one can get to or handle my guns. maybe even my ammo. but that does not mean They have to be locked up .
Not everyone can afford some big safe. And that would not be very wise for home defense to have every thing under lock. But to make me criminally liable for someone getting ahold of one of my guns is not right. Maybe they have investments in companies that sell safes. Or just maybe they are trying every thing possible to get your guns.

Wildfire
May 3, 2008, 02:43 AM
Hey again:
I mean no harm by saying this, But . I see this as just another gun Law that does absolutly nothing to stop a crime. It may punish some one that would fall under it's ruleing. But the fact is it will not "Stop" anything from happening.
As do none of the other 22,000 gun laws already in place. Bad guys and crimnals do not care about gun laws, Stupid people will never even know about them let alone live by them. I agree that maybe a few of the laws we have concerning guns and gun ownership may have some good to them. But 99.9 % of them do not. And they are devisive and designed to infringe further on your rights, every time a new one creeps in.
And thats what I have to say about that.:)

Autolycus
May 3, 2008, 03:12 AM
By Coyote Blue[/B]: Don't call me Dude,Illinois subject.
You'll live with the laws you'll inherit from the politicians you and your fellow Illini's have put in office during the last century.
I don't dislike you,I sympathize with your Socialist state status.
But you seem willing to expand it.Don't.See those extra 125 lines added to 22,000 gun laws.
Stop it in its tracks ,now.
My best wishes. You are not familiar with socialism are you?

Either way this is a bad law that infringes upon the rights of gunowners because tehy are the victims of their children.

The Tourist
May 3, 2008, 03:15 AM
I don't like the smell of it. According to the definition, "mentally ill" does not have to be adjudicated. They simply have to "meet the criteria."

So technically, if they decided to arrest all blue-eyed bikers, I'd have to be arrested as well because I "meet the criteria."

Once passed into law, and underlined by a precedent setting court action, then anybody could be disarmed because they meet the criteria.

OCD is a mental illness.

Be careful all of you teenagers who vacuum your rooms once too often. Your daddy might lose his guns.

Coyote Blue
May 3, 2008, 03:20 AM
You are not familiar with socialism are you?

"Are you talking to me?"
Travis Bickel,Taxi Driver,1976

or are you talking to Picard?
Explain yourself before I bring Jodie Foster and John Hinckley into the picture.:evil:

damien
May 3, 2008, 03:33 AM
Let's stick CCW onto it and pass it in the Senate. :) See if they can accept a compromise. :evil:

SomeKid
May 3, 2008, 03:54 AM
i dont like the idea of requiring ammo to be locked up... thats an unnecessary hassle, but the safe storage of guns with children present is fine by me...

MEKENDER,

By having the government mandate "safe storage" they can and ARE using it as a way to remove the RKBA. Would you tolerate laws mandating safe exercise of speech, or religion? I sure wouldn't.

this is just another way to take a person's RKBA from him. And it won't make society any safer.

Jeff

I actually agree with the cop. Jeff is 100% right. Go Jeff.

Picard
May 3, 2008, 04:23 AM
Don't call me Dude,Illinois subject.
You'll live with the laws you'll inherit from the politicians you and your fellow Illini's have put in office during the last century.
I don't dislike you,I sympathize with your Socialist state status.
But you seem willing to expand it.Don't.See those extra 125 lines added to 22,000 gun laws.
Stop it in its tracks ,now.
My best wishes.

Your comments come off as rude. You act as if I chose to live in the state that I'm in and that you're better because you happen to live in Florida. I'm still attending college but after I do graduate, I don't plan on running away because I know that if this bug doesn't get squished, it'll just spread to other states. That means Florida too eventually.

What did I, personally, do to make Illinois the way that it is? Nothing, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't group me with the rest of this anti-gun state. Actually the majority of the corrupt politicians reside in Chicago. Southern and Central Illinois are pretty good.

Fishman777
May 3, 2008, 05:02 AM
I'm sorry. I live in Illinois and I find no fault with this at all. It actually disappoints me that people are criticizing this.

My brother's best friend was shot and killed by his wife less than a year ago. She had a history of violence: she beat her mother up after a disagreement and her mother pressed charges. This actually happened more than once with people other than her mother as well. Anyways, her husband cheated on her and in a fit of rage she shot him in the throat. She loved the guy and deeply regretted what she did. He died, she ended up in prison, and I'm not even sure what happened to their kids. Needless to say, their lives will never be the same.

This kind of stuff happens.

I'm not defending this man's actions, but his wife clearly should not have had access to his guns. In fact, he probably should not have owned guns in the first place. Why? To protect his family and others from this unstable woman. My brother, who is an avid shooter, warned him to lock his guns and ammo so that she could not access them but his friend didn't listen. This guy thought it was a big joke. I bet that he wasn't laughing when she pointed his own gun at him and pulled the trigger.

What would happen if you had a kid with mental problems, and he borrowed your guns and shot up a school? Or what would happen if a young child gained access to your guns and killed him or herself? How about if he or she accidently killed someone elses child? What if your kid was shot and killed while playing at a neighbors house? What would you think then?

This isn't about someone taking away your liberty. This is about holding people accountable for being STUPID. If this is unconstitutional, then the founding fathers had it wrong. Preventing responsible citizens from CCW makes no sense to me. It prevents women from the means of protecting themselves from predators. Holding irresponsible people accountable makes as much sense to me as revoking a multiple DUI trangessor's drivers license. It is a damn good idea.

If an innocent died as a result of your neligence, I would hope and pray that you would end up in jail. If someone on this board was negligent and one of my family members had to pay for your negligence. I would not rest until you were in jail (where you would belong).

If you can't afford a $150 Walmart safe for your handguns, your priorities are screwed up. I bet that if you cut your shooting down in half, you'd be able to afford a cheap safe in a few months. To me, this is a lame cop out. You obviously care more about your **hobby** than the safety of your family and your neighbors. I am absolutely disgusted by this thread. Be a man and do the right thing. It is no wonder that the anti-gunnies have America's ear.

X_m1tanker
May 3, 2008, 05:56 AM
Overeating and traffic fatalities causes more cardiac complications and death than firearms... lets ban food and cars... the whole crux of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from taking over it's population, giving the citizens a last resort of self empowerment. It's already illegal to kill someone whether its by a car, baseball bat or fist. Every other argument is silly hairsplitting and shows how much spare time we have on our hands.... leave my MF guns alone... go read the Federalist Papers too and see why the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there... if you dont like it move to China!

jrfoxx
May 3, 2008, 06:12 AM
What if someone, lets say a child, mentally handicapped or potentially violent relative takes your car and commits a crime with it? It certainly isnt all that rare, especially compared to school shootings.Should you be charged with negligence for not securing your car in a concrete bunker (safe), or having a "boot" installed whenever you are not actively driving it? I've seen plenty of stories, and video of kids, drug adicted relatives, relatives that are criminals, etc using a relatives stolen car to commit crimes, risk lives driving drunk, or getting into high speed chases with the cops, etc. Why are guns special again? Which amendment says the right to own or drive a car shall not be infringed? Why is there no car ":boot" law? Whata bout the knives in your house? Why cant we just hold the person who actually committed the crime responsible for THIER actions, and leave the victims of theft out of it?

Also, if you suspect that someone you live with is a genuine threat to the lives of themselves or others, why are you letting them roam around your home, or society at large, completely unttended or usupervised in the first place? If I thought my child was capable and/or willing to steal one of my guns and use it to commit a violent crime with it, I would be getting them some inpatient help, and not leaving them alone unsupervised for 1 second. If they are that dangerous, locking my guns in a safe will do little to nothing. They can still hurt or kill someone just as easily with my kitchen knives, my car, a bat, some household chemicals, thier hands, etc.
If your child or any other person living with you has shown tendencies to be violent, threatening, detached from reality, etc, you need to be doing A LOT more imprtant things than locking up guns, because they will just find another way to do whatever is they wanted the gun for, and you havent done a THING to address the real problem, which is that the person is violent and dangerous, and needs to be getting teatment, or geting locked up.Locking up guns wont make them not violent or dangrous, so it does not solve anything or begin to address the root problem.As always, the problem is not guns, or access to guns, the problem is violent PEOPLE. I say they need to be the thing getting locked up for eveyones safety.

Picard
May 3, 2008, 11:32 AM
The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with you, Coyote Blue. Now, I just need to reconcile that with times when it the right to keep and bear arms must be take away, for convicted felons for instance.

The law would have been better if the FOID card were only put on suspension until the child turned 21 and was therefore legally responsible for his/her actions.

Enough talking. I'm going off to the range to destroy some targets. Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it.

vito
May 3, 2008, 11:51 AM
In addition to be part of the creeping anti-gun agenda, i.e., coming up with more and more circumstances under which your right to own a firearm is taken away, like all laws this will be subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences. How many gun owners will hesitate to send a teenager with problems to a psychiatrist, out of fear that if that child is diagnosed with a mental illness or "serious mood disorder" (a sizable number of school children are on meds for ADD, OCD, ODD, ADHD, bipolar disorder, etc., all of which can be classified as a "mood disorder")?. How many unsuccessful suicide attempts by a teen or child will go unreported out of fear that if the authorities discover that the child was once suicidal, a subsequent problem could lead to the loss of gun rights by the parents? This is a terrible law made from the best of intentions and I have no doubt it was stimulated by the recent NIU shootings, but it is bad law and bad policy. With liberal Democrats controlling the IL Senate, and with a Governor who is a vehement anti-gun rights advocate, I think it is likely that this will passed into law. This will be another click on the anti-gun rachet which is slowly but surely moving to take away all of our gun rights in IL to satisfy the fear and paranoia of the Chicago political establishment that conpletely controls this State.

yokel
May 3, 2008, 01:45 PM
Quite bluntly, to me it seems like a half-assed way of doing things.

Why not just cut to the chase and institute banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament?

There is little if anything to deter them in de facto one-party state, albeit one with democratic features.

texas bulldog
May 3, 2008, 03:13 PM
gun violence is already illegal, and i don't see how this law is going to prevent someone intent on violence from realizing that intent, be it with a firearm or some other potentially dangerous tool (car, knife, bat, etc).

the most problematic part to me is treating access to ammo the same as access to a gun (aside from the problems with defining mentally-ill, of course). my wife and i were recently pursuing adoption and foster-to-adopt programs. included in the ginormous packet they make you fill out at the start of the process, there is a form where the social worker confirms that either there are no firearms or ammo in the house or that they are each locked up in separate containers. so now i'm supposed to get a separate safe for my ammo? or find some other place to lock it up in my already full-to-the-gills house? what good does ammo do you without the gun? they even specified that BB gun ammo needed to be locked up separately from the BB gun. how much more dangerous, really, is a BB pellet without the gun than any other object in the house?

sigh...i should stop this rant. fortunately, my wife got pregnant a couple months ago, and now i don't have to follow their rules. inconvenience and asininity aside, those rules (in my opinion) were a serious impediment to defending one's home and family. at the time, my wife kept telling me that we only had to play along until an adoption was final, but that really wasn't satisfactory to me. i told her that i would keep at least one loaded gun accessible no matter what their rules. and that they'd have to find it before it would be a problem.

see...their position is that keeping firearms accessible is irresponsible parenting. i, on the other hand, believe that not having means to defend your family accessible is irresponsible parenting.

okay...rant over.

Autolycus
May 3, 2008, 04:17 PM
I was addressing you. Illinois is not a socialist state according to the traditional definitions of socialism.

Autolycus
May 3, 2008, 04:19 PM
Said by X_M1tanker:
Overeating and traffic fatalities causes more cardiac complications and death than firearms... lets ban food and cars... the whole crux of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from taking over it's population, giving the citizens a last resort of self empowerment. It's already illegal to kill someone whether its by a car, baseball bat or fist. Every other argument is silly hairsplitting and shows how much spare time we have on our hands.... leave my MF guns alone... go read the Federalist Papers too and see why the founding fathers put the 2nd Amendment in there... if you dont like it move to China! What about the anti-federalist papers?

Wildfire
May 4, 2008, 12:37 AM
Hey there :
I read your story and that was sad thing that happened. I must with a clear mind now say That there is one fact left out of the details. That fact is that the gal had a record of criminal behavior. And she was going to do something sooner or latter. She had already proven that. The real problem comes in here. Lets say they did not even have a gun in the house. She may have used a knife when he was sleeping. The rules on that are already there just like the rules on useing a gun are already there. She will pay for her crime now. But the fact is that having the gun locked up would not have stopped someone determined to do harm. The new law has too broad of a span and could even include those that would never be a problem to others. This is why we stand against these type of new gun control laws. They really never fix anything. In fact they usually make criminals out of otherwise good people.
The fact is and still stands. That any law (No Law) stops a criminal or criminal acts. They merely set guidelines for punishments after the fact.
That is after something bad has happened. I am a little confused as too why some gun owners do not get this.

Fishman777
May 4, 2008, 02:07 AM
Your arguments don't even make any sense. This is a perfect example of why the anti-gun people have so much success turning public opinion against guns. "If you don't like my guns, go to China". Well, that just changes everything. I no longer believe that careless people should be held accountable for not securing their hand guns. I feel so much safer now. I know, why don't we start handing guns out to convicted rapists and murders. Heck, the Bill of Rights applies to them too, right? Wrong, your actions will either qualify you or disqualify you of certain "rights" in this country. That is why drunks loose their driving privelages and criminals go to jail, or worse.

Gun ownership today is about personal protection, hunting, and collecting not about protecting you from the military might of the US armed forces. You and your guns would not even represent a pimple of the ar$e of the US military.

I own guns because I like them and because I want the ability to protect my family when the police aren't there to protect us. I treat this constitutional right as a privelege that could and should be taken away from me if my carelessness ever caused another innocent life to be lost or threatened. I would accept loosing my FOID card if there was a proper justification for this to happen. There should be very harsh consequences for anyone that is dumb enough not to secure their guns in some sort of safe. If someone breaks into your safe, that is a different story. At least you did everything within reason to secure your weapons. I'm done.

Wildfire
May 4, 2008, 02:24 AM
Hey there:
I must say some do not understand our 2A at all. There is nothing in there about your right to hunt. Or to have guns to hunt with. The 2A is all about our right to keep and bear arms to keep our goverment in ckeck. This is not my opinion this is a fact. This not just the opinion of just a few here on this forum. This is why we have the 2A.
The other fact is that YES we as armed Americans do have many more guns then our military. Way more. Private gun owners here in the US out number our Military by huge numbers. And they (most ) own many firearms not just one issued to them. Somewhere around 80 to 100 million of us are out there.
Our government knows this or we would have lost all of our rights long ago.
Maybe a study of your 2A would be in order here. I mean no harsh words to you but do not be misslead on this subject and why we have the 2A.
What you said is what the anti's would like us all to believe. I can understand your thoughts on the new law and you are entitled to think what you will.
But your idea of why we have the 2A is not even close to the real reason.
We already have rules concerning criminals having guns , they are in place and will remain in place.

Picard
May 4, 2008, 02:57 AM
Gun ownership today is about personal protection, hunting, and collecting not about protecting you from the military might of the US armed forces. You and your guns would not even represent a pimple of the ar$e of the US military.

That's what the U.S. thought when we went into Iraq. 5 years later, we're still fighting. Who cares about superior firepower if you don't know who your enemies are. Shoot one insurgent, another one pops up in his place. Armed U.S. citizens, in such a scenario, would also have this tactical advantage, not to mention the superior manpower.

Neo-Luddite
May 4, 2008, 07:57 AM
Let's stick CCW onto it and pass it in the Senate. See if they can accept a compromise.

Oh Damien, this is Illinois--you know they are already sniffing to see a way clear to tack on a mag ban or turn this into something else before the gov gets to sign it and issue a press release.

I was looking for the 'exemption' in the bill allowing for people who are going to the state-owned World Shooting Complex in Sparta to let their mentally Ill kid play with their guns en route--:neener:.

yokel
May 4, 2008, 08:37 AM
Hey there:
I must say some do not understand our 2A at all. There is nothing in there about your right to hunt. Or to have guns to hunt with. The 2A is all about our right to keep and bear arms to keep our goverment in ckeck. This is not my opinion this is a fact. This not just the opinion of just a few here on this forum. This is why we have the 2A.

Well done.

In our time there have been many folks who don't like to be reminded of all this. And they try, in their painful way, to pretend that the Second Amendment was put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to deal with the tyranny of common thugs and criminals or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content.

Just to reiterate, the Founders added the Second Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.

Blackbeard
May 4, 2008, 08:46 AM
Basically if you have a child with a mental disorder and the child accesses your firearm twice, they can revoke your FOID card.

It looked to me like it's any child or anyone with a mental disorder -- not just children with mental disorders. It also defines "child" as a person under 21. So, if your 20 year old marine son comes home from Iraq, you'd better give him a permission slip to handle your guns.

Thanks, Illinois, you always give me a reason to laugh.

jlbraun
May 4, 2008, 03:09 PM
Anyways, her husband cheated on her and in a fit of rage she killed him with an axe when he was asleep.

Clearly, it's time for ax control.

Respectfully, you're from Illinois and your environment has got you thinking this way. A gun is no different than an ax or a kitchen knife or a car. This law, while it looks good to you, is reprehensible.

Don Gwinn
May 4, 2008, 06:05 PM
I asked this somewhere else, too, but am I crazy?

I could have sworn that Illinois already had a safe-storage/child-access law. My dad's got his chops busted for asking for over a hundred trigger locks when the local police department was giving them away, specifically because of that law.
(Most of his guns are stored in a secure outbuilding with iron grates on windows and doors, deadbolt locks, and a motion-sensor activated alarm that can be heard for several blocks, and he doesn't have any kids at home, but it had him worried.)

Don Gwinn
May 4, 2008, 06:06 PM
Here it is. I guess they didn't like the fact that it was a misdemeanor and they couldn't count 18-year-olds with their own apartments as "children."

Illinois

enacted 1999
The Illinois law makes it illegal for a person to store or leave any loaded firearm in a way that allows a minor to gain access to the firearm without permission from a parent or guardian and use it to injure or kill. A firearm is properly stored if it is secured by a trigger lock, placed in a securely locked box or placed in some other location that a reasonable person would believe to be secured from a minor.

* The penalty is a misdemeanor.
* Child is defined as anyone under the age of 14.


That's right, the Brady Campaign loves Illinois.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=capstate

JoshM
May 4, 2008, 07:47 PM
Fisherman 777,

You obviously care more about your **hobby** than the safety of your family and your neighbors. I am absolutely disgusted by this thread. Be a man and do the right thing. It is no wonder that the anti-gunnies have America's ear.

You can find numerous examples of safe storage legislation that started out as a measure to prevent child access, but ultimately became an onerous regime (via de facto registration, strong room requirements, compulsory onsite inspections, etc) to discourage gun ownership.

I’d also note that this legislation will do nothing to provide tangible security benefits for communities in IL. The legislation regarding section 8 B5 is essentially unenforceable - unless coupled with a regime of surprise inspections - and is therefore a waste of time, money, and effort. Whereas extra funding for more “secure beds” at inpatient facilities would provide tangible benefits.

jrfoxx

If I thought my child was capable and/or willing to steal one of my guns and use it to commit a violent crime with it, I would be getting them some inpatient help,

Well said. I expect Mr Cho’s parents rue that fact every day.

Picard,

The law would have been better if the FOID card were only put on suspension until the child turned 21 and was therefore legally responsible for his/her actions.

I see your point, but surely the age of criminal responsibility is lower then 21 in IL. Maybe 16 instead ?

fletcher
May 4, 2008, 07:59 PM
This isn't about someone taking away your liberty. This is about holding people accountable for being STUPID.
Regardless of the intention, honorable though it may be, I guarantee you this law will be abused just like any other gun control law.

glocker82
May 4, 2008, 08:33 PM
One more reason not to have kids.

If you enjoyed reading about "This Passed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!