Unintended Consequences of HR 218.

What does this have to do with HR 218?

I'm pretty sure Peterson resigned from the PD so he's no longer covered by HR218 anyway is he?

So, yes, he is covered.

Click to expand...

Ahh.. Well then...... crap

Surely they will find something on him eventually.

Again, what does his getting his guns back have to do with HR218???

Make your point.

Huh?

In the USA, there's this little thing in the legal system: presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The guy sure seems like a dirtbag, but the media has a nasty habit of picking and choosing what "facts" to report. He has not even been charged with a crime as of yet. It is possible that he could be telling the truth; not every truthful person is a poster child for sweetness and light, and not every jerk is a liar.

They can't keep is property without charging him with a crime that requires them to take it.

This isn't an unintended consequence. It's what should happen.

If you can't prove someone committed a crime you can't rightly punish them, can you? Don't like it? Prove he actually did something.

This is completely unrelated to HR 218.

The court order covered guns, vehicles, computers, and other personal property. As soon as the order was issued, the prosecutor went to the Illinois State Police and had Peterson's FOID revoked, so as of now it appears he will get back his computers, vehicles and other property, but NOT his firearms.

I don't remember the exact language of HR 218, so I don't know if a retired police officer in Illinois can own (or go out and buy) a firearm without a FOID based on HR 218, or that only allows him to carry an Illinois-legal handgun when in other states. I think it's the latter.

Scumbag or not, this order was made on the basis that the police and prosecutors had no valid legal basis on which to deprive him of his personal property. It was not in any way based on HR 218. Remember that little part of the Bill of Rights regarding "unreasonable search and seizure"? I'd guess that's what the court was looking at. In essence, telling the prosecutors to either charge the man with something or else give him back his toys.

Hr 218 allows for active and retired LEOs to carry CCW Nationa wide IF they maintain LEO firearms qualification. IL department, from what I here, are not too keen on helping retired LEOs maintain their firearms qualifications. So... HR 218 appears moot re Peterson.

IL department, from what I here, are not too keen on helping retired LEOs maintain their firearms qualifications.

Click to expand...

You heard wrong then. IL was one of the first states to get the retired LEOSA implemented. The only thing that slowed down IL's program was figuring out which agency would be responsible for implementing it to get the funding to operate it. The ILETSB finally got the legislative approval. Other states then used IL's program as a pattern for theirs.
It's a simple process for a retiree in IL to get qualified.
http://www.rpocc.com/

Yes, do not confuse the Chicago Police Department with all of Illinois. Contrary to what the East Coast media would have one believe, there are other cities in Illinois than Chicago.

F, I do not understand the nexus you are making. Can you detail it?

This is completely unrelated to HR 218.

Click to expand...

As far as the relation to HR218, this guy can now carry concealed anywhere in the US as a retired Peace Officer.

But since he's been convicted of no crime I'm not sure how it can be any other way.

There is sort of a tie in thread over here, where the thread discusses his FOID being revoked:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=343782

So a guy was not found guilty of a crime (yet), but it's bad that he got his guns back? Why? b/c he's apparently a scumbag and also a cop? Not seeing the point here.