I was made aware of tis in the ISRA's weekly update email yesterday. This bill is supposed to clean up the concealed carry law. This is what it says:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...s=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0114&GAID=12&Session=
So the way I read it, if you are unfortunate enough to have a disagreement with a school administrator or a law enforcement officer all that person has to do is pick up the phone, call the ISP and your FOID card is gone. The law makes sure that the person who declared you a danger to yourself or others remains anonymous. It also states that the person making the notification is indemnified from criminal, civil and professional liability.
The law says the ISP should make a determination on if the FOID card should be revoked. Given that there are only so many investigators and that avoiding civil liability is a primary concern for law enforcement agencies does anyone really believe that there will be an investigation?
This bill clarifies a similar provision in the original concealed carry bill.
The bill also eliminates the provision for credit to be awarded for training courses recognized by the laws of another state. It requires all training courses recognized by other states to be approved by the ISP.
The bill also eliminates the exemption for former law enforcement officers from the 16 hour course and now only gives them credit for 8 hours training.
The bill adds the requirement that during a traffic stop passengers in a vehicle who have a concealed carry license must comply with the disclosure requirements.
I'm not sure how this fits in with the Illinois supreme Court Decision that requires officers to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion before asking passengers in a vehicle for ID and checking them for warrants.
The "fixes" to the bill just make it worse.
Of course the ISRA views all this as positive:
Somebody buy my property here in Marion County so I can get out of this state!!
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...s=0&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=0114&GAID=12&Session=
(d) If a person is determined to pose a clear and present
4 danger to himself, herself, or to others:
5 (1) by a physician, clinical psychologist, or
6 qualified examiner, law enforcement official, or school
7 administrator, or is determined to be developmentally
8 disabled by a physician, clinical psychologist, or
9 qualified examiner, whether employed by the State or
10 privately by a private mental health facility, then the
11 physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner
12 shall, within 24 hours of making the determination, notify
13 the Department of Human Services that the person poses a
14 clear and present danger or is developmentally disabled; or
15 (2) by a law enforcement official or school
16 administrator, then the law enforcement official or school
17 administrator shall, within 24 hours of making the
18 determination, notify the Department of State Police that
19 the person poses a clear and present danger. The Department
20 of Human Services shall immediately update its records and
21 information relating to mental health and developmental
22 disabilities, and if appropriate, shall notify the
23 Department of State Police in a form and manner prescribed
24 by the Department of State Police. The Department of State
25 Police shall determine whether to revoke the person's
26 Firearm Owner's Identification Card under Section 8 of this
09800SB0114ham002 - 5 - LRB098 04341 RLC 49644 a
1 Act. Any information disclosed under this subsection shall
2 remain privileged and confidential, and shall not be
3 redisclosed, except as required under subsection (e) of
4 Section 3.1 of this Act, nor used for any other purpose.
5 The method of providing this information shall guarantee
6 that the information is not released beyond what is
7 necessary for the purpose of this Section and shall be
8 provided by rule by the Department of Human Services. The
9 identity of the person reporting under this Section shall
10 not be disclosed to the subject of the report. The
11 physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, law
12 enforcement official, or school administrator making the
13 determination and his or her employer shall not be held
14 criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making
15 or not making the notification required under this
16 subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct.
17 (e) The Department of State Police shall adopt rules to
18 implement this Section.
19 (Source: P.A. 97-1131, eff. 1-1-13; 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)
So the way I read it, if you are unfortunate enough to have a disagreement with a school administrator or a law enforcement officer all that person has to do is pick up the phone, call the ISP and your FOID card is gone. The law makes sure that the person who declared you a danger to yourself or others remains anonymous. It also states that the person making the notification is indemnified from criminal, civil and professional liability.
The law says the ISP should make a determination on if the FOID card should be revoked. Given that there are only so many investigators and that avoiding civil liability is a primary concern for law enforcement agencies does anyone really believe that there will be an investigation?
This bill clarifies a similar provision in the original concealed carry bill.
The bill also eliminates the provision for credit to be awarded for training courses recognized by the laws of another state. It requires all training courses recognized by other states to be approved by the ISP.
The bill also eliminates the exemption for former law enforcement officers from the 16 hour course and now only gives them credit for 8 hours training.
The bill adds the requirement that during a traffic stop passengers in a vehicle who have a concealed carry license must comply with the disclosure requirements.
I'm not sure how this fits in with the Illinois supreme Court Decision that requires officers to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion before asking passengers in a vehicle for ID and checking them for warrants.
The "fixes" to the bill just make it worse.
Of course the ISRA views all this as positive:
ISRA Thursday Bulletin - December 5
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE
On Tuesday December 3rd, both the Illinois House and Illinois Senate passed SB114, which is a trailer bill to the Illinois Concealed Carry Act HB0183. SB114 now awaits the Governor's signature. The purpose of a trailer bill is to correct errors or mistakes that were made in a previous bill. It was good that SB114 passed because it addressed issues that needed to be corrected in HB0183. I expect another trailer bill in the spring session to address other errors in HB0183. This is a usual procedure following almost all bills.
Having a debate on all bills is important because the intent of the legislation is clarified in the record. The preemption language was brought up on Tuesday in a question and answer session between Representative Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) and Representative Ed Sullivan (R-Mundelein). This question and answer session made it clear that rules on Concealed Carry lay squarely with the State of Illinois; the City of Chicago, Cook County, and any other municipality are not to tamper with the Concealed Carry legislation. Exercises like Representative Phelps and Sullivan went through are critical to court cases brought against municipalities who may try to tamper with the Illinois Concealed Carry Act. Kudos to Representative Phelps and Representative Sullivan.
We are now working with the joint committee on Administrative Rules trying to be sure the rules which will be eventually adopted do not diminish our Right To Carry. The struggle is far from over but the ISRA is there representing you.
Thank you for being a member.
Richard Pearson
ISRA Executive Director
Somebody buy my property here in Marion County so I can get out of this state!!