Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

This Passed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Jeff White, May 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,406
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Basically if you have a child with a mental disorder and the child accesses your firearm twice, they can revoke your FOID card.




     
  2. Picard

    Picard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  3. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    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?
     
  4. mekender

    mekender Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    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
     
  5. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,406
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    this is just another way to take a person's RKBA from him. And it won't make society any safer.

    Jeff
     
  6. RP88

    RP88 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,704
    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.
     
  7. Ninja.of.Love

    Ninja.of.Love Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Messages:
    26
    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.
     
  8. FTA84

    FTA84 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    86
    Is this reaction to NIU shootings?
     
  9. mp510

    mp510 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,046
    Location:
    PRKt
    Is the term mental condition as defined:
    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.
     
  10. bumm

    bumm Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Location:
    small town Iowa
    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
     
  11. Picard

    Picard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Illinois
    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?
     
  12. jimbob86

    jimbob86 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    236
    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......
     
  13. Picard

    Picard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  14. Picard

    Picard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  15. Wildfire

    Wildfire Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,211
    Location:
    S.W.Michigan
    Wow !

    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.
     
  16. Wildfire

    Wildfire Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,211
    Location:
    S.W.Michigan
    Just another Law.

    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.:)
     
  17. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    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.
     
  18. The Tourist

    The Tourist member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    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.
     
  19. Coyote Blue

    Coyote Blue member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Boca Grande ,Florida
    "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:
     
  20. damien

    damien Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Northern IL, USA
    Let's stick CCW onto it and pass it in the Senate. :) See if they can accept a compromise. :evil:
     
  21. SomeKid

    SomeKid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,544
    Location:
    FL
    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.

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

    Picard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  23. Fishman777

    Fishman777 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Messages:
    520
    Good...

    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.
     
  24. X_m1tanker

    X_m1tanker Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    20
    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!
     
  25. jrfoxx

    jrfoxx Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,168
    Location:
    Evanston,WY
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page