This Passed the Illinois General Assembly on Wednesday

[Picard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I was addressing you. Illinois is not a socialist state according to the traditional definitions of socialism.

 

[Autolycus]

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]

Hey Fishman 777

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]

hmm...

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]

Wow.

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]

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]

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--.

 

[yokel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

One more reason not to have kids.