Log in

One step closer to gun confiscation in Illinois?

Posted by on Friday, May 31st, 2019 @ 6:59 am.

An 'enforcement task force' would be formed

ILLINOIS — A statewide story posted last week tagged ‘ALERT’ caught the eye of many folks in the state of Illinois who have been waiting for something that looked like smoke indicting a pending fire defined as gun confiscation.

“You know, ‘Where there’s smoke, there’s fire’?” asked one critic of a recent move to fingerprint all gun-owners in the state. “With the passing of this bill by the Illinois house of Representatives, there’s definitely smoke.”

Increased rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle shot off the charts Wednesday, May 29, when the state house passed 62-52 Senate Bill 1966 and sending the bill back to the senate for further consideration.

“I sincerely hope these elected individuals consider very carefully the passing of such a bill,” the critic, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.

The critic argued the bill would do more than just increase the fee for a Firearm Owners Identification Card, commonly referred to as a FOID card, from $10 to $20.

“When you add in the cost of the fingerprint mandate, every gun owner would have to comply with each time the application for a FOID card if made or renewed, the background check, everyone, even a family member willed a weapon or sold one to another family member, and the fact the life of the card will be lessened from 10 years down to five years, you are looking at at least $150. That alone is cost prohibitive for lower income folks."

Another aspect of the bill, should it become law, which has gun advocates upset deals with Orders of Protection (OP) issued by local courts, which comes with an order that the subject of that OP surrender their firearms.

“The bar for getting an OP is so low, and maybe rightfully so but to now add the Illinois State Police rolling up to your house and confiscating your guns is not exactly calming any situation down,” the critic said.

And some argue that’s exactly what the bill orders.

“To get those guns back a person would have to go back to court, which takes money and time, and convince a judge that they should be returned,” the critic said. “I just don’t know where Constitutional rights began and end here.”

The bill doesn’t appear to allow for any redress of the issue in the wake of an Order of Protection or other court order.

An entire new task force would be created by the state, the sole job of which would be to enforce the surrendering of guns by those whose gun license was revoked for whatever reason.

“If there is any doubt about violence and somebody needing protected whatsoever, a judge will enter an OP and,set a date for hearing the charges leveled and rightfully so,” the critic said. “However, if this bill passes into law, that would automatically send state police (who will not have a choice in the matter as they would be following the law) to citizens' homes to confiscate their guns, before any due process could take place."

“Once again law enforcement is being put in the middle of an explosive situation,” said one southern Illinois chief of police who preferred not to be identified. “We and the general public understand this argument is not between police and citizens. We as well as many law-abiding patriots understand it is the law-makers who may not be looking at not only the Constitution but what it takes to be a law enforcer. And to be frank, I am not sure how close we are getting to some officers refusing to enforce laws that are unconstitutional.”

For decades one side has argued guns should be taken from the average citizen and only be in the hands of ‘officials and authorities.’

“The problem is that criminals don’t intend on following the law in the first place and that leaves law-abiding citizens without a way to protect themselves and be safe in their own homes and on their own property,” the lawman said. “In rural areas it could be 30 minutes or more before police could arrive, depending on the weather. There’s no reason to disarm legal gun owners or make it more difficult to own a gun or, for that matter, make it easier to take them.”

The lawman went on, only after being assured his name would remain confidential: “I hate to say it but everybody knows, people lie, they just do. And how sad it would be for someone to lie on an OP, get someone disarmed by police and then roll in to attack that person with no fear or worse, with guns of their own. People set other people up all the time. There are just too many things that could go wrong—including inserting police into an already volatile situation, which most OPs/domestic situations are, by ordering someone to surrender their guns. Local jurisdictions should handle that, they are the ones who know the parties involved.”

The lawman then declined to comment further saying: “I can’t be much use to the people I have sworn to protect if I lose my job. The First Amendment unfortunately can lead to the unemployment line.”

With the pros and cons of gun control being so adamantly opposed and mistrustful of each other and gun owners and law enforcement so close in their thinking, it remains to be seen whether or not lawmakers are listening to those who put them in office and who are tasked with enforcing the laws they make.

“Nobody is saying there are not situations where guns should be removed, even forcefully,” said the critic. “But we already have laws that can accomplish that.”

The Illinois legislature says they are reacting, in part, to the February 2019 mass shooting incident that took the lives of five individuals at a manufacturing business in Aurora, Illinois.

The shooter had been a convicted felon in another state and unauthorized to own a weapon, much less carry one, in Illinois. ISP was sued by the guy, which is probably what's behind the push to effectively disarm the rest of us.

“And because the laws already on the books failed to prevent the shooting, we are going to create an entire new division of bureaucracy to enforce new law that will be tougher and more expensive to enforce…” the critic said. “That’s like saying spoons make people fat and so, despite all the health warnings, we need a bureau of spoon confiscation and we will have no more fat people and the cost of healthcare will go down and people will live longer and infants will be born into healthier families and nobody will crave unhealthy food. It would be funny if it wasn’t so close to reality.”

Funny or not, opponents on both sides of the issue are urging voters to contact their representatives and urge them to either vote for or oppose the proposed law, depending on what side of the fence they are on.

In addition to the above details, House Amendment 1 to Senate Bill 1966 would:

  • Criminalize private transfers, with violations being punished as a Class 4 felony.
  • Require the recipient of a firearm gifted by a family member to call into Illinois State Police within 60 days to run a background check on themselves, even though they must already hold a FOID.
  • Allow for the indefinite delay of firearm transfers. Currently, federal law allows a licensed firearm dealer (FFL) to release a firearm after three business days if they have not received any additional correspondence after receiving a “delay” when conducting the initial background check for a firearm transfer. This safeguard prevents the potential shutdown of sales via endless delays and allows law-abiding individuals to take possession of a firearm in a timely manner.
  • Mandate FOID applicants submit fingerprints, including for renewals, which would not add anything of investigative value.
  • Increase FOID processing time from one calendar month to thirty business days, which can span more than six weeks.
  • Reduce the duration of the FOID from ten years to five while also increasing the application fee from $10 to $50, resulting in a 1000 percent increase in the cost to maintain a FOID for the same amount of time.
  • Require FOID applicants pay all costs for fingerprinting and processing the background check, totaling around $150 on top of the application fee.
  • Allow courts to direct law enforcement to seize firearms from those who have their FOID revoked.
  • Prohibit those with a revoked FOID from transferring firearms to someone in the same household, which would create confusion in determining the owner of the firearms and would take away the right to self-defense from individuals due to the alleged actions of someone else in their household.
  • Require the owner of the seized firearms to petition the court to have them transferred to a third party.​
Click here to view more product SPECIALS!!!

Please join us on our remaining social networking pages: Gab, Minds.com and Twitter (although we're considering dumping that swill - Twitter - too). Also, if you, unlike us, still have a Facebook page, feel free to share this on that page, too! The more you share, the longer we can stay around…so get clicking!

Short URL: https://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/?p=109976

Posted by on May 31 2019. Filed under Breaking, Illinois. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Featured Links

    Search Archive

    Search by Date
    Search by Category
    Search with Google

    Photo Gallery

    Disclosure News, P.O. Box 52, Calhoun, Illinois 62419
    Phone: (646) 801-6397 • e-mail: disclosurenewsonline@yahoo.com
    Disclosure is published monthly by Disclosure News Inc. in conjunction with the First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press.

    Copyright Disclosure News, Inc./Jack Howser, 2008-2018

    s2Member®