Illinois Legislature Passes Law Keeping Guns From Domestic Abusers, Restraining Order Violators

By a sweeping majority, the Illinois Senate passed a bill that would permanently revoke the rights of certain offenders to own guns.

The bill, HB 3365, had already passed the House by a 108-1 vote; the Senate passed the measure by a vote of 55 to one.

It would prevent anyone who had been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or violation of an order of protection from obtaining a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, the card required to purchase a gun in the state of Illinois.

Additionally, if an order of protection is issued against someone, that person will have to surrender his firearms and his FOID card for the duration of the order, provided that the order meets certain criteria of implied danger.

As the Associated Press reports, state law currently keeps those convicted of domestic violence from owning a gun for five years following their conviction; this law simply extends that period indefinitely.

HB 3365 now heads to Governor Quinn's desk, where he will have 60 days to take acction.

Comments

[its2simple4u]

04:23 PM on 06/19/2011

I love guns.

I plan to buy more :)

[CelticMajic]

08:28 AM on 05/19/2011

Illinois has had this law on the books for quite a while. All this did was increase the time of prohibitio­n from 5 years to "indefinite"­. HP would lead you to believe this is a "new idea" in IL--not true. In addition there is a federal law that covers this as well, and again HP does not tell you that. Be wary of HP headlines and partial articles.

[BushBites]

08:17 AM on 05/19/2011

The only constitutional way to stop family gun violence is to arm the wife and children.

Cordially,

The NRA.

[DeclineToState]

03:57 PM on 05/19/2011

You might be on to something.

Rocky Mountain News, Denver, CO ; 7/19/99

A 34-year-old Boulder County, Colorado, woman became the trapped prey in a life-and-death contest with her estranged husband one Saturday when he invaded her home and held her against her will for more than five hours. The woman finally managed to break free by crawling through a second-story window. Then, turning the tables on her tormentor, she re-entered the house this time with a gun and ordered him to leave. The man was later arrested at his home and charged with attempted murder, burglary, felony menacing, harassment by stalking and false imprisonment.

Florida Today, Melbourne, FL, 10/23/97

After 11 years of mental and physical abuse, Elizabeth Johnstone finally summoned the courage to leave her husband. When his harassment continued, she filed a restraining order and purchased a .44 cal. revolver in case he violated it. He did. The man broke into her West Melbourne, Florida, home one morning and threatened to kill her with a 12-ga. shotgun. The couple's little boy grabbed his father's legs, begging him not to hurt his mother. The man ignored his son and began dragging his estranged wife through the house. He had succeeded in handcuffing her left wrist when the woman's great-grandmother handed her the .44. Several shots later, the abusive husband lay on the floor, dead.

More at http://www.nraila.org/armedcitizen/

[schotts]

04:32 PM on 05/19/2011

I agree. Except of course, very young children. But hey, I was bird hunting by 15 so why not.

[Rooster Coburn]

08:55 PM on 05/18/2011

If you were to take away their "right" to vote too I can see where a law like this might be marginally acceptable. Other, no way.

[sqeptiq]

05:06 PM on 05/18/2011

Well, our fascist Supreme Court hasn't weighed in yet.

[idiocracyisnow]

05:45 PM on 05/18/2011

1) The feds already accomplished this ban, no rule against a state copying the feds. It was challenged several times as it affected law enforcement and armed forces personel.
2) The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution doesn't exactly apply at the state level. The state level is considered 'the people', so 'the people' can choose to restrict themselves if they want. Since this isn't a full-blown firearms ban, then I doubt the supreme court would hear it.

[DeclineToState]

06:45 PM on 05/18/2011

"The 2nd amendment of the US Constituti­on doesn't exactly apply at the state level."

After McDonald v Chicago it sure does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

[hagagaga]

04:30 PM on 05/18/2011

While I don't see anything particularly wrong with most laws restricting gun ownership by violent criminals, the vast majority of laws regarding domestic abuse and things like that are a violation of equal rights because in many states, a woman can convict a man by doing barely anything more than just saying it, while a man who is abused probably won't even be able to get a conviction on a woman if he has two black eyes and a full-body cast.

[RMinIL]

04:55 PM on 05/18/2011

A woman can't convict a man, only a jury can and that takes evidence.

[Jacob Black]

04:59 PM on 05/18/2011

First, the problem you point to isn't a problem of the law, but a problem of how we enforce the law.

Second, I understand you are exaggerating for effect, but I don't think it is reasonable to pretend that the issue of abuse of men is equivalent to the issue of the abuse of women. I understand that there are real instances of men being abused, and I am not dismissing their seriousness, but you would have to recognize that the vast instances of domestic violence against women by men is of an order of magnitude more common.

[DeclineToState]

06:38 PM on 05/18/2011

"but you would have to recognize that the vast instances of domestic violence against women by men is of an order of magnitude more common."

That's a myth. Because many male victims of domestic violence are too embarrassed to report it, it is more common than realized. Several studies have shown the ratio of male/female perpetrators is closer to 50/50 than the 90/10 ratio you stated.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/30/a-hidden-crime-domestic-violence-against-men-is-a-growing-probl/

[jsgaetano]

03:36 PM on 05/18/2011

Looks like Red Stater gun shows are about to get more customers!

[CelticMajic]

04:47 PM on 05/18/2011

Do you think that IL has no gun shows?

[jsgaetano]

12:28 AM on 05/19/2011

We have legal ones, which aren't created for the express purpose of selling firearms to criminals and terrorists.

[hent85]

11:03 PM on 05/25/2011

You mean like those red stater states such Oregon and Washington, which have similar gun show laws such as Idaho, or Utah? California is the only state in the west that gets good ratings from the Brady Campaign for closing the so called gun show loophole yet it has higher crime then those three other states and has more terrorist arrested, too.

[RMinIL]

03:05 PM on 05/18/2011

I'm just loving living in Illinois! Anything that peeves the gun crazies is excellent. They should all stand in a circle facing inward and do some target practice.

[JimInHouston]

03:23 PM on 05/18/2011

Typical anti-gunner ---

...wishing violence and death upon those who disagree with him.

[RMinIL]

03:52 PM on 05/18/2011

OOPS, you're so right! I forgot that gun owners are stupid enough to shoot themselves if I suggest it. I'll try to be more careful.

[HisXLNC]

05:17 AM on 05/19/2011

I'm surprised he didn't throw something about race into it. That seems to be the new thing among anti-gunners these days.

[spriddler]

04:02 PM on 05/18/2011

So they are the evil people in your mind??? You do realize that more than 80 million Americans own guns? That's going to be quite a mess!

[RMinIL]

04:30 PM on 05/18/2011

You're a hoot!

[Bobotheclown]

02:15 PM on 05/18/2011

No one can argue that it is a common good to remove firearms from the possession of people who have demonstrated a propensity for violence that is documented and significant. But firearms are in a special class of items protected as rights under the Second Amendment and as such they are legally considered among the "inalienable" rights. These rights should only be limited under law through the judgement of balancing the safety of the public against the rights of the individual. By creating technical law that triggers the loss of rights due to any circumstances that do not entail the reasonable judgement of imminent danger to oneself or others we limit rights that should be inviolable. The law understandably errs on the side of the unarmed and the potential victim since firearm violence is uncompromisingly dangerous. But some consideration should be given to the maintenance of firearm rights if a person can demonstrate a record of non violence and law abiding behavior. For example, felons who have served their time in jail and who have demonstrated good behavior on the outside should have their firearm rights restored or what are rights worth? This applies to voting rights as well as firearm rights. The constitution does not grant these rights, it expresses that they are inherent in the concept of citizenship and cannot be taken away unless there is a compelling and current reason to do so.

[Rooster Coburn]

09:01 PM on 05/18/2011

Most large cities wink at our immigration laws, as we all know. So I wink at gun laws.

[outnow]

12:47 PM on 05/18/2011

The law seeks to increase collateral consequences of aa criminal conviction retroactively and may be subject to an ex post facto challenge.

Many enter pleas after a 911 telephone call. Many cannot afford to pay to fight what appears to be a minor misdemeanor.

Should the defendant be in the military or in the police department, these people lose their jobs. I have seen women with babes in arms telling judges that they call 911 because the were mad or jealous, and then their husband was arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution responds, "See, Your Honor, this woman is STLL being threatened."

DV is a zero tolerance law and arrests are Mandatory. Spouses are separated and told that one or the other is going to jail automatically. 95% are "no injury" calls.

There is selective enforement issues because 99% of all arrests are of males, whereas research published in peer-reviewed articles reveals that the problem is not so one-sided. The law is neutral on its face but applied in a very uneven way.

Dr. Laura had a cop call in and state that he is sick and tired of women calling 911 for relationship counseling. The cops get more fedeeral matching funds from each DV conviction.

The solution is for both spouses to be ordered into at least a year of conselling, as in Utah.

Google: "Women who are seeking abuse" and you will discover that violence is part of some women's idea of sex. Complex problem.

[jsgaetano]

03:38 PM on 05/18/2011

Funny how conservatives blame women for getting beat up by their husbands and boyfriends.
 
But I'm sure that's completely unrelated to the higher rates of domestic violence in Red States.

[schotts]

07:11 PM on 05/18/2011

Leave it to a liberal to turn it into a political issue.

So by your notion, liberals never commit domestic violence.

[schotts]

10:39 AM on 05/19/2011

Vanity Fair? Really? I might as well send a link to from an article out of The American Conservative.

From Vanity Fair:

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, of the 10 states with the highest number of total inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, 9 were red. Of the 10 states with the most female inmates per 100,000 residents that same year, all were red"

What part of that indicates that those inmates are conservative? What this tells me is that red states enforce laws and incarcerate people vs. blue states that are too lenient on crime.

You've shown me nothing to reconsider that you stereotype. That's fine though, if it works for you.

[Grumpy Man]

11:10 PM on 05/18/2011

Very well state outnow. I've seen too many cases of "He said / She said" where there was no physical evidence and plenty of room for debate about "the truth." As you stated, I've seen people plead guilty to avoid the costs associated with proper representation.

I have zero respect for abusive spouses be they male or female. Any who are truly guilty should absolutely face proper consequences. At one time the pendulum was too far to one side and abuses were regularly overlooked. It seems that these days the pendulum has swung too far the other way and innocent people are charged simply because so-and-so said so. In a perfect world, the scales of justice would be balanced.

Like you said, it's a complex problem.

[grimace71]

12:25 PM on 05/18/2011

As a gun-rights advocate, I totally agree with the sentiment of this legislation. The only problem with it is that it already exists at the Federal level. Has anyone ever heard of the Lautenberg amendment (to the Brady Bill that passed like SIXTEEN freakin' years ago)?!?

This is a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Good for you Illinois...you've created a law that already exists (AND is being enforced)!

[Jacob Black]

12:52 PM on 05/18/2011

I'm not certain on this, but I believe the state law will make possible state and local enforcement where before had to be enforced by the feds. .

[CelticMajic]

04:42 PM on 05/18/2011

Illinois also had this law on the books. All this did was increase the time of prohibition from 5 years to indefinite. Be wary of HP headlines and partial articles

[clearthinker16]

12:19 PM on 05/18/2011

now if only it gets enforced

[idiocracyisnow]

01:18 PM on 05/18/2011

How do you enforce something when this law doesn't currently affect anyone? The federal law already kept guns out of domestic violence offender's hands.

[StansDad]

03:46 PM on 05/18/2011

It keeps new, legally purchased guns from domestic abusers. Basically it accomplishes very little.

[AMlegion]

11:44 AM on 05/18/2011

http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/6-181.pdf

These questions already exsist.

[Jacob Black]

11:38 AM on 05/18/2011

Good law, good policy.

[Kenbearhill]

12:33 PM on 05/18/2011

I disagree, this is bad law and bad policy. This type of law, as reported, only applies to law abiding card carrying registered gun owners and potentially changes them into felons. The state of Illinois is short on cash as it is and the political do-gooders are clouding the issue and increasing the cost for the local communities to enforce and protect, jail beds cost, most gun owners will hide their guns rather than surrender and have somebody legally steal them.

[Jacob Black]

12:54 PM on 05/18/2011

"This type of law, as reported, only applies to law abiding card carrying registered gun owners and potentiall­y changes them into felons."

I don't agree with that. This law applies to people who have been convicted of certain crimes, violated an order of protection, or have an order of protection entered against them with a heightened standard. All of these have the protections of due process built in, and in my opinion are all reasonable categories of restricting firearm ownership.

[CelticMajic]

11:09 AM on 05/18/2011

Illinois already had a law that accomplished this. It had a 5 year period associated with it. This law extended the time to "indefinate".