Quinn (Illinois) Sign Lost & Stolen Reporting and Universal BC bill into law

[Trent]

1. There is no criminal penalty for ignoring that new part of the law.

(7) Any person convicted of unlawful sale or delivery
of firearms in violation of paragraph (k) of subsection (A)
commits a Class 4 felony, except that a violation of
subparagraph (1) of paragraph (k) of subsection (A) shall
not be punishable as a crime or petty offense. A third or
subsequent conviction for a violation of paragraph (k) of
subsection (A) is a Class 1 felony.

There may not be an explicit criminal offense, there is one important facet if you read the modifications in full.

If you sell a firearm after January 1st WITHOUT getting a background check and transaction # from the State Police, you lose indemnification.

If that gun is ever used in a crime, you can face civil suits.

If you do get the background check done, you are indemnified from civil or criminal charges if the firearm is subsequently misused.

 

[Jim K]

Wanna bet "responsible people" means "white people of the proper political persuasion"?

Jim

 

[wow6599]

This is pretty major folks, especially the lack of resistance.

What's new.

AND I'm still angry that this was slipped by SOOOO quietly.

Are you going to contact your elected officials and demand action?

As far as this slipping under the radar, I believe the reason is because there was some back room agreements that traded this for some votes on the CCW law passage.

Unacceptable BS. And what's new.

Living in IL sucks. I've been trying for 4 years to get outta here.

This isn't the answer though.


My wife is from Southern IL, so I can speak to a little of what I've witnessed out of Illinois. Folks either move out of state, or complain to one another. I understand the giant, moving cog that is Chicago - but go raise some hell.

Everyday I wake-up, I see more and more Illinois license plates in my area, and I live an hour W/SW of the river. My in-laws moved to Florida due to Illinois law and their tax dollars going to Chicago.

Out of the nearly 13 million people who live in Illinois, only around 5 million are in Cook County.......take your state back.

 

[wildbilll]

There may not be an explicit criminal offense, there is one important facet if you read the modifications in full.

If you sell a firearm after January 1st WITHOUT getting a background check and transaction # from the State Police, you lose indemnification.

If that gun is ever used in a crime, you can face civil suits.

If you do get the background check done, you are indemnified from civil or criminal charges if the firearm is subsequently misused.

Trent, There was no indemnification before this bill passed.
There is no criminal downside to the seller of the firearm, as long as they complied with the requirement to sell only to the holder of a FOID card and they kept a record (for 10 years!).
It's the buyer that would be committing a fraud on the seller if they had a fake FOID card, a revoked FOID card, etc.
I simply can't be held criminally responsible if I sell the firearm (or any other lawful product) to someone who represents themselves as legally able to possess the product.
There are plenty of states where this happens every day and there are no charges against the seller.
There is no difference between the sale of a firearm and the sale of a car. Someone buys a car and goes out and kills a bunch of people by running them down with that car, the seller of the car has no liability.

As far as indemnification goes, the same applies as for the states where this type of law does not exist. There is no need for it. Two people in MO exchange a firearm, later the one who received it does something stupid. If the one who received it was a felon, that felon has some really big problems (unless the state lets them go).
Again, the burden is on the buyer, not the seller.
Juries for the civil trial don't like to award damages against individuals, especially where the seller complied with the laws. A jury wouldn't even be allowed to hear about the lack of indemnification, since it is explicitly excluded as a crime or even a petty offense.
This, coupled with the fact that the attorneys usually do these on a contingency fee basis, means there is no money in it for them. They would likely advise the potential client they don't have a case.

Finally, what I said was there is no criminal penalty for ignoring the law. I stand by that statement of fact.

 

[Trent]

Trent, There was no indemnification before this bill passed.
There is no criminal downside to the seller of the firearm, as long as they complied with the requirement to sell only to the holder of a FOID card and they kept a record (for 10 years!).

Yes, there has ALWAYS been indemnification in 720 ILCS 5/24-3 *IF* you checked the persons FOID card *prior* to delivery of the firearm.

The indemnification applied to both civil and criminal charges.

It's the buyer that would be committing a fraud on the seller if they had a fake FOID card, a revoked FOID card, etc.
I simply can't be held criminally responsible if I sell the firearm (or any other lawful product) to someone who represents themselves as legally able to possess the product.

You can sure as heck be liable in a civil suit.

There are plenty of states where this happens every day and there are no charges against the seller. There is no difference between the sale of a firearm and the sale of a car. Someone buys a car and goes out and kills a bunch of people by running them down with that car, the seller of the car has no liability.

Gun shops get sued ALL THE TIME, and sometimes successfully, for selling firearms in a perfectly legal fashion. People are no better protected than gun shops. Just, in most cases, people lack the insurance the shops have, and are less capable of defending themselves in a civil suit (financially).

As far as indemnification goes, the same applies as for the states where this type of law does not exist. There is no need for it. Two people in MO exchange a firearm, later the one who received it does something stupid. If the one who received it was a felon, that felon has some really big problems (unless the state lets them go).

Not only are you wrong, you are really, really wrong and the lawsuits can cross state lines.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-20130424_1_quawi-gates-pawnshop-gun-industry

There's a story link to a Missouri gun shop that legally sold firearms. One of which, was later used to kill a cop. Now the gun shop is getting sued for it.

Every single gun you sell, can eventually come back to bite you in the butt in a civil suit if it's used by someone to commit suicide, etc. All the family has to do is say "you should have recognized my son/husband was despondent." At that point, it's up to the judge / lawyers to decide the fate of the civil case. Anyone can sue anyone for anything in civil court.

Again, the burden is on the buyer, not the seller.
Juries for the civil trial don't like to award damages against individuals, especially where the seller complied with the laws. A jury wouldn't even be allowed to hear about the lack of indemnification, since it is explicitly excluded as a crime or even a petty offense.
This, coupled with the fact that the attorneys usually do these on a contingency fee basis, means there is no money in it for them. They would likely advise the potential client they don't have a case.

Finally, what I said was there is no criminal penalty for ignoring the law. I stand by that statement of fact.

Here's the part you GAIN if you do the background check (after Jan 1) or check someone's FOID card (right now).

(720 ILCS 5/24-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-3)
Sec. 24-3.
(A) A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly does any of the following:
<snip>
(k) Sells or transfers ownership of a firearm ...
(1) In addition to the other requirements of this paragraph (k), all persons who are not federally licensed firearms dealers must also have complied with subsection (a-10) of Section 3 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act by determining the validity of a purchaser's Firearm Owner's Identification Card.
(2) All sellers or transferors who have complied with the requirements of subparagraph (1) of this paragraph (k) shall not be liable for damages in any civil action arising from the use or misuse by the transferee of the firearm transferred, except for willful or wanton misconduct on the part of the seller or transferor.

If you don't do the background check, by law, you CAN be held liable for what the person does with the gun after they buy it.

 

[dreamer56]

January 1st - website for authentication of FOID card status is up on the ISP website. There does not appear to be a phone call option for a FTF transaction between two individuals with a FOID who do not hold an FFL - just the online check.

If they can keep this database up-to-date with the status of a FOID card holder, why would they not use a similar online system for FFL01's?

 

[Trent]

Dreamer; I've often wondered that as well. Every other state, you get pretty much instant notification on authorizations.

FYI, the new system appears to function. I ran my wife's info through it and got a transaction approval # last night about midnight.

 

[wildbilll]

If you don't do the background check, by law, you CAN be held liable for what the person does with the gun after they buy it.

What do all of the folks in other states do?
If you sell a firearm, the buyer is assuming all responsibility for any acts resulting from their use of the firearm from that moment in time.

When you sell a car, the buyer is assuming all responsibility for any acts resulting from their use of the car from that moment in time.

There is no legal difference for the seller.

Sure, if you get the transaction number, keep the record as specified in the law, it says indemnification exists.
My point is that you are not responsible anyway, you never acted negligently by failing to acquire the transaction number.

Ask how anyone in the other 48 states that don't have a FOID card feel about personal liability after a private transaction.

The article you linked to about a gun shop being sued (by the Brady Bunch) involves the allegation of the gun shop being complicit in a straw man purchase, if true this would be a federal crime. Since the article is devoid of any mention of the feds getting involved, one would have to conclude that there was no criminal case. Since the timeline starts in 2007 when the gun was sold, and the civil suit begins in 2013, and the gun shop is still in business, it's fair to say there was no criminal conviction of the FFL. And we have an immunity law for dealers and manufacturers. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act only allows for these suits if the dealer broke the law. That is what they are trying to allege in a civil court. This civil case requires a lower standard of proof, and is for money damages; the plaintiffs are aiming for an insurance policy.
Most people do not have such insurance, the plaintiff attorneys know this and would discourage anyone who was looking for a recovery where the fees are on contingency.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139756006/Wortham-v-Ed-s-Pawn-Shop-Complaint

 

[Trent]

Wildbill;

The problem lies not so much in liability for what the person DOES with the gun, but rather, if they are a prohibited person. When I had my gun shop I ran across an instance where the guy had an FOID card in his hand, but failed the background check because he was under felony indictment; he was a prohibited person.

If that sale had happened person to person, the SELLER would have been charged with a Felony for selling to a prohibited person, notwithstanding the fact that he took the FOID info and followed the waiting periods, etc.

The new system puts the liability SQUARELY on the state police because they explicitly authorized the transaction.

I have a friend who went through this before. He was charged with a felony for selling to a prohibited person. He was presented a valid FOID, he wrote down the information, he enforced the waiting period, but the person didn't tell him he had an order of protection against him.

The whole deal went south when the guy was arrested WITH the firearm, and admitted to buying it recently. He gave the police my friend's name, and my friend was charged with a felony for transferring the gun to a prohibited person.

It took quite a lot of time and legal expense to clear him.

Now, the new law fixes that because the state police EXPRESSLY approve the transfer and issue a transaction ID #.

The only other thing you need to do to fully protect yourself is get a signed affidavit from the person you are selling to that the person is indeed the actual buyer of the firearm. That's to protect you from straw-man sales.

Because if you (as a private individual) sell to someone who is really acting as an agent, and the gun is picked up in the possession of the prohibited person, you could be charged for delivering a firearm to a prohibited person (even though the person who handed you the money is not). Dealers are trained by the ATF on how to spot straw sales; private individuals are not.

The test would then rely on the jury that you are tried in front of to decide if a "reasonable man" would have thought that the sale was a straw sale. If the jury finds against you, you could get convicted of a felony.

So, the affidavit will offer some protection from that, because if things were to go south, you have a signed document stating the person who you sold the gun to swore they were the actual buyer of the firearm. I always incorporate this and require a signature on bills of sale for any guns I sell face to face so I have a paper trail, just in case.

 

[dreamer56]

It does change things - Trent you used your wifes FOID as a test and received a transaction number - my guess is there is a database that will be kept forever somewhere of your "test" and all sales...and in Illinois we inch one step closer to registration.

I agree that it does put the responsibility on the ISP however when I get that transaction number. In theory and practice it should keep me from further issues if the firearm turns up in the wrong place down the road.

In terms of a straw purchase I have always used a bill of sale where the buyer has to sign that they are the purchaser of the gun -

Finally, I wonder what "follow up" the ISP might plan using their new database?

 

[Trent]

They don't ask for SOURCE, dreamer. For all they know, YOU ran her #! I'm sure they log IP but there's proxies out there that can be used to change that. Or you could run it form a public library terminal, kiosk, a track-phone cell phone, or whatever.

They also don't ask for type (hand gun / long gun), or any identifying information on the firearm. Or even QTY of firearms! For all they know she just inherited 100 guns. Or may have received none. Or I might have just gifted her my entire collection.

Only me, and my wife, know. And neither of us are telling. Unless I'm forced to.

That TCN # may come in handy in more ways than you might think...

 

[wildbilll]

The law requires that the seller maintain a record of the sale for 10 years.
The person calling in is to be the seller.
The seller is going to record the name, FOID#, etc. on the record.
Keeping a record is not new in IL.
What is new is the addition of a transaction number.
The buyer could be using a stolen FOID card, if it has not been reported to the ISP, the transaction number will be given.
There is nothing for the buyer to do with this new law, it's all on the seller.
The law assumes that the sale takes place in IL, not in another state. Yes, it can take place in another state if the seller and buyer have residence there.
http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms...ons-unlicensed-persons#private-record-keeping
The law also assumes that the seller is still residing in the state at the time the transaction is called into question.
If the seller were to move from IL, even for a short period, the record requirement could not be enforced as the record could be lost, destroyed during the period of time when the resident was not inside the jurisdiction.
There are many scenarios that make the entire law problematic for the state.

If I were to sell a firearm in IL, I would of course follow the law. But I am not getting my panties in a bunch if I don't have a TCN for the sale.

 

[wildbilll]

Wildbill;

The problem lies not so much in liability for what the person DOES with the gun, but rather, if they are a prohibited person. When I had my gun shop I ran across an instance where the guy had an FOID card in his hand, but failed the background check because he was under felony indictment; he was a prohibited person.

If that sale had happened person to person, the SELLER would have been charged with a Felony for selling to a prohibited person, notwithstanding the fact that he took the FOID info and followed the waiting periods, etc.

The new system puts the liability SQUARELY on the state police because they explicitly authorized the transaction.

I have a friend who went through this before. He was charged with a felony for selling to a prohibited person. He was presented a valid FOID, he wrote down the information, he enforced the waiting period, but the person didn't tell him he had an order of protection against him.

The whole deal went south when the guy was arrested WITH the firearm, and admitted to buying it recently. He gave the police my friend's name, and my friend was charged with a felony for transferring the gun to a prohibited person.

It took quite a lot of time and legal expense to clear him.

Now, the new law fixes that because the state police EXPRESSLY approve the transfer and issue a transaction ID #.

The only other thing you need to do to fully protect yourself is get a signed affidavit from the person you are selling to that the person is indeed the actual buyer of the firearm. That's to protect you from straw-man sales.

Because if you (as a private individual) sell to someone who is really acting as an agent, and the gun is picked up in the possession of the prohibited person, you could be charged for delivering a firearm to a prohibited person (even though the person who handed you the money is not). Dealers are trained by the ATF on how to spot straw sales; private individuals are not.

The test would then rely on the jury that you are tried in front of to decide if a "reasonable man" would have thought that the sale was a straw sale. If the jury finds against you, you could get convicted of a felony.

So, the affidavit will offer some protection from that, because if things were to go south, you have a signed document stating the person who you sold the gun to swore they were the actual buyer of the firearm. I always incorporate this and require a signature on bills of sale for any guns I sell face to face so I have a paper trail, just in case.

Trent, please cite the statute where it is unlawful to sell to a prohibited person, where the seller has a record of the ID of the buyer.

 

[Trent]

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-3

Having a record of the ID of the buyer doesn't exempt you from being charged with a felony, if it turns out the person presented you an invalid, stolen, forged, etc FOID card.

That's part of the reason why the new instant check system works FOR gun owners, because now the burden is squarely on the state police to keep the FOID database up to date.

They were historically HORRIBLE about reclaiming cards from prohibited persons - orders of protection, felony indictment, etc.

Now if they fail to maintain the database and the check says approved, and you record the TCN number, YOU are off the hook.

Before, you were decidedly NOT.

You would be charged and have to defend yourself. "Well, why didn't you ASK if the person was under an order of protection at the time you sold them the gun?"

The law isn't written so that you can obey item (K), for instance, and ignore the others.

I personally know a person who was charged with a felony for selling a handgun to an undercover police officer without waiting the required 72 hours. (The guy SELLING the gun, was ALSO a police officer). The cop was convicted of a felony for failing to observe the waiting period (section G in that link I posted above). He *did* abide by the rules of collecting the FOID information, etc. He lost his job, etc.

He ended up getting the conviction reversed (because he delivered the firearm to a law enforcement officer, which technically are exempt from waiting periods...). The law was since changed so that you must now *knowingly* sell to a law enforcement officer to avoid the waiting period (so that the undercover cops could go back to busting people.)

 

[Trent]

For what it's worth, on the rare occasions I have sold a gun, I *always* assume the person buying it is an undercover cop and ask LOTS of questions. I also have people I don't personally know sign a bill of sale stating they are the actual purchaser and they are not a prohibited person.

I sold some AR-15 receivers to a state cop back in 2010. After waiting 72 hours from the agreement to purchase (in case he decided to build them up as pistols), he was sitting right at my kitchen table in uniform, and I asked him all the right questions, and made *him* sign the damn paper, too. He complained for all of about 30 seconds and I said "listen, I don't care if you are God himself, you're signing that damn paper or you aren't getting these receivers."

He signed, and that was that.

I don't take chances of screwing anything up when it comes to repercussions that have "Felony" in the descriptions.

 

[wildbilll]

A person commits the offense of unlawful sale or delivery of firearms when he or she knowingly does any of the following:................

You described a scenario where the person kept a record in accordance with the law. You did not provide any evidence that the seller had any knowledge of the buyer being a prohibited person.
You should have asked yourself what the purpose of having a law that requires the keeping of a record. Could it be that the keeping of the record served the very purpose you are concerned about?

You can come up with anecdotal evidence of this or that where someone was unjustly charged with a crime. This will happen, regardless.
You linked to an article about an event that took place in 2009, where the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was supposed to prevent this for dealers, yet the civil suit proceeds, doesn't' it? You think the "indemnification" law will stop a suit? How about a federal suit? As soon as "your gun" crosses a state line and is used to hurt someone, federal law and the state law where the incident happened will apply, not IL law. The "indemnification" will be a moot point then.
I have no doubt that there are people in prison right now that were unfairly convicted.

This forum is the legal forum. It is a place to discuss the law and how the law applies. You are entitled to your opinion, but you have to realize the words in the law matter. You have to realize that there are 50 states with their own laws, their own jurisdictions.

 

[Trent]

Wildbill;

If the cops pick up a firearm in the possession of a prohibited person and they learn you sold that gun to them recently, WHILE they were a prohibited person, what do you expect them to do?

They will treat it as an unlawful sale of a firearm, until you can demonstrate otherwise.

That word "KNOWINGLY" that you added emphasis to and put in bold was added to the law as a result of the particular case I mentioned earlier where the cop was convicted of a felony for selling a handgun to an undercover agent. The cops case was overturned on appeals and the legislators adjusted the law accordingly, to close the gap that formed from that trial. (He had his felony conviction overturned because he "unknowingly" sold a firearm without the waiting period, to law enforcement, which was exempt. Now you have to KNOW they are law enforcement, to be exempt. He got his conviction reversed on a technicality, and that word you bolded, was the legislative response to close that technicality.)

Prior to that case UNKNOWINGLY selling to a prohibited person could get you charged with a felony - and I have one friend, locally, as recently as 2013, who was arrested for this. The case was dropped later, but his life got shook up pretty good over it.

Look at the evidence if you sell a firearm to a prohibited person. It becomes up to a judge or jury to decide if you knowingly transferred a weapon to a prohibited person (or lacking evidence, if a "reasonable man" would have known the sale was being done to a prohibited person). If you have no documentation it becomes your word against theirs. If the buyer testifies under oath that you knew (possibly for a reduced sentence, to take a dangerous "unlicensed gun dealer" off the street), you're in deep trouble.

With criminal records being more and more accessible online, could you have known the person was a felon? We had one of those pop up recently on a local firearms BBS. Guy was trying to get his girlfriend to buy the gun, face to face. It was an obvious straw sale. One of the people that the two approached got in touch with me, told me so I could ban him from the site (I'm an admin there).

I looked him up on Judici.com and he was a *4 time felon*.

If the original person didn't know straw sales were illegal, and went through with the transaction to the girlfriend, they could have been charged with a felony even though they did all of the other steps correctly, because the girlfriend was not the actual buyer of the firearm.

(We turned the guy's name over to the Woodford County Sheriff and State Police, in this instance, so they could get a heads up that a convicted felon was trying to buy a gun).

I bring this up because Judici also shows orders of protection in the participating counties. If someone sold a gun to someone who presented a valid FOID card, but a quick Google search revealed they had an ongoing order of protection, it could be argued a "reasonable man" could have determined the person was prohibited, and you SHOULD have known.

(A word such as "knowingly" is very dangerous from a legal perspective because it really shifts the burden on to YOU to prove you did or did not know; and if they can demonstrate that you SHOULD have known, that's not good for your eventual outcome).

For what it's worth, the old law, as written before the new TCN changes, protected you ONLY from Civil action if you did your part on recordkeeping (e.g. someone kills themselves and their family sues you). It did NOT protect against criminal charges. To a very large degree, it still DOES NOT.

 

[wildbilll]

Having the information from a FOID card, when provided by the person to which the card was issued, is called PRIMA FACIE evidence that the seller was acting in good faith. It is also evidence that the buyer, whom you indicate KNEW that he was a disabled person, was perpetrating a fraud on the seller.
The state dropped the ball by not recovering that card once they KNEW he was unable to possess it.
Youir definition of "knowingly" is pretty ridiculous. I am to perform a background check? If I don't know, I don't know. How many people do you think are capable of performing a background check? How many know that this can even be done? Is that a national check? IL only? Come on.
Considering that the standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and the "reasonable person" test would tell the prosecution that they are going to lose the case, your friend got the charges dismissed.
Even if the prosecutor was stuck on stupid, a hearing before a judge to decide if there was enough evidence to proceed would look at the records and enter a dismissal order. The courts are busy enough without wasting time on a case like that.

We can't stop the police from being stupid if they want to be stupid. But we can come back after them later for money damages where it is clear they had no case.

The bottom line is the indemnification is not needed and is likely worthless, especially when the laws of another state or the federal government come into play, as I described. Your example of the Chicago Cop family going after the FFL in GA, funded by the Brady bunch is the proof that any statutes that provide legal protection can still result in a lawsuit.

You win the argument, I won't be responding to you again on this matter.

 

[Trent]

Wildbill;

Argument (in my view) is a draw, at best. You raised some really good points.

I view a potential arrest and subsequent legal troubles as sufficiently derailing to my life that I'll take extra precautions and insist the buyer give me all the facts, and stake their name on it on a piece of paper.

If nothing else, it'll help short-circuit the process and end it more quickly, as I'll have a signature to show the States Attorney - "Look, I ASKED if this person was the true purchaser, and not prohibited from owning firearms, and they SIGNED HERE indicating they were indeed OK."

Simply having an FOID # and expiration date shows you checked the card but it does NOT provide absolute proof that you "asked all the right questions" about whether they were the actual buyer of the firearm, or otherwise prohibited.

E.g. A person could have a valid FOID card and still fail these:

Do you smoke pot?

Is this firearm being bought for someone else?

Do you intend to hurt anyone with this gun?

Those are just three common ones that simply having FOID information doesn't prove that you asked (but need to, to comply with state and federal laws).

Having it on a piece of paper with their signature might be an unnecessary step, but it damn well shows anyone who comes asking that "YES, I did ask those, and here's the signature and date, right THERE."

I've seen the State of Illinois screw over enough of my friends that I truly believe in this state you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is why I take this disposition.

(As another example; I have a friend up by Pontiac who has the $5,500 fake suppressor. Cops thought it was real, and it took my buddy $5,250 in legal fees to PROVE it wasn't an actual suppressor, IN COURT, with actual laboratory acoustic testing and expert witness statements, before the State dropped the felony charges. They didn't trust the documentation that came with the fake can saying it was fake. He spent a LOT of time in jail waiting for trial and lost his job over it, before being cleared.)

Guilty until proven innocent man.. it's how Illinois works.

 

[Jeff White]

This law is just more proof that the FOID act is just kept around to screw with gun owners and put another hurdle to jump over to own a gun. If a person has a valid FOID card then by law they should not be a prohibited person!

I know that there are incidents where FOIDs are not revoked in a timely manner or at all, I seem to recall a factory shooting several years ago where the shooter was a prohibited person and had a valid FOID card.

This is what the FOID Act says:

(Text of Section from P.A. 98-508)
Sec. 8. Grounds for denial and revocation. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:
(a) A person under 21 years of age who has been
convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;
(b) A person under 21 years of age who does not have the written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card;
(c) A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) A person addicted to narcotics;
(e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years. An active law enforcement officer employed by a unit of government who is denied, revoked, or has his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card seized under this subsection (e) may obtain relief as described in subsection (c-5) of Section 10 of this Act if the officer did not act in a manner threatening to the officer, another person, or the public as determined by the treating clinical psychologist or physician, and the officer seeks mental health treatment;
(f) A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;
For the purposes of this Section, "mental condition" means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior.
(g) A person who is intellectually disabled;
(h) A person who intentionally makes a false statement in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application;
(i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(i-5) An alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i-5) does not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(j) (Blank);
(k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(l) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before, on or after January 1, 2012 (the effective date of Public Act 97-158). If the applicant or person who has been previously issued a Firearm Owner's Identification Card under this Act knowingly and intelligently waives the right to have an offense described in this paragraph (l) tried by a jury, and by guilty plea or otherwise, results in a conviction for an offense in which a domestic relationship is not a required element of the offense but in which a determination of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9) is made under Section 112A-11.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, an entry by the court of a judgment of conviction for that offense shall be grounds for denying an application for and for revoking and seizing a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued to the person under this Act;
(m) (Blank);
(n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;
(o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5-520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony;
(q) A person who is not a resident of the State of Illinois, except as provided in subsection (a-10) of Section 4; or
(r) A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective.
(Source: P.A. 97-158, eff. 1-1-12; 97-227, eff. 1-1-12; 97-813, eff. 7-13-12; 97-1131, eff. 1-1-13; 97-1167, eff. 6-1-13; 98-508, eff. 8-19-13.)


(430 ILCS 65/8.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-8.1)
Sec. 8.1. Notifications to the Department of State Police.
(a) The Circuit Clerk shall, in the form and manner required by the Supreme Court, notify the Department of State Police of all final dispositions of cases for which the Department has received information reported to it under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Criminal Identification Act.
(b) Upon adjudication of any individual as a mentally disabled person as defined in Section 1.1 of this Act or a finding that a person has been involuntarily admitted, the court shall direct the circuit court clerk to immediately notify the Department of State Police, Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) department, and shall forward a copy of the court order to the Department.
(c) The Department of Human Services shall, in the form and manner prescribed by the Department of State Police, report all information collected under subsection (b) of Section 12 of the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act for the purpose of determining whether a person who may be or may have been a patient in a mental health facility is disqualified under State or federal law from receiving or retaining a Firearm Owner's Identification Card, or purchasing a weapon.
(d) If a person is determined to pose a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or to others:
(1) by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner, or is determined to be developmentally disabled by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner, whether employed by the State or privately, then the physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner shall, within 24 hours of making the determination, notify the Department of Human Services that the person poses a clear and present danger or is developmentally disabled; or
(2) by a law enforcement official or school administrator, then the law enforcement official or school administrator shall, within 24 hours of making the determination, notify the Department of State Police that the person poses a clear and present danger.
The Department of Human Services shall immediately update its records and information relating to mental health and developmental disabilities, and if appropriate, shall notify the Department of State Police in a form and manner prescribed by the Department of State Police. The Department of State Police shall determine whether to revoke the person's Firearm Owner's Identification Card under Section 8 of this Act. Any information disclosed under this subsection shall remain privileged and confidential, and shall not be redisclosed, except as required under subsection (e) of Section 3.1 of this Act, nor used for any other purpose. The method of providing this information shall guarantee that the information is not released beyond what is necessary for the purpose of this Section and shall be provided by rule by the Department of Human Services. The identity of the person reporting under this Section shall not be disclosed to the subject of the report. The physician, clinical psychologist, qualified examiner, law enforcement official, or school administrator making the determination and his or her employer shall not be held criminally, civilly, or professionally liable for making or not making the notification required under this subsection, except for willful or wanton misconduct.
(e) The Department of State Police shall adopt rules to implement this Section.
(Source: P.A. 97-1131, eff. 1-1-13; 98-63, eff. 7-9-13; 98-600, eff. 12-6-13.)

Criminal convictions are forwarded by the circuit clerks to the ISP. If we are going to run a background check when firearms are purchased at a dealer and now if we are going to encourage individuals to run a background check then we need to get rid of the FOID. It's redundant.

However if someone were to sue me because I transferred a firearm to a prohibited person who had a valid FOID card, I would turn around and sue the ISP for their failure to revoke it as required under the FOID act. The state has much bigger pockets then I do.

I'm actually surprised no one has sued the state in any of the other instances it happened.

As long as the state requires FOID cards then the liability rests with them.

Trent I don't see this new law as anything more then some kind of feel good measure since you aren't required to check someone's background. I'm going to agree with Wildbill. If someone presents you with a valid FOID the liability is on the ISP if the person is a prohibited person and the FOID hasn't been revoked.

The FOID Act also has criminal penalties for not turning in a FOID if it's revoked:

(430 ILCS 65/9.5)
Sec. 9.5. Revocation of Firearm Owner's Identification Card.
(a) A person who receives a revocation notice under Section 9 of this Act shall, within 48 hours of receiving notice of the revocation:
(1) surrender his or her Firearm Owner's Identification Card to the local law enforcement agency where the person resides. The local law enforcement agency shall provide the person a receipt and transmit the Firearm Owner's Identification Card to the Department of State Police; and
(2) complete a Firearm Disposition Record on a form prescribed by the Department of State Police and place his or her firearms in the location or with the person reported in the Firearm Disposition Record. The form shall require the person to disclose:
(A) the make, model, and serial number of each firearm owned by or under the custody and control of the revoked person;
(B) the location where each firearm will be maintained during the prohibited term; and
(C) if any firearm will be transferred to the custody of another person, the name, address and Firearm Owner's Identification Card number of the transferee.
(b) The local law enforcement agency shall provide a copy of the Firearm Disposition Record to the person whose Firearm Owner's Identification Card has been revoked and to the Department of State Police.
(c) If the person whose Firearm Owner's Identification Card has been revoked fails to comply with the requirements of this Section, the sheriff or law enforcement agency where the person resides may petition the circuit court to issue a warrant to search for and seize the Firearm Owner's Identification Card and firearms in the possession or under the custody or control of the person whose Firearm Owner's Identification Card has been revoked.
(d) A violation of subsection (a) of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) The observation of a Firearm Owner's Identification Card in the possession of a person whose Firearm Owner's Identification Card has been revoked constitutes a sufficient basis for the arrest of that person for violation of this Section.
(f) Within 30 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 98th General Assembly, the Department of State Police shall provide written notice of the requirements of this Section to persons whose Firearm Owner's Identification Cards have been revoked, suspended, or expired and who have failed to surrender their cards to the Department.
(g) A person whose Firearm Owner's Identification Card has been revoked and who received notice under subsection (f) shall comply with the requirements of this Section within 48 hours of receiving notice.
(Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

I don't see how an individual can be held liable for what a person he transferred a gun to does with it if that person has a valid FOID.

I know you are a successful businessman, but I think the state has bigger pockets then you when it comes to an attorney looking for a civil judgement.

I reiterate, I can't wait to get out of this state. I have really had my fill.

 

[Trent]

If we are going to run a background check when firearms are purchased at a dealer and now if we are going to encourage individuals to run a background check then we need to get rid of the FOID. It's redundant.

I couldn't agree more. It was implemented about the same time as New Jersey's FID, under the pretense that "it would reduce gun violence.. you know, for the CHILDREN."

But obviously, looking at the murder rates in Chicago, it hasn't had ONE BIT of impact on murder rates.

Why?

Because criminals who intend to kill people don't really care about committing a statutory offense to buy / steal a firearm.

Trent I don't see this new law as anything more then some kind of feel good measure since you aren't required to check someone's background. I'm going to agree with Wildbill. If someone presents you with a valid FOID the liability is on the ISP if the person is a prohibited person and the FOID hasn't been revoked.

I completely agree, again. I'm just trying to find some feel good silver lining to calm myself down about it a little. I really dislike how this state just chips away at our rights piecemeal, slow enough that the normal average Joe doesn't really care. One small thing.. no big deal.. another small thing.. no big deal. Fast forward 50 some years and look back. My God, have we lost a lot.

I know you are a successful businessman, but I think the state has bigger pockets then you when it comes to an attorney looking for a civil judgement.

Oh I have no doubt about that. One of the reasons I try to cross my I's and dot my T's on gun stuff.. err. Yeah. The other way around, rather.

I don't want to find myself, some day, looking at jail or prison time for forgetting to do something that, in and of itself, is a pointlessly futile statutory act. "Forget to check this on this website, and you go to jail."

Right now it's a petty offense, a smack on the wrist, a small fine.

But for --- sake, it's now effectively a felony to throw a cigarette butt out a dang car window, so who knows what 2015 will bring to the table on these little "statutory gun things" we all have to live with. (Third offense throwing a cigarette butt out a car window is a Class 4 felony now effective yesterday.. look it up.)

I reiterate, I can't wait to get out of this state. I have really had my fill.

You and me both, brother.

 

[Jeff White]

I'm just trying to find some feel good silver lining to calm myself down about it a little.

Trent my friend, there is no silver lining. It's a worthless law and it's only purpose is to put another restriction on people to discourage them from owning firearms.

The only way this state is ever going to change is if the federal government sends a Brigade Task Force into Chicago to clean it out like they did Baghdad. We both know that's not going to happen.

By the way dod you see the ISRA Thursday email where they bragged about how good a year we had?

 

[Trent]

Trent my friend, there is no silver lining. It's a worthless law and it's only purpose is to put another restriction on people to discourage them from owning firearms.

The only way this state is ever going to change is if the federal government sends a Brigade Task Force into Chicago to clean it out like they did Baghdad. We both know that's not going to happen.

You know how they'd deal with this problem a couple hundred years ago, right?

Wouldn't that be a sight?

By the way dod you see the ISRA Thursday email where they bragged about how good a year we had?

Yeah. That organization makes me sick to my stomach sometimes.

"OOOH WE ROCK! (CHEST THUMP). YEAH! BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET SODOMIZED AS BAD AS WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO!"

Sorry, we took the first "absolute victory" the courts handed us on a silver platter, and threw it away for a marginal (at best) law that allows me to carry .. well, nowhere that I really need to, to protect my family.

AND we got mandatory FTF background checks and other crap tossed in at the last minute by the Senate, with NO explanation as to why we had to make those concessions.

We gave, gave, gave, and gave some more.

Things which were voted down by an overwhelming majority when Madigan was pulling his "bill by amendment" crap earlier in the session somehow managed to make it in to the final bill.

How, exactly?

Because Phelps and Vandermyde handed the damn ink pen to Madigan and said "oh, OK chief, why don't YOU write the bill."

Aaaand my blood pressure is peaked out, so I'm done for now.

G'night.

 

[ilbob]

By the way dod you see the ISRA Thursday email where they bragged about how good a year we had?

I about threw up when I read it.

There was a message I saw somewhere else that patted them on the backs for the "trailer" bill that was passed that made the original bill a little worse.

Because Phelps and Vandermyde handed the damn ink pen to Madigan and said "oh, OK chief, why don't YOU write the bill."

Aaaand my blood pressure is peaked out, so I'm done for now.

G'night.

I don't know how it ended up that way. maybe an example of why amateurs should not be playing against pros. Madigan is very good at what he does. He actually had people supposedly on our side telling us he was helping us out. The sad part is that some of those people may actually have believed Madigan was helping us. And may still believe it.

I can't blame Phelps. He is a Democrat and no doubt he understands the way things are in Illinois. He would have gotten nothing for the next 20 years out of Madigan if he had stood up to him. But why "we" caved for nothing still escapes me. The excuse has always been that something worse would have been passed. Well, something worse did pass.

We squandered our once in a lifetime shot at things. We are reduced to claiming "legislative intent" to deal with a bunch of badly written provisions that will inevitably end up with people being arrested and charged and maybe even going to jail. And for what, a LTC that is only useful in your car?

 

[mooner]

Wow you Illinois guys have a more messed up state than I knew (and I knew it was bad). Deepest sympathy!

I didn't realize that the waiting period applied to private transactions. How does this apply to firearms as gifts among family members? What if someone from another state sells to someone in Illinois? I have in-laws in Illinois and this information may prove useful. Thanks.