Illinois State Police To Use Registration to Confiscate Guns From Revoked FOID Holders

illinois gun registration confiscation

Image via Illinois Tollway Authority.

The Illinois State Police suffered a serious black eye as a result of the Aurora killing spree killing. The shooter committed a whole slew of felonies long before the ISP granted him a Firearms Owners ID card.  Then, days later, they approved a firearm purchase.

Eventually, the ISP realized their mistake and revoked his FOID card, but nobody followed up on the revocation. The killer ignored the letter demanding that he surrender his freshly-cancelled FOID card and divest himself of his firearms.

Now, as of this morning, the Illinois State Police have announced new policies and procedures, to include using Illinois’ de facto gun registration system to help police confiscate firearms from gun owners with revoked FOID cards.

Springfield, IL – With the strong support of Governor JB Pritzker, the Illinois State Police (ISP) is taking wide ranging steps to improve operations, firearms services processes, and information sharing to aid law enforcement officials statewide with enforcement of Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card revocation laws. These first steps are part of ISP’s continued commitment to improving the enforcement of existing gun laws in Illinois.
“While the weaknesses of our nation’s background check system remain daunting, we must take whatever steps we can, large and small, to strengthen the fabric of these systems because any improvement could be the one that makes the difference,” said Brendan F. Kelly, Acting Director of the Illinois State Police. “While we simply cannot do it alone, we must increase sharing of information, the quality and value of information shared, and most importantly enforcement. Mailed letters are not enough.”
Make no mistake. The Illinois State Police does exactly what Illinois governors tell them to do. The governor, through his appointed head of Illinois State Police, establishes the ISP’s positions, policies and procedures.
ISP Information Sharing
Access to firearms data within the Department and outside the Department by law enforcement agencies and state’s attorneys cannot be limited and siloed at the expense of public safety.  FOID revocation and Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program (FTIP) data must be readily accessible to all Illinois law enforcement agencies. To that end:
·The ISP Firearms Services Bureau is providing the entire current list of individuals with revoked FOID cards to every District and Zone Commander within the ISP.
·Every ISP Patrol and Zone Commander has been instructed by the Director to deliver to each sheriff, police chief, and state’s attorney in their respective zone a current electronic list of all individuals with revoked FOID cards within each jurisdiction and confirm receipt of the list.
·The Firearm Services Bureau has been directed to share FOID card revocation data and FTIP data with the Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center (STIC) for appropriate dissemination to state and local law enforcement.
·The Firearm Services Bureau has been directed to require its IT vendor to modify the secure law enforcement web portal to include a FOID revocation list accessible 24/7 to all Illinois law enforcement with a mechanism to log each agency’s date of access.
·The Department is working with our federal partners to ascertain the scope of criminal cases that may have a federal identification number associated with a fingerprint record, but no correlating state identification number for Illinois.
·The Department is working with state entities like the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) to determine if funding to law enforcement agencies and courts can be tied to substantial compliance with criminal record submission requirements.
Quality and Value of Information Provided by ISP
Firearms Services Bureau eligibility determinations for FOID, Firearm Concealed Carry Licenses (FCCL), and FTIP must be standardized, thorough, and inspected. Furthermore, thousands of general notices that simply indicate an individual has a revoked FOID card are not useful data in a law enforcement environment with unending demands and limited manpower. Potential threats can only be assessed and prioritized if law enforcement has useful context and detail. To that end:
·The Firearms Services Bureau has been directed to require all firearms eligibility analysts to follow a standardized FOID/CCL protocol and a comprehensive checklist when conducting and completing FOID/CCL application reviews.
·The Firearms Services Bureau has been directed to increase quality assurance measures for FOID, FCCL, and FTIP transactions to include random reanalysis of approvals, scrutinizing those samples, reporting results to the Director monthly, and taking immediate corrective action as needed.
·The Firearms Services Bureau has enhanced the FOID revocation list shared with all law enforcement to indicate if the revoked FOID has been returned and/or if a Firearm Disposition Report has been submitted to ISP. This information is critical for law enforcement to determine whether a revoked FOID card holder has complied with Illinois law.
·The Firearm Services Bureau has enhanced the FOID revocation list shared with all law enforcement by adding descriptors that include the reason for revocation, such as a felony charge, a clear and present danger determination, an order of protection, mental health prohibitor, or other regulatory reasons for revocation. This will enable law enforcement to properly vet and triage the law enforcement response for a revoked FOID card.
·The Firearms Services Bureau has enhanced the FOID revocation list shared with all law enforcement to include FTIP history which indicates firearm purchase history as well as the number of firearm purchases utilizing FTIP.
Increasing Enforcement
Enforcement must be increased through greater training and awareness among law enforcement stakeholders of FOID laws and penalties, use of FOID data in routine law enforcement, and implementation of specialized gun violence task forces. To that end:
·The Director is working with sheriffs, police chiefs, and state’s attorneys to increase awareness of FOID provisions and penalties.
·The ISP Academy has been directed to review current training of new cadets as well recurring training requirements regarding FOID laws and update as needed.
·The Director’s designee on the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board(ILETSB) will encourage ILETSB to review local police training requirements on FOID laws.
·ISP officers in Patrol within each District have been directed to always query FOID revocation status when conducting patrol enforcement activity.
·ISP officers in Investigations within each Zone have been directed to always query FOID revocation status when conducting an investigation.
·The ISP Communication Services Bureau has been directed to require all telecommunicators to query FOID revocation status when officers are conducting enforcement or investigation activity.
·The Firearms Services Bureau has been directed to provide each ISP Investigative Zone with a list of revoked individuals who may have provided false information on a FOID or CCL application to determine if an investigation and request for charges of Forgery may be warranted on a case-by-case basis.
·Each Zone Commander has been directed to review the most current revocation list with local state’s attorneys to determine if investigation and citation for violation of various FOID laws is warranted on a case-by-case basis.
·The Division of Operations has been directed to immediately triage the FOID revocation list by Zone, develop a plan of action for the highest risk individuals, work with sheriffs and local police to plan enforcement actions as appropriate, work with state’s attorneys to seek search warrants as appropriate, and conduct ISP-only enforcement operations as appropriate.
·The Division of Operations has been directed to plan for more specialized enforcement over the long term. In late January 2019, the Office of the Governor requested from ISP the funding, manpower, and new cadet requirements necessary to establish a potential gun violence task force that would include FOID related enforcement to be submitted as part of the budget for FY 2020. That proposal was submitted February 8 and included in the Governor’s budget proposal.
·As part of these efforts, Gun Liaison Officers will be designated in every Investigative Zone to collaborate with local law enforcement agencies, coordinate FOID revocation details with an emphasis on getting guns out of the hands of the most dangerous individuals, and ensuring information regarding FOID card revocations is shared with local law enforcement agencies on an ongoing basis.
This is an aggressive, exhaustive effort within existing ISP manpower and statutory parameters. The ISP Office of Governmental Affairs and Public Information Office have been directed to provide any and all available information to the public and policy makers as further action is considered by the legislature.

With the Aurora horse long gone from the barn, they are attempting to close the door to similar future mistakes.

The plan to share revocation data with police agencies across the state seems like a no-brainer that should have happened long ago. And they’re using Illinois’ de facto gun registration system to do it. If you missed that point in that wall of text from the ISP Director, here it is again:

·The Firearms Services Bureau has enhanced the FOID revocation list shared with all law enforcement to include FTIP history which indicates firearm purchase history as well as the number of firearm purchases utilizing FTIP.

The Firearm Transfer Inquiry Program (FTIP) stands as Illinois’ way of ensuring a prospective firearm purchaser has not become a prohibited person since issuance of their FOID card. It is a de facto gun registration system.

Here’s how it works: Each time someone purchases a gun in Illinois from a dealer, the dealer contacts the FTIP online portal. The dealer submits the purchaser’s particulars and if it’s a long gun purchase or a handgun purchase (or both).  If the ISP later wants to know the rest of the information, they then contact that dealer and ask for a copy of the ATF Form 4473.  That gives them all the specifics of the gun(s) purchased under that FTIP inquiry.  Lather, rinse and repeat for each FTIP query and suddenly the state has a pretty good idea of every gun a person has acquired from dealers in roughly the last thirty years.

More recently, with the requirement that private transaction go through the Illinois State Police Firearms Services Bureau portal, non-dealer transfers are also logged with the date and purchaser’s FOID information – which on the ISP’s end, contains all of the purchaser’s particulars.

Under this new change announced today, any police agency (and not just the ISP) can access that FTIP database at any time for those with revoked FOID cards.

How long until they expand that database to include all gun owners?  Under our new Governor J.B. Pritzker, probably not long.  Especially since he campaigned for a Congressional seat sometime back on a platform of banning civilian ownership of handguns.

Land of Lincoln gun owners: Welcome to the what happens under gun registration. And with Illinois’ new “red flag” law, a FOID card can be revoked in an ex parte court hearing without the gun owner’s knowledge or ability to confront his or her accuser. Suddenly a good guy can be labelled a bad guy and have police show up with a list of his or her guns for confiscation. What could possibly go wrong with that?

For decades, we have all known exactly what eventually follows from gun registration.

If you’re a little foggy on that, just recall what happened in other countries…not so long ago in Venezuela.  And boy, do those Venezuelans regret surrendering their guns now.

comments

  1. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Illinois State Police To Use Registration to Confiscate Guns From Revoked FOID Holders”

    Of course they are, and this is just the start…

    1. avatar LibertyToad says:

      According to the ISRA (Illinois State Rifle Association), it wasn’t the ISP’s (Illinois State Police) fault. The guy commited a crime out of state and that state did not report it to the Feds so, the ISP didn’t know about the crime.

  2. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Yeah, that sure sounds like the start of a STASI Police State! Problably with orders to kill “gun owners” in the future….

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      “Orders” do not always equate to successful missions or tactics.

  3. avatar Djm says:

    Having a FOID card does not equal having a firearm. People have them to rent a firearm or because a family member has a firearm.

    1. avatar Omer says:

      Read the article. The FTIP is the ISP hotline used to check if a FOID is still valid. ISP can request the 4473 from the FFL or look at particulars when used in a “private” transfer. All private transfers are required by law to call the ISP with both FOID holders’ numbers.

      So if you think they can’t get any info, you are mistaken.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        In my experience, most gun owners have at least one firearm that is “off the books” or otherwise not recorded anywhere, including social media. Good luck with that database/info collection. That might be the one that shoots some gun grabber.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Or that gun could be the one used to kill a domestic partner, or it could be the one used in a school shooting, or it could be the one used to assassinate someone of the wrong religion or the wrong color because the gun owner is an unhinged racist. Or it could be the A.R. 15 used by the wacko shooting up a pizza parlor because of Fox News propaganda.

        2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          Or it could be the one that shoots some assholes attempting a home invasion.

      2. avatar binder says:

        They ISP only want the FOID of the BUYER not the seller for private sales. So they only know someone ran a check on you, NOT who sold it to you, what they sold to you or even if you actually bought something.

        And better yet, the law offers civil immunity for the seller if they use the verification process – but there are no criminal or petty offense charges if you do not do the check. So the guy who just had his FOID revoked could just say he sold the gun. Or you could just say the gun was lost/stolen. You only have to report it ONCE you KNOW it is missing, so anyone can claim that they only new it was missing once they receive the letter. Even if they manage to convict you of not reporting, it is a maximum of a $1000 fine petty offence.

        As for the FFL, what, do you think that the Feds don’t keep track of who received a background check and from what FFL?

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Regardless of (unconstitutional) legislation to the contrary, a FOID card is NEVER legal.

      Where exactly in the 27 words of the Second Amendment does it say or even imply that any government agency has the authority to require that you get (pay for) a card from the government authorizing you to exercise your Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms?

      This kind of shit has got to stop!

  4. avatar Asdf says:

    Wow, registration really does lead to confiscation?!?!?! Who’d a thunk it?

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      No, domestic battery or terroristic threatening or other illegal behavior leads to confiscation of your guns, just as it should be.

      If the Aurora shooter’s guns had been confiscated properly, perhaps there would be a few less dead people.

      1. avatar ED says:

        if the ISP had actually done their jobs then there would be a few less deats, or if the ISP didnt demand that FFLs use their system instead of a NICS check maybe there would be a few less death.

        sorry your great protectors and their laws to keep you safe are the ones who failed you

  5. avatar Grumpster says:

    The real problem is gun free zones where only a sign on the door allegedly protects the innocents which nothing is being done about. Someone who is a suicidal lunatic bent on a murdering spree is not going to stop because he got his FOID card revoked and the ISP confiscated his firearms “on record”. He will just get another gun via straw purchase, black market, or stealing one maybe killing someone in the process.

  6. …Next stop gun owner internment camps and STASI Police-State Gun Confiscation commando squads and STASI Death Squads! And the most [email protected] people were worried about the Demo-Authoritarians and their SJW shills would have them UN-personed on social media…Well hang on to your hats! The next shots heard round the world 🌎 could be the start of another American Revolutionary War part 2…

  7. avatar pwrserge says:

    The problem wasn’t that they didn’t go after him for a revoked FOID card. It’s the fact that they had him dead to rights on a class 2 felony and didn’t bother to arrest him.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      ^ We have a winner!

      When they figured out he was a felon, they would have also known that
      1) He committed a felony by lying on his FOID card application
      2) He committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 when he bought the gun
      3) He committed a felony by purchasing a firearm as a convicted felon

      They could have knocked on his door and thrown him in jail. But they didn’t.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        #1 is 100% within the purview of the State Police. They could have sworn out a warrant and thrown him in jail any time after his fingerprints came back with a felony record.

        1. avatar binder says:

          I’t also in the preview of the ATF and they are not better, so I would not come down on the ISP. The fact is that unless a crime is being committed, the goverment in general could care less who has a gun.

          The Washington post may be a leftest rag, but I am more and more thinking that all this background check is a bunch of crap anyways. Best quote

          “In those documents, we’ve seen time and time again dealers going ahead and transferring guns when someone answered a question on background check form ‘I am a felon,’ ‘I am subject to a restraining order,’ ‘I was dishonorably discharged from the military,’ ” Gardiner said in a phone interview. “So, people who are not allowed to buy guns are actually answering the form honestly and still get a gun.”

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/lying-buy-gun-fear-not-feds/?utm_term=.0d9364e4af93

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Except that the entire reason the FOID system exists is to allegedly prevent felons from getting a permit to buy guns and punish criminals. If they aren’t going to bother to even prosecute somebody for a felony on the same level as attempted murder, then why should we allow them to have the system in the first place?

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      pwrserge,

      Well, if police had arrested/prosecuted him, then he would not have murdered all those people and Illinois government would not have his horrendous actions to justify their Stasi tactics.

      I know some people will advance Hanlon’s razor, “Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.” This happens so repeatedly, though, that I have to question whether governmental incompetence is to blame.

      Either way, this sets up a lose-lose situation for government and a win-win justification for firearm ownership. If governmental incompetence is to blame for the countless failures of police to remove dangerous people from society, then we cannot trust government to protect us and we must be able to protect ourselves — which requires firearms. If government malice is to blame for the countless failures of police to remove dangerous people from society, then we cannot trust government to refrain from attacking us and we must be able to protect ourselves — which requires firearms.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Government assumes that everyone who owns, or has access to, a firearm is a threat/dangerous person. They are correct. So don’t force us to demonstrate that.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          (snicker)

          Okay, I’ll admit it, that made me laugh out loud!

        2. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

          Well said Gunny! Don’t make us demonstrate our level of commitment to not being run over. Said it before, when these politicians advocating gun confiscation and further erosion of the 2nd amendment start feeling pain (personal or at the ballot box) is when they will see the light. We must all remember that the number one priority of all politicians is to stay in office and gather all the benefits (money mostly) that comes from wielding power over the average citizen. This also explains the maze of laws/regulations we must navigate to open a business, build an addition on our homes, buy a gun, etc. They give carve-outs to this onerous legislation to their political allies and the police/fire unions, etc. I say make everyone including politicians live under the exact same laws; no exceptions. I know, it’s a pipe dream.

      2. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        As one who works with government the razor is spot on. The malicious intent comes from never letting a crisis go to waste

      3. avatar strych9 says:

        I think both are applicable for most government workers.

        The malice come after the incompetence as a form of trying to cover for their inability to do the jobs they swore they could do if they were only given the power.

        IMHO, it’s the elected officials where it’s mostly malice from the jump.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          I was going to debate you on that then I remembered my coworkers. I would gladly trade 75% of them for fresh boot recruits at the asvab minimum. At least then I would have a few willing to learn let alone work.

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Maybe next time they vote in Illinois, they will remember which party stands up for the constitution & bill of rights, it sure ain’t the people they have in office now…,

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      … Which party would that be?

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I sure wish I knew what party truly stands up for the Constitution because I’ve never heard of them.

        1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

          Neither have I…. what party is that please?

    2. avatar The Huscarl says:

      A large problem is with the constituents. Why do you think they’re importing 3rd worlders into this country?

      1) It forces down the cost of labor and big business loves that

      2) The third worlders have no love for the Enlightenment ideals that birthed our country. They just want “gib me dats” and will vote for people who take money out of other people’s wallets and put it in their own.

      So long as the gibs keep flowing, they don’t care about government tyrrany.

      It’s actually quite a head scratcher as to why the Democrats are pro-abortion. They’re kneecapping the numbers of their main demographic of voters.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “It’s actually quite a head scratcher as to why the Democrats are pro-abortion. They’re kneecapping the numbers of their main demographic of voters.”

        There are a couple of reasons, one being demoralization of a society. But immediately, why would they risk generations that might escape indoctrination when there are ready made people willing to accept tyranny, having no clue what true individual liberty is? It’s replacement strategy going on.

  9. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…no real change from the stutus quo. If you expect ILLannoyed state po-leece to do their “job” you only need to see the pathetic,inept and corrupt job they do handing out speeding tickets on I-80…it’s a freakin’ motor speedway with azzholes routinely doing 100mph with impunity. I seriuously doubt they have the wherewithall for 2000000 gun owners-or more😄

  10. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    The next time the Leftist control the ‘Levers of Power’, at the national level, expect this nationwide.

    And the sad thing is, Roberts cannot be trusted to rule gun registration is un-constitutional…

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      And 99% of the GOP in Washington are RINOs. That was a rude awakening for me this year. I believed that they really believed in the constitution. Silly me.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “While the weaknesses of our nation’s background check system remain daunting, we must take whatever steps we can, large and small, to strengthen the fabric of these systems because any improvement could be the one that makes the difference,” said Brendan F. Kelly, Acting Director of the Illinois State Police.

    As I just stated in a comment on another article yesterday or today, gun grabbers are quite content passing new laws that may be totally ineffective simply because, “It’s the right thing to do.” The fact that those laws harm good people is unimportant since the people who the laws harm are dreaded firearm owners.

  12. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    The reality with the Illinois FOID card system is that it’s a far cry from a registration program.

    The state has no way of knowing how many guns I own. You want to come get my guns? Well, maybe you’ll find them all, but probably not.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I’m not sure I could find all the guns I have stashed in various places. Moving is going to be fun as I’m going to have to go through the house and find all my stash guns.

  13. avatar Cleetus says:

    It sounds to me like the Illinois gun owners need to lay down and take it like good sheep. The thought that any organized resistance must never be spoken about. Gotta get up and go to work tomorrow and can’t let the fight for freedom stand in the way. Hell, someone may even die defending liberty.
    The day of “fight them in the courts” is over. The day of “call your representative” is over too. They do not care about you, the Constitution or the BOR. Either you stand together or you will certainly loose your freedom individually.

    1. avatar The irony... says:

      You rest comfortably behind your keyboard in the meantime, then, internet warrior…

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Cleetus,

      The day of “call your representative” is over too. They do not care about you, the Constitution or the BOR.

      I agree completely.

      The day of “fight them in the courts” is over.

      Pretty much, although I would urge us all to wait a few more months for the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. New York City. Why? We have good reason to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will:
      (1) Rule that we have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms outside the home.
      (2) Require all courts to apply “strict scrutiny” to all Second Amendment cases.

      Note that our right to bear arms inside the home (already established in the Heller decision) and outside the home AND a strict scrutiny requirement on our Constitutionally enumerated right will invalidate virtually ALL gun control laws as unconstitutional, both at the federal level and state levels (state levels since the McDonald case applied the Second Amendment to the states).

      If the U.S. Supreme Court does that, we have the legal AND moral high ground going forward. At that point, whether we invoke the courts or less palatable methods, we will be on the right side of history as far as the masses are concerned. (Like it or not, it is highly desirable for the masses to support our cause.)

      To put that in perspective, imagine that tomorrow a city enacts racial segregation laws and declares its intention to vigorously enforce them. Of course the courts would be legally and morally obligated to issue immediate injunctions. Federal prosecutors could prosecute the offending city council members and police enforcers under federal laws for deprivation of rights under color of law. And juries would likely be unwilling to convict anyone of aggravated assault/murder for using deadly force to defend themselves from city segregation enforcers — assuming that any prosecutor would even be willing to attempt to try someone for it. That is how it would be if cities/states attempt to enforce laws which blatantly violate the Second Amendment as recently clarified in the Heller, McDonald, and (hopefully) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association cases.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        What happens if the big court sides with new york?
        Half the states will follow suit and ban everything.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          GS650G,

          If the U.S. Supreme Court fails their sacred and righteous duty to uphold the Second Amendment, then we have exhausted the proverbial soap box, ballot box, and jury boxes. The only two options at that point are to bend over and take it, or open the ammunition boxes.

  14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Did anyone notice this little gem under the “Increasing Enforcement” section:

    The Division of Operations has been directed to immediately triage the FOID revocation list by Zone, develop a plan of action for the highest risk individuals … and conduct ISP-only enforcement operations as appropriate.

    Notice the specific mention of “ISP-only” enforcement operations. (Everywhere else in that document, the author involves Sheriffs and local police in enforcement actions.) I have to wonder if the Governor’s office defined this provision for “2nd Amendment sanctuary counties” where the local Sheriffs have stated publicly that they will not enforce Illinois laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. If that is true, the big question for those Sheriffs: will they simply stand aside and let the Illinois State Police violate the 2nd Amendment? Or will those Sheriffs stand WITH their constituents and ACTIVELY OPPOSE Illinois State Police enforcement actions which violate the 2nd Amendment?

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Wow, good catch! I didn’t notice it.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      The Sheriffs might end up on a list too.

  15. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    When I was working I had to serve the occasional injunction for protection. Many of these were frivolous. I couldn’t legally leave the respondent in possession of firearms. However, nothing said I had to confiscate them. Me, “Do you have someone who can take custody of your firearms until this is resolved?” Them, ” Yes. My dad, brother, friend, etc.” Me, “Call them.” Notes on the return of service. “No firearms in the possession of the respondent.” Fuck the government.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Gadsden Flag,

      I like the way you think and operate.

      For reference my brother-in-law was a victim of a baseless restraining order. The only positive in that case: he had the overt legal option to hand his firearms over to relatives for the TWO YEARS that the restraining order ended up being in effect.

      Note: his wife did not exercise her option to renew the restraining order after their divorce was finalized. Otherwise, he could have been out of luck indefinitely. This is a blaring example of one of many possible abuses that should never be a basis for infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. And, not only does my brother-in-law’s case illustrate how easy it is to abuse the restraining order process, it also illustrates the futility of restraining orders: my brother in law is seriously huge and seriously strong (could have EASILY snapped his ex-wife like a twig with his bare hands if he wanted to), taking away his firearms did absolutely ZERO to reduce his ability to harm her and ZERO to increase her safety.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        The ex-wives also throw the “he may have abused my child”. Good luck trying to prove a negative. It happened to an old college college friend’s brother. Messes with the kids’ brain too, when they know it’s not true.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Victoria Illinois,

          That actually happened to my wife’s uncle. (Apparently the men on her side of the family have a knack for choosing psycho women for wives.) Sadly, the wife actually trained their unknowing three year-old child how to say that dad had molested her. The child did not know any better and simply mimicked what mom told her. Rather than face the possibility of 20 years in prison for child rape in a trial, he plead guilty and went to prison for two years. He is to this day a registered sex offender even though he never molested anyone.

          In addition to the damage that did to my wife’s uncle, it was devastating long term to that daughter and their older son who first thought that dad split because he was a selfish S.O.B. and then later figured that his dad was a child molester.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Sometimes a simple “thank you” is all that’s required. Thank you, Gadsden – your story speaks volumes of your character and intent.

    3. avatar possum says:

      Need more cops like Gadsden Flag, yup.

  16. avatar GunnyGene says:

    There will be somebody, maybe several somebodies, that will get dead over this if it is actually implemented.

  17. avatar DaveL says:

    While the weaknesses of our nation’s background check system remain daunting

    You, clown f*ck. You are the weakness.

    1. avatar SteveO says:

      Stated differently: It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Are you stupid, or something? Reference Forrest Gump. Sorry, but you were asking for it. lol

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        I loved that movie. Too bad Hanks has turned out to be an anti-gun, extra far left lefty. Completely soured me on all his old movies so much of that crap from Hollywood that I just don’t much bother with going to the movies any more. Most of the time, the book they adapt is far better than the film version anyway.

  18. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    2 or 3 grand for a used vertical mill seems more and more like a reasonable purchase every day.

  19. avatar Gus says:

    I am not a fan of the FOID card system but maybe some of you are missing that in most of these cases, not all mind you but most, these people have had their FOID taken for being convicted of a felony. So is your argument that we should let felons keep their 2A rights?

    I would actually support that for non-violent felons.

    1. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

      True. And others simply let their cards expire. As I read it, both are on the list and at risk of getting their door knocked in in the middle of the night.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Shall not be infringed.

      If they are not in the legitimate custody of another, then they retain the exercise of their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Anything less leads to a disarmed people. That is why it is plainly worded; shall not be infringed.

      1. avatar Made in America says:

        I always thought that the phrase “Shall not be infringed”, pertained to the individuals who owned their own personal firearm(s) at that time, were recruited to help our “Militia” protect our colonies from the invading British troops and that these “individuals” (also known as “Minute Men”) rights to bear arms “Shall not be infringed”.

        Would an individual who wants to own a Shoulder Mounted Bazooka say, that his rights are being infringed upon because the Law would not allow that person to own a SMB because he feels he has the right to own a SMB?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s all about the comma. This is well hashed out elsewhere and probably in a few articles here at TTAG as well.

        2. avatar Made in America says:

          John in Ohio
          So, what does it boil down to , a matter of interpretation? If so, it’ll go on forever.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Nope. It boils down to the rules of the English language. Between that and the overwhelming written evidence from those who actually wrote it at the time, it’s settled. The only ones who continue to trot out that red herring are those with mush for brains or malice in place of a heart. Either way, sucks to be them.

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      When they bad guns with magazines over 4 rounds and use the Lists to round up the guns remind the ISP you aren’t a felon.

      They will laugh and ask if you if you’d like to be one or will you fork over the Ruger 10 22.

    4. avatar Craig says:

      This action by the ISP is just a function of what a lot of pro-gun people have been pushing as part of a strategy of push-back on the anti-gun crowd; “Just enforce the laws already on the books”.

      I saw this action coming a LOOOONG time ago as a result of the laws already on the books push. Now here it is.

  20. avatar possum says:

    Permission slips .. I really do try to respect law enforcement it’s just that some/most of the laws they enforce are bullshit

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Worse than bullshit… tyrannical.

  21. avatar Poggy says:

    This is sure to curtail the actions of the criminals and mentally ill……. (sarcasm)

  22. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    No need for thanks. I swore to uphold the Constitution twice. Once when I enlisted in the Army. Again when I pinned on a badge. Meant it both times. Without reservation. Those that try to reinterpret it can kiss my lilly white ass.

    1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

      An honorable man….. Glad there are still a good number of you around!

  23. avatar Bruce Frank says:

    The only “mistakes” in the background check system, is, as usual, the failure to enforce current law. Either information is hidden or information is ignored that is in those records.

    Does no one remembers that Nikolas Cruz’s criminal activity disqualified him from buying or owning a gun! But the school administration, in conspiracy with law enforcement, to continue to receive Federal funds, prevented Cruz’s infraction from being placed in the records that are examined during a normal gun purchase background check.

    Also realize that Trayvon Martin’s records, under the same program, were blocked from exposure, so that activity, theft and gang activity, that should have gotten him jailed just had him suspended from school for a few days. If he had been jailed, rather than staying at his father’s house, he wouldn’t have been shot.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Trayvon no longer engages in such activities. Cruz lives at our expense. Too bad Nick didn’t go to his waistband when the cop drew down on him.

  24. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    I’m sure this will make Chiraq safer

  25. avatar Richard J Coon says:

    “More recently, with the requirement that private transaction go through the Illinois State Police Firearms Services Bureau portal, ”

    Yeah, I can see Billy Bob in South Chicago remembering he has to go the the ISP FSB, while he’s selling his Saturday night special…..hahaha

  26. avatar enuf says:

    The FOID is BS and unconstitutional so far as I am concerned.

    However if the cops learn a felon, a violent one at that, has a gun or tried to get one they should be after him with serious intent. They should pull every investigative tool and work every lead they can come up with. Failing to act should get some leadership person punished, or fired for failing in his or her duty.

    If we are going to have background checks, fix what’s broke and enforce the law immediately for any criminal stupid enough to gamble on not getting caught. Either make the existing system work reliably to snare bad guys or admit it is worthless and get rid of it.

  27. avatar Dumpster says:

    Brothers. The time is here

  28. avatar Bornfree76 says:

    Stop talking and act. Stand up with us on March 27th, when we have the annual IGOLD march in Springfield on the IL capitol. We need as many people as we can get!

    https://www.isra.org/Events/AnnualEvents/iGOLD.aspx

  29. The fact that Illinois requires law abiding citizens to acquire a “Firearm Owners ID” proves they are violating the Constitutional Rights of EVERY Citizen. The 2nd Amendment specifically says “Shall not be infringed”. But the truth is Democrats don’t care about rights all they care about is having a disarmed populace so they can tell the Gestapo to break down the doors of all those who dare disagree with the government.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email