https://chicago.suntimes.com/n...-court-petition-nra/

Illinois became a “red flag” state on Monday, as Gov. Bruce Rauner signed a bill allowing firearms to be seized from a person determined to be a danger to themselves or others — a measure opposed by the National Rifle Association.

Warning signs that could allow family members or law enforcement to request an emergency order of protection to remove firearms from a person include making threats on social media, including vowing to “end it all” or “shoot up a school” on social media.

Rep. Kathleen Willis, the Democratic House sponsor of the bill, said those are examples of red flags that were missed in past incidents.

Rauner signed the Lethal Order of Protection Act in addition to a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases. He said he’ll veto a bill requiring state certification of gun dealers, however, calling it a burden on small businesses.

Reminding the room full of law enforcement officials and legislators from both parties that he is a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, the governor said “we want to protect gun owners’ rights, but for those deemed to be dangerous, not let them have guns.”

Under the law, family members can request an emergency order, similar to the standard of a search warrant, to remove firearms on an immediate basis for a period of two weeks. There’s also a six-month removal, which requires a higher standard of evidence, to order firearms taken away for 6 months — during which the person can petition once to have them returned.

The firearm could either remain with law enforcement or remain with another family member. If the family member chooses to petition to extend the order, it would be for another six months. In addition to removing the firearms, the person’s FOID card will also be suspended.

The National Rifle Association opposed the measure, in part because of concerns about curtailing the due-process rights of gun owners, but it was passed with bipartisan support.

Former Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who now advocates for gun control after being shot in 2011, applauded Rauner’s signing the bill.

“While Congress remains silent, states like Illinois are responding to calls from Americans of all ages to do more to keep us safe,” Giffords said in a statement. But she, and other Democrats, also called on Rauner to support additional public safety legislation.

“It is the height of hypocrisy when the same governor who signed a bill to regulate catfish sales will not stand up and take commonsense steps to regulate gun sales,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in a statement.

J.B. Pritzker said Rauner was “all ideology” and criticized him for not taking enough action in addressing the issue of gun control.

Rauner defended his plan to veto legislation requiring the licensing of gun dealers, and urged the Legislature to pass other public safety legislation, including proposals to ban bump stocks and to give schools the ability to hire more mental health workers and resource officers. He was off to Dixon in the afternoon to meet with the officer who shot and arrested a student who was firing shots at the local high school.

“That bill will not increase public safety,” Rauner said of the newest version. “It will increase red tape and restrictions, and an unnecessary burden on our small businesses in Illinois.”

With nothing from NRA on this for quite a while now, I thought it was dead.

Plenty of e-mails on other topics like fund raisers, though.

Still, Rauner is the asshole here, and it won't be forgotten come election time. A civil liberty lost at the state level is just as lost as at the federal level.

Here is the first draft of Gabbie’s statement before her douche canoe husband polished it up for her....


”Potato, potato, potato [drool] balloons are round”


If he could get his fist up her ass he’d work her like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

...Still, Rauner is the asshole here, and it won't be forgotten come election time...

I hear what you're saying, but what options are there for IL voters?

quote:

He said he’ll veto a bill requiring state certification of gun dealers, however, calling it a burden on small businesses.

Isn't this the bill that Rock River and Springfield Arms initially sought a carve-out from?

Camel has it's nose under the tent flap, now.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
...what options are there for IL voters?

None. We're toast.

I've been trying to escape to a free state for some years now, but medical issues are keeping my girlfriend tied up. I just can't convince her that she could get better medical care nearly anywhere else, as well as improving our civil liberties and standard of living.

Bummer... and Illinois could have had a real Republican Governor.


Illinois Governor Republican Primary
Candidate Percent Votes
Bruce Rauner (Republican) 51.5% 311,830
Jeanne Ives (Republican) 48.5% 293,628

https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...910083934#1910083934

Yeah,, I voted for Ives. Didn't realize it was that close. I doubt Rauner realizes it, either.

He' going to lose to Pritzger. That's nearly a given fact at this point. But he could have been Trump before Trump was Trump -- similar background and experience, friends on both sides, good (if not great) economic plan, and as Trump was years ago, weak on the Second Amendment. Now Due Process.

I don't know if it's just his low IQ that was his downfall, or what other factors may be in play, but somebody here has a quote that says something like "don't look for a conspiracy when plain stupidity can explain it."

A "republican" in IL is really a RINO. Does it really matter if it's (D) or (R) after their name in IL?

That state is lost. But if it weren't for Chicago, Illinois would be a great state.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Here is the first draft of Gabbie’s statement before her douche canoe husband polished it up for her....


”Potato, potato, potato [drool] balloons are round”


If he could get his fist up her ass he’d work her like a ventriloquist’s dummy.

That's husband Mark Kelly's job.

Rauner or Madigan's boy, Pritzker. What a choice. The place is bankrupt anyway with pension obligations so far ahead of revenues, they may never be able to avoid defaulting.

Very disappointing but not unexpected. Rauner trying to appeal to liberal voters will backfire for him big time and he is certainly doomed now. I expect Illinois will have gun laws like NJ within a couple years. The democrats here in Illinois have a shitload more gun laws waiting for their new democrat governor including their top priority state controlled licensing of gun stores and FFLs run by a board of gun hating democrats. They are sure to revive the ban on AR-15s again, standard capacity magazine bans, and using the FOID system to register firearms. Our only hope in the blue states is to get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed and hopefully for President Trump to be able to appoint another quality Justice to SCOTUS such as say Thomas Hardiman. Then I believe SCOTUS will start hearing cases that involve infringement by the states on the Second Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:
Rauner or Madigan's boy, Pritzker. What a choice. The place is bankrupt anyway with pension obligations so far ahead of revenues, they may never be able to avoid defaulting.

Exactly.
Real Republicans won't see much reason to vote for Rauner. It'll be interesting to see how much of an "undervote" there is for the top spot on the ballot. Many will not vote Pritzker but just skip that race when voting.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
...Many will not vote Pritzker but just skip that race when voting.

I'm tempted to do just that, but maybe by the time elections come around I'll have cooled off a bit. There's not much good that can come of a passive-aggressive non-vote.

Let me go off the rez here for a second and say that in my line of work I deal with people who possess firearms or may have access who are clearly not anyone you want to have guns or be near them and yet at the same time, without a law like this or similar, these people will explode.

Without revealing personally indentifiable info about these people, their medical information is:

#1. Man who has lifetime deep psych issues involving abuse, anger management, can't take meds because of internal organ issues and is so explosive with anger and rage at people, he has homicidal ideations of killing people in a score evening scenario. The descriptions are so graphic they reflect deep thought to the point where his doctor thought that Tarasoff was clearly appropriate and the police responsed. I've taken his depo and he is anger explosive live you haven't seen in some time.

2. Kicked out of sniper scout program for mental health reasons. He's biplor, threatened violence against his last attorney, will not take any medications on the belief that his mother with similar problems died once she started on them. He's made escalating threat against those who he thinks have wronged him to such a degree that there is worldwide BOLO alert if he ever attempts to gain access to the corporate facilites. Local PD was sent, firearm seized and so forth. Not a happy camper.

3. Released from prision for ADW against his last attorney and already adjudicated to be 100% mentally and physically disabled. Rambling letters, threats that are just below the surface so his probation isn't revoked. Angry all the time and talks about righting the wrongs against him.

I'm not in favor of pre-seizing things without due process since it's of paramount importance and rip for abuse by neighbors and family members with an agenda but I'm going to say that for most of you opposed to this that you've never dealt with any of the 3 people I've described or similar to them.

If you met any of these people in person the thin veneer of pleasantness would vanish and their true colors would come right out. All but one would pass or has passed a background check.

Some cases warrant the seizure, like what I've described.

OK, so there are some Sicko's out there. Always have been, always will be.

The question is, though, do we want the Government, in any form, to have more control over our Civil Liberties simply because some people abuse them?

It's a trick question:

If you answer "Yes", you're wrong because of so many constitutional issues relating to our freedom.

If you answer "No", you're wrong because by implication you agree to solve your own problems and help those around you solve theirs, without government oversight.

Wanna guess which side I'm on?

By the way, by "Government", I mean those people who brought us the Postal Service, Obamacare, graduated-rate income taxes...

I think every State already has a law to commit someone who has an issue for evaluation. The difference on these is that the standard of evidence and the ability of the accused to respond are totally unacceptable and counter the normal rights given everyone.

Pritzker is as unappealing a candidate I've seen in any arena, by any definition of unappealing. He's a transparent and shameless doctrinaire, boilerplate demagogue. But he is a democrat in the state of Illinois so how can I be optimistic? It's not like living in Illinois engenders a surplus of optimism to begin with but jeez...

I grew up in Illinois, and am glad I no longer reside there. IMHO this seems to be "feel Good" legislation, which will slowly erode the rights of lawful gun owners, while doing little to curtail gun violence. I have yet to see the details of the bill. Can someone please post the contents? Thanks