Update -From Mike & Valinda at IllinoisCarry.com

We have been in conversation about this bill with some of the most knowledgeable Second Amendment attorneys and 2A experts  in the nation.  In their opinion this is one of, if not the best bills of its kind.

We started out with HB772 Lethal Violence Order of Protection which was an outrageous gun grab bill. We all fought with everything we had to defeat that version and then went on to fight to amend this version.  At times it felt like a knockdown, drag out fight in the ring, at other times it was more like peace negotiations in the middle east - never easy.  Nonetheless, we were able to change this monstrosity around and now the experts are telling us this bill is now more of an Emergency Intervention bill that addresses more of the real problems of mentally ill who are a danger, domestic abusers who are a danger, and those threatening terrorist acts.  This bill could possibly set a new standard by which these emergency situations can be deescalated and lives saved, referring to the Waffle House, Parkland High School, and the like.

The attorneys seem to think the bill meets due process and constitutional muster because the order is not final until the firearm owner has their day in court, which must happen quickly.

What makes this bill exceptional compared to the gun grab bills:

1. The requirement for clear and convincing evidence is a high bar to provide and is one of the highest standards in the country.

2. The order is not final until the person has their day in court and that must happen within 14 days.  This could even happen as early as that day or the next.

3. Ownership is not prohibited and the firearms can be transferred to someone the person trusts for safekeeping.

4. Property is returned without need to petition the court.

5. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a mental illness, the judge can issue an order for a mental health evaluation.

6. If the clear and convincing evidence of being a danger is indicative of a criminal act/terrorism, charges can be filed and an arrest warrant can be issued at the same time.

7. In the meantime, the firearms are removed from the scene and taken into safe keeping until the orders are dismissed or expire.

8. FOID/CCL could be suspended instead of revoked (if there are no additional circumstances that would make the person ineligible for a FOID/CCL).  These would then be reinstated when the order is dismissed or expires. If you have been following the nightmare we have with FOID/CCL appeals, you know this is a HUGE win.

9. The penalty for false testimony is a felony and is another deterrent for abusing the process.

There are a few tweaks we would like to see and the sponsors have agreed to a trailer bill.  We know trailer bills do not always happen but the major issues we fought for are in this bill.  It's better than Indiana, better even than Florida's, in my opinion.

Where we are now -  If the Gov. signs the bill as is, with the current promise for a trailer bill from the sponsors, we get a reasonable Emergency Intervention bill now with the little fixes to come in the new session.

If the Gov. vetoes or amendatory vetoes the bill, the risk is real that the whole bill will be lost and we lose all the hard work we put into getting amendments in this bill and would have to start over.  In the meantime, heaven forbid if there is another killing (or worse, one in IL) - the hysteria would then drive the legislative language and it would be impossible to hold it back. If that happens, most legislators will be afraid to not support a bad bill for fear of appearing uncaring to the victims and their families.

I think most of us are very concerned about abuse of the process because we've seen what happens with regular orders of protection.  In the next legislative session, I would like to see us take that issue on and increase the level of evidence for an OP to match this bill's requirement for clear and convincing evidence before an order of protection can be issued.

Unlike most all proposed bills we see, this one actually addresses an issue that needs to be addressed. During the many years my husband and I were terrorized by a mentally ill family member, had this been law, it would have been a great help to us.  We can identify with potential victims and we see the real world need for an emergency intervention bill like this.

There is some conversation about the bill over at IllinoisCarry.com
Mike
The Conversation

And have said promisers of trailer bill said what they will agree to include and by when?   They are certainly not friends to the Pro 2A folks as we have seen by what bills they file and what they do in committee.   I guess the question is do you trust them?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=2354&GAID=14&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=102977&SessionID=91&GA=100

A trailer bill would add small changes that were discussed on the floor during debate:
a. Sen. Haines wanted State’s attorneys to be involved in the warrant process – some state’s attorneys are okay with this, in larger counties they are not. Not sure how that will come out.
e. We wanted it to change  the judge ‘shall’ to ‘may’ issue the order.  A judge can still do this if he considers the evidence less than clear and convincing but we would like to see it stated specifically.
b. If the Mental Health and Disabilities Act is implemented or criminal charges are issued, either way, the respondent can be appointed legal counsel if they cannot afford it. We are told it’s the same in this case but we would like to see this added to the language to make sure.

These are tweaks we would like to see.  The bill is good as written but, we wanted it "gooder"!

Do we trust???  
Not so much...

Your optimism is appreciated, but this is the biggest pile of shit forced down our throats since the FOID card act years ago. Rauner is a fucking puppet.

The upshot is that Rauner looks weak on guns and will lose votes.  He will gain no votes by signing this.  Rauner will lose the election because of this.   Local Democrats do not follow the law as written now, hence Sanctuary cities, few or no straw purchase arrests in Chicago, and one assault weapons arrest in Chicago in 40 years.  What makes you think they will start following the law now?

This bill has an actual purpose.  It could have prevented the Waffle House and Parkland shootings.  It started of as seven kinds of stupid but, with the help of others, we kept pushing until we came up with a bill that passes Constitutional muster.  We rant it by our Second Amendment lawyers that have been to Supreme Court.  It has protections against frivolous accusations and expungement if the case is ruled unfounded.  We in the gun community have cried for years that the approach to stopping these mass killings is to target those that do the shootings and that is the purpose of this law.

We fought off an amazing amount of anti-gun crap after Parkland.  Now, imagine if that shooting had happened in Chicago.  There would be no stopping ANY gun legislation afterword for the politicians would be vilified for not protecting the citizens.  Any time you write law that has to appease mental health and gun rights it will be a hard hard task.  This is what we have done here and we just hope the gun folks will understand what is actually at stake.

Someone in another forum said...."I don't see any gain for gun owners"  WELL DUHHHHH!   We have moved little pro-gun bills through the Senate unanimously only to have them hit the house and Madigan won't even allow them to be heard in committee!!!  Until the majority changes in Springfield, this will be the norm.  That is why it is imperative we keep Rauner in the Governor's seat for him to veto things like the Dealer Licensing Bill!

Mike

PS...If Rauner looks too strong on guns, he looses some of the votes in Chicago what are essential to his reelection!  Bottom line...Rauner or Pritzker!

Do you realize how incredibly stupid you look right now?

" Its okay IL Gun Owners, surrender your rights because I promise that the other guy is more evil, and Rauner isnt as bad"

The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

And you're the cheerleader.

This is the part of the discussion that I can't abide.  There is not logic in the accusation.  If you can't see the difference between Rauner and Pritzker, there is no more discussion.

I had this type of attack when we passed Concealed Carry.  "we'll only be allowed to carry in our yards"  "The police will be proning us out along side the road when we have to inform we are carrying"..."There will be all these court cases"  None of this happened then and this situation will be the same.

I won't be responding to the shrill voices.  Anyone have a fair question, I'll be glad to address.

Ok then.

Directed questions:

1: What was the opposition's desire to have ANY blood relative be able to file a petition? Quite the slippery slope.

2: Why were law enforcement officers given freedom from civil liability?

3: Is the process outlined on how a non-residing party be considered "suitable" to take posession of the Respondent's firearms/ammunition? I see that they have to petition the court for this.

4: Relating to Q3, Does the separate party take possession of items from the Respondent prior to seizure, or from Law Enforcement? As it is an Ex Parte order, pretty sure its the latter.

5: Is it spelled out if LEOs must provide a receipt to the Respondent stating specifics and condition of items seized? What is the Respondent's course of action if the seizing agency breaks a $2500 Schmidt&Bender rifle scope?

Bump for answers to question by those involved with assisting the language of the new law.