Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 3/27/2006 4:39:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 4:40:38 AM EDT by The_Reaper]
An Illinois man is facing nine felony counts of possession of a firearm without an FOID.

(even though he had an FOID card, as far as I'm concerned)

His ex-girlfriend got an order of protection against him after they had an argument over their son.

When the order of protection was dismissed, the guy doesn't immideately notify Springfield to
reinstate his FOID. I doubt he even knew he needed to tell Springfield anything.

I would have assumed the agencies talk to each other. Hell, Springfield knew enough to suspend the
FOID when the order of protection was filed, why wouldn't they know to reinstate it when it was
dismissed?

Two months go by, and during an investigation regarding a dog attack,
police find and confiscate nine of the man's firearms.

Two freak'in months.

Even though the man had an FOID card, and the order of protection was dismissed, because
he didn't notify Springfield, he is a felon.

Screw Illinois.


www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/03/27/news/local/doc44278a0e9a5ce371135328.txt

ERIE, Ill. — For more than a year, Art Dersham kept silent while his neighbors mourned.

A red teddy bear propped along the gravel roadside marks the spot where four of his dogs attacked
14-year-old Lydia Chaplin after she left her home in the early morning hours of Jan. 27, 2005. She
was found in a ditch, dead of hypothermia after spending the cold January night outside just half a
mile from her rural Erie home and not far from Dersham’s farmhouse.

The daily reminders are more than symbolic for both families.

A Whiteside County grand jury considered the case, but declined to indict Dersham, 26, on criminal
charges related to Lydia’s death. The dogs, determined to be vicious, were destroyed.

Now, Dersham faces nine felony weapons charges brought by the grand jury and a wrongful death
civil lawsuit filed by Lydia’s family.

Her family declined requests for an interview.

Dersham said before the dog attack, he had been friendly with the family, helping Lydia’s stepfather,
Tony Lopez, work on cars and fix things around the house. He went to Lydia’s funeral, calling it one of
the hardest things he has ever done. He said he feels terrible for her family.

“I could never imagine the kind of pain and suffering they’re going through,” he said.

At the time, he refused media requests for interviews to avoid making things worse for the family.

“I figured, what the hell, I can take the heat,” he said.

That includes the wrongful death lawsuit filed in Whiteside County in November by Lydia’s mother,
Becky Lopez, alleging that Dersham’s failure to keep his dogs in his yard led to Lydia’s death.

The suit alleges that Lydia was “conducting herself peacefully” when she was attacked by Dersham’s
dogs “without provocation.”

“We feel the evidence will show that his dogs had a prior history of viciousness,” said Craig
Kavensky, the lawyer representing the Lopez family in the civil lawsuit.

Dersham says his dogs, three Staffordshire terriers and a boxer, were not vicious, and he would
never have allowed them to be around his own young children if he thought they were dangerous.

But he conceded that he found out after the attack that one of the dogs, which he had acquired just a
week before the attack, had bitten a child at a previous home in Davenport.

“I had no idea,” he said.

The weapons case is scheduled for trial in May 24 in Whiteside County Circuit Court.

If convicted, Dersham faces up to three years in prison on each of nine counts of possession of a
firearm without the requisite firearm owner’s identification, or FOID, card. The charges stem from
weapons found in his home during the investigation of Lydia’s death.

Whiteside County State’s Attorney Gary Spencer said he did not agree with the grand jury’s decision
not to indict Dersham on charges related to Lydia’s death, but said his prosecution on the gun
charges is a separate issue.

He said the facts of the case support the charges.

Dersham claims his violation of the gun law was an oversight and that he is being prosecuted to
punish him for Lydia’s death.

He said he had an FOID, but it had been suspended when an ex-girlfriend obtained a civil order
of protection against him after a dispute over custody of their son. He said the order was dismissed
two months before investigators found the firearms in his home the morning Lydia was found, but he
had not notified the Illinois State Police to reinstate his card.


Dersham’s attorney, Virgil Thurman, said he believes the charges would have been reduced to
misdemeanors were it not for the dog attack.

“I don’t think that if it were anybody but Art Dersham, we would have gotten to this point in the
case,” Thurman said.

If he is convicted, Dersham said his guns, some of them antiques, could be destroyed.
He also could lose his right to own a dog. But owning a dog now would be too painful for him and his
neighbors.

“I don’t think I’ll ever own another dog again,” he said. “I don’t want the reminder.”

Steven Martens can be contacted at (563) 659-2595 or smartens@qctimes.com.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:03:22 AM EDT
This guys whole life sounds like a fucking soup sandwich.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:07:38 AM EDT
Thats how it goes here.

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:08:54 AM EDT
Live free or die
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:11:13 AM EDT
That's what I call a technical violation. Obviously, the prosecutors are pissed they could not get the GJ to indict.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:51:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By slefelar:
That's what I call a technical violation. Obviously, the prosecutors are pissed they could not get the GJ to indict.



I'd never convict him if I was on the jury.

Hope he holds his ground. That is a BS charge if I've ever heard one.

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:12:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
I'd never convict him if I was on the jury.

Hope he holds his ground. That is a BS charge if I've ever heard one.




That's why you'd never be on the jury. Probably none of us would.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:15:04 AM EDT
It is the responsibility of the firearms owner to know the laws. If you don't want to do that, live in a less restrictive (read: free) state.

Personal responsibility is a bitch sometimes.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 6:33:42 AM EDT
Shitstorm Inbound
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:01:24 AM EDT
Is Illinois still part of the United States? Doesn't sound like it.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:04:29 AM EDT
3 terriers and a boxer? She died of hyothermia... in january, outside... I don't see the connection.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:07:26 AM EDT
Staffordshire terriers: isn't this just another term for pit bull?


While it does suck, he should have checked on his FOID because he knew it was suspended.


He sounds like a real winner. He should have went to jail for his dogs attacking the girl.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:15:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Staffordshire terriers: isn't this just another term for pit bull?

He sounds like a real winner. He should have went to jail for his dogs attacking the girl.


Regardless of the owner apparently the girl snuck out in the middle of the night. *shrug* Probably alot more to this. www.wqad.com/global/story.asp?s=2882346

He should have checked his FOID, especially living in IL. Stupidity is a crime when it comes to gun laws.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 7:35:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FlamingGlory:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
Staffordshire terriers: isn't this just another term for pit bull?

He sounds like a real winner. He should have went to jail for his dogs attacking the girl.


Regardless of the owner apparently the girl snuck out in the middle of the night. *shrug* Probably alot more to this. www.wqad.com/global/story.asp?s=2882346

He should have checked his FOID, especially living in IL. Stupidity is a crime when it comes to gun laws.



Yes, she should not have snuck out of her house. But folks should not let a pack of pit bulls run loose either thus leading to this girls death.

The owner should be in jail for the dog attack and the firearm issue. It was his fault, no one elses.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:52:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

The owner should be in jail for the dog attack and the firearm issue. It was his fault, no one elses.



I'll have to disagree.

Again, I feel bad for the death of the girl.

Most farmers, at least around here, let their dogs run free.
It's the way it has been since the first domestic dogs were kept.

At the same time, it used to be that children knew better
than to be alone, on foot, in the country at night, unarmed.

I don't think there are leash laws in the country.

There is no way the farmers are going to start putting their dogs on leashes.
And as long as the dogs are free, this kind of thing can happen.

And regarding the firearms issue...
While it is his responsibility to keep apprised of his legal status to have firearms,
I think the argument is legitimate that the system should have automatically reinstated
his status. I don't know what all might have been going on in his life, but I can see where
it might be very easy to not think about checking on the status for the two months that
he was legally allowed to have firearms.

Besides, confiscation of firearms simply because you don't have a state permit is just plain wrong.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:54:44 AM EDT
Hello? Illinois? Comprende 2nd Amendment?


Obviously not.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 8:58:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Hello? Illinois? Comprende 2nd Amendment?


Obviously not.



Illinois is being held hostage by Shitcago
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 9:07:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

The owner should be in jail for the dog attack and the firearm issue. It was his fault, no one elses.



I'll have to disagree.

Again, I feel bad for the death of the girl.

Most farmers, at least around here, let their dogs run free.
It's the way it has been since the first domestic dogs were kept.

At the same time, it used to be that children knew better
than to be alone, on foot, in the country at night, unarmed.

I don't think there are leash laws in the country.

There is no way the farmers are going to start putting their dogs on leashes.
And as long as the dogs are free, this kind of thing can happen.

And regarding the firearms issue...
While it is his responsibility to keep apprised of his legal status to have firearms,
I think the argument is legitimate that the system should have automatically reinstated
his status. I don't know what all might have been going on in his life, but I can see where
it might be very easy to not think about checking on the status for the two months that
he was legally allowed to have firearms.

Besides, confiscation of firearms simply because you don't have a state permit is just plain wrong.



I agree the FOID things is bullshit. But it was his responsibility to get his card reinstated. It is apparently the law there and he failed to follow the process.

But I would say most farmers, I will go out on a limb and say 99.9% do not have a pack of pit bulls roaming free on their property. A Lab, Collie, Beagle sure. But not a pack of pits.

The guy should be in jail for at least 10-12 years for this kids death.

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:09:10 AM EDT
Man, I hate living here... Bad situation all around.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:15:19 AM EDT
Sometimes Jersey don't seem so bad...
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:21:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 10:40:31 AM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Dersham’s attorney, Virgil Thurman, said he believes the charges would have been reduced to
misdemeanors were it not for the dog attack.



Small world. I know Virgil. I might give him a call and see what's going on with this.

As to the FOID issue, I know a Colorado police officer that was travelling through Illinois and authorities tagged his ass with a FOID violation since he had been a former resident and his FOID expired.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 10:35:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:
It is the responsibility of the firearms owner to know the laws. If you don't want to do that, live in a less restrictive (read: free) state.

Personal responsibility is a bitch sometimes.



+1
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 2:29:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Hello? Illinois? Comprende 2nd Amendment?


Obviously not.



That's the problem. Too many spanish speakers in Illinois. No one up notrh understands us downstaters.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:10:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Dersham’s attorney, Virgil Thurman, said he believes the charges would have been reduced to
misdemeanors were it not for the dog attack.



Small world. I know Virgil. I might give him a call and see what's going on with this.

As to the FOID issue, I know a Colorado police officer that was travelling through Illinois and authorities tagged his ass with a FOID violation since he had been a former resident and his FOID expired.



Non-residents do not need a FOID. He should have been fine.

Glad I moved out of Illinois.

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:20:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Non-residents do not need a FOID. He should have been fine.

Glad I moved out of Illinois.




You don't have to tell ME that. That insignificant truth did little to prevent him from being cuffed and stuffed and having to hire a lawyer to get the case dismissed. See People v. Bass, Henderson County, Illinois. I believe it is an 05 case.

The rationale of the police and the prosecutor was that he had previously had a FOID when he had been a resident and that it expired. Apparently, Illinois' position is that if you ever lived here, you had better have your FOID current if you ever set ffot in the state again with a firearm.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

He also could lose his right to own a dog.






Say WHAT???????????????????
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:28:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:34:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By legalese77:

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Non-residents do not need a FOID. He should have been fine.

Glad I moved out of Illinois.




You don't have to tell ME that. That insignificant truth did little to prevent him from being cuffed and stuffed and having to hire a lawyer to get the case dismissed. See People v. Bass, Henderson County, Illinois. I believe it is an 05 case.

The rationale of the police and the prosecutor was that he had previously had a FOID when he had been a resident and that it expired. Apparently, Illinois' position is that if you ever lived here, you had better have your FOID current if you ever set ffot in the state again with a firearm.



I don't doubt that it happened.
But on the other hand, what kind of dipshit police officer doesn't realize that Illinois identification
doesn't apply to people from out-of-state.

A person from outside of Illinois can buy guns/ammo in Illinois without an FOID.

I've got to wonder, can a non-resident obtain an FOID?

I just went to the FOID website and noticed they have a page where you can change
your FOID address online. I wonder what would happen if I changed it to my new Iowa address.

Actually, I wonder if I legally have to call the Illinois State Police FOID office and tell them
I moved out of the state?

For that matter, do I really want them knowing where I live?



Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:39:07 PM EDT
FOID

Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:40:46 PM EDT
Death by a thousand cuts. Ouch! There's another one.
Link Posted: 3/27/2006 5:44:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/27/2006 5:46:29 PM EDT by buzgun]
I wonder if the cops threwhis guns on the floor , and scratched the SHT out of em , and then called the local news media , to report on all the evil "bannana clips" he had for guns that "are not used for hunting" these FOID cards will be used against gun owners to confiscate guns one day , believe it !
Link Posted: 3/28/2006 4:16:04 AM EDT
The newspaper's website seems to have deleted the entire story, along with the feedback.

Just when it was getting interesting.

Top Top