Does Illinois needs a 'red flag law'

Steve Balich Editors note:  A guess the concept of the gun being the problem is a feel good thing for people upset with mass shootings. Do we ever taking away cars or banning trucks after multiple people are killed by one person. It is already against the law to use a bomb, but is there a call to ban ingredients that can be used to make the bomb. In England their weapon of choice is acid and knives, even though it is illegal to carry any pointed or sharp item without good reason. In China right after Parkland their was a mass killing with a knife.

Point being it is not the weapon. It is the person who may or may not have shown past aggressive behavior. Who is the judge of what aggressive behavior warrants taking away a FOID card or personal belongings like a gun or knife. The concept of Reg Flag laws seem to be an overreach by government avoiding a chance to prove innocence in court before being punished and made out to be a danger to society. With that said, if a person threatens to shoot, stab, blow up, run over any person or group of people they are breaking the law and should be arrested at which time they will loose their FOID card and the right to own a gun in Illinois. The arrest will force a trial at which time the accused has a chance to prove innocence.

Editorial: 

Pre-empting the carnage: Illinois needs a 'red flag law'

Editorial Board  Chicago Tribune

Nikolas Cruz. Adam Lanza. Devin Kelley. Seung-Hui Cho. James Holmes. And now, Travis Reinking.

We know what threads those names together: all deeply troubled individuals with access to guns, all associated with mass killings involving firearms.

Reinking, 29, is charged with killing four people and injuring four others April 22 at a Waffle House restaurant in Nashville, Tenn. The Morton, Ill., man’s troubled past is well documented.

In May 2016, he thought singer Taylor Swift was stalking him, according to a Tazewell County sheriff’s report. His family told police he had made suicidal remarks. A year later in the town of Tremont, he showed up at a swimming pool in a dress, took it off, and jumped in the pool, according to Tazewell County sheriff’s police. Then in August 2017, the U.S. Secret Service arrested him after he breached a security barrier outside the White House. He told authorities he was trying to meet President Donald Trump.

After that arrest, authorities in Tazewell County seized his guns and his Illinois firearm owner’s identification card, at the request of the FBI. Under Illinois law, seized firearms can be transferred to a family member with a valid FOID card. Reinking’s father, Jeffrey, took custody of the guns and later gave them back to his son.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says Jeffrey Reinking may have violated federal law by returning the guns to his son, and could face charges, the Tribune reported. But that’s little solace to the families of those killed.

Democratic state Sen. Julie Morrison of Deerfield is sponsoring legislation to close the loophole that allows family members to return guns to a relative whose FOID card has been revoked. Her proposal would make it a felony to do so, unless they get permission from law enforcement or a judge. A conviction could mean up to a year in jail.

Another measure pending in Springfield would allow police to seize the guns themselves, not just the FOID, if a judge determined the owner posed a threat to himself or others. Six states already have so-called red flag laws, and Illinois is among 18 others considering them.

The measure pushed by Rep. Kathleen Willis, D-Addison, would allow a family member or law enforcement officer to petition a court for a gun violence restraining order against a gun owner whose behavior demonstrates it is warranted. The judge would have to find that an actual threat existed, not just a suspicion or a sinking feeling. The guns could be seized for up to a year, though the person could seek to terminate the order by showing the court that the threat no longer existed.

Such a restraining order would apply narrowly to individuals whose behavior posed a clear threat. It also preserves those individuals’ due process rights.

Think about the names we’ve mentioned above. In every case, red flags abounded. It’s natural to question whether an intervention could have prevented the killings. It makes sense to give police and family members the ability to act on those red flags before the carnage happens.