Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Latino group demands special session on gun law reforms, urges more mental health services funding
Next Post: Report: Griffin recouped his anti-Fair Tax spending in about a year
Posted in:
* ISP…
In the ongoing investigation into the shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, the Illinois State Police (ISP) continue to provide information to the public.
Clear and Present Danger reporting was established by Illinois law in 1990 and expanded incrementally to include school administrators and law enforcement. This law is distinct from the Firearms Restraining Order which became law in 2019. Clear and Present Danger is a mechanism used by the ISP to revoke or deny a Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID). On the other hand, the Firearms Restraining Order is a court ordered restriction on firearms possession. Clear and Present Danger status is only one of many factors that can result in the revocation and denial of a FOID card. Other factors can include criminal records, mental health prohibitors, and other orders of protection.
Upon receipt of a Clear and Present danger report submitted to ISP, officers determine if the subject of the report has a FOID card or a pending FOID application and review all information submitted by the local reporting police department.
For a Clear and Present Danger determination, the legal standard for review ISP must meet is a preponderance of the evidence, which is a higher legal burden than probable cause. Granting a Firearms Restraining Order has an even higher burden of proof requiring “clear and convincing” evidence.
If the reviewing officer determines there is sufficient evidence to establish a clear and present danger posed by the subject of the report, then the subject’s FOID is revoked, or a pending FOID application is denied. If there is insufficient evidence, the status of the FOID or pending application is unaffected.
For the individual charged in the Highland Park shooting, in September 2019 ISP officers confirmed the individual did not have a FOID card or pending application. According to the report submitted, the threat of violence allegedly made by the individual was reported to Highland Park Police second hand. When police went to the house, both the individual and his mother disputed the threat of violence. The individual told police he did not feel like hurting himself or others and was offered mental health resources. Additionally, the report indicated the knives did not belong to the individual and were ultimately turned over to the father who claimed they were his. As stated by Highland Park Police, there was no probable cause to arrest. Upon review of the report at that time, the reviewing officer concluded there was insufficient information for a Clear and Present Danger determination.
In December of 2019 the individual applied for a FOID card. The application included a parental legal guardian affidavit signed by the father of the individual applying.
Illinois law dictates that the Illinois State Police shall issue a FOID card to an applicant who meets the statutory requirements and who has no firearms prohibitor. At the time of FOID application approval for the individual in question there was no new information to establish a clear and present danger, no arrests, no prohibiting criminal records, no mental health prohibitors, no orders of protection, no other disqualifying prohibitors and no Firearms Restraining Order. The available evidence would have been insufficient for law enforcement to seek a Firearms Restraining Order from a court.
Much of the reporting so far has focused on the Firearms Restraining Order law, but, as indicated above, that misses the point.
* I guess my next question is, did the local police ever report the alleged suicide attempt/threat to ISP?…
Officials said cops were called to Crimo’s home in April 2019 after receiving a report that he had attempted suicide a week earlier.
Officers spoke to Crimo and his parents, but the matter was handled by mental-health professionals at time, said at a news conference.
“There was no law-enforcement action to be taken. It was a mental-health issue handled by those professionals,” Covelli said.
And…
[Lake County Major Crime Task Force spokesman Christopher Covelli] said in April 2019, an individual contacted Highland Park Police after learning that Crimo had attempted to commit suicide. Police responded to his home but the situation was already being handled by mental health professionals and was not deemed a police matter at the time.
That report happened several months before the report of the alleged threat of violence.
Perhaps the “preponderance of the evidence” requirement could be eased by the General Assembly.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Latino group demands special session on gun law reforms, urges more mental health services funding
Next Post: Report: Griffin recouped his anti-Fair Tax spending in about a year
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
” … shall issue … .” Sigh.
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:34 am
Perhaps the “preponderance of the evidence” requirement could be eased by the General Assembly.
How do you go lower than what is more likely true than not true? It’s literally 50%+1.
Comment by Springfieldish Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:34 am
Everytime i buy a gun i get delayed due to a couple of arrests on picket lines from 20 years ago despite them having looked at these dozens of times
This kid had two incidents in six months the cops wrote a clear and present danger letter and 3 months later they said naw everything is alright that doesn’t apply any more?
How can that be? And i don’t believe with those two incidents articulated they could not have met the burden of proof
Oh he didn’t have a foid but you could not have imagined that he might apply for one? And you can look at the same arrest records from 20 years ago but you didn’t consider a letter from 3 months prior
Let them keep those letters for 5 years on a look back
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:40 am
Why wait a week to report that someone is suicidal?
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:43 am
Never mind, it appears that the person who reported it learned about it well after the fact.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:45 am
Preponderance of the evidence is already just “more likely than not.” We can’t get much lower than that for restricting someone’s constitutional rights.
Here’s an idea, though. Under the current Supreme Court rulings, individuals have a right to both own firearms and to concealed carry. When you apply for a CCL in Illinois, law enforcement can already lodge an objection for any reason, as long as they have “reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety.” Reasonable suspicion is a very, very low standard, and certainly there was such suspicion with the shooter in this case.
Objections get decided by the Concealed Carry Licensing Board, which does decide cases on a preponderance of the evidence standard. However, the process can take many months and can be expensive if you need an attorney to help you through it. It would likely have been enough to at least delay the shooter here, if not prevent him entirely from being licensed.
Short version: make a FOID just as hard to get as a CCL. It would help in at least some cases.
Comment by NotNotAStateEmployee Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 9:53 am
Not— looks like its going to be a long day of reminding people of what the court said a couple of weeks ago
Thank you for attempting to turn a right into a privledge. I suggest you go read footnote 9 from new york
The le objections are going to be challenged in court soon as their application turns illinois into a quasi may issue state again go look at footnote 9 the court dealt with this as there are no objective standards so illinois carry law is gonna get a makeover in the not to distant future — in our favor
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:09 am
=Thank you for attempting to turn a right=
A right that can be regulated, as it has been.
FFL comes to mind.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:17 am
Js— ffls and commercial sales are a bit different than ownership and possession
However i was not in favor of roe being overturned because i wanted to use all the decisions saying you cant do this or that as a regulation on abortion clinics to apply to gun shops but roe is gone
So for 50 years Roe enshrined a right that some thought was almost untouchable so now lets see how that works here
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:41 am
We need legislation that allows the ISP to include social media review and a 2 year waiting period after a suicide attempt. A social media review could trigger a metal health evaluation with the authority to deny a FOID card to anyone with a potential for violence as determined by actions, language and videos/pictures on his/her social media posts. For those who declare this is too much, please refer to 2 year old Aiden McCarthy’s question,”Are Mommy and Daddy coming soon?”
Comment by froganon Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:44 am
Todd, the CCL denial rate has been below 5 percent (on average) for a long time. Illinois is not becoming a quasi-may-issue State. You know this. The only real problem with the CCL process is how long it takes, but ISP is getting better on that.
Also, we can have LE objections on “narrow, objective, and definite standards” that work. One such narrow, objective, and definite standard would be “did you threaten to kill your family in the past six months?” If LE has a reasonable suspicion that you did (such as someone telling them that you did), then the regime I floated would let them object, and ultimately force them to prove by a preponderance of the evidence. That does not turn anything into a privilege, and does not deny anyone a Constitutional right without due process. Of course the system could be abused by nuisance and/or false claims, but that has been true of literally every regulatory system since the beginning of time.
Comment by NotNotAStateEmployee Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:51 am
I’m not sure we can lower the standard of proof much lower. That’s a pretty low bar already. That said perhaps those Clear and Present Danger notices should be kept on file for 5 yrs or so perhaps longer if it’s a minor. That way they can help if someone ages into a FOID. With the new Federal law increasing background check depth for
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:59 am
== the situation was already being handled by mental health professionals and was not deemed a police matter at the time. ==
This is why the police departments should hire and work with mental health professionals and social workers, rather than not working with mental health professionals and social workers. It seems pretty straight forward to me. I believe the SAFE-T Act was supposed to address this disconnect. Am I mistaken?
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:07 am
==It was a mental-health issue handled by those professionals==
Was it though? I have yet to read anything about his ever being hospitalized, taking medication, or seeing a therapist.
Crimo was over 18 and no longer a minor, so I fail to understand why parents had any say. At a minimum, Highland Park police could’ve arrested him for having marijuana in the home.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:08 am
==Thank you for attempting to turn a right into a privledge==
And thank you for your continued support of mass shootings.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:21 am
“Crimo was over 18 and no longer a minor, so I fail to understand why parents had any say. At a minimum, Highland Park police could’ve arrested him for having marijuana in the home”
When he applied for his FOID he was under the age of 21. See below from ISP…
“To be eligible for a FOID card, a person must be 21 years of age or have a parent or guardian sponsor that is eligible for a FOID card. An applicant must not be prohibited from possessing firearms in accordance with state or federal law. “
Comment by Donnie Elgin Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:14 pm
I was thinking about this as I mowed my lawn (boy, is it humid (banned punctuation)). I live in a small central Illinois town. If something happened here like happened with Crimo in 2018-2019, the visiting police may have gone to high school with the parents. Or, they know the parents as owners of a local store, etc. The police would probably be willing to look the other way if the person and his parents denied that there was an issue. Also, in small towns like mine, there is still a stigma involving mental illness, which might be another reason the local police would be willing to let things go and give the kid a break.
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:29 pm
@Todd -
You know full well that the ISP could not act under the current language. If they cannot meet even meet the burden for an arrest, they certainly cannot meet the burden of denying a Constitutional right.
You also know that we cannot lower the threshold for denying someone a FOID card below preponderance of evidence, it’s an administrative action reviewable by the circuit court, which must use the preponderance standard in making a determination.
You also know that a total assault weapon ban passes Constitutional muster.
As soon as legislators realize that the red flag system is unsalvageable because of your Supreme Court wins, a total ban will be their only option.
Congrats on your self-own.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:39 pm
“the visiting police may have gone to high school with the parents. Or, they know the parents as owners of a local store, etc”
The guy’s dad was a former candidate for mayor. Could definitely explain (but not justify) the police looking the other way.
Comment by SomeGuy Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 2:19 pm