Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Report: Griffin recouped his anti-Fair Tax spending in about a year
Next Post: State loses big court round over managed care
Posted in:
* From the Firearms Restraining Order Act…
“Firearms restraining order” means an order issued by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition, or removing firearm parts that could be assembled to make an operable firearm. […]
“Petitioner” means:
(1) a family member of the respondent as defined in this Act; or
(2) a law enforcement officer who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
* From Sen. Darren Bailey’s press conference today regarding the Highland Park massacre and gun violence…
Let’s be clear, Governor Pritzker, this happened on your watch. You’ve got more gun control laws than almost anywhere else in America. Our problems are more complex than just more restrictive gun laws on law abiding citizens.
The Firearms Restraining Act would have prevented the tragedy on the Fourth, but you buried it. You left it moldering in some bureaucratic basement somewhere. Your watch, Governor. It’s not enough to pass laws. You have to do the hard work to make sure that the laws do what they were intended to do. Gun owners, let’s get real. The Firearms Restraining Act exists and we need to stop pretending that it doesn’t. If we have to amend it to make sure that it protects our constitutional rights, let’s take a look at that. But for Pete’s sake, let’s use it. […]
I’m telling the people that the law is on the books and it was ignored. We didn’t know one government, starting at the top with government, Governor Pritzker ignored it. It wasn’t used, and if it would have been used, it could have prevented this. And that’s why I’m calling for special session. […]
The FOID card system is simply to pilfer money from people’s pockets. That’s all it does. We have the federal firearm background check. We have age limits. We have waiting periods. We have the Firearms Restraining Act, which was passed to take care of this very issue. It’s not working, the FOID card’s not working and it needs to go. […]
I want to find out why government didn’t enact this and it starts at the top. Governor Pritzker failed in enacting this Firearms Restriction Act. […]
We have a law on the books, the Firearm Restraint Act. And as far as I can tell, that bill looks like it should have caught it, but it’s not being used. It’s another law. People come here to Springfield. They want to pass more laws. They think passing laws is the solution. That time is wasted if we don’t have a leader that holds people can hold these laws accountable and make sure that they work, thats where the system messed up at.
Following Bailey’s logic, every time cops are called by third parties regarding an alleged threat that family witnesses denied ever happened (as was the case with the Highland Park shooter in 2019), the Illinois State Police should go to court and petition a judge to force the alleged offender to surrender their firearms. And if the person doesn’t own or possess any firearms (as was also the case with the Highland Park shooter in 2019), then… what?
* Back to Bailey…
The Highland Park shooter was posting violent videos with an intent to attack. The shooter could have been stopped and would have been stopped if Governor Pritzker and the government were living up to their true duty to protect the innocent
OK, so Sen. Bailey wants the Illinois State Police to monitor all social media at all times to see if Illinois residents and gun owners are posting any violent videos online, like, I dunno, perhaps, posting a video of shooting a printed Illinois state budget with a high-powered rifle, or defiantly proclaiming a willingness to “die on my porch before I give up my guns,” or repeatedly raffling off weapons of war to help fund a political campaign, and then take every single incidence of that to a county judge?
See how that works, Darren?
If the ISP had received a tip or otherwise stumbled across the fact that the Highland Park shooter was posting videos threatening to kill certain people or shoot up an event and didn’t do anything about it, then that’s most definitely on the ISP. Otherwise, what Bailey is proposing is a huge government overreach and intrusion with almost unlimited potential for abuse.
…Adding… The Firearms Restraining Order Act was expanded last year. Sen. Bailey voted “No.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Report: Griffin recouped his anti-Fair Tax spending in about a year
Next Post: State loses big court round over managed care
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Opens mouth. Shoots foot. Again.
Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:25 am
So Bailey is in favor of more police surveillance of gun owners?
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:28 am
2 weeks ago it would have seemed next to impossible for Bailey to help out JB more than he did in the primary but somehow he has found a way. What a disgrace of a campaign and his negatives can only go up from here.
Comment by Twice shy Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:29 am
No, no
I mean if somebody else posts something violent. Not me, Geeze.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:29 am
Just pitiful this is the best candidate a political party can nominate.
Comment by Papa2008 Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:30 am
Can anyone restrain Darren Bailey from injuring himself…with his own mouth?
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:31 am
Darren Bailey is making one thing clear. He should be arrested, or at a bare minimum, brought in for questioning regarding his social media posts. A true patriot wouldn’t even wait for that. He’d march right into the local PD and surrender.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:33 am
Darren, you really would be better off not trying to pivot.
Comment by Excitable Boy Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:34 am
“The Highland Park shooter was posting violent videos with an intent to attack.”
So then what the heck is this?
https://www.facebook.com/BaileyforIllinois/videos/my-thoughts-on-the-pork-filled-illinois-democrat-budget/1009567349781842/
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:35 am
What happened to the right’s mantra of not politicizing these incidents out of respect to the victims? Huh
Comment by Robert Montgomery Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:35 am
Bailey is a caricature allowed to be seen in a lens of not comprehending a tragedy and his own abstract thoughts to help… as long as he can signal to 2A folks he has they’d backs.
There’s nothing of a significant policy honesty going on here with Bailey
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:36 am
It’s really weird how when a Black person commits a crime, Darren Bailey says it’s the fault of his family, friends and neighbors for not reporting/cooperating with Police.
But when a White participant in Trump rallies shoots up an Independence Day parade, his family, friends and neighbors have zero responsibility.
It’s also not the fault of local law enforcement, the local state’s attorney, the Illinois state police, but….the Governor?
Atleast Bailey is consistent. I remember how he went bananas after learning that Aurora police and local sheriffs failed to confiscate firearms from the Aurora shooter when his multiple arrests and convictions were discovered and blamed Governor Rauner.
Oh wait, that last part did not happen.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:39 am
Bailey is really out of his element now that he’s running in the General and doesn’t know how to speak to his base and expand to new voters. Only amplified by saying people should move on hours after a shooting.
In the next few weeks/months he will walk back/ignore this if he can’t poll well in the Chicagoland area: “The Firearms Restraining Act exists and we need to stop pretending that it doesn’t.”
Comment by twowaystreet Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:39 am
Oh yeah. This is sure to bring in the Independents and undecideds. /s
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:39 am
Rich. Two quick things about the FRO. First, according to the new reports it has been used 52 times in the last 2 years— that’s once every two weeks. Fair amount of use on a law that is “buried” and secondly it really requires the family to file the petition to begin the process. They are closest to the gun owner. Police will only file if there are perceived threats. ( and since these threats were prior to gun ownership, they would not have a reason to file)
Comment by Kathleen Willis Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:39 am
I always thought President Obama was the luckiest politician in Illinois but Pritzger has to be a close second. The governor doesn’t even have to make ads just use Bailey’s
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:40 am
If we’re checking social media, something tells me a majority of Bailey’s supporters are getting their guns taken away.
Comment by hmmmm Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:40 am
== the Firearm Restraint Act. And as far as I can tell, that bill looks like it should have caught it, but it’s not being used. ==
This is one part he gets right, although his assertion that the governor is the person who is supposed to use it is false. Perhaps, Senator Bailey should look at the role of the legislature in not defining sufficiently how the bill should be used. In reality, it is the legislature’s problem. The legislature needs to rethink the bill they passed, and amend it so as to instruct local and state and federal police how that bill can be better used in Illinois.
Just a thought, Senator Bailey.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:41 am
Thanks for the thorough frisking of this, Rich. I didn’t really think to pay much attention because Bailey is on tilt and is desperately trying to deflect attention away from himself (and it won’t work because basically any time he talks about guns he loses votes). But it’s good to actually examine the existing laws.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:42 am
Hmmm. Does Bailey realize he will have to bring a significant number of collar county voters into the tent to have a chance in the general? You have a chance with these voters preaching on taxes, crime, etc. Doubling down on gun nuttery isn’t going to work, especially after Highland Park.
Comment by Independent Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:47 am
It’s really obvious that Darren Bailey just isn’t very bright.
Comment by So_Ill Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:50 am
Every day Darren Bailey is talking about gun violence or abortion he is digging himself into a deeper hole.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:52 am
=== …Adding… The Firearms Restraining Order Act was expanded last year. Sen. Bailey voted “No.” ===
To The Update:
Oof. Amateur hour, Dan Proft. Absolute amateur hour.
Question: When is a “Circular Firing Squad” not a “Circular Firing Squad”?
Answer: When it’s just one guy, shooting himself in the face.
Comment by Pot Calling Kettle Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:54 am
Policy and governance are dead. If anybody was truly listening to what Bailey is proposing - it should rightfully scare the H*LL out of small government conservatives. Yet no one on the Right cares because he represents something bigger to them. He’s a symbol more than a problem solver.
Comment by Lakefront Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 10:56 am
Darren’s brain and his mouth should start communicating with each other…well, maybe they already have. I don’t know. Yeah, never mind.
Comment by Don't Bloc Me In Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:01 am
Hey Senator Bailey, the problem is that from what the ISP and police have stated the shooter was a “law abiding citizen” when he bought the guns. So, maybe we should 1) add teeth to some laws so people like the shooter would bo longer be considered a law abiding citizen when buying a gun 2) enforce the laws we have on the books better and 3) most importantly, ban the gun that was used in the shooting.
Comment by Moved East Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:01 am
The heading on this post reads “Unclear on the concept.” Bailey doesn’t worry about clarity or honesty. He says what he thinks will get him to the power.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:03 am
I wonder how Bailey would feel if ISP or local police were seeking these orders for every conservative voter who posted something vaguely threatening.
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:05 am
// It’s really obvious that Darren Bailey just isn’t very bright. //
The Peter Principle is alive and well.
Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:05 am
===He says what he thinks will get him to the power===
lol
Not coming out that way.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:06 am
If beetle had bothered to read the Act, he would have known that there are a lot of things that are done on the local level, by the courts and sheriff, that are out of the control of ISP and the governor.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:11 am
The spaghetti the wall with anything but the firearm as the cause for violence with firearms was never internally consistent because it is not meant to be. It’s just meant to force people to talk about Bailey’s idea. However, calling attention to your failure to vote for the very thing you now claim would have prevented it is certainly an approach.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:12 am
I wonder if the gun loving people who are among his backers would favor what he’s proposing as far as taking guns away from people?
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:12 am
== Following Bailey’s logic, every time cops are called by third parties regarding an alleged threat that family witnesses denied ever happened (as was the case with the Highland Park shooter in 2019), the Illinois State Police should go to court and petition a judge to force the alleged offender to surrender their firearms. ==
Not necessarily. But Bailey is actually raising a valid question.
Given the past interactions with law enforcement, I would have expected something should have been flagged during the FOID review. Maybe the criteria used in the FOID review needs to be revisited. Maybe the threshold for at least flagging those kinds of law enforcement interaction needs to be modified. Something in the system failed to prevent this person being issued a FOID. Even though the previous law enforcement interactions were apparently low level, they should have been enough to trigger a deeper dive into that application.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:13 am
I wonder it Bailey would support the ISP investigating those phone calls to Kinzinger and, if the caller is living in Illinois, use the FRA to confiscate their guns?
Comment by G'Kar Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:14 am
Civil liberties for me (and my white constituents), not for thee.
Bailey needs to get his jaw wired shut or pull a Rauner and ask someone to take his place on the ballot.
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:19 am
Hard for me to imagine any R with a college degree isn’t humiliated that this man is your standard bearer.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:25 am
===Maybe the criteria used in the FOID review needs to be revisited===
This is being discussed today on another post https://capitolfax.com/2022/07/07/isp-goes-deeper-in-its-explanation/
Also, Bailey wants to get rid of the FOID, lock, stock and barrel. So, no, it’s not a valid point.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:25 am
== This is being discussed today on another post ==
Apologies, I missed the other post. Just read the comments there.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:27 am
As someone pointed out, they’ve not said he used an AR-15 in the shooting (only a high powered rifle), but we know such rifles (or similar) have been used in the past. And we know the shooter was able to get off something like 70 rounds in a very short period of time. An AR-15 is sold with, what, a 30 round magazine. And you can buy magazines up to like 100 rounds for them I think. Maybe we should focus on regulating that sort of stuff. I think there should be limits on those. 30 is too much and certainly 100 is too much. There is no need for giving someone the opportunity to fire off 100 rounds in a very short period of time. And I don’t see any reason limits such as those wouldn’t be acceptable and couldn’t be agreed to by everyone.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:28 am
Darren Bailey as a candidate—-
Lacks critical thinking skills, avoids reading, fails to “read the room,” displays questionable judgment, and exhibits a demeanor that is not in keeping with a serious candidate.
Bailey has no ability to pivot and to assess the status of his campaign. Bailey wears the jacket for his “No” votes in the legislature.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:34 am
Kind of weird how the right wing as said to include Christian groups.. yet the Bible teaches to turn the other cheek and to not avenge evil for evil. Yet the right wing so called Christian groups are contrary to Bible teachings and are all about having the right to buy a gun.
Comment by Real Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:39 am
Darren - Lets start reviewing everyone who was at the Capitol on January 6th and take their guns (they actually attacked something), then lets take the guns from everyone who left a voicemail for Congressman Kinzinger.
Next lets check all of your friends on Facebook and see how many threatening posts have been made and take their guns too.
Senator Bailey - I think you might just get my vote if you actually support doing the things that you are talking about here. Let’s Go.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:39 am
==Hard for me to imagine any R with a college degree isn’t humiliated that this man is your standard bearer.==
Hillsdale College, Wheaton College, Liberty University… I imagine you would find zero embarrassment about Bailey from any of their graduates. Or from anywhere else in the party, for that matter. If you’re still fully onboard with the GOP at this point, you’re well past the point of shame.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:41 am
I wonder what Bailey and the Bloc would have done if Richard Irvin or Rodney Davis called for this a month ago…
Comment by Plus Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:44 am
=Darren Bailey is making one thing clear. He should be arrested, or at a bare minimum, brought in for questioning regarding his social media posts. =
Yep. And probably most of is FB followers. He is just so dumb it is hard to comprehend.
I wonder if he realizes he is also accountable as a member of “government”.
Also…such a liar.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:47 am
Loose lips sink ships.
Comment by illinifan Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:51 am
=An AR-15 is sold with, what, a 30 round magazine.=
Typically you buy the magazines separately. But some probably come with a mag- so many different mfr’s it is hard to say, but a 30rd mag is not standard. And you may be able to get a 200 rd drum mag.
Semantics. Point is, there is no need for these high capacity mags. Zero. Having a 5 or 10rd mag limit is not an infringement.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 11:53 am
Here is an idea: since the Second Amendment expressly mentions that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, why don’t we form an Illinois Militia. Those who want to own assault weapons can then be required to serve several weekends each year in well regulated training as their patriotic duty. The drill sergeants could go a little easier on the older guys like Bailey.
Comment by MoralMinority Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:03 pm
There certainly is a gap in the law dealing with mental health or as the law cites, “Clear and Present Danger”. If a person is institutionalized there is a record, and they cannot have a FOID for 5 years and then need a clean bill of health. But in this case the local police indicated this person was indeed a “Clear & Present Danger”. ISP didn’t have an actionable item be it a FOID to revoke or an application to deny so they dropped the issue. The law should recognize these “Clear and Present Danger’ reports for 5 years as existing law recognizes at the bare minimum.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:15 pm
===why don’t we form an Illinois Militia===
Illinois Constitution https://ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm
ARTICLE XII MILITIA SECTION 1.
MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 2. SUBORDINATION OF MILITARY POWER The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND DISCIPLINE The General Assembly shall provide by law for the organization, equipment and discipline of the militia in conformity with the laws governing the armed forces of the United States.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:26 pm
@Moral Minority
===Here is an idea: since the Second Amendment expressly mentions that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, why don’t we form an Illinois Militia.===
The New York case that was just decided by SCOTUS clearly defines everyday people as protected by the second amendment. No need to get hung up on that issue anymore.
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:36 pm
Hmmm, sort of what I remembered from my constitution test back at North Clay HS, at least section 1. Section 3 might present some problems to my plan. I don’t see why it would infringe anybody’s
Comment by MoralMinority Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:55 pm
oh sure, Pritzker is reviewing each and every police interaction. I’m sure you’d love that kind of a police state. this is just a garbage response. the parents could have acted. their mouthpiece, Steve Greenberg, even states the obvious….ban assault weapons. THAT could have saved several dead and wounded people on July 4. How about that Bailey?
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 12:57 pm
== ban assault weapons ==
In that particular village, they were banned.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 1:01 pm
===they were banned===
Yeah, but he lived just outside city limits.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 1:02 pm
Previous post continued, hit submit by accident before done: right to keep and bear arms. It would just require some of the people already in the militia to take training in case we are attacked by, say, Indiana. JB would be firmly in charge at all times. I don’t know, though, even if it got over the legal hurdles some people would probably think it was great to play soldier. I guess my whole point, rediculous as it would be, is that the SCOTUS decision that totally separates the original intent of the Second Amendment (individuals being able to keep arms for state militia purposes, in my opinion) from the individual right to have arms for personal use. Seems like DeSantis wants to do something similar with his election security militia, or whatever it is called, which is just as silly an idea.
Comment by MoralMinority Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 1:19 pm
If a person lists things that should be illegal and punished and then does those illegal things, that person is a criminal or not sane. If Bailey should not be in jail, then at minimum he should have his guns taken away.
Maybe we should vote him as governor so he will take them away from himself and not be weak like JB. /s
Comment by Lurker Thursday, Jul 7, 22 @ 3:42 pm