Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: A small win, but more like this, please
Next Post: What’s in IDOT’s 6-year, $41 billion infrastructure plan?
Posted in:
* Sophie Sherry at the Sun-Times…
Jose Alvarez was angry and sweating, a gun within reach, as he talked to Chicago police officers who had been called to the Little Village neighborhood for a disturbance late last month.
The officers took defensive positions as they spoke to Alvarez through an open window, according to a police report. They finally left when he refused to come to the door and turned off the lights.
Ten days later, authorities say Alvarez used the gun to kill his wife and 15-year-old daughter and wound his 18-year-old son, who ran to a neighbor’s home for help.
It is not clear why the officers chose not to seize the gun when they were concerned enough to later file a “clear and present danger” report about Alvarez, according to records. The police department had no immediate comment. […]
The day before the officers visited the home, a judge had issued a protection order requiring him to stay away from his family and away from the home. There’s no indication in the police report that the officers knew about the order when they found Alvarez still in the home.
A day after their visit, June 23, Cook County sheriff’s deputies tried to serve the protection order at the home but found no one there.
On the same day, the Illinois State Police officially revoked Alvarez’s FOID card, as required by law when an order of protection is issued. The state police said it notified both Chicago police and the sheriff’s office about the revocation the next day, June 24, eight days before the shooting.
There’s more, so go read the whole thing. Ugh.
* You may recall that the “clear and present danger” topic was much-discussed last year…
The Illinois State Police announced Monday they will start using a broader definition of what constitutes a “clear and present danger” when reviewing a person’s Firearm Owners Identification card.
That’s a factor ISP considers when deciding whether to grant someone a FOID card or to revoke or suspend a card that has already been issued.
The change is meant to address gaps in the process that were identified in the wake of the July 4 mass shooting in Highland Park. The alleged shooter in that case had been the subject of a clear and present danger investigation, but under standards used at that time, ISP determined there was insufficient evidence to support such a determination.
So, they fixed one major reporting issue, but the real-world problem remains unresolved: Getting guns away from people who have revoked FOID cards after domestic violence and/or are deemed to present a “clear and present danger.”
…Adding… The Illinois State Police provides funding after local law enforcement agencies conduct weapons seizures. Click here for the latest list of grantees.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 11:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: A small win, but more like this, please
Next Post: What’s in IDOT’s 6-year, $41 billion infrastructure plan?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Government officials always gets the blame for acting too slowly, but the reality is that by the time a problem gets the attention of a bureaucracy- it’s already too late. A society without proactive systems in place is simply waiting to clean up the mess.
Comment by West Sider Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 11:26 am
There is an appeal to SCOTUS scheduled for next year for the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decision that tossed a federal restriction on firearm possession for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders.
While is may be common sense to restrict the 2nd amendment for such cases, the republican’ts have demonstrated a blindness to such reasonable prohibitions.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 11:32 am
>>>>the republican’ts have demonstrated a blindness to such reasonable prohibitions.
What you you suggest?
Comment by We've never had one before Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 12:05 pm
Politicians get a lot of blame when systems don’t work as intended but doesn’t seem like the cops are holding up their end of the bargain here. They have to do their jobs in order for this to work.
Comment by lol Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 12:06 pm
“They finally left when he refused to come to the door and turned off the lights.”
Whoever made the call to leave should be fired. I understand that you never want the police to take a life when the situation can be diffused. But this situation wasn’t diffused, merely delayed. And it cost innocent lives.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 12:15 pm
“What you you suggest?”
That has been debated on the website numerous times.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 12:38 pm
Knocking on a gun owner’s door and asking him to hand over his weapon seems to be among the most dangerous jobs a police officer could have. The state should probably beef up that grant program to incentivize more departments to take on the task.
Comment by TNR Monday, Jul 10, 23 @ 3:03 pm