More of the same from the ‘beautiful’ state of CHicago…
8 Likes
That makes a lot of sense to me. It should be a crime to be irresponsible with a gun/firearm.
1 Like
A fine is less severe than what can happen here if your firearm is stolen and used in a crime.
3 Likes
I post pictures of guns all alone in the environment and not locked in a safe,.. but the LOCKED safe is where they spend 99% of their time.
The exception is my EDC which is on me as often as possible.
It goes in a LOCKED steel safe BOLTED to the floorboard of my truck, when I’m at work or HAVE to enter a gun free zone…
Or it’s on the nightstand next to my bed while I’m sleeping.
Am I being irresponsible with my guns?
If any one of my guns is stolen, I will report the theft as soon as I’m aware of it.
I understand if you’re doing straw purchases for the criminal underworld, or committing the crimes yourself then claiming the gun was stolen….
But get real with yourself about the target of this bill, its goal is to threaten to tax LEGAL gun owners out of their willingness to own a gun!
13 Likes
So I consider myself a responsible gun owner. I lock my house. When I’m away, guns are locked in a safe.
I’ve taken every reasonable precaution to ensure the security of my guns.
Say someone breaks into my house, finds my tools, and goes to work on the safe. Safes are not really all that safe. They get in, and take my guns, then sell them on the street to a thug. That thug then murders another thug, and somehow it’s MY FAULT??? WTF?
What kind of twisted, blame the victim reality is this?
11 Likes
I think it is meant to keep people responsible with their guns. Like insurance companies won’t reimburse you for your stolen car if it wasn’t locked. If one is being responsible with their guns, they are not going to be charged with being irresponsible.
It is one you made up.
Off topic, sorry, but this is a false statement
7 Likes
It’s a vision. I thought it would make a good argument. Back to the regularly scheduled argument.
Please be precise and review your opinions, before you express false conclusions…
Gun cannot be stolen if properly secured.. and this is what that bill is about.
[…]
Provides that a firearm owner shall not store or keep any firearm in any premises where the firearm owner knows or reasonably should know a minor without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person is likely to gain access to the firearm unless the firearm is secured in a locked container, properly engaged so as to render the firearm inaccessible or unusable to any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. Provides that if the firearm is carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user, then the firearm is deemed lawfully stored or kept. Provides that a violation of the Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $500, except (i) if any person knows or reasonably should know that a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person is likely to gain access to a firearm belonging to or under the control of that person, and a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains the firearm, the civil penalty shall not exceed $1,000 and (ii) if a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains a firearm and uses it to injure or cause the death of a person or uses the firearm in connection with a crime, the civil penalty shall not exceed $10,000. Provides that the court may order a person who is found in violation of the Act to perform community service or pay restitution in lieu of the civil penalties imposed under this Section if good cause is shown. Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to preclude civil liabilities for violations of the Act. Provides that a violation of the Act is prima facie evidence of negligence per se in any civil proceeding if a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains a firearm and causes personal injury to the death of oneself or another or uses the firearm in the commission of a crime. Provides that an action to collect a civil penalty under the Act may be brought by the Attorney General or the State’s Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred. Provides that any money received from the collection of a civil penalty under the Act shall be deposited in the Mental Health Fund. Defines terms. Amends various Acts to make conforming changes. Effective January 1, 2026.
[…]
7 Likes
Okay, thanks for clarifying that. I admit to having posted before understanding that it was for unsecured guns.
Still, I see this kind of thing as a blame the victim law. The full force of the law and punishment should fall on the person who stole the gun, sold or received the stolen gun and/or used the stolen gun in a crime.
8 Likes
Why is a criminal being given more chances? If something more severe come because of the first crime, who’s fault is that. Put the fine on the criminal that stole the gun. Then give him 10 extra years without early parole for using it in a crime. Then let him stay longer to pay the fine by working while in prison. While I see a reason to have your firearms locked up so kids don’t get into them, other adults period shouldn’t touch them. They are in my house. The guns don’t belong to them and I tell them when they can touch them and how. With enough time a criminal can steal a large gun safe or a small pistol safe. I don’t like living my whole life paying for what a criminal does or tries to do. I already have to pay more taxes to pay their attorneys and keep them in prison. What good can come out of a fine for the victim.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree with you, but, like has been discussed above, the law is intended to target negligence by gun owners who leave firearms unsecured.
So, while the result is criminal liability (in our version of the law), you’ll only ever be charged if the state can prove that you negligently allowed access to a firearm that is later used in a crime or found to be in the possession of a minor.
Responsible gun owners are unlikely to ever be harmed by this law.
Even then, I have likened this law to being made a victim twice, even though you have to be irresponsible to feel its sting.
4 Likes
I really do not see anything wrong with this bill.
It actually make sense. Once people read it, they will know what “secure your gun” means.. or if they don’t get it… they will know how much does it cost.
I’ve seen so many irresponsible people with firearms, I couldn’t believed how stupid they can be thinking about not securing guns in house or car.
Perhaps now they find out that good safe or case is less expensive than penalty.
For some people empty wallet means more than their empty cranium.
4 Likes
Yeah. My dad is like that. He often leaves a pistol in the door compartment of his truck. I’ve pointed out the law to him and made him aware of the potential consequences, but he persists. While I would hate to see him be punished under this law, I wouldn’t see it as unfair in light of the fact that he knows what the law requires and doesn’t do that.
While he would still be the victim of a crime himself, I wouldn’t call him a victim of the law if it happened. Yes, he would be punished, but not for no reason.
I, on the other hand, have safes secured by steel cables to the frames of our vehicles so if I have to leave the gun, at the very least, I can demonstrate that I took reasonable precautions, so I would not fall victim to the same law.
When a simple change in behavior can prevent punishment and also potentially reduce access to firearms by people who shouldnt have them, I start to lose empathy for people who just refuse to change.
3 Likes
I lock my house every time I leave it. I have guns laying around if I plan to clean them or am working on some things that I can use dryfire exercises to develop. So, if my guns are laying out and someone breaks into my house and takes them can I be fined? Is that negligence? If they use that gun in a crime, can I be fined even more? That’s what it sounds like to me. I can somewhat see it if my house was left unlocked for anyone to come in, but even that I have some problem with because they weren’t invited in. I still say make the criminals responsible. They are the one breaking the law to begin with. I am sick of laws that make the good citizens pay for the crimes of others. Make the criminals pay.
5 Likes
Let’s add to the Slippery Slope List, unsecured in my Locked House…
Prescription Drugs - Desirable on the streets for use and sales
Chemicals - Desirable on the street to start fires or poison someone
Knives - Desirable on the streets as a weapon or a commodity
Electronics (tablets) - Desirable on the streets for fraud and targeting
Cash - Desirable on the streets for purchase of weapons and drugs
The list could go on. Each of these could be used to injure or kill, each of these could be the target of a burglary, each of these is one step from being used criminally, each of these are commonly held in the vast majority of homes. The law starts with firearms, that’s the low hanging fruit for sure but it’s a small step to changing from “Dangerous Firearms” to “Dangerous Property…”.
7 Likes
OK, so…
A valid CCL holder gets in a car crash and is ‘out of it’ to whatever level you want to say.
OR a valid CCL holder gets jumped from behind by thugs.\ he didn’t see coming.
Or a valid CCL holder is riding a bicycle, has to avoid a car and falls.
And in any case, one of the first ‘citizens’ that comes over to ‘help’ sees the victim has a gun, and steals it.
So now you are saying that this legal gun owner should be fined because he didn’t have it secured enough??
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree with you points about being responsible when securing your firearms. And that there are people that aren’t.
But remember, this IS Illinois. And I can’t help but think that any law passed that even appears to support ‘common sense gun control’ in this state has the primary goal of penalizing the good guys instead of the bad ones.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see expansion of this law at some point. For example, that ‘citizen’ that comes to help you in the car crash steals your gun, then kills someone with it. I see the day when the original owner also gets charged with murder for a crime he didn’t commit (and was actually a victim of in the first place).
Call me cynical. But I’ve lived in IL pretty much all my life, and wouldn’t put anything past Springfield (a Chicago controlled suburb).
7 Likes
Absolutely, where will it stop. More ridiculous laws. Just like Gregory says about his father and a gun in his truck. I lock my truck when I’m not in it. So as far as I’m concerned, there has to be a crime committed for someone to have access to it. Why am I paying a fine because someone else decided to commit a crime?
6 Likes
Could not agree more. It’s not ok because it’s guns.
I just understand the rationale behind the law better than most laws designed to infringe on 2A.
2 Likes