When I recently covered an Illinois school safety bill that received unanimous approval from both Republicans and Democrats in Springfield, I noted that finding common ground is exceedingly difficult when one party insists that the right to keep and bear arms is incompatible with public safety. And true to form, Illinois Democrats are once again taking aim at the Second Amendment by sending a bill punishing lawful gun owners to Gov. J.B. Pritzker for his signature.
Current Illinois law requires gun owners to keep their weapons secured if a child under the age of 14 is present in the home.
The new legislation expands that requirement if any minor is present, regardless of age.
The text of the law also applies if an “at-risk person or prohibited person” is present in the home.
A violation of the law would subject the gun owner to a $500 fine. That increases to $1,000 if the gun owner “reasonably should know” the weapon was likely to gain access to the weapon. However, if an unsecured gun is taken and used in the commission of suicide or a crime, the gun owner can face a fine of up to $10,000.
The text of the bill is contradictory, with an exception provided "if the minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person gains access to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another". Another exception precludes gun owners from being prosecuted if the firearm is "obtained by a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person because of an unlawful entry of the premises."
But the bill also contains language punishing gun owners with a fine of up to $1,000 if "a minor, an at-risk person, or a prohibited person obtains the firearm" without using it in self-defense. The bill fails to define what "use" actually means. Does a minor have to pull the trigger of a gun in order for the owner to be exempt from prosecution? Would displaying the firearm to an intruder count as "use"? What happens if a minor grabs a gun because they believe someone's about to break into their home, but not trespass actually takes place?
SB 8 indemnifies gun owners from fines or criminal charges if someone burgles their home and steals a gun, but opens them up to prosecution if the theft comes from a minor, an at-risk individual, or a prohibited person who is allowed to be in the home. That's an odd quirk, to say the least, and its inclusion suggests the bill is less about gun safety and more about making the laws around gun ownership so confusing that some Illinois residents will give up their Second Amendment rights rather than attempt to comply with the vague and contradictory language.
While supporters of the bill claim it will reduce gun-related deaths and injuries, opponents of the measure say it turns legal gun owners into criminals when they're the victim of a theft.
“Only in Illinois would we hold victims of crime more accountable than the criminals,” said Rep. John Cabello (R-Machesney Park). “Now, if someone breaks into your home and steals your firearm, you could be slapped with a $10,000 fine. It is ridiculous and anti-American.”
“Democrats are so eager to score points with out-of-state anti-gun groups that they’ve abandoned common sense entirely,” Cabello added. “Instead of enforcing the laws we already have or holding repeat offenders accountable, they’re placing blame on law-abiding citizens and undermining the Second Amendment.”
Again, if I'm reading SB 8 correctly gun owners wouldn't face a $10,000 fine if someone breaks into their home, steals a gun, and uses it in a crime. But if their brother-in-law who was convicted of a felony ten years ago comes over for dinner and steals their firearm before using it in an armed robbery or carjacking, the gun owner would be subject to that penalty.
It's entirely possible, however, that Cabello's understanding of SB 8 is right and I'm wrong. As I said, the bill is so confusing it's difficult to know what is and isn't allowed. For the anti-gun Democrats behind SB 8 that's not a bug but a feature of the legislation, and I suspect that the vague and contradictory language isn't going to stop Pritzker from signing this "ridiculous and un-American" bill into law.
