This may have been a case where there was a difference between what the professionals felt and the burden of proof needed to legally prevent the person from obtaining weapons.
Also, it can be very difficult even for the professionals to gauge who is truly dangerous and who is just, well, "acting up".
This is what I'm thinking, too. IANAL, the laws are likely written in a way that sets the bar very high to prohibit sales of arms based on mental health, etc. Some might refer to it as a "poison pill", provisions inserted into the language of the law that render it ineffective. This is done when lawmakers are desperate to get a law enacted and have to compromise too much. This is often done like this - setting the bar too high to trigger the law. Another way is to strip out real enforcement provisions, meaning if someone breaks the law, the punishment is negligible.
Here's a link to Illinois law pertaining to firearms restraining orders, which may not be applicable in this situation. The language of this law provides for family members to apply for the restraining order. Even then, its temporary, only 14 days. Lots of loops for the family to jump through.
Yep, it looks like this is the "red flag" law that was supposed to apply in this situation, according to the article linked below. It requires family members to file for the emergency order.
Understanding the State of Illinois red flag law
Illinois passed it’s own red flag law back in 2019. It allows family members to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.
www.kfvs12.com
Illinois passed it’s own red flag law back in 2019. It allows family members to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.
“So I think one of the things we need to do as a community is to do a better job of letting people know that these red flag laws exist,” Shelly Page, assistant law professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, said.
JMO, its not a good law in that it doesn't have any provision for preventing someone like this guy from purchasing a weapon in the first place. The process is also quite lengthy to get a gun removed from someone, most likely requiring the reporting person to hire an attorney.
The general public is under the impression that these laws create some database of names of mentally ill or dangerous people who can't buy a weapon. They think the gun store people run a query on this database when someone wants to buy a gun. That's not how this works. It's a retroactive regulation that is only effective AFTER the person has bought a gun and AFTER they have frightened their family enough to go hire an attorney and go through court hearings to have the gun removed.
JMO "Raising awareness" about the law won't help, either. If a family doesn't realize their relative is getting ready to commit mass murder, they aren't going to start the process to have the gun removed. The law puts the reporting burden on people who are most likely to face fatal retaliation by the mentally ill gun owner. Relying on medical or mental health experts to do this reporting is impossible. If a psychologist, etc. is treating a dangerous person, that person isn't going to admit they have firearms in their home.
Worth noting as we move forward on this kind of discussion. Show me the bill. Let me read the language.
All JMO