Gun Crimes Archives - Stobbs Law Offices

Gun Crimes

How to Properly Transfer a Firearm in Illinois

Wednesday, July 3rd, 2024

Transferring a firearm in an Illinois city like Edwardsville or Alton involves specific legal steps to ensure compliance with state and federal laws. Here’s a detailed guide based on the regulations and procedures outlined by Illinois state laws.

1. Understand the Legal Requirements

Before transferring a firearm, it’s crucial to understand the legal requirements in Illinois:

FOID Card: Both the seller and the buyer must possess a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card.
Background Check: A background check must be conducted to ensure the buyer is legally permitted to own a firearm. You can verify FOID cards here.
Record Keeping: Both parties must keep a record of the transaction for at least 10 years.

2. Conducting the Transfer

The process varies slightly depending on whether the transfer is between private individuals or involves a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

Private Transfer

For a private transfer (between two individuals):

Verify FOID Cards: Ensure that both parties have valid FOID cards.
Initiate Background Check: The seller must contact the Illinois State Police to verify the buyer’s FOID card and complete a background check.
Wait Period: There is a mandatory waiting period—72 hours for handguns and 24 hours for long guns.
Complete the Transfer: After the waiting period, complete the transfer and document it. Include details such as the date, firearm description, and FOID card numbers of both parties.

Transfer via FFL Dealer

For a transfer involving an FFL dealer:

Dealer Responsibilities: The dealer will conduct the background check and ensure compliance with federal and state laws.
Documentation: The dealer will handle the necessary documentation and record-keeping.

3. Legal Provisions and Compliance

Illinois law outlines specific provisions for person-to-person transfers:

430 ILCS 65/3(a): This section states that no person may knowingly transfer a firearm, ammunition, stun gun, or taser to another person within Illinois unless the transferee displays a valid FOID card or a valid license to carry a concealed firearm issued by the Department of State Police. Federally licensed firearm dealers must also comply with Section 3.1 for all transfers.
430 ILCS 65/3(a-10): This subsection requires private sellers to contact the Illinois State Police to verify the validity of the buyer’s FOID card before completing the transfer. The State Police will provide an approval number if the FOID card is valid, which is valid for 30 days from the date of issue.

For more details, you can verify FOID cards here.

4. Record Keeping

Both the seller and the buyer must maintain a record of the transaction, including:

Names and FOID card numbers of both parties.
Date of the transfer.
Description of the firearm (make, model, and serial number).

5. Special Considerations

Interstate Transfers: If transferring a firearm across state lines, federal law requires the involvement of an FFL dealer.
Inherited Firearms: Special rules may apply to firearms acquired through inheritance. It’s advisable to consult with a legal expert in such cases.

6. Legal Consequences

Failure to comply with Illinois firearm transfer laws can result in serious legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment. Always ensure that all steps are followed meticulously.

Conclusion

Transferring a firearm in Illinois involves several critical steps to ensure legal compliance. By understanding and following these steps, you can ensure a smooth and lawful transfer. Always consult with legal professionals if you have any doubts or specific circumstances that require special attention.

If you have any further questions or need assistance with specific scenarios, feel free to reach out to legal experts or your local law enforcement agency.

Posted in Gun Crimes, Illinois Law | Comments Off on How to Properly Transfer a Firearm in Illinois

Weinmann v. McClone: When is an Officer Justified to Use Deadly Force?

Monday, June 1st, 2015

This Wednesday, the Seventh Circuit issued an interesting opinion regarding police shootings. On November 12, 2007, Jerome Weinmann celebrated his one year anniversary with his wife by guzzling half a bottle of vodka, holing himself in his garage with a shotgun, and taking four bullets from a responding police officer. When Officer McClone arrived at the scene and entered the garage, he shot Weinmann immediately.

Prior to opening fire, Officer McClone understood four things: that Jerome possessed a shotgun, he may have been suicidal, he had not answered the officer’s knocks on the garage door, and that “pattering” sounds could be heard from inside the garage. Armed with only that information and his service weapon, McClone burst into the garage and shot Jerome four times in the face, thumb, and torso. Miraculously, Mr. Weinmann survived the encounter and filed a civil suit against officer McClone.

While not a criminal case per se, Weinmann v. McClone represents interesting precedent for future cases regarding police force. A recurring theme of this blog has been the appropriateness of police conduct and the lack of restraint thereof. Cynics might consider police officers effectively immune from criminal consequence. Just this month, a Cleveland police officer was acquitted of manslaughter after firing 137 rounds at two unarmed civilians from the hood of their own car.

Perhaps then, civil remedies like the claim filed against Officer McClone might represent a means of curbing police violence, and the language of the opinion seems to illustrate high concern for police violence in spite of a legal climate which has long refused to restrain such behavior.

As a threshold matter, the Seventh Circuit makes the unsurprising finding that “Jerome has a constitutional right not to be shot on sight.” More importantly, the court notes that the primary consideration for determining the legality of police force lies in the “quality of the information known to the officer at the time he fired the weapon.” In this case, the fact that the officer felt threatened by entering into an enclosed space with an assailant does not justify deadly force alone – even when that enclosed space houses and shotgun-wielding drunk.

So what can be deduced from Weinmann? First, the Seventh Circuit has created a line of favorable precedent for victims of police violence. The extent to which that may affect police behavior remains to be seen. Also, the case seems to signify that federal courts are becoming increasingly sensitive to police violence and its pervasiveness. Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, this case seems to debunk, somewhat, the viability of the argument that police fear might justify deadly force. Of course, police may and should use force when necessary to prevent imminent, critical danger to themselves or the public, but a case like this demands a cool head and considerate action – even in the most intense situations.

Sources: Weinmann v. McClone, No. 14-1794 (7th Cir. May 27, 2015).

Posted in Gun Crimes | Comments Off on Weinmann v. McClone: When is an Officer Justified to Use Deadly Force?

The Effects of the Fast and Furious Scandal on the Gun Control Debate

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

Recently the fast and furious scandal has made national headlines. Fourteen Federal employees were cited in an internal report by the US Justice Department’s Inspector General. Kenneth Melson, former Director of the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, has retired and Jason Weinstein, a deputy in the Justice Department’s criminal division, has resigned amid criticism after the report’s finding came out today. This report has sparked a lot of political discussion, becoming a regular political football.

The question is: how will this scandal affect the debate over gun control and gun legislation in American politics? How does this scandal change the definition of a gun crime? Federal gun crimes, in this case going deliberately unnoticed in the name of a sting operation by the ATF, have a potential to spark serious political debate. Republicans are saying this scandal could have been planned by the Obama administration as a direct threat to citizen’s second amendment rights. Republicans also suggest that democrats will seek harsher gun crimes penalties along with new gun laws. Democrats, however, are using the scandal to open the debate on new restrictions for long guns, which would force gun stores in the southwest to report those who want to purchase more than one of this type of firearm.

Sources
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155513757/why-operation-fast-and-furious-failed
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/09/19/161446695/justice-department-watchdog-blasts-fast-and-furious-operation
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/15/as-predicted-fast-and-furious-scandal-gives-rise-to-gun-regulation-debate/

Tags: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Fast and Furious, Firearms, Gun Crimes, Second Amendment rights
Posted in Gun Crimes, News | Comments Off on The Effects of the Fast and Furious Scandal on the Gun Control Debate