shooting in chicago

Yet his father signed the FOID card, I think that was a decision that warrants civil penalties and social scorn at the very least.
Click to expand...

On that I do agree and yes as the sponsor I feel that he should be punished; not to the extent that his son should be but something that says "you were the sponsor, you needed to do better". Also, this I definitely not an easy subject to come up with a one sized solution to, there are parts of me that fundamentally agree that he was a train wreck in the making, but the notion of punishing someone for something they 'might' do is a hard line to cross in my mind.

I looked up the Illinois FOID sponsor affidavit, the text is below. It looks like the main focus is ensuring that a prohibited person isn't using their children to obtain firearms, but the sentence is not going to bode well for the father.

Parent or Legal Guardian Signature Certification: I being first duly sworn upon oath, states as follows: (1) I am not currently prohibited from holding a FOID card insofar as: (a) I have not been convicted of a felony or have been granted relief from such conviction to hold a FOID card; (b) I have not, in the past 5 years, been a patient in a mental institution or any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness; (c) I am not addicted to narcotics; (d) I am not intellectually disabled; (e) I am not subject to an existing order of protection which prohibits me from possessing a firearm; (f) I have not, within the past 5 years, been convicted of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in which a firearm was used or possessed; (g) I have not ever been convicted of a domestic battery or a substantially similar offense (misdemeanor or felony); (h) I have not been adjudicated a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony; (i) I am not an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States; and (j) I have never been adjudicated as a mental defective. (2) I hereby give my consent for this minor applicant to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and understand I shall be liable for any damages resulting from the minor applicant’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Click to expand...
 
^^^

Beyond the language of the FOID sponsor statement itself, what does Illinois law say about sponsors and sponsorship? Extrapolation: When a parent co-signs a load for an offspring who has no credit rating, the parent/co-signer is agreeing to be liable for the debt if the actual buyer defaults. When I have sponsored visitors from my late wife's native country, by sponsoring them I agreed to ensure that they didn't overstay their visas, and to accept financial responsibility for any debts they incurred while in the U.S. What burdens does the law place on those who sponsor under-age people for the FOID?
 
Good question, a bit of research shows that it is vaguely written and does not direct any responsibility on the sponsor, again the primary concern seems to be that a prohibited person is not a sponsor:

Section 1230.40 - Sponsorship of a Minor
a) Except as provided by Section 65/4(a)(2)(i-5) of the Act, applicants for a FOID Card under the age of 21 shall have the written consent of the applicant's parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition, prior to issuance of a FOID Card. If the consent is given by a legal guardian, a certified copy of the guardianship court order must be submitted with the application. The parent or legal guardian providing consent shall file an affidavit with the Department, as prescribed by the Department (using the form available on the Department's website), stating that the parent/guardian is not prohibited from having a FOID Card under the Act.
b) No applicant under age 21 will be granted a FOID Card if the applicant is prohibited from having a FOID Card under the Act.
c) If the minor is not physically capable of signing the application because of age, disability or other cause, the parent or legal guardian providing consent must submit a copy of the minor's birth certificate.
Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 1230.40

Amended at 38 Ill. Reg. 2301, effective December 31, 2013
 
(2) I hereby give my consent for this minor applicant to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and understand I shall be liable for any damages resulting from the minor applicant’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition.
Click to expand...

the "new" information in the last line about liability for the minor applicant's use of firearms or ammunition brings up a couple of interesting technical points.

Specific to this case, and "minor applicant". ok, he was under 21 (minor applicant) when he applied. Fairly clear. The FOID was granted. Now, what happens to his legal status when he turned 21? One would assume that, once he reached the state mandated age of majority (21) he was no longer a "minor FOID holder" .

SO, is it unreasonable to assume that the obligations, and liability of his minor applicant sponsor end when he is no longer a minor??

The killer turned 21 in September 2021.
That means he was legally fully adult in every sense of the word for about 8 months before he committed the murders.

No evidence has been given that he committed any crimes as a minor FOID holder, or as an adult one, UNTIL he opened fire July4, 2022.
(he MAY have continued to use illegal drugs, but if so, hid it well enough to avoid being caught, so his LEGAL record was clean)

The law MUST be objective about this, and our opinions of the matter SHOULD be, as well.

so, here's the question, some people want to hold the Father at least partly responsible for the killings, but legally, is he???
IF his son had done the shooting while still an Illinois minor (under 21) I can see the argument for holding the Father responsible to a degree (and a large degree by the voluntary acceptance of liability imposed in the sponsorship argeement posted here),
HOWEVER
The son was no longer a minor, but a legal adult when he opened fire. AS a legal adult aren't ALL his decisions his, and his alone?

You can hold the Father morally responsible, if that's your opinion, I won't contest that, but LEGALLY responsible can be, and in this case I believe, is a different matter.

Thoughts??
 
44 AMP said:
(2) I hereby give my consent for this minor applicant to possess and acquire firearms and firearm ammunition and understand I shall be liable for any damages resulting from the minor applicant’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition.
Click to expand...
the "new" information in the last line about liability for the minor applicant's use of firearms or ammunition brings up a couple of interesting technical points.

Specific to this case, and "minor applicant". ok, he was under 21 (minor applicant) when he applied. Fairly clear. The FOID was granted. Now, what happens to his legal status when he turned 21? One would assume that, once he reached the state mandated age of majority (21) he was no longer a "minor FOID holder" .

SO, is it unreasonable to assume that the obligations, and liability of his minor applicant sponsor end when he is no longer a minor??

The killer turned 21 in September 2021.
That means he was legally fully adult in every sense of the word for about 8 months before he committed the murders.

No evidence has been given that he committed any crimes as a minor FOID holder, or as an adult one, UNTIL he opened fire July4, 2022.
(he MAY have continued to use illegal drugs, but if so, hid it well enough to avoid being caught, so his LEGAL record was clean)

The law MUST be objective about this, and our opinions of the matter SHOULD be, as well.
Click to expand...
I agree that laws must be objective.

Now, in the interest of further hypothesizing and splitting of hairs ... when did the miscreant actually purchase the firearms he used in the shooting?

He is now over 21 and an adult. What would the law say if he purchased the firearms prior to his 21st birthday -- meaning that he would not have been able to do so if his father hadn't sponsored his FOID?

... I shall be liable for any damages resulting from the minor applicant’s use of firearms or firearm ammunition.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be a huge stretch to say that this liability could extend to the use of any firearms purchased by the card holder while he was still a minor, even if the acts didn't take place until he had achieved adulthood.
 
liability could extend to the use of any firearms purchased by the card holder while he was still a minor, even if the acts didn't take place until he had achieved adulthood.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how a court would rule on that. My common sense says its not relevant when he got the rifle, only that he was an adult when he put it to criminal misuse.

However, I can see it being argued the other way. The law doesn't treat guns like any other inanimate object. And that also brings us back to the argument that if he hadn't been allowed to buy the gun, then the mass murder would not have happened.

Neat, tidy, and flawed.

Possible? yes. Also equally possible a host of alternatives, which don't prevent his attack, just possibly change the details of location, date, or method.

The entire "granted permission as a minor" issue would be a moot point if he had bought the gun he used after he turned 21. Which is why I don't think when he got the gun he used is relevant. Again, clean record up until July 4 2022.

Not sure how this will be worked out, the trial will do that, till then, its an interesting logic puzzle what parts of the laws apply and how...
 
44 AMP said:
liability could extend to the use of any firearms purchased by the card holder while he was still a minor, even if the acts didn't take place until he had achieved adulthood.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how a court would rule on that. My common sense says its not relevant when he got the rifle, only that he was an adult when he put it to criminal misuse.

However, I can see it being argued the other way. The law doesn't treat guns like any other inanimate object. And that also brings us back to the argument that if he hadn't been allowed to buy the gun, then the mass murder would not have happened.
Click to expand...
I have no idea how a court might rule on that, either. I mentioned it because I'm sure the notion of someone buying a gun as a minor and then doing something with the gun after becoming an adult probably didn't occur to the people who wrote the law while they were writing it. I think it's a gray area, and that means it's something that could be in play if some lawyer somewhere thinks to put it in play.

If he bought the gun used in the shooting after he became 21, then I would agree that it's a moot point.
 
I think the determining factor will be the specific wording (and interpretation) of Illinois law on the subject.

Some state have different rules regarding minor purchase and minor possession.

There are places where one can be too young to legally purchase a firearm from an FFL dealer, but at the same time be of legal age to possess (own) the gun.

I have no idea if this is possible in Illinois, the FOID law might prevent that. To answer needs someone versed in the details of Illinois law. That's not me.

Where and when I grew up (yes, it was long, long ago in a place far, far away) you could get a big game license at 16. That meant that you could have a deer rifle, at 16. You couldn't buy it from an FFL dealer unless you were 18, but a 16 you could legally have it, if it were a gift, or loan, inheritance, or simply just purchased from a private seller.

The law, then, allowed for that. I doubt Illinois law today does. But I can't say for certain about any of their laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top