NEW Clear and Present Danger Rule

The Illinois State Police has broadened its “clear and present danger” rules for FOID holders and applicants in response to the Highland Park parade mass shooting.

ISP adopted updates on 11/21/22 that were approved by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR), a bipartisan legislative oversight committee.

The update allows for broader use of clear and present danger reporting, which is a mechanism where ISP can revoke or deny a FOID card for an individual who poses a serious threat.

Prior to the clear and present danger emergency rule filing in July, a subject’s clear and present danger had to be “impending” or “imminent” for state police to take action.

The update changes the definition of “clear and present danger” to be more consistent with the statutory definition in the FOID Act, which broadly defines clear and present danger as requiring “physical or verbal behavior, such as violent, suicidal, or assaultive threats, actions, or other behavior.”

“The broader definition can better inform current or future decisions on FOID card revocations or denials based on risks to public safety,” ISP said in a statement.

The new rule means that clear and present danger reports submitted to ISP from a certified medical professional, school administrator or law enforcement agency that does not meet the definition of “clear and present danger” under the FOID Act will be retained for five years.

The change also allows ISP to maintain and use a clear and present danger report when the individual did not have a FOID card or was not applying for one at the time the report was submitted, like in Crimo’s case.

In addition to the new updates, a model policy was recently approved for firearms restraining orders.

A firearms restraining order (FRO) allows law enforcement and family members to obtain a court order temporarily restricting an individual, who is determined to be at risk of harming themselves or others, from having access to firearms.  “It is important law enforcement agencies know how to safely and legally execute a Firearms Restraining Order,” ISP Director Brendan Kelly said.

“The model policy created by the Commission contains procedures that allow law enforcement agencies to comply with all firearms laws while respecting individuals’ constitutional and due process rights.”

The policy addresses law enforcement processes in petitioning for a FRO; serving a FRO issued by the court; securing firearms, ammunition and firearm parts surrendered by the subject of the FRO; executing a FRO search warrant; returning firearms, ammunition or firearm parts; attending court hearings; and training.

“When determining whether to issue or revoke a FOID card, it is imperative ISP has as much information and evidence as possible,” Kelly said.

“Updates to this administrative rule will strengthen ISP’s ability to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals,” Kelly added.

DISCLAIMER

This publication is designed to provide the authors’ beliefs and opinions in regard to the subject matter covered, with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher are engaged in rendering professional psychological, legal, or political services through the dissemination of this publication.

If you need expert legal assistance or counseling, you should seek the services of a competent professional.

The Melnick Conglomerate, Firearm Mentor, and Marcus Melnick are not responsible for mishaps of any kind which may occur from use of published firearms information, equipment recommendations, tactics and training advice, or recommendations by staff or contributing writers.

Carrying a concealed weapon can be very dangerous if you are not well trained and familiar with the weapon you carry; therefore, you should consult with an attorney before making the decision to purchase and carry a weapon. It is your responsibility as an armed citizen to decide how much training you need.