Dupage Policy Journal

State Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-Northlake) was worried about allowing House Bill 1092 to pass out of the House Committee.

She said it might be used for retaliation by a vindictive ex-spouse.

“I'm going to go back to that agreed-upon definition. We worked really hard for that because we had concerns, we did not want this to become a vindictive thing that someone could use in a divorce situation or just because you don't like your neighbor or something like that. And that's why we worked really hard to get that definition,” Willis said. “I will tell you at this point I am probably going to only vote present on the bill because I am concerned that we're dialing back things that we put in the original bill that was bipartisanly supported.”

Despite understanding that the bill can increase awareness of the bipartisan Firearms Restraining Order Act, Willis said that the 2019 bill is “still a good piece of legislation.”

The bill would amend the Criminal Code of 2012, making technical changes in a section concerning the definition of "conviction" as well as amending the Firearms Restraining Order Act. It will provide that a firearms restraining order “includes the seizure of the respondent's ammunition and firearm parts that could be assembled to make an operable firearm.” What concerns her is that the bill provides that ‘family member of the respondent’ includes a former spouse and a person with whom the respondent has or allegedly has a child in common. She said it’s a major concern. Willis underscored that the original definition was done with input from all parties on both sides of the aisle.

HB 1092 was placed on postposed consideration as it fell one vote short to pass with only 59 being in favor of the bill, 44 opposed, five voted present, and 10 not present votes.