Working for Illinois Caucus

The current relevant state law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, reads as follows: “A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when: He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past five years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or he is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.”

(For the purposes of state law, intellectual disability is generally related to cognitive function and brain development and not to be confused with behavioral disorders or chemical dependencies.)

There’s a broad gap between talking to a counselor or psychologist and being committed to a mental institution, but that doesn’t mean these gun owners’ concerns are baseless. Politicians and advocates of all stripes routinely discuss mental illness while addressing gun regulation. While the color of the current law shouldn’t discourage the average person from seeking help, there’s clearly support for legislation empowering doctors to raise red flags that limit access to weapons.

This line of reasoning runs counter to research showing people suffering from mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than to commit such acts. It also overlooks the danger a gun in the home might present to the person who owns it in favor of considering primarily the headline-grabbing mass shooting incidents.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is ultimately in the same camp as those at Yednock’s seminar, saying the best way to reduce risks of people with mental illness committing violence is through treatment of those underlying conditions, not just by taking away guns from those brave enough to seek help.

Unfortunately, the NAMI also reports fewer than a third of all adults and half of children with a diagnosed mental illness get any such treatment in a given year. That’s despite research indicating certain factors “may increase risks of violence among a small number of individuals with mental illness. These factors include: co-occurring abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs; past history of violence; being young and male; (and) untreated psychosis.”

The NAMI argues reporting laws should focus on those traits and not apply broadly to anyone with a diagnosed mental illness. It insists the National Instant Criminal Background Check System should eliminate “highly offensive and outdate wording” —�specifically a clause referring to people “adjudicated as being mentally defective,” repeated verbatim in many state laws —�and establish privacy safeguards so names in gun reporting databases aren’t used for any other purposes.

"We don’t want anyone not to get the help they need because they fear their gun will be taken away," Yednock told the crowd in Streator. "On the other hand, we also need to be aware of the people who may have an episode. We should keep guns out of the hands of people with a genuine mental health issue."

His heart seems in the right place, but converting that sentiment to practical legislation is a tall order requiring copious input from mental health professionals. What doesn’t help is dehumanizing language that paints people as nothing more than their diagnosed condition or conflating common mental illnesses with whatever lurks in the mind of a mass murderer.

According to NAMI, 20 percent of adults encounter a mental health condition every year — clinical depression, anxiety, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress and more —�while one in 17 lives with something more serious like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. We can and should talk about what prevents people from accessing or seeking care for these conditions, and we don’t need the specter of gun violence to have these conversations.

None would think twice about going to a doctor for a broken leg. Anyone with poor vision seeks out corrective lenses. Overwhelming tooth pain? Call your dentist. Yet far too many people with similarly debilitating mental conditions won’t or can’t (both are major problems) seek treatment. That has to change.

If you need help, start with your primary care physician for an appointment or referral. Contact NAMI at 800-950-6264 or info@nami.org. We’re all better when healthy —�mentally, physically or otherwise — and when we consider our neighbor’s condition as carefully as our own.

The current relevant state law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, reads as follows: “A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when: He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past five years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or he is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.”

(For the purposes of state law, intellectual disability is generally related to cognitive function and brain development and not to be confused with behavioral disorders or chemical dependencies.)

There’s a broad gap between talking to a counselor or psychologist and being committed to a mental institution, but that doesn’t mean these gun owners’ concerns are baseless. Politicians and advocates of all stripes routinely discuss mental illness while addressing gun regulation. While the color of the current law shouldn’t discourage the average person from seeking help, there’s clearly support for legislation empowering doctors to raise red flags that limit access to weapons.

This line of reasoning runs counter to research showing people suffering from mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than to commit such acts. It also overlooks the danger a gun in the home might present to the person who owns it in favor of considering primarily the headline-grabbing mass shooting incidents.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is ultimately in the same camp as those at Yednock’s seminar, saying the best way to reduce risks of people with mental illness committing violence is through treatment of those underlying conditions, not just by taking away guns from those brave enough to seek help.

Unfortunately, the NAMI also reports fewer than a third of all adults and half of children with a diagnosed mental illness get any such treatment in a given year. That’s despite research indicating certain factors “may increase risks of violence among a small number of individuals with mental illness. These factors include: co-occurring abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs; past history of violence; being young and male; (and) untreated psychosis.”

The NAMI argues reporting laws should focus on those traits and not apply broadly to anyone with a diagnosed mental illness. It insists the National Instant Criminal Background Check System should eliminate “highly offensive and outdate wording” —�specifically a clause referring to people “adjudicated as being mentally defective,” repeated verbatim in many state laws —�and establish privacy safeguards so names in gun reporting databases aren’t used for any other purposes.

"We don’t want anyone not to get the help they need because they fear their gun will be taken away," Yednock told the crowd in Streator. "On the other hand, we also need to be aware of the people who may have an episode. We should keep guns out of the hands of people with a genuine mental health issue."

His heart seems in the right place, but converting that sentiment to practical legislation is a tall order requiring copious input from mental health professionals. What doesn’t help is dehumanizing language that paints people as nothing more than their diagnosed condition or conflating common mental illnesses with whatever lurks in the mind of a mass murderer.

According to NAMI, 20 percent of adults encounter a mental health condition every year — clinical depression, anxiety, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress and more —�while one in 17 lives with something more serious like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. We can and should talk about what prevents people from accessing or seeking care for these conditions, and we don’t need the specter of gun violence to have these conversations.

None would think twice about going to a doctor for a broken leg. Anyone with poor vision seeks out corrective lenses. Overwhelming tooth pain? Call your dentist. Yet far too many people with similarly debilitating mental conditions won’t or can’t (both are major problems) seek treatment. That has to change.

If you need help, start with your primary care physician for an appointment or referral. Contact NAMI at 800-950-6264 or info@nami.org. We’re all better when healthy —�mentally, physically or otherwise — and when we consider our neighbor’s condition as carefully as our own.

The current relevant state law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, reads as follows: “A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when: He has been a patient in a mental institution within the past five years and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession; or he is a person with an intellectual disability and has any firearms or firearm ammunition in his possession.”

(For the purposes of state law, intellectual disability is generally related to cognitive function and brain development and not to be confused with behavioral disorders or chemical dependencies.)

There’s a broad gap between talking to a counselor or psychologist and being committed to a mental institution, but that doesn’t mean these gun owners’ concerns are baseless. Politicians and advocates of all stripes routinely discuss mental illness while addressing gun regulation. While the color of the current law shouldn’t discourage the average person from seeking help, there’s clearly support for legislation empowering doctors to raise red flags that limit access to weapons.

This line of reasoning runs counter to research showing people suffering from mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than to commit such acts. It also overlooks the danger a gun in the home might present to the person who owns it in favor of considering primarily the headline-grabbing mass shooting incidents.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness is ultimately in the same camp as those at Yednock’s seminar, saying the best way to reduce risks of people with mental illness committing violence is through treatment of those underlying conditions, not just by taking away guns from those brave enough to seek help.

Unfortunately, the NAMI also reports fewer than a third of all adults and half of children with a diagnosed mental illness get any such treatment in a given year. That’s despite research indicating certain factors “may increase risks of violence among a small number of individuals with mental illness. These factors include: co-occurring abuse of alcohol or illegal drugs; past history of violence; being young and male; (and) untreated psychosis.”

The NAMI argues reporting laws should focus on those traits and not apply broadly to anyone with a diagnosed mental illness. It insists the National Instant Criminal Background Check System should eliminate “highly offensive and outdate wording” —�specifically a clause referring to people “adjudicated as being mentally defective,” repeated verbatim in many state laws —�and establish privacy safeguards so names in gun reporting databases aren’t used for any other purposes.

"We don’t want anyone not to get the help they need because they fear their gun will be taken away," Yednock told the crowd in Streator. "On the other hand, we also need to be aware of the people who may have an episode. We should keep guns out of the hands of people with a genuine mental health issue."

His heart seems in the right place, but converting that sentiment to practical legislation is a tall order requiring copious input from mental health professionals. What doesn’t help is dehumanizing language that paints people as nothing more than their diagnosed condition or conflating common mental illnesses with whatever lurks in the mind of a mass murderer.

According to NAMI, 20 percent of adults encounter a mental health condition every year — clinical depression, anxiety, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress and more —�while one in 17 lives with something more serious like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. We can and should talk about what prevents people from accessing or seeking care for these conditions, and we don’t need the specter of gun violence to have these conversations.

None would think twice about going to a doctor for a broken leg. Anyone with poor vision seeks out corrective lenses. Overwhelming tooth pain? Call your dentist. Yet far too many people with similarly debilitating mental conditions won’t or can’t (both are major problems) seek treatment. That has to change.

If you need help, start with your primary care physician for an appointment or referral. Contact NAMI at 800-950-6264 or info@nami.org. We’re all better when healthy —�mentally, physically or otherwise — and when we consider our neighbor’s condition as carefully as our own.

“Promoting additional bans of firearms and passing more regulations hurt legal gun owners and does nothing to reduce violence,” he said, pointing to a high profile incident in Philadelphia in which a felon used a gun to injure police officers during a standoff, apparently invoking the talking point that criminals break laws so we shouldn’t have laws.

Abutting Breeden’s story was a release from the man he wants to challenge, state Rep. Lance Yednock, D-Ottawa, promoting a gun rights seminar he hosted Monday in Streator in partnership with the Illinois State Rifle Association. Yednock challenged “Chicago politicians … actively working to make new laws to restrict law-abiding citizens’ rights” and said he voted against an FOID revocation law.

In the release, ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson lauded Yednock for protecting “the rights of responsible gun owners.”

It’s hard to get elected in the 76th by promoting increased gun control, but arguing the polar opposite of ending the FOID program is a big ask for almost every Democrat and many swing voters. In May the Illinois Gun Violence Prevention PAC released polling on House Bill 96, the Fix the FOID Act, indicating strong support in the greater Chicago area and 48 percent of voters elsewhere.

If that many voters back improving FOID regulations, it’s safe to guess few endorse Breeden’s repeal position. The ISRA would do well to stick with a Democrat who won’t blindly vote for any new gun law, but it could possibly endorse both men in a primary.

Should he advance to the general election, Breeden might consider stronger focus on his platform’s other planks.

CROWDED FIELD … If Sue Rezin wasn’t feeling the squeeze already, there’s a bit more pressure now. Rezin, R-Morris, wants to challenge Democrat U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood in the 14th Congressional District. On Aug. 16 the National Republican Congressional Committee didn’t name Rezin among candidates qualified for its 2020 Young Guns program, which aims to regain control of the U.S. House of Representatives from Democrats. The NRCC appears to have more faith in Rezin’s state Senate colleague Jim Oberweis and businessman/youth sports coach Ted Gradel.

Then Wednesday the 14th GOP field grew with the addition of Catalina Lauf, a former adviser to the U.S. Department of Commerce under President Donald Trump. Lauf, a 26-year-old from Woodstock, said her parents are a small-business owner from Chicago and a legal immigrant from Guatemala and calls herself “a product of the American Dream.”

There’s now 29 weeks until the Illinois primary and plenty of time for the field to grow or shrink. The 14th is just east of this paper’s coverage area — and Rezin’s home — but her involvement makes it newsworthy given her decade in Springfield representing our readers. In the 16th there’s barely any news whatsoever: No Democrats have announced intentions to challenge incumbent U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Channahon, and Kinzinger himself hasn’t formalized plans to seek a sixth term.

Writing earlier this month for Crain’s Chicago Business, Greg Hinz said “Kinzinger’s team is ‘fully preparing to run … He’ll be in,’ ” quoting an insider who predicted an announcement in August and nominating petitions circulating right after Labor Day.

That clock is ticking —�loudly.

THIS DAY IN HISTORY … On Aug. 27, 1832, Sauk Chief Black Hawk, along with the prophet and military commander Wabokieshiek, surrendered to United States officials in Prairie du Chien, in present-day Wisconsin, ending what now is called the Black Hawk War. Although brief —�the conflict started in early April — it had lasting impact throughout this region, stretching west from Ottawa to the Mississippi River and north into present day Wisconsin.

That history is far too rich to do justice in this space. Retired Times reporter Charles Stanley wrote several useful pieces over the years about the many local connections. I also commend “An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States” by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, which won the American Book Award in 2015, as a means of approaching the broader topic of America’s westward expansion from the perspective of those who lived on this land before colonialists arrived.