In somewhat of a repeat of a similar debate last year, the Lake County Board got embroiled this month in an argument over support of the RIFL Act, a piece of state legislation that would make gun manufacturers pay for firearm injuries caused by their weapons.
The vote was purely a show of support since the board has no authority to enact such a law, with advocates describing it as an extension of the driving principles behind the county’s Gun Violence Prevention Initiative (GVPI).
According to documents shared by board member Sara Knizhnik, firearm injuries generate tens of billions of dollars of direct and indirect costs in Illinois annually.
The RIFL Act would create a fund for the wounded, their families and the public, paid into by firearm manufacturers, with the fund amount calculated annually based on the previous year’s incidences of firearm injuries and associated direct expenses.
The fund would also take into account the number of a manufacturer’s products recovered each year associated with injuries or deaths.
The item was originally presented at the board’s Legislative Committee earlier this month, which among other responsibilities, looks at drafting and recommending legislative positions. With majority support, items typically are considered to have consensus, but the RIFL Act was brought before the broader County Board at the request of board member J. Kevin Hunter.
Votes fell largely along partisan lines, with members Hunter, Ann Maine, Michael Danforth, Linda Pedersen and Adam Schlick, all Republicans, voting against supporting the act. Diane Hewitt was the sole Democrat joining them.
Board Republicans cited mostly process issues, wondering how an item that was so likely to generate controversy had been added with what they felt lacked sufficient notice. Danforth alleged “the man behind the curtain was pulling some strings,” noting the Legislative Committee meeting was well-attended by numerous supporters of the act.
Most critics avoided taking a definitive stance on the RIFL Act itself, with some expressing neutrality in the debate.
A similar situation played out in November during the approval of the county budget. It included $650,000 to partially fund the county’s GVPI through 2026.
Citing issues with the process of how that money was added to the budget, Republican board members voted in protest against approving the budget. But their criticisms were centered around process, and they largely avoided making direct criticisms of the county’s gun violence prevention work.
‘Firearm killer bill’
Danforth, who has a background as a weapons importer, which he said gives him knowledge of the firearm industry, was the loudest critic of the RIFL Act itself. He called it the “firearm killer bill,” warning that if passed, it would essentially prohibit the sale of firearms in Illinois because they would not be able to afford such costs.
Firearms are “inherently dangerous,” he said, and don’t face the same safety criteria as other dangerous products, such as motor vehicles.
Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart spoke in favor of the act. Gun violence seen in America is preventable, he said.
“They are prevented in other countries. We must act now. Gun violence is not in our DNA; it need not be our destiny. It is our decision,” Rinehart said.
The county’s efforts related to gun violence and gun control were born, at least partially, from the 2022 Highland Park Independence Day mass shooting, when a gunman killed seven and injured dozens more after opening fire with a semi-automatic rifle on a crowd celebrating the holiday.
Sara Knizhnik, a vocal supporter of the act, said she was disappointed so much of the conversation wasn’t over the “substance of the bill.” It is an opportunity for the firearm industry to “work with us, rather than against us, in the fight to end gun violence.”
“This is the most innovative approach to reducing gun violence that I have ever seen,” Knizhnik said. “This bill proposes a policy that rewards firearms manufacturers who choose to be responsible in their business practices by creating safer products and providing more oversight over how and to whom their products are sold. And, most importantly, it will save every taxpayer in Illinois money.”
Danforth blasted the idea, saying it would benefit “criminals and their families,” and firearm manufacturers can’t afford it. Costs would be passed on to gun purchasers, essentially creating a prohibitive tax on firearms, he argued.
