Copyright 2022 All Rights Reserved.

October 7, 2022

Breuder violates Federal Gun Free Zone law (see update below)

By Kirk Allen & John Kraft

On July 1, 2015

DuPage Co. (ECWd)
The final element of the very fist tip we received has now been validated!  Our whistle blower laid out a foundation of numerous inappropriate spending from Herricane Graphics, Breuder boozing, hotel nights and a firearm being purchased and given to outgoing Foundation Chair Hank Steinbrecher. (COD Foundation Expense Report – Note the date and amount)
We have now finally been able to confirm that Breuder purchased this weapon on 6/25/2013 for 610.30 (rifle and case) and used the COD Foundation credit card to purchase the weapon. (Credit Card Statement)
He purchased the weapons from North East Trade Co. out of Muncy, PA and had it shipped to the COD Address.  In addition, he paid extra for overnight shipping.  (Invoices from North East Trade Co.)
The rush was for the recognition dinner at the Waterleaf on 6/27/2013, which we assume is where the transfer of the weapon took place.   (Waterleaf expense report and extra shipping charge receipt for the gun)
Now the question becomes the legality of that purchase and transfer.  Considering the gun is a replica of a pre-1898 weapon, federal law does not require any back ground checks or FFL transfer  as antique firearms are not considered firearms for purposes of the Gun Control Act and none of the import regulations apply to the importation of antique firearms.
However,The Federal Gun Free Zone Act becomes problematic for Breuder when it comes to having this gun shipped to himself on COD campus.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) states:
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
COD Board Policy 15-40 states:

The possession and/or use of weapons is strictly prohibited on College of DuPage premises unless possession or use is by an authorized current or retired law enforcement officer or officers
engaged in official duties,and/or possession is authorized in conjunction with the Suburban Law Enforcement Academy (SLEA) operations.

The shipping information on this weapon reflects Breuder violated the law in two ways.  The first based on the fact he had it shipped to himself in a GUN FREE zone which violates Federal Law. The second in the fact he directly violated COD board policy by having this gun shipped to the COD Campus address.
Other Illinois laws apply to the transfer of this weapon, however, it is very clear by the paper trail, Dr. Robert Breuder violated both Federal Law and COD Board Policy by possessing a firearm on the COD Campus.
I am confident that the FBI and other Federal authorities will take an interest in this finding.  I would hope that the COD Board would also take this very serious as a cause of action to terminate Breuder for cause as he clearly violated policy once again.
As if a College President having a gun shipped to campus in direct violation of the law and COD policy is not disturbing enough, we also have records that reflect Breuder spent COD Foundation money on killing deer, shooting birds, and more lavish meals and drinks at the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation.

Those dollar figures are astounding and will be exposed in an upcoming article.  

UPDATE:

In response to a comment from one of our readers, which we appreciate, the federal law, as I pointed out, does not consider this rifle to be a firearm.  Although Illinois does consider it a firearm by definition, it is possible the Federal Law would not be applicable from a strict application of the definition as it relates to the Gun Free Zone Act.
In regards to his assertion conceal carry would allow his actions, conceal carry DOES NOT give them an exemption that is applicable to a long gun and even if he does posses a conceal carry, Illinois law forbids weapons on public property. The federal citation states: if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; The state DOES NOT license people to carry guns on campus.
Although the federal law does not consider the replica a “firearm” by definition in the Gun Control Act, Illinois law does consider it a Firearm. “Firearm” means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas by definition.
It is possible the Federal Gun Free Zone act may not apply in this case and we will provide a substantial application of state law in relation to gun free zones at schools as clarification and correction to this article.

 

 

SHARE THIS

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on print

RELATED

15 Comments
  • Elizabeth Gruber
    Posted at 20:34h, 01 July

    Corruption at its finest. When will he be arrested?

  • dave5126008
    Posted at 10:51h, 02 July

    Not so fast…the Federal Gun Free School Zone act has some built-in exceptions that apply to civilians. For example, concealed carry permit holders are explicitly exempted in the act. The author should probably take that into consideration before proclaiming Breuder a criminal. Please confirm whether or not Breuder has a concealed weapons license first and get back to us.
    Additionally, pre-1998 arms (or replicas) are not ‘firearms’ under Federal law (don’t ask me why, they just aren’t) so it is not clear why the author believes that the Federal Gun Free School Zone act even applies to the cited circumstances.
    Here is the relevant portion of the statute, as quoted by the author above:
    “It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm . . . ” [antiques are not firearms for the purpose of Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) just as antiques are not firearms for the purpose of background checks, etc.]
    It would seem to me that the author is trying to smear Breuder.
    I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the author as far as Breuder violating school policy (however violating a policy may not be a crime) and any reader of this article should keep in mind that the author may have jumped to additional wrong conclusions.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 13:08h, 02 July

      See UPDATE above – Thank you for your comment!

      • dave5126008
        Posted at 15:35h, 02 July

        Not to quibble too much and the author may be forgiven slightly for not having any legal training but I feel compelled to make a few points:
        The author’s update states:
        “In regards to his assertion conceal carry would allow his actions, conceal carry DOES NOT give them an exemption that is applicable to a long gun and even if he does posses a conceal carry,” [totally incorrect, the Federal GFSZ Act does not prohibit the possession of any firearm on school property (long arm or side arm) whether carried openly or concealed so long as one of the exemptions apply. One exemption is a carry license (commonly a concealed carry license, but the statute does not specify that – it could be an open carry license as some states issue those). I should not have implied that only concealed carry permit holders are exempt. It does not matter under Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) whether the firearm is a pistol, shotgun or long gun nor whether it is openly or concealed carry. Strange I know, but think about what the Federal statute actually prohibits, i.e. possession. If a civilian meets one of the several exemptions (one being being licensed to carry/possess by the state) then the prohibition does not apply. Absolutely nothing in the Federal GFSZ Act mandates that possession mirror the terms of the carry license. I.e. assuming Breuder had a concealed carry permit, Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) does not limit possession on school grounds to concealable firearms. Well that was all a mouthful, but please don’t jump to the conclusion that any Federal (at least) laws were broken.
        “Illinois law forbids weapons on public property” [there are exceptions, besides the previously mentioned concealed carry permit, such as public carry in a locked case, etc. – do your research and be careful about jumping to legal conclusions – they tend to bite you in the a**]
        The federal citation states: if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license; The state DOES NOT license people to carry guns on campus. [Perhaps true, but irrelevant. Again carefully reread the statute. The exemption is not met by being licensed to carry guns on school grounds, it is met by being licensed to possess the firearm in the first place. The Federal Statute cares only whether the possession is licensed, not the additional element of location. In essence, the phrase “in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State” boils down to a requirement that the person must be a resident of Illinois, nothing more. Trust me the Federal statutes are unbelievably confusing, but the exact same legal issue applies here in Michigan when carrying on school property.

        • Kirk Allen
          Posted at 16:28h, 02 July

          “Illinois law forbids weapons on public property” [there are exceptions, besides the previously mentioned concealed carry permit, such as public carry in a locked case, etc. – do your research and be careful about jumping to legal conclusions – they tend to bite you in the a**] this should clarify it for you as I made it very clear by citing the entire statute to include the exemptions you mentioned, which deal with the TRANSPORTATION of not possession of. http://3.133.133.226/wp-admin/post.php?post=22360&action=edit
          “it is met by being licensed to possess the firearm in the first place.” – Using your logic, the GFSZ does not apply to ANYONE that is licensed to posses a gun, which is simply not the case.

          • dave5126008
            Posted at 15:20h, 03 July

            Kirk, it simply IS the case (providing the license meets the stated exemption)! That being so, my logic would certainly be correct, the Federal GFSZ Act DOES NOT apply to anyone meeting any single one of the statute’s several exemptions. Having an Illinois concealed pistol permit qualifies, period! Please drop the pretense that Breuder somehow violated the Federal GFSZ Act!
            First, antiques don’t apply and even if that inconvenient fact somehow doesn’t register in your mind, you still have stated no evidence that Breuder is not a concealed pistol license holder in Illinois (that fact alone would definitely render him exempt from the possession prohibition in the GFSZ Act.
            Get some professional legal advice, please!

  • dave5126008
    Posted at 15:54h, 02 July

    To clarify the point more succinctly, the Federal GFSZ Act doesn’t apply to antiques. Therefore the laborious discussion about whether or not Breuder met an exception to the act is rather moot because the act itself does not appear to even apply in this case (but it did make for a rather interesting discussion).
    If the author really wants to tar and feather Breuder, I suggest he drop the insinuation that Federal law was broken. It won’t fly and may make him look a bit rash. May I suggest that the author bone up on Illinois state law (ask an expert please) and then university policy. I doubt that he broke any state law but I’m not going to waste my time schooling the author.
    That leaves university policy, which mostly likely aren’t laws, just policies so I doubt a crime has been committed. Who knows, it may be the the case that the presiding official at the university (guess who that is) has the authority to grant permission for weapons possession in certain cases (think parades, safety courses, etc.). Good luck with your witch hunt!

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 16:16h, 02 July

      Dave we provided an updated clarification and even an updated article on state law. No need to look at university policy because COD is not a university.

  • D Lagger
    Posted at 16:03h, 02 July

    This was a black powder muzzleloader rifle. Federal law does not require an FFL for transfer. Period. Full stop. It makes no difference if the firearm is modern, antique or replica. It is permissible to mail order muzzleloaders, both long arms and handguns. I believe that Illinois also allows the mail order of muzzleloaders.
    The other problem is that this might not be a violation of Illinois gun free zone laws, either. Breuder may be able to make a claim that he was “transporting” the rifle, not carrying it in violation of the law. Transport of an unloaded firearm in a case (both the shipment box and the purchased rifle case both likely qualify as a “case” under Illinois law) is permissible almost anywhere in the state (even in posted “gun-free” zones). The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled on this.
    There are tons of problems with the spending and accounting of COD, but this is mostly a distraction that, in my non-lawyerly opinion, is grasping at straws, and attempting to make the problems appear extra-super-especially-egregious” because: “Gun!”

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 16:38h, 02 July

      I stated it does not require FFL for transfer. Carrying it into the Waterleaf is possession, not transporting it! Receiving it at the college is possession, not transporting. Taking it into an establishment that sells intoxicating beverages is not allowed and there are NO exceptions for that as listed.
      The other little kicker, according to reports, the gun was taken out of the box to show off during the presentation so that possible exemption gets refuted as well.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 16:49h, 02 July

      D Lagger, as an avid hunter you can sleep well at night knowing this has nothing to do with the term Gun. I protect my family and property with my guns and will to the day I die. This is not an anti gun matter.

  • Betty
    Posted at 15:16h, 03 July

    Don’t you guys have anything better to do that get the public all riled up over nothing. It was a gift to an outgoing President who served voluntarily and did a lot to further the Foundation. You guys should go back under the rock you slithered out from.

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 17:56h, 03 July

      Betty, I would agree with your assertion up until the point Breuder violates both policy and law. Why is it OK for him to bring a gun on campus and no one else? Gift or no gift, it was wrong.

  • B. Crocker
    Posted at 11:48h, 21 July

    Kirk,
    Once again you are misguided and factually wrong. To bring an unloaded gun on campus to give as a gift does not violate state, college policy or common sense (you could use a good dose of that).

    • Kirk Allen
      Posted at 12:40h, 21 July

      State law makes no mention or disqualify pertaining to the gun being a gift, loaded or otherwise. Go read the state law on the matter.

$