Illinois House and Senate passes CCW!

[DaveTN]

I am not surprised at all about this passing as it is a loss for gun rights in the state of IL. If they state legislature had not passed CC, then IL would have become a Constitutional Carry state upon activation of the 7th circuit ruling invalidating the total prohibition on carry.

This isn't a win, it is a loss.

This isn’t a loss for Illinois. They could have chosen to take this to the SCOTUS; they didn’t. Until a few days ago they were still talking about “Shall Issue” at the whim of the County Sherriff; they didn’t go that route either. 
 

I didn't have any expectations, I was only trying to show the folks crowing about what a great day it is for gun rights in IL how wrong they were. Chicago has that state ####ed up like a football bat and just like NYC, DC or LA, if somebody nuked it I wouldn't shed a single tear.

Chicago fought this tooth and nail; they lost. And they lost on a gun control issue.

Why so much hate for the people of Illinois you want to see them killed? Illinois is a good state filled with good people.

[DaveTN]

I agree this is a step in the right direction.   What's up with two of the restrictions listed below?  How do they enforce these?   The second one is very vague.  
 
Public transportation
Public gatherings (although a licensee may pass through to reach their home, workplace or vehicle)

If the following days we will get specifics, but I think an example of what they meant by public gatherings is that many cities in Illinois have yearly celebrations where bands play and liquor is sold. They can prohibit carry in those areas, but you can still drive through. Knoxville invoked a no carry zone when the Klan had a rally downtown; so it can be done here also.

Until we get specifics it does seem vague and open to abuse by local governments.

[Chucktshoes]

This isn’t a loss for Illinois. They could have chosen to take this to the SCOTUS; they didn’t. Until a few days ago they were still talking about “Shall Issue” at the whim of the County Sherriff; they didn’t go that route either. 
 

Chicago fought this tooth and nail; they lost. And they lost on a gun control issue.

Why so much hate for the people of Illinois you want to see them killed? Illinois is a good state filled with good people.

I don't have hate for the entire state, just pity for folks who let themselves be ruled by the garbage that springs forth from the cesspool that is Chicago. It was Chicago to which I was referring. Also, it isn't hate or an active desire to see harm come to those places, more of a supreme indifference. The only reason I have any thought about any of the cities I mentioned is that the offal that comes from them has the terrible habit of trying to ruin other folks' homes like they ruined theirs. If they would stick to fucking up their own places and leave folks like me alone, I wouldn't give a second, hell, or even the first thought about 'em. Of course. that is the root of statist thought, ideas so good they have to be made mandatory.

[Erik88]

Jesus Elliot, debbie downer much?

 

I understand your argument but when I look at the entire process IL went through I'd say them getting the ability to carry concealed is a win. The court could have just as easily ruled the other direction which would have ended it all together or as Dave said forced them to the Supreme Court. I realize constitutional carry is far superior but this is still a huge improvement for the people there.

[2.ooohhh]

I'm overjoyed, apparently I will finally be able to legally drive from my doorstep to my in-laws' for holidays without having to stop and disarm at the IL state line. There are 168 pages in the bill and I'm only around page 30 but It's much better than I originally expected. . .

 

 

Original bill text available below-

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183sam005.htm

[Dane]

I'm truly amazed.. Reading through the bill they even provide for non-resident license (section 40).
Non resident car carry without a license (section 40 E 3)
Consolidation of foid and cc license to a designation on a drivers license (Section 92)

Seems that after section 110 the rest is housekeeping amendments to other laws.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Oh Shoot]

Without poring through the whole thing, what's the penalty for carrying (with permit) in one of the restricted areas?

 

Same as carrying without permit at all (which is probably a felony there)?

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

Without poring through the whole thing, what's the penalty for carrying (with permit) in one of the restricted areas?

 

Same as carrying without permit at all (which is probably a felony there)?

 

- OS

Never has been a felony.

[Oh Shoot]

Never has been a felony.

 
Illinois weapons statutes found here:
 
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/ptfire.pdf
 
says that these three situations are felonies:
 

---------------

"24-1

(a)

....

(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is li-
censed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any
governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a
showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted.
This subsection (a) (8) does not apply to any auction or raffle of a firearm held pursuant to a license or
permit issued by a governmental body, nor does it apply to persons engaged in firearm safety training
courses; or
(9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or
firearm or ballistic knife, when he is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his identity;
or
(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the
corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the
purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his land
or in his own abode or fixed place of business, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm,
except that this subsection (a) (10) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet on of
the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, or other container by a person who has
been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.

 

A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(8), 24-1(a)(9), or 24-1(a)(10) commits a Class 4 felony"

------------

 

Since the booze places and the public gathering situation is not covered by the carry permit, one may assume you would still be charged with a felony therein, even with a permit?

 

And still a Class 1 misdemeanor for any other place that the carry statute prohibits?

 

(I did quick searches through the carry bill, and see no mention of alternative penalties, so one would assume the existing ones stand for any violation).

 

- OS

Edited June 2, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest TankerHC]

It passed because they were going to block CCW altogether and NRA took the State of Il to Court, a Federal Appeals Court had to FORCE them to do it and gave them a deadline. The left has been fighting that deadline since and has done everything in their power to pass a law that would effectively block CCW.

[DaveTN]

It passed because they were going to block CCW altogether and NRA took the State of Il to Court, a Federal Appeals Court had to FORCE them to do it and gave them a deadline. The left has been fighting that deadline since and has done everything in their power to pass a law that would effectively block CCW.

It wasn’t the NRA it was the Second Amendment Foundation.

It passed because of the pro-carry legislators that stood their ground against the Chicago machine. If all they wanted to do was block carry; they could have easily passed a “may issue” bill.

[Oh Shoot]

...It passed because of the pro-carry legislators that stood their ground against the Chicago machine. If all they wanted to do was block carry; they could have easily passed a “may issue” bill.

 

That may not have been an option under the 7th Circuit Appeal Court's ruling that forced the thing, and the deadline -- since they ruled it was a right and not a privilege.

 

I've been unable to find the actual written decision of the court.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

That may not have been an option under the 7th Circuit Appeal Court's ruling that forced the thing, and the deadline -- since they ruled it was a right and not a privilege.

 

I've been unable to find the actual written decision of the court.

 

- OS

 

Since there was a deadline, there was leverage. The hard commies probably had to bend a little. 

[2.ooohhh]

 

I've been unable to find the actual written decision of the court.

 

- OS

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116435469/7th-Circuit-Court-overturns-Illinois-concealed-carry-ban

 

Page 20-21 Has the summary and 180 day stay to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public."

[Oh Shoot]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116435469/7th-Circuit-Court-overturns-Illinois-concealed-carry-ban

 

Page 20-21 Has the summary and 180 day stay to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public."

 

Thanks for that.

 

I'm surprised it wasn't a bit more specific as far as the actual points that the legislative act would need to address, but it is what it is.

 

Whether "may issue" would have sufficed, I couldn't say, but whether either the state AG's office interpretation or just the time frame combined with conservative influence swung it,  "shall issue" it is.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

That may not have been an option under the 7th Circuit Appeal Court's ruling that forced the thing, and the deadline -- since they ruled it was a right and not a privilege.

  
Would have probably been drug out for a long if it went back to the 7th and they shot down “May Issue”. In 2011 the 2nd Circuit upheld NY’s restrictive carry laws sayings it’s not unreasonable for a person to show a need to defend themselves above that of an average citizen to get a carry permit. The SCOTUS would have then had to decide if they were going to hear it or let the Federal Districts handle it. They turned down the NY case without comment.
 
 

Whether "may issue" would have sufficed, I couldn't say, but whether either the state AG's office interpretation or just the time frame combined with conservative influence swung it,  "shall issue" it is.

The AG is Lisa Madigan, who fought hard for gun control. She is running for Governor next year; this defeat may have helped keep her out of that office.  (Even though daddy is the Speaker of the House and leads the Democratic Party in the state.)

[Oh Shoot]

 The AG is Lisa Madigan, who fought hard for gun control. She is running for Governor next year; this defeat may have helped keep her out of that office.  (Even though daddy is the Speaker of the House and leads the Democratic Party in the state.)

 

She had asked for and gotten a 30 day stay on the deadline so gov could  "study" the thing.

 

But that was before bill passed, so does that mean the actual passed statute is on hold also?

 

- OS

Edited June 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

 

She had asked for and gotten a 30 day stay on the deadline so gov could  "study" the thing.
 
But that was before bill passed, so does that mean the actual passed statute is on hold also?
 
- OS

 It’s confusing. The bill is veto proof, but the Governor doesn’t have to sign it. If he refuses to sign it, they have to wait 60 days for it to become law. I don’t know if this extension means that 60 day clock won’t start until July 9 or not.
I don’t think there is any way Madigan or Quinn can stop this bill from becoming law. They don’t like that Chicago is not allowed to keep their anti-gun laws in place and are trying to find a way around it.

As I said Quinn and Madigan are both going to be running for Governor next year. They couldn’t get done what Chicago wanted, so it could hurt them in the election. That’s a good thing.

It shows how arrogant the Chicago machine is. The SCOTUS has ruled their gun ban illegal, the legislature has passed a carry law, and still they are looking for a way to ban both guns and carry.

The sad part of this is that the good people of the state of Illinois see what’s going on and don’t like it, but the people living off the government in Chicagoland have the votes. (Same thing is going to happen everywhere else)

[TMF]

Unbelievable that Chicago politicians believe they have authority over the rest of the state. Bunch of fascist power hungry libtards.

[Worriedman]

Unbelievable that Chicago politicians believe they have authority over the rest of the state. Bunch of fascist power hungry libtards.

Why is that so unbelievable?  A bunch of Chicago politicians believe they have authority over the rest of the nation.

[Guest TankerHC]

It wasn’t the NRA it was the Second Amendment Foundation.

It passed because of the pro-carry legislators that stood their ground against the Chicago machine. If all they wanted to do was block carry; they could have easily passed a “may issue” bill.

 

Actually thats not how it happened at all. The Ill State Rifle Association made the initial proposals. The original Bill was written by the NRA lawyers. Those lawyers included language that would have allowed for the standard NRA 8 hour course to be the requirement for training to posess a CCW. The State Legislature threw it out. The NRA and the 2AF both "Morally" supported the ISRA backed by certain State legislators. The Bill failed and went to Federal Court, the attorney who represented the ISLA, David Sigale,  was paid for by SAF.

 

The original proposals came from ISLA and Phelps

The NRA wrote the legislation.

SAF paid for Sigale.

 

If this had gone on and ended up in front of the SCOTUS, SAF doesnt have that kind of money. The attorney, without a doubt, would have been Paul Clements or the Israeli Attorney practicing out of Washington and Va. who often represents (And wins) SCOTUS cases for the NRA (His name escapes me at the moment).

 

Seems as though this was a team effort to me.  Although the Chicago press is calling it an NRA victory (Especially the Tribune), thats smoke. It took a team effort to defeat Chicago based leftists.

 

Unfortunately for them (ILL citizens) the Federal Court gave the liberal Governor 30 more days, today, to make changes. Also, I read the entire bill. Lots of requirement in that Bill. Maybe the reason they gave the Gov. 30 more days was to remove some of them.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2013 by TankerHC

[RobertNashville]

As it stands right now I'll still be driving around Illinois when traveling; no matter how many additional miles that adds to a trip. However, I certainly see this as a step in the right direction and hope that eventually, there will be reciprocity between TN and IL.

 

I do miss some of the restaurants I used to frequent when I have been there. ;)

[Erik88]

The Madison County State Attorney declared that effective immediately citizens in that county may carry concealed in that county.

 

http://www.bnd.com/2013/06/06/2646191/gibbons-concealed-carry-allowed.html

 

 

It serves no just purpose to continue to deny responsible, law-abiding citizens their Constitutional right to bear arms," Gibbons said Thursday. "Continuing to criminally charge citizens for conduct that is constitutionally protected and for which charges would, ultimately, be dismissed, would be unconscionable and a terrible waste of judicial resources. Therefore, we will no longer deny responsible citizens this important right."

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2013/06/06/2646191/gibbons-concealed-carry-allowed.html#storylink=cpy

 

Edited June 7, 2013 by Erik88

[2.ooohhh]

Wow this guy actually must have his head on straight! I like his suggestions.

 

"If not an Illinois resident, the person must have a concealed-carry permit, which requires a background check, issued from his or her home state."

Read more here: http://www.bnd.com/2013/06/06/2646191/gibbons-concealed-carry-allowed.html#storylink=cpy

[mikegideon]

The Madison County State Attorney declared that effective immediately citizens in that county may carry concealed in that county.

 

http://www.bnd.com/2013/06/06/2646191/gibbons-concealed-carry-allowed.html

 

Madison County is part of the St. Louis metro. A lot of those folks work across the river in MO, which has laws similar to ours. There's no shortage of folks carrying concealed weapons there... never has been. I have stories :)