The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 20, 2013, 06:12 PM   #26
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,310
Quote:
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL?
Do you really need to ask? The antis see emotional pleas from the parents of dead children as their best bet for passing any and all of their policies.
raimius is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 06:22 PM   #27
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
I resent that so many people either don't see or blatantly ignore the logical disconnect between Sandy Hook and CCW laws
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 08:30 PM   #28
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
^ For a mag ban, not a CCW law
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 11:38 PM   #29
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
The use of the children is called--or was called back in my day--guilt tripping.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 06:51 AM   #30
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
The use of the children is called--or was called back in my day--guilt tripping.
OMG! I hadn't heard that in so long. Unfortunately, it is still so very true.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 10:10 AM   #31
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Yes the Illinois gun control politicians presented Sandy Hook victims to promote a magazine ban - that really is separate from carry in Illinois and complying with CA7 decision in Moore v Madigan.

BTW the gun-control politicians are not saying who paid to have the Sandy Hook parents flown out to Springfield, IL and pay for their stay. I believe when someone inquired they were advised to file a FOIA.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 01:08 PM   #32
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
BTW the gun-control politicians are not saying who paid to have the Sandy Hook parents flown out to Springfield, IL and pay for their stay. I believe when someone inquired they were advised to file a FOIA.
I'd imagine it's Bloomberg and/or the Brady Campaign. As manipulative and morbid as it is, it's not illegal.

That said, Sandy Hook isn't really the topic here.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 21, 2013, 10:48 PM   #33
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Yes they are here for the magazine ban and not concealed carry. I think they are being abused a bit, but if they wanted to come then they can do what they want..they have lost more than we will ever know.

But the Mod is right, that is not the topic and concealed carry is, so any updates to the demise of the Senate bill or to this new better bill that is supposed to be coming from the House side, please let us know.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 09:12 AM   #34
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
What I've read is that about 2 years ago Illinois representative Brandon Phelps created the core of a CCW bill in conjunction with the NRA, and then he worked with all sorts of different groups, like universities and a wide array of different police groups like FOP and Sherriff's associations (not just law enforcement agencies), to try to get a compromise bill that would appease just enough people to get some kind of carry law passed for Illinois.

The persons and groups who would not enter discussion with Phelps at all were:

Chicago Mayor's Office - Chicago as a whole to include Chicago Police Department

The Governor

Illinois State Police (might be considered to be the same as the executive branch of Illinois government / the Governor's office). Although the State police do cooperate with Phelps in providing cost analysis and things of that nature...

Cook County / Cook County Board to include Cook County Sherriff

Speaker of the Illinois House - Mike Madigan

All of the people who refused to discuss a carry bill with Phelps were opposed to any type of carry - period.

The bill came to a vote in the Illinois House of Representatives in March 2012 as HB148 and fell a few votes short of passing.

The CA7, in Moore v Madigan found Illinois law prohibiting carry outside the home unconstitutional.

HB 148 was re-written with some minor changes as HB997 and reintroduced. It seemed on the verge of passing earlier this month but just minutes before the vote was to be taken, Illinois Senator Raoul Kwame came onto the Illinois house floor and began circulating, talking to house democrats asking them to withhold their vote for 997 because a better bill was being generated in the Illinois Senate - a compromise bill with wide bi-partisan support that addressed the concerns of gun owners and gun control advocates, rural and urban constituents, republicans and democrats alike. Enough democrats withheld their vote to prevent passage. It turned out that Raoul Kwame's bill was a pipe dream. Raoul's bill was pronounced DOA and in comments to the press Senator Raoul said the bill was killed by "extremists".

In the meantime, Brandon Phelps reached out once again to groups who opposed his HB997 and began work on revising the bill. It appears though that Representative Phelps has done this without bringing the NRA or Illinois State Rifle Association along on all the talks. I would think it would be impossible to include the NRA or the ISRA in all of the talks because there is so much animosity between the NRA and some of these politicians - like Governor Quinn for example.

The anti-gun faction in Illinois which formerly opposed any carry of firearms outside the home seems to have changed their position and are mainly trying to get a "carve out" for Chicago. At one point they were trying to get a carve out for all of Cook County and they seem to have given up even on getting that.

While HB997 is being worked on the Illinois Senate has been re-introducing gun control bills that had previously been defeated, such as a magazine ban and a lost or stolen bill carrying pretty serious felony charges.

So I think the situation in Illinois right now is that gun owners are fighting off gun control legislation while waiting to see what Brandon Phelp's revised legislation looks like.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 05:41 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
... And we are 20 days before the mandate by the CA7 becomes effective.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 07:44 PM   #36
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
And he filed the new bill today:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/S...2193ham001.htm
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 08:06 PM   #37
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
At first glance that bill appears to be a shall issue bill. Is that true, and if so, what are its chances at this time? I understand that if passed, such a bill would estop the Moore cert request, correct?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 08:14 PM   #38
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
The amended bill, SB 2193,

That is the first bill that actually looks like a good compromise. One rule for all without different communities making up their own rules etc.

Someone might object to 150.00 fee and 16 hours of training, but I paid twice as much for Chicago Firearms Permit, but the training was only 4 or so hours I think.

Anyway, sounds like a plan and if I was one of the politicians I think in my novice opinion I might vote for it.
+1k ammo is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 08:28 PM   #39
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I don't understand it at all. It seems to me like Moore over-ruled the Illinois AUUW / UUW law and reading through this bill - it seems more like a no-carry-bill than a carry bill.

But I guess its better than New Jersey...
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 08:48 PM   #40
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
There are so many restrictions on where you can carry in the bill to make it troublesome. If I were in the Illinois legislature I would certainly try to reduce the number of restrictions. The bus and public transport restrictions basically means poor and even the middle class in Chicago cannot carry very far. Transportation, parks, almost all public spaces except courts and jails need to be free for carry. The bill listed is better than no carry, but given the legislature in Illinois and there ability to block bills I would not expect to see the gradual peeling back of regulations like is being seen in some states. So get it as good as possible now.
wally626 is offline  
Old May 22, 2013, 09:49 PM   #41
SamNavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 231
^Agreed, the list of prohibited places is huge... but interestingly enough, it looks like the bill says that "restaurant carry" is OK by specifying the "50% of sales from alcohol" route.

Also, $55 fee to obtain a new license if you change addresses.

Also, $300 for a non-resident permit with this in the verbiage:
The Department shall establish by rule and allow for
non-resident license applications from any state or territory
of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership,
possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the
requirements to obtain a license under this Act.

... reduces the the number of states pretty good right off the bat even without the absurd fee.

It really flirts with "shall issue" although technically since there's no requirement for "good an proper cause" (the backbone of "may issue"), it means just about any regular Joe qualifies as long as they've already got a FOID card and haven't done anything really stupid in the past decade.

If they relaxed a few of the prohibited places and were fairly generous with reciprocity (yeah, right) it's not terrible... lotsa "hoops" to jump through, but as was said before, as the state gets used to it a bit, restrictions can be peeled back.

Last edited by SamNavy; May 22, 2013 at 09:54 PM.
SamNavy is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 12:35 AM   #42
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,068
If nothing was passed, wouldn't that better force Madigan's hand to pursue a petition?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 12:10 PM   #43
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
The no-public-transportation, parks, etc restriction seems like the "compromise" to heavily restrict carry in Chicago.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 01:13 PM   #44
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I tracked this down - the sponsor Brandon Phelps presenting it to the house committee:

http://new.livestream.com/blueroomst...1&medium=email

He explains the bill a little and also I think he's apologizing to gun owners for the parts that they don't like...
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 04:46 PM   #45
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
The bill only covers shall-issue (concealed and partially concealed) and state preemption. Everything else is pretty bad-lots of off limits places, high fees, 16 hour training, no reciprocity(non-residents can get a permit for 300), must inform officer,exc.
It's going to be a hard choice for IL. There will be court fights in the future, just depends whether the fight will be against the state or against the individual localities.
I did see an article claiming that if this bill isn't passed, then the Chicago one would. I don't understand how that bill would have any shot of passing even if this bill dies.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 23, 2013, 06:22 PM   #46
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The votes have been tallied by the NRA lobbyist - Todd V and the result is that soft pro-gun legislators are unwilling to go over the June 9th cliff set by the court- thus unless this bill is passed, there will be the senate may issue bill passed - the choice is between the two bills - the senate bill is a no carry may issue and home rule nightmare codified into law that makes this house bill look like sweetness and light. The NRA and ISRA are not liking this bill though it is shall issue and has statewide preemption, because of the restrictions, fees, training requirements, and ban on CCW on public transportation. However they are not opposing it either as they know the political realities. The only really good thing excluding shall issue and preemption is that it will wipe out the Chicago and Cook county AW ban and licensing requirements because to the preemption language. No CCW advocates are really happy with this bill, though they are not as upset as the Chicago polls and gun control advocates are. If passed it is not the win we wished, but it is a win and one we can incrementally improve with a friendlier governor and simple majorities in the house and senate. A year ago before the 7th circuit victory we would have been happy to get even this crappy law. So in perspective of political realities, it is a win and a better place from which to continue the fight. The fact is that constitutional or court carry is not going to happen - the votes are not there to let it happen.
mack59 is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:57 AM   #47
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
The public transport ban has already been shot down by the 7th Circuit. Go ahead and let 'em pass that, it ain't enforceable.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 08:40 AM   #48
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 747
Quote:
A year ago before the 7th circuit victory we would have been happy to get even this crappy law. So in perspective of political realities, it is a win and a better place from which to continue the fight. The fact is that constitutional or court carry is not going to happen - the votes are not there to let it happen.
Agree... considering where Illinois gun owners started from, this is a big step forward. I am sure the anti's in Chicago feel they have comprimised to an extreme extent.

And it is just a start. Over time, everyone in Illinois will get more used to concealed carry. Citizens and cops in Chicago will realize it is not the armageddon of crime and vigilantism that they expect. Over the coming years, gun owners will push for easing the restrictions and lowering the fees, and there will be less fear and uncertainty to stand in the way.

This will be perhaps the most restrictive shall-issue law of any state, but given the political realities of Illinois, it is a step forward.
btmj is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 10:15 AM   #49
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 545
I particularly like section 90 where it talks about state preemption. I'm not crazy about the bill but there are some things I like.

Sidewalks are public property no matter where you are, so you're covered there. Vehicle is covered. Chicago permit system and AWB are nullified. Those two things right there are a huge victory.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 11:26 AM   #50
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
Since I am not in Illinois, it is easy for me to sit on the sidelines and hope, indeed, pray, that nothing passes and Madigan files a cert petition. Any legislation would arguably moot out the case and preclude any cert petition. Ugh. This case would be our best shot at getting outside the home before the SCT.
esqappellate is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14144 seconds with 9 queries