The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 10, 2013, 02:26 AM   #1
bk688
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Posts: 53
Concealed Carry Illinois

Hello!

As of June 9th if the Illinois house has not passed a concealed carry law It has been ordered by a federal judge that federal regulations shall apply and Illinois shall be a "constitutional carry" state.

My question is what are the federal regulations? What restrictions or "hoops" do i have to jump through to abide by federal law? I've spent a bit of time looking but all i have found are regulations applying to cops and retired law enforcement.

I know due to the political climate in Illinois that simply carrying after the ordered date will send most people (especially around Chicago) to the slammer and to appeal in federal court. My particular circumstance already has me in a grey area where most Police Officers just assume I'm carrying anyway, so really I'm just being anal trying to follow whatever law I can. (In Illinois all peace officers can carry as long as their dept. allows. Mine doesn't because of a jack-wagon 15 years ago who got drunk and stupid with his gun. But most local PD either doesn't know about that policy or doesn't care as long as you dress in blue for you job)

If any one has any knowledge into the federal regulations I would really appreciate your incite.

Thank You!


(Edit)

To clarify my concerns, the night I'm writing this, I was the DD for a friend and ran across a few (4) former inmates. Luckily they were plenty satisfied with my work, but there has been several times where I've had to bluff and ask the former inmate if he thinks he can out draw me, as a buddy runs to the restroom with my phone to call some friends (local PD) who are on duty.

Last edited by bk688; May 10, 2013 at 02:32 AM.
bk688 is offline  
Old May 10, 2013, 06:18 AM   #2
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
No particular federal regulations on carry. The federal law restricts who can buy and posses guns and regulates what types of guns. It also regulates the possession on federal land and in federal buildings. Anyone who can get a Illinois FOID card should be good to go with carry using weapons you can buy with your FOID card.

Possession of weapons in certain places like Chicago may still be an issue as they have a possession ban outside the home not a carry ban and require registration. Not sure how voiding the no carry law effects such things.

I have not read the court ruling so I do not know if it applied to other weapons besides hand guns. For instance in VA a CHP would not allow you to carry a dirk concealed. Illinois may have regulated such weapons under a different law than the one found unconstitutional.
wally626 is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 03:55 AM   #3
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
Without a valid state permit, you'll also need to pay attention to the Federal Gun Free School Zone act. You can't knowingly go within 1000 ft of a school while carrying.
Scimmia is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 06:13 PM   #4
bk688
Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2009
Posts: 53
Common misconception

^ Actually that one I already know's incorrect.

The feds left that 1000 ft requirement out specifically although its a common misconception that they require tat you stay 1000 ft away.

The federal regulation on that is simply that the school grounds itself is a gun free zone, if I want to walk across the street on the side walk with my gun in my pocket its not illegal.
bk688 is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 09:01 PM   #5
Scimmia
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2011
Location: Eastern IA
Posts: 428
18 USC § 921 (a):

(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

There are a number of exceptions in the law, one being for permit holders of the state in which the school zone is located, which gets rid of this requirement and subjects you to whatever the state requirement is. Like I said in my original post, without a valid state permit, you have to pay attention to the Federal law as written.
Scimmia is offline  
Old May 11, 2013, 10:39 PM   #6
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,285
OK...here's where we're at in terms of IL law.

AG Madigan has told the courts that she needs a one-month extension on writing up her appeal to the US Supreme Court. She will get it. Once she's finished (and that will be before the month is up and before the 7th's deadline on the carry law) she will ask that the 7th's ruling on carry be set aside until the Supremes act.

She'll get that too.

Second, her act of starting the process to go to the Supremes functionally put the process of doing a new state law on hold too. They COULD in theory do a new carry law but...yeah, no. Politically not possible. To get a new carry law the anti-RKBA side would have to appease the gunnie legislators and without a deadline, won't happen.

Now. This will likely be all for the good in the end.

If the Supremes either decline to hear it or (more likely) rule our way, IL will suddenly get full carry rights.

Can you say "epic party"?

But the downside is, I would not bet that you'll have carry inside of a couple of months.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 10:15 PM   #7
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
10 pm CBS 5-16-2013

CBS has just announced that something has passed and we have a CCW and the NRA doesn't like it. I'm sure more will follow in the next few hours.
godot is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 10:40 PM   #8
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,800
Nothing has passed yet; according to this story at HuffPo, the bill has been advanced by the Senate Executive Committee.
The committee voted 10-4 in favor of the bill, which would require gun owners in the state of Illinois to pass a background check and get training before being granted a permit by Illinois State Police, the Associated Press reports.
...
The bill -- HB 183 -- further bans guns from being carried inside bars, hospitals, child-care centers, sports arenas, schools and casinos and while riding on public trains and buses and would require gun owners to get an additional OK from Chicago police before they are allowed to legally carry weapons in the city.
There's a lot of opposition to it, and a long way to go before it comes to a vote, much less passes.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 10:46 PM   #9
dsa1115
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 427
This CCW bill being advanced by Illinois Senator Kwame is a bad bill and must be defeated. This bill is a "may issue bill" Home rule entities will be able to pass additional restrictions on where you can carry in the State. It also appears that these home rule units could change their ordinances indefinitely. You could be legal in one town and illegal in the next. No mass transit carry, no restaurant carry, no carrying in parks, blah blah blah blah. Looks like they also added some gun control in the bill too, i.e., no private sales. This bill needs to be defeated. Anything short of "shall issue" with no special carve outs for The City of Chicago, Cook County and other home rule districts is unacceptable. This bill is garbage that needs to be defeated.
dsa1115 is offline  
Old May 16, 2013, 10:50 PM   #10
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,708
Wait. You're saying that you are a LEO and your department forbids you to carry while NOT on the job??? Wow.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 12:00 AM   #11
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 206
Let's clarify the current status a bit more. Madigan has asked for a one month extension of time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which application was granted. She has as yet sought no further relief. One would anticipate that she would request that the decision of the Court of Appeals be stayed (not "set aside") pending the determination of the Petition, but she has a very high burden to meet to get that relief given the nature of the appellate court's ruling. The Court of Appeals ruling imposes no standard--all it will do is to invalidate the Illinois "no carry" law and enjoin any governmental entity in the state from enforcing it. All other laws regarding the ownership or possession of firearms remain in effect, and indeed, Chicago has its own special ownership and possession laws that will not be specifically invalidated by any injunction issued; the police will simply charge under a municipal ordinance rather than under the State criminal code.
On the other hand, any stay granted by the Supreme Court would be of limited duration, as it will only last until the petition is decided. If certiorari is denied, the stay will evaporate and the injunction goes into effect. A grant of the petition, however, will supersede, the appellate court decision and we will go back to the same status we are at now.

There is one final factor that must be considered. Any injunction issued by the Circuit Court will last only so long as Illinois does not pass some sort of carry law. The moment a carry law becomes effective, the injunction will essentially evaporate as the law it enjoined will no longer be in effect. So the only real risk in Illinois is that there may be a gap between the old law invalidated by the court and any new law enacted. This state of "constitutional carry" as I've stated above, is still subject to all federal and state laws regarding ownership and carry I restricted places.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 12:11 AM   #12
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
Maybe if we can't carry, LEO s and Federal agents and security guards shouldn't carry either. Perhaps this should be extended to carrying even when on the job. If they really need a gun to handle a bark robbery or something, they can get a court order to be issued a gun and 10 bullets for a few hours. These should be issued only under the gravest extreme.
Let's make this a gun free state and see how that works out. Considering how well a gun free Chicago has worked out, a gun free state should be a paradise.
godot is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 12:22 AM   #13
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 545
As a Chicago resident, I'll just say that "it ain't lookin' good."

I've seen the bills introduced and fail for too many years to believe it will be anything but difficult. Most likely, it will be impossible. I don't see Chicago politicians giving an inch and they will not settle for anything less than Home Rule laws. If we do clear that hurdle, and that's a big if, we also must contend with a Chicago Ordinance AWB passed in 2006 that bans most high capacity firearms and makes the ownership of a Glock 17 magazine illegal.

I had really high hopes for a while but I'm starting to come back down to Earth. It's just business as usual and we're along for the ride.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 01:59 AM   #14
myusername
Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2013
Posts: 99
For "Onwards" comment -I gather from his post the OP is a corrections officer and someone where he works got crocked and lit off his gun years ago creating a policy where they can't carry off duty, or maybe not at all?

A number of correction facilities and private incarceration companies don't arms their staff on or off duty as I understand it.
myusername is offline  
Old May 17, 2013, 12:02 PM   #15
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
Question

If you have taken the class, paid your fee, gone through the background check & already have a Chicago card, shouldn't that automatically mean approval for a Chicago CCW?
If they are sincere here in providing them to only those with background checks, isn't the current card sufficient? What else do they want?
godot is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 06:56 AM   #16
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
What else do they want?
More money.
wally626 is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 07:28 AM   #17
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
I think it is a pretty confusing legal landscape in Illinois

Here is a summary of the goings-on in the Illinois Senate this past week:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,2454696.story

One Cook County judge has ruled Illinois AUUW unconstitutional, another Cook County Judge has stated that Moore v Madigan doesn't apply to the Illinois AUUW statute - or parts of it (confusing exactly which parts are being referred to)

Absent a state law Chicago could enact city ordinances that could carry six months in jail and $10,000 fine.

Given Chicago's history of litigation I would think that Chicago would pass restrictive and even unconstitutional ordinances, (crafted in ways to avoid 1983 lawsuits) and force Second Amendment activists to resort to the courts to overturn those ordinances.

A template for types of restrictions were created in January basically using sensitive place restrictions on:

your vehicle
restaurants
truck stops ( gas stations ?)
any place that has video gaming to include but not limited to casinos
church, temple, or any other place of worship
zoos
parks
amusement parks
museums
schools, colleges, daycare
state government buildings
libraries
hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices, to include veterinarian offices
public transportation - including stations and bus stops
any other private property unless express permission is given

to include parking lots for any of the above mentioned places and any adjacent or nearby areas (not well defined)

Last edited by Luger_carbine; May 18, 2013 at 07:34 AM.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 08:08 AM   #18
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
They'll be "going off the cliff". Chicago's carry bill is a non-starter, and it seems peeling off the last few needed votes for shall-issue won't happen.
I'm thinking Madigan will have to apply for cert(and a stay w/SCOTUS) before the June 9 deadline, even though she has until late June technically. It wouldn't look good to have the deadline pass and then come running to SCOTUS last second begging for a stay because they can't get their act together.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 18, 2013, 10:01 AM   #19
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,708
Another vote for "they are going off the cliff". No one wants to get blamed for a bad CCW bill. Of course "Bad" has different definitions to different folks. Once it goes off the cliff and Constitutional Carry is in place, there's no way in hell the pro-gun folks will want any type of CCW law that has any restrictions, short of background checks and maybe formal training. Think about it, why would you want more gun restrictions when you are already paying for a FOID card along with a background check? You got a FOID, you probably already have shot a gun, right?

The anti's will feel good about themselves because they got someone to blame for the failure of a CCW bill. It was NOT the anti's fault whatsoever that a proper CCW bill didn't get passed. They will blame, blame, blame... The funny thing will be is what they are going to do when the crime statistics show crime had dropped dramatically after CC.

In the meantime, the AG will try to move forward on the appeal. If and when it goes to the SCOTUS, it will be groundbreaking. It could mean Constitutional Carry for all or we take a step back on CCW across the country.

Hey, that's just my prediction...
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old May 19, 2013, 12:09 AM   #20
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
It is a confusing mess here in Illinois. This coming week the Sandy Hook families are being flown in to Springfield to lobby for another proposed semi-auto ban and a magazine ban with confiscation and no grandfathering. Those will fail, but there will be a lot of yelling, high emotions, and exhausting grassroots politics before it is over.

The Senate has a may issue CCW bill that passed out of committee but that does not have the votes yet to pass the Senate and may never have the votes to do so. That Senate bill is dead in the House anyway - not just per CCW advocates but also per the House Speaker - who is opposed to a bill out of the Senate.

Right now the original NRA bill has been scrapped and the primary author of that bill is in negotiations with the Speaker of the House (the most powerful man in the State) to make a deal on a shall issue bill without a Chicago carve out.

The Democratic Senate President and the Democratic House Speaker are at odds right now and there is infighting over the CCW issue. It looks however like the House Speaker is attempting to get a CCW bill passed before the June 9th deadline, one that has his name on it and will help downstate democrats retain their seats and help his daughter get elected to Governor. He doesn't like CCW and supports all kinds of gun control laws, but he also appears to desire to further his daughters career and to stay in power by maintaining democratic dominance through keeping seats downstate - where there are pro-gun and pro-CCW majorities.

No one knows how the Senate President will respond - but the Speaker was ****** that the State Senator who wrote the Senate may issue bill was in the House on the day of the vote on the NRA bill and queered the deal by telling Democratic representatives not to vote yes on the NRA bill as he and the Senate were going to pass a better bill. The Speaker is playing payback for the Senate and Senators messing around on his turf.

Everything is fluid right now and going down to the wire. That Illinois States Atty - the Speakers daughter will not file for cert with the USSC unless her father gives her the okay and he is presently negotiating or making the appearance to doing so with the CCW majority in the House. How the Senate and the Senate President and the Governor will respond is unknown. But if a bill is passed out of the House with implicit or explicit approval of the Speaker they will be hard pressed to oppose it as they will force Illinois to go over the June 9th Cliff and look like the bad guys.

But the situation is highly fluid and one day to the next one never knows what is next. It's hardball politics, Chicago politics and it is as dirty and nasty as heck.

Hard to see all this with 20 plus years of hard work by thousands of us to get a real shall issue bill passed - and it all coming down to a series of last minute backroom deal making sessions.

Lots of people on a tight string right now, emotions are high.
mack59 is offline  
Old May 19, 2013, 11:18 AM   #21
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
No one knows how the Senate President will respond - but the Speaker was ****** that the State Senator who wrote the Senate may issue bill was in the House on the day of the vote on the NRA bill and queered the deal by telling Democratic representatives not to vote yes on the NRA bill as he and the Senate were going to pass a better bill. The Speaker is playing payback for the Senate and Senators messing around on his turf.

That's kind of odd. Why would those Dem reps(ones that supposedly might vote yes on the NRA bill) be swayed by an anti-gun senator saying there's going to be a "better" bill? Kind of like Dianne Feinstein telling GOP senators to vote against National Reciprocity because there's going to be a National Constitutional Carry bill.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 12:41 AM   #22
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Because those Democratic representatives did not want a shall issue CCW bill, but were unable to pass a may issue bill in the House, and thus felt that they had to pass something or come June 9th when the Illinois law banning all carry became invalid per the 7th circuit, that anyone could carry without significant restriction. As they were afraid of that and as the pro shall issue democrats who were authoring the shall issue CCW bill offered some minor concessions for them going along they were going to vote for the shall issue bill - but the Senator convinced the Reps not to vote for the bill because he told them that the Senate was going to pass a bi-partisan may issue bill with a Chicago carve out. That as it turned out was not true, the Senate bill does not yet have enough support among democrats to pass the Senate and has no support from republicans thus offering no political cover for downstate Democratic senators. Also the bill has no chance at all to pass in the house.

Thus the Senate made Madigan (the speaker) look bad and it threatened to possibly hurt the speakers daughters (Lisa Madigan the States Atty General) statewide electoral chances when she runs for Governor or US Senate as it may end up making her have to appeal the decision to the USSC if there is no CCW law passed.
mack59 is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 04:55 PM   #23
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 211
Interesting. Mike Madigan can choose to either accept shall-issue and shield his daughter from potential disaster or keep fighting and not shield his daughter. She's seems to already have one foot toward asking for cert because of the extension.
The other option is they don't file for cert, don't pass shall-issue and try to roll the dice with CA7 and try to play games by letting municipalities come up with all sorts of nonsense. If that happens I hope every ambulance chasing attorney heads to IL to sue each municipality for whatever ridiculous laws are passed(i.e. can't carry on a sidewalk).
press1280 is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 05:01 PM   #24
+1k ammo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 191
Good I hope this does make the Madigans look bad for their political maneuvering.
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL? God bless them as I have 4yr old and couldn't cope if that was him but what do they have to do with IL?
I went to IN and bought $12.00 30 round ak47 clip and they did not even check my I'd!!!!!!
+1k ammo is offline  
Old May 20, 2013, 05:08 PM   #25
RoadyRunner
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 4
Concealed Carry Illinois

Quote:
Originally Posted by +1k ammo View Post
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL?
To testify in the Senate Executive committee on SFA2 to SB1002 banning the transfer or sale (within Illinois) of "ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds" - though (oddly for this state) not possession or use.
RoadyRunner is online now  
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 12:42 AM.


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 0.16145 seconds with 7 queries