The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 24, 2013, 12:56 PM   #51
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
IL Speaker of the house Madigan just threw Chicago gun control out the window.

Our shall issue bill just passed the house with 85yes, 30 no, 1 present.

Bill had a provision that makes firearm regulations a power of the state. All local ordinances would be invalidated.

Senate vote next. Word is that it will be today.

Game isn't over yet

Last edited by Davey; May 24, 2013 at 01:12 PM.
Davey is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 01:16 PM   #52
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 556
SB 2193 has passed the House.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 02:05 PM   #53
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Are you guys fans of SB 2193?

I know its shall issue, which is a huge leap forward, but are there any provisions that make it bad?
__________________
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 24, 2013, 02:07 PM   #54
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
I'm not an Illinois resident and I haven't read the bill, but I did find a story on its passage: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,2292796.story

Good luck, Illinois!
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:13 PM   #55
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2012
Location: Oh, Jesus.
Posts: 206
$150 for 5 years. 16 hours training. No DD214 recognition.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:20 PM   #56
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 538
Quote:
Are you guys fans of SB 2193?

I know its shall issue, which is a huge leap forward, but are there any provisions that make it bad?
It isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing. The best part is it's shall issue, and not may-issue. If it had been may-issue, I'd consider it no-issue unless you're "connected". As for the $150.00 cost, that's for five years which breaks down to $30.00 a year, not horrible. Just being able to carry in your car, and not have to worry about being pulled over and becoming a felon is GREAT news!

The 16 hour training requirement may be the tough part. No one knows what it'll cost, and where you can get the training yet. I put my name on a CCW Class waiting list a few weeks ago, and the shop was already up to at least 600 people signed up. If and when this law goes into effect, there'll be thousands lining up. It could take a year or two to actually be licensed for all I know. Overall I'm glad it's finally here, that it's shall issue, and that I may be around long enough to see it.

I have to admit I smiled when I heard the House passed the bill today.
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."
-Sydney J. Harris
spanishjames is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:21 PM   #57
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 538
Quote:
No DD214 recognition.
What's that?
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."
-Sydney J. Harris
spanishjames is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:24 PM   #58
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
Proof of US Military Service...
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 07:43 PM   #59
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 370
Quote:
Are you guys fans of SB 2193?

I know its shall issue, which is a huge leap forward, but are there any provisions that make it bad?
The requirements and place restrictions are pretty over the top.

$150 for residents, $300 for out of staters. No word on recognition or reciprocity as far as I know.

Many places are prohibited, public transportation, many parks, museums, and some forest preserves among others.

However we have to remember that included in the bill is state wide preemption on all laws regulating firearms. You know, that one law many here drool over.

Last edited by Davey; May 24, 2013 at 07:52 PM.
Davey is offline  
Old May 24, 2013, 09:39 PM   #60
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Quote:
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
.
I think we still have a chance, at least 2 fairly powerful democratic machine politicians are against this - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the President of the Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton. The governor is against it also but I wouldn't say he's that powerful.

From what I understand, Senate President John Cullerton could mess around calling other bills and refuse to call this for a vote, that might force IL AG Lisa Madigan to appeal in order to stop enforcement of the CA7 ruling.

I hear people in Illinois talk about going over "the cliff" June 9th like it's certainty if this bill doesn't get passed - but Lisa Madigan has already filed for an extension - instead of going over the constitutional carry cliff, I would think it more likely means appeal to SCOTUS and putting Illinois gun law on hold until it is decided on by the Supremes.

Am I wrong?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 03:38 AM   #61
Beagle45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 127
Illinois House Passes CCW Bill

http://www.bnd.com/2013/05/24/262953...concealed.html

The above article provides pretty much any background information that you need to know, and frankly, most of it is irrelevant to my question. If you scroll down about halfway through the article, the author describes the "highlights" of the proposed bill - that's the part I wanted to focus on.

Basically, what are everyone's thoughts on the restrictions stating that you can't carry in a public park or on public transportation?
Also, while I know that not being able to carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol is pretty much standard, what do you all think about the possibility of not being able to carry in any establishment that sells alcohol?

Suddenly it's starting to seem to me that I would only be able to carry while driving in my car, which makes me think that this "win" for gun owners is becoming a hell of a lot more like a tie.
__________________
I have a mild interest in guns. Actually, I think the clinical term is "obsession," but that makes me sound like some kind of gun-nut. Which is fair, since I am.

Wastin' away my future children's inheritance one box of ammo, range fee, and bottle of Hoppe's #9 at a time.
Beagle45ACP is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 06:51 AM   #62
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,977
Well, that law sounds awful in many ways. I guess it is a place to start though. Like OH, perhaps many parts of the law could be revamped as IL sees their crime rate reduced and no CCW crime to think of. Still, the lists and placards and public transportation ban is a bit much. Why charge non-res $300....cause they don't vote!
Nathan is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:19 AM   #63
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 221
The public transportation ban is probably the worst of this bill, and could be seen as a way to disarm poor and/or city residents. On top of that 150$ license fee along with 16 hour training which will probably bring the cost to 300-500 easy. Those who ride mass transit to work are effectively disarmed 5 days a week.
The restaurant bans are unconstitutional IMO, because they're privately owned and should be up to the owner, not the government. At the very least, a permit holder shouldn't be drinking while carrying. But whether the restaurant gets 51% or whatever from alcohol is irrelevant.
It's a win for sure, but definitely not a complete win.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:33 AM   #64
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 221
You're correct however most of the people on the inside are saying there's no way they go off the cliff. With this bill passing overwhelmingly, it looks like this will get through the Senate with veto proof majorities. The governor would then be in a box and would either sign(or just let it go through w/o signature) or have his veto overriden.
There may be some kind of back room deal to let this pass in the Senate in exchange for another unrelated bill to pass. Don't forget Speaker Madigan is Lisa Madigan's father. She is running for governor. A trip (and a humiliating defeat) at SCOTUS could be devastating to her chances. She'd rather cut her losses now, and daddy will help her.
It looks like Moore will be mooted by this, which could be a bad thing if SCOTUS wants to hear a total carry ban case as opposed to a may-issue case. We'd then probably have to wait for Palmer(DC case which has been stuck in district court for FOUR YEARS) for a pure carry ban case.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:52 AM   #65
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 636
Not Ill resident: Am I to assume that a restaurant must post it's income statement so a ccw carrier will know it's percentage of business attributable to alcohol??
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 09:40 AM   #66
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
If Moore is mooted by this legislation, then wouldn't the Scotus be more inclined to take Woollard or any of the three cases out of the ninth that are hovering?

Gura has never been slow on the draw with an appeal if it was part of his strategy. Since he has already announced the appeal in Woollard, I can only believe he is waiting to see how Moore plays out.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 07:34 PM   #67
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
I expect that restaurants that get a less than 49% alcohol sales get a different license than places with more than 49% alcohol sale. So the type of license should be evident and I am sure Illinois requires they be posted in prominent places.
wally626 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 08:21 PM   #68
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 221
As far as SCOTUS goes-you'd think Moore getting mooted would help Woollard or Peruta get cert. But it's hard to say, maybe they just wanted a total ban outside the home to rule on. That means waiting(potentially forever) for Palmer to get there.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 10:39 PM   #69
ranchito457
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 2, 2013
Location: Manhattan,Illinois
Posts: 120
I'm an Illinois resident and I can guarantee madigan is up to something maybe not now but in the next session for sure.I find it amusing how the foid card is backed up with tens of thousand of applications yet we cant seem to vote in some politicians that will look after our rights.If more people would get on there phone-email-fax carrier pigeon whatever and let there reps know that they are a 1-2 issue voter we wouldnt be in the situation that we have to choose over a bill that is full of it or nothing.BTW I dont live in chicago-I live 30 minutes south of it but I do have to drive into chicago everyday for bussiness and everyday I get sick to my stomach with these crooks.
I say let it go over the cliff and lets get the Supreme Court to finally tell these morons to go jump in there lake once and for all either way we cant lose something we dont have..
ranchito457 is offline  
Old May 25, 2013, 11:57 PM   #70
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 83
An argument could be made that the public transportation portion of the bill is racist in that people of Color would be disproportionally inconvenienced and actually hurt. Lower income people tend to use public transportation more often and at odd hours. The Red Line at 4am is fairly scary and that is the time many nurses, factory workers and others are going to or coming from work. I'm going to guess that sooner or later the minority community will object to this portion of the law.
No one wants gang bangers having weapons on the subway, but they have them illegally now and are unlikely to change their methods with a new law.
godot is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 08:44 PM   #71
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Is Kwong the only case right now with an EP aspect to it?
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old May 26, 2013, 09:20 PM   #72
RoadyRunner
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2012
Posts: 4
Concealed Carry Illinois

Under the bill, a non-IL resident gets in car carry IF their home state allows the carry of a concealed firearm and you have whatever permits are necessary.

For full carry in IL (subject to the place restrictions) a non-resident permit is $300. No recognition otherwise of other states permits.
RoadyRunner is offline  
Old May 27, 2013, 04:42 AM   #73
shaunpain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 556
Quote:
Basically, what are everyone's thoughts on the restrictions stating that you can't carry in a public park or on public transportation?
While I am certainly not keen on the restrictions, the bill is a package deal and we either work with it or around it. Keeping the NRA and the ISRA mum over this bill gave them the votes they needed to make sure this bill passes and defeats Quinn's veto. He will veto the bill. He's explicitly stated this numerous times in reference to this bill and every single bill Phelps bill before it. The restrictions are a huge concession, but one that was necessary (my humble opinion, anyway). I think that we won't really know how enforceable these restrictions will be until the bill becomes law and IL residents start carrying.

Quote:
Also, while I know that not being able to carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol is pretty much standard, what do you all think about the possibility of not being able to carry in any establishment that sells alcohol?
A total ban on carry in establishments that serve alcohol is not a provision of the bill. Hearing that the provision set forth is similar to other states, I can't say that I am particularly concerned with it.

Quote:
Suddenly it's starting to seem to me that I would only be able to carry while driving in my car, which makes me think that this "win" for gun owners is becoming a hell of a lot more like a tie.
I don't know what gains would be had if this heads to SCOTUS, but the state preemption provision is, to me, one of the biggest hurdles of this whole thing. Anyone with a glancing knowledge of firearm restrictions in the Chicago metro aware is well area of the confounding and idiotic patchwork of ordinances.

To anyone living outside of Chicago, this might seem like a concession too sour to swallow. As a city dweller, I am more satisfied than neutral about this bill because the state preemption provision is a huge one. My opinion is that this is NOT a bunk deal by any stretch of the imagination. We've never had a CCW law on the books and now it's happening. It seems to me that many people concerned about the public transportation caveat are not even IL residents, and if they are, live in areas where public transportation consists of a PACE bus that runs every four hours. For those downstate, hardly any public transportation exists. Given the horrifying frequency of public shootings recently , even in states with good CCW laws, I think that the restricted locations are places best avoided for the time being anyway. That's just my personal opinion. I try to avoid concentrated masses of people whenever possible. I don't have to mention how awful public transportation can be here. Those of you that have experienced it, know it.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!"
shaunpain is offline  
Old May 27, 2013, 06:29 AM   #74
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 221
The state preemption is probably the biggest deal in the bill. Everything else can be won through the courts, but preemption is something I don't think the courts would want any part of.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 27, 2013, 10:01 PM   #75
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
If you are from Illinois you need to please go to this link on Illinois Carry and contact the Senators listed and your senator and ask them to oppose HB183 or any CCW legislation except for SB2193.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=38160

Also please spread the word to friends and family and have them contact and call.
mack59 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 07:05 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 0.17369 seconds with 7 queries