The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28, 2013, 11:13 AM   #76
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
DONE
godot is offline  
Old May 28, 2013, 12:18 PM   #77
Beagle45ACP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: IL, USA
Posts: 127
Thanks for the link mack. While I'm not entirely happy with the bill (mainly the not being able to carry on public transit - even though I don't use it that often), I definitely prefer it to any other bill.
__________________
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 28, 2013, 09:57 PM   #78
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Well HB183 got passed out of committee and SB2193 got held up in committee. The witness slips filed by supporters or opponents on HB183 ran over 1,000 opposed - which is I believe a record for witness slips filed in opposition.

No vote today in the Senate on HB183 - guess it will be tomorrow - don't know if Cullerton has the votes - though he is trying to ram it through with a bare majority of 30 - which is contrary to the Illinois constitution which states that all legislation that contains preemption of home rule require a 3/5 majority. Though they stripped all preemption on other gun laws they left it in for concealed carry.

They may be tinkering with amending the bill to get votes to get it passed, or just playing chicken with Madigan and the house.

The only good thing is that SB2193 is still alive and could be given a floor vote if HB183 fails or if the House fails to pass HB183.

So we need to kill HB183 and leave no alternative except for SB2193.
mack59 is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 02:18 PM   #79
Southwest Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
Quote:
Though they stripped all preemption on other gun laws they left it in for concealed carry.
I heard .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Nhx2VUCzno
that Chicago had a carve out. You have to get a special permit from Chicago P.D. ??? ..... which you won't of course get.
Southwest Chuck is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 10:06 PM   #80
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
Nope, the bill HB183 does not contain a Chicago carve out - that was in a prior senate bill or version of HB183 but not the current amended version.
mack59 is offline  
Old May 29, 2013, 10:55 PM   #81
Southwest Chuck
Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2009
Location: A Calguns Interloper
Posts: 39
The video I linked above references SB2193, but it could have been amended too,(or I could just be dense : )
Southwest Chuck is offline  
Old May 30, 2013, 09:25 AM   #82
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
The YouTube film was a week old and so ( we hope ) things have improved within the last week. And then again I'm an eternal optimist.
godot is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 11:05 AM   #83
Prof Young
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Posts: 643
Illinois Closer to Concealed Carrry . . . BUT . . .

Friends of the Second Amendment:
If you've been watching the news you know that the Illinois State House has passed a bill that will allow for concealed carry in Illinois. It still has to go through the Senate but the state is under a court order to do this by June 9th.

Anyway, while that is all a good thing I'm not ready to celebrate yet.

First, it's going to require 16 hours of training. I'm all for training but 16 hours is going to be costly for the individual. On top of that there is $150 fee. Between the training and the fee this is being priced out of many lower income hands.

Also, there is no repeal here of the FOID card. In Illinois you have to have a Firearms Owner Identification Card to even handle firearms much less buy them and the ammo. In effect the guns are not registered . . . but the gun owners are.

So we are moving in the right direction and when all the dust settles if the training doesn't cost an arm and a leg I may apply. We'll see.

Live well, be safe
Prof Young
Prof Young is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 11:30 AM   #84
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 5,587
Good guy in Iowa but not in Illinois

No surprises here and it was expected. Iowa requires a 4-hour class and if you are a Vet. no class at all. In fact, you don't even have to own a handgun to get a permit. .....

A good friend of mine, moved from Iowa to Illinois and he had a permit for Iowa. Now he has none. He is or was a good guy in Iowa but not, in Illinois. Governor Quinn claims that he just wants to protect the citizens of Illinois by supporting anti-gun efforts and wants to raise the speed limits on the highways. Go figure .....

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 02:23 PM   #85
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Here's what I think must be the key question - does the bill have a preemption clause that prohibits municipalities/counties from enacting their own, more restrictive and prohibitory carry ordinances?
csmsss is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 02:27 PM   #86
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
As long as there is no carve out for Chicago, I'm on board.
godot is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 03:34 PM   #87
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
I've merged two threads, to keep discussion centralized.
__________________
"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 31, 2013, 05:11 PM   #88
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 368
Our shall issue with some preemption bill JUST passed both houses.

Highlights that I can pull off the top my head.

shall issue, with some preemption.

The regulation of a handgun shall is the sole power of the state for residents with a carry permit. If you have no carry permit than all home rule ordinances apply to you. If you have a permit then the local ordinances that regulate handguns and ammo for handguns are invalidated. It's not the super preemption that we got with a different bill that passed the house and killed by the senate.

That means the Chicago firearms permit, registration, all the training nonsense doesn't apply for those with permits. That's a big win.

16 hours of training. Yeah it's a lot but there are ways to get 8 hours credit. These include DD214 for all of our veterans, and other credentials such as hunting safety classes and a few more I cant name off the top of my head.

LOTS of restricted places. Chicago will still be tough to carry simply because of the location of all the various "sensitive places". No public transportation carry. I see that as being the next big fight to get rid of.

In short today is a HISTORIC day for us. We scored healthy super majority votes in each house. I'm personally confident that we will override a governor veto.

It's not a great bill but it's the only way to avoid what we've been calling the concealed carry cliff. If nothing had been done we would be looking at possibly over 100 different and unique local ordinances scattered through the state. No one wanted that except for the most rabid and extreme gun haters.
Davey is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 06:53 PM   #89
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 231
Where the rubber meets the road

This will become an experiment for both sides of gun control can watch and where opinion will finally step aside and real life experiences will prove who has been right.

Shootings are incredibly high in Chicago so I am anxious to see if criminals become more or less bold after these laws change.

I am convinced that longterm, crime will go down but will there be a spike in deaths where criminals are confronted before they finally realize that others are now defending themselves.

This may become a big game changer. Lower crime and homicides will do more damage to gun control than the NRA ever got credit for from the NY Times.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 09:55 PM   #90
SteveRem870
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Posts: 7
Illinois passes Concealed Carry Law

video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFLj9n-o98Q
SteveRem870 is offline  
Old May 31, 2013, 11:14 PM   #91
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Glad to see you all in Illinois finally made it. It's not perfect, but neither is ours, it can be tweaked down the road.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 07:27 AM   #92
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 637
Here in IL we are still not there. First, we need the Gov. to sign the bill (since he opposed it he might try to delay signing as long as possible for his own political purposes). Then the state will need to do all of the administrative things to get the process going, with the most likely delay (in my opinion) a difficult and slow process to approve training programs that meet the state's requirements (16 hours and covering specified areas). They also will have to design and distribute an application form. My guess is that these actions will take months or longer, and then since the police agencies can oppose granting a permit, they will have a very lengthy review process giving all police agencies the shot at objecting. And who knows, IL might demand that the $150 fee be paid in cash at a single spot in the state capital in Springfield, and only open that spot for an hour a week. I am so disgusted with this state and the corruption and incompetence of the elected and appointed officials that I guess I am very cynical. If I end up with a permit in my wallet anything shorter than 18 months from now I will be very surprised.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 10:09 AM   #93
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,309
Let the governor delay. The "Carryapocalypse" date is coming.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 10:13 AM   #94
rts99
Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2012
Posts: 40
Governor's Response

I suspect that the Gov will veto the bill to protect his political a$$. He has too many gun control toddies he has to appease to roll-over without some illusion of a fight. That will put the ball back in the legislature's court (aka special session) where they will be forced to "put up or shut up". In the end they'll have to override the veto or let "Constitutional Carry"/local ordinances chaos to ensue. I don't think the legislature can permit that. Amy will be forced to seek an 11th hour stay from the 7th circuit since the Gov vetoed the legislature's bill. Assuming the legislature overrides the veto the Gov will then order Amy to file a petition for cert as well as seek a stay while awaiting the SC, again to protect his political a$$.

Assuming Amy is forced to seek an 11th hour stay from the 7th I'm not sure they'll comply. It seems plain to me that the legislature wasted most of the 6 months they were given coming in just under the wire with a bill, but not legislation signed into law. They also had more than adequate time to file a petition for cert that they clearly don't want to file. Had Amy filed a petition it may have given more credibility in seeking a stay at this point from the 7th, but without it I don't think (maybe hope) that the 7th will comply.

This is just about to get interesting. More "extend & pretend" tactics from the gun control crowd.

rts99 is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 11:50 AM   #95
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
The Governor cannot order AG Lisa Madigan to do anything, she is an elected official and in Illinois is not required to do what the Governor desires. If he vetoes the bill, the senate and house will go into special session and override his veto with the original language, the huge majorities in the house and senate assure that. There will be no appeal or stay. Quinn will either sign it or ammendatory veto it before the 9th, depends which he feels will play better in his re-election campaign. Either way he is just a speed bump in the road at this point. Speaker Madigan will not let this touch his daughter and President Cullerton is already on board too. Too many legislators afraid of going off the court carry cliff to change anything now. Negotiations are done, the bill passed with over 75% support in both houses, only 60% was required for preemption and only 60% is required to override the governor's veto and pass the original bills into law. The last time Quinn tried an ammendatory veto on a gun bill he got stuffed by larger majorities than supported the bills in the first place.

The only thing Quinn could do to stall at this point is to try to wait the 60 days he has to sign or veto the bill and then let it become law without his signature or veto it then. However, I see no upside for him in that case, he has caused a crisis that did not need to happen by refusing to act. It would hurt him with both democrats and republicans.

Lisa might ask for a temporary injunction then with the 7th then, "because our governor is an idiot," or she just might let him fall on the sword of his self created crisis. He would be crucified in the press.

So he either signs or vetoes and gets overridden. Either way he is irrelevant at this point, except the legislators would all be ****** if they have to come back in special session for an override vote.
mack59 is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 11:56 AM   #96
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
You're right, my congrats were too soon. However, I suppose Quinn will reluctantly sign the bill to avoid a Constitutional carry situation.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 11:58 AM   #97
godot
Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 80
Veto? Really?

On most issues a small percentage is for and against whatever is being voted on and the vast majority of people kind of lean in one direction or the other, but are sort of ambivalent. A year ago when none of us expected a CCW, we would have shrugged off a veto. No biggie...........not gonna happen in my lifetime............
To get this close and be defeated at the wire would cause outrage among a significant portion of the state and be a huge political mistake. My guess is what his office is working on now, is how to sign it & give it the best possible spin. If not, June 9th is only 8 days away.
godot is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 12:52 PM   #98
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 637
If nothing happens by 6/9, the lack of a concealed carry bill would render it no longer illegal to do so. However, I predict that many cities and counties would then pass a much more restrictive ordnance, such as what the Sheriff of Cook County proposed, which was a very restrictive "may issue" law. I guess I have been so discouraged over the years that I am afraid to get my hopes up for some imminent positive outcome.
__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
― George Orwell
vito is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 07:05 PM   #99
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
All IL politics aside....

Lisa Madigan cannot ask for a continuance on the stay, unless she files for cert to the Supreme Court. Should she file for cert, she can then ask for a Stay of Mandate from the CA7. If they (the CA7) don't grant this (the reality is that they will), Ms. Madigan will then ask the Supreme Court for a Stay of Mandate (which will be granted). Those are the rules.

If the Statutes at issue (“Unlawful Use of Weapons” (720 ILCS 5/24-1) and “Aggravated
Unlawful Use of Weapons” (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6)) are not legislatively overturned, or made void/changed by other, intervening legislation, the Mandate goes into effect on June 9th.

Whatever else might happen on or after this date, as in local rules, no one in IL can be successfully prosecuted under those State statutes.

The above assumes that no law is in place by June 9th.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 1, 2013, 08:51 PM   #100
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 379
Well, since they all messed around until the very last moment to pass a carry law, I don't think counsel for the state or the city of Chicago had time to review statute. There seems to be a huge grey area now on what people do if they have to go through some areas that prohibit carry. There is a provision for unloading and storing your firearm in a vehicle - but nothing for people who are on foot or riding a bike, or something similar.

If you are leave your home and walk down to the street - and you have a permit, you're allowed to carry concealed. However if you're going to the public transportation train station - you have to go from carrying to transporting
Quote:
-not immediately accessible; or unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.
I don't see anything in the legislation that allows pedestrians to go from loaded & holstered to stowed in a container. It seems to me that if people start unloading their guns at bus stops and train stations they are going to catch a brandishing charge from the city. If that is the case - it once again sets up a condition where Illinois citizens are prohibited from carrying. If a person is going from point A where it is legal to carry to point B where it is legal to carry, but the law prohibits them either from carrying on public transportation or stowing their firearms it would be unconstitutional. I guess the state could make the argument that people don't have to take public transportation - they could walk all the way or take a cab... But the same issue arises for a doctor, nurse or a librarian walking or riding a bike to work. It will be interesting.

I think it's a very fertile field now for litigation. I don't think they are going to be cases of national import, but I think that a lot of the concessions that Chicago thinks it won may fall apart in court if proponents are able to develop more case law around what they call "container carry." To gun control activists and gun control politicians, there is no difference between concealed carry in a holster or transporting a firearm in a fanny pack - to them it's someone carrying a gun.
Luger_carbine 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 07:53 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 0.14806 seconds with 7 queries