Concealed Carry Illinois

[ThesNazud]

The no reciprocity thing is a pain, but I plan to counter that with also having a FL non-resident permit. My only question on that, and I'm sure it won't be answerable for a while is if the Illinois class requirement would count towards the FL permit...

[csmsss]

Shocked I haven't thought of this before, but does the new law provide for non-resident permits?

[ThesNazud]

Yeah at double the price($300) and I think if you has a permit in your own state, it counts for half the class hours...

[Jen-from-IL]

Originally Posted by godot

"Unfortunately, you can't yet. ISP has 180 days to come up with everything in order to submit the permit application. First though, they need to figure out all the necessary classes and who can teach them. You're looking at 1st quarter 2014 before the first permit application will be able to be submitted."

Jen, that was NOT the answer I was looking for. I was hoping for something like "Anyplace that sells State lottery tickets". LOL Thank you for the clarity.

LOL. Beer, lottery tickets and a CCW permit please.

[Buffalo444]

Originally Posted by csmsss

Excellent question! I don't think that was addressed in the legislation, so for the time being no reciprocity - think along the lines of MD, NY, NJ.

How ignorant. I guess I don't need to visit home that badly. Lol

[jimpeel]

This will be an excellent opportunity, that should not be missed, to use the law as a laboratory for CCW. It will be interesting to see the result after the law has been in effect for a year or two to see the reduction -- which we all know from experience is coming -- in firearms crime stats.

Just this past holiday there were dozens injured and numerous persons killed in Chicago by thugs with firearms. It will be interesting to see the results after the innocent residents are also permitted to carry a firearm for defense instead of nefarious criminal intent. Let the battles begin; and let them be a teaching moment for the criminal class and the firearms restriction advocates.

Does anyone know if there is any movement afoot to do a study along these lines -- Cato Institute, Independence Institute, et al?

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

Section II. part D.


http://directives.chicagopolice.org/...c.html?hl=true



Is 'investigatory stop' a detainment?

[BobCat45]

jimpeel, it is not that simple. Here is an article about the Holiday weekend toll:

http://www.suntimes.com/21197483-761...bloodshed.html

A fair-use quote from the article:

The carnage was tightly concentrated. Forty percent of the incidents occurred in and around two West Side neighborhoods — Austin and Garfield Park — roughly an 8.5-square-mile patch of a 228-square-mile city.

The vast majority of people in the affected neighborhoods are decent, civilized, hard-working people - but they are also not as likely as more well-to-do people in "nicer" neighborhoods to have the resources - time, money, inclination, and cultural background - to obtain a concealed carry license, weapon, training, and so forth.

The impact of the new law, in the neighborhoods most affected by this kind of violence, remains to be seen.

I'm afraid I've stated this in a clumsy manner that could be construed as insulting. That is not my intent. The city is quite inhomogeneous and the effect of legal concealed carry on crime in specific areas is not predictable.

Regards,
Andrew

[sigcurious]

Just this past holiday there were dozens injured and numerous persons killed in Chicago by thugs with firearms. It will be interesting to see the results after the innocent residents are also permitted to carry a firearm for defense instead of nefarious criminal intent.

Unfortunately, if you read the actual circumstances under which most of those shootings happened, CCW would be largely irrelevant and I find it doubtful that it will make a statistical impact on the issues that Chicago suffers or that any correlation will be able to be made. Aside from the general, well at least more legal guns doesn't correlate with more gun crime. These aren't stick ups gone wrong in most cases, where the shooting was ancillary to the primary crime, like robbery or some such. They're drive/walk/bike-by and/or stray bullets missing their intended(misidentified or not) targets, where shooting at someone was the primary crime.

[jimpeel]

I used the weekend carnage as an example, not as the focal point of a study. The study would be on the yearly number of homicides and shootings which have been on a steady rise.

SOURCE

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO IN 2011

441

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO IN 2012

535

NUMBER OF HOMICIDES IN CHICAGO AS OF
July 15, 2013

232

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO IN 2011

2,217

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS IN 2012

2,670

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOT IN CHICAGO AS OF July 9, 2013

1,214

I merely believe that Chicago can be an excellent laboratory for studying the statistics pre and post CCW permit laws.

[sigcurious]

That's the inherent issue though, a significant portion of the shootings in Chicago fall under similar circumstances as those noted in the previously mentioned weekend. The weekend is representative of the type of violence that occurs, rather than being an exception. It's only a good study(in relation to the effects of CCW) if you're studying the types of violence that have a chance of being deterred or thwarted by CCW, when the shootings fall into categories such as random/wrong place wrong time, drive-by, criminal on criminal/mistaken identity, the effects of CCW would be pretty minimal.

If you scroll through the link you got the stats from, you'll see there are a relatively high number of the shootings that involve being shot from the rear, etc. You'll also note that very few of them even mention things like robbery. Which isn't to say some of the ones that don't mention it weren't, but that its less likely that a large number of robberies gone wrong weren't reported as such or discovered to be robberies.

Chicago's violence problems are unfortunately beyond the scope of CCW or legally armed citizens. Until the economic collapse of the late 2000's, violent crime was trending consistently downward from peaks in the 70s and 90s(again times of economic trouble), where homicide rates were nearly double their current rates. If one looks even further back, it becomes apparent that Chicago unfortunately has a history of violent crime that is deeply embedded in the city.

[BobCat45]

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

Sometimes a graphic representation is clearer than place names.

The types of crimes (as sigcurious notes) and locations argue that legal concealed carry by middle class citizens is not likely to change the picture much.

[HarrySchell]

That CCW might not change current algorithms of violence in Chicago (particularly with the ban on carrying on public transit and the cost/effort to secure a permit, which is adverse toward those at the lower end of the economic spectrum) is interesting but by no means argues against it.

Algorithms change, and the "flash and bash mob" trend is a tactical change in crime, who does it and where they will go.

There is, increasingly, no safe place. There are places you have been that were safe when you were there, but tomorrow is a new day, with new algorithms.

[sigcurious]

It's not an argument against CCW, its an argument against the viability of a study on the effects of CCW. You may feel that the patterns change etc, but in large part the generally safe areas are the same as they were 20-30 years ago and the generally crime ridden ones are too.

Chicago's history very early on pushed the lower income folks into specific areas and for the most part they have been stuck there ever since. While some of the areas have changed demographics somewhat over the years, certain areas in the south and west sides are just unfortunately stuck as is.

Certain border neighborhoods like wicker park and bronzeville have changed over the years, but they benefit from not being in the heart of the rough neighborhoods. Additionally, the bronzeville area had all of nearly all of the low income public housing torn down, and what little was replaced in the area was replaced with mixed-income housing.

However, at this point the Daley-era urban redevelopment is over. Even then, the effect wasn't decreasing the crime so much over all within the select demographics, but shifting it slightly to new areas.

[BobCat45]

Not arguing against carrying! Please don't imagine that. I carry and consider it a duty in a way - just like voting, if you don't exercise a right you will likely loose it.

All I'm saying is that the murder rate in Chicago may not change much when law-abiding citizens start carrying.

Gangsters have been killing each other (and innocent bystanders) in Chicago since Prohibition. Many of the gangsters being shot are probably carrying illegally, but being ambushed or shot in a drive-by is not conducive to drawing and returning fire. And the little kids that get hit with stray rounds will still be hit until the gangsters improve their hit ratio.

I'm all *for* concealed carry, I just don't think it will bring about a precipitous drop in the crime rate or murder rate in Chicago.

[maestro pistolero]

It is hardly a stretch to imagine that at least some of those killed in gangland would protect themselves if it were legal and available to them. That might not change the numbers much, because poor minorities who legally defend themselves don't tend to fair well in the judicial system. So, many of those incidents may may tracked as murders rather than justifiable homicides.

Not to digress too much, but the issue of fair treatment of minorities in the courts, to whatever degree it's a factor, helps make a case for (the inaptly named) stand your ground laws. I read somewhere that blacks in FLA avail themselves of SYG protection at roughly twice the rate of whites who exercise self-defense with a gun.

I expect the anti-gun zealots in IL would leap to count every homicide as a murder to bolster their (often disingenuous) public safety bias re: lawful self-defense.

[HarrySchell]

Sig and BobCat, forgive me for being less clear than I should have been.

I was anticipating an "I told you so" from those who have resisted CCW if the murder rate is not significantly impacted.

I agree about the lack of mobility of inhabitants in rough areas. With trends in part-time employment, dependence on various forms of welfare, a decline in individual mobility due to "coercing people out their cars" (As Ray La Hood, DOT czar, announced his mission, and for other reasons), the most mobile society in the world will be less so, and those in rough areas will be even less able to escape.

Even the average mindset, as more people have to depend on public transport, may narrow down. "I can't go there because the bus ride is too long (or the times are wrong, or I can't figure out how, or the bus doesn't go there)."

At the extreme end, the "evacuation plan" is to sit on a curb and wait.

Denying people the effective right of self-defense is another part of making them dependent, compliant and helpless.

[BobCat45]

Harry, you have been clear and lucid as far as I'm concerned. And I agree with you that denying people the means of self defense if another way to inculcate a pliant, helpless outlook.

But try this: You are concerned that the advent of CCW in Chicago failing to lower the murder rate will be touted as a failure of CCW. In the past, we've been delighted to point out that instituting "Shall Issue" has not resulted in the spike in killings predicted by the antis. If they go off that CCW has not slashed the murder rate, the answer should be that it did not increase it as they have warned for years.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I'm grateful not to live there any more and don't intend to go back in any case.

[Mike38]

I just read all the available to date info on Illinois concealed carry at the Illinois State Police web sight. I noticed the following statement made at two locations of the site.

“"Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle.”

Emphasis on this part “…mostly concealed from view of the public…”.

Does this mean that it is not a violation to ‘print’ nor is it a violation if a small section of the concealed handgun temporarily is visible to the public?

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by BobCat45

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

Sometimes a graphic representation is clearer than place names.

The types of crimes (as sigcurious notes) and locations argue that legal concealed carry by middle class citizens is not likely to change the picture much.

I agree that concealed carry will have little effect on overall homicide rates in Chicago. The shootings are mostly gang on gang.

For 30 years I've worked, unarmed and often alone, in some of the most notorious neighborhoods in Chicago. I'm a red haired white guy btw. Never once have I felt threatened by by the gangbangers, they really don't care about me. If they talk to me it's often because they were just trying to figure out if I was an undercover cop. Their concern is primarily rival gang members. It's the thieves and robbers, who by and large aren't gangbangers, that I worry about.

Even my own neighborhood has gang violence - on average in the nearly 9 years I've been at my current address there's been 1-2 murders a year within 2 blocks of my house. All except one have been gang related, the one exception was a domestic and sadly I was acquainted with the victim who was a good kid. Shot in the head last year by his POS "guardian" who was an angry old bitter alcoholic. That, btw, was the only murder solved by the police in my neighborhood, the gang murders all remain unsolved.

As for the flash mobs making the news the last few years they will continue to target people in the "gun free zones" where the law doesn't allow concealed carry - parks and trains and such. I remain hopeful that as people here become more comfortable with concealed carry by the law abiding these restrictions can be removed.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by HarrySchell

Denying people the effective right of self-defense is another part of making them dependent, compliant and helpless.

I wouldn't go so far as to say this is the intended effect, but it certainly is the actual effect.

Years ago, before Chicago's handgun ban and for a short time thereafter, it wasn't uncommon for people to answer their door when I knocked (I did repair/maintenance for property management companies) in the rougher neighborhoods with a gun in hand or strapped to their person. They took it as their responsibility to protect themselves, they weren't willing to concede that right solely to the police.

30 years of gun prohibition changed the way people thought about guns, eventually guns were something only criminals and the police had.

And, perhaps directly related to that, police success at solving homicides (particularly gang related ones) has plummeted drastically. I can't help but think that, deprived of their ability to defend themselves, people are afraid to talk to police about what they know for fear of retaliation.

[vito]

To Mike38: I had not noticed the part about partial concealment, but it appears that printing or only a partial view of a gun would not be a problem. Sounds far too reasonable for the State of Illinois.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

Originally Posted by Mike38

Does this mean that it is not a violation to ‘print’ nor is it a violation if a small section of the concealed handgun temporarily is visible to the public?

I think the law was worded that way specifically to keep people from getting arrested simply for printing or inadvertently exposing their firearm when, for example, reaching up to grab something off a high shelf at the store.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

I think the law was worded that way specifically to keep people from getting arrested simply for printing or inadvertently exposing their firearm when, for example, reaching up to grab something off a high shelf at the store.

So is open carry off limits? I don't think a cop will accept the fact that my slim jim holster is concealing most of my cap and ball. I'm a sucker for 'style'.

[Luger_carbine]

I don't know if this is political grand-standing by an Illinois state rep or if Michael Tryon really thinks the ISP is dragging its feet, but he created an online petition.

Keep Concealed Carry Implementation on Schedule

http://www.miketryon.org/petition_ke...on_on_schedule


I'm not posting it here to get people to sign it, I'm just posting it because I think it's an interesting bit of reading concerning this situation in Illinois.

Maybe it's a reaction to Shepard's motion not going the way they wanted? Possibly they had hoped that the Posner panel would thump Illinois and allow people with FOID cards to carry, but when that didn't happen Representative Tryon created an online petition instead?