Illinois NRA members - NRA/ILA may need your input

[ilbob]

I don't want to try and summarize the issue here because it is well handled elsewhere so I will just post a link.

The gist of it is that a LTC bill that actually has a slight chance of passing, was opposed by the NRA/ILA. Apparently they are now no longer opposed to it but are not in favor.

Illinois NRA members may wish to gently and respectfully ask the NRA/ILA what is going on in this case.

Remember that the NRA/ILA is not the enemy. Maybe just making a bad tactical decision, or at least one I am not sure I agree with.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...opic=16115&hl=

[chibiker]

Bob, I see the link you posted is to the forum discussion... I read the rest of it later.
After reading why they chose to lobby against it I have to say I am on the fence about whether or not to send a letter/email off to them. For the most part I agree with their stance... I alson understand Molly's (think that was the poster's name) point of view as well. Why try to go for the whole enchilada but instead settle for a just a bit of meat first.
Illinois is littered with home rule counties and municipalities... can you imagine trying to keep all that straight when carrying in this state?
Would it not be better to wait until the Chicago case is decided, one I am confident they will end up losing and feel pretty sure incorporation will be the outcome. I look at all of this like a game of chess, strategy to the umpteenth degree.... Personally I have been pretty happy with the NRA's moves and outcomes as of late.

[ilbob]

A fellow from the NRA/ILA actually called me at home this evening and we had a long chat. Which very much surprised me. I never expected he would call. It was an interesting chat. I have a much better understanding of why they are unwilling to actively support the bill now.

Without the NRA's active support I do not think any pro-gun bill has much of a chance.

[Al Norris]

OK. Read the thread on the IllinoisCarry site.

Bob, I can think of one reason the NRA-ILA is not behind this bill. It's something no one at that Board has considered.

Should the 7th Circuit opt for incorporation, via McDonald v. Chicago, this current bill would become a stumbling block for concealed carry in Illinois.

I think the NRA-ILA is not forth-coming with their strategy, because they see a win in the 7th Circuit. Such a win, would mean the chances of a pre-emptive CC law would be much, much greater under incorporation, than without it. While passing an STHR bill now, might very well stick you all with years more litigation than you would face, after incorporation.

If I'm correct in my thinking, you folks should consider it seriously.

[chibiker]

My thoughts exactly.... okay mostly. I just don't express them as well.

[ilbob]

I don't see how incorporation changes anything.

Say 5 years from now, the SC finally agrees and incorporates. So far all the SC says is protected is keeping handguns usable for SD in the home. And a year after the case is decided DC is still dragging its feet and has not changed its laws in any appreciable way.

Has zero effect on CC.

I agree there is a problem with the bill, and I wish that the NRA had done a much better job up front of layiong out just why it was not in favor of the bill, rather than letting it get to a blow up. But that is hindsight.

[Al Norris]

Bob, if the 7th returns an incorporation verdict, then it is incorporated within that Circuits jurisdiction. Until or unless the SCOTUS says otherwise.

This can then be used to force all those Home Rule localities to honor any State license carried by anyone. Otherwise they violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th. Straight shot from any Federal District Court, should anyone get arrested over this. Heck, no one even needs to get arrested in this scenario. Been watching what Gura is doing in the 9th?

If you pass this STHR carry bill, and then the 7th incorporates, the end result would be the same, but it would take more steps to get to your day in court. You would first have to play in the State Courts, before you went Federal.

[Swan Hunter]

The NRA has pranced the same old carry bill for 15-20 years and it has gotten no where! It shows no sign of life. Our sponsor said he thought he had the votes to get it past the house until the lobbyist announced he was killing the bill and told that to about 10 legislators.
If we get subject to home rule here and the courts later prevail (in many years), the carry law would be in the state and this would serve the same purpose to force it into Chicago and the like. However, if we wait until (many years) the court rules hopefully in our favor, then those communities will be fighting tooth and toenail to keep it out of the state just as they are now. Who knows what the court rulings will win for us. They haven't been a silver bullet for Washington DC. They are still all screwed up.

The NRA has no argument. Their first concern was that it would cost them memberships in Chicago. Next, it was because it makes for a patchwork of laws in the state...Which we have now!!! Just check the state police web site. Then, it was because it will make the NRA look weak...Are they looking weak because we don't have a national concealed carry law??? Would they have the rest of the country not have concealed carry because IL doesn't have it? We have been dealing with the NRA on this issue for 6 weeks and quite frankly, they have been rude and dismissive. I feel it is a ego thing.

What they did was wrong. We can't change that. We don't want the NRA harmed. We want them lobbied just as we have to lobby the anti-gunners in Springfield. We sat on this situation hoping they would do the right thing. When they refused, we felt the folks in IL had a right to know.

FYI This bill will only require a simple majority rather than a super majority. That isn't to say that Madigan won't require a super majority but, we won't know for sure until it gets pushed for a vote. Also, if this bill passes and a carry person gets caught in a non-carry area, it is a misdemeanor instead of the current Felony!

Join the NRA and call and nicely ask them to change their position on subject to home rule.

[JohnKSa]

Here's a thread from another forum on the topic. It includes a bit more explanation of why some Illinois gun owners feel that this bill needs to be defeated.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=448763

Here's one post by an IL resident.

"The NRA is 100% right. Home rule is an important part of the way Illinois government is organized. A bill without preemption would undoubtedly resulting a crazy quilt of places where a permit was invalid. If you don't believe me, just look at the list of local ordinances regarding firearms on the ISP page.

This was stupid legislation and would have resulted in a huge mess. Any permit must be valid statewide.

Do you really want to be able to legally carry a gun so badly that you are willing to risk arrest and a felony UUW conviction because you crossed a municipal boundary?"

[Swan Hunter]

Anyone caught would not face a felony like they do now!
We already have a patchwork of laws in this state especially in the trouble areas up north. Down state, things would be fine. As it is, an out of state person who mistakenly crosses our border is faced with a felony also. That very patchwork of non-carry cities would force its local residents to pull the carry law into their area rather than down state folks having to shove it in.
Get it in the state and get a track record of no problems like the other 48 states and pull it into the opt-out areas.

With the current NRA plan, it will be several years before we get a bill. In the meantime, folks in the free counties are left totally defenseless. Even Wisconsin has open carry...we have nothing.

To say no one should not be allowed to carry because certain areas of the state would be off limits would be the same as saying nationally no one should be allowed to carry because if you get caught in IL, it is a felony...
There is no sense to it!

[JohnKSa]

Just for reference, the person whose post I quoted from is an Illinois LEO.

[ilbob]

Just for reference, the person whose post I quoted from is an Illinois LEO.

I believe he is now retired.

Home rule units cannot make anything a felony. The state constitution limits them to punishments not to exceed 6 months without special permission from the legislature that just is not in the works.

Not that 6 months in jail is a joke.

But you can get that now for straying into Chicago with an unloaded handgun locked up in your trunk.

[TEDDY]

THE 10/15 YRS YOU QUOTE was before the SCOTUS ruled on Heller and they only ruled on the question that was asked not on the whole 2nd.The NRA has a case going on Chicago even now,that if won may make a difference in the whole gun control debate.the best think would be to pull the bill and wait till the case is over,you have been waiting 15 ys whats another yr. do you expect to have to use a gun now.I have carried of and on since WW2 with or without permits.

[Swan Hunter]

2 years ago, a woman and her teen daughter were killed in their front yard when the mother returned home from work. Her estranged husband had told her to pick out her clothes for her funeral. She got a restraining order. Police got there in 5 minutes but they were dead and he was gone. She worked in the nursing home where my wife's aunt was staying...only 8 miles from us. Would she have chosen to carry??? I don't know but, this bill would have given her the opportunity should she so choose. You don't wait until you need a gun to try to get the laws to allow you to have one...A little too late!
We have several older (70+ years) taking our pistol classes because they are afraid.
Sure, wait for lawsuits. Hope a conservative judge doesn't have to be replaced on the supreme court...But, we can go for this law now and the only waiting will be for the preemption which we ALL want.
I have spent many days in the State Capitol. The last Tuesday I spent with the NRA lobbyist in the capitol. I was very impressed with the way he handled things there and I wish him no ill will. We only want the NRA leadership to change their stance on the issue.

[JohnKSa]

I was very impressed with the way he handled things there...

Yeah, that was a recurring theme from all those who posted on the illinioscarry forum thread.

So everyone's "very impressed" with this NRA lobbyist who does this for a living but in spite of that we're supposed to accept that he's way off base on this issue.

Well, maybe he is, but it doesn't seem all that likely to me... My take?

• The point of my earlier posts is that there are knowledgeable, pro-gun IL citizens who oppose this law for exactly the same reasons the NRA has said they won't support it.
  
• The evidence posted on the illinoiscarry forum does not appear to support the sensational allegation that the NRA lobbied against the bill. It does appear to be true that the NRA won't actively support the bill but I didn't find any reasonable evidence suggesting that they were actually lobbying against it.
  
• We've had concealed carry for a decade & a half in TX and the law was passed with a no pre-emption clause. In spite of that, I can't carry about 80% of the time that I'm out of the house due to a "loophole" in the law that allows my employer to control my ability to carry from the time I step out of my house if I'm going to work. In other words, little things that initially seem to be non-issues on the drawing board become major practical hurdles in the real world. I think that IL gunowners supporting this bill are dramatically underestimating the hassle of dealing with a patchwork of conflicting laws and therefore dramatically overestimating the value of passing a law that doesn't have a no pre-emption clause.
  
• The very fact that it seems to be a lot easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT. Why would the antis who won't vote for a no pre-emption law let a pre-emption law through? I think the answer is clear--or at least it should be... It's because they know that the law will be essentially useless from a practical standpoint because of the difficulties of dealing with having to plan your travel around city/municipality limits in order to avoid the possibility of jail time. THINK about it. The state knows you have a permit. You get stopped for a ticket/have an accident/or whatever in a "no carry" municipality. The officer runs your license & sees that you have a permit... Doesn't take much imagination to see what happens next. Maybe things are different in IL, but I can't imagine having to always plan routes based on city/municipality boundaries knowing that a screwup or a spur of the moment detour could land me in jail.
  
• Why are IL gun owners relying on a NATIONAL organization to solve issues in the state legislature in the first place? In my state we have a state organization that is very effective at dealing with such problems. I'm not saying that we don't occasionally ask for and receive help from the NRA, just that it seems that the NRA seems to be the only major player in IL.
  
• Along the same lines, I saw a lot of irritation on the illinioscarry forum thread directed at the NATIONAL rifle association lobbyist because he said that he needed to represent NATIONAL interests. That's exactly what he's SUPPOSED to be doing. If I were the NRA in this situation I think it would be an EXCELLENT time to tell IL gun owners that if they're not happy with the NRA they need to organize and fund a state gun owner association that will better represent their needs & wishes.
  
• Finally, I find it amusing, in an ironic way, to see a thread accusing the NRA of not compromising enough when the typical complaint about them is that they compromise far too much. Both complaints can't be true, logic would suggest that reality is somewhere in the middle. In other words, both camps are exaggerating the situation.

[Swan Hunter]

The evidence is that the lobbyist told us..."I fuXXXXX killed the bill." He told the Sponsor he was killing the bill.
It is easy to second guess when you don't know the facts...The facts are that we have heard back from legislators that the NRA lobbyist said he was against the bill. Now, the NRA says they are neutral...However, they have already poisoned the bill.
IL is the only state that has NO form of carry, open or concealed.
It is a felony for anyone to be caught carrying a loaded firearm.
We have been using the same bill every year for 15 years...It is time for a new approach.

[ilbob]

Bob, if the 7th returns an incorporation verdict, then it is incorporated within that Circuits jurisdiction. Until or unless the SCOTUS says otherwise.

So what? the only thing the SC has said is protected is having hand guns in the home. And thats all that the Chicago case is about.

This can then be used to force all those Home Rule localities to honor any State license carried by anyone. Otherwise they violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th. Straight shot from any Federal District Court, should anyone get arrested over this. Heck, no one even needs to get arrested in this scenario. Been watching what Gura is doing in the 9th?

If you pass this STHR carry bill, and then the 7th incorporates, the end result would be the same, but it would take more steps to get to your day in court. You would first have to play in the State Courts, before you went Federal.

If anything, the 14th amendment might be usable if the STHR bill passed. There would be no cause of action in state court since home rule is enshrined in the state constitution, and Illinois courts have repeatedly held Illinois citizens have no RTKBA. The carry case in the court right now does not hinge on the 2A. The case filed in CA tries to drag the 2A into the picture, but the 14th amendment claims seem far stronger against the practices being objected to.

I don't think anyone wants to have a straight carry case right now because it likely to hinge on open carry and not CC. There is no reason at all the SC has to accept CC as a right, and dicta from Heller suggests they might accept OC, possibly leaving CC out of the scope of the 2A.

[Don Gwinn]

The evidence posted on the illinoiscarry forum does not appear to support the sensational allegation that the NRA lobbied against the bill. It does appear to be true that the NRA won't actively support the bill but I didn't find any reasonable evidence suggesting that they were actually lobbying against it.

As mentioned before, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's Lobbyist in Illinois, told us he killed the bill. He later told me in person. Yes, he killed the bill.

I think that IL gunowners supporting this bill are dramatically underestimating the hassle of dealing with a patchwork of conflicting laws and therefore dramatically overestimating the value of passing a law that doesn't have a no pre-emption clause.

I try not to underestimate the hassle and work that will be involved in dealing with the home-rule entities after STHR license to carry passes. I absolutely do believe that it is less than the hassle involved in living in a state where there is NO legal right to bear arms in ANY town. There's a patchwork of laws across the country, too, but I don't see Indiana or Kentucky jumping to standardize on the Illinois model to make sure nobody ever gets confused.
Your fears about landing in jail because you pass through a "no-carry municipality" are real, and people would certainly need to keep them in mind. HOWEVER, right now there are almost 1,300 municipal units in Illinois and ALL of them are "no-carry" areas, along with all the land between them. Moreover, carrying your loaded weapon is a felony in every corner of Illinois at present, but under STHR LTC, you'd be charged under the home-rule entity's ordinance, NOT state law. That means you could only be charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

The very fact that it seems to be a lot easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT. Why would the antis who won't vote for a no pre-emption law let a pre-emption law through?

Your assessment of the ease of passage relies on the idea that "antis" will be voting for this bill. They won't. The reason it's (theoretically--remember, this hasn't been tested) easier to pass LTC if it's subject to home rule is that it requires 60 votes rather than 71, and 60 is less than 71. That means we don't need to peel off anti-gunners, and it also means that some fence-sitters perceive that the bill has a chance and lean our way.

Why are IL gun owners relying on a NATIONAL organization to solve issues in the state legislature in the first place? In my state we have a state organization that is very effective at dealing with such problems. I'm not saying that we don't occasionally ask for and receive help from the NRA, just that it seems that the NRA seems to be the only major player in IL.

We knew we didn't have the NRA's active support when we began. We were not relying on them to do this for us; we were relying on them not to lobby against us and use their influence to kill our bill. The bill has the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association, GunsSaveLife (formerly the Champaign County Rifle Association) and IllinoisCarry.
At this point, they've changed the game. By killing the bill, they made their later offer of neutrality worthless--it does no good to call themselves neutral after the bell has been rung. Now we want their active support.
But make no mistake: the NRA does not organize the annual IGOLD lobbying day or the Second Amendment Freedom Rally in Chicago. The NRA doesn't put up the famous Burma-shave style signs on Illinois highways. The NRA was not part of the drive for 2nd Amendment resolutions passed by 90 IL counties or the concealed carry referenda passed by 12 of 16 counties in the last year. Those things are all done by Illinois grassroots groups working with the ISRA. Nobody is asking the NRA for a free ride, we just want to make sure we're not working against each other.

Finally, I find it amusing, in an ironic way, to see a thread accusing the NRA of not compromising enough when the typical complaint about them is that they compromise far too much. Both complaints can't be true, logic would suggest that reality is somewhere in the middle. In other words, both camps are exaggerating the situation.

Frankly, I see their position as more conservative than ours. Sending up a pre-emptive bill to die in committee has been the status quo for about 20 years at this point, with nothing really changing for either side. The NRA is OK with that because, in my opinion, they expect the courts to settle the whole thing in our favor sooner or later now that Heller has come down. They expect the legislative end to be rendered moot. Of course, if that happens, it's going to take years, but what are years between friends, right?

[Don Gwinn]

As an aside, I'm OK with court-enforced open carry. Give me open carry in Illinois and I really believe concealed carry would follow soon after. I've often wished we could follow the Ohio model of highlighting open carry, but it isn't an option for us.

[Don Gwinn]

OK. Read the thread on the IllinoisCarry site.

Bob, I can think of one reason the NRA-ILA is not behind this bill. It's something no one at that Board has considered.

Should the 7th Circuit opt for incorporation, via McDonald v. Chicago, this current bill would become a stumbling block for concealed carry in Illinois.

I think the NRA-ILA is not forth-coming with their strategy, because they see a win in the 7th Circuit. Such a win, would mean the chances of a pre-emptive CC law would be much, much greater under incorporation, than without it. While passing an STHR bill now, might very well stick you all with years more litigation than you would face, after incorporation.

If I'm correct in my thinking, you folks should consider it seriously.

That was considered at length. Incorporation is very likely in McDonald, but that leaves us with miles to go before it has any effect on concealed carry, since that issue is not raised in McDonald.
However, if incorporation comes down and is developed the way you propose (so that having one place with carry and another without is considered a violation) the issue of whether the legislation allows home-rule entities to opt out will be moot, because that legislation will be void, as will any home-rule ordinance that conflicts with the new right to concealed carry. There will be no stumbling block if the federal circuit rules the way you expect.

If they don't rule the way you expect, STHR will stay in effect and we'll have the ability to carry in the vast majority of the state--AND be able to use the results in the vast majority of the state to lobby in those areas that do choose to opt out.

Something to consider:

There are roughly 1300 municipalities in Illinois. There are roughly 200 home-rule entities. That means that the vast majority of municipalities will not have the option of opting out of this measure. Even at that, you must next consider which municipalities would opt out and which would not. The NRA's lobbyist told us that Peoria and Carbondale would be two examples of cities that would certainly opt out and become part of the dreaded "patchwork." We contacted leaders in those cities and were told a very different story. City Council members in Peoria told us they were very interested in concealed carry for "responsible, trained adults." The Mayor of Carbondale pointed out that when people realized that Carbondale's ordinances made it illegal to transport firearms in the town, they amended the ordinances in order to be ready to allow for concealed carry if and when it passes.

And again: we didn't ask the NRA to do anything for us. We simply forgot to ask them not to pull the rug from under us. That won't happen again.

[JohnKSa]

As mentioned before, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's Lobbyist in Illinois, told us he killed the bill. He later told me in person. Yes, he killed the bill.

Fair enough. All I had to go on was the linked thread provide in the op.

So, assuming that he did lobby against the law, one should ask: "Why is this guy (with whom everyone seems to be "very impressed" and who does this for a living) opposing this law?"

There's a patchwork of laws across the country, too, but I don't see Indiana or Kentucky jumping to standardize on the Illinois model to make sure nobody ever gets confused.

Not even close to the same problem. State lines are almost always pretty well defined. Municipal boundaries, especially in less rural areas, are not at all clear, in general.

...fears about landing in jail because you pass through a "no-carry municipality" are real, and people would certainly need to keep them in mind.

Unless the law comes with a rider stating that all municipal boundaries need to be clearly marked, warnings to "keep them in mind" are pretty pointless. Unless things are VERY different in IL than they are everywhere else I've ever been, municipal boundaries tend to be very inconsistently marked when they're marked at all.

There are roughly 1300 municipalities in Illinois. There are roughly 200 home-rule entities. That means that the vast majority of municipalities will not have the option of opting out of this measure.

Assuming of course that none of the other 1100 municipalities decide to take the relatively simple step of becoming home-rule entities.

The reason it's (theoretically--remember, this hasn't been tested) easier to pass LTC if it's subject to home rule is that it requires 60 votes rather than 71, and 60 is less than 71.

Assuming, of course that the anti-gun speaker for some reason lets a carry bill pass with a simple majority. Which, I suppose, he might do if the perceives the bill as worthless--which should tell IL gun owners pushing for this bill something. If, indeed, it IS allowed to pass with a simple majority, the only reason that can happen is if an anti-gunner lets it happen. In other words, the very fact that everyone seem to think it will be much easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT.

They expect the legislative end to be rendered moot. Of course, if that happens, it's going to take years, but what are years between friends, right?

It's would also take years to turn a non-preemption carry law into a workable solution. And there's the real possibility that having a carry law in place would make a legal challenge much more complicated. The only reason Heller went through is because there was a TOTAL ban on firearms. While aspects of it might be useful in overturning a TOTAL ban on carry, there's no way it's going to be useful once there's a carry law (even a practically useless one) in place.

[Don Gwinn]

How likely do you consider it that 1100 cities that have not gone through the process to become home-rule entities in the last four decades will now choose to do so in order to opt out of license-to-carry? I don't see that as very likely.

You're right about Heller, if we assume that Heller will be the last case and nothing will change, but I disagree with your definition of "workable." You are arriving at your label of "unworkable" by comparing STHR LTC to statewide, pre-emptive LTC. Once again, if that's your approach, please explain how you plan to pass preemptive, statewide LTC in Illinois. NO ONE is saying that STHR is better than preemption. When I go to BLADE in Atlanta, Paducah is not where I want to end up--but if I don't get to Paducah and find a place to stay, I might not make it to Atlanta. It's a step along the way.

Mike Madigan thinks a lot of things with which I don't agree. If he thinks LTC is worthless unless it includes Chicago metro, let him think it. He's just as wrong as all the deer hunters who think we should let the other side have their one-gun-a-month scheme or their bans on "Saturday Night Specials" because those laws are worthless and don't really affect "real" gun owners anyway.

[JohnKSa]

How likely do you consider it that 1100 cities that have not gone through the process to become home-rule entities in the last four decades will now choose to do so in order to opt out of license-to-carry?

Assessing the likelihood of such an action across the board is pretty much impossible. Breaking it down a little makes it much simpler.

In cities where the city government, a majority of the movers & shakers or a majority of the citizens, want to ban carry, it's obviously very likely. In other cities I would say it's pretty unlikely.

In TX, we saw a large number of entities react negatively to the initial passage of the carry laws. Pre-emption negated many of those reactions by governmental entities, and the utility (workability) of the law meant that there were enough permit holders that they were able to pressure businesses into eliminating their anti-carry policies. That's not going to happen were you are--the effect of this law will almost certainly be a publicly visible "anti-carry movement" generated by the passage of the law.

You are arriving at your label of "unworkable" by comparing STHR LTC to statewide, pre-emptive LTC.

I'm arriving at my label of "unworkable" based on the fact that even in TX, where the carry laws are quite strong and well-supported by the general populace, it's pretty easy to find one's self in a situation where carry is effectively restricted due to "loopholes" in the law. I can't imagine trying to deal with keeping track of municipal boundaries while going about my daily business--it would mean that I would just never carry--it would mean that the law would be "unworkable".

I do agree that for those who do not mind risking misdemeanor violations that this law might be a step up--at least for a little while. Those kinds of violations in TX can result in the loss of one's permit putting that person back to square one.

I'm a big fan of the Russian philosophy: "The best is the enemy of good enough.", but this law, in my opinion, is not "good enough". In other words, it's passing a law just to pass a law--getting "something" just to get "something" even though that "something" isn't a practically viable solution.

[Don Gwinn]

We may have a fundamental disagreement. It sounds like you don't consider the difference between STHR carry and the present status quo (I feel like I'm belaboring this, but the current status quo is that it's a felony to carry a loaded weapon anywhere in Illinois) is significant enough to justify the fight that comes after. We have three options, here:
1. No carry at all. Current status quo, likely to continue for some time.
2. Carry subject to home rule. Not as good as statewide preemption, but more likely to pass. Much better than the status quo, but much less likely to be put in effect.
3. Statewide preemption. Much better than STHR, but so unlikely as to be considered impossible in present circumstances (I hate to say that, but I've asked several times for the plan to pass preemption, and nobody has put one forward.)

Your position requires you to accept that people all over the state will remain in a disarmed, defenseless state every time they leave their own property because people in other parts of the state might choose to remain so. I know you wouldn't accept that if you thought there was a better way. I think there is a better way, and I do not accept it.

[JohnKSa]

1. No carry at all. Current status quo, likely to continue for some time.
2. Carry subject to home rule. Not as good as statewide preemption, but more likely to pass. Much better than the status quo, but much less likely to be put in effect.
3. Statewide preemption. Much better than STHR, but so unlikely as to be considered impossible in present circumstances (I hate to say that, but I've asked several times for the plan to pass preemption, and nobody has put one forward.)

In my opinion, options 1 and 2 are so practically similar that there's no real point in making the distinction. I'll explain more at the end of this post.

Second, if it really is "more likely to pass" than option 3 then there's GOT to be a reason, and that reason is strong support for my opinion that options 1 & 2 are very similar in practice.

Your position requires you to accept that people all over the state will remain in a disarmed, defenseless state every time they leave their own property because people in other parts of the state might choose to remain so.

No, my position only requires me to believe that law-abiding citizens (the only people who care about permit laws in the first place) will not find it significantly more attractive to risk breaking the law when the penalty is a misdemeanor than when it's a felony. Having a weapons related misdemeanor on your record is not like getting a traffic ticket.