May 20, 2013, 06:12 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
|
May 20, 2013, 06:22 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
I resent that so many people either don't see or blatantly ignore the logical disconnect between Sandy Hook and CCW laws
__________________
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 |
May 20, 2013, 08:30 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
^ For a mag ban, not a CCW law
|
May 20, 2013, 11:38 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
The use of the children is called--or was called back in my day--guilt tripping.
|
May 21, 2013, 06:51 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
May 21, 2013, 10:10 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Yes the Illinois gun control politicians presented Sandy Hook victims to promote a magazine ban - that really is separate from carry in Illinois and complying with CA7 decision in Moore v Madigan.
BTW the gun-control politicians are not saying who paid to have the Sandy Hook parents flown out to Springfield, IL and pay for their stay. I believe when someone inquired they were advised to file a FOIA. |
May 21, 2013, 01:08 PM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
That said, Sandy Hook isn't really the topic here.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
May 21, 2013, 10:48 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
Yes they are here for the magazine ban and not concealed carry. I think they are being abused a bit, but if they wanted to come then they can do what they want..they have lost more than we will ever know.
But the Mod is right, that is not the topic and concealed carry is, so any updates to the demise of the Senate bill or to this new better bill that is supposed to be coming from the House side, please let us know. |
May 22, 2013, 09:12 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
What I've read is that about 2 years ago Illinois representative Brandon Phelps created the core of a CCW bill in conjunction with the NRA, and then he worked with all sorts of different groups, like universities and a wide array of different police groups like FOP and Sherriff's associations (not just law enforcement agencies), to try to get a compromise bill that would appease just enough people to get some kind of carry law passed for Illinois.
The persons and groups who would not enter discussion with Phelps at all were: Chicago Mayor's Office - Chicago as a whole to include Chicago Police Department The Governor Illinois State Police (might be considered to be the same as the executive branch of Illinois government / the Governor's office). Although the State police do cooperate with Phelps in providing cost analysis and things of that nature... Cook County / Cook County Board to include Cook County Sherriff Speaker of the Illinois House - Mike Madigan All of the people who refused to discuss a carry bill with Phelps were opposed to any type of carry - period. The bill came to a vote in the Illinois House of Representatives in March 2012 as HB148 and fell a few votes short of passing. The CA7, in Moore v Madigan found Illinois law prohibiting carry outside the home unconstitutional. HB 148 was re-written with some minor changes as HB997 and reintroduced. It seemed on the verge of passing earlier this month but just minutes before the vote was to be taken, Illinois Senator Raoul Kwame came onto the Illinois house floor and began circulating, talking to house democrats asking them to withhold their vote for 997 because a better bill was being generated in the Illinois Senate - a compromise bill with wide bi-partisan support that addressed the concerns of gun owners and gun control advocates, rural and urban constituents, republicans and democrats alike. Enough democrats withheld their vote to prevent passage. It turned out that Raoul Kwame's bill was a pipe dream. Raoul's bill was pronounced DOA and in comments to the press Senator Raoul said the bill was killed by "extremists". In the meantime, Brandon Phelps reached out once again to groups who opposed his HB997 and began work on revising the bill. It appears though that Representative Phelps has done this without bringing the NRA or Illinois State Rifle Association along on all the talks. I would think it would be impossible to include the NRA or the ISRA in all of the talks because there is so much animosity between the NRA and some of these politicians - like Governor Quinn for example. The anti-gun faction in Illinois which formerly opposed any carry of firearms outside the home seems to have changed their position and are mainly trying to get a "carve out" for Chicago. At one point they were trying to get a carve out for all of Cook County and they seem to have given up even on getting that. While HB997 is being worked on the Illinois Senate has been re-introducing gun control bills that had previously been defeated, such as a magazine ban and a lost or stolen bill carrying pretty serious felony charges. So I think the situation in Illinois right now is that gun owners are fighting off gun control legislation while waiting to see what Brandon Phelp's revised legislation looks like. |
May 22, 2013, 05:41 PM | #35 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
... And we are 20 days before the mandate by the CA7 becomes effective.
|
May 22, 2013, 07:44 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
|
May 22, 2013, 08:06 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
At first glance that bill appears to be a shall issue bill. Is that true, and if so, what are its chances at this time? I understand that if passed, such a bill would estop the Moore cert request, correct?
|
May 22, 2013, 08:14 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 235
|
The amended bill, SB 2193,
That is the first bill that actually looks like a good compromise. One rule for all without different communities making up their own rules etc. Someone might object to 150.00 fee and 16 hours of training, but I paid twice as much for Chicago Firearms Permit, but the training was only 4 or so hours I think. Anyway, sounds like a plan and if I was one of the politicians I think in my novice opinion I might vote for it. |
May 22, 2013, 08:28 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I don't understand it at all. It seems to me like Moore over-ruled the Illinois AUUW / UUW law and reading through this bill - it seems more like a no-carry-bill than a carry bill.
But I guess its better than New Jersey... |
May 22, 2013, 08:48 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
There are so many restrictions on where you can carry in the bill to make it troublesome. If I were in the Illinois legislature I would certainly try to reduce the number of restrictions. The bus and public transport restrictions basically means poor and even the middle class in Chicago cannot carry very far. Transportation, parks, almost all public spaces except courts and jails need to be free for carry. The bill listed is better than no carry, but given the legislature in Illinois and there ability to block bills I would not expect to see the gradual peeling back of regulations like is being seen in some states. So get it as good as possible now.
|
May 22, 2013, 09:49 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 433
|
^Agreed, the list of prohibited places is huge... but interestingly enough, it looks like the bill says that "restaurant carry" is OK by specifying the "50% of sales from alcohol" route.
Also, $55 fee to obtain a new license if you change addresses. Also, $300 for a non-resident permit with this in the verbiage: The Department shall establish by rule and allow for non-resident license applications from any state or territory of the United States with laws related to firearm ownership, possession, and carrying, that are substantially similar to the requirements to obtain a license under this Act. ... reduces the the number of states pretty good right off the bat even without the absurd fee. It really flirts with "shall issue" although technically since there's no requirement for "good an proper cause" (the backbone of "may issue"), it means just about any regular Joe qualifies as long as they've already got a FOID card and haven't done anything really stupid in the past decade. If they relaxed a few of the prohibited places and were fairly generous with reciprocity (yeah, right) it's not terrible... lotsa "hoops" to jump through, but as was said before, as the state gets used to it a bit, restrictions can be peeled back. Last edited by SamNavy; May 22, 2013 at 09:54 PM. |
May 23, 2013, 12:35 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
If nothing was passed, wouldn't that better force Madigan's hand to pursue a petition?
|
May 23, 2013, 12:10 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
The no-public-transportation, parks, etc restriction seems like the "compromise" to heavily restrict carry in Chicago.
__________________
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 |
May 23, 2013, 01:13 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I tracked this down - the sponsor Brandon Phelps presenting it to the house committee:
http://new.livestream.com/blueroomst...1&medium=email He explains the bill a little and also I think he's apologizing to gun owners for the parts that they don't like... |
May 23, 2013, 04:46 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The bill only covers shall-issue (concealed and partially concealed) and state preemption. Everything else is pretty bad-lots of off limits places, high fees, 16 hour training, no reciprocity(non-residents can get a permit for 300), must inform officer,exc.
It's going to be a hard choice for IL. There will be court fights in the future, just depends whether the fight will be against the state or against the individual localities. I did see an article claiming that if this bill isn't passed, then the Chicago one would. I don't understand how that bill would have any shot of passing even if this bill dies. |
May 23, 2013, 06:22 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
The votes have been tallied by the NRA lobbyist - Todd V and the result is that soft pro-gun legislators are unwilling to go over the June 9th cliff set by the court- thus unless this bill is passed, there will be the senate may issue bill passed - the choice is between the two bills - the senate bill is a no carry may issue and home rule nightmare codified into law that makes this house bill look like sweetness and light. The NRA and ISRA are not liking this bill though it is shall issue and has statewide preemption, because of the restrictions, fees, training requirements, and ban on CCW on public transportation. However they are not opposing it either as they know the political realities. The only really good thing excluding shall issue and preemption is that it will wipe out the Chicago and Cook county AW ban and licensing requirements because to the preemption language. No CCW advocates are really happy with this bill, though they are not as upset as the Chicago polls and gun control advocates are. If passed it is not the win we wished, but it is a win and one we can incrementally improve with a friendlier governor and simple majorities in the house and senate. A year ago before the 7th circuit victory we would have been happy to get even this crappy law. So in perspective of political realities, it is a win and a better place from which to continue the fight. The fact is that constitutional or court carry is not going to happen - the votes are not there to let it happen.
|
May 24, 2013, 07:57 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
The public transport ban has already been shot down by the 7th Circuit. Go ahead and let 'em pass that, it ain't enforceable.
__________________
Jim March |
May 24, 2013, 08:40 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 864
|
Quote:
And it is just a start. Over time, everyone in Illinois will get more used to concealed carry. Citizens and cops in Chicago will realize it is not the armageddon of crime and vigilantism that they expect. Over the coming years, gun owners will push for easing the restrictions and lowering the fees, and there will be less fear and uncertainty to stand in the way. This will be perhaps the most restrictive shall-issue law of any state, but given the political realities of Illinois, it is a step forward. |
|
May 24, 2013, 10:15 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 854
|
I particularly like section 90 where it talks about state preemption. I'm not crazy about the bill but there are some things I like.
Sidewalks are public property no matter where you are, so you're covered there. Vehicle is covered. Chicago permit system and AWB are nullified. Those two things right there are a huge victory.
__________________
"Shut up, crime!" |
May 24, 2013, 11:26 AM | #50 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
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.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|