Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It won’t help and it won’t work
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** This just in… Quinn to veto coal bills
Posted in:
* The House’s concealed carry bill allows business owners to bar anyone from carrying a concealed weapon on the property. However, it also contains this language…
Any owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person that prohibits persons holding a permit for concealed firearms from carrying concealed firearms on the premises shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the premises. [Emphasis added.]
* The Question: For the sake of argument, let’s assume you support the bill or could support the bill. So, with that in mind, should this liability language be dropped from the concealed carry legislation? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments…
…Adding… I know it’s late in the day, people (my fault), but try to comment as well as vote. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 2:52 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It won’t help and it won’t work
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** This just in… Quinn to veto coal bills
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think this turns the existing law on its head. A person can generally not be liable for crimes committed by a third party. There is also no requirement that the lack of a concealed weapon be a proximate cause of the injury. If someone throws a bomb in the front door a customer’s gun wouldn’t make a bit of difference.
Bad policy and bad law.
Comment by What's in a name? Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:05 pm
I wouldn’t oppose this concept except for that language. There should not be a higher standard for civil liability for schools or other businesses that may wish to prohibit patrons from bringing weapons inside these establishments.
I realize that the sponsor may be trying to prevent an impossible situation where it is difficult to know where you can or cannot bring a concealed weapon. It could lead to a patchwork of “Guns OK” v. “No Guns” establishments, and that will make it difficult for those with permits. However, just like certain establishments could prevent smoking before the law banning it everywhere passed, CCW permit holders will just have to deal with it.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:06 pm
I certainly hope colleges and universities will be exempt.
Comment by Because I say so Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:08 pm
Should a business be held liable if someone with a permit is allowed to carry a gun and then uses it to shoot people within the business?
Comment by KGB Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:09 pm
That language is ridiculous. First it assuems that omone carying a concealed weapon would avoid injury if they were allowed to have a gun.It also assumes there isnot agreater risk allowing people in the business with weapons. Who wants to see those angry out of control people at customer serice counters packing heat.
Plus all the customers will sue the store if you allow armed shoppers and somone gets shot!
And sine the individual gun owners are not required to carry millions in insurance, this is just a way to pick the pockets of buisness in IL. How about this, every gun onwer who wants to concealcarry into a business must have a 10 million dollar liability policy, and must provide proof o active coverage bfore they can cary a gun into a business? lets level the playing field and make those carrying guns into a business responsible financialy if they casue harm.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:10 pm
Yes. If I feel that not being able to carry while in an establishment might put me in danger, I would simply choose not to go in.
Comment by grand old partisan Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:11 pm
Try to take a breath before commenting, people. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:11 pm
The business would be liable for “any injury from a criminal act.” What a world of trial lawyer litigiousness that opens up. Physical injury or simply emotional harm? “Any injury” seems to favor the latter. Also, just because I have a concealed carry permit doesn’t mean that if I’m punched in say, a bar, that I am reasonably allowed to respond with gunfire. With revelations like this, it seems like the media (and Democrats) need to do a thorough parsing of this legislation.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:17 pm
I’m all for the CCW law to be passed. I sorry this language could make that more difficult. It just sounds unfair and inflammatory. I think maybe grand old partisan has it right. Just don’t patronize the business. I’m also wondering - how is it that the business will know a person is carrying a concealed firearm? Perhaps if a person is caught under those circumstances would face a minimal charge. It just sounds like someone is trying to tick someone off - not a good way to encourage support for the bill.
Comment by dupage dan Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:18 pm
clarification on my comment: Democratic leadership needs to do a thorough parsing of this legislation.
Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:18 pm
My last post should have read “I worry (not sorry) this language…”
Comment by dupage dan Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:19 pm
I’m somewhat neutral on guns. I hope you are better. Is this poll thing for your personal interest?
Comment by shore Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:23 pm
I think that it should be dropped. It is poison pill language designed to cause a “no” vote in legislature. A gun control dram shop law. Either it is a concealled carry law or it is not. The law implies that a concealled carrier might do harm/injury and thus the business owner must interecede where the law does not. Also, the concealled carrier if lawfully registered, is likely to be more careful than those already carrying concealled weapons illegally now because he has more to lose.
Comment by LisleMike Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:26 pm
Keep this language in the bill. That will ensure that it will not pass! If I am in a bar, and there is a hold-up, the very last thing I want is for some macho, liquor-fueled gun carrier to start blasting away!
Comment by formerpolitico Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:27 pm
One more great (?) thought. I was at a Houston, Texas hotel recently and there was a sign in the lobby forbidding the carrying of guns into the hotel - and it was in braille!!! I didn’t know that blind persons can carry guns!
Comment by formerpolitico Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:31 pm
This provision of the bill stems from incidents in other States that have approved conceal carry. Patrons, who otherwise would have been armed, were gunned down in restaurants and shopping malls that had “no guns allowed” policies. I agree that businesses should not be liable for the conduct of a 3rd party, but by taking away a person’s right to carry a firearm, the business is creating the liability for themselves. The businesses that do allow guns would not be liable for any kind of criminal actions. There have been numerous cases in other States where “gun free zones” are much more likely to be targeted by criminals since they know that people will be defenseless. Similar language is being added across the country to deter businesses from banning weapons and painting targets on the backs of their patrons. I can see how people interpret this as forcing a business’ hand, but they still have the option of banning weapons. However, they will have to take responsibility for their ban if it aids in the death/injury of someone who might have otherwise been able to defend themselves.
Comment by tak1885 Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:33 pm
It should be dropped because the “shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit” language would include injuries that would not and could not have been prevented by the carrying of a firearm, e.g. macho’s angry date throws hot soup in his lap.
This liability language exists only to coerce business owners into turning their businesses’s concealed carry policy over to the gunslingers.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:33 pm
I voted to remove it. It’s bad enough to hold someone liable for another’s criminal acts, but this doesn’t even allow mitigating circumstances to be taken into account, such as the fact that the crime was something that couldn’t have been prevented by allowing everyone to keep their guns (e.g., a car bomb in the street outside, demolishing the premises) or the fact that the person chose to give up their gun.
Comment by Pat Robertson Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:35 pm
is this language included for CCW legislation in other states?
Comment by amalia Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:39 pm
I do not support conceal carry but the language in this bill is ridiculous. I do not support it either.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:40 pm
That language may or may not be in the final version. I support the language but in the committee hearing last week I don’t recall it being mentioned in the bill.
Comment by Templar Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:40 pm
What happens if someone comes into my establishment and, while fiddling with their piece (because I told them to show it to me), accidentally shoots themselves? Seriously, would I be libel? And what about a suicide?
Comment by globalguy Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:40 pm
This is full court paranoid… A better amendment would be life without parole for a concealed carry holder that shoots an innocent bystander.
Comment by Louis Howe Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:43 pm
It doesn’t make any sense to give merchants the right to opt out under the law and then inflict new liabilities on them if they exercise that right. Then there’s the whole issue of what liability insurers would make of this nonsense and what it would cost. And one more time, we’re about the last state to do this. What have other states done? One good thing about going last is that the problems have already been solved - well, dealt with - by others. Let’s not reinvent the frigging wheel here.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:44 pm
I voted “no” because of the reasons stated by taki1885, even though I can see problems with it the way it is worded.
Actually the ban by businesses would be probably be rescinded in future years; it has been in a lot of states where concealed carry has been in effect for a few years, including universities and churches.
The actual solution by most gun owners would be to shop elsewhere, or simply ignore it-concealed carry means concealed.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:55 pm
I voted to drop the language. Many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned.
If a person is concerned that they will be defenseless without a side arm then they should avoid establishments that don’t allow guns.
Who put this language in the bill?
Comment by MikeMacD Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:58 pm
Try this on - Does the logic of that language infer that, since the State doesn’t permit us to carry at this time, is the State currently civilly liable for anyone injured from a criminal act… yada yada?
Comment by Ipso Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 3:58 pm
–I think that it should be dropped. It is poison pill language designed to cause a “no” vote in legislature–
Nonsense. Brandon Phelps wouldn’t include poison pill language in a conceal carry bill.
Furthermore, and I can’t find it on google, but, from memory, I’m pretty sure someone from ISRA testified to this subject last year in the GA. The gist was, if you prevent me from exercising my right to carry a firearm, you’re liable if something bad happens to me.
Also, from my read, it also applies to homeowners who prevent someone from entering their residence with a firearm. From the bill, without the business references:
=-… or any other organization, entity, or person that prohibits persons holding a permit for concealed firearms from carrying concealed firearms on the premises…–
So if you have a party, keep someone out with a gun, and they get punched in the nose, you’re liable because they couldn’t pull their piece.
I don’t have a problem with hunting. I don’t have a problem with a gun in the home. But the c-c proponents here are shooting for the moon, and I’m not buying it.
You’ve heard about those “48 states that allow c-c.?” Check them out. There’s a world of difference. Check out Hawaii. Check out New York. Check out California. Don’t believe the hype that the rest of the country is cool with people packing anywhere they want.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:08 pm
This clause is ridiculous, for all reasons stated by others. “For any injury from a criminal act”?
That covers a lot of circumstances that don’t require gunfire.
You have the choice to refuse to enter any building/business that does not allow concealed weapons.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:17 pm
“any injury from a criminal act?” So if someone comes to my home and I deny them the ability to carry a handgun into my home, and while they are at my home, they suffer emotional harm because a drunk driver slams into their parked car, then I’m liable?
The language is awfully broad.
And how would the CC permit holder prove that the injury was directly related to their inability to carry a concealed weapon? Could they ever prove that having a concealed weapon would have prevented an injury? Looks like a bargaining chip to me.
Comment by Homesick Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:21 pm
So when Ringo comes through the swinging doors, I am responsible to make sure some other cowboy does not whack him over the head with a beer bottle until Ringo can pull his gun out? Yeah, I’ll get in the middle of that.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:27 pm
is about to find out what the legislative process is really about, they have refused to modify this proposal over the years with their my way our or the highway approach–now that he wants this bill passed they are going to have to bend over and accept a strong dose of compromise.
Comment by The NRA Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:29 pm
–This provision of the bill stems from incidents in other States that have approved conceal carry. Patrons, who otherwise would have been armed, were gunned down in restaurants and shopping malls that had “no guns allowed” policies.–
Those incidents (plural) in those states (plural) must have been big news, especially since the patrons who were “gunned down” “would have been armed” except for the “‘no guns allowed” policies.’”
I have to tell you, cousin, the first thing that pops up in google search under “patrons gunned down in restaurant and malls with no guns allowed policies” is your comment from an hour ago. Nothing else backs your statement.
You have to back that stuff up. If you can’t, then put it away and try again on truth and facts.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:31 pm
Is the civil violation strict liability, without the need for a finding of fault? Let’s say for example, there was contributory, or perhaps sole negligence on the part of the injured person, acting as the aggressor in a situation that escalates?
What if the injury from a criminal act occurs as a result of the injured person being threatened and then pushed down the stairs (assault and battery)?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:37 pm
This was put into the bill for the simple reason that if a store owner says no guns, and I go in and then some lowlife decides to rob the place and I am defenseless due to the policy, they should have the liability of what happens to me becuase they have removed my means of self defense.
And I testified to that in committee once upon a time. but Word, I would look up Suzzane Hupp if my spelling is right she is just the type of person who say her family gunned down and couldn’t do anything about it because her gun was in the car, by state law as texas did not have a carry law at the time.
Rich maybe you could post the youtube video of her and her testimony. it’s a pretty good watch.
She later became a legislator and helped pass RTC in Texas.
kind of fun watching everyone wring their hands over the bill when the final form hasn’t even been filed yet.
hey word drop me an email:tvandermyd@aol.com
Comment by Todd Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:42 pm
That sounds like one of the convoluted fort rules one of us would invariably come up with when we were kids.
So, yes, this language should be dropped from the bill (unless they’re playing fort).
Comment by Cheswick Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:44 pm
You nailed it, Wordslinger, and it’s not just this bill. The Right is shooting for the moon in Wisconsin with the anti-union legislation, in DC with the government shutdown threat, and here in Illinois with this bill. It’s becoming more and more difficult for me (an avowed leftist to be sure, but one who has voted R and has an open mind) to find any reason to vote for anyone other than Democrats. Ideological purity on the right is more important than good legislation and compromise. When will the Democrats realize that their opportunity is now to shout these differences from the rooftops–real concrete examples of ideologically-driven, dogmatic, harmful social and economic policies that further drive wedges in our discourse and are destructive to the country. When?
Comment by Lefty Lefty Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:45 pm
{With his eyes on home plate and his back to the seats, Tom Gamboa never saw them coming.
One second the Kansas City coach was standing near first base. The next he was slammed to the ground, a bare-chested father and his teenage son pummeling him.
“I felt like a football team had hit me from behind. Next thing I knew, I’m on the ground trying to defend myself,” Gamboa said.
“It just happened so fast.”
In a scene athletes have feared for years, Gamboa was attacked without warning by two fans who came out of the seats. The Royals rushed to his aid and the 54-year-old Gamboa escaped with a few cuts and a bruised cheek. He walked off the field to a standing ovation from the crowd at Comiskey Park.}
What if instead he had just brandished his weapon and shot them in an effort to protect himself?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:46 pm
Yeah. Great. Concealed carry during the Sox/Cub series. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:49 pm
I voted NO but mixed on it. On one hand we shouldn’t hold anyone liable for a criminal act except the actual criminal. On the other hand this kind of language would be a great motivator to cause businesses to let their employees and customers exercise the natural, individual, fundamental right to bear arms.
I don’t know off hand if any shall issue state has this kind of provision or not.
Comment by Drylok Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:50 pm
Todd, I see your point, but that language is awful darned broad. What if I slip and fall as I’m trying to duck during an armed robbery? Does that give me yet another lawsuit avenue? Sure looks like it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:53 pm
Wordslinger: Just as a quick example, you might search for Dr. Suzanna Hupp and listen to her experience.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:55 pm
They are trying to force business owners to allow guns on their properties. The liability provision is one of the more ridiculous things I have seen in a long time. The language needs to go.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:57 pm
So as a practical aspect every business would have to check to see if a person is carrying a concealed weapon before they enter the premises in order to prevent possible liability.
From a practical standpoint how could a business properly enforce a “no concealed weapon” policy on their premises? Are they going to put metal detectors at grocery stores, bars, restaurants, etc? The onus would be on the business to figure this out.
I’m against the specific language of the because of this issue. I think that a business should be able to say that no concealed weapons are allowed on their premises without the fear of incurring liability for a criminal act by a third party.
Comment by Wrigleytown Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:59 pm
===Concealed carry during the Sox/Cub series.===
That would make a good QOTD. Sox fans probably have the better argument of needing to carry to get safely in and out of the Cell, especially around Armour Square Park.
Cubs fans like me would argue concealed guns are less offensive than cell phones at Wrigley, and if the Cubs ban concealed carry, the least they can do is to ban cell phones too.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 4:59 pm
I’m pro carry, but this language would kill the bill, and besides, it’s ridiculous for the store owner to be liable for someone else’s actions.
Comment by Razer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:01 pm
I voted no, but I’m not totally on-board. I think it should only apply to those places where my choice to enter isn’t absolute. Such as court houses, transit stations, government offices, etc. I am OK with being disarmed at court houses, the capitol building and airports because they take what I consider to be adequate steps to alleviate my need to defend myself.
If some govt building or such requires I be disarmed but does not take adequate steps, then I think they should be held liable if a jury determines that being armed could have helped.
As for private businesses or stadiums, I would defer to the property owner. I don’t need to enter Bennigans or Soldier Field.
By the way, nice meeting you at The Statehouse Inn ISRA shindig, Rich. You certainly didn’t match my mental image. Too bad we didn’t have a chance to talk.
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:02 pm
During the time between when I started to post and actually posted, Todd mentioned Suzanna Hupp. Whichever side of the issue you are on, her videos are worth a watch and her testimony worth a listen.
I am a bit mixed on the exact wording too. I support the concept in supporting the business owner’s right to deny; but also allocating some responsibility to them if they deny an individual their means for self defense. The trick would be to word it so it isn’t too broad.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:04 pm
===You certainly didn’t match my mental image. ===
I get that a lot.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:07 pm
Remove–I feel conflicted about guns but there are too many people out there who think they are Wyatt Earp.
There was a woman who showed up at a WI church with a gun in a holster…is that really necessary just to prove her point?
Comment by Belle Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:07 pm
–Wordslinger: Just as a quick example, you might search for Dr. Suzanna Hupp and listen to her experience.–
I’m well aware that crimes occur, and have ever since the crust cooled.
I’m curious as to why, as a business or homeowner (with rights, I’m quite sure), that in the year 2011 I all of a sudden should be saddled with added liability for keeping guns off of my property.
Furthermore, why, in the same bill, are tavern owners specifically exempted from that same, newly discovered, liability?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:17 pm
–Remove–I feel conflicted about guns but there are too many people out there who think they are Wyatt Earp–
At the Gunfight at the OK Corral, the Earps (local law enforcement) went to disarm cowboys who were violating Tombstone ordinance for carrying firearms within town limits.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:23 pm
===There was a woman who showed up at a WI church with a gun in a holster…is that really necessary just to prove her point? ===
To prove her point? No. To save herself from a brutal beating? Yes.
Take the case of Mary Shepard, a 76-yr-old woman from Anna, IL who, along with another elderly woman, was brutally assaulted and left for dead in the church in which both women worked. At the time, Mary Shepard held permits to carry concealed weapons in over 30 states and had extensive training in the defensive use of firearms.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4465/104/
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:24 pm
==Concealed carry during the Sox/Cub series.==
There should be a ban against the Cubs concealing their talent.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:29 pm
I opposed to the language. As noted by other commentators this is not balanced with language that makes the business owner liable if someone is hurt due to a patron with a gun.
I think the likelihood of injury increases due to conceal carry. I think too many people have fantasies about stopping a crime by pulling out the gun and shooting the bad guy. My sense (I don’t have any hard evidence) is that the good guy pulling out a gun can lead to a shoot out, the gun being taken away by the bad guy, or an innocent person being accidentally shot.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:29 pm
I haven’t read the bill. As I understand it, it is still undergoing revisions.
However, I think it may be partially a balancing point where some places may otherwise prevent shoppers or employers from carrying a handgun for fear of additional liability. This would serve to counterbalance that liability fear - which seems fair. I personally don’t believe someone should have additional liability from someone else carrying or not carrying… Which reminds me that Illinois property rights / trespass liability laws need MAJOR revision too.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:34 pm
This language reads like a poison pill. Seems strange that it was included. It is so broad and I can envision it triggering lots of frivolous law suits.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:35 pm
I voted No because I feel that some form of this language should be included in the final bill. The current wording is a little broad, but the point is valid. If an owner feels it is more dangerous to have a concealed firearm in their business than it is to not have a means of defense, then they should be willing to stake financial liability on that position.
@ Lefty Lefty - This isn’t a right wing position. I’m a downstate Democratic Precinct Committeman who took time off from work and running the Aldermanic campaign of a Democratic candidate to put on my black IGOLD host hat and help other gun owners at the rally last week. When I’m done running this campaign, I’m heading to my hometown in Wisconsin on the weekends to help recall the GOP senator that voted to strip workers of their rights. What part of shooting for the moon am I?
FYI - One of the most liberal states in the nation, Vermont, was also the first state to allow concealed carry to all citizens without issuing a permit.
Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:41 pm
Todd’s right. It’s amusing watching people commenting on this getting all riled up… for what? Few people know what’s in the final version.
By the way, for those who don’t know, Todd’s license plate is something akin to GUNLOBBY.
I really think it should be GUN GOD, but heh.
Comment by Templar Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:48 pm
Afternoon,
I don’t need that language in the bill to hold anyone accountable
Comment by WMDMedic Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:49 pm
–One of the most liberal states in the nation, Vermont, was also the first state to allow concealed carry to all citizens without issuing a permit.–
Ergo, conceal carry without a permit is a liberal position? Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
Vermont is unique. It’s wacky collection of a few hundred thousand, um, personalities doesn’t fit on the traditional political spectrum and it has absolutely nothing to do with setting policy for the state of Illinois.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:52 pm
I was arguing for the language here Friday, but after re-reading I think it is too broad as written. It needs to be crafted to designate liability for injury or death from active shooter incidents where an armed patron may have had a chance at defending themselves but for the prohibition.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 5:58 pm
===It’s amusing watching people commenting on this getting all riled up… for what? Few people know what’s in the final version.===
I’m glad you find this amusing. However, it’s one of the more important bills of the year and it says what it says as written. There’s no harm in debating it, particularly since the NRA has testified for it and still backs the provision.
I can’t help but wonder what you would think if the debate had gone your way. But, whatever. People will always find a complaint avenue. Duly noted, but move along and answer the question posed.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:08 pm
Also, if you think this is the end of it, you’ve got another think coming. The devil is always in the details, and we’ll be looking at those details in the coming days.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:08 pm
–It’s amusing watching people commenting on this getting all riled up… for what? Few people know what’s in the final version.–
You insiders be sure to let the rest of us know at some point, okay? Because right now, all we’re going by is what some folks thought was important and drew up and filed in a bill in the General Assembly.
By the way, under the current bill, there are places where conceal carry is not allowed, like courts, prisons and government meetings.
But conceal carry is allowed at universities and colleges. And movie theaters. And most restaurants. And on the CTA, Metra, Pace and all public transportation. And at public swimming pools, playgrounds, parks, golf courses and beaches.
I encourage everyone to follow this issue. And don’t buy the “48 state” stuff. Outside of Dixie, many states have very, very strict conceal carry laws that I doubt the proponents in Illinois would like very much.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:20 pm
again, does the CCW in Texas include this language? the carry provision that the former legislator pushed was carry itself. that is what is being pushed here too, but this specific clause is what is being discussed, so, what other states have such a clause in their carry statute?
Comment by amalia Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:27 pm
@wordslinger
It’s not a liberal or conservative position. I was just counter pointing those who seem to thing only rabid right wingers want concealed carry. Firearms really seem to be one of those rare topics that can unite people of all political stripes in either firm support or firm opposition. The guy whose campaign I’m running is a “progressive” who is definately left of me on the spectrum, yet he owns & shoots his handgun at least once a month at the range.
I once had a friend tell me Vermont was the only place where socialists and libertarians regularly drink together. It’s on my bucket list of places to visit.
Comment by Blue Dog Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:28 pm
Yes, pull it out. Who writes this stuff in anyway? I’m not a supporter of CC anyway (don’t like handguns), but making the owner of a building vicariously liable for a criminal act by a third party???
I’m a conservative, an R, a gun owner. But this kind of stuff is nuts.
Comment by Park Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:30 pm
Wordslinger, the majority of states have shall-issue concealed carry with no carve-outs like NYC.
What most on your side of this issue have is based upon Hollywood-style wild west fantasies that have no basis in fact or in the experience of the 30+ states that issue permissively.
How do you address the story I posted about Mary Shepard? Is she just an egg that got scrambled to make the omelet that is your fantasy gun-free utopia?
We always hear about ‘reducing gun violence’. Why not about reducing all violence? How do you address the many, many instances of ‘gun defense’ that occur outside of Illinois’ gun-free utopia?
Next time someone wants to drag out the ‘OK Corral’ canard, how about you include a link to support the actual existence as I did with the Mary Shepard link? By the way, a simple google search will provide you countless examples of the use of guns to save lives all over the country.
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:36 pm
If the language is left in, shouldn’t it then also require the bill to stipulate that owners are to be held responsible for any damage done by patrons or guests WHO DO have a concealed weapon?
Comment by Capone Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:37 pm
Speaking of conceal and carry at the Sox/Cubs Series,…. this just in, and just in time for Opening Day:
ESPN Films’ “30-for-30″ documentary on Chicago Cubs fan Steve Bartman and the infamous foul ball during Game 6 of the 2003 National League Championship Series will premiere next month at the Tribeca Film Festival.
The film, “Catching Hell,” by Oscar-winning director Alex Gibney, was originally slated to run last Oct. 26 on ESPN as part of their documentary series, coinciding with the World Series. But the date was postponed so Gibney could have more time to work on it. It’s slated to run later this year.
According to a news release from the film festival, Gibney’s film “explores the psychology of die-hard sports fans, the frightening phenomenon of scapegoating, and the hysteria that turned mild-mannered Bartman into the most hated man in Chicago.”
The festival takes place from April 20-May 1 in lower Manhattan. No date has been announced.
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:38 pm
–I once had a friend tell me Vermont was the only place where socialists and libertarians regularly drink together. It’s on my bucket list of places to visit.–
There are quite a collection of individualists, if not eccentrics, in Vermont. I used to work with a dude from Vermont whose parents were survivalists who thought the Chinese — as the world’s biggest shoemakers, supposedly — were trying to take over the world through mind control via the manipulation of people’s feet.
I’ll drink with anyone til the bill comes around, then I have a train to catch, lol.
As has been noted, the devil’s in the details. I suspect some form of conceal carry is coming sooner rather than later, I’m just working it out in my own mind what I, as an individual, can accept or will oppose.
I don’t live in Northern Illinois for the weather. If I want liberal conceal carry, I’ll gun-up and head for Muscle Shoals.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:40 pm
I vote for but with this in mind, this will not stand as written. I expect changes and exemptions of all sorts that will weaken or destroy this bill.
Comment by nieva Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:43 pm
FF, why don’t you read what I wrote, and not what you wish I had. That would answer your questions.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:44 pm
===But conceal carry is allowed at universities and colleges. And movie theaters. And most restaurants. And on the CTA, Metra, Pace and all public transportation. And at public swimming pools, playgrounds, parks, golf courses and beaches. ===
Which happen to be the very places one might need to use a gun for self-defense.
According to the US Bureau of Justice, only 1/3 of violent crimes occur in or near the victim’s house. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:44 pm
Wordslinger, back atcha, because I didn’t ascribe what I wrote to you directly, but to those who take your side, many of which seem to be posting here.
But I have facts and cites, whatchugot?
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:49 pm
FF, I’ve been quoting the bill before the General Assembly.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 6:53 pm
Word, it is not your ability to read the bill that I am contesting. It is your mischaracterization of the prevalence of shall issue concealed carry outside of IL and NYC I’m talking about. Even CA has many counties that are essentially shall issue.
As for stories of armed self-defense try http://thearmedcitizen.com/
or
http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp
Comment by Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:02 pm
Drop the liability language. I think it should be up to the property owner to decide whether or not he/she wants to allow armed patrons on their property. Personally, if the bill passes, and businesses are posted “no guns allowed”, they won’t be getting my business.
Comment by howie Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:14 pm
I read Todd’s post and I agree 100%
I as a business owner do not fear the Law Abiding carrier. I do fear infringement! I reject ALL victim disarmament regimes!
Go ICARRY, and I.S.R.A. and especially S.A.F. and my hero MR. ALAN GURY!
Bob
(Hi Al R.)
Comment by Bob1911 Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:31 pm
Rich post the video
The language you cited is broad but as i testified in committe last weeknit was agreed opon to come out
Its not in the final verson. But it served its purpose.
Comment by Todd Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:40 pm
What is interesting about the proposal is that it is one-sided. If a business allows a person in with CC and that person CAUSES injury, there is no immunity. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Let them in and they hurt somebody? Liable. Don’t let them in and they get hurt? Liable. Either way, the plaintiffs’ lawyer wins.
So yes, it is a bad clause.
With regard to the church example — Both women WORKED at the church. This bill would do nothing for them. Their recourse would be through worker’s comp. There is nothing in this bill that would allow a direct civil action against an employer. So time to drop that example since it it not applicable.
Ultimately, a business owner should be able to make the decision. People for ages have been able to make determinations at to what business is considered safe and what is not. Don’t think a place is safe unless you can bring that gun in? Go someplace else. Or have something delivered. Make the choice. But don’t blame a business owner for making the choice to do what the business thinks is for the safety of the business.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:41 pm
Todd, are you aware of anybody that has been injured by a legally owned firearm?
This is why I can’t take the gun lobby seriously.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 7:46 pm
Here is the face of your gun-free utopia: http://www.lawsonzoo.com/images/maryshepardassault.jpg
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:14 pm
Lawson, you need to listen more and speak less.
The proposal wouldn’t do a damn thing for Mary Shepherd. She was an employee. This talks about civil liability. There is no civil liability for employees (only worker’s comp.). Wouldn’t have made any difference. If you are going to try to participate in the discussion, please get your facts straight.
Comment by Jasper Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:22 pm
Jasper,
The conversation has gone all over the place with many baseless assertions regarding the inefficacy of carry as well as inferences that few states ‘really’ have carry at all.
Sorry if *you* can’t keep up.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:25 pm
===But it served its purpose.===
So the purpose was what, to smoke out the opposition and give them something to scream about? Now that the worst section is removed, the rest of the bill must be OK, right? And the ISRA looks like it made a big concession to opponents, a grand compromise.
Good tactic Todd. Well played. I’m not sure it will work, but that’s a textbook maneuver.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:27 pm
FF, who has referred to a gun-free utopia, besides you?
Strawman.
By your logic, if someone posted photos of those who had been shot by someone legally carrying firearms, that would be an argument for prohibition.
For the record, endlessly, I’m not for prohibition, or against hunting or against guns in homes. The issue is the details of proposed conceal carry in Illinois.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:27 pm
I read about the Mary Shephard case. Seems like a stretch to assume the lady would have brought her gun to work at a church, kept it within easy reach, and could have pulled it out and defended herself. Maybe she could, maybe not. It is at least as likely that one of the assailants would have found it and used it.
When a business or property owner decides to allow or not allow concealed carry on their property, they are weighing both likelihoods (CC protects vs CC provides a weapon where there was not one). It should be the call of the business owner.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:29 pm
gunslinger, go ahead and post away. The only pictures I’m betting you find of people lawfully carrying shooting anybody are self-defense situations…which is my point.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:31 pm
Seriously, Dave, you can’t believe life and society are that simple, can you?
From Friday’s blog:
* Meanwhile, this might get the blood boiling a little, but try to stay calm in the comments section. The Violence Policy Center has put together lists of people killed by concealed carry permit holders or those carrying legally concealed guns. Click the links for pdf files explaining each…
* 9: Law Enforcement Officers Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present)
* 279: Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present)
* 18: Mass Shootings Committed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present)
* 25: Murder-Suicides Committed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders (May 2007 to the Present)
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:36 pm
word, those VPC google search ’studies’ aren’t worth the paper they aren’t printed on. They are based upon inaccurate reporting found during google searches of news stories written by reporters that don’t seem to know what exactly constitutes having a concealed handgun permit. Also, these are based upon news accounts of people ‘charged’ but not convicted. Note: in most cases, law requires a person shooting another be charged pending a determination of self-defense. Here’s a good fscking of VPC’s shoddy ‘research’: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/17/latest-cutting-edge-google-research-from-vpc/
Pot, so this is our standard of review for inalienable human rights? “Seems like a stretch” that a woman with 5 self-defense with firearms training classes under her belt and 2 licenses good in 31 states couldn’t manage to keep her hands on her gun and use it when needed? I’d hazard a guess that she’s more qualified and adept at using it than some cops.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:47 pm
By the way, this is the money-shot from the SnowflakesInHell.com fscking of VPC’s ‘research’:
“I’d also point out that by dividing the incidents up like this, it makes it look like we’re dealing with more incidents overall, rather than just 46. So out of the estimated 5 million concealed carry permit holders in the country, Josh Sugarmann managed to dig up 46 people, many of which only might be murderers because of a lack of convictions. Even giving Josh the benefit of doubt, that means that concealed carry permit holders murder at a rate 1/8 that of the general population. Not surprising for a group of people that have gone through a background check.”
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:53 pm
That’s insane language.
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 8:56 pm
As always on this topic, “Wow”
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 9:58 pm
==“Seems like a stretch” that a woman with 5 self-defense with firearms training classes under her belt and 2 licenses good in 31 states couldn’t manage to keep her hands on her gun and use it when needed?==
Yeah, seems like a stretch. I didn’t say she wouldn’t be able to access her gun just that it seemed similarly likely that the assailant would get it and that the property owner had the right to decide not to allow concealed guns on the premises.
Frankly, by your self defense argument the wisest course would seem to be encouraging folks to keep a gun on the desk next to the computer mouse.
We don’t live in the wild west any more. These crimes are few and far between. The crime is Anna was so incredibly unusual that it is better used as the exception that proves the rule. The victim probably used concealed carry when in unusual situations that she perceived were dangerous. In the church where she worked, her guard would be down and reaction time slowed.
I am not opposed to concealed carry, but I don’t think it solves the problems its proponents think it will. If a property owner wants no part of it, that should be that. No extra liability.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 10:17 pm
===Yeah, seems like a stretch. I didn’t say she wouldn’t be able to access her gun just that it seemed similarly likely that the assailant would get it and that the property owner had the right to decide not to allow concealed guns on the premises.===
This is pure conjecture…you might just as well decide that police are in danger of having their firearms used against them. Does happen, but far more likely they use it themselves.
===The victim probably used concealed carry when in unusual situations that she perceived were dangerous. In the church where she worked, her guard would be down and reaction time slowed.===
You’ve obviously never taken a firearm self-defense course. Maybe check one out and get back to us on your other conjectures.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 10:32 pm
The IMA and IRMA have opposed this provision for two years and got a verbal commitment from Todd in committee (and several weeks prior) that this language is going to be removed from the bill. So his point about people commenting without final language is appropriate.
Comment by 4 percent Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 10:38 pm
Regarding Shepard, Rep. Phelps bill prohibits conceal carry in churches.
Don’t ask me why, there’s a lot of curious stuff in the bill that don’t seem to follow any clear rationale.
For example, it prohibits conceal carry in the General Assembly chamber or committee meetings except for members and registered lobbyists.
Food for thought for staff and the reporters in the press box!
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 10:45 pm
Does it prohibit carry with permission? If not, I agree with you. It should be like any other business…free to restrict or allow per owner’s policy choice.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 10:51 pm
==You’ve obviously never taken a firearm self-defense course. Maybe check one out and get back to us on your other conjectures.==
Correct. Do they suggest everyone get a shoulder holster and wear it at all times? If not, I fail to see how anyone can assert that the CC person will have the gun within easy reach at all times. Nor does quick-draw necessarily beat the criminal bursting through the door. (That’s why law enforcement officers and soldiers draw their weapons before they need them.) Nor do people have their guard up at all times. “Always ready” is the mode for soldiers and police, not office workers, it can’t be. People simply do not live like that, and the training, no matter how good, would not be able to put people into that mode on a permanent basis. People automatically let down their guard in certain situations. You may not believe that, perhaps your guard is always up.
Your assertions that concealed carry would have prevented that crime are as much conjecture as my assertion that it was a 50-50 probability at best. And, that is why I think a business or property owner should be able to say “no” to CC on their premises without being liable.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 11:34 pm
If it doesn’t work all of the time it isn’t worth doing? Don’t you think that should be our choice? You know, let women (and men) control their own bodies?
Your fast draw comment also betrays your ignorance on self-defense. Read the many accounts nationally of people employing firearms in self-defense, you’ll get an idea of how it works. There are tons more instances of people employing self-defense firearms even without having the ‘drop’ on their attacker. There are almost no accounts of gun carriers having their guns taken away.
Criminals let their guard down too. That women in the Tinley Park Lane Bryant store was able to get her cell phone out to call 9-1-1. She could have easily gotten out a gun and saved 4 lives.
I’m not saying guns always work. But it is proven that they sometimes do, and I feel people like Mary Shepard and the rest of us willing and trained to carry should have that choice.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Monday, Mar 14, 11 @ 11:53 pm
If it means the bill will fail, then get rid of it. If the bill can pass without it, leave it. I will shop elsewhere if possible (concealed means concealed…)…
It says, “Any owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person that prohibits persons holding a permit for concealed firearms from carrying concealed firearms on the premises shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the premises.”
I for one WILL get the permit-so that means I can hold the business owner liable. If you don’t plan to get the permit, then why are you even commenting. Your statement is moot.
I WILL carry everywhere I am allowed to do so. If I am left without that option, then the person who decided to deny me that right should be liable.
Now, I understand that I may loose should things get bad, but removing the option of self defense is like removing the railing from your stairs, or the seat belt from your car.
Bottom line is that the guy who is going to rob you probably NOT going to bother getting a carry permit. Why would you deny yourself another possible means of self defense. Even if I am not your best customer, I am not going to be a victim. In defending myself, I may just defend you, too.
You who are afraid of Concealed Carry need to get a responsible friend who shoots to take you to the range and learn about firearms. I happen to have grown up with them and am very comfortable with them. If you do, you may gain a whole new understanding and respect for those of us who accept this responsibility.
Comment by DM Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 12:25 am
Those of you who are so adamantly for cc need to read your own oh so emphatic comments to understand why you’re starting to scare people who are on the fence.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 12:28 am
You would think we were in the middle of a crime wave!
The 2008 Uniform Crime Report (the last available from the ISP) shows all crimes dropping across the board. The only uptic was a 2007-2008 increase in burglary. The overall rate dropped from a peak of appx 6200/100K (in 1991) to appx 3550/100K (in 2008). All without CC.
I’m not opposed to CC, but I think it’s a solution looking for a problem. It’s unfortunate so many people out there are so frightened.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Mar 15, 11 @ 12:47 am