110 Comments - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:31 am: Here we go. - Poster - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:39 am: 13 Democrats and two Republicans from Chicago? Why even have this group. We know what the answers will be. Just more ado over nothing - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:40 am: - Todd - Pleased? I rarely comment at all on this topic, because I learn more reading than I can ever hope to add, so I am just asking the “simple” question just to give - Todd - an opportunity to elaborate, if he would like. Not “calling Todd out”, just opening the door, if - Todd - would like to, or not like to, add some other insight. Respectfully - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:42 am: Its good to see this out there. I dont think Chicago/the anti-gun folks will get the bill they “want” which is a may issue California/NYC style law. Actually after reading the bill its pretty decent. Mandatory training, a fire arms test that is as tough as the Illinois Law Enforcement standards for qualification. Private property seems to be “protected” as private property owners can make setup their areas as “gun free”. And there is a duty to inform. When a CCW holder is in contact with police they have a duty to inform the police that they are a CCW holder and are carrying a weapon. not a bad bill from my first read. - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:43 am: Wille what would you like to know or what is the question? be happy to answer anything I can - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:45 am: I dont want to speak for Todd directly but I will say a lot of Todd’s supporters are very pleased. They have worked with Todd and their reps for years on this bill, and have seen negotiations with Sheriffs association, Chief’s associations, specific reps and senators… and finally this is coming to a vote that has a real chance. Disappointment last time came when news reported CCW was defeated… of course defeat meant what 68 votes in the house? a big majority to be fair, but needed 71 yeahs to 37 neahs? So yeah, I would say we are pleased to be this close. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:49 am: Todd, what is your view on this? From my perspective, it seems extremely reasonable. I have to give Rep. Phelps credit for drafting something that should appeal to moderates. The extreme pro gun will object because they think the 2A, unique among Constitutional provisions, is absolute. The strongly anti-gun people will object because they don’t seem to get that the 7th Circuit has ruled. That will happen on anything introduced. For the rest of us though? It seems like a great compromise. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:50 am: A clearly crafted bill on one side of a big issue. I just wish it hadn’t thrown in the prohibition on registration — it just muddies the water with an additional issue. Let’s deal with one clean bill at a time. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:51 am: The Phelps Bill, pleased with this bill as the “starting point”, its outlook… I guess the “Here we go” was ambiguous enough that made me comment, which I rarely do on 2nd Amendment, so I was just curious if you wanted to elaborate, and by no stretch “calling you out”. I would be fine with you even saying, “I stand by my ‘Here we go’”. I was just curious of ypou take on the points I stated above. Again, respectfully. - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:52 am: Walkin- === I just wish it hadn’t thrown in the prohibition on registration === I missed that in the bill, which section are you referring to? - the Patriot - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:55 am: Good move by Phelps. Madigan could run this common sense bill through quick and get the issue behind us so everyone can just take a breath. The reality is we currently have no enforceable restriction on coneal and carry. Regardless of what you think about Tamms, by closing it, Quinn took one of the biggest employers out of Phelps’ district and his people are not happy. this would be a win for him. He is likely to be opposed in his next electiona and without a major legislative victory, he will be in trouble. - Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:00 am: “The state police would be able to consider objections from local law enforcement when processing applications.” That piece will create problems unless the bases for objections are first clearly codified and registrants are given a prompt forum for contesting local law enforcement’s objection preferably in a courthouse located well outside their jurisdiction. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:04 am: –Phelps, who has sponsored several versions of a concealed-carry bill throughout the years, said he introduced a bill this session because he wants to negotiate in good faith. “We filed a bill to show people that we do mean what we say about working on this issue.” – Is that correct? There’s room to negotiate? - TooManyJens - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:08 am: ==I missed that in the bill, which section are you referring to? == “The proposal would bar home rule units of government from limiting the number of guns a concealed-carry permit owner could have or requiring that they register the guns they own.” - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:10 am: Thanks TooMany, going to find that and re-read that section. Semper Fi - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:12 am: You may have already posted this, but if not, yesterday’s NY Times has a nice story on how guns get into Chicago. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/us/strict-chicago-gun-laws-cant-stem-fatal-shots.html?_r=0 - TooManyJens - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:16 am: USMC, I just found it in Section 95 of HB997. - walkinfool - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:21 am: @USMC: Section 95 on preemption. - RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:23 am: The bill seems to very well thought out and reasonable. Hope the GA is smart enough to just pass it and put that issue to bed. As far as Simon’s committee, seems like it is a stacked deck, with all the members from the NE corner of the state. - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:25 am: TooMany, Well, when I read this whole section, this looks to me like it is a way to keep Chicago (or any City) from taking a CCW Holder (from say Joliet) and charging them with some failure to register their CCW in the City. Here is the quote: , a home rule unit shall not regulate the possession, carrying, or transportation of handguns. A home rule unit shall not regulate the number of handguns or require registration of handguns possessed by a person licensed under this Act. So if you have a CCW and stroll into the city for a night of watching fireworks, or whatever, Chicago cannot regulate your CCW away. This looks like Typical State Pre-emption to me. Which is what Madigan et al told us was the reason we needed a 71 vote super majority not just a majority to pass the law… - Wensicia - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:25 am: Seems reasonable. I hope enough people get behind this to pass it. - Skirmisher - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:29 am: I am not enthusiastic over conceal-carry, but Mr. Phelps, I believe, has crafted a very balanced piece of legislation that should get wide support. I do hope the firing demonstration includes a demonstration of competence in hitting the target consistently. - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:32 am: Skeeter– my job is the possible. We saw in lame duck the antigunners over reachon their stuff. I don’t plan on doing that. While some NRA types may not be happy with some of the things in the bill, but again it is the possible not perfect. Willie, my comment was more about let the games begin. This is the first step in the process. Word- there may be some room on some issues. I will admit to not having allmthe answers of may have not considered all prospects that may creep up, but if there are reasonable requests that help pass the bill i will listen. But there are certain things that we will not retreat from; statewide, no local regulations, shall,issue, commercailly available training. . . - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:39 am: “So if you have a CCW and stroll into the city for a night of watching fireworks, or whatever, Chicago cannot regulate your CCW away” Just as a reminder, there is a difference between “can” and “should.” Although I support the proposal, comments like the one above scare the heck out of me. Somebody from downstate who gets into a crowd and panics when he sees med students that he mistakes for gang members and opens fire. Seriously, if you think you need a gun to come to the fireworks (or to walk down Michigan Ave.) stay home. And now back the interesting discussion. Sorry for the digression. - NIref - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:40 am: How is the news? Bills get introduced all the time. Let me know if it moves, then there might be something worth reporting. - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:42 am: It will be interesting to see how JoAnn Osmond deals with this bill. While she’s one of the legislators owned by Todd, she also has Great America as one of the largest employers in her district. They will not permit carry in their park, and the Village of Gurnee will impose a hefty price if the park wishes the Gurnee Police to monitor their lot. The HR director has already hinted that the ticket-takers and park security staff will now have to be filled with those with police training rather than just kids from CLC. And the park’s insurers have already advised them of the whopping increase in their liability rates because now they lose the shield of unforeseen acts of a third-party as opposed to the undertaking of enforcing a no-weapons policy. The question becomes whether Osmond is pro-gun over pro-jobs. Without a home-rule exemption, you can pretty much kiss Taste of Chicago, and the various music fests goodbye as well. The city is self-insured, but they have excess policies for all events and those rates are sitting on the launch-pad as well. Who pays for all the administration required in this bill? I haven’t seen it, so I’m just asking. But if events are cancelled or jobs are lost because of this bill, who pays to make up the difference? Why should some kid in Grayslake not be able to get a job at Great America because some guy in Plano wants to carry a weapon? It doesn’t go unnoticed that the legislators sponsoring and supporting concealed carry come from districts that not only have the least violent street crime, but also do not fill the coffers of the state’s general revenue fund like those from Cook, DuPage, Lake and Will Counties. - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:43 am: Todd good Job this is a reasonable Bill the only thing i want to be sure of. Is that if you are an individual who wants to keep your property gun free you need to make it completely Obvious to all who may enter there. Signs at all public entrances etc. It would be nice to see parking lots exempted as long as the weapon is in your car. FL has similar. While trying not to be nit picky i can see places like Chicago and others patrolling the parking lots to make a “statement”. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:45 am: Springfieldish, Where’s the liability? I’m not seeing it. As a general rule, a business owner is not responsible for criminal acts of third parties. What is this bill would change that law? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:46 am: Just pass the thing and move on. I think there is room for negotiation on the training hours, but I have no idea what they should be. Maybe 4 is enough. I don’t know. And $25 seems a bit low for a fee. This is Illinois. We like fees. As for the Chicago thing, to me that’s the elephant in the room. If anything is going to kill the bill that will be it. There’s not a court case in the world that’s going to convince any Chicago legislator to vote for this. They might be wise to, though, because they are rolling the dice as to what the court will impose on the state. I guarantee they probably won’t like it and that it will be more severe than what they might be able to get in negotiations (no matter how little). - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:59 am: ===Willie, my comment was more about let the games begin. This is the first step in the process.=== Thanks. As they say in radio, “I will hang up and listen.” - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:03 am: ===Willie, my comment was more about let the games begin. This is the first step in the process.=== LOL, Todd, you’ve been signing off with “Game Over” since December, dude. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:04 am: I, too, am concerned in the same way CCC @ 10 am regarding how local LE can object. I reviewed that relevant section and it notes that there is a clear process whereby the local LE has to provide clear and convincing evidence of a problem and the applicant has more than one opportunity to object and appeal. It appears that the burden of proof lies with the State Police and local LE to prove the applicant would pose a danger if the application is approved. This looks like a reasonable bill to me. I am not an expert so would bow to the more experienced such as Todd V. - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:08 am: Nelson v. Union Wire Rope, Skeeter. Great America’s liability would stem, not from the criminal act of a third-party, but in the manner in which they “undertake” to enforce their no-gun policy, because, as a matter of law, that gun possessor who shoots some poor SOB in the park because he ‘thinks’ the guy was going to steal his wife’s purse, as just one of a thousand scenarios, is no longer a criminal under this law. Check the balance sheets of the park operators in constitutional-carry states. Their liability insurance is much higher than at Great America in Gurnee, even with a much more restrictive tort-liability environment. In the end, money talks, and this bill will be very expensive because actuaries deal with ‘potential exposure’ to liability not, ‘certain exposure’. - downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:13 am: In his recent comments, Todd has been more aggressive in his comments, saying that we would be starting over, with little room for compromise. Phelps bill does not start over, it had wide-spread support in the last session, and Todd now seems to be accepting the compromises in it. As a progunner, I can definitely live with it- We are not going to have shall-issue permits in Illinois without training or regulation; that is a political reality, and the gun extremists should accept that. The gun-banners should accept that guns are here to stay, and accept this bill as is… - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:15 am: Springfieldish, Great America isn’t an issue here - amusement parks are specificly listed as prohibited areas. And are you speaking as an actuary? I don’t see any overbearing commercial insurance issues here - and I’m a commercial P&C underwriter that specializes in E&S casualty exposures. I think this is a decent bill. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:20 am: Spring, A 1964 decision that holds that if you undertake a duty, you need to do so non-negligently? That’s your basis for believing that parks will be driven out of business due to all the lawsuits? You need to update your research. How many cases like this have you taken to trial? Let me guess — 2L? Do bars inspect bags and purses looking for guns and other things? Has there been a large volume of cases against bars based on those inspections? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:23 am: Ken, The CGL policies I’ve seen for bars have pretty strong “assault and battery” exclusions that would exclude coverage for this sort of thing anyway. Is that your experience too, or are certain carriers writing coverage that would include stuff like a bar shooting? - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:27 am: Are you saying, Ken, that excess policy rates for Chicago won’t rise? No, I don’t think you are, because you already know that is not true. And, if a person can lawfully carry the weapon in his vehicle, are you saying there’s no exposure because the weapon is left in their lot? The issue is potential liability, not actual judgements. I thought your job was to get ahead of that potential rather than leave reserves short. I dealt with the other side of the liability equation in the main, but worked both defense and plaintiff sides, and dealt with underwriters, actuaries and reserve specialists many times. I think your ideology is obscuring your professional view of the world, and, that’s pretty dangerous. You better be assuming the worst, or your clients or employers are going to earn a sell rating on the market. Your comment should have begun with, “Of course I’d see this as a decent bill, and therefore…” - Slick Willy - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:28 am: *** Just as a reminder, there is a difference between “can” and “should.” Although I support the proposal, comments like the one above scare the heck out of me. Somebody from downstate who gets into a crowd and panics when he sees med students that he mistakes for gang members and opens fire. *** I hear you. Once, I left the farm and ventured into the big city. I was totally horrified when I soon found myself surrounded by such strange people. I mean, there were people there with dark skin and some people were not wearing overalls or boots. It was bizarre, I tell ya!!! Thank the good Lord that I had my fuedin’ tank full of Uncle Jed’s best corn likker, so I could get out of such a dangerous place lickity split… - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:30 am: Willie–. I think the game is over the other side lost. Now we just have to get across the finish line Downstate– no reason to reinvent the wheel. I have an idea what will fly, while some of the downstate guys would vote for consitutional carry, i’m pretty sure we don’t have 71 votes for that. That is where my job is the possible, and to not let pefect be the enemy of good. Shall issue, statewide, no local regulations, commercial training, reasonable permit requirements. Usmc — there is parking lot langugae in the bill its covered - D.P. Gumby - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:34 am: I’m still opposed to concealed carry. But, this is not exactly moderate. It does not have any of the reasonable elements matching even driving requirements–mandatory insurance, renewal after x years, vision tests, etc. A one time test and training just doesn’t cut it. - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:35 am: Skeeter, you think like an insurance guy. I’ve personally settled enough cases based on an undertaking theory that I should be posting from the Bahamas with a secretary rather than watching the snow fall because of the whole, wife, dog, kids, house thing. They don’t often get tried, Skeeter, and if you don’t know why, you should. Undertaking exposure is huge if that count gets beyond the pleading stage. The trial lawyers are all for this bill, but feel free to check around on that. This bill has revenue negativity written all over it, both in public sector costs and private sector ramifications. The question stands. Who is going to pay for it all? - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:35 am: “to not let perfect be the enemy of good.” Too often on both this is ignored. This is good advice. - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:36 am: D.P. Gumby- Did you read the bill? - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:37 am: Sorry Todd I was at work and read it on lunch break. Looks Great You guys covered all the bases. More importantly there is no “reasonable” objection Rahmbo can come up with other than to say “Gun Bad”. I like the DD214 training exemption for obvious reasons bu for my fellow vets i would suggest you still take the course just to learn more about IL statutes. Again great job please pass it on to Mr. Phelps. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:44 am: Skeeter, you are correct - barring gross negligence in the part of the insured the most commonly written coverage forms would exclude coverage for assault and/or battery by anyone other than an employee or other insured person. Depending on the policy defense costs may or may not be covered, med pay (a smaller limit intended to provide immediate medical care) would also likely be available in the policy. Of course, none of this prevents legal action against an insured - but generally uninsured exposures aren’t chased after by plaintiffs. Blood, turnip, yadda yadda. I can see Great America having to spend more for parking lot patrols - there will be handguns in cars since they aren’t allowed in the park itself causing a need for greater security. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:49 am: - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:27 am: What exactly are you referring to when you state “excess policy rates” in this context? That’s a nonsense phrase. Also, I’m not aware of a single state where commercial liability loss costs increased as a direct result of liberalization of concealed carry laws. Care to prove me wrong? Will all due respect, I think you’re letting your personal bias control your viewpoint. You may want to stay in your lane of expertise. - Ronbo - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:52 am: I have a question for Todd. Do you think this bill has a better chance of passage than HB0154? I think the fee structure of 997 is a lot more reasonable. - Louis Howe - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:52 am: Round up the chumps…Downstate loses thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs since the new millennia, while Rep. Phelps stumble bums along as major state facilities close in his area, and all the while area schools are facing significant budgets cuts. So it’s time to change the message, and round up the chumps for another piece of useless special interest gun legislation. What a sorry excuse for legislator standing up for the meaningful interests of his constituents. - Blue Dog - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 11:58 am: @ Springfieldish- I am a roller coaster enthusiast who travels around the country on my summers. In states that have concealed carry, theme parks are exempt & most parks I’ve been to have metal detection in place at the front gates to keep unauthorized individuals from carrying inside. The nearest example of this is Six Flags St Louis down in Eureka. There are large signs in the lot reminding customers of the law & I’ve seen customers secure firearms in their vehicle before. It really is no big deal, and makes good safety sense. I’d hate to see a firearm slip from a holster while on a roller coaster. The idiots with cell phones flying out of their hands are bad enough. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:00 pm: “Skeeter, you think like an insurance guy” No Spring, I think like a lawyer. An undertaking is one thing. Providing crossing guards is one thing. Proving safety at a construction site is one thing. Bar shooting are another thing altogether. Criminal acts of third parties are not similar to providing crossing guards. How many bar shootings have you handled? How many shooting anywhere have you handled? Ken, That was my understanding. My most recent client on one of these cases was surprised to learn their was (allegedly) no coverage. I told him to speak to his producer, since I wasn’t sure if different forms were even available. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:00 pm: Louis Howe, because complance with the court is of zero importance, right? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:01 pm: Spring, You wrote about “excess” policies. The losses are not covered under a CGL. Why would excess coverage be impacted at all? You cover that third year, I think. - Steve Williams - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:02 pm: I would like to see more strict language around a person designated to enforce the provisions of Section 70 being required to identify themselves. E.g. not having an undercover police officer being able to use this section as probable cause to affect an arrest to leverage cooperation in an unrelated case. Also, have the restrictions in Section 70 waived if the violator is legally defending themselves or others from death or serious bodily harm. E.g. a shooting starts in a gun free zone and a patron retrieves a handgun from their car to defend themselves or others. Yes, I understand the risk of having a responding police officer mistake you for the aggressor. Couldn’t we just have one card and one fee for anyone who has a concealed carry permit? Eliminate the need to have a foid card if you have a concealed carry permit. Waive the fee for a concealed carry permit for any current foid card holders. Completely rewrite section 75, it just leaves too many holes for misconduct or chicanery. Define what is a valid MOS/AFSC under section 85(i)3. For example, I am an honorably discharged veteran with an 81152 AFSC (Law Enforcement Specialist) and have an SEI 327 Air Base Ground Defense Special Education Identifier. Is that a combat qualified MOS? If you are going to define it, you need to be specific. - siriusly - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:04 pm: Is there an estimated timeline for the 7th circuit to decide if they will hear the appeal in full? If yes, then how long will that take? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:04 pm: By the way, the comments here make one thing interesting about Rich’s audience. This isn’t the Tribune. A lot of the people commenting are pretty high up in their respective fields. It is hard to toss some of the B.S. because the people you are talking to can see right through it. Whether the comments are pensions or guns or insurance, we all need to keep in mind that the audience here is different. So, hypothetically, when you start talking as an expert in tort law or insurance, realize that the guy on the other side may have just gotten back from a court appearance on one of those cases. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:05 pm: “You cover that third year, I think.” Burn! - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:09 pm: A preemption of all firearms regulations would be preferable. (ie. local semi-auto bans, etc.) - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:15 pm: JJJS, while I would like to see preemption too, I really think this bill needs to be kept clean of other issues. The same applies to the AWB/CCW shotgun marriage floated earlier in the week. - mongo - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:15 pm: to Poster and RNUG, read the whole thing…it isn’t just NE Illinois or Chicago area: ***They include 13 Democrats and two Republicans from Chicago, the Chicago suburbs, southern Illinois, northern Illinois and western Illinois.*** - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:17 pm: “They don’t often get tried, Skeeter, and if you don’t know why, you should” 1. Because Plaintiffs attorneys bring them, realize there is no money, and then settle cheap. 2. Because they get tossed on MSJs. It is one or the other. The last one of these that I handled settled for under $10,000. Death case. My client knew that I would charge that much for written and for a few deps. My client did the smart thing. I don’t think a few $10,000 claims are going to make much of a difference to anybody. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:19 pm: Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:04 pm: Damn, I’m busted. I’m actually a bagger at Trader Joe’s that always dreamed of living that sexy insurance company life of writing cool E&S coverage over gentlemen’s clubs and bars. ;^) (Some days I’d take the bagger job.) - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:21 pm: DP– it is a right and we will treat it as a right. There will be no extra insurance. Renewal is 5 years and you have to requalify with your gun. We will not let it be treated as a priveledge - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:21 pm: ===By the way, the comments here make one thing interesting about Rich’s audience. This isn’t the Tribune.=== Amen. I would like to learn, thank goodness its not the Tribune. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:23 pm: –I can see Great America having to spend more for parking lot patrols - there will be handguns in cars since they aren’t allowed in the park itself causing a need for greater security.– Ken, I don’t understand. Wouldn’t the parking lots be safer because so many folks would have guns in their cars? And wouldn’t the park be less safe, since no one would have guns? - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:28 pm: Sirusly, we are in the middle of the 10 days for them to call for a vote. If they cal for a vote they have 14 days from them, we will know inside of 2 weeks is. My guess I think this bill has a better chance than 154, matter of fact I know it does - Jeeper - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:34 pm: Having read it, I still am not sure whether I hope they pass it or hope they don’t. If they pass nothing, the federal judicial ruling will preempt all local ordinances and state laws on the matter, though the final implementation after more cases is still a roll of the dice. Concealed carry happens either way but it apparently will have less nonsense attached if they pass nothing. Still, I would prefer a legislated solution to a court imposed solution. - SO IL M - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:34 pm: I agree that this is an overall good bill. Should passit and move along. When the biggest arguement against it voiced here so far is that it might raise insurance costs for Great America, it shows that this is agreeable to all but the very fringe - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:36 pm: “Ken, I don’t understand. Wouldn’t the parking lots be safer because so many folks would have guns in their cars? And wouldn’t the park be less safe, since no one would have guns?” Oh, Word, you’re *soooo* predictable. ;o) In response to your first question - yes, of course the parking lot would be safer, but not for the reason you think. It’s because guns don’t kill people, people kill people. /snark. And I think the second question is arguable, but I’m willing to compromise. - Ronbo - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:40 pm: Todd I am glad to hear that. After all if the State is seeking to regulate one’s constitutional rights then at the very least the financial burden should be on the State and not the individual. - Blue Dog - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:45 pm: @Wordslinger- Guns have nothing to do with Park safety. The park is safe because they use metal detection at all entrance points & there is no way to smuggle in weapons of any kind. They also maintain a robust security and police presence in the park with an officer literally around every corner. If the real world had this kind of coverage & response time, you might have had a point. Unfortunately the real world doesn’t have this kind of security, so I must take personal responsibility & provide for my own self defense. Thanks to Todd, Rep Phelps & the courts, I’ll be able to meet that obligation better. - SO IL M - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:46 pm: Wordslinger– Wouldn’t the parking lots be safer because so many folks would have guns in their cars? No. A gun in an empty car is not able to jump up on its own to defend anything. And wouldn’t the park be less safe, since no one would have guns?” No. Same as it is now. - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 12:56 pm: i think we all need to remember something there will be a free market here. If you don’t like to go to places where people have guns look for the gun free sign and Vice Versa. So if the cost of the liability insurance everyone is arguing about is too high follow the law and put signs up situation is the same as it is now. For those of us who prefer to defend ourselves we will choose to go where the signs aren’t. Therefore Businesses will make a cost benefit analysis and choose the best option for them. - dupage dan - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 1:01 pm: Comments were seeming to be in the moderate logical tone until word posted a slightly altered version of his gun show post. What possible good is it to discuss such a hypothetical that can’t happen outside of a gun show? Of course, everyone is safer at a gun show which requires all guns to be unloaded, or a theme park where NO ONE is allowed in with a gun. In the real world, how do we do that, word? Unless you confiscate ALL the guns. Since that is not part of a reasonable discussion, why do you continue to post it? - Anonymous - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 1:12 pm: 1)Ideally, I would suggest changing all references to ‘handgun’ or ‘firearm’ to ‘weapon’. At a minimum, I would suggest changing all references to ‘handgun’ to ‘firearm’. Then redraft those elements that pertain to firearms such as training/range time to specify that such is specifically related to firearms. 2)And all references such as ‘concealed or otherwise’ and ‘concealed or mostly concealed’ should change to ‘openly or concealed’ or vice versa. There should be no room for ambiguity in how we can carry. 3)I would also suggest working in language to repeal the FOID card which really serves no practical purpose. If we have a FOID Card we shouldn’t also need to be fingerprinted to get a ‘Carry Permit’. Another option might be to just have the ISP mail some sticker to a Permit applicant to be place on the FOID Card. Or mail new FOID Card with a CCW designator on it. 4)The list of places where we would not be able to legally carry should not include meetings of units of government bodies, schools, libraries, casinos or establishments that sell liquor. Maybe there could be a requirement that weapons ‘must be carried concealed’ in these locations. It makes no sense that we’d be able to carry on the sidewalk outside of one of these locations, but not cross the threshold of the building. And, if someone does not have a car to lock there weapon in, then they would have to leave their weapon at home before visiting one of these locations. Thus infringing on their Right to go armed between their home and their destination. Unless the location provided lockers. The concept of carrying a concealed weapon or firearm is to keep others from knowing that you are armed. Adding burdensome and illogical restrictions on where you can legally carry a weapon serves no purpose. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 1:44 pm: Ken, others, it was stated: –I can see Great America having to spend more for parking lot patrols - there will be handguns in cars since they aren’t allowed in the park itself causing a need for greater security.– Why would that be? - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 1:50 pm: Just picking out one point doesn’t mean it was the only one raised. There are costs, real costs, associated with the presence of guns, both legal and illegal, and now this bill will lay another layer of cost to the State as a whole. If those who wish to carry are so law-abiding and so responsible, why are the proponents of these carry provisions working so hard to shield them from both scrutiny and sharing the burden of the expense? We already pay higher insurance rates in both commercial lines, health and life and liability in personal lines due to the presence of guns. Wharton and the Journal of Risk and Insurance have published a number of articles on this. If this wasn’t so telling an issue, why did the NRA lobby so hard for the insurance exclusions regarding guns in the drafting of Obamacare? Why have they prevented federal research into the costs of gunshot injuries? Great America is just one example, and perhaps not the best. Without home rule, how will Taste of Chicago regulate this? What about local fairs and festivals where alcohol is served? Do they now have to pay for metal detectors and secured entrances? The security at Gurnee Days and Lindenfest this past year knew that the armed guy had no business there. Is it a violation of home rule if the Villages now say no to weapons at their festivals? As an update, Great American will likely prohibit possession of a firearm anywhere on their property, including the parking lot, and will impose removal and/or forfeiture of season passes for violations along with referrals to the Gurnee police. But their security profile will change and thus, their hiring requirements. There go a bunch of those summer jobs for the kids as ticket takers. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 1:56 pm: Spring, You need to stop typing and start reading. You wrote: “Without home rule, how will Taste of Chicago regulate this?” Regulate what? Please remember that there is generally no liability for criminal acts of third parties. Seriously, you’ve made the same point multiple times and it simply wrong. There is no increased financial risk. If you have actual facts, please post. If not, move on. - Springfieldish - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:05 pm: Sorry, Skweeter. I was asking how will the City of Chicago regulate the presence of firearms at Taste of Chicago and their various music fests. As of today, anyone there with a firearm other than the police and security is a bad guy and is removed. Are you actually saying that you are in favor of the average Joe or Jane having a weapon at the Taste of Chicago? You cannot be seriously suggesting that? Seriously, you missed the point. Is it just me or do these advocates of carrying guns around seem touchy, and, is that not a wee bit disconcerting? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:08 pm: Spring, Seriously dude, why would it be any different than now? I suspect they have a no gun policy now. What would change. Touchy? No, it just that you keep repeating the same ridiculous points over and over. It gets tedious. - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:14 pm: Spring You do realize that 49 other states have dealt with this right? We aren’t the first? We are the Last? or are you saying that the city of Chicago is inept and incompetent and cannot handle the same things as Miami, Houston, Heck Salt Lake had the winter Olympics? I might be inclined to agree with you on the last one. You act as though this is something new under the sun. What next are you going to start saying we will have wild west in the streets now? Take a breath you will be fine and the state will survive. You are letting your ideology and unreasoning fear overwhelm your common sense. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:15 pm: “Ken, others, it was stated: –I can see Great America having to spend more for parking lot patrols - there will be handguns in cars since they aren’t allowed in the park itself causing a need for greater security.– Why would that be?” C’mon, Word - the Goober act isn’t becoming. Gun. Brick. Window. Capiche? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:17 pm: OK, Ken, I think I get you. You’re saying more patrols in parking lots because the presence of guns in locked cars could lead to more car break-ins? Correct? - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:37 pm: Springfieldish, Yes, I am OK with a licensed CCW holder carrying at the taste. The reason people are “removed” today as you state is because it is AGAINST THE LAW. Just having a gun. But if you are licensed it is NOT against the law… Hell, that can happen in the mall today, or at a steak house, or walking to your car. If you are carrying a gun you are illegal… You just want it to remain illegal. We get it. But you make no sense at all. - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:47 pm: Word, correct. Thieves are dumb, but persistent. - Endangered Moderate Species - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 2:47 pm: Spring, Great America’ parent company already owns amusement parks in States that have concealed carry laws. They are not closing their doors and putting young people out of work in those States. - Small Town Home Owner - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:33 pm: It appears to me that as a home owner HB997 takes all of my property rights away from me when it comes to concealed carry. Section 95 on preemption keeps my city, if I live in a home rule city, from protecting me. The bill as written protects many specific types of places such as day care centers, casinos, colleges, etc. It even allows the “owner of a business or commercial lessee” to prohibit concealed carry at their place of business. A home owner, such as myself, is not given the chance to prohibit concealed carry. Some people will welcome concealed carry at their homes while others will not. I rate the lack of an option for home owners to be a major defect in the bill. - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:33 pm: Spring – I was asking how will the City of Chicago regulate the presence of firearms at Taste of Chicago and their various music fests. they will be very limited in what they can do. they will not be able to prohibit carrying at the taste in general. Get use to it. the right to carry is coming to Illinois, Cook County and Chicago - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:45 pm: @ Small town Please reread the bill there is nothing in there to prohibit you from telling Anyone that you cannot carry a gun in my house. If that were the case I would even be against it. Now you can’t declare your house a Gun free zone and expect anyone walking on the sidewalk or driving on the street in front of your house to be disarmed. where did you get the impression that your rights as a property owner were going to be violated. Right now it is illegal to carry a gun in public but you can conceal a firearm and carry it anywhere you want on Your Property. What made you think the Inverse would not be true? - LibertyToad - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:55 pm: DP: “I’m still opposed to concealed carry. But, this is not exactly moderate. It does not have any of the reasonable elements matching even driving requirements–mandatory insurance, renewal after x years, vision tests, etc. A one time test and training just doesn’t cut it. ” Having a driver’s license is not a constitutionally protected right and therefore cannot be compared to a CCW license. This bill, as written, seems very reasonable and hopefully will result in lower violent crime rates in Illinois as has happened in the other states that passed CCW laws. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:56 pm: –they will be very limited in what they can do. they will not be able to prohibit carrying at the taste in general.– Todd, for real? Sorry, haven’t had a chance to read the bill yet, but will. But if that’s the case, and you’re willing to talk, I’d suggest public events like that are a place where you’ll need to compromise. I can see more than a little heat from tax-generating, job-creating, hotels, restaurants, etc., if the deal goes down where public events that draw out-of-town money are open to conceal-carry. But, then again, maybe you knew that already and that’s a sacrifice you’re willing to make, lol. - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 3:59 pm: Well i spoke to the Governor’s office and asked them when they wanted to sit down and talk. They said that they were not interested. They would have their bill and that was that. So we don’t plan on negotiaitng any of the ancilary issues against ourselves. Quinn’s running his one note b flat organ again - Aaron - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 4:10 pm: “A home owner, such as myself, is not given the chance to prohibit concealed carry. Some people will welcome concealed carry at their homes while others will not. I rate the lack of an option for home owners to be a major defect in the bill.” This post makes my head hurt. Since when could you not bar anyone you want from coming into your house?? - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 4:10 pm: Well Todd i imagine you aren’t surprised. We will see what happens when Madigans appeal fails and June gets closer. He may find the organ can play a new tune. By the way i have a question if Quinn Vetos the bill does it have to wait till the Veto session to have the veto voted on? Is it possible for the bill to get 71 votes yet Quinn vetos and the June deadline goes by even though the veto is overturned during the veto session? - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 4:22 pm: – Well i spoke to the Governor’s office and asked them when they wanted to sit down and talk. They said that they were not interested. They would have their bill and that was that. So we don’t plan on negotiaitng any of the ancilary issues against ourselves. Quinn’s running his one note b flat organ again– When it comes to “Quinn’s b flat organ,” I hope that’s a Wurlitzer-like metaphor, dude, or that’s a mental image I could live without. So Todd, there’s going to be a competing bill, you think, out of the executive? - Todd - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 4:42 pm: Yes wordslinger they will do a new york style carry bill with a semi-auto ban and who knows what else to boot I met with some cops groups today and we are working through some small issues Question will be when it comes to the organ, who is the grinder, and who is the monkey? - USMCJanitor - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 4:46 pm: Todd, I love how we are constantly told we dont negotiate, and we are the ones that hold up an reasonable legislation… But here Illinois is FORCED to pass a law to due a constitutional issue and the governor’s office doesn’t even want to meet. he will put together a group with 13:2 Dems to Repubs and say “LOOOK!!! Bi partisan!!!” - Ken_in_Aurora - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 5:01 pm: “When it comes to “Quinn’s b flat organ,” I hope that’s a Wurlitzer-like metaphor, dude, or that’s a mental image I could live without.” Ewwww. Anyone have coupons for mind’s eye bleach? - FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 7:12 pm: What concerns me is what the Executive Branch may attempt to push thru. Otherwise what Rep Phelps has proposed makes sense in this political climate. Even tho I would probably qualify with the MOS of 11C, I would still complete the entire course with my daughters as an example to them. - Sgt USMC - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 7:27 pm: Todd I am assuming that a NY style bill is DOA for our side? the only thing of a greater degree than Quinns Arrogance is his incompetence. “The courts don’t mean me”. - Carl from Chicago - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:19 pm: I have read this bill in its entirety. Given that I have lived in many different states, and followed this issue for years, it might be useful to have a wide perspective on the various carry laws that exist in the 49 other states. Other than a few discretionary-issue states (eg. HI, NY, NJ, etc.), Phelp’s bill is very much in line with the majority of other states’ “shall-issue” carry bills. This IL bill probably has outlined more “off-limits” places than is typical, and the provision for sheriffs and municipal police to “object” to applicants is much more liberal than most other states. But other than those things, it’s a pretty typically shall-issue carry bill, of the type that have existed in scores of states for the last 15-25 years or so. It’s a good solid bill, and given that it’s relatively conservative, is one that gun control advocates ought to be pretty happy with (given their general lack of leverage now, on this issue). I suspect that given Posner’s ruling, Phelps could be leveraging a relatively more liberal bill than he’s introduced. - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 9:23 pm: I have read the bill. While I would have preferred it have fewer concessions to the antis, I admit that it is a very reasonable bill that should generate wide spread support from all but the most radical. I have heard that Quinn’s bill will be so radical that it should immediately be DOA. Another poster sparked a thought though. In the Quinn / Madigan & Cullerton power battle, Quinn has had diminished power since M&C have veto proof majorities. Would Quinn sabotage Phelp’s bill in hopes to “sacrifice” some vulnerable downstate Dem Reps and Sens and eliminate those veto proof majorities and shift the balance of power more back to him? It could be an interesting subplot… - wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 30, 13 @ 10:15 pm: –Another poster sparked a thought though. In the Quinn / Madigan & Cullerton power battle, Quinn has had diminished power since M&C have veto proof majorities. Would Quinn sabotage Phelp’s bill in hopes to “sacrifice” some vulnerable downstate Dem Reps and Sens and eliminate those veto proof majorities and shift the balance of power more back to him? It could be an interesting subplot…– Clearly, as Quinn has demonstrated throughout the decades, he is a cold, diabolical political mastermind who takes the long view in everything he does. Everyone else plays checkers. He plays three-dimensional chess. Nothing personal, Sonny, it’s business. Logic, not emotion. - LibertyToad - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 5:50 am: It’s a known fact, based on a number of studies, that the more guns there are in the hands of law-abiding citizens the less violent crime there is. I will never understand why Quinn and people like him don’t read the studies but instead simply ignore them. What kind of “leader” makes decisions based on feelings instead of fact? - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 6:02 am: No Liberty, that’s not a “known fact.” In reality, there is no clear evidence on either side. Before handling guns, try reality. - LibertyToad - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 6:09 am: Please do the research and educate yourself like I have. The stats may surprise you. The Lott study proved it years ago and was the most complete study ever done. Other studies since have confirmed his findings. In addition, research the violent crime rates and how they have dropped in every state that has implemented CCW. It is important to base law on facts and common sense, not on opinions. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 6:51 am: Are you kidding? John Lott? The guy who when challenged “lost” his data? You cannot be serious. - Todd - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 8:41 am: Umm mjm is the one playing 3d chess. Im not sure quinn even understands checkers Usmc regardless we need to make the system work and the bill has to be workable - LibertyToad - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 8:41 am: As I said, do the research. The Lott study was peer-reviewed and accepted. Also there have been other studies that have reached the same conclusion as well as evidence based on the reduced violent crime rates. I can tell already that you are rejecting the data without looking into it. In any event, the right to self-defense is a civil right protected by the Constitution. Passing laws that restrict the civil rights of citizens acting in a lawful manner is not going to have much of an impact on gun-violence committed by felons–people who, by definition, ignore laws. Much of this is a common-sense issue. - Skeeter - Thursday, Jan 31, 13 @ 8:56 am: Really? It was peer reviewed? What happened when his peers tried to review his data? Come on. Who do you think you are arguing against? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.