160 Comments - reflector - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:36 pm: It recognizes the difference between Cook co.and downstate. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:40 pm: I voted no. I think we should look at writing a uniform statewide law that governs how and where CCW will be allowed statewide, as well as minimum standards for who is eligible for a permit and how that permit is issued. I think allowing home rule units to add higher thresholds for who can receive permits in their jurisdictions is fine, perhaps by showing cause or paying higher fees for additional screening, or even higher training requirements. This could limit the number of permit holders in home rule units, but give home rule units more assurance that those who receive permits are thoroughly vetted. But if someone meets the minimum standards set by the state, he or she should be able to carry concealed in Chicago or any other home rule unit. - MrJM - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:41 pm: What reflector said. – MrJM - He Makes Ryan Look Like a Saint - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:43 pm: It is a statewide CC. It should be all or ….All. Chicago and Cook County are part of Illinois. Deal with it. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:46 pm: I voted no. To me this is just another issue where Chicago wants to be treated differently from the rest of the state. There are gems throught Illinois statutes that treat Chicago differently. Either they are part of the state or they are not. I realize the reality of the situation when dealing with Chicago. But this is a perfect example of why some of us from downstate have such disdain for Chicago from a government standpoint. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:47 pm: >>>>> It recognizes the difference between Cook co.and downstate. What difference is that? - Mongo - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:47 pm: The question is do I support this compromise, so I voted yes. It may not be the final solution, but I support this compromise. If community A wants to have a different test, let ‘em. Frankly I too would prefer one solution for the entire state. Someone was posting on this yesterday and (I am paraphrasing) asked “how much cash would be in the envelope to the sheriff”. To imply this is crafted to allow and promote corruption is appalling. - Damfunny - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:47 pm: I voted “No”. is we is, or is we ain’t, all in the same sovereign state? this would create 2 classes of citizenship in the Land O’ Lincoln. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:49 pm: Probably not. What would the additional checks be from the county? Are there going to be standards that they apply? It just drives me nuts that in the city with the worst gun violence in the nation, where simple possession of handgun was recently illegal, and carry is illegal, they act as though conceal carry will make things worse. When every other state’s empirical data says otherwise. We just get stuck on this path… All handguns were illegal in Chicago and that didn’t work. How do you go any further down that road? Make them EXTRA illegal? We’ve got a problem with armed nuts and gangbangers. No doubt about that. But my biggest concern is that proposals like these and others, which will have no effect on that problem, make us feel like we have done something to solve it. Then we wait for the next tragedy. It’s easier to regulate guns than work on mental health, education, economic development, etc. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:53 pm: I voted no. If I am qualified to carry in the entire rest of the state, how am I not qualified to drive up i-55 and carry in LaGrange or Bridgeview/Burbank? Give the CPD and the Cook Sheriff ability to object/hold a permit and document why their resident that passes the background check, training, standards and courses should not be given a permit. Dont let them hold veto power over someone in a collar county that needs to work in around suburban cook. @mongo… Oh you think political favors cant happen from this? Check out the trib article on Farakhan’s son the “police officer”… CCW would be much easier to make happen. - nadia - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:55 pm: It is a workable solution that still allows for CCW. - SO IL M - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm: I voted yes. Not because I believe it is the best solution, or agree that Chicago Residents shouldnt have the same rights to carry as the rest of the State. I believe this is the only way that any bill will get passed. I also dont believe that it will be the last time that this issue will be argued in this State, and the issue of Concealed Carry for Chicago residents who meet the requirements can be argued later. I only voted yes because I see this as the only way to get a bill passed before June of next year let alone this year. It will allow all Legislators to go back home claiming a win, no matter which side they are on. - Guest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm: It is not “an extra layer of scrutiny” It gives Cook and Chicago arbitrary power to decline CCW without cause. Basically, it is a carve out that say Cook county residents are second class citizens. No one will get one unless you are connected. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm: I voted no but not for the usual reason. The questions i have come into the language of the bill. If Cook county has a clear standard as to when they HAVE to issue the endorsement and the standards aren’t set in such a way as to prohibit people simply because Chicago doesn’t want anyone carrying then i think it could be done. The other question is if you apply and request the endorsement and Cook says no do you still get a permit for the rest of the state also there needs to be exemptions for those traveling through Cook. I.E. if i am going to Gary i shouldn’t be arrested for following State law while driving across Cook County. If these issues are resolved then i could support it. - Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:00 pm: While I’m most often opposed to what the NRA supports, I voted no here. Seems like a waste of taxpayer money to have Cook County and Chicago law enforcement review applications after the state police has already reviewed them. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:02 pm: The extra endorsement for Illinois: Is it “may issue” or “shall issue?” If it’s “may issue”, then it’s not fair. Could Otis McDonald get one? What about Otis’ less glamorous cousin Cleotis? And if it’s “shall issue”, then what was wrong with the criteria for Illinois that’s no good for Cook Co? Nope, the whole idea is to keep people in Cook Co, those who need CCW the most, from having it at all. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:03 pm: I mean the extra endorsement for Cook Co. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:03 pm: ===It is a statewide CC. It should be all or ….All. Chicago and Cook County are part of Illinois. Deal with it.=== Chicago is not like the rest of the state in so many ways. Still, under this compromise, concealed-carry in Chicago would no doubt still be available to a lot of folks. I have a feeling it is you who will need to “deal with it.” - railrat - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:04 pm: voted NO , my impression is that Judge Posner ruled for a “statewide” CC law (Todd please correct me if I’m wrong) plus does anyone believe the city of chicago or the county of cook has the internal resources to handle an “extra layer of scrutiny”? I haven’t seen yet that ISP has the revenue or internal ability to handle any permit request..ie. FOID card issuance delays..and lastly why should law abinding citizens in the city or county be reviewed at a different level? - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:05 pm: I’m going to wait for the draft. Still a little fuzzy. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:07 pm: Cook is often written out of legislation or specified or given different rules. There’s nothing new about this concept at all. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:07 pm: Word I think you have the right idea. - Support the Second - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:09 pm: The 7th Circuit decided for the STATE OF ILLINOIS, not Chicago. In fact Posner pointed out the fact that Chicago is an area that would need this the most. I wonder if the anti’s are kicking themselves for not voting in favor of 148 yet? - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:10 pm: I voted no. Why do Chicago and Cook County residents have less than a full constitutional right on this issue? And why do I feel that those in Chicago and Cook County who actually can conceal carry under this compromise will be those “special people” with “special friends” in high political places? - Belle - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:11 pm: Like a typical Chicago-Cook Cty resident, I cannot figure out why anyone wants a gun. So,I voted yes to be on what I felt was the middle ground. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:12 pm: I voted yes, although I do not support conceal carry at all. I would rather the legislation focus on trying to ensure gun safety, training and liability insurance. I think New York is a starting point for conceal carry and if we can restrict if even more, the better. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:12 pm: ===Deal with it.=== >>>> I have a feeling it is you who will need to “deal with it.” June 9th cannot get here fast enough. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:13 pm: Mason Born sort of beat me to it. I didn’t vote, because I don’t know enough about the bill. On the surface, I could live with it, because I seldom go through Chicago or Cook County. On the other hand, the one place I feel I would need to carry a gun is there. So I check the boxes and Ch/Co refuses my permit, will it kick out the permit for every other place in the state, or will they just issue a permit with Ch/Co voided out? As for going through there, no problem, I will simply go through Indiana to go to Michigan where I have family. Please note that any money spent on food, gas, etc. will be spent somewhere besides Ch/Co. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:14 pm: As long a the bill satisfies the court’s ruling, which allowed for significant regulations, then many of u are just spouting talking points. Dump the bumper sticker slogans and get to the question. Now. - Judgment Day - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:16 pm: I vote ‘No’ because I also have concerns about the language in the proposed bill. Bluntly, they are increasing the complexity for administration of CCW for no good reason. Except politics. Everything is going to become more complex, and by definition, cost more, and probably operate slower. And just to make things even more inefficient, we’re going to be creating a situation where what is legal in 90% of the state would probably be illegal in less than 10% of the state, and we’re doing it based upon location. If we don’t address the aspect of CCW ‘in transit’ between the rest of the State of Illinois and Cook County/City of Chicago, then this legislation solves nothing. - Shemp - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:17 pm: Either we are one state or not. That said, the Statutes are littered with several hundred special exemptions for “cities having a population of 500,000 or more.” Go figure why there’s so much bitterness downstate. - Tequila Mockingbird - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:17 pm: No. Just because folks in Cook county show poor judgement in electing politicians, doesn’t mean they should not have the right to protect themselves. - JoeVerdeal - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:21 pm: I voted “no”. Frankly, the only places in Illinois where I would choose to carry a pistol would be Chicago and a few other larger cities. I will be interested to see what effect CC has on the crime rate up there….I believe that it will be a positive change, but time will tell…. - Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:23 pm: If the premise of CC is that it is a right, why do residents of get stripped of that right. Seems to me that a right is a right regardless whether the nattering nabobs want to allow it. Secondly, it seems that this treatment of CC also puts the legal CC carrier into a level of jeopardy when traveling and out of Cook County.. How does the law deal with a legal CC carrier who travels from the south of Cook County in to the county, stops for a meal and then proceeds northward? Seems like a new gotcha opportunity. - Anan - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:25 pm: Rich, It does not meet the court ruling, which specifically called out Chicago..and why don’t you call it what it is, “may issue” for cook county. That means they won’t give it to anyone. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:26 pm: No. Lets see tom dart has enough people to administer this? Gerry McCarthy has all kinds of extra cops to administer this? So i’m good enough to carry a gun in the rest of the state, but not cook county. We leave 40% of the population out of the law at first blush. Add another 12-15% for the 2 million rta riders. And what about other people passing through or communting by car or even visiting what. This becomes a no carry law. And somdoes Dart and Gerry get to keep their own lists g gun owners/permit holders from around the state? Bad idea not gonna happen. Let not forget that if you forget and pass into the city the princess of the SA will charge ypu with a felony. - Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:29 pm: No Illinois law should be enacted that an otherwise law-abiding Illinois citizen should suddenly be a criminal JUST for passing a boarder. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:29 pm: Todd Is there a Senate Equivalent to HB0997? - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:30 pm: I voted no. If the legislation for Cook and Chicago was still shall issue with clear guidelines for denial due only to specific, objective, verifiable issues, then fine; but I’m not sure it is or would be in final version. Chicago residents deserve the right to self-defense no less than anyone else. What follows is a quote directly from the majority opinion of the 7th… “But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.” - A Citizen - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:32 pm: With reciprocity, we could qualify for and receive a CC Permit for the entire nation, less Chicago and Cook. Now that is arrogance and stupidity. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:33 pm: If the bill turns out how Todd believes it will, I’d support it. That’s why they call it compromise. What’s “the princess of the SA?” - Cook County Commoner - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:33 pm: No. For me the CC would be in Chicago, and I don’t believe a fair and impartial review would be performed. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:36 pm: I voted no. Chicago and Cook County residents are citizens of Illinois and whatever standard is developed should be Statewide. - Beatrice - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:38 pm: The 7th Circuit didn’t carve out Chicago in the ruling. For the CCW to allow this carve out essentially means NO CCW in Chicago. Is there a fear that if CCW is enacted, crime rates might drop? Who looks bad then? - frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:39 pm: Yes, Chicago, like New York, LA and other major cities has unique issues. Personally, I think the whole idea is nuts. Only the last 30 years has the 2nd amendment been interpreted to be an individual right not a state right which has been the historical interpretation. But to the bill, we need some more compromises to move some of this stuff. I would propose an amendment that only if you have a same sex marriage can you get a conceal cary permit. That would cover everything except pensions, floods, and back bills. - Kaeghl - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:41 pm: One State One Law Personally, I feel that since the LTC (License To Carry) legislation concerns a (wait for it)…God given right, or for those who have questions about the whole religion aspect, it’s a Natural Right, why should it be restricted by a time zone or a zip code? Don’t the citizens of Chicago or Cook county have rights? This ‘compromise’ would be a restriction on their rights, and by that, are borderline unconstitutional. One State One Law. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:41 pm: Word So you want a bill that has someone arrested for driving through Chicago while obeying the laws that are legal in every other county? - Guest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:42 pm: And all the anti-gun people just need to calm down. NO OTHER STATE has seen an increase in crime due to shall issue concealed carry. Illinois is not unique. - Jarhead - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:46 pm: We have lived under the rule of Chicago/Cook Co. for decades, it has not stopped individuals from carrying. More local laws restricting conceal carry will only enable criminals to identify you as an easy target. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:48 pm: As a Chicago resident, I voted no. I think Chicagoans and Cook County residents should have the same rights as the rest of the state. I have and continue to fail to understand the rationale that cc in Cook is different than elsewhere in the state. - Boondocks - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:49 pm: Voted “no”….Although I am from downstate, it is my opinion that any cc legislation should be statewide, no home rule exceptions. The CC law only affects those citizens who are willing to follow the rule of law. Criminals are not going to follow any law, as apparent by the current statewide ban on CC. Not allowing CC in Chicago and Cook county without “special” considerations will only keep the status quo in tact and prevent those that will benefit most from CC their constitutional right of self defense. - In_The_Middle - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:49 pm: Voted no. I think it would totally politicize CC in Cook Co. Leaving it up to an elected pol would prolly cause eventual problems. - Barbie - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:50 pm: Voted yes. Proud and happy to continue voting against the NRA. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:51 pm: Mason, what do you do when you drive through states that don’t honor non-resident permits? - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:51 pm: I voted no. Local regulation of guns does not work. It needs to be done statewide. In addition, I’m generally pro-freedom. I have not heard any convincing arguments for the proposition that CC in Chicago will somehow create significant problems. Further, I just don’t like the idea of our local elected officials deciding on a case by case basis who should get a gun. I haven’t seen much competence from them on most issues. I doubt CC permits would be any different. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:54 pm: @word, its then an entire state. Hundreds of miles to cross and easily recognized. Not so easy when working in the suburbs. BTW, I only have a few states that dont recognize my permits (California, NY, etc)… So pretty much any other state I drive through on my way to texas, or east tenn. or even last time I went to South Dakota, I had no states that did not recognize my existing permits. - Chicago Kelly - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 1:59 pm: Are the Senators who are trying to carve out Chicago saying downstate is more dangerous than Chicago? 49 other states have conceal carry and I don’t see news reports of law abiding citizens having shoot outs over parking spaces. Currently, in the city of Chicago, the only citizens allowed to carry firearms are the criminals. I agree with the 7th circuit court when they said a person has even more reason to possess a firearm while walking the streets of Chicago than sitting in their own home. The court will not be pleased if Chicagoans are denied shall issue carry permits and the rest of the state is not. Of course, the anti gunners have no problems spending millions more in taxpayers dollars to lose in court again. The Constitution applies to all citizens. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:00 pm: “The people in Chicago care more about losing their entitlement programs then they do about children being killed in the streets.” What a despicable and racist comment. You really think that everybody in Chicago is on some entitlement program? You have no clue. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:00 pm: Word– Anita Alverez Mason- yes forby has one but the number escapes me right now I wonder if they are going to let effingham county set their own standards on marriage? Does kendall county get to set their own standards for illegals and drivers licenses? - JustMe_JMO - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:01 pm: No - A CC permit should be good state wide - just like a drivers lic. To take it farther is should be good state to state too. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:01 pm: No, it’s not fair to put up obstacles other Illinois citizen do not have to face. Restrict where in the city concealed carry is allowed; don’t exclude a high proportion of the state’s population from the same access held by the rest of the state. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:03 pm: “I wonder if they are going to let effingham county set their own standards on marriage?” That is something I’ve never understood. Some downstaters don’t like gay marriage. We in Chicago properly tell them that as long as nobody is being hurt, it is none of anybody’s business other than the couple. We tell them to accept it even though they may not like it. Yet Chicago Dems refuse to accept that CC harms nobody (there has yet to be a study showing any significant impact on crime due to CC) yet since Chicago Dems don’t like it, they don’t want others to carry. That is disappointing. - Logic not emotion - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:05 pm: I believe Forby’s bill is SB1284… http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=1284&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=SB&LegID=71725&SessionID=85 - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:06 pm: word When i come back to this state i follow the law. And illegal present my weapon to transfer to legal Transport here in IL. However you do realize you aren’t talking about a State we are talking about one county? You see this has been a problem in NYC with the same General type of rules. It usually isn’t state residents it is usually tourists who run afoul of the local regs. Rte 59 between Bartlett and Barrington is what 14 miles in Cook County yet i am a felon if i don’t stop and find a place to make clear in order to cross 14 miles. You don’t see this as a tad silly? - Guest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:08 pm: So let me get this straight. You want to deny people living in the most dangerous parts of the city the right to protect themselves? How can anyone be for this? - GTX63 - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:10 pm: The politicians are willing to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense in all the state except for the worst area? What am I missing? - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:12 pm: word Make no mistake I am no that worried about my personal Carry in Chicago. For one under any reasonable review i could get endorsement for two when i visit it is either business where i do not carry, or personal where the places i go i couldn’t carry anyway i.e. shedds etc.. My concern is that instead of making the same mistakes that have been found with other states we learn from them to avoid stupidity ourselves. It isn’t much of an advantage but why not try it. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:13 pm: From the ruling… ===Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state that has a strong pro-gun culture=== The court expects lots of restrictions. - Ucster - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:13 pm: I voted “no”. The constition should apply to every legal citizen, even those living in Cook County. This would only deprive honest people of their rights, the bad guys won’t notice any changes. - Leave a Light on George - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:14 pm: No. If there was any place in the state I felt a need to carry it would be in Cook Co. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:19 pm: “No. If there was any place in the state I felt a need to carry it would be in Cook Co.” For me it would be Kankakee. Of course, as an adult I don’t need a gun to make me feel secure so even there. - Guest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:26 pm: ==Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state that has a strong pro-gun culture=== Rich, how do you turn that into “the court expects a lot of restrictions? MINIMAL - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:26 pm: Mason, I don’t think it’s silly, but I know it ain’t easy to reach a compromise! Todd, I don’t think counties have anything to do with driver’s licenses. If gay marriage passes, I guess we’ll find out if every county clerk issues licenses. I’m not sure that’s a slam dunk. From what I understand, some county law enforcement officials have publicly said that they do not currently enforce Illinois’ ban on conceal-carry. Kind of a de-facto home rule. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:27 pm: Rich — i dissagree with your assesment. From the ruling: Nevertheless we order our man- date stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public. Reasonable, not overly restricive. Not carving out 40% of the public More frm the Court: Blackstone described the right of armed self-preservation as a fundamental natural right of Englishmen, on a par with seeking redress in the courts or petitioning the government. So denying a fundimental rght to residents of cook or chicago does not appear tombe close to passing muster A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the lat- ter. That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property right—a right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwell’s painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense. Your gonna have a sttep hill tomclimb to deny. 40% of the population the basic right od self defense when in public. - Chavez-respecting Obamist - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:30 pm: No, it’s just needlessly complicating the issue. - Allen Skillicorn - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:31 pm: A couple times a year year I carry large amounts of cash (nothing illegal). I live 3 miles from Cook County and use the highway system a lot. During those times, I would consider carrying a weapon if it were legal and convenient. I’m not afraid of the city. I doubt that I will be a victim of random street crime. I would just like the opportunity if I felt the need. I find it ironic that other major cities in midwest don’t have similar restrictions. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:33 pm: @HenryVK —Of course, as an adult I don’t need a gun to make me feel secure so even there. — Ahh insults. I guess all those times a carried in defense of the country I needed it to “feel secure”. A weapon is just an option. thats why off-duty cops carry (when they feel like it) and dont when they dont need to. Will I carry while mowing lawn… probably not. But its like a fire extinguisher. I have one in my truck. I dont plan on a fire, but am happy I have that if I need it. Trying to say someone who prepares or is willing to defend themselves and their family is somehow “insecure” is a great way to win an argument. Keep it up! - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:35 pm: @HenryVK I bet this Chicago shop owner (or anyone that has been in his position) wouldnt mind the option to carry a pistol: http://chicagoist.com/2013/04/11/logan_square_store_owner_fends_off.php - Michael Westen - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:35 pm: To paraphrase Justice Ginsburg in her comments on the DOMA issue before the Supreme Court, “So Cook County residents would get ‘conceal carry light?” Chicago and Cook County are often written out of legislation or exempted as Rich says. But not usually on issues relating to the Bill of Rights. It would be as if you had to jump through extra hoops in Cook County to attend the church of your choice or speak your mind. The answer is no. - Observing - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:39 pm: I feel there should be a uniform law but I voted yes for the compromise so we don’t end up without a CC law by the court’s deadline in June and CC will be allowed by default with no restrictions. - AFSCME Steward - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:40 pm: Kaeghl I just checked by Bible. Can’t find it. Can you point me to the verse that grants conceal carry ? “God given right” - benji - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:40 pm: I voted no. People living outside of Chicago should not have a more lenient standard than those of us living in the city. Stricter laws will keep them as safe as we are. - Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:41 pm: Yes. Half of a loaf is better than none. Get what you can and come back for the other half later. With respect to the “crossing the border” argument, gun owners already know to what their P’s and Q’s in Cook. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:42 pm: ===Not carving out 40% of the public=== I reported on Friday to subscribers and Monday to y’all that there would likely be an appeals process. I think you’re gonna be hard pressed to show that this is a complete flat-out denial. - PM31 - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:44 pm: - The legislation is aimed at balancing the desire of many gun owners to have a statewide concealed carry permit and avoid running into a patchwork of local laws that could be confusing for law enforcement and gun owners. […] - - If applicants opted to leave unchecked the boxes for the city and Cook, they could get a permit that would be good for the rest of Illinois if the state police approved… - Don’t these two items contradict each other? I voted “no”. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:45 pm: “Ahh insults. I guess all those times a carried in defense of the country I needed it to “feel secure”.” I thought I was being polite. Some of us have other suspicions about gun owners. But yes, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where I would feel the need to have a gun. Potentially, filling the tank in Kankakee or Peoria, but that’s about it. Day to day? No, I just do not go through a day feeling afraid so I see no need for a gun. But we are getting off topic. Some of you think you need a gun to come to Chicago. I have certain view of those who feel that fear. I don’t seem much need for additional debate. - Guest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:51 pm: “If applicants opted to leave unchecked the boxes for the city and Cook, they could get a permit that would be good for the rest of Illinois if the state police approved… - ” Its not “if the state police approve.” It’s unless they can give good cause why you should not have one. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:53 pm: @HenryVK, cool. then we disagree. thats ok. The difference is I dont think LESS of you because you dont recognize the reality of threats to people in our world. But you think less of those that do recognize some of these threats. Thats what bothers me. - reformer - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:54 pm: == But yes, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where I would feel the need to have a gun. == I respect that point of view, and I wouldn’t try to pass a law forcing you to carry a gun. Do you show the same respect to those who don’t share your feeling? - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:57 pm: Reformer, I pretty clearly give you the answer to that question above. - How Ironic - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:58 pm: @Henry VK “Some of you think you need a gun to come to Chicago. I have certain view of those who feel that fear. I don’t seem much need for additional debate.” It’s not so much that they ‘need’ to carry a gun. The fact is, with this additional hoop to jump through…an otherwise LEGAL CCW holder, could become a felon simply by passing through Chi-Town. If you are legal to carry CCW in the rest of the state, why should Chicago simply be able to over-ride that license simply because a city bureaucrat decides that person shouldn’t have a CCW? And more to your point, I suppose you feel that the battered woman, who’s ex continues to harass her is simply full of irrational fear? - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 2:59 pm: Rich ==I reported on Friday to subscribers and Monday to y’all that there would likely be an appeals process. I think you’re gonna be hard pressed to show that this is a complete flat-out denial.== do you know if there is anywhere to look at the language? SJR referenced a SB1336 which says quite succinctly the title will be…. We are all guessing what it will say with 0 facts. Opinions might change once the actually language is available. Of course the fact that it isn’t out there doesn’t give me a lot of hope that it is reasonable. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:01 pm: How Ironic, Have you tried reading? Read the comments, and THEN respond to one of my posts. - wishbone - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:01 pm: I voted yes, let’s get it done. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:02 pm: Not to digress, but nothing says “I’m not from here” like calling it “Chi-town.” - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:02 pm: –And more to your point, I suppose you feel that the battered woman, who’s ex continues to harass her is simply full of irrational fear?– How in the world do you come up with that analogy based on what Henry wrote? Cheap shot. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:05 pm: On paper it may not look like a flat out denial. However, after some time with a home rule law in place, we could look at the stats and determine how many of the folks who would have been issued a CC permit in the rest of the state were denied for no good reason in Cook Cty and get an idea. Cook Cty is already primed to say, “no”. That’s why they want the exception. Why fight so hard to get it and then not use it? It is hard not to come to the conclusion that they don’t trust folks much in Cook Cty or Chicago. BTW, voted NO. Unless Cook Cty can show it has the infrastructure in place to process the applications and will be compelled to provide a reasonable explanation why they say no, and allow an appeal process that is arbitrated by a neutral party, I would say no. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:05 pm: I’m sort of amused that being a moderate here means that I get rude attacks from all sides. It says something about the gun debate. There is no room for the calm people. - Boondocks - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:07 pm: @ benji Surely you jest! I don’t want to be “as safe” as those of you in Chicago….thanks anyway - Just Me - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:07 pm: On priniple, I have never liked treating Chicago/Cook differently than the rest of the State. The State of Illinois is a State. All parts of the State should be governed by the same State laws. If legislators want to treat different parts of the state differently because of regional differences, then don’t pass a STATE law. - BOOMER 997 - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:07 pm: I vote no. A law abiding citizen applying for a cc permit will have passed a criminal background check to obtain a FOID, purchase a firearm and obtain a cc permit. THAT’S 3 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS! In addition, they will have paid fees and undergone training. That’s enough! There is no need for an additional review from Cook county or Chicago. - Boat captain - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:09 pm: Voted no, I have a Florida CC permit, took the class and qualified shooting while on vacation two years ago. I feel that the law should apply to the whole state, no exceptions. Would just create legal problems for those traveling through the exempted places. My wife and I travel in our RV and while I always feel secure when we travel if everything goes right with no breakdowns, but if we were to have trouble and be on the side of the road somewhere I wasn’t familiar with would feel aprehensive about who would be stopping and what their intentions were. Have RV friends that were in that situation and they feel the same as I. - Steve - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:14 pm: I voted no. I believe in “equal protection under the law”. I also believe that this will create two classes of citizens which is unfair. When Judge Posner said the Second Amendment doesn’t stop at home, ask yourself: does the Second Amendment stop in Illinois only in Cook County???? I bring this up because the so called compromise is ripe for winding up in court with Illinois stuck with a big legal bill defending the “compromise” in which they don’t have the money to fund. - G. Willickers - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:15 pm: I voted yes because it seems to answer a lot of quandaries both sides are hung up on. But there’s an even simpler solution that would allow people to hide a handgun on their person — draft them into the Illinois National Guard. The Second Amendment does begin with “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (Illinois)…” (2A was written so the states, coming off the Articles of Confederation and with King George still fresh in their memories, had a theoretical means of protecting their integrity/sovereignty against theoretical “others” - the north didn’t trust the central govt and the south didn’t trust their slaves. It was about the 13 States’ self-protection. Had nothing to do with individual self-protection.) Then again, a retired cop just shot himself in the leg at his grandkid’s school in the suburbs so maybe even drafting people into a well-regulated militia won’t help with gun safety. Luckily, only the guy’s leg and pride were hurt - no kids were hurt, or worse. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:21 pm: I voted no. It’s absurd to restrict any geographical area from shall-issue carry - the only reason Cook and Chicago could want for shall issue is the ability to deny CCW wholesale. “No, I just do not go through a day feeling afraid so I see no need for a gun.” Henry, it doesn’t have anything to do with fear - it’s all about preparedness. No different than keeping a fire extinguisher in your car or for a person that is allergic to bee stings to keep an EpiPen close to hand. - Mongo - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:26 pm: Quite a day for comments! In reading the comments I think I’d trade and amend so that cc holder from outside of Cook, driving through Cook, is OK. Can’t walk around with it, but OK to drive through with it. - Molly B. - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:28 pm: No. One state - one law. Equal protection for all. We’ve seen what Chicago has done after McDonald vs Chicago and Ezell vs Chicago. They do not operate on a good faith premise. We have heard the Chicago officials say they plan to make the restrictions so severe that the right to carry is essentially nonexistent. Even with an appeals process, that’s not the kind of mindset we can trust with a core, fundamental right that they have a long history of violating. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:32 pm: Henry I have enjoyed your comments. Thought you were very reasonable. however did you really not see this as an insult? ==Of course, as an adult I don’t need a gun to make me feel secure so even there.== - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:39 pm: Rich– we are ot going to apeal a fundimental,right. And yes we will hold it up even with an appeals process. We are talking about people with Foid cards and all the other stuff. Gerry, rahm and anita can stick it. Btwfor steve the legal tab in moore/shepard is past the $500,000 mark headed to $1,000,000 - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:41 pm: Mason, Initially, that sentence had a typo. While editing, I didn’t finish the line. Was it insulting? Well, it was far less insulting than so many of the comments ripping Chicago. Those comments get boring. Frankly, that’s become a constant on these threads. People feel compelled to tell how much they hate Chicago. Beyond that, whether it is insulting or not it does sum up my views. I don’t have much use for guns. While exceptions exist, I don’t have a very high opinion of most who feel the need to carry. Note that I said “most.” If the original question was “do you like and respect people who think they need a gun to walk around” my answer would be no. However, if you read my comments above (1:5i sums it up) you will find that the fact that I don’t much like guns doesn’t really matter when it comes to the legislation. When people are going to rave about how much they hate Chicago and how much they need a gun, I may call them cowards. But I will still support their right to CC. Freedom needs to include freedom for stuff we don’t like, as long as no innocent people are harmed. - Earnest - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:50 pm: I voted yes. The Chicago area is a bit of a different beast than much of the rest of the state. I don’t see an issue with things differing between one and the other. This is not an important issue to me. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 3:59 pm: Henry VK @2:45–Please don’t fire your weapon while gassing up your car, anyplace. Gasoline fumes are probably the most dangerous thing in the world that we deal with regularly, and they are called FIREarms for a reason… By the way, after reading all of the comments, voted Yes, even though I don’t support it, for very SELFISH reasons. I wouldn’t live in Cook County or any big city, so why should I care? I do believe that an appeal would have that portion of the law thrown out very quickly, so we would all win eventually. - Huh? - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:01 pm: I voted no because it creates a criminal of an otherwise law abiding citizen because they crossed an invisible and arbitrary boundary. - CCounty - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:02 pm: @downstate commissioner, Fine. When the GA looks to extend the AW and magazine ban to the rest of the state, we won’t help you. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:12 pm: No. Cook and - Downstater - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:16 pm: Cook County and the City of Chicago are part of the state. You guys have been screwing us downstaters for decades. Now its our turn. Deal with it or form your own state! - FBO - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:20 pm: @CCounty Try it. Please. Pretty please. Give us a reason to start this party! - David - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:20 pm: No. If someone accidentally drives into a part of Chicago, without knowing it, he should not become a criminal. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:20 pm: CC Don’t count us all out down here. - Freedom.guy - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:21 pm: No. Lawful Citizens in Cook and Chicago apparently (data driven) need more protection from violent crime than any other areas of the state. Its ridiculous to draw a boundary and exclude these areas from CCW. That’s not even introducing the 2d Amendment and personal rights into the equation. Drop the anti-agenda and drop the discrimination against supporters of the 2d Amendment and against citizens who want to protect themselves in crime ridden areas. - Mongo - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:22 pm: I’ll try again. A little civility here would go a long way. Henry has pointed out several times that the moderates are attacked by all. The 4:16 comment is a good example of that. Hey Rich, your blog, your rule. - titan - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:22 pm: That 14 mile stretch of Rt 59 between Bartlett and the Barringtons mentioned above came to my mind right off as the example of why I voted no. If I was fully confident that the County Sheriffs and local police would not charge folk who get pulled over while inadvertently/unkowingly carrying in Cook, I might be less concerned. But I don’t have that confidence. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:23 pm: As a side note is Chicago really ready for the statewide Deluge of apps. I have stated before that i am not that interested in carrying in the places i visit in Chicago. However i would be a fool not to check the box for the endorsement in case i had to drive through town. I really think Chicago has underestimated the number of apps they will get. - Esquire - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:29 pm: Equal protection? 101 Counties will have one law as opposed to the other one? - Steven S - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:39 pm: I live in Deerfield, I’m not nearly as worried about being armed here as I am walking back to my car after work in the city. Makes no sense to have CCW everywhere but where its needed most. A hodge bodge of local weapons laws is asinine and unworkable. The criminals have guns, lets not criminalize those that are law abiding. - Anyone Remember - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:49 pm: John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt == What difference is that? == Drive a pickup on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago and report back, s’il vous plait. - Boat captain - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:52 pm: Just wondering because I don’t know what is the deal with the pickups on Lake Shore Drive? - bluecollar - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:54 pm: anyone remember: pickup truck thing, one of the dumbest laws i know of - bluecollar - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:54 pm: boat captain: pickups are banned on lsd - titan - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:54 pm: @ Boat Captain - trucks and commercial plates aren’t permitted on LSD. - bluecollar - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:56 pm: my pickup is nicer than many autos - Boat captain - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:56 pm: Thanks, had no idea that was the law. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:57 pm: Norseman “Half of a loaf is better than none. Get what you can and come back for the other half later” Thinking like that is what has this State in such a mess. Just do half a job and settle for any ol thing. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:57 pm: Titan etc. You actually mean pickup’s like a Silverado are banned? Even if it is a personally owned vehicle? Wow what was reasoning for that? - Anyone Remember? - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 4:59 pm: Before my time, but the old curves on Lake Shore Drive have anything to do with it? (We’re they 90 angles?) - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:04 pm: I think it’s a leftover from the Boulevard system. Decades ago (pre-CTA) the Boulevards even used to have a separate bus company! - Rod - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:04 pm: I voted no. I have no doubt my city will make it as difficult as possible for those who want to get a permit to get one. I also expect the city to try to impose additional fees. If the appeals process is like appealing a parking ticket in Chicago I wish everyone good luck with their appeals. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:11 pm: I thought the truck ban was on LSD and was due to environmental concerns. - SO IL M - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:20 pm: I have a question. When no law is passed, because I believe that is a very real possibility at this point, what will be the law on Concealed Carry versus Open Carry. While we have the Constitutional Right to carry a firearm, there is nothing there saying you have the right to conceal that weapon on your person, in a purse, briefcase, or any other bag. Is there, or will there be any law on the books covering this? What about in a holster, but under a jacket or winter coat? Any attorneys out there that can shed some light on this for me? - Greg Kane - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:32 pm: No Compromise - Peoples Second Amendment rights dont stop at the Cook County border. - Tango - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 5:59 pm: Why is it that most of the C(r)ook Couty residents are saying “yeah, we need to have extra training, costs and checks”? Not only is it a right, but the claims that this will address gun violence is ludicrous. Law abdinng gun ownners - like the ones who have FOIDs and would apply for and pass the classes and background checks and pay the fees - AREN’T THE ONES KILLING PEOPLE IN THE STREETS NOW!!! Those people are criminals who have typically purchased their gun (or had it purchased for them) illegally, and are commiting crimes when they use them. Is common sense and a recognition of what constitutes criminal behavior really that difficult? - Chris - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:22 pm: Would you support a compromise that provides a carve out for a city to exempt them from the 13th Amendment? If a local area wants to enslave some folks then that’s their local option, right? How about a carve out that exempts a municipal area from, say, the 1st Amendment? If a city doesn’t want any Jews/Evangelicals/Muslims/Mormons/Pastafarians inside the city limits, then that’s their home rule choice, right? The above examples are BS. So is the “compromise.” A fundamental, natural, specifically enumerated constitutional right does not disappear due to entering city limits. We fought a civil war over this issue, and guess which side lost? Chicago is on the same side of history as Jefferson Davis, Bull Connnor, and George Wallace. - railrat - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:24 pm: maybe I’m the only one that remembers the Lincoln Park Trap and Skeet club? if I recall in 1991 they went through extreme scrutiny for lead, even tho there was NO evidence of incresed lead levels in front of the club. The club was public and never had a firearm accident. The club provided firearm safety and instruction,they raised money for various charities and where self funded, the facilty that the members built was donated to the Chicago park district. It was a shooting sports cornerstone from 1912. As the elder statesman of the club Jay Schatz - Michael Westen - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:31 pm: I wonder if HenryVK also doesn’t “have a very high opinion of most who feel the need” to exercise their First Amendment rights (maybe they are too opinionated), or their Fourth Amendment rights for that matter (maybe they have something to hide). Picking and choosing which Amendments local governments can abide by is a tricky thing. - railrat - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:34 pm: sorry thumb misfire,Schatz said “a large part of this is a phony issue,” “pollution is not the real issue here its guns. You (Chicago) have closed us we will never open again. Thanks for the all good years. the anti gun is a minset in Chicago when county and city citizens decide to vote for constutional rights in addition to education health services jobs and standard of living maybe the %40 won’t be “different” the the rest of the state?! - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:39 pm: You are right Michael. I don’t think most people who speak are cowards. So what? - Michael Westen - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 6:59 pm: HenryVK now you are making even less sense than usual. You stated you don’t have a very high opinion of “most” of those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, because they are “cowards?” So, as I stated, maybe you think those who exercise their First Amendment rights are too-opinionated and they should scale them back when they come to Cook County, where the vaunted elected officials get to decide which of the Bill of Rights will be followed. Or maybe you get to decide which rights others are entitled to in Cook County. Either way, that’s really scary. - Smitty Irving - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 7:02 pm: Voted yes. Lived, among other places, in NY and CA, and they’ve figured it out. The Sullivan Law was enacted in 1911, and has survived every court challenge since. CA banned all concealed carry in 1967 when the Mulford Act was signed by … wait for it … Ronald Reagan. Since then they’ve eased up, but many urban counties are like NYC. Illinoisans are just as smart, and they’ll figure it out. - Mr. Wonderful - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 7:24 pm: No. The state has no compelling interest in trying to discourage law-abiding Cook County residents from carrying firearms for their own defense. There is no credible evidence showing that people with carry permits pose any sort of danger to society. On the other hand, there is ate least some hint that persons with criminal intent may do harm to others. The stalling by the majority party is not about public safety - it’s about politics. It’s no secret that the other side doesn’t like guns or the people that own them. Just like we wouldn’t give Obama a victory on background checks, Madigan won’t hand us a victory on concealed carry. June 9th will come and go without a bill passed and then everyone will be back in court. - Jeff Hutson - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 7:33 pm: I vote no. I do not believe that the jurisdiction with the worst track record of enforcing laws and preventing crime should have any say in the ability of a law abiding citizen to practice any of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Especially those rights that can potentially be the difference between life and death. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 7:42 pm: Michael Westin if you actually read the comments you would realize why people who have read the comments think you are a ridiculous whiner. Try reading. - Nope, not today - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 8:53 pm: I voted no. First, I do not trust the cook county pols to be fair about this. Cook county carry would become restrictive may issue, similar to New York. I live 1 mile north of the Cook/Lake county border. I would be constantly evaluating if I can carry or not, based on where I may go on a particular day. Finally, we are one state and there is something called equal protection under the law. - Mr. Wonderful - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 9:51 pm: I guess it’s not a compromise now that Bivins has dropped off the bill LOL. - downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:09 pm: Mr. Wonderful, where did you find that information? - ronoglesby - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:10 pm: @mr wonderful Pressure and being told the bill is one thing and having language turn out as something else will do that. Cant trust people in this debate thats for sure. I vant wait to get my copy they are hiding - RNUG - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:29 pm: G. Willickers @ 3:15 pm: No need to join the IL NG; You’re already a member of the Illinois militia. Constitution of the State of Illinois ARTICLE XII: MILITIA SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law. You could even argue, maybe a bit tongue in cheek, that the State of Illinois is required to provide you a gun; note the word “equipment” in the section below: SECTION 3. ORGANIZATION, EQUIPMENT AND DISCIPLINE The General Assembly shall provide by law for the organization, equipment and discipline of the militia in conformity with the laws governing the armed forces of the United States. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:53 pm: Illinois should not look like Animal Farm. - G. Willickers - Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 11:26 pm: @ RNUG - ….What do you think the Illinois National Guard is? It’s the state’s militia, made up of able-bodied persons residing in the State. You seem to think that we’re all part of the organized militia right now. Tell me again when the last time was that I went on training exercises under the command of Adj. General Krumrei? Fact is I’ve never been called up to serve in the state’s organized militia because I’ve never been drafted — and being drafted into militia (National Guard) service was my point to begin with, wasn’t it? You conveniently skipped Section 2. SECTION 2. SUBORDINATION OF MILITARY POWER The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Darn those laws and the lawmakers who make those laws (ie, “civil power”). And Section 4. SECTION 4. COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND OFFICERS (a) The Governor is commander-in-chief of the organized militia, except when they are in the service of the United States. He may call them out to enforce the laws, suppress insurrection or repel invasion. (b) The Governor shall commission militia officers who shall hold their commissions for such time as may be provided by law. (Source: Illinois Constitution.) …..Why are pro-gun folks always so ready to skip the parts of the Constitution (state or Federal) which don’t fit their modern-day redefinition of said Constitution? - Tony - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 7:55 am: The last I knew Chicago, was in the United States. And the United States Constitution does not stipulate any boundary compromise. - Pete S - Wednesday, Apr 24, 13 @ 9:55 pm: To all those who voted yes, I view it like the guy with the pump shotgun and 2 pistols who has no problem with a black rifle ban, because he doesn’t have or want one. We ALL need to stand together on ALL of these issues. We need to have ONE law for the whole state. I live in Cook, so I need all your help, but no one should drive from town to town wondering what the laws are. They have NO chance of passing a “may issue” or “carve-out” bill, so we need to demand 997 or let it go over the cliff. P.S. From what I heard tonight, Sen. Bivins saw how crazy the final draft of the bill was, and took his name off of it. Jacqueline Collins (Dem. Chicago) has been added as a co-sponsor. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.