* Sen. Dave Syverson (R-Rockford) isn’t hopeful about fast action on the implementation of concealed carry…
Syverson said details of the training and application processes are unclear and ultimately will be determined by the Illinois State Police. It could take three to four months before there’s solid information on registration and training classes.
“My guess is, with the state police who oppose this and a governor who opposes this, they’re going to do things to try to put rules in place that will make it more difficult” to get a license, he said. “And that means we may have to come back with more legislation.”
First, of course, it has to become law, but I don’t disagree with Syverson’s analysis.
* Meanwhile, we’ve been talking here for a while now about the likely prospects of Gov. Pat Quinn using the concealed carry bill to boost his Democratic primary bid. The Tribune has an article about the same topic…
Legislative leaders in both parties expect a scenario to unfold over the next couple of weeks that allows Quinn to save face and lawmakers to stick to what they voted for: The governor will veto or make changes to the bill and lawmakers then will override him and put the law on the books.
“I think he’s going to veto or amendatorily veto the bill, requiring us to come back in the session to act on that veto,” said Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago.
In addition, the gun bill’s sponsor said House Speaker Michael Madigan on Wednesday went over the process for how to handle a Quinn veto or rewrite. “There was talk brought up that the speaker had heard that the governor is expected to file an amendatory veto or a veto,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg.
Lawmakers are being told to prepare to come back to Springfield on July 8. The significance of that date? It’s the day before Quinn’s suggested deadline for lawmakers to come up with a solution for the state’s heavily underfunded pension funds. It’s also the day before the federal court order to invalidate the state’s ban on concealed carry is scheduled to take effect. […]
As the governor tries to figure out what to do on the gun bill, he has a couple of other options that are less confrontational. Quinn could negotiate small and technical changes with lawmakers and try to get them to go along. He also could sign it and ask legislators to pass a follow-up bill that would address minor changes, a move that does not risk putting the entire bill in jeopardy.
Keep in mind that “less confrontational” would mean “less publicity.”
* Related…
* Senate Dems Call For Gov. Quinn’s Verdict On Gun Bill: “If you intend to issue a veto or amendatory veto, we ask that you do it quickly. The General Assembly will need time to respond. Every day we get closer to the federal court’s July 9 deadline. Time is of the essence,” the letter said. “We urge you to act on this legislation now. The last thing we need is a public safety and constitutional crisis.”
* Illinois State Rifle Association Invites Public To ‘Test Drive’ Concealed Carry Handguns
* Mayor drops out of Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition, says ‘focus should not be against law-abiding citizens
* This Gun Radar Could Make Concealed Carry Obsolete
* GunFAIL XXIII
- RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 9:41 am:
The training thing is a question mark. There are some pretty defined items in the bill as to what the training should contain. BUT, he is right that the ISP can slow play it, not authorizing instructors (or enough instructors). They could also just do like they do the FOID law… ignore it.
Right now FOID apps that the law says must be processed in 30 days are taking 60-90 with no consequences. this is a huge concern because even though there are dates/deadlines in the bill what is the downside if the ISP ignores it like they do the FOID law?
We’ll be back in court.
- Stones - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 9:45 am:
Applications would certainly be processed through the ISP Bureau of Identification which is severely understaffed. Everyone is fingerprinted now from Carnival Workers to Bus Drivers due to legislation passed in Springfield. You can’t continue to cut appropriations and ask Conceal Carry permits to be expedited. They will need to wait in line like everyone else.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 9:50 am:
That’s a bizarre story in Streamwood. A post-divorce BBQ celebration with the kids, capped off by firing guns at books?
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 9:54 am:
–We’ll be back in court.–
Back in court for what? The bill isn’t even law yet.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 9:59 am:
@Word
responding to the actual article above… They are talking about how it can be slow played If that is the case (and existing law/FOID issuance shows a pastern/history) we will go back to court.
- Small Town Taxpayer - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 10:03 am:
The political base of Gov. Pat Quinn is firmly located in Chicago. In the next election campaign I would wonder if he might attempt to equate, in some manner, the ISRA ‘Test Drive’ of concealed carry handguns to one of the frequent drive by shootings that take place in Chicago? According to a story today on WLS-TV ‘Chicago shootings kill 5, injure 28 over weekend’.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 10:05 am:
@Stones
—
They will need to wait in line like everyone else.
—
Actually the Bill gives the ISP a time frame for processing permits (and $150 per app to make it happen). So CCW applicants ARE paying for their stuff to be processed.
- Tequila Mockingbird - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 10:09 am:
The whole CCW issue in Illinois has become a sad example of how to muck up the system. It could have been a good bill, it could have been implemented smoothly and efficiently, it could have worked like many other states. It will fail to be any of these because we are Illinois. I see months or even years before some broken version of this becomes law.
- Stones - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 10:17 am:
@ RonOglesby,
While that may be true, the fact is there are timelines on the ISP processing many different types of applications. Without the personnel or equipment to do so in a expeditious manner, this becomes impossible. If you have a handful of people and 100,000 different applications to process, it’s not going to happen in 30 days whether you have a law on the books or not.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 10:56 am:
@ Stones,
Thus my first comment. We will be back in court again. Just like there are gun groups looking at suing the state over violations of the FOID act and timelines. Though unlike the FOID here there is a court ruling stating carry is a right, then delaying someone’s right in an illegal way will lead us back to court.
Look, Wisconsin just went through this a year or two ago. They had a system up and running in like 60 days, and were processing permits in 30 days. The ISP and the state wont have much of a leg to stand on in court should they not be able to make the generous timelines that are in this bill.
That is really the discussion here. will the ISP (led by a Gov appointee) slow play this, delay certifying trainers, or certify too few trainers, not certify courses in a timely manner, etc. If they do, they will be back in court.
- Frank - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 11:01 am:
Maybe Quinn brings the Newtown parents back to Illinois, writes the magazine limit into the Concealed Carry bill with an amendatory veto and then dares the Speaker to override it — which he will. Seems like good gubernatorial primary politics, right? But Lisa could side with the Guv against the override and show some independence from her father on a high profile issue.
All in all, it would still probably be a small net political gain for Quinn. Anytime he can get voters thinking about the Speaker/Lisa dynamic it’s probably a good thing.
- Keep in mind - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 11:08 am:
The ISP have 60 days by the legislation to make public the list of trainers and 180 days to make the application available. Despite what you think about the Madigan’s, no one including Quinn is going against them. The AG will not and neither will Quinn, hang out to dry every GA member who voted for this. Pure, political suicide.
- Hedley Lamarr - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 11:39 am:
I agree that after enactment implementation will be delayed and blamed on any number of factors.
The law mandates a 30 day processing of FOID cards. My wife’s FOID expired on Apri1, 2013, so we sent her renewal on February 11, 2013. The check was cashed on February 26, 2013. We received her new FOID in the mail on June 12. That’s 121 days for a 30 day statutory requirement.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 11:58 am:
>>>>>> Though unlike the FOID here there is a court ruling stating carry is a right, then delaying someone’s right in an illegal way will lead us back to court.
Hmm, there are two recent SCOTUS rulings addressing private ownership of firearms as a right, which the FOID would come under the umbrella of, namely DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.
- Todd - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
Ok so excuse me if this might run a bit long.
Color me as one of the people who think the State Police will and are trying to implement the bill/law. And I see no grand conspiracy. Maybe some lack of leadership, direction, decisiveness and a general CYA mentality among some. But I think the guys in the trenches, are trying to make things work.
My initial discussions with them are going well. And our talks have produced points that neither of us had considered previously. So we are going to try and work through them. We have some time. But there is an attitude that they want to have something online as soon as possible. They want to meet obligations and be able to answer questions so when it becomes law, people can start taking steps to get their permit.
WE all know about the FOID system. I would submit that the Governor is largely to blame for it as he saw the auditor general’s report and could have moved to fix parts of it easily. But being a gun hater, he kept pressing for a fee increase and we kept saying NO. So I believe, they refused to hire people and let it play out hoping that the outrage over it would push legislators to a fee increase. He seems to like the model that was used for DNR funding from a year ago.
But if they want another round or two of litigation, we will be happy to oblige. If they don’t want to meet the deadlines in the bill/law, then they will forfeit any good will they have asked for. And if the Governor tries to muck it up, then one again his lack of leadership and politics over policy will shine through. If it causes delays, we will be back in court.
Matter of fact, we be back in court anyways with Queen v. Alverez and probably be litigating the 180 day implementation. You already have State’s Attorneys refusing to prosecute and issuing their own guidelines about how they see things going forward.
I expect the Gov will issue a messed up AV to try and get to the left on the gun control issue to try to play to the liberal lakefront base. Why, not sure. One would think that the game is about addition, and since he hasn’t ventured downstate in a long time, he could blame Lisa for not making a decision and announcing an appeal, thus getting a stay and putting this off until at least the fall (that’s a whole nother story). He would be able to stand with Forby and Brandon, announce it’s not a perfect bill but let the will of the people (45 in the senate and 89 in the house) be the law of the land. But this concept seems to run afoul of his liberal compass.
My prediction is that we will have a law before the deadline and parts of the law will be implemented quickly i.e. instructor certs, qualifying courses and such. Maybe even the application. WE will see about when they start issuing permits. But I remain optimistic that the saner heads will prevail.
- Esquire - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 1:45 pm:
From the web site “Evanston Now” regarding the gun ordinance:
Evanston aldermen tonight are scheduled to vote on an ordinance to ban possession of assault weapons in the city.
The ordinance is a response to state legislation that — if signed by Gov. Quinn — would give municipalities just 10 days to adopt such bans before losing their power to do so.
The ordinance, as drafted by Corporation Counsel Grant Farrar, follows the pattern set by similar ordinances in the City of Chicago and Cook County be enumerating a set of features — from folding stocks to barrel shrouds — that would define an assault weapon and covers semi-automatic handguns and shotguns as well as rifles.
In support of the proposed ordinance, Farrar cites a position paper from the International Association of Chiefs of Police that lists an assault weapons ban as one of several “common sense policies” to reduce gun violence.
The police group says that during the 10 years a federal ban on assault weapons was in place the number of crimes associated with assault weapons dropped by two-thirds.
It says “assault weapons are reoutinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers” and “are all too often used against police officers.”
Farrar also cites a U.S. Treasury Department study that concluded assault weapons are not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.
Violation of the assault weapons ordinance could bring up to a $1,500 fine and six months in jail.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 2:17 pm:
>>>>> International Association of Chiefs of Police
Appointed warm bodies that bear little relation to what really goes on in the streets.
>>>> It says “assault weapons are reoutinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers” and “are all too often used against police officers.”
Look at the FBI stats under table 20 for murder, it shows rifles as being dead last, behind hands and feet. Handguns lead the pack, however.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
>>>>> not particularly suitable for sporting purposes
I cannot find hunting nor “sporting purposes” in the text of the 2nd amendment.
- Common Sense - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 2:48 pm:
I just got an email from Lisa Madigan’s campaign asking me for a donation. She’s running.
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
word, doesn’t everyone use books for target practice? Inside?
Then there is the cop who left his Glock in the crapper at the cinema on Father’s Day. Thank God the 11 year old who found it calmly went and got his Dad. That officer should be on meter maid duty for a long time.
- Common Sense - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 3:54 pm:
Interesting: State Senator Kwame Rauol was quoted last week as saying: ‘Quinn should sign the bill. Let’s be honest; its not criminals who are getting a background check and training to get a gun’. Is this guy a Democrat??? I think the CCW issue in IL is over.
- A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 4:18 pm:
@ John Jacob - “I cannot find hunting nor “sporting purposes” in the text of the 2nd amendment.”
I cannot find “Fire!” and “movie theater” in the text of the 1st amendment.
I cannot find “snake oil” and “salesman” in the text of the 1st amendment.
I cannot finde “Enron” and “annual reports” in the text of the 1st amendment.
My goodness. As if all those restrictions on free speech weren’t enough, I can’t even find so-called “free speech cages” (errrr, I mean “free speech zones”) in the text of the 1st amendment.
The rights enumerated in the Constitution may be inalienable but they are not unlimited.
You have the right to own a gun. You do not have the right to own any kind of gun you want.
In fact, in reading the whole of 2A, you have the right to own a gun so that you can be a member of a well-regulated militia in order to maintain the freedom of the State of Illinois.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 4:26 pm:
>>>>> so that you can be a member of a well-regulated militia in order to maintain the freedom of the State of Illinois.
I am in the unorganized militia, and I am well regulated.
- Mr. Wonderful - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 4:55 pm:
I have yet to encounter a firearm for sale in any Illinois gun shop that is unsuitable for sporting purposes.
- Esquire - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 5:13 pm:
What is ridiculous despite the propaganda from Evanston is that serious gun crimes using rifles are statistically negligible. Any accurate crime data base will demonstrate hand guns, which are legal according to the SCOTUS, are the overwhelming weapon of choice used by criminals.
Apart from being politically correct, one does not see this ordinance accomplishing anything, but harassing honest people.
Of course, Evanston has also passed laws banning nuclear weapons and drones which accomplished nada too.
- J.R.Dobbs Jr - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 6:14 pm:
@A. Nonymous: “In fact, in reading the whole of 2A, you have the right to own a gun so that you can be a member of a well-regulated militia in order to maintain the freedom of the State of Illinois.”
An AR-15 would be a excellent weapon for that purpose, as it shares the ammunition, magazines, and many parts (except for the trigger group and lower receiver) with the current military service rifles, the M16A2 and M4 Carbine…easing logistics. If we go by your statement, then banning it or any rifle suitable for the use of Regular or Irregular infantry would be Unconstitutional.
The “sporting purpose” clause is badly abused by bureaucrats with anti-gun leanings…for example, they do not consider formal or informal target shooting to be a “sporting purpose”.
- wordslinger - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 6:30 pm:
–I am in the unorganized militia, and I am well regulated.–
Lot of bran in the diet?
- RetiredArmy MP - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 6:32 pm:
@A. Nonymous: “In fact, in reading the whole of 2A, you have the right to own a gun so that you can be a member of a well-regulated militia in order to maintain the freedom of the State of Illinois.”
Once again, A.Nonymous is spouting the ultra-liberal gun-banning talking point that peple only have the right to own a firearm if they are a member of a militia. He conveniently ignores the fact that the Heller decision specifically ruled that people have an individual right to own a firearm unconnected to militia service. Yes, that decision only applied to the District of Columbia. Then the McDonald decision ruled that the Heller decision also applied to the states. We get it, A.Nonymous, you want to ban guns, but you can no longer claim a legal basis for doing so.
- FormerParatrooper - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 6:54 pm:
@RetiredArmyMP….
Also forgotten is the US vs Miller decision. Nothing about a hunting or sporting use, rather a military use was found to be the standard for owning a firearm.
- A. Nonymous - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 7:25 pm:
@ Esquire, John Jacob, Retired, etc. -
You have the right to own a gun.
You do not have the right to own any gun you want not to bring any gun you want everywhere you want.
The slim conservative majority on the Supreme Court was also clear on those points when they overturned 200+ years of American legal precedent and history.
Today’s dissents are tomorrow’s majority opinion. And the weight of history is on my side even as two temporary, weakly-positioned majority opinions may currently be on yours.
–
PS @ Esquire - I suggest you try purchasing some nukes or drones whether for sporting purposes, self-defense or otherwise.
Try finding out how far the current SCOTUS slim conservative majority is willing to redefine previously well-established phrases like “keep and bear arms” and “shall not be infringed”.
- FormerParatrooper - Monday, Jun 24, 13 @ 8:34 pm:
@ A. Nonymous
The history of gun control is rich with examples of restrictions of minorities, and poor people the right to bear arms.
The issue is not bearing of firearms by the majority of citizens, but the unlawful use by a few to deny others property, life, and security. The majority of the gun control argument fixates on the majority, not the few who are the issue. With an approach that does not address the root issues, it is positioned to fail.
- jack - Tuesday, Jun 25, 13 @ 9:05 am:
If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or Training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.