Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Rate the ad - Read the poll - Will Quinn flip again?
Posted in:
* As you’ve probably heard by now, the concealed carry bill will likely come up for a vote on the House floor tomorrow. I thought you might like to comment on the places that concealed carry would be prohibited if this bill becomes law…
(i) Any building under the control of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Comptroller, or Treasurer.
(ii) Any building under control of the General Assembly or any of its support service agencies, including the portion of a building in which a committee of the General Assembly convenes for the purpose of conducting meetings of committees, joint committees, or legislative commissions.
(iii) Any courthouse or building occupied in whole or in part by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court or a room designated as a courtroom for court proceedings by any of these courts.
(iv) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government or special district.
(v) Any establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises if less than 50% of its annual gross income comes from the sale of food.
(vi) Any area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property.
(vii) Any place where the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by federal law.
(viii) Any elementary or secondary school without the consent of school authorities. School authorities shall inform the appropriate law enforcement agency and any law enforcement personnel on site of such consent.
(ix) Any portion of a building used as a child care facility without the consent of the manager. Nothing in this Section shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm or license.
(x) Any gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975.
(xi) Any gated area of an amusement park.
(xii) Any stadium, arena, or collegiate or professional sporting event.
(xiii) A mental health facility.
(xiv) Any community college, college, or university campus without consent of the school authorities. School authorities shall inform the appropriate law enforcement agency and any law enforcement personnel on site of such consent.
(xv) A library without the written consent of the library’s governing body. The governing body shall inform the appropriate law enforcement agency of such consent.
(xvi) Any police, sheriff, or State Police office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station.
(xvii) Any adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.
(b) A municipality or school district may prohibit or limit licensees from carrying a handgun into or within any building owned, leased, or controlled by that municipality or school district by a majority vote of members of its governing board.
A resolution or ordinance shall not prohibit a licensee from carrying a handgun in any building used for public housing, on any sidewalk, on any highway or roadway, or in any public restroom.
A resolution or ordinance shall not prohibit a licensee from carrying a handgun in a public transportation facility or while accessing the services of a public transportation agency. […]
(c) The owner, business or commercial lessee, or manager of a private business enterprise, or any other private organization, entity, or person, may prohibit licensees from carrying a handgun on the premises under its control. However, any owner shall allow for any lessee to carry or possess a handgun in accordance with this Act in any part of a building or upon any property he or she leases.
Please, take a deep breath before commenting. Also, ignore the trolls on both sides. These gun threads can go awry in a hurry if everyone doesn’t do their part. Thanks.
* Roundup…
* Gov’s threatened veto of concealed carry may not matter
* Illinois committee passes gun bill despite veto threat
* Illinois House Committee Approves Concealed Carry Bill
* Quinn voices opposition to concealed-carry push
* Concealed carry vote expected Thursday
* State Rep John Cavaletto Wonders If Daughter In Law Would Still Be Alive If Concealed Carry Law Had Been In Effect
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 5:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition and a big Statehouse roundup
Next Post: Rate the ad - Read the poll - Will Quinn flip again?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Let’s get this watered down bill passed and then start chipping away at some of it’s prolbems. Way to many places where it would not be allowed.
Comment by nieva Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:04 am
any idea what the percentage of the land in illinois that covers? 1%? 5%? 10%?
Comment by bored now Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:31 am
I’m usually first in line to bash Todd and the ILNRA, but the list seems pretty reasonable. Nice “opt out” provisions for business owners without imposing extra liability on them for doing so. A good bill with a reasonable list of exceptions.
That being said, the backers still scare the heck out of me.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:41 am
It’s a reasonable bill … though it contains more exempted locations than I think are ultimately defensible (considering the “sensitive places” language in Heller).
Although much of the discussion regarding carry revolves around “public safety”, we should all remember that, at the bottom line, this issue is about individual civil liberties. The right to arms is an individual one, and is fundamental according to the SCOTUS. Although the public policy debates rage on (does carry increase, decrease, or have no effect on crime rates), in the end, this doesn’t matter. This is an individual rights issue.
As an aside, I wonder just how long this IL prohibition can last? The SCOTUS defined what “bear arms” means (to carry), and stated in the Heller decision that the second amendment guarantees individuals “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.
Certain folks will disingenuously conflate this to suggest that criminals would legally be free to run around armed, and cause mayhem in perpetrating crimes. That is flatly absurd. The right to keep and bear arms is limited to lawful purposes, such as justified self-defense.
This year, next year, or whenever … Illinois cannot justify their prohibition of the right to bear arms.
Comment by Kentucky Yankee Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:56 am
I’ve never seen any evidence that concealed carry has any impact — positive or negative — on crime rates and I don’t subscribe to the theory that many citizens need concealed carry to “protect themselves”. Having said that, I’m generally on the side of keeping government out of the way so I don’t see a good reason to prohibit concealed carry.
I do have concerns about the ever-growing trend toward putting unenforceable laws on the books. Does anyone actually think that the average citizen will be able to track that list of prohibited locations and comply with this law?
Comment by IL_Farm_Boy Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 7:34 am
I’ve already deleted two comments. I asked all of you to take a breath. If the best you can do after that deep breath is a whacked-out, bumper sticker slogan-laden diatribe peppered with capital letters, then just stop writing now and go away. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 7:35 am
===Does anyone actually think that the average citizen will be able to track that list of prohibited locations and comply with this law? ===
I would assume that learning the locations would be part of the training process.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 7:41 am
It is always interesting that to hear the same people who preach strict constructionist doctrine try to stretch the language of the constitution to accomodate whatever right wing cause they espouse. This is not about some civil liberty. It is about a powerful lobby group trying to impose their idea of their “rights” at the risk of the safety of the rest of us. I hope the bill goes down. If it doesn’t, at least the restrictions will keep some places safe.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 7:49 am
That’s three deletions. Breathe deeper, people.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 7:56 am
===Does anyone actually think that the average citizen will be able to track that list of prohibited locations and comply with this law? ===
The bill requires that places exempt from carryin post signs, similar to the smoke free signs. Also, a responsible gun owner knows the law, and I’m going to hope - really, really hope - that only responsible gun owners get licenses.
Comment by ugh Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:20 am
As a stanch defender of the 2nd Amendment and one who would be first in line to get a concealed carry permit, I think the exclusion list is rather reasonable. The two that I probably disagree most with are universities and libraries, but I think this provides a great starting point!
Comment by Wilessiuc Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:22 am
The list of prohibited places is somewhat long and convoluted, but can work if there is a requirement that prohibited sites have some sort of uniform placarding at each access point.
It becomes a game of gotcha if a regular citizen, even though trained, has to go through this complicated list of prohibited places and his/her schedule every time they enter a unfamiliar building.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:24 am
Not my big thing but I think it’s fine. I still think it’s mostly a male enhancement device for men too poor to buy a nice sportscar, but I do think on balance it will reduce crime by a material degree.
Plus after the “medical” marijuana thing passes, a lot of the undiagnosed crazies might be packin’, but they’ll be too mellow to cause much trouble.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:27 am
I think the restrictions are a bit much but overall they’re a fair compromise at this point.
Philosophically, I see the 2nd Amendment much like the 1st Amendment and I’m opposed to restrictions / licensing of either right. However I understand the culture we live in and that many people are uncomfortable with guns.
I am not a “right winger” by any stretch of the imagination and it’s disappointing to see all pro-CCW people lumped together into that group.
Comment by Mike Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:34 am
Even if the bill passes with a supermajority, and Quinn vetoes it as promised, what are the odds that a veto will be overridden?
What Quinn has actually done is guarantee another SCOTUS challenge when the bill doesn’t pass that will have to be defended at great cost by the AG. Luckily, since Quinn’s and the Democrats’ budget proposals are actually net increases in spending, there will be plenty of funds available.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:35 am
Cinci- I would say the odds are very good. If it passes with a super majority, with everyone knowing that Quinn will veto it, then that same super majority can override the veto. It would be a tough sell for someone to say that they voted for it the first time, but then changed their mind after Quinn vetoed it.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:56 am
Whew, what a list! If it is a good idea, it’s a good idea. The long list of places where you can’t carry your concealed weapon seems silly. I would like to see what the laws are like in other states. Do they have all these caveats? If this passes, I’d trim the list down to no CCW in schools, bars, court houses and everything else is OK. Once you start listing the places where someone might be uncomfortable with a concealed weapon, it gets pretty long.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:56 am
tak1885,
The list of people willing to vote for a bill, yet willing to over ride the constitutional prerogative of the governor, while similar, is hardly ever identical. This bill especially, because there is really very little at stake (other than our constitutional rights, that is, but those have little meaning to the GA).
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:59 am
–Even if the bill passes with a supermajority, and Quinn vetoes it as promised, what are the odds that a veto will be overridden?–
Huh? If it passes with a super-majority in both chambers, I’d guess the odds of any veto being overridden would be pretty good, don’t you think?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 8:59 am
I’m not a fan of concealed carry, but with this list of reasonable exceptions, I’m OK with it. If they didn’t have universities on the list, I wouldn’t be.
Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:00 am
Cincinatus: I was told by a State Rep. that she thought if they had the votes to pass it and Quinn vetoes that they had the votes to over ride and thought that it would be. Take that for what its worth.
Comment by Rob Roy A.K.A. Ignorant Troll Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:04 am
The bill has a lot of places a citizen can’t carry a handgun. Does anyone know whether a business can refuse service to someone carrying a handgun??
Comment by Steve Bartin Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:04 am
There’s been movement from the original, obviously, but that might have been pre-planned, anyway. Shoot for the moon, pull back, then pat yourself on the back for compromising.
It’s somewhat enlightening that a good chunk of the “sensitive places” where a citizen’s “right” to carry a concealed weapon involve the workplaces of politicians. They can be all for it, as long as they don’t have to deal with it on a daily basis.
Since we’ve established there are “sensitive places” where even proponents wish to bar conceal/carry, I say let’s keep going.
No guns on public transportation. No guns in parks and playgrounds. No guns at public pools. No guns at any venue where booze is served.
Those exclusions are just as reasonable as those already in the bill. I could keep going.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:28 am
Christ Almighty, are there enough resources to adminstrate this ill conceived legislation if passed? Nope.
Who the heck decided this is a legislative priority with the State in this fiscal morass?
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:38 am
Loop Lady, If the GA can vote on marijuana, trans fats, mandated school recess, and all the other ridiculous bills that have been presented, then I think they can take the time to vote on an individuals right to protect themselves and their families.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:46 am
== individuals right to protect themselves and their families. ==
Yes! Still more “rights” being added.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:52 am
Bill
Both sides interpret the constitution as they see fit. For liberals abortion is about privacy. I worry about the concealed carry bill. I don’t believe it will pass it is just a way for downstate Dems to show they voted for the bill yet Quinn and the chicago mob will kill the bill. That said I’m still not sure I want to be walking in the loop if everyone is allowed to have a firearm.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:52 am
== individuals right to protect themselves and their families. ==
If it’s a right, you don’t need legislation. Pick a lane.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:55 am
tak1885: trans fats and handguns both kill people,
they aint good for nuthin else…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:56 am
It seems that the pro-gun forces have given Chicago legislators much leeway on this issue. I think that the bill has protected the interest of all concerned. The Chicago group better wake up and accept what is a great bill with the input of all. If they don’t, there will be a targeted campaign against he anti-gun crowd and they will have no future input on the bill.
Comment by Patriot78 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 9:58 am
To answer the question of wordslinger, I believe that if the bill gets the required 71 votes to pass(those are the number of votes required to preempt home rule authority), and the bill passes the Senate, it will be veto proof.
Comment by Patriot78 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:01 am
–The Chicago group better wake up and accept what is a great bill with the input of all. If they don’t, there will be a targeted campaign against he anti-gun crowd and they will have no future input on the bill.–
Sounds ominous. I didn’t realize the ISRA was just being generous in their concessions, that they had the votes in their back pocket all the time.
If that’s the case, and if it were me, I say call the roll.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:04 am
It looks fairly reasonable to me. I wouldn’t want to carry in most of the places listed anyway. But then, I consider myself rational. That isn’t to say that irrational criminals wouldn’t carry in an amusement park.
To me, gaming and sporting venues fall under the same category as a bar. Whether ALL people drink there or not, many do.
But these restrictions also go along with my larger view. (And it’s in there.) Any PRIVATE citizen or company should be able to restrict whether people can carry on their property. While a Walmart may be considered a public place, it’s still private property. And they should be able to restrict or permit whatever they want on their private property.
However, anyone should be able to carry on any (UNSECURED) public property. (Anything not a prison, court, airport, etc.)
(Also… Do I need a permit to exercise any of my other rights afforded by the Bill of Rights? Why do I need a permit to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights at all. Isn’t it automatically given to me as a citizen? Can we PLEASE create a permit system for the Freedom of Speech, and make people undergo a background check and limit its use by mentally unstable people?)
Comment by Adam Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:05 am
Pat, believe me, I understand the math. I thought Cinci’s question was a little weird.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:06 am
wow, that’s some list of restrictions! I had no idea. there seems to be no evidence on either side that concealed carry causes more deaths or prevents more deaths. it is in effect in virtually every other state. these restrictions seem reasonable. Quinn should shut it, and the legislature should pass the legislation. move on to other kinds of regulations that matter….places where guns can be sold, records, getting actual bad guys, you know, things that law enforcement wants and which the Scalia map would permit.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:06 am
As I’ve said before, I’m not a gun fan, but if we’re one of two states left without concealed carry, and the list of exclusions is this long, I say pass it. What better way to make friends on the right in order to get help to pass medicinal marijuana or other left leaning policies? Give and take…
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:09 am
Adam - You want a permit for speech? I recommend moving to Syria…that’s what’s going on there right now.
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:12 am
Loop Lady - I grew up on a farm in an isolated part of Vermilion County. Our closest neighbor was 1/2 a mile down the road and there were only 2 county deputies on duty at any given time. I learned to load and fire a shotgun when I was 10, as did every other local kid I knew. As an adult, I live in a metro area with professional police on call. I no longer feel that I need to own/carry a weapon. However, when I go home to visit, its like stepping back in time - you are your own protection. I can understand why many people in Chicago do not agree with concealed carry, but the folks downstate largely do not have the same police protection that you have. They should have the right to protect themselves.
Comment by lincolnlover Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:32 am
Adam–Heller, despite being wrongly decided, does include recognition that states, etc., may impose reasonable restrictions. Not allowing concealed carry of loaded weapons may indeed be one of those.
Cinci–I don’t know how one appeals to the USSC the failure of a legislature to pass a new law. Heller did not say there was a fundamental right to carry a hidden loaded weapon. Rather, it said DC couldn’t ban handguns from the city.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:45 am
- trans fats and handguns both kill people,
they aint good for nuthin else… -
I am for the right to concealed carry of trans fats.
On a more serious note, I don’t love the idea of concealed carry, but I wish Gov. Quinn would have used this as a bartering tool for some other legislation.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:49 am
10th Voter: That was TOTALLY a joke.
Comment by Adam Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:52 am
The whole gun debate is a distraction from the real issues. The Economy, Budget, Schools, Crime have a far greater impact on the lives of everyday people.
Comment by Lady GaGa Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:53 am
–What Quinn has actually done is guarantee another SCOTUS challenge when the bill doesn’t pass that will have to be defended at great cost by the AG.–
Dude, you really should have paid more attention in school.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 10:56 am
Lincon Lover: Shot guns used for hunting and protection in rural areas for security are not handguns that can be easily concealed. I take the CTA everyday. The prospect of passengers carrying loaded weapons sends a chill down my spine. If the homeless guy aggressively asking for money gets to carry one, or takes one from a passenger, what will happen when I ignore him or say no?
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:07 am
==my other rights==
Oh please.
Comment by Bill Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:13 am
Loop Lady, what makes you believe that CTA passengers aren’t already carrying firearms? The difference is that now only the criminals and gang members are carrying guns, after this bill law abiding citizens will be able to carry and level the field. It’s not as though Chicago does not have gun violence despite the carry ban, in fact there is at least one story about a shooting every night on the local news. This bill will not eliminate all shootings, it will deter some, but more importantly, there will be stories of the criminals being shot, not their would-be victims.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:22 am
I don’t like the restirctions, but I think you can make a reasonable argument for most o them. I worry about enforceability of some of them. % of money from food, no one tracks that.
I am not worried you won’t be able to figure our where guns are not allowed. For decades we saw no smoking signs on doors of certain businesses how hard is it to put a gun with a X on it on the front door?
I don’t like, but understand the restrictions on public events. But on bars ect, why not just state that any private citizen has the right to restrict their own premises. I see them signs in St. Louis that say this is a gun free facility with a sign like the no smoking sign.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:32 am
Pass the Bill and make it into Law first! THEN we’ll chip at it until it’s not as restrictive. BUT for gawd sake, we need some type of Concealed Carry in Illinois!!!
Comment by LouisC Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:53 am
Loop Lady Please, If the homeless guy aggressively asking for money gets to carry one, or takes one from a passenger, what will happen when I ignore him or say no? 1st a homeless guy more than likely does not have the funds to buy a gun or take the required training. 2. If the Homeless guy can get a guy w/o the funds or training, it no difference right now.. Criminals do not follow law, I bet you get on the bus everyday with criminals that carry guns everyday right not, you just don’t know. Just as you’ll not know it when a CCW is carrying either …
Comment by AL Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:54 am
I live just outside chicago have been robbed more than once the police say they cant do anything I feel aollowing citizens to arm themselfs makes since
Comment by Duck Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:55 am
tak1885: ‘cuse me but I don’t think we need any
more guns on public transportation, illegal or legal…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:10 pm
AL: Where do you live buddy?
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:12 pm
Let’s hope that health care facilities, like hospitals, doctors offices and all medical centers are covered under federal law to prohibit conceal and carry in these healing facilities!
Comment by Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:13 pm
To the concealed carry opponents: Please read the Rep Calvaletto story to which Rich has linked and then ask yourself if law abiding, innocent people like her deserve the legal ability to effectively defend herself.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:16 pm
“If it’s a right, you don’t need legislation. Pick a lane. ”
word it is a Right. But it can be regulated and Heller and McDonald both said so. We can have a debate out the type and bredth of regulation but Heller defined carrying as a right.
Just like my right to petition government for redress of grienvences, the state says I have to get a license and pay a fee to do so.
From Heller:
We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.” pg 8
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—
confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]:‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” pg 10
We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. pg 11
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” pg 19
word it is a right, one protected and recognised by the Court and the Consitution. your entitled to your own opinion but the facts and the Court says otherwise.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:17 pm
The threshold for passing the conceal carry license exam is 70%. To get a drivers license you need 80%. Just saying.
Also, the requirements for recertification of retired law enforcement officers are stricter than what is proposed in the bill.
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:18 pm
The attraction of a shoot-out in one’s living room is what?
Comment by Louis XVI Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:19 pm
In the U.S. we tolerate (and sometimes even celebrate) the greatest extremes of belief, preferences and behavior of any country in the world. We let the mentally ill and those intoxicated to the point of stupidity wander about without restraint. We let religious zealots of all type and description and those who zealously hate them interact in public places. We do this because this is our quaint notion of what personal freedom means. We do this also because we presume a social contract that someone will not reach the point of extreme irritation, haul out a concealed weapon, blow away a perceived adversary and kill innocent others in the cross-fire.
If we get concealed carry, the second presumption vanishes.
On September 11, 2001, I and most other Americans cried over what some people did to us. A few years ago I walked into a tavern in a concealed carry state and was confronted with a sign announcing that no concealed firearms were permitted. I cried over what we are doing to ourselves.
Comment by Rhino Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:19 pm
Lady: Why? It isn’t an issue in other states. My wife is a medical provider and has had multiple people come in for exams who are carrying (believe all to be law enforcement officials). It has never been an issue. All have been model patients, polite and courteous.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:23 pm
I’m not for or against but it puts a heavy burden on the gun owner to exercise restraint. Is it your kid sneaking in the house after curfew? Was he reaching in his pocket to get his phone? Did he just want to ask a question? Did you have a bit too much to drink? If you make a mistake you can’t fix it.
Comment by networktech Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:35 pm
Adam - My fault. I’ve heard some pro-gun voices seriously saying similar things in the past so it didn’t surprise me. I’ll ease off my trigger finger a bit…[pun intended]
Comment by 10th Voter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:37 pm
While I feel terrible about what happened to Rep. Calvaletto’s family, the idea of people walking around with loaded weapons makes me feel less safe, not more.
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:40 pm
–The SCOTUS defined what “bear arms” means (to carry), and stated in the Heller decision that the second amendment guarantees individuals “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” and for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.–
If your interpretation of the ober dictum in Heller is correct, then this legislation is a fool’s errand. You should have been in the Dirksen Building the day after Heller getting the Illinois ban tossed.
Why hasn’t that happened?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 12:47 pm
I would say that people aren’t comfortable carrying after the Heller and McDonald decisions because Illinois doesn’t interpret the rulings as other State’s might. Without a precise ruling from SCOTUS stating that carrying or conceal carry are protected by the 2nd Amendment, Illinois will continue to prosecute and imprison anyone they catch carrying. There are very few people, if any, willing to be the martyrs and be arrested and take their case to the Supreme Court, the process would mean being imprisoned for years before victory.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:02 pm
Logic not emotion: “To the concealed carry opponents: Please read the Rep Calvaletto story to which Rich has linked and then ask yourself if law abiding, innocent people like her deserve the legal ability to effectively defend herself.”
I must ask whether or not she could have “effectively” defended herself even with a concealed handgun after she was hit from behind by a vehicle. The ability to react when the criminals have the first and possibly debilitating jump does raise many questions about the “effectiveness” of the handgun defense. If a handgun would have been present could her attacker used it on her instead of coming back with a knife?
This does not nullify your argument. I only wish to add that that there were factors other than the existence of a concealed carry law at that time involved determining whether or not the victim could have defended herself effectively.
This was a very tragic crime in a normally peaceful rural community and I am reminded of this every time I see women exercising alone on isolated rural roads.
There are a lot of screwed up people out there which is a double edged sword in this debate.
Comment by vole Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:04 pm
From Heller: . In the majority decision of that case, Justice Scalia writes, “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:04 pm
Loop Lady - I think you may have missed my point. In many area of rural Illinois, there is NO police protection other than the county sheriff’s department. Contrary to popular Chicago belief, downstaters don’t have a gun racks in the back window of their Toyotas. Handguns are easier to carry and deal with. And, they are more accurate at closer range. I can understand that you do not feel the need to carry, but I know most of my family want this law.
Comment by lincolnlover Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:06 pm
Wordslinger,
I have seen instances where legislators flip a vote. It happens where the bare minimum supermajority is reached on the first vote, then the legislator will change on the over ride since they feel the executive has the right to veto the legislation. Legilsators also use this logic when the over ride is a no brainer, and they know their vote doesn’t matter.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:09 pm
Word — Becuase I have seen how bad the 7th is.
There are other cases pending about the issue: http://ia700101.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.34.0.pdf
I suggest reading that brief as it make the right points. I have said that I beleive the Court will strike down Illinois blanket ban. I think the court will allow regulation and states to permit or license carrying in public. So this make an attmeot at defining the regulatory structure of what we are trying to accomplish.
But if we do not get the votes by end of session, I would not be surprised if we don’t end up in court.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:09 pm
===% of money from food, no one tracks that. ===
Actually, I think that’s part of licensing.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:52 pm
Let’s make a law for concealed carry and exempt Cook and the collar Counties…I’m getting my earplugs ready now after this drive by…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 1:56 pm
Loop Lady - It sometimes seems we should have 2 different laws, doesn’t it? I don’t know if that would work, but perhaps that is what should be tried. Good luck with those earplugs.
Comment by lincolnlover Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 2:08 pm
To me, the worst part of the bill from a public policy perspective is that we would issue a license to carry — and therefore use — a concealed handgun to someone who misses the target 30% of the time on a practice range.
That means that under ideal circumstances — a non-moving target, no one screaming, rushing around, no bystanders — nine bullets hit something else besides their intended target. In the real world, that “something else” could be a child, a mother, a plain clothes police officer.
And while the “except for” provisions for schools and day care centers might seem like a reasonable policy compromise, at the end of the day anyone who votes for this measure can expect direct mail and phone calls that say:
“Rep. Smith voted to allow loaded handguns in our elementary schools, day care centers, parks, zoos, and other places where children play.”
Good luck explaining that one to parents in your district.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 2:11 pm
Concealed Carry may come about in IL. Okay the world will continue to spin. I have said before I think it is a placebo for most who want it. Think about this. An Afgan pilot comes into a room with about a dozen trained troops. As I understand every man jack there had a piece hanging on his leg and this guy wastes them all. But if you believe your inner grit and reflexes are better have at it.
Comment by Bemused Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 2:13 pm
I am really not in favor of the bill. I really don’t see the need to “pack” to protect your family.
I have several reasons. (I am a gun owner, I used to hunt, I own several handguns, and I enjoy shooting them.)
Several years ago I had a relative visit from way down south. Somewhat by accident I found out he was carrying a 32 cal. pistol in his satchel he always had with him. This satchel was usually near him but not always within sight or within his reach. We had several small children then. When I found out I asked him to keep it in his vehicle. He got a little upset that I would ask him that as he kept it for his personal protection. I told him I did not believe he would need protection in my house and if he were going to continue to stay the gun needed to be kept in his vehicle. If this passes I guess as homeowners we will have to ask that everyone check their weapon at the door if they visit?
I used to go to a local gun shop/shooting range. I noticed that the owner and his daughter, wife, and son, who all worked there, had handguns strapped to their hip while working. I got to thinking it really wasn’t too smart. They did not always face their customers, many times turning their backs to them as they went about their work. To my way of thinking they were setting themselves up. If a person intent on stealing something from the shop came in they would recognize the workers as threats since they were packing. Neutralizing that threat would be the first priority. Assuming they wore the guns to use them I would think shooting them would be the intelligent move if I were a criminal. Whereas if they weren’t packing, just pulling a gun on them would suffice. Will carrying a gun lead to more violent initial confrontations?
Comment by Irish Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 2:21 pm
Don’t we want our amusement parks to be safe?
It’s sorta hard to reconcile the idea that conceal carry makes people safer, but then there are a list of places where it doesn’t apply.
It’s also kinda impractical to carry a firearm is there are tons of places where conceal carry isn’t allowed.
If the legislature believes in conceal carry, let’s have it everywhere. But if they don’t want firearms brought to their workplace, why should the rest of us be enthusiastic about firearms brought to our workplaces?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 2:50 pm
The time has come for this bill to pass, and this is coming from someone that may or may not decide to carry.
I regularly travel, and stay in states that have some of the least restrictive firearms laws in the lower 48, and I have yet to feel uncomfortable or less safe, knowing full well that people in my company may be carrying “concealed loaded weapons”.
I feel more uncomfortable and less safe when visiting the city of Chicago, knowing that those who are carrying “concealed loaded weapons” are those that are already prohibited by law to own a firearm, let alone carry one.
Comment by The Good Lieutenant Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 3:17 pm
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firearms were responsible for 576 workplace deaths and 700 workplace-related injuries in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 3:36 pm
vole: We’ll never know if she could have effectively defended herself; but a handgun would have been her only realistic chance and Illinois law prevented her from legally having that option.
Loop Lady: I assume you’re from the Chicago area - an area with a long history of having among the strictest gun control policies in the US. Your comment about drive by shootings makes an excellent point about how well strict gun control works (and Chicago’s stats support your comment).
Yellow Dog Democrat: From what I’ve heard, that approximates the hit rate for law enforcement officials. I have friends in law enforcement who shoot their firearms only for qualification and then barely do. I also have friends in law enforcement who are SWAT team members who are extremely proficient. I think this would also be reflective of the public. That 90 year old lady who keeps a pistol in her nightstand will probably never need it. If she does, it will likely be at almost contact distance so it won’t really matter if she can hit a target XX feet away. Conversely, there are some citizens who are extremely proficient. Some are ex law enforcement, military, hunters, or just firearms enthusiasts. Only a very small percentage of Illinois residents will apply for a permit and it is likely that many of the ones who actually carry a firearm vs. keeping at home will be from the latter group.
FWIW: My wife used to be relatively anti-gun. After she had a chance to shoot one and learn more about them, she has became an enthusiast. Last year, a female physician friend visited my wife and I from a big city in California. She had never touched a gun before. My wife and her spent quite a bit of time shooting targets and having a blast. She’s a convert. She now understands that guns aren’t evil and that they can be fun. I’d encourage all of you who haven’t shot a gun to find a gun club or a friend with a firearm and try shooting some reactive targets with a scoped .22 caliber rifle. You might just have fun too.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 3:38 pm
=== there are some citizens who are extremely proficient. Some are ex law enforcement, military, hunters, or just firearms enthusiasts. Only a very small percentage of Illinois residents will apply for a permit and it is likely that many of the ones who actually carry a firearm vs. keeping at home will be from the latter group. ===
@Logic not emotion: Great. Let’s put that into the bill!
Frankly, I don’t care if the little old lady who keeps the handgun in her night stand can hit the broad side of a barn. Although if there are kids living in her house or the grand kids visit frequently, she ought to keep her night stand locked and/or keep the gun unloaded and the ammo somewhere else.
BUT if what you’re suggesting is that folks who have the proficiency of SWAT team members ought to be allowed to carry concealed weapons, then let’s raise the standard for being able to bring a loaded gun to a playground to 90 percent.
Someone else made the point earlier that you have to get 80% to get your driver’s license…but I think that’s for the written portion. I think if you get a 70% on the road test they hang your picture on the wall at the Secretary of State’s office and laugh at you at school. And that test is given under real world driving circumstances.
NOTE: No disrespect to hunters and firearms enthusiasts, but that neither prepares you nor qualifies you to shoot another human being.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 4:05 pm
On a final note, with all of this talk about deterrence and people’s rights — whether Constitutional or the more ephemeral right to feel safe in public — let’s not lose sight of the fact that when we give someone a license to carry a concealed handgun, we are implicitly licensing them to fire that weapon at someone.
Next time you’re in a restaurant, look around and ask yourself how many folks you see that you’d trust with that decision.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 4:08 pm
Irish-What happens when you hold up a gun store:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 4:22 pm
Bemused: That the Afghan pilot was able to do that is not surprising. People who practice and are prepared can shoot FAST. (Do a YouTube search on “Triple Nickel Shooting.”)
But, the point is, as the law stands, only criminals have the guns and they know it. If a criminal has a gun, they automatically know they have the upper hand. Whether you actually want to carry or not, this law will automatically start deterring a certain number of criminals that won’t approach a potential victim unless they know they have that upper hand. Most criminals don’t want to deal with people on a level playing field. They’re predators. How about a situation where six guys try to jump you. You pull your weapon, they run away. Nobody gets hurt… Crime avoided. Person(s) and property are safe. Most muggings use intimidation tactics. Not knowing who’s carrying reduces their ability to intimidate.
I live and work in Chicago. I probably still wouldn’t carry on a normal day. But the possibility that I might means that I’m a target to fewer people because they won’t approach me unless they feel more powerful.
Comment by Adam Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 4:23 pm
Next time you’re in a restaurant, look around and ask yourself how many folks you see that you’d trust with that decision.”
The ones I would not trust probably already have one on them. Seriously, Yellow Dog, do you really think that criminals say “I would love to enter that liquor store with a concealed weapon to rob it, but I legally cannot conceal carry so I will not do so.”?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 4:29 pm
If this bill fails, is Todd going to resign (or get the ax?).
48 states have some sort of CC. Illinois does not. At some point, we need to ask how we are different from those 48. It sure looks like the difference may be that in those 48, the NRA has effective people working for them and that in Illinois, the NRA does not. How does he continue to lose but still stay on the payroll?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 5:33 pm
People keep saying that they would feel uncomfortable with people carrying loaded guns in the city/ on the train / all around them.
Guns are already concealed and all around you in the city, on the train, all around you. Law abiding citizens are the ones not carrying right now. You are living under an assumption that because it is illegal, nobody has a gun. You are incorrect.
By assuming that you are safe due to a lack of guns, you have been placing yourself in grave danger daily due to sense of false security. The guns are there. Please think about it.
Comment by Say WHAT? Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:14 pm
Say what, you’re operating under the assumption that criminals go about illegally armed at all times. I doubt that’s correct.
It’s a tool of the job. If you’re not going to work, you leave the tools at home. Career criminals with priors, subject to the random police rousting, aren’t going to go about armed at all times. Get stopped and it’s back to prison.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:35 pm
About the only places not listed as exemptions are parks — playgrounds, gyms, ball fields.
We keep sex offenders away from kids but apparently in Brendon Phelps’ head it’s ok to have loaded guns near children.
Brilliant.
Why is that we constantly hear about gun violence but almost never hear about concealed carry “protecting” against said gun violence?
It didn’t work in that Florida school board shooting last December.
It didn’t work in Tucson when Loughner legally got a gun and legally brought it to the grocery store to illegally kill a little girl and a bunch of other people while attempting to illegally assassinate Congresswoman Giffords.
In fact one of the people in the crowd during the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt DID have a gun with him for “personal protection”. In the process of getting ready to fire back he almost shot the wrong guy but caught himself in the knick of time.
If 48 states have similar or even more loose concealed carry laws to the one proposed here … why hasn’t crime been stopped in those states?
This is a solution in search of a problem.
Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:56 pm
Some of the cut-n-paste jobs here are hilarious.
Example –
@ Say WHAT? - Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 6:14 pm:
People keep saying that they would feel uncomfortable with >aliensAliensalienaliensaliens
Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, May 4, 11 @ 11:58 pm
@Say What
Should we all be carrying knives and swords in case we get into knife and sword fights? What about tear gas? Should I have a personal ICBM?
Guns may be concealed from now and they will still be concealed from with “concealed carry” law. Is the fact that some law somewhere mandated training supposed to alleviate my fears? Last time I checked you had to learn how to drive and pass a test to get a drivers license, but there are still plenty of accidents.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:01 am