Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The death penalty debate continues
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* In talking with people this week who support the recently failed concealed carry bill, I heard about a possible compromise: Allow sheriffs to decide whether or not to hand out concealed carry permits. The current legislation requires sheriffs to approve the permits after applicants successfully complete their training. The argument is that making the sheriff language permissive would mean proponents wouldn’t have to carve out counties and towns which don’t want any part of a concealed carry law. That, they say, would make Illinois a patchwork of regulations which would be difficult to follow.
The other side of this, of course, is that even if the Cook County Sheriff decides not to issue any concealed carry permits, those with permits who live in other counties could still come to Chicago with their concealed weapons, which would certainly make things confusing for the police.
* The Question: Would you support changing the concealed carry bill to make the sheriff language permissive instead of a mandate? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
…Adding… As always, please do not post drive-by, bumper-sticker slogans in comments. They annoy me, so come up with an original thought. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 9:47 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The death penalty debate continues
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I just believe having regular citizens walking around with loaded weapons after having minimal training is bad policy.
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 9:58 am
I’m not sure having an open-ended loop-hole makes sense… so likely it depends on the criteria by which a permit can be denied and perhaps some right of appeal.
Comment by John Bambenek Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 9:59 am
I think I already saw this on a Dukes of Hazzard episode.
Comment by just sayin' Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:03 am
it depends, but at least county voters mindset could be factored into whatever the sheriff’s decision would be…this could be a decent compromise…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:04 am
We’ve never had a corrupt sheriff or one who did favors for friends in Illinois?
Comment by Aldyth Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:06 am
As a Chicago resident, that is the worst possible solution. Every nit wit from DuPage would be carrying a weapon, but those of us who live here could not defend ourselves from them.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:06 am
The Sheriff language should be permissive, but that does not do enough to shore up the bill.
If the majority of the residents of Franklin County or their local elected leaders think that concealed weapons will make them safer — fine, let them carry guns.
Although I think open carry is a much better deterent than concealed carry and reduces risks to law enforcement.
But the residents of other Home Rule communities have an equal right to say that they don’t want guns in their parks, playgrounds, schools, and day care centers.
A better idea on this issue would be to target carry legislation to those who might ostensibly need to travel with a gun — victims of domestic violence and those with court orders of protection.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:07 am
–The other side of this, of course, is that even if the Cook County Sheriff decides not to issue any concealed carry permits, those with permits who live in other counties could still come to Chicago with their concealed weapons.–
In the interests of compromise, I’d support a “may issue” law that doesn’t include the above. I think communities should be able to opt out of allowing conceal carry within their borders.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:08 am
If this is true:
“The other side of this, of course, is that even if the Cook County Sheriff decides not to issue any concealed carry permits, those with permits who live in other counties could still come to Chicago with their concealed weapons.”
Then this is a very reasonable compromise. I would also like to see something that makes sure that ALL sheriffs are directly elected by and accountable to the citizens in their jurisdictions to make sure that some other elected official is not imposing his will on the sheriff.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:09 am
I can agree with this if there is an appeal process that would allow the State Police to take a second look at the application, but in any event I don’t see how this will work. I just believe that having criminals walking around with loaded weapons, while the average citizen is unarmed, is bad policy. The opposition to conceal carry always talks about the “minimal training”, most gun owners go the the shooting range pretty frequently, some probably more than most police officers. The “training” associated with obtaining a permit is geared towards educating people on the law and their responsibilities, the shooting part is just to make sure they are competent with the weapon. It really doesn’t take much training to learn to handle a gun, after about 500 rounds at the range, you know what you are doing and are pretty proficient. We aren’t talking about people shooting at a criminal 100 ft away, or even 50 ft away, more than likely it would be at close range where you don’t need to be accurate, you will hit your target. And even this event would be very unlikely, gun owners know that, but the option to defend oneself should be there.
Comment by tak1885 Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:11 am
It doesn’t sound ideal; but it does sound like a reasonable compromise for the present with hopes it could be improved after everyone realizes the sky didn’t fall.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:21 am
What standards would a sheriff be required to follow in making the decision? Can anyone really want JCAR debating rules on this issue? Can a town by town or county by county variation really work? I don’t think so. I can’t imagine a Cook County judge entering a conviction against a licensed downstater who didn’t realize he could, for example, carry (on the south side of Golf Road) in Niles but not in Glenview (the north side).
I oppose the loophole because I oppose allowing anyone other than law enforcement to carry a concealed weapon. That said, I also think it would be impracticable to implement.
Comment by Draznnl (Rhymes with orange) Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:24 am
Forget about allowing concealed weapons. Strengthen the registration laws and the penalties for possession of an unregistered firearm.
Comment by WhyMe Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:27 am
Would a law like this open all 102 sheriffs in the state to litigation if they deny anyone a concealed carry permit? It sounds permissive, but it could quickly become just the opposite.
Comment by Elo Kiddies Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:30 am
The underlying concept of concealed carry (i.e. we need to arm the citizenry in public places) is flawed. Delegating the decision authority to county sheriffs only makes a bad policy more arbitrary.
Comment by Louis Howe Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:31 am
This would only make a bad idea (1 million gunman march) worse so lets give this the heave ho!
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:41 am
The problem lies with the rules each Sheriff accepts: Sheriff of JoDavies Co trains, qualifies & issues a permit to John B. John now drives through Stephenson Co, Winnebago, Boone, McHenry and eventually into Cook Co where the Sheriff refuses to honor any county qualification/permits except for those he issued in Cook. John gets arrested in Cook for UUW.
Instead of 1 law, we would have a “suggestion” and 102 variations of it, assuming no one travels outside his/her own county.
Comment by North of I 80 Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:41 am
The enforcement diffiulties of a Kane County licensee carrying in Cook, where the Sheriff doesn’t issue CC, is huge.
Someone said it earlier…maybe Wordslinger…if it came to this as a choice, I’d prefer to see open carry. At least that way I know when I should cross the street and stay away from someone that’s packin’.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:42 am
So if Cook County says ‘No’ and Crawford County says ‘Yes’, I assume that means a concealed carry in Cook would be legal if I have a Crawford permit. Sounds like a business opportunity in the same vein as the recent sales tax office fiasco and medical marijuana. How soon would a CC permit shop open in Crawford?
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:51 am
I am about as neutral as it gets on concealed-carry legislation. As such adding local discretion to it (from an elected position, no less) does not seem to me to have any downside.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:54 am
@Mongo -
I threw open carry out there for a number of reasons.
The current bill allows concealed weapons in places with liquor licenses. If someone with a gun is throwing back tequila shots with his buddies while eating appetizers and watch his Cubs lose to the Cardinals, as a Cards fan I’d kind of like to know.
Secondly, if I’m wife and I take our seven month olf to the park to play on the swings, I’d really like to know how many dudes with guns are hanging out there…time to find a new park.
Finally, if the goal of a new carry law is to deter violence, what better way for citizens who buy that idea to prevent themselves from becoming a victim then by slapping on their sidearm where everyone can see it?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:56 am
Half a loaf is better than no loaf, which is what we have ow.
If part of the state got concealed carry, and no wild west mayhem resulted, it might be easier to expand it over time.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:01 am
In the spirit of compromise, the time to make speeches about compromise would have been a few years ago when gun owners were in a position to benefit from a compromise and many were ready to accept it. Compromises on RTC were offered not all that long ago, despite the fact that it caused some division in the gun-rights movement. Part of the reason you see such unified work across so many gun-rights groups now is because those differences had to be hashed out. I just don’t see may-issue being on the table, and I’m happy about that. It shouldn’t be. There’s no reason for Illinois gun owners to accept that.
Again, if this comes down to the courts, and the federal courts order Illinois to create some kind of legal allowance for right-to-carry, are they going to write that order in such a way that it will be acceptable to create a scheme whereby 5.2 million out of 12.8 million people are automatically disqualified just because they live in Chicago. The whole point of the McDonald v. Chicago decision was that Chicago is NOT immune to the 2nd Amendment. There are probably things they’re allowed to do according to the courts–sensitive places and all the rest–but continuing to deny a constitutional right altogether isn’t on the list.
Comment by Don Gwinn Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:02 am
YDD,
“If someone with a gun is throwing back tequila shots with his buddies while eating appetizers and watch his Cubs lose to the Cardinals, as a Cards fan I’d kind of like to know.”
I believe you have an unreasonable fear of Buffalo wings.
;-{)>
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:02 am
Curses . . . undone by a question mark.
Comment by Don Gwinn Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:04 am
I would not support this law because I would want the same right to conceal/carry that other localities would have. Since we have the Second Amendment, I don’t see how some localities would be allowed to have conceal/carry but others would not.
I joined the ISRA last year, when Chicago’s handgun ban was struck down. I found it utterly hypocritical that Mayor Daley, a legal handgun opponent, had taxpayer-funded armed security while I had no right to own a legal handgun for protection.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:06 am
YDD I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the parks you and your wife frequent will have a statistically insignificant number of attendees who carry firearms regardless of whether concealed-carry passes. As do my own, which speaks to my apathy on the subject.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:08 am
What happens when the sheriff that allowed CC is voted out the next election and the new guy is against it? Does this mean a potential change in policy every four years?
Comment by Bulbous 1 Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:12 am
–Since we have the Second Amendment, I don’t see how some localities would be allowed to have conceal/carry but others would not.–
That certainly has been the historical practice in the United States.
From Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller:
“Like most rights, 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 … The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:14 am
==What happens when the sheriff that allowed CC is voted out the next election and the new guy is against it? Does this mean a potential change in policy every four years?==
My question is the same.
Either allow CCW with very few exceptions, or do not allow it at all. The more exceptions, the more confusing & silly it all becomes.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:30 am
Word once again you selectively quote the opinion. The carry ban reffered to was upheld because there was a provision in the law for open carry. And the cpurt found that so long as one was allowed, the other could be restricted, but they had to allow something.
And it seems that the Puerto rico courts get the point:
http://volokh.com/2011/05/10/puerto-rico-intermediate-appellate-court-apparently-recognizes-a-second-amendment-right-to-carry-guns-in-public-places/
I suggest you go read state v reid that was cited by scalia in heller which laws the foundation that they must allow something:
http://www.alabamaopencarry.com/docs/statevreid.pdf
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:30 am
I formerly owned a small retail business where one of my responsibilities was to take the cash to the bank. I would have strongly considered carrying a handgun for protection on my bank run. I’m not planning on packing heat every day, but reasonable self defense should be legal.
Comment by Chefjeff Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:30 am
A terrible idea. The basic, ancient right to possess and carry arms is not conditioned on the arbitrary thoughts of an elected, government servant. People in favor of the right to carry should stand tall and not bend to the whims of the anti-gun lobby.
Comment by Ponder This Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:35 am
I can see the bureaucracy this multitude of different laws for different counties would create, plus the expense of tracking down who is and who isn’t allowed to carry in any one place. Make the law state wide or forget it.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:37 am
My rights are comprised enough living in Chicago, so no.
Comment by Skorpius Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:06 pm
*compromised.
It is well past time to quit blocking this. We have actual issues to take care of in this state, like the budget, perhaps.
Comment by Skorpius Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:08 pm
I would not support the “sheriff approval” exception unless the sheriff’s decision is governed by disclosed criteria and the sheriff must explain a refusal in writing within a set period of time. A full appeal process possibly to the courts should be required. I’m uncomfortable walking to the trian in the south Loop if I work late. Some neighborhoods have already been constructively abandoned by the Chicago police. And the economy is not going to get better, so the liklihood of fewer and fewer police except in wealthy and/or clouted areas will increase. Fewer police and a lousy economy will engender more crime. People need a legal option to protect themselves.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:08 pm
=== A terrible idea. The basic, ancient right to possess and carry arms is not conditioned on the arbitrary thoughts of an elected, government servant. ===
Ah, yes, Camelot…where every serf enjoyed their Gog-given right to a lance, platemail, broad sword and trusty steed.
Lawmakers are not bending to the whim of the anti-gun lobby, they are bending to the whim of the 65% of Illinois voters who oppose allowing Joe Citizen to carry a loaded, concealed gun, including 57% of self-identified Republican voters and 62% of self-identified conservatives.
Ask voters whether they think those guns should be allowed in parks, zoos, hospitals, schools and day care centers and I’ll bet the numbers scream even higher.
Now, I’m not saying that just because its an unpopular idea its a bad idea — I believe in minority rights.
But let’s not blame the public opposition on the “anti-gun lobby,” which ain’t exactly a powerhouse in Illinois or the U.S.
Note that they couldn’t even re-enact the assault weapons ban when there was a Republican in the White House who supported it, and gun control is DOA on Capitol Hill even after one of their own beloved members barely survived an assassination attempt.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:13 pm
Honestly I think that this would be inappropriate. The Sheriff’s job is to enforce the laws. Not pick and choose between which he/she wants to enforce. I honestly see this as a political cop-out for legislators who are afraid to pass this legislation…even though there are plenty of real life examples upon which to base their decisions.
Comment by A.B. Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:17 pm
@Dirt Digger -
You obviously haven’t been to my neighborhood.
More importantly, the clear intent of the bill IS to encourage guns in public parks, otherwise they wouldn’t have banned them only in “gated amusement parks,” which, by the way, does not include the Lincoln Park Zoo.
Or the Museum of Science and Industry for that matter.
And if you don’t think out-of-town dads are going to be packing the heat when they head to downtown Chicago with their family for the weekend, you don’t understand the mythology of Chicago in rural Illinois.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:19 pm
Yes, I would support May-Issue legislation - and I would actually prefer it, despite being well to the right of this issue. Points:
1) It makes it confusing for police officers? God forbid they have to go and learn the laws they are supposed to be enforcing.
2) It is confusing for permit-holders? If they can’t care to learn the laws of the county they are in, they should have their permit revoked anyhow.
3) Cross-county concerns? Look to California *gasp* for a template to deal with these issues.
4) Inconsistent policy application? Honestly, I would prefer a first-year deputy to have the right to refuse to issue a permit “because the guy was a little creepy.” One in ten thousand permit holders will ever commit a crime, but if one in a hundred thousand was declined the application because of a gut reaction, that single event could save the whole program.
Comment by JN Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:24 pm
I voted no; the CC promoters failed to sway me or make a case that CC is more benefit than hazard to the general public.
Comment by Gregor Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:26 pm
YDD,
You know as well as I that the poll results are really dependent on how the question is asked. In a March poll of nearly 1000 Illinois voters, when asked,
” Would you support a law that would allow trained, law-‐abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and family from harm?”
By a large margin the answer was yes.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:27 pm
1. I go to the same church as my sheriff, and he does not like me. If he denies my permit, what then?
2. How many permits do you think that Dart is gonna approve? Come on, now…
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:33 pm
yello dog Dem _ where are you getting your 65% of the people don’t want it. Quite ironically of people whom I’ve asked ” do you think a woman should be able to legally protect herself from a sexual attacker with a loaded handgun after proper background checks and proper training or do feel she should have the right of self protection denied, lay there and take the rape and then call the police for a discription” 100% stated yes a woman should have the right to protect herself.
Comment by Harley Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:34 pm
===From Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller:===
Show-off.
While I think this is a reasonable compromise in terms of politics, it would make enforcement an absolute nightmare. I voted “No” because I can’t in my right mind support concealed carry in any way, shape, or form. I’ve knocked on too many doors, made too many phone calls, and as a result, met too many lunatics to feel comfortable with them being armed at the grocery store.
In defense of the proponents of concealed carry, I wouldn’t mind having the right/privilege of carrying, but I wouldn’t want anyone else to. It is kind of like speed limits, I think they should apply to everyone but me.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:37 pm
@Gregor:
>>>>I voted no; the CC promoters failed to sway me or make a case that CC is more benefit than hazard to the general public.
Please re-read the question. You still voted for Right-To-Carry.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:39 pm
@YDD
>>>>And if you don’t think out-of-town dads are going to be packing the heat when they head to downtown Chicago with their family for the weekend, you don’t understand the mythology of Chicago in rural Illinois.
It’s not mythology, it’s canon.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:40 pm
YellowDog, we don’t allow fundamental rights to be gutted by popular rule.
As for may-issue, that is just a polite version of Jim Crow. The 33% white population in Chicago are largely crapping their pants that the 66% non-white population might be carrying.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:40 pm
@WhyMe:
>>>>Forget about allowing concealed weapons. Strengthen the registration laws and the penalties for possession of an unregistered firearm.
This thread is all about HOW to allow concealed firearms.
&& What are the state laws for registering firearms?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:45 pm
“YellowDog, we don’t allow fundamental rights to be gutted by popular rule.”
Sure we do, Lawson. Ever hear of slander? Fundamental right, gutted. Lobbying restrictions. The list goes on. The whole “fundamanental right so we can do whatever we want” argument pretty much means you don’t have a clue in the world as to how courts look at fundamental rights.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:57 pm
To marry that idea to an investigation going on in the McHenry County Sheriff’s Office, you ain’t gettin a permit if you have brown skin or your last name ends in a “z”. However, your application will say you are “caucasian” if that is any benefit to you.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 12:59 pm
I could support this. Having an elected official who’s on the hook to the voters if the licensee misbehaves with his weapon is a good idea. Also, in the smaller counties, where folks tend to know each other (or at least of each other), this could be a good way of keeping such licenses away from those who, by disposition, shouldn’t have them.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:06 pm
#
–The 33% white population in Chicago are largely crapping their pants that the 66% non-white population might be carrying.–
That hasn’t been my experience. But how is conceal-carry a racial issue?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:10 pm
A bit of a head’s up: If you write pro-gun IN ALL CAPS, it makes the pro-gun people look pretty insane. That’s not helping your cause.
Just saying.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:13 pm
cermak_rd huh? The bill as written already provided for that. The sherrif could deny recomendation based on personal knowledge that may or may not be on record. The only difference this poll poses is if the decision stops at the sheriff on his whim instead of going on the the state police where it is shall issiue PROVIDED that they met all criteria INCLUDING Sherriff aproval
Comment by Harley Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:16 pm
rich you’re such a little wiener about comments on your blog. this isn’t homework, you’re not a teacher.
Comment by anon Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:18 pm
@David Lawson -
If the right to carry a loaded handgun for self-protection IS a fundamental right, let’s stop disabling the black community from protecting themselves by using minor felony convictions for non-violent drug possession as a pretense for denying tens of thousands of Illinoisans the right to protect themselves.
Honestly, whether you believe that drug use should or should not be criminalized, ex-offenders have by definition paid their debt to society and should be entitled like anyone else to protect themselves.
A conviction nine years ago should not strip them of that right.
Lest we forget, gun control legislation has its roots in efforts throughout the South to restrict the access to guns for African Americans both before and after the Civil War.
Following the Nat Turner Slave Rebellion, Virginia enacted legislation prohibiting free blacks from owning any firearm, gun powder or bullets.
Tennessee wnet so far as to amend their state Constitution to restrict the Second Amendment rights to whites.
While the Civil Rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution clearly prevent such de jure discrimination against African Americans, the current regimen of gun control laws that restricts access to firearms for EX-offenders has been enacted largely with the support of the NRA and has had the de facto effect of disarming the African American community.
And given the history of violence against black Americans from East St. Louis visiting Belleville, O’Fallon and neighboring white communities, for example, I think ensuring that every black man in East St. Louis who wants to ought to be able to walk down the streets of Belleville with a .32 strapped to their belt, just not concealed in their coat.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:18 pm
I had to cast a no vote on this.
Now I may be swayed to favor if the residents of the state were able to submit an application in any county, even those in which they do not reside, so long as the permit would be valid throughout the state.
In such a case, all of the income generated other than that which would be used to upgrade the state system, would go to only the issuing county.
Comment by The Good Lieutenant Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:19 pm
Yellow Dog, I agree with respect to minor felony convictions. You’d have to correct Federal law as well as Illinois and Chicago law if you want to do anything about that.
Skeeter, slander and libel laws are analogous to armed robbery and murder. Those are not prior restraint but punishment for an act committed. If you want to analogize to speech, you have to compare the ban on carrying with sewing someone’s mouth up to prevent slander.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:31 pm
Word, it is racial when the law only applies in areas with the highest concentration of non-whites in the state.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:32 pm
The problem with this is there are no criteria for determining if the denials are fair; it alos allows certain criminal organizations to provide support to the local sheriff in exchange for a permit.
The permits should be overseen by the folks who determine if you can be a sworn police officer, and fall under a uniform system. If a locality wants to ban conceal carry under home rule authority add that to the Statute, thus allowing them to ban all conceal carry in their jurisidiction.
Besides put this inj place and people will just buy mailboxes in a small county where the sheriff will approve all the permits. What works for skating taxes works for friendly sheriffs and conceal carry permits.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:33 pm
We need a statewide law. Allowing sheriffs to issue permits it much like the old law that Illinois had in the 1920s when constables were able to issue concealed carry permits.
One law, one rule, one state.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:38 pm
@Lawson -
You can’t just gloss over the fact that the restrictions on gun ownership for ex-offenders were supported by the NRA.
And they will STAY in place until the NRA pushes to remove them.
Until then, ANY push for carry laws — concealed or otherwise — is a clear effort to arm whites while leaving blacks and latinos disarmed.
Why? Because in Southern Illinois, all you have to do is contribute to the state’s attorney’s charity and you don’t get a felony conviction.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:42 pm
Actually, Lawson, you can get an injunction to prevent ongoing slander.
And lobbyists need to register.
Seriously, do some reading. The argument is ridiculous.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:43 pm
The chips have fallen where they are which I don’t agree with. However this is a dumb idea in my mind.
Comment by Palatine Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:48 pm
If what our Governor calls them “concealed, loaded handguns”are so terrible.We could go disarm the police and have a system like the British, Call for weapons carrying officers when they need them. Why do we want off duty law enforcement officers to carry them. Why don’t we have them locked in a safe when the officers are off duty. Why does the Governor need Executive protection carrying “concealed, loaded handguns”. Why does the retired Mayor Handgun control Dailey need a security detail carrying “concealed, loaded handguns”. OK so we have a double standard. John Q Public an African American living on the south side of Chicago, has no way to protect himself from the gangs who have firearms. But Retired White, Richard Dailey has a armed security detail with “concealed, loaded handguns”.
Comment by Bob Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:50 pm
OK, enough with the back and forth. Move along.
Also, to those who think that “fundamental rights” can’t be limited, you need to read a book or two. Grow up.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:56 pm
@Skeeter:
It’s my understanding that Mr Lawson has a reasonable working knowledge of our courts view fundamental civil rights.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:57 pm
I keep hearing all of the “possible” scenarios where a permit holder becomes Jesse James. The imperical evidence suggests just the opposite. In fact, one scientific study (not all of them are) shows a measurable decrease in violent crime in counties that permit concealed carry.
Comment by Springfield Skeptic Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 1:58 pm
YDD. I cant remember supporting a penalty enhancement that didnt deal with guns. I haven’t advocated for stronger drug penalties that i can recall.
But i have worked on reforming the relief system to all for the restoration of rights. And i did testify in favor of a bill to take the felony question off of state employment apps and such. It was a bill by Rep. Ford
So I’m not sure where you get this NRA trying to keep african americans from owning guns. Your a bit off the mark. Seems we are the ones trying tomhelp Otis, Shawn and the rest while Daley and others attempt tom keep them dissarmed
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 2:09 pm
Rich,
I just voted no in your poll. Not because I am against Conceal and Carry; but because I believe it is a constitutional right and should allow any Illinois citizen who passes the background check and classes to carry a handgun unrestricted.
Comment by Jechislo Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 2:09 pm
I voted no - I worry to much power concentrated in the hands of someone who can arbitrarily determine if I have a right to CC. I suppose some protections can be built in but I think there is too much room for mischief. I wonder what is so special about a particular sherrif that he alone can determine who should be able to CC? How hard is it to determine if someone has passed the background check and has passed the requisite CC training course? What additional subjective criteria will the sherriff bring to bear?
I don’t like the idea that the city of Chicago could be exempt but understand that is done in other states. Is the whole sherriff thing done elsewhere? If so, how well is it doing?
Besides, I don’t see PQ agreeing to it anyhow.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Speaking of unreasonable phobias….
Caution, the family next to you on your next venture may be armed!
Just a thought…does everyone who posts their fears of concealed carry always stay in the confines of their homes in Illinois?
Illinois and Wisconsin are surrounded by States with gun totin’ folks who can legally carry. (Not to mention all the folks who carry illegally everywhere.) Any permit should be a state-wide law.
Comment by one day at a time Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 2:40 pm
YDD, thanks, just got back from work…I missed a lot it appears. I don’t like concealed carry and just to be clear, I don’t prefer carry. I don’t believe the courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment properly.
So I think this is a bad idea that would be like many compromises, unfulfilling to those with interests on all sides of the question.
Comment by Mongo Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 2:57 pm
@Todd -
I get that idea from the amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association in the Heller case, wherein the NRA argues that restrictions on gun ownership for felons are reasonable and do not violate the Second Amendment.
See page 22.
And frequent quotes like this one:
“Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America’s National Parks and wildlife refuges,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist.
(emphasis added)
I also think that its worth noting that under your bill, one misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana or another controlled substance would bar someone from getting a concealed handgun for ten years.
But you’d have to rack up TWO DUI convictions to be barred from getting a concealed weapon, and that bar only lasts five years.
Federal studies have shown that whites are much more likely than blacks to have drinking problems and alcohol-related arrests.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:00 pm
It seems to me that a conviction for driving under the influence — which shows a reckless disregard for the safety of others — should be treated much more harshly than possession of pot, if the goal of these regulations is to keep guns out of “the wrong hands.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:03 pm
Notice not a single person on this list made it to 65…
http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/em205pension061710.pdf_20100616_18_34_18_41.imageContent
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:22 pm
Dog
Sometimes compromises are made in writing bills. Alcohol is legal, other stuff isn’t but if it makes you feel better i can take that stuff out
The courts have lng viewed that you can loose your right to own a gun for a felony. We can have a debate on if that should apply to nonviolent felonies or not. But those are the rules the douet has delt us.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:31 pm
I voted no. I think if there’s going to be an opt out for certain areas, it shouldn’t just be for the people who reside there.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:33 pm
I can’t help find it sad seems many of you know the lobbbyest’ on this issue,as I do,many of you know the sponsors,as I do, are any of you really serious with a concern that they,as a group don’t have the”whole publics” best interest in mind come on folks!theres room for argument on every issue but as the saying goes “you kick a dog enough and he’ll bite you”, as Rep. Phelps said options may come to an end!!! I think its commendable that Todd-Rich-Jim and sponsors even bothers to listen!
Comment by railrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:39 pm
–I think its commendable that Todd-Rich-Jim and sponsors even bothers to listen!–
They’re trying to get a super-majority for a fundamental change that has a lot of opposition. Nobody hands you those wins.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:43 pm
No. I appreciate that Illinois is a diverse State, and that the rules of one region need to be different for another reason. That is why I have a problem with allowing the sheriff in Calhoun County approve a CC permit for someone who lives in Cook County. If they take that problem away, I would be on the fence again.
Comment by Not It Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:54 pm
Thankfully, word, I am not among those who have to slog it out in the legislative trenches. I am fully aware I don’t have what it takes to do that. I support what Todd is going and hope that he succeeds. I think eventually those law-abiding folk who wish to CC will have the right to do so, whether it is in Chicago or Cisne.
Frequently legislation is mangled to the point where the authors can’t even recognize it. It’s messy but there it is. I love a good brat but am not sure I want to be involved in making the sausage.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:55 pm
- Cincinnatus - Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:22 pm:
Sorry, wrong thread…
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 3:59 pm
For crying out loud, JUST PASS THE CONCEALED CARRY LAW.
For those of you who oppose it out of fear for what may happen, I hope you enjoy all of your vacations, shopping, and traveling to Wisconsin, the only other state like Illinois (and perhaps not for long). Don’t y’all realize that wherever you travel, people all around you may be packing? So that should throw your paranoia off the deep end and be enough information to keep you home forever.
Honestly, I never…………
Comment by Little Egypt Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:02 pm
There are certain Sheriff’s who will have the friends and family program in full effect, letting a lot of people in the program who should not be.
Comment by 3rd Generation Chicago Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:07 pm
Little Egypt,
Have you seen the conduct of our current Governor and GA? With these “cream of the crop” people as examples, can you blame anyone for being concerned about the average citizen’s behavior?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:19 pm
–Have you seen the conduct of our current Governor and GA? With these “cream of the crop” people as examples, –
What’s the point of those insults? You can disagree with people, quite strongly, without reducing their humanity.
There are plenty of tough problems, a lot of different opinions and, quite often, no good answers.
Maybe “cream of the crop” citizens like yourself should step in the arena and show us how it’s done.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:32 pm
I generally approve of concealed carry, the predicted bloodbath has simply not occurred in any of the multiple states where it has been passed. However, the permissive language makes no sense. First it will create a county by county referendum as one person runs on the “I Will” and one runs on the “I won’t” platform. As noted adjoining counties would not be affected by the decision in the county in question. It gets even further confusing when a “I will” sheriff gets replaced by a “I won’t”
Unfortunately this needs to be an all or nothing.
Comment by Robert0117 Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:33 pm
Why stop at concealed carry???
Let the local sheriff decide who can have a driver’s license, or fishing license, or own more than 2 dogs. Let the local sheriff decide who gets to buy booze, or own a chain saw. Let the local sheriff decide who can buy a hunting knife, or a spear gun, or an axe.
Comment by Damfunny Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:42 pm
Relax, wordslinger, relax.
Certainly in this thread there has been plenty of mud slung at the average joe. Reread this thread to see that people are saying that you and I are so irresponsible that we cannot be trusted with a concealed weapon. I would think that each and every one of us on this blog can be trusted. As can all of the law abiding citizens in the state.
Yet, the Governor, and his supporters in the GA, Daley and the rest think they know better than anyone. The meaning and common understanding of the 2nd amendment, and the recent SCOTUS rulings mean nothing to these people. They deserve our scorn, especially when they assume an arrogant posture. I heap it on them with relish.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:52 pm
Bad Idea.
Used to call them ” Special Deputies “. Sheriff’s friends and political donors had the right to carry guns. Local corruption at it’s best.
Comment by x ace Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 4:59 pm
It was local sheriffs who were some of the biggest abusers of civil rights in the Jim Crow South.
Comment by Read History Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 5:02 pm
@Little Egypt -
I used the exact same argument regarding marijuana, which Kentucky just decriminalized, but folks found it largely unconvincing.
I’m always skeptical of moral equivelancies, but I did find it a little karmic that just hours after they voted against allowing people with cancer and other chronic diseases to exercise their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, many of the same lawmakers argued for the rights of people to carry concealed weapons.
Is there a chance that both medical marijuana and concealed weapons could be used criminally? Certainly.
Is it true that criminals are not going to stop using marijuana or drugs just because these bills failed? Absolutely.
Is it easy to explain why you would support one but not the other? No.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 5:03 pm
YDD,
Marijuana and guns do share a similarity, it is only when their use causes trouble for others that they are a problem. It is the legality of the effect on others that should be subject to laws and scrutiny, not the actual item itself.
Legalize drugs and penalize things like DUI.
Legalize guns and penalize their use against others in situations not involving self-defense.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 5:11 pm
Cincy, I have no idea what you’re talking about. If the State of Illinois is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, then there’s relief in the federal courts, toot-sweet. A state law is meaningless.
The fact that a conceal-carry law, providing for a licensed activity, not a right, hasn’t been passed in Illinois reveals nothing more than it doesn’t have the votes, for whatever sincere reasons.
But if you have to demonize those who have a different opinion, well, whatever gets you through the day.
And seriously, if EVERYONE can be trusted with a concealed weapon, why would ANYONE need one?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 5:33 pm
Puuuuhleez.
We watch people demonize people, call them stupid and ill informed, question their motives etc, all the time on this board, Word. I try to never take such a cheap shot at our fellow posters, and normally restrain myself. But I don’t hold back on the elected officials in Springfield. And I notice Rich isn’t afraid to take a shot at them too, as he does with corporate overlords and many others (said realizing that this is his blog and with that comes certain prerogatives).
So please spare me about demonizing those with different opinions. While you tend to shy away from doing so, as I try to do too, many here don’t and some make it personal, implying that those who differ in opinion or sometimes just misspell a word, are illiterate.
This Governor is clueless, and we have seen any number of gaffs and ridiculous stands by the members of the GA. There is a serious lack of consideration of the individual by many people in Springfield. There are many in Springfield who feel, or at least act as they do, they know better than the market and the masses.
And just to be clear, I did not imply that everyone could be trusted. Re-read what I said, I said law abiding people.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 6:08 pm
for once i do agree with wordslinger and rich….take chicago/cook county out of the equation….pass it for the rest of us…then..instead of involving the state cops …let the sheriffs handle it like they do in other states and make it shall issue…im sure most people would be like me….i have the permit from a couple other states but never carry a gun unless im traveling..and then its just under my seat or on my nightstand at a motel…its just an option to protect my loved ones and myself….ill never understand how anyone can be opposed to that…
Comment by way south of chicago Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 7:54 pm
Years ago I worked as a reporter for a suburban Chicago daily newspaper. I clearly recall reading a note confiscated by a Chicago police officer who took an unlicensed handgun off a man. The note was from a Chicago alderman asking that the person be extended all courtesy and be allowed to carry the handgun.
I don’t know all the ins and outs of this law but I would be most concerned that certain nefarious types would be given the green light to carry handguns because they made the right political donation or know the right people. It’s a bad idea.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 10:39 pm
Anonymous, I believe the key word in your concern was ‘nefarious’. The nefarious don’t need a carry law whether ’shall’ or may’ issue. They will be carrying regardless. Shall-issue right to carry would simply level the playing field for the law abiding.
Comment by Also Anonymous Wednesday, May 11, 11 @ 11:23 pm
Anyone worried about EVERYONE getting a carry permit, ask yourselves, will your mother be rushing out to get one? What about Rich Miller? See, you worry for nothing.
Comment by Benny Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 12:03 am
I guess I made my point when they get taken down. Not exactly “fair and balanced reporting” if you get rid of comments just because they don’t agree with your opinion.
Comment by Chicago resident Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 12:36 am
–The note was from a Chicago alderman asking that the person be extended all courtesy and be allowed to carry the handgun.–
That scene was in “The Untouchables” and “Hoffa.” Both screenplays were by Chicagoan David Mamet.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 5:48 am
The 2nd Amendment of teh U.S. Constitution and Article 22 of the Illinois Constitution declare the we have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
We should not be required by law to have any permit or license or training to exercise our Civil Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Do we have or need goverment permission, licensing or trainging to exercise any other Civil Right? Should the government oversee and regulate our right to free speech? All laws restricting or penalizing those who choose to carry firearms should be struck down as unconstitutional and a violation of our Civil Rights.
Comment by Keith E. Turner Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 8:00 am
From anonymous:
The letter I read was part of a police report that I read in the 22nd District in Chicago. The Morgan Park District. There was an actual letter, no BS. Maybe the alderman saw the movie, I don’t know. I’d say it happened sometime in the early to mid 1990s. The police officers at the station thought it was pretty funny, as did the commander of the district. They used to let reporters read the reports in the “review office.” I don’t know if they still do that or not.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 8:57 am
Bad news, Keith:
“Should the government oversee and regulate our right to free speech?”
It already happens. Every day. As a matter of routine.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 9:05 am
>>>Do we have or need goverment permission, licensing or trainging to exercise any other Civil Right?
You need an FCC license to broadcast in the radio spectrum, with exceptions.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 10:10 am
If you can’t pass the tests and a background check you can’t carry. Thats how it is. Lots of people wont pass. Good enough for me. I know a lot of people think that everyone should carry if they want. Lot of people are not fit to carry. Sheriffs will get their chance to object to an app even if they do pass. I have faith that the wrong people wont be getting permits.
Comment by Jeff from Bourbonnais Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 1:27 pm
MAy issue is currently being challenged in the courts. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have the fundamental right of self defense. That doesn’t end when I leave my home. In fact thats when I need it the most.
Comment by Sigma Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 3:23 pm
The point is that law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves, period. Not that law adiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves after getting the blessing of another subjective official who may or may not have the same views, or may not like the color of your skin, what street you live on, or where you work.
Comment by john Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 3:52 pm
I think the solution is to eliminate Cook County from the state of Illinois completely. I would like to actually vote in an election where my vote really counted.
Comment by jjacob Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 4:09 pm
–The point is that law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves, period. Not that law adiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves after getting the blessing of another subjective official who may or may not have the same views, or may not like the color of your skin, what street you live on, or where you work.–
When it come to firearms, though, that, of course, has not been the American experience from Day One. Firearms restrictions are as old as the Republic.
Somehow, in 2011, to some, there’s been a discovery that conceal carry is a right? Where’d that come from? Read Judge Posner on that position. He’s one of those wacky U of C conservatives.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 12, 11 @ 4:15 pm