Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Phelps says he’s waiting for study before moving concealed carry

Posted in:

Illinois

* The truth is, he doesn’t have the votes…

The sponsor of a bill that would allow Illinois residents to carry concealed handguns is waiting for a task force to finish its work before calling the legislation for a vote.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said lawmakers want to hear what the Firearm Public Awareness Task Force will say about the impact concealed carry might have on public safety. The House created the task force after Phelps’ legislation, House Bill 148, was defeated.

The task force’s deadline is Dec. 31, but Phelps said he is ready to call the bill for a vote if the legislature holds a special session to consider pension legislation or the fall the veto session. […]

The chairman of the task force is Rep. LaShawn K. Ford, D-Chicago, who voted “present” on HB148. Ford did not return repeated calls asking for comment.

Maybe this task force will change some minds. Maybe not. The reality of the situation is that the NRA could’ve passed a bill that allowed counties to opt in, but it wanted the whole enchilada - meaning Chicago. That’ll be a tough sell, or at the least a very hard bargain with the city.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:12 am

Comments

This legislation would have to go past gov. Quinn? Would he just veto it again? I wonder if he would change his mind on concealed carry. That is unless the work is for veto override votes.

Comment by Levois Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:22 am
Look at the wilding going on downtown…
Seems to me like the people of Chicago need CCW more than those in Eldorado.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:23 am
Current suits in the 7th Circuit Court will prove out that the right to keep and bear arms includes: (wait for it)

the right to bear arms.

Illinois’ flat out ban on bearing arms for the populace will be deemed unconstitutional.

Will Phelps have the votes then?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:26 am
I would love for someone to explain why they didn’t go for the opt it. It have been a bird in hand for Phelps and Southern Illinois legislators, and still a victory. Is it because they wanted to keep this issue alive? They don’t have a lot of policy issues to run on besides conceal carry and hunting related statutes.

They play their animosity toward Chicago so much to the crowds, you would think they never go there anyway.

Comment by state worker Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:29 am
State worker: I think you’re right, opt-in was dropped to keep the issue (and fundraising) going instead of, you know, getting what they wanted for their constituents.

Comment by Colossus Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:43 am
After the 8 murders and 3 mob attacks in Chicago this past weekend shouldn’t it be time to have concealed carry? It should be.

Comment by John Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:44 am
== I would love for someone to explain why they didn’t go for the opt it. It have been a bird in hand for Phelps and Southern Illinois legislators, and still a victory. ==

There is no money in a cure for the NRA. Just money in treatment.

Comment by John A Logan Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:54 am
How can Illinois succeed from Chicago? Our state would be so so much better without Chicago. We could have Concealed and Carry. Get rid of the Chicago Mayor, The Govenor, and the Speaker of the House. Yes!

John Reif
Carrollton, Illinoios

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:54 am
===How can Illinois succeed from Chicago?===

The word is “secede.” You might want to learn how to spell before coming back here, Dixie. Thanks.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:57 am
“How can Illinois succeed from Chicago?”

I am of the opinion that our state wouldn’t “succeed” without Chicago. As it’s the economic engine that makes Illinois a major state, taking it out would resign the rest of us to living in the equivalent of West Virginia, and we all know how people are just breaking down the doors to move their.

Now, if you were asking about SECEDING, it is so difficult as to be virtually impossible. I think focusing on real solutions would serve you better than fantasies.

Comment by Colossus Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:00 am
Mr. Reif, we cannot afford to secede from Chicago-simple as that. Personally, while I understand the position of including Chicago, I’ll take the compromise-I never go to Chicago or Cook County, and have no intention of going there; meanwhile, the central IL counties I do go to will almost certainly all opt-in…

Comment by downstate commissioner Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:03 am
–Illinois’ flat out ban on bearing arms for the populace will be deemed unconstitutional.

Will Phelps have the votes then?–

Why would he need them?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:26 am
As far as the “secession” issue is concerned, I have a hard time believing that the Illinois counties cut loose from Chicago and the collar counties would not be far more prosperous and more aligned to each other culturally than they are with Chicago.

It would be likely that a new “South Illinois State” would be a right-to-work state. It would likely be much more free of regulation and corruption than the current embarrassment that Illinois has become.

Another idea worthy of consideration might be to divide the southern counties of Illinois between the states of Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana, all of which are much more in harmony with the Illinois counties which border them than Chicago is. Such a division would be a genuinely appropriate punishment for the government of the State of Illinois…..and a welcome kindness for the residents of the counties liberated in such a way.

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:27 am
–How can Illinois succeed from Chicago?–

Obviously, it can’t (I know, that’s not what you meant). Some folks down south think the only way they can succeed is with state payrolls from prisons and other facilities.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:32 am
JoeVerdeal, you’ve put way too much thought into what is, in reality, auto eroticism - to put it politely.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:33 am
If you believe civil unions a constitution right, you certainly would not have supported opt-in. Neither should right to bear arms folks.

Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:35 am
Auto eroticism??……Well…..now that you mention it…..’tis an idea that might possibly work in such a manner for quite a number of non-Chicago types. Might also be a pleasurable thought for more than a few Chicago volk.

I would be quite surprised if secession ever came to pass. I can dream, though….

Comment by JoeVerdeal Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 11:45 am
Concealed carry or open carry would be nice in Chicago. But, it’s not going to happen anytime soon no matter what a study says. The powers that be in Illinois and Chicago aren’t guided by science. So you will see more stories like this: that could be afforded.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-man-beaten-by-group-in-gold-coast-neighborhood-20120611,0,3063104.story?track=rss

Comment by Steve Bartin Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 12:26 pm
–I have a hard time believing that the Illinois counties cut loose from Chicago and the collar counties would not be far more prosperous and more aligned to each other culturally than they are with Chicago.–

So you prosperity in secession from the fourth largest metro economy on the planet? Interesting theory.

–Another idea worthy of consideration might be to divide the southern counties of Illinois between the states of Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana, all of which are much more in harmony with the Illinois counties which border them than Chicago is.–

What makes you think those states want to pay your bills and fund your state facility payrolls?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 12:53 pm
Chicago/Cook is not going to secede from Illinois — this is a silly discussion and not on-point.

That being said, as a Chicago resident, I think concealed carry would be beneficial and I want Chicago included in the legislation. I also think, from a practical matter, it might be too difficult to allow counties to opt-in/out — what happens when one crosses the border into a different county? What if they don’t realize they crossed into an opt-out county? And then we are going to get home rule municipalities that want to opt-out.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 1:18 pm
Wordslinger: >>>> Why would he need them? >>>>
Well, he wouldn’t need it then.
But if the existing UUW statutes concerning banning the bearing of arms are tossed, or enforcement of the same barred via injunction, then you can bet that there will clamoring for a permit system… from the other side!

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 1:39 pm
Cincinnatus-
If concealed carry is a “constitutional right”, you don’t need a statute. A lawsuit will get you what you want. If it’s not, then why not settle for opt-in in those areas that want it?

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 1:46 pm
I hope they continue to want the whole enchilada. I live downstate and see no reason for people to walk around with a hidden loaded weapon. I understand that some people want to, but it doesn’t mean they should.

Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 1:58 pm
–I also think, from a practical matter, it might be too difficult to allow counties to opt-in/out — what happens when one crosses the border into a different county?–

As a practical matter, even under the Phelps bill, you’ll have to do a lot of advance planning before you go packing on your daily business.

There are a number of public areas where you wouldn’t be able to carry a weapon, including churches, bars, gated parks, and any place politicians and judges meet (curious how that got in there, lol).

In addition, any private entity could ban weapons on its premises.

As a practical matter, the only place you could be sure to be in compliance at all times carrying your weapon would be in your car.

That might be the germ of a compromise, if anyone is interested in one (doubtful). Local units of government could opt out from conceal carry on the street, but permit-holders would not be criminally liable for having a concealed weapon in their car.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:00 pm
===…and we all know how people are just breaking down the doors to move their.===

Move their what? I love it when people get snarky correcting others and fail.

Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:06 pm
“…breaking down the doors to move their.”

It ain’t just the downstaters who can’t use proper English.

Comment by wishbone Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:19 pm
“It would likely be much more free of regulation and corruption than the current embarrassment that Illinois has become.”

Yeah, like say Louisiana. A model of non-corruption.

Comment by wishbone Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:25 pm
**–I also think, from a practical matter, it might be too difficult to allow counties to opt-in/out — what happens when one crosses the border into a different county?–**

Probably the same thing that happens when one crosses the bordered into a different state, with different gun laws.

Comment by dave Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:45 pm
re dave’s response:

or different speed limits or different cell phone laws or different helmet laws or…

Comment by state worker Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 2:58 pm
The scession arguement reall doesnt help push the CCW issue at all. And yes look what it would do for the corruption in this state. In the words of the late Paul Powell “You can not pass an ethics law that I can not get around”

Oh wait….where was he from agaon?

Comment by SO IL M Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 3:08 pm
JJJS:

With the exception of the attempts in Chicago, exactly where in Illinois has “bearing arms” been banned? I wasn’t aware you were prevented from having a gun in this state (with some exceptions for mental illness, etc.). Sorry, but you can’t count conceal carry as “banning” firearms because I’m not aware of anything that gives you that absolute right, at least not yet. Please enlighten me.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 3:22 pm
>>>>With the exception of the attempts in Chicago, exactly where in Illinois has “bearing arms” been banned?

What does “to bear arms” mean? It means to carry them, to have them at the ready. Except on your own property and with some exceptions, all ordinary citizens are prevented from bearing arms in Illinois. If I have a loaded handgun in my pocket or in a holster while in my yard, as soon as I step into the roadway I am a felon. If I have a loaded gun in my car, or merely a gun not encased, while I am out and about, I am a felon.

The other 49 states have some provision, whether applied fairly or not, for ordinary citizens to be armed for their self-protection.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 3:52 pm
===What does “to bear arms” mean? It means to carry them, to have them at the ready.===

I’m not sure that the US Surpreme Court, or any Illinois court for that matter, has arrived at the same conclusion.

To be clear here, I’m not against concealed carry. But you’re gonna have to get a court to agree with you before you flatly state that definition.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 3:55 pm
JJJS:

I agree with Rich. You haven’t been given a right to concealed carry yet. I don’t have an opinion one way or the other but quit claiming a right that has never been defined yet.

And, sorry, the “other 49 states argument” doesn’t work. States are allowed to have their own laws unless federal law prevails.

This isn’t 1789. Stop it with the phony “have them at the ready” argument. Ridiculous.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:12 pm
–The other 49 states have some provision, whether applied fairly or not, for ordinary citizens to be armed for their self-protection.–

Sigh. This is the point where I say…

“Introduce the Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, California, Massachusetts or Rhode Island laws in bill form and call the roll.”

Then we’ll be just like the other 49 states. Everybody happy?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:18 pm
What does “keep and bear arms” mean?

What does it mean to you?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:34 pm
**–I also think, from a practical matter, it might be too difficult to allow counties to opt-in/out — what happens when one crosses the border into a different county?–**

== Probably the same thing that happens when one crosses the bordered into a different state, with different gun laws. ===

=== There are a number of public areas where you wouldn’t be able to carry a weapon, including churches, bars, gated parks, and any place politicians and judges meet (curious how that got in there, lol). In addition, any private entity could ban weapons on its premises. ===

=== or different speed limits or different cell phone laws or different helmet laws or… ===

1. People cross into different counties on a fairly regular basis, often without being aware. While some people cross into different states on semi-regular basis too, generally speaking it is less regular, people are more aware when they do, and people generally understand that states have widely different laws.

2. People will generally know walking into a bar or church or whatever, that it is not allowed — those locations will probably also post signs. It is far easier to realize you are walking into a particular building rather than an invisible county line.

3. I don’t think helmet laws vary from county to county. Speed limits can, but there are state minimums and maximums and speed limit signs are well posted. Different cell phone laws in different munis/counties has become a very big problem in terms of understanding and enforcement — the Trib or Sun-Times did a piece on that recently — so, just cause something is done doesn’t make it good.

Comment by Just Observing Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:37 pm
Last friday the 7th Circuit court of appealstook up the challenge to the carry ban.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?dname=arg

Audio is here, case numbers 12-1269 & 12-1788. Moore/Shepard v madigan

By appearances the state did. Ot fare well and the neither of the nudges seemed to be buying their arguments. Listen and hear for your self. The states side starts about 22:40 in to the Moore case.

Phelps is working to make sure he has the votes. But in talks the goal posts seem tombe ever moving to try and secure a rock solid 71 votes.

As for the opt in, we wont treat a consitutional right that way. Either it is a right or it is not. And to answer Word’s question, if the UUW/AGUUW statute are tossed , we would have a defacto constitutional carry since they would not be able to enforce the ban.

Now ypu would have 102 states attorneys screaming cause they cpuldnt charge anyone, and if they did, everyone of them would be subject to the court of appeals ruling.

So the legislature would have to act to be able to give the SAs some charging authority and create a systemof allowing law abiding people to carry in public.

I dont believe we will go from the last state to pass a carry law to 1 of the 5 that have a constitutional /permitless carry state.

Just thepolitics and practical side.

But if we win this at the court of appeals, can u say special session?

Comment by Todd Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:50 pm
I hate typing on by ipad

State did not fare well. The judges were not buying their arguements

Comment by Todd Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 4:52 pm
Perhaps the court route will succeed. If not, cc legislation will not pass unless the gun lobby makes some concession to Rahm.

Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 7:28 pm
Just to give an example, what if Rahm would allow concealed carry in return for a purchase limit of one handgun a month? Each side would get something they want, but each side would accept something they dislike. Compromise is the name of the game.

Comment by reformer Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 7:37 pm
The ultimate effect of the flat out refusal of the elected officals that are supposed, to put the average citizens intrest first will be to cause the law bidding citizen to carry a weapon illeagly.
Think about it a bit, the bad guys got guns, the cops got guns, special intrest groups got guns (body guards, brinks guys etc) only the tax paying honest citizen is unarmed.
So they will out of pure survival start carrying guns. Thus turning them into felons because our Governor refuses to do what the people of this state demand he do.

Comment by Mander Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 8:47 pm
“But you’re gonna have to get a court to agree with you before you flatly state that definition.”

Actually Scalia noted that “bear” means carry in McDonald v. Chicago. Its only a matter of time before the supremes rule on this matter and Illinois will likely lose.

Comment by wishbone Monday, Jun 11, 12 @ 10:35 pm
=== “As a practical matter, the only place you could be sure to be in compliance at all times carrying your weapon would be in your car.”

Better think again if you are going to work and you park your vehicle on your employer’s property. Your employer can say otherwise. Especially if your employment relationship is ‘at will’ (i.e. non-union) then you essentially have to check any constitutional rights you think you may have at your employer’s door.

If you are employed ‘at will’ (which the vast majority of the workforce is) you have very few rights as an employee. There is no requirement for your employer to have probable cause or have a search warrant from the authorities if they want to for any reason (or no reason at all) want to demand a search of your vehicle. You could of course refuse but you will then most likely be promptly fired.

Comment by HGW XX/7 Tuesday, Jun 12, 12 @ 1:46 am
–Actually Scalia noted that “bear” means carry in McDonald v. Chicago. Its only a matter of time before the supremes rule on this matter and Illinois will likely lose. –

You’re not there yet on the 5-4 decisions. Heller overturned the ban of ownership of handguns in DC. McDonald basically applied it to the states.

From Heller:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Concealed weapons are not discussed. And Scalia acknowledges “sensitive areas” where weapons could be banned (like where he works, a government office).

If courts and government buildings protected by armed guards are too “sensitive” to allow citizens to carry weapons, I imagine the definition can be pretty broad.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jun 12, 12 @ 7:22 am
As I recall, Scalia said in Heller that the Second Amendment does not prohibit restricting concealed carry.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jun 12, 12 @ 7:56 pm
The legislation in the ILGA is for concealed carry, but the two lawsuits are over the unconstitutional UUW law that prevents any form of carry.

If the court issues an injunction barring enforcement of the UUW statute, would people be able to carry then?

How would you like the people of Illinois to be able to carry arms for their own protection?

Openly? Concealed? Concealed with a permit?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, Jun 13, 12 @ 7:15 am