Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Anti gun coalition tries to remind legislature about opposition

Posted in:

Illinois

* A new coalition says it wants Illinois to remain the only state that doesn’t allow some form of concealed carry law…

“I can’t fathom the idea of going to the mall and just thinking that under that coat over there, or in that purse, there might be a weapon,” said Ald. Ricardo Munoz of the 22nd Ward. “We cannot allow concealed carry to be the law of the land.”

Coalition members cited pressure from the National Rifle Association and gun-rights activists across Illinois for their growing concern. They worry state lawmakers could attempt to push through a law during the legislative veto session that starts this week.

With 36 lame duck legislators, the General Assembly is ripe for last-minute deals between outgoing lawmakers and those willing to trade votes to ensure majorities on other issues, said Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin.

“While we don’t expect that the concealed carry bill will come up, it may because there will be a lot of horse trading going on in the final days of this old General Assembly,” he said. “We need to remind those who have stood with us that they need to stay fast with us and make sure that we oppose concealed carry.”

Suffredin is right that the bill is not expected to come up. But he’s also right that there will be some serious horse trading in the coming weeks. So, from his perspective, this move was probably prudent.

* More…

Valinda Rowe, spokeswoman for gun-owner advocacy group Illinois Carry, acknowledged that there is a divide between Illinois’ urban and rural residents on gun control issues. But she said her statewide organization’s constituents come from all walks of life.

“Our members are made up of all different political backgrounds - we have conservatives, we have liberals, we have libertarians, that all support the Second Amendment,” Rowe said. “We’re not talking about mentally ill people or those who are a danger to themselves or others. We’re talking about law-abiding citizens.”

The house bill would require gun owners to obtain concealed carry licenses and take firearm safety courses. It would also prohibit concealed weapons in most government buildings, including schools and libraries. The bill fell six votes short of the required three-fifths majority in a house vote in May.

Try very hard to stay civil in comments, please. I took a quick look at some of the comments on stories in other publications about this development and some were downright bizarre. We don’t want that here.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:35 am

Comments

=“I can’t fathom the idea of going to the mall and just thinking that under that coat over there, or in that purse, there might be a weapon,” said Ald. Ricardo Munoz of the 22nd Ward.=

Does Mr. Munoz never travel to any of the other 49 states? These are the type of ridiculous scare tactics that prevent us from ever having a legitimate discussion of this issue.

Comment by East Sider Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:46 am
While I’d love for this to happen, there’s no way concealed carry will become law in Veto. Regardless of how many votes it would get in a theoretical horse trade deal, the Governor holds the key since he can hold off acting on it until the 97th GA adjourns and then pocket veto it without a chance for override like he did with some other bills 2 years ago. And he’s not going to participate in a horse-trade deal to sign it with his previous opposition and support from Chicago.

Comment by EW Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:48 am
Three-fifths votes are hard to come by on controversial issues. I suspect the gun lobby has more confidence about winning in court than they are in a legislative victory.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:51 am
I would like to know, seriously, why there is no push for open carry. The person with an openly displayed firearm would achieve their goal of warning off potential miscreants and have easier access to their firearm. Why the focus on hidden weapons?

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:51 am
If and when the judicial avenue fails, then the gun lobby might finally be willing to seriously negotiate and compromise. That might mean exempting Cook County, for example, or it might mean agreeing to a one-handgun-a-month law, neither of which they would agree to unless they had no other choice.

Comment by reformer Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:54 am
The primary problem in the concealed carry debate is that reasonable regulations are never enough for either side.

Too many on the gun control side believe that the ideal endgame is a total firearms ban. Too many on the gun rights side believe that any regulations are an unacceptable infringement of their liberties. And each side thinks the other is controlled by a bunch of cuckoo-bananas zealots.

And they’re both right.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:55 am
@Pot calling kettle,

Gun rights advocates push for concealed carry in the belief that if the baddies know that some people are armed but don’t know which people are armed, then the baddies won’t victimize anyone because they don’t know who’s armed.

And because we all recognize that violent criminals are reasonable people with strong problem-solving skills.

– MrJM

Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:02 am
Ald. Ricardo Munoz of the 22nd Ward. “We cannot allow concealed carry to be the law of the land.” Poor man, guess he will never ever be able to travel anywhere in our great country for his fear of guns.

Comment by Sgtstu Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:04 am
Wait a second, doesn’t Ald. Munoz already have the right to carry a concealed weapon?

Just sayin’

Comment by Fight for Hyde Park Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:09 am
Dear New Coalition: Al. Ricardo Munoz….really? be smarter, please.

Comment by amalia Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:09 am
Wish there were a way to carve up state policy along the urban/downstate divide. Neither side understands the other’s position, so why not concealed carry in Effingham and a ban in Chicago?

Comment by Ray del Camino Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:12 am
–Wish there were a way to carve up state policy along the urban/downstate divide.–

There is. But proponents don’t want to go there. Their choice.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 10:57 am
=== Wait a second, doesn’t Ald. Munoz already have the right to carry a concealed weapon? Just sayin’===

Excellent point!

Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 11:17 am
Same old same old. I have a friend whose parents moved to the North Shore a few years ago from Indiana where they had previously lived their entire life. They are scared that if a concealed carry law passes that there would be people around them in the grocery store carrying concealed firearms. They simply cannot be convinced that their previous home state has allowed concealed carry for decades.

Comment by Confused Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 11:41 am
I hate the idea of people walking around carrying guns, but I don’t have any proof that conceal carry makes gunfights more likely. So gun people–you have my very lukewarm support for reasonable carry laws.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 11:42 am
I have been an avid gun-owner and shooter all of my life, but i have always thought the idea of people running around with concealed weapons is just nuts. I know too many fellow shooters who have more than a few looses screws! However, I am also outraged that Chicago aldermen (As questionable a class of persons as any in this state) have a right to carry concealed weapons and the rest of us do not. It similarly outrages me that off-duty cops (Off duty, get it?) can stroll inot their favorite saloon with a piece under their coats and the rest of us cannot. So here is a proposal: Maintain the ban of carrying concealed weapons in this state, but apply it to absolutely everyone, no exceptions. That would suit me just fine.

Comment by Skirmisher Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 11:47 am
I just hope that there would be an opportunity to look at what California, or New York do with their concealed carry laws. As hyper sensitive as many conservatives are on the issue, its nearly as bad on the anti right to carry crowds part. I know I might be expecting too much, but it would be nice to have a bill debated that starts with a compromise approach, such going to a county by county right to carry. Or exempting cook. Many people downstate already carry despite the law, and there have not been any OK Corrals break out.

Comment by John A Logan Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 11:56 am
==i have always thought the idea of people running around with concealed weapons is just nuts. I know too many fellow shooters who have more than a few looses screws! ==

Me too, but the reality is that other states have concealed carry and there has been no real effect on gun violence either way. That said, if the government wants to regulate something, the burden of proof is on the regulators, not on individuals to show why they need a particular freedom. So even though I still think it’s nuts, I support concealed carry in Illinois.

Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 12:18 pm
I know we have talked this to death. It will all come down to horse trading and in the end conceal carry will pass with a very high price tag. Local schools paying pension costs for the teachers.

Comment by nieva Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 12:22 pm
If the women’s healthcare bills are going to continue to move thru the Ag Committee, let’s move the gun bills thru Human Services.

Just a thought.

Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 12:40 pm
“I can’t fathom the idea of going to the mall and just thinking that under that coat over there, or in that purse, there might be a weapon,” said Ald. Ricardo Munoz…”

What leads him to believe there aren’t already weapons under that coat or in that purse! Some people don’t follow the rules!

Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 12:56 pm
How about a Barney Fife law: Open carry state-wide. However, you get one bullet and you must keep it in your shirt pocket.

I heard an interview on NPR a few days ago. The folks were at concealed-carry training in Illinois but for a Utah permit so they could pack heat while traveling. One of the people expressed sincere concern about their personal safety at interstate highway rest stops. I understand the fear-based need for concealed carry, but is it based in reality?

What bothers me the most about this is the idea of scared people packing guns. It seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:03 pm
Kevin already said what I was thinking the moment I read this. Does the good Ald. Munoz not read the papers? People ARE carrying under their coat, purse, etc. At the risk of over-snark, does he think people are getting shot in Chicago (and elsewhere) WITHOUT guns?

@Pot calling kettle:

I have to ask, given that there is so much evidence around the 49 other states of what DOES happen, why does an “idea” of what might happen bother you? I agree it is a concerning thought, but so is the idea of defenseless people being shot or, in too many cases lately, massacred. I’m not posing this question to be snarky–it genuinely confuses me when people say something like that without making any reference at all to the other states that have blazed this path long ago. I don’t claim to have the stats at my fingertips anymore, but if I was on the fence or still unsure of my position on this, I could (and would) most certainly look it up.

My position is that, at some point, wild thoughts and ideas about what “might” happen have to give what to what actually “does” happen. The idea of of flying terrifies some people, yet stats seem to indicate it is safer than driving. Shouldn’t that should carry weight?

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:34 pm
–I have to ask, given that there is so much evidence around the 49 other states of what DOES happen, why does an “idea” of what might happen bother you?–

It’s not 49 other states.

That is, unless proponents want to adopt the Hawaii, New Jersey, or Maryland laws and then call Illinois a conceal-carry state. I’m cool with that.

The California, New York or Massachusetts laws would probably be a good fit for Illinois if proponents were interested in any kind of compromise.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:44 pm
Criminals don’t follow the law, so they are already walking around armed.

I know many law-abiding IL citizens who have CC licenses that are valid in most of the other 49 states. Some of them are carrying concealed as they work in their own (non-gun related) businesses and/or on their own property. Along with off-duty police, retired law enforcement (and a few others) can get a CC permit. So there is a very limited CC already in effect in Illinois. And there are legal methods of carrying an unloaded and encased firearm in such a manner it can be loaded and accessible in a few seconds … which is real close to CC. These people are already walking around this state and that isn’t going to change.

So I guess I really don’t see any difference in allowing legal CC except that people with the proposed IL CC license will actually have to have appropriate firearms training … and that would be a good thing.

But as far as legislation passing, I don’t see it happening. And even if it does, as others have expressed, Quinn would veto it one way or the other. As an IL citizen and gun owner, I expect some kind of carry, be it open or concealed, will be achieved though the courts long before the legislature concedes it.

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:48 pm
EW got it right.

I think some will be very surprised what happens in the new session. There will be no compromising on the issue in general.

This has a couple of ways to go. 1 we win the court of appeals and the state needs to act. 2 we lose the court of appeals, and we go to the supreme court, they take it and we win- we win the country.

3 We lose the supreme court and its back to square one. Ether way it should be settled by july 4th

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:50 pm
Pot Calling Kettle: Open carry could be one solution, but peer/professional pressure would cause problems: i.e. Open carry to a casual restaurant with a bunch of your friends-o.k.; same group of people to a children’s or formal event-not o.k. Politician at a rural picnic-o.k.; at a businessmen’s lunch-not o.k. Rural Road Commissioner working out on roads-o.k. (maybe, but in a low-crime area, in-town voters would wonder why the need); at a state convention with northern urban clerks, supervisors, and trustees in suits-not o.k.
Add to that, wearing a suit coat or sweater could conceal a weapon, making it illegal.
I am a firearms owner in a relatively safe area, and would like to be able to carry a loaded firearm in my car/truck, occasionally on my person, but knowing how many people feel about guns, I would prefer that they NOT know that I was armed …

Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:51 pm
The concealed carry law rights that most proponents support for Illinois, are simply NOT “in 49 other states”.

That’s a typical political falsehood. If you want to be taken seriously, stop constantly saying “in 49 other states”. It’s bull.

Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 2:00 pm
Todd, this is just my opinion, but there is one other scenario: Some urban legislators will actually look at the history of concealed carry in other states, look at the crime rates, and decide that they will support concealed carry for self-defense-with bans on carrying anything with over ten round magazines and strict controls on “assault rifles.”

They might have the votes for this, and Quinn might be persuaded to accept it (and it might even be veto-proof)-IF the current concealed-carry advocates are willing to accept the compromise.

Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 2:14 pm
@ Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 1:03 pm: What bothers me the most about this is the idea of scared people packing guns. It seems like an accident waiting to happen.

So, if I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen because I’m concerned about fire, is that also “an accident waiting to happen”? Don’t confuse being aware of a risk and taking preparations with being scared.

@ walkinfool - Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 2:00 pm: Why don’t you correct the assentation then? The fact is that all other states have at least some form of CCW. A few of those states make it very difficult to carry unless you have political rainbows shining from your butt, but the vast majority are more reasonable from the viewpoint of 2A advocates.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 2:27 pm
Todd, thanks for the insight and the timeline. It certainly explains your uncompromising position (and I don’t mean that in a bad way — it’s your business, not mine).

Do you really think you have 5 in the Supremes?

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 3:08 pm
Whoops, sorry about that walkinfool - assertation, not assentation. (What a difference one letter makes!)

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 3:09 pm
I consider myself a Democrat and I am for concealed carry. This is not an issue that is Democrats v Republicans. This is much more Big City v Small Town.

Comment by Nick Kruse Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 3:13 pm
“I can’t fathom the idea of going to the mall and just thinking that under that coat over there, or in that purse, there might be a weapon,” I’m sure that the person who beats someone half to death for their cell phone can’t fathom it either.

Comment by doomed in illinois Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 3:20 pm
I am told that if we prevail in the appeal, the other side is scared of taking it heller set the stage for the country and they don’t want to make the same mistake twice

I think we have 5 on SCOTUS and this is a very clean case to settle the in the home arguement as well as a few others

There are 6 carry cases pending in courts around the country it’s going to happen sooner or later

Comment by Todd Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 4:10 pm
If the “49 states” line is the weakest aspect of our argument, we’re sitting pretty good. The point remains that there should be plenty of data out there to use for rational arguments against concealed carry. That Ald. Munoz apparently cannot find any, and instead chooses scare tactics, is quite suspect.

If he wants to withhold certain rights from Illinois’ citizens–rights plentiful elsewhere in our nation–he better have more than raw emotion. There must be SOME downside to CCW, and corresponding data to reflect that, so why isn’t he using that?

Comment by Liandro Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 5:05 pm
The “49 states” argument is not mine. For those who make it, I assume you’d be cool with Hawaii’s law.

Because then, Illinois would be like the other “49 states.”

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 5:10 pm
I’m fine with Hawaii’s law.
What I’m not fine with is the administrative directives that turn a “shall issue” into “do not issue” state. Fortunately there are several lawsuits pending against these kind of administrative conceal carry bans.

Comment by Blue Dog Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 7:57 pm
Todd’s uncompromising rigidity demonstrates why concealed carry will not go the way he envisions in the time he suggests. Illinois will become, if anything, a New York or Hawaii state. And I heard the same sort of false presumptions of the SCOTUS regarding Obamacare. Read Roberts’ opinion again. He cut against concealed carry. Those same Justices you seem to think are in your pocket are even stronger proponents of state’s rights. The Supreme Court has recognized in many decisions that a state legislature’s inaction on an issue is, in fact and law, purposeful.

Comment by Springfieldish Tuesday, Nov 27, 12 @ 9:57 pm
I understand the focus on concealed carry. Open carry can be a bit of a shock to people, even pro 2A supporters.

When I’m in a state that allows open carry and see someone actually doing so, I sometimes have one of those “duh” moments, first thinking that it isn’t allowed and then realizing I’m not in Illinois but in another state where it is legal. It’s all a matter of what you are used to seeing … and I’m guessing that concealed would be less jarring to most people in Illinois..

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Nov 28, 12 @ 12:28 am