Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Another look at Lisa Madigan’s numbers
Posted in:
* Lt. Governor Sheila Simon’s Firearms Working Group has released a “checklist” that it hopes the General Assembly will use when drafting a concealed carry bill. From a press release…
* Constitutionality: The concealed carry law must uphold the right to keep and bear arms, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.
* Basic Qualifications: Concealed carry permits should be issued only to adult residents of Illinois who hold valid Firearms Owner Identification Cards (FOID) and do not pose a danger to themselves or others.
* Funding: The concealed carry law should also create a fund made up of user fees in order to finance the concealed carry permit application and renewal process.
* Permitting Authority: The Illinois State Police (ISP) should be the permitting authority for concealed carry, and the ISP should maintain a database of permits issued.
* Local Input: County sheriffs and local law enforcement authorities should be allowed to provide the ISP with information about whether an applicant poses a safety risk if the applicant were allowed to carry a concealed firearm.
* Background Checks: Prior to issuing concealed carry permits, comprehensive criminal background checks should be conducted along with investigations into an applicant’s mental health history, record of substance abuse and history of domestic violence.
* Firearm Training: Concealed carry permit applicants should be required to complete firearm safety and live fire training prior to receiving and renewing permits.
* Permits: Lost, stolen or destroyed concealed carry permits should be reported to authorities in a timely manner.
* Sensitive Places: Concealed firearms should be prohibited in certain public places, such as schools, which is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court guidance. Private property owners should also be able to prohibit concealed weapons on that property.
* Violations: An applicant who violates the concealed carry law or makes material false statements on concealed carry permit applications should be subject to criminal penalties.
Your thoughts on these ideas?
* Members of the working group who support the checklist…
Sen. Melinda Bush (D-Grayslake), Sen. Tom Cullerton (D-Villa Park), Sen. Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago), Sen. Michael Hastings (D-Orland Hills), Sen. Andy Manar (D-Bunker Hill), Sen. Julie Morrison (D-Deerfield), Sen. Steve Stadelman (D-Rockford), Sen. Patricia Van Pelt (D-Chicago), Rep. Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago), Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch (D-Hillside), and Rep. Kathleen Willis (D-Addison).
A couple of Downstaters are on that list, including Andy Manar, who may have some statewide ambitions.
Another takeaway for me is that the announcement makes clear that quite a few liberal Democrats have come to the conclusion that a concealed carry bill has to pass. They’re not sticking their collective heads in the sand and hoping the issue goes away.
Cunningham moved to the Senate from the House and Manar was the Senate Democrats’ chief of staff before winning a Senate seat last year, but otherwise these are all freshmen. For the most part, they aren’t as beholden to the old ways of doing business in Springfield. It was an interesting move by Simon to persuade these freshmen to get on board.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 8:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Another look at Lisa Madigan’s numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Seems pretty common sense, which by the way is often hard to come by in this debate.
Comment by Homer J. Simpson Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:03 am
Reciprocity is another issue that should be addressed.
Comment by Motambe Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:06 am
The only things that give me pause are the local input and the background checks.
How are the background checks going to be carried out and how much weight does the input from the local police carry?
The other thing that the checklist does not address is reciprocity with other states. A couple friends of mine have concealed carry permits from Utah(?). What sort of process would they have to go through to get an Illinois permit?
Comment by Huh? Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:08 am
Doesn’t seem like much more than a boiler-plate, although maybe it is harder to agree on a boiler-plate than it should be. It just doesn’t impress me that much was hashed out here.
I guess the main thing is getting progressives to sign up for the bill at all.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:12 am
As a gun owner and advocate of CC I can go along with most of the what is in the list above. The part about a mental health background check is troublesome to me. Who will decide if I am unfit to carry? My family doctor? Are we all going to have to visit a shrink? Are they going to go on the internet and see what blogs we visit? Most people have suffered from some depression in their life. Did you take a antidepressant? Have you ever talked to a medical professional about being depressed. I would think any of the above could cause problems.
Comment by nieva Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:13 am
‘User fees’ is a slippery slope. They gouge now just to get a FOID.
Comment by walter sobchak Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:14 am
The devil is in the details.
As a general framework, it seems fine.
It is nice to see Democrats start to realize that a bill needs to be passed, so they should get the framework together.
As others noted, the local control is an issue. It seems to be one area where abuse is possible.
The excluded list also will be a source of battle. The way to get around that issue would be to have a provision that any business could opt out and not allow guns, but I suspect a few Chicago Dems will reject that compromise.
Todd is back in town. He should have fun with this. Welcome back and now there is work to be done.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:18 am
===They gouge now just to get a FOID. ===
You’re joking, right? The fee is $10.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:19 am
Lots of room for paperwork nightmares for regular citizens while making no inroads against the criminal class who is killing indiscriminately.
Making an overly complicated system to manage what is a right may be a violation of the second amendment right out of the box.
I am curious how this system will manage federal HIPPA requirements while providing the seemingly needed health care status of the applicants.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:19 am
===Are they going to go on the internet and see what blogs we visit?===
Considering some of the weird and bizarre comments I’ve deleted here, let’s hope so.
Just kidding.
Kinda.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:20 am
Not to digress, but after many months of debate right here, I think that along with this we need to take another look to see if the FOID card serves a real purpose. It seems that real background checks would take care of the need for that card. Instead of a way to get guns out of the hands of bad guys, it seems like just another hoop to jump through.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:20 am
===I think that along with this we need to take another look to see if the FOID card serves a real purpose. ===
If you add too many moving parts, you’ll never get anything done. Keep it as simple as possible.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:22 am
Seems to me item one in that list would be a good place to start for pension reform. IL Constiution.
We need to be a “shall carry” state.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:23 am
===We need to be a “shall carry” state. ===
You mean everyone in Illinois should be required to carry a loaded pistol?
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:24 am
It’s all rather general. Not a whole lot of heavy lifting here.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:26 am
Rich, I agree. Too many moving parts for now.
But it should be on the “to do” list if we want to have an efficient state government.
Of course, “efficient state government” has never really been our thing but that’s another digression.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:33 am
It all looks good but I question the local input. As a pro CC resident of Cook County, I feel like that language could allow the sheriff to determine that anyone carrying in Cook or Chicago poses a threat to public safety.
Chicago is where we need this most.
Comment by Anon Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:36 am
HB 997 seems to have most if not all of that. Sensistive places, NICS check, training and live fire testing requirements, Local Sheriff can object to any permit (They have to document why, not just blanket object to CCW). Gov buildings and schools are out of bounds as are Bars, sports arenas, etc…
There is an entire bill that was negotiated with input from the sheriffs association that Phelps has out there.
Wonder why it doesnt get the love from the Lt Gov?
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:44 am
mushroom cultivation?
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:48 am
i’m with Skeeter on the FOID card look. if Illinois could go background check for every gun sale, we could skip the expense of the FOID system.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:05 am
>>>> * Funding: The concealed carry law should also create a fund made up of user fees in order to finance the concealed carry permit application and renewal process.
>>>> * Permitting Authority: The Illinois State Police (ISP) should be the permitting authority for concealed carry, and the ISP should maintain a database of permits issued.
Is the Gov and the ISP out to prove a point by not staffing the FIOD desk with staff sufficient to issue or deny cards within 30 days?
>>>> * Permits: Lost, stolen or destroyed concealed carry permits should be reported to authorities in a timely manner.
Replacement or renewed permits MUST BE ISSUED by authorities in a timely manner.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:23 am
I agree with Word that it’s very general. The one thing item that I feel needs to be fleshed out is the felony for violation. Violations of some portions of the law may warrant that, administrative violations may not. Do we charge someone with a felony for not reporting the loss of the permit in a timely manner. Perhaps, if it’s a repeated problem, but I wouldn’t like to see it done for a first offense.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:26 am
FOID is also required for ammunition purchase and possession. No background check required for purchasing ammunition.
Comment by Freeze up Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:30 am
Illinois should dump the FOID card all together. At the very least, allow a CC permit to replace the FOID card. If I can pass the requirements to carry a loaded pistol in public, I should be able to buy shotgun shells at WalMart.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:31 am
Above should read ” no background check currently required for ammo purchase”. My bad.
Comment by Freeze up Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 10:32 am
Norseman,
Dead right. Why should an administrative issue be a felony? I lose my card on business in mass and don’t realize it for two weeks? What is someone else going to do with my card? It has my picture on it just like muy foid. If I lose my foid should I be charged with something?
No. There are lots here to agree with in general. And really this may just be cover for some of them to vote for a solid bill that is already out there.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:07 am
The devil is in the details. A point that sounds quite reasonable on Simon’s list may turn out to be quite onerous when the General Assembly gets done with it. And, I see no reason for the State Police to seek “local” input. The State Police shoudl already have access to applicable records, and local input, especially from that invariably political creature Cook County, just muddies the waters.
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:07 am
It looks like an attempt at legitimacy as an Attorney General candidate.
Has she considered hiring a biographer?
It didn’t get Chris Christie get the GOP VP award, but it appears to be helping the mayor dodge some school closing heat.
Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:13 am
Very general. For example the statement that “Concealed firearms should be prohibited in certain public places, such as schools, which is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court guidance. Private property owners should also be able to prohibit concealed weapons on that property.”
While this is in the ISRA bill, it also includes a “parking lot exemption” meaning that people can keep a weapon in a parking lot of a school, library, business, or other place. Should businesses, for example, be able to ban weapons on ALL of their property?
Comment by Dazed & Confused Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:14 am
local input is totally vague. it may mean very different things from county to county. small county sheriffs might know who the local troublemakers are, who prob shouldnt carry. but elsewhere it is meaningless. if county sheriff A says no, all you have to do is move to the county next door, where sheriff B doesnt know you.
Comment by langhorne Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:21 am
I don’t agree with all of it but a good start to open discussion. One of the best starts I have heard. Chicago/Illinois has done everything possible to prevent honest citizens from protect themselves. A citizen should not have to wait for a 911 dispatcher to send a police car to help someone being violated. Granted that the Founding Fathers never had the vision that people would be living so close to each other (Chicago being 50 foot lots)and stray bullets could harm innocent bystanders. Or that guns could fire x amount of rounds per second.That should be taken into consideration but throwing out the 2nd Amendment through procedural moves is just wrong. People should be responsible for their guns and face consequences if they are not. No one on either side wants people to be harmed with any type of instrument Common sense legislation should be in acted to address the common good not EGOs of opposite positions. As far as assault weapons are concerned is it possible to have special permits for these type of fire arms? Do all private citizens and sportsmen need assault rifles? How about a special back ground on certain types of weapons with special training for those who own them? Training like how to secure them from anyone using them them? Safes? How about we spend 90% in a solution to the issue instead of arguing over and over pointless issues.
Comment by Tim Elenz Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:22 am
What, the FOID card process does not include background checks already??? The FOID card requirement either includes a background check, and we therefore have universal backgound checks in Illinois, or it doesn’t, and the three plus month processing time is a sham.
I agree with Skeeter, upon adoption of CC and what we are told is another background check the FOID system needs to go. Even if the fee is nominal, it’s the equivalent of a tax on a fundamental right–the equivalent of a poll tax.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:31 am
“They gouge now just to get a FOID.”
At a hearing in Springfield in Feb. Illinois
“State Police Lt. Darrin Clark said the agency currently gets a $10 fee for issuing Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards that are valid for 10 years. The process calls for background checks through a federal database on crime and mental health issues. Clark said it now costs $12 to cover the expense of issuing those cards.”
With about 70,000 FOID card being issued each month it appears to me that the taxpayers are the ones being “gouged” for about $140,000 per month or about $1.7 million per year.
I just renewed by drivers license for $101. That pays for the license itself and a lot more. Considering the state of Illinois finances, maybe it is time to consider an increase in the cost of a FOID card to a level that at least covers the cost to issue it.
Comment by Small Town Tax Payer Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:33 am
A good jumping-off point for more discussion. I don’t see how you kill off the FOID, due to all the non-carry people and the need to have some check on ammo sales. Maybe a fix down the road.
I previously advocated for local input-maybe that doesn’t work above I-80. Background checks-good. This “mental health history and substance abuse”-bad. Could take out half the regulars here for one or the other if booze is included.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:42 am
===it’s the equivalent of a tax on a fundamental right–the equivalent of a poll tax. ===
More like a birth certificate fee.
Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:43 am
@small town tax payer,
Part of the problem is that the ISP doesn’t get the entire 10 dollars… We are one of two states I know of with a FOID type card. I don’t mind paying what something costs, but illinoios, even the ISP is crazy about what things SHOULD cost. Hell they had an emergency rfp out for millions of dollars and like 5 or 8 man years of time to create a CCW program and database… Something they could buy from another state or get done cheaper. My first software startup got 8 million in funding and developed new products with numerous developers for 2 years on it…
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:46 am
>>>>> With about 70,000 FOID card being issued each month it appears to me that the taxpayers are the ones being “gouged” for about $140,000 per month or about $1.7 million per year.
How much are the taxpayers being “gouged” for the cost of providing an election system and Voter’s ID cards?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:47 am
Here is a link to the FOID application. http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/6-181x.pdf
There are 11 questions you you have to answer. Your signature “authorizes” ISP to verify your answers. The big question is do they really go and check every FOID application.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:54 am
>>>>> I just renewed by drivers license for $101. That pays for the license itself and a lot more.
Isn’t that just for the Illinois Registration?
The driver’s license costs $30 for the “basic” model.
Driving is a privilege, not an enumerated right.
If you lose your driver’s license, or it expires, you can get a replacement ASAP.
If you lose your FOID, or it expires, you get to play lunar roulette to guess which calendar month you receive a new one.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 11:54 am
Actually JJJS, interstate travel is a fundamental right.
You have the right that is important to you. I’ve got the one important to me.
But really, when are we going to stop this “you can’t do anything at all because the right is so important” whining that we keep hearing?
In every discussion, people trot it out and then the argument is demolished when we list all the fees and restrictions on other fundamental rights (notably the First Amendment).
With all these discussions, can’t we make some progress? Can you all just stop tossing out that completely discredited argument?
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 12:06 pm
@Huh?
They say they do. Part of the argument int he recent ILGA debates has been that the Illinois court clerks have not been sending mental adjudication records to NICS system.
They are supposed to check these. If they are not I would like to know why my wife’s card still isnt here 60 days later.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 12:16 pm
There’s a beef about a $10 FOID card that’s good for 10 years?
Man the ramparts.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 12:24 pm
@Word
I dont think there is too much of a beef (beyond the poll tax argument you see).
But crying poor, when the state does not follow the FOID and not mentioning that the ISP is not getting the full 10 dollars is a bad way to start an honest discussion about the FOID.
Both sides must be honest. And the pro-gun side says “where is the money going? Why in the last 2 years has the state not been complying with its own law, yet we can become felons should we fail to comply with the same law”
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 12:31 pm
The initial workload for issuance is going to be massive and probably lead to virtually punitive delays. Perhaps FOID holders should be grandfathered in as the requirements will in the end be about the same. Except for Word and Skeeter of course, they must wait.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:00 pm
===More like a birth certificate fee.===
Rich, I don’t think not having a birth certificate will get you charged with UUW.
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:01 pm
“Actually JJJS, interstate travel is a fundamental right.”
Travel is a right, travel by automobile is not.
Comment by MrMonarch Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:05 pm
===I don’t think not having a birth certificate will get you charged with UUW. ===
No, but it might keep you off the ballot in Arizona. Just sayin…
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:06 pm
” “Actually JJJS, interstate travel is a fundamental right.”
“Travel is a right, travel by automobile is not. ”
Are you sure you want to go down that route, Monarch?
Because if you do, expect to be told that a 22 is your only option.
“Bear arms is a right, a shotgun is not.”
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:11 pm
It is all about the Money. Simon is ignorant and out of touch with our reality.
To process a permit where the ISP will run a criminal background check, verify with the local sheriff/city police agencies, check mental health databases, and court records for competency judgements is a monumental task. You are talking about layers of buracracy where most of the agencies have 21st century systems. ISP can barely handle the FOID apps right now because of funding cuts.
You are going to need massive overhauls of the computer systems of ISP, DHS, local police agencies and the entire court system. Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars to make this work in a timely effecient matter. They won’t be able to get an agreement that includes adequate funding in 4 months, much less have it implemented.
Reality check. Any bill is meaningless without the funds to implement it. We are heading for unrestricted conceal and carry in IL.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:41 pm
Madigans list is actually tame to Illinois standards. I do not see a ban on any weapon listed to pass ccw, which surprises me. Any fee associated should be reasonable so that the poorest if the State can afford.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:43 pm
Should have read… So the poorest in the State can afford
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:45 pm
>>>>>> You are talking about layers of buracracy where most of the agencies have 21st century systems. ISP can barely handle the FOID apps right now because of funding cuts.
Didn’t you mean “20th century systems?”
The ISP uses windows desktop machines as thin clients to access various critically End-Of-Service-Life mainframe systems running unix-V and applications written in COBOL.
The lack of staff is just half of the problem.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:51 pm
@thePatriot,
Then how is it that 40+ other states can issue permits and most of them for less than $100?
Wisconsin is what? $25 or $50? you check the NICS system which is where all criminal records should roll up. App goes through the sheriffs office and they can object. You dont have to call every local office.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:57 pm
Patriot -
Was your reference to “21st century systems” was a typo, right? Without engaging on the issue at hand, those systems are massively out of date and need to be overhauled at some point anyway. The state’s aging digital infrastructure is a ticking timebomb that no one is going to defuse because it is possibly the least sexy topic for an elected to engage in.
We get the government we pay for.
Comment by Colossus Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 1:59 pm
Colossus -
We get the government we vote for…for if we got the government we “pay” for, we’d all be drinking free bubble up and eating rainbow stew! We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem
Comment by Boondocks Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 2:19 pm
The checklist sounds reasonable to me. Let’s just hope that it will pass.
Comment by Levois Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 2:20 pm
FOID cards applications are already behind. That is a fact, not fiction.
Fact 2. DHS does not have a current database of past and present enrollees that it is capable of sharing with ISP or other local law enforcement.
Fact 3. Most county and municipal departments are not currently evaluationg people for “dangerous” status, much less sharing information with ISP.
Fact 4. The IL court system does not have electronic filing and most court records are not on a computer…anywhere.
You are talking about sharing alot of information, some of which is not currently in electronic form, accross several agencies. You aren’t going to just waive a magic wand and make it so.
our socialism is starting to collapse on its own weight.
Or, I am wrong, there is a simple solution that is easy to implement. Mike Madigan just did not address the issue for the past several years because he needed Simon to put her weight behind this issue to ram it home. C’mon Man.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Seriously, from her vantage point in a position she’s already publicly announced she no longer desires to serve the People of Illinois in any longer, does anybody really care, or, at least care a whole LOT about her views/necessary CONDITIONS whichout of the blue she now suddenly proclaims should be MANdated from one who, has, on the whole, been a relatively timid voice out in the Wilderness for over 3 years…in what COULD have been used as a MUCH more effective Bully Pulpit for Social Justice and progressive policies in Illinois?! Thanks, Sheila, for your earth-shaking input at this point, but, for the future 9 months, really, don’t bother…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 8:33 pm
Canada tried these type of requirements ! please check how much it cost, how in effective it was and what the end result has been….to do away with all of it !!! end of story..June 13 tic toc
Comment by railrat Monday, Apr 8, 13 @ 9:46 pm
Once the law is passed and you have a concealed carry permit I would strongly suggest taking additional training over and above what is required by law to get the permit. Armed confrontations happen in seconds and without training and practice you may not respond appropriately when the adrenalin is rushing through you.
I also hope that they do not get too carried away with restricted carry places. A criminal intent on harming someone will see this as a list of opportune places to target.
Comment by JohnB Friday, Apr 12, 13 @ 8:20 am
Why doesn’t Illinois want it’s citizens to have the right to protect their families and theirselves as all other states allow
Comment by RJG Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 7:42 am
Why should anyone be against a thorough background check if u have nothing to hide and are a law abiding citizen
Comment by RJG Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 7:47 am