Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

New Raoul proposal would let locals add to gun-free zones

Posted in:

Illinois

* AP…

An Illinois senator seeking to keep some concealed carry limits in place after a federal judge found the state’s ban unconstitutional said Tuesday that his compromise plan would allow large cities to customize their lists of places that are off limits to concealed weapons.

Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, told The Associated Press that cities would be able to designate unique locales, such as a park or cherished landmark, as gun-free zones above and beyond what restrictions would be put into a law allowing public possession of firearms,

Raoul said that a community could have a “sensitive place” not recognized by a state law as not appropriate for people carrying weapons. But the Chicago Democrat predicted there wouldn’t be a great demand for customized places beyond those where concealed weapons already are prohibited under state and local laws.

“They would have to get pretty creative to think of something additional,” Raoul said. “It’s sort of a security blanket to some who are just nervous about concealed carry generally.”

* Gatehouse…

Citing high-crime rates and a “different atmosphere” in places like Chicago, Raoul said it only make sense to limit guns in densely populated areas.

Sen. Tim Bivins, R-Dixon, who had been appointed to work alongside Raoul on the bill, said Tuesday he no longer supports the legislation with this added provision.

“The problem that you have is there are so many competing interests going on in a bill like this that when you try to satisfy a lot to get the votes, you end up satisfying no one,” Bivins said. “Sen. Raoul’s put a lot of work into this … but at this point in time, it’s not something we’re going to agree on.”

The concept of the bill is similar to Gov. Pat Quinn’s long-standing push to give home-rule units the power to create their own concealed-carry restrictions, Bivins said.

“The problem with that is becomes patchwork and you don’t know where it’s legal and where it’s not,” Bivins said.

If you think that would create a problematic patchwork, just let the courts strike down the state’s public carry laws and see how weird things get. There are over 200 home rule units in Illinois. You’d need an iPhone app to figure things out.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:14 am

Comments

I generally lean to the gun control side of the debate, but I think Raoul’s bill is problematic because of this. I’d rather see one uniform set of rules clearly identifying where/how to carry. Then I’d allow home rule units greater discretion in licensing who can carry. Someone issued a license in Pulaski County should be able to carry in Chicago and should know where s/he can and cannot carry without an iPhone app. If home rule units want to make it harder for their residents to carry or add higher training requirements and fees, that’s up to them, but it shouldn’t affect others licensed to carry by lawful jurisdictions.

My two cents.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:21 am
When I was 18 we still had local options for the legal drinking age. Even though I really wasn’t much of a drinker, I still learned where all the town lines were and what the ages were in each of the collar suburbs on the Southwest Side. That way I’d know I could go play foosball in that bar on that side of Cicero Avenue, where I could nurse a beer all night. I also knew I couldn’t do that in the bar across the street because different town, different age to legally be in the bar.

Which is exactly what law-abiding gun owners would have to do if you could carry in Evergreen Park but not in Oak Lawn. They’d have to know when they were in which town, and in which town their legal gun was suddenly illegal. I suppose someone could design an app for that, but still, it’s just easier to have the same law apply to everyone all over the state.

Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:31 am
Obviously, it’s not an easy issue, but even if Phelps bill becomes law, gun carriers are going to have to educate themselves on where they can carry.

You won’t be able to just be strapped and go about your daily business.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:31 am
@47th. I agree with uniform set of rules. I tend to have an issue with certain cities or areas creating more training or fees. For those in our State who show they are competent by what the State sets as the standard, and they pay the fee the State sets, it is unfair to require some areas to have to more requirements and fees. This would be a direct comparison to a poll tax, created to make it harder for some to practice a Right.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:34 am
The AP reported that. Its goofy. on top of that they are talking increased training. Like a 40 hour course. 4 or 5 times the amount of any state (even new york).

This is really just them guessing and jamming in ideas from lots of people. Some conflicting and not a good idea.

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:42 am
Rather than tossing in stuff like this, it would be much easier if Kwame would just say “I’m not really serious about getting a bill passed.”

It has the same impact.

Why does he even bother?

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:43 am
Who sees the Chicago “special sensitive areas ban” addition under this proposal coming down as something that equals “everywhere”?

Comment by titan Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:45 am
Part of me is hoping that nothing passes. Then each county and municipality will enact different limitations. And wait until somebody claims the right to carry into the legislature or into a courtroom! The AG probably does not want to appeal and walk into this divisive issue before her Governor campaign!

Comment by Curmudgeon Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:45 am
===This would be a direct comparison to a poll tax, created to make it harder for some to practice a Right.===

I disagree that this is comparable to a poll tax, but whatever. The fact is, in densely populated areas, an argument can be made that additional training is needed. And let’s not forget, with rights come responsibilities. No court has ever ruled that the 2nd Amendment is absolute or unlimited. This is a reasonable limit that recognizes that cities and suburbs are different from small towns and rural communities.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:46 am
@47th

If the fees are to inhibit a certain class of people, such as those who are poor, who otherwise are qualified, that would not be akin to a poll tax?

Comment by FormerParatrooper Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:50 am
@ Titan

exactly. I could see Mich Ave being a “gun free zone” just being on the side walk. Or language like “Any establishment that serves alcohol or any adjacent property including parking lots” and of course “anything within 1000 feet of any school, public or private, pre-school, elementary, high-school, college…”

Of course do a goolge maps of that and pretty much all of chicago would be gun free!

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:51 am
If a local community has such a sensitive place, why aren’t they lobbying their representatives? Arbitrary bans will be a mess.

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:54 am
He wants local option no-carry zones? Fine - so long as they only apply to residents of that municipality. Problem solved.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 11:57 am
“You won’t be able to just be strapped and go about your daily business.”

This is the obvious intent of the CCW proposals coming out of Chicago - making it impossible to carry while actually living your life.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:01 pm
Ken, my point was that even with the Phelps bill, you’ll have to make a daily game plan on carrying. In that light, I don’t think other geographic or “sensitive area” restrictions are necessarily onerous.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:08 pm
===This is the obvious intent of the CCW proposals coming out of Chicago===

Um, no. That’s the NRA bill.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:15 pm
“Um, no. That’s the NRA bill.”

Rich, the NRA-sponsored bills have clearly defined and mostly logical places where you cannot carry, so planning around those places is easy. If we end up with a patchwork of prohibited places it will serve to discourage licensees from carrying at all.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:18 pm
Several CC states allow private and public facilities to restrict guns - churches, malls, clinics, movie theaters, college campuses, schools, etc.

Come to think of it, there have still been shootings in each and every one of those types of buildings within just the past few years.

The problem isn’t such a patchwork.

The problem is how easy it is for criminals and the criminally insane to obtain weapons which make it easy to kill 20-30 people in a matter of seconds.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:20 pm
–0Rich, the NRA-sponsored bills have clearly defined and mostly logical places where you cannot carry, so planning around those places is easy. If we end up with a patchwork of prohibited places it will serve to discourage licensees from carrying at all.–

Easy is a matter of opinion, I guess, but the Phelp’s bill sensitive areas are just as much a “patchwork.”

As you go about your daily business, among public and private areas, you’re going to have to plan it out where you can and can’t carry.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:24 pm
G. Willickers, nice attempt to change the subject.

Regarding local option, what will it do that simply posting a place as being no-carry wouldn’t do? IMO it’s simply an attempt to hamstring CCW.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:26 pm
@Ken “If we end up with a patchwork of prohibited places it will serve to discourage licensees from carrying at all.”

And yet somehow people who are licensed to drive cars manage to get by in towns that have mazes for street patterns and nonsensical one-way restrictions.

People are smart. They’ll figure it out.

Again most CC states already do this by default in that they allow private establishments to restrict CC on their property.

It ain’t as difficult as pro-gunners make it sound.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:27 pm
===IMO it’s simply an attempt to hamstring CCW. ===

Then you’d better convince the NRA to cut a deal before June 9th. Because if you think the Raoul legislation will cause confusion, just wait until 200+ cities and counties each get into the act with their own, unique ordinances.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:29 pm
“And yet somehow people who are licensed to drive cars manage to get by in towns that have mazes for street patterns and nonsensical one-way restrictions.”

How many of these restrictions aren’t posted? Have you ever heard of a street being designated one-way by local ordnance that didn’t have clear and obvious signage to that effect?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:31 pm
“Then you’d better convince the NRA to cut a deal before June 9th.”

NRA has been attempting to cut a deal for much longer than the anti-CCW bloc. “Deal” doesn’t mean “bend over”.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:33 pm
===“Deal” doesn’t mean “bend over”. ===

Depends on the bender and the bendee. All I’m saying is, June 9th doesn’t look nearly as wonderful as the NRA has been touting.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:36 pm
“As you go about your daily business, among public and private areas, you’re going to have to plan it out where you can and can’t carry.”

That’s my point, Word - under Phelps you have a statewide list of prohibited places plus local places that are posted as being non-carry per statute. If local munis want an area to be non-carry, then make them post it - and require posting to be visible and obvious.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:36 pm
Ken is right.

What boggles me is that Illinois municipalities keep passing restrictive gun ordinances, losing in court, and then they end up paying the NRA lawyers.

It also seems like legislative malpractice. Anybody who votes for one of these local ordinances should be forced to pick up the tab when Todd wins. As a Chicago resident, I’m tired of paying for posturing and stupidity.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:38 pm
I think Illinois is a special, sensitive place. Not much snark intended.

Rather than re-invent the wheel, are there “comparable” urban places where fairly liberal CC laws are in effect that we can look at to see what problems have arisen? Is Chicago really all that different from Dallas? From Miami? Are there places where folks can CC on public transportation that have/have not had problems? From a practical standpoint, I would find it hard to traverse the state while seeking to carry a concealed firearm while being legal to do so if the laws are so restrictive. Where do I put the weapon so as to avoid breaking the law while moving about the state? I suppose I could leave it in my car but what if I don’t own a car and use public transportation? I am denied the right to bring the weapon on the bus if some have their way but what about before and after? I imagine a scenario where someone getting off a bus and being mugged would not have access to a firearm to protect oneself, having left same at home. What good is the CC law then?

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:45 pm
“All I’m saying is, June 9th doesn’t look nearly as wonderful as the NRA has been touting.”

But for lawyers in the 2nd Amendment business, it looks awesome. I wish I did that sort of work.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:45 pm
–If local munis want an area to be non-carry, then make them post it - and require posting to be visible and obvious.–

Signage? Easy enough. Does that assuage your concerns about Raoul’s proposal?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:48 pm
Without reading the bill, yes - it probably would. And by “signage”, I don’t mean one little sign at one entrance to an area. It would have to be something similar to what TX enacted in their 30.06, it would have to be maintained and missing or noncompliant postings would be an affirmative defense.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:57 pm
@Ken “How many of these restrictions aren’t posted? Have you ever heard of a street being designated one-way by local ordnance that didn’t have clear and obvious signage to that effect?”

Have you ever driven in a big city?

That exact scenario is everywhere, yet people manage. (And yes, both the right to a well-regulated militia and interstate commerce - ie, driving - are in the Constitution.)

Your remarks about signage seem contrary to your concerns about “patchwork”.

Signage is easy.

Comment by G. Willickers Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 12:59 pm
June 9th looks just fine. I’m not worried about 200 different ordinaces. When we filed suit after Heller most of the towns with gun bans folded. Only chicago and oakmpark stuck it out and ended upmpayng us $1.3 million in attorney fees.

Oak park and chicago won’t be able to help themselves and will,over reach. Like they always do.

To date, at the end of each court case we have filed in federal court in Illinois we have prevailed; McDonald, Ezell, Gowder, Lawson, Moore/Shepard

Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:01 pm
@ G.

—
interstate commerce - ie, driving - are in the Constitution
—

stretching a little there aren’t we? the fed has nothign to do with local one way streets nor regulating them.
Need a better anology

Comment by Really Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:01 pm
===I’m not worried about 200 different ordinaces. ===

Then stop complaining about a patchwork.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:02 pm
—
Then stop complaining about a patchwork.
—

I didnt see Todd complain about it. I complained about it, Ken did. Todd will be part of the legal battles… I will have to deal with the patchwork as I drive to customers and their sites.

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:07 pm
===I didnt see Todd complain about it==

Not in comments today, but elsewhere.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:09 pm
ok.
I’ll complain about the patchwork

That is what it is, what bothers me is a home rule unit (all 200 of them) being able to add training requirements and different standards, OR being able to say you permit issued in DuPage or Will aren’t valid in Cook, or Lake.

That would be simply silly.

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:19 pm
2 different issues Rich. One is local ordinaces holding up to court challenges and those munis wanting to expend the money.

The other is a true patchwork of ordinances. The majority of any local ordinances that might be passed can be taken care of with a couple of lawsuits and injunctions.

Much different than giving them the force of law to create their own regulations.

One state, one law

Comment by Todd Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:33 pm
“his compromise plan would allow large cities to customize”

I am a big backer of moving as much government as possible to the lowest possible unit of government. Control of many issues such as education, zoning, etc. are controlled at the local level of government. The bills before the GA that I have seen have prohibited home rule communities from having any say when it comes to concealed carry. Different communities in different parts of Illinois have different needs and the laws should reflect that. I feel that there should be no home rule preemption when it comes to concealed carry.

“what bothers me is a home rule unit (all 200 of them) being able to add training requirements and different standards”

It is not a “bother” to many people. Reminds me of events at the local school district. The district has three high schools. What a fight there was a few years back when the board of education wanted the graduation requirements at all three of the high to be the same. Took months to finally convince everyone that they should all be the same within the same community.

Comment by Property Owner Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Not that it hasn`t been said before; 49 states can`t be wrong.Apparently the citizens of Illinois do not meet the high criteria of intelligence that our politicians have stoked upon us!!!

Comment by highspeed Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 1:59 pm
Not that it hasn`t been said before; 49 states can`t be wrong.Apparently the citizens of Illinois do not meet the high criteria of intelligence that our politicians believe we need to have!!!

Comment by highspeed Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 2:00 pm
Property owner

Apply that logic to other things people do daily though… like driving.

Its one thing for a local community to set a speed limit or a direction of travel on a street.

Its another for a town to say if you drive here, you must have more training than the rest of the state. And if you are caught driving in our town limits is a possible felony for not having a “Any Small Town” license

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 2:01 pm
I have a modest proposal.

Pass a bill with Phelps-based language.

Revisit the issue in 12 or 24 months.

If there are demonstrable problems with shall-issue (i.e. “wild west / blood in the streets”) say “I told you so” and then tighten it up.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 2:06 pm
Couldn’t be any more patchwork than the magazine restrictions for Chicago (@ 12 rounds) vs. those of Cook County (@10 rounds). Some one has to lead on this or the ONE-FOID-ONE Firearm rule will prevail and that is utter chaos.

Comment by Statesman Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 2:19 pm
How odd, that so many other states and other cities have settled this issue long ago without all the fuss and bluster. Illinois, and specifically the Chicago democrats, just cannot understand that law abiding gun owners are different from gang bangers. I have legally carried in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Des Moines, and a bunch of other places with no problems or concerns about legal traps, safety of overly sensitive locals or other such craziness. I would rather see a GOOD law in place by June 9 but no carry law is better than a bad carry law and that is the only kind even remotely acceptable to the Chicago contingent.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 2:53 pm
@ Tequila

Was just thinking that. I have carried Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee…

Somehow we have to reinvent the wheel in this state every time. The pols think they are smarter or that this state is so unique they refuse to look at what others do and make it simple. This is a symptom of a bigger problem.

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:04 pm
–Was just thinking that. I have carried Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee…

Somehow we have to reinvent the wheel in this state every time. The pols think they are smarter or that this state is so unique they refuse to look at what others do and make it simple–

Oh, please. So simple.

There are plenty of cities around the country that you can’t carry in — not legally, anyway (and not on public transportation, Ron).

And some states honor other states’ permits, some don’t. Some states grant non-resident permits, some don’t. Some state’s will honor another state’s non-resident permit, some won’t.

And all those states have their own rules on where and when you can carry.

It’s literally a patchwork of different laws, rules and regulations all around the country.

Nothing’s simple about it at all.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:19 pm
Listening to radio here in the ‘Patch it sounds like a majority of the City Council agrees conceptually on the framework for a local ordinance for Springfield if nothing happens by June 9. On an interim basis, valid FOID plus valid carry permit from another state would get one a permit in Springfield until training, etc. could be established.

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:25 pm
@Word….

ahhh to build strawmen

I meant that the ILGA could look at other state laws. You obviously didnt get that.

and this:
—
There are plenty of cities around the country that you can’t carry in — not legally, anyway (and not on public transportation, Ron
—

Really? in which states? not all I assure you. I will let you google a bit b4 I show the ignorance of CCW laws here (and no that is not a pejorative)

I was commenting on how lots of states and big cities have dealt with this. But the GA is not looking to them for their answers. They reference NY constantly, but ignore surrounding states like MN, Iowa, Kentucky, Indian, Wis. etc. Just like how they will build their own CCW computer apps for Illinois, vs buying/repurposing one… why?

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:46 pm
@word,
Plenty of big cities you cant carry in? Can you define more than 5 or 10? Sure, NYC, LA, SanFran, Washington DC…
where else? Miami, Orlando,Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Phoenix, LasVegas, Portland, Detroit, Nashville, Memphis, and on and on…

Cities that you cant get a carry permit are tiny percentage. Please take a calm down. Carry will not end the world.

Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:50 pm
wordslinger

-And all those states have their own rules on where and when you can carry.

It’s literally a patchwork of different laws, rules and regulations all around the country. -

The diference word is you are talking about different States. When i go to Missouri i have the same rules in STL as i do in KC. It isn’t one rule in Stl one rule in Chesterfied. Likewise when i drive into Kansas i know i am entering Kansas and have to abide by Kansas rules. States have clearly defined and well marked boundaries. It’s quite different to say here is the rule in Elmwood don’t cross the street or now you are in Chicago. Ron’s Point was these issues have been dealt with and IL isn’t so unigue that the population is so stupid that what worked in Miami won’t work here.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:50 pm
–Really? in which states? not all I assure you. I will let you google a bit b4 I show the ignorance of CCW laws here (and no that is not a pejorative)–

You don’t have to assure me, because I did not use the word “all.” As far as the google, it’s my friend.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:52 pm
LOL, Ron, I appreciate your concern, but I’m quite calm and not worrying about the world ending. If that happens right now, at least I won’t feel obligated to watch another Bulls-Heat game.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:57 pm
As for the 200 some locals who could have seperate ordinances. I suspect that most, with the exception of Chicago and suburbs, would draft perfectly reasonable ordinances. Once you get outside the before mentioned areas there isn’t the desire to clamp down on the practice. As Todd has said there will be lawsuits after lawsuits and i am sure many people will be fined but it won’t have the weight of the felony conviction it does at this moment.

To be honest i think Kens proposal makes a lot of sense. Pass the bill that has the most support and revisit the issue in a couple years. At that time we will know the outcome and if the Citizens of IL are really that much less responsible than the other 49 states revise the statutes.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 3:58 pm
Word, my understanding is that New York is the only state that has local restrictions on where a state-issued CCW is valid. Other states - CA and NY are the most infamous - have local control over issue that effectively curbs CCW for residents of large parts of the state (NYC, LA, San Francisco etc.), but so far as I’m aware if you have a CA CCW issued out of (say) Amador County it is valid throughout the state of California.

Sen. Raoul has dreamed up a real abomination of a bill here - as if local carve-outs weren’t enough, he had to add still more local restrictions.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 4:15 pm
And if there is no bill, coming soon for iPhone and Android:

“iStrapped-the unique app that uses your smartphone’s GPS to keep you updated in real-time of the validity of your patchwork carry permit. Displays safe zones via Google Maps and interacts with voice commands in English and German.
The optional PervTracker(tm) matches your location with databases of registered offenders to heighten your personal vigilance.”

An AWillyWord Con$ulting LLC Product

Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 4:18 pm
Todd wrote “Oak park and Chicago won’t be able to help themselves and will, over reach. Like they always do.” As a Chicago gun owner I simply know he is correct, I mean here I have to register non-working antique guns. If you don’t believe me look at http://www.chicagogunowners.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Gun-Registration-3.pdf

Comment by Rod Wednesday, May 15, 13 @ 4:51 pm