Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

This just in… Raoul files concealed carry bill

Posted in:

Illinois

* 11:19 am - From the Senate Democrats…

The Senate’s Assignment Committee has just assigned Amendment 1 sponsored by Sen. Raoul to House Bill 183 to the Senate’s Executive Committee.

Earlier this session, Senate President John J. Cullerton designated Senate Judiciary Chairman Kwame Raoul to negotiate a legislative proposal for concealed carry.

Senate President Cullerton issued the following statement regarding House Bill 183:

“I want to commend Sen. Raoul for negotiating another tough issue on behalf of our caucus. The framework of this proposal acknowledges the diversity of our state, embraces local control, and provides for sensible safeguards.”

The Senate’s Executive Committee will take up that proposal today. Once amended, House Bill 183 does the following:

· Directs State Police to give concealed carry licenses to people who meet certain qualifications
· Allows local law enforcement to object to a local resident’s application
· Allows a gun owner to carry a concealed weapon in Chicago only with a special endorsement; while applicants are subject to the same qualifications, Chicago police can conduct their own investigation
· Prohibits loaded weapons in certain kinds of places, e.g. schools, hospitals and public transit
· Allows home rule municipalities to ban guns in other kinds of places by ordinance
· Requires applicants to pass a firearm training course
· Closes the private sale and transfer loophole by requiring a seller to verify that the buyer’s FOID Card is still valid
· Strengthens mental health reporting requirements
· Requires a gun owner to report a lost or stolen gun within three days of realizing it is missing

The amendment is here.

* A couple provisions of the “certain qualifications” for acquiring a state police-issued permit will look like a “may issue” to many folks…

(16) has a proper reason for carrying a firearm; and

(17) is a responsible person of good moral character and that the issuance of the license to the applicant is consistent with public safety.

That’s awfully broad language.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:19 am

Comments

Devil is in the details….
Must have a good reason means someone decides if your self defense is a good reason. As rich said. Very broad language.

Also, devil about everything else: how long is the training, who gives it, whats it cost.

And what else is in the bill.. 200 pages is what I hear. Thats a lot of language to comb through.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:29 am
Yeah, it’s a “may issue” bill. That would work just fine for applicants outside of Cook.

The standoff will continue.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:29 am
===That would work just fine for applicants outside of Cook.===

No, it wouldn’t. It’s a “may issue” for the whole state. Big difference.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:32 am
Illinois Concil on handgun violence says the it contains the following:
—-
lost and stolen firearms and universal background checks

Strict restrictions on where individuals can carry a firearm

There is significant training required for anyone wishing to carry a firearm

The applicant will have to give a “proper reason” as to why they need a permit to carry and is a responsible person of good moral character.

Local law enforcement across the state will have a chance to review each application to ensure that only the most qualified citizens are granted permits.

In order for an individual to carry in the City of Chicago they will need permission from the Chicago Police Superintendent.
—

Doesnt sound like the compromise bill and changing the lost and stolen language in a CCW bill? and putting in no private sales in Illinois?

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:35 am
Shoot this down, no pun intended.

I certainly hope “living in Chicago” is a good enough reason to own a gun, because it should be.

I’m also terrified at what the city that banned handguns for years will do with the power for location-specific bans.

I can already see it- No guns allowed within 300 yards of schools, churches, bars, the el, stadiums and parks. This power will be used to encompass an incredibly broad area.

And record gun crime will continue.

Comment by Anon Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:42 am
well this looks fine to me but it certainly seems like more of the same.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:46 am
–And record gun crime will continue.–

There’s not record gun crime in Chicago right now. Not even close.

Annual homicides were in the 900s and 800s from the 1970s to the mid-90s.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:55 am
I read the bill. There are some areas where compromise can be reached. Then there are some pretty out there provisions such as. Bill requires you to test with every weapon you intend to ever carry under the liscense. For me that would be 1911 commander, 1911 full size, PPS and revolver. The way it is worded i have to shoot and test with the instructer for each and every one. While it isn’t a problem passing the testing it does turn a relatively reasonable course into a marathon event.

I do have a question for someone who understands liquor liscenses better than I. Bill references any establishment that has a licsense under Section 5.1 of the Liquur Control Act of ‘34. Would that include any and all establishments that serve any alcohol what so ever? i.e. the local restaurant if you can order a beer.

RonO

You’ll get a kick out of this. You are trained if you are honorably discharged but only if you were an MP within last 2 yrs.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:56 am
Who defines a “good reason” and “good character”?

And the adding of banned places shouldn’t be allowed to be a “within 300 yards of any school, church, etc.” sort of thing (that would effectively eliminate the entire city).

Comment by titan Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:04 pm
@mason
Hahahah….

Pretty sure I have fired more rounds in training than the average MP.

But it makes sense. Cops only trust other “cops” with guns.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:04 pm
Sorry, that was too big of a net. its not all cops. Appointed, politcal cops are often like that. Most cops have no problems with other vets and civi’s that are trained carrying.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:09 pm
Senator Forby introduced what many would consider a better bill (SB1284) long ago…

Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:10 pm
I live within 300 yards of a school, a daycare, a park and a bar.

hmmmm

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:11 pm
“has a proper reason for carrying a firearm.”

I can’t imagine that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It is way too vague.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:13 pm
== Closes the private sale and transfer loophole by requiring a seller to verify that the buyer’s FOID Card is still valid ==

This is already the law. If I privately sell or transfer a firearm to you I have to make sure you have a valid foid card and I’m required to copy the information from the foid card and keep that record for 10 years.

ILCS Chapter 430 Act 65/3

The clowns under the dome want to duplicate laws that are already on the books. SIGH

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:14 pm
@RonO - some perspective may be in order.

Under current state law people are not allowed to carry loaded guns into my kids’ preschool (which is not in an actual school).

Under Phelps’ bill last year, they would’ve been able to do so.

Under this bill, people will be allowed to qualify to carry loaded guns but still not be able to take them into my kids’ preschool.

It is a compromise — in fact, it’s smack dab in the middle between Arizona’s uber-lax gun laws (free for all) and current-state Illinois which does not allow CCW.

PS- There have been two cases in the suburbs during the past month of retired cops (who are legally allowed to carry loaded guns) accidentally discharging their guns in the middle of a group of school children — one in a school and the other on a school bus.

So yes, bringing loaded guns into schools is not the brightest idea even for trained professionals.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:23 pm
–”has a proper reason for carrying a firearm.”

I can’t imagine that would pass constitutional scrutiny. It is way too vague.–

That’s basically the law in Hawaii, NJ, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and parts of California, New York and Massachusetts.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:24 pm
When making a private sale, other than checking the expiration date on the FOID, how to I verify that a FOID card is valid?

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:24 pm
@word -

You’re not COMPROMISING when you point how many other states already have laws like that!

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:27 pm
Hey @G Wil…

I love how you jump to SCHOOLS when I never mentioned schools. and associated me with some prior cop (in one case) that had a negligent discharge. Cops are often careless (not all). Hell my best shooting bud is a law enforcement trainer, most cops never even train outside their once a year quals…

Anyway. its not a compromise, not on training, not on shall/vs may issue, etc.

Its not the delta between free for all and no carry. There has to be carry (that whole court ruling thing). So it should be a compromise between a strict Chicago designed carry/may issue state wide like this… and free for all.

You dont see anyone here ranting about carry locations for pre-schools. we’re talking training, and the may issue aspect of the law.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:29 pm
Why is this Amendment attached to a unrelated Bill?
There are a few CCW Bills that have tabled, choose one and file the Amendment there.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:31 pm
===Why is this Amendment attached to a unrelated Bill?===

Notice to other commenters: Do NOT get off on this unrelated and uninformed tangent. Vehicle bills are just that. Vehicles. Move along.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:33 pm
==Why is this Amendment attached to a unrelated Bill?==

Shell Bill Language…
“Amend House Bill 183 by replacing everything after the enacting clause with the following: ”

Because the clowns under the dome aren’t happy unless they make life as confusing as possible for the citizenry by the use of shell bills! By use of shell bill they can vote on anything at a moments notice and not give the public anytime to comment on a given bill.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:35 pm
@RonO -

The only one I see ranting is you.

And yes, the delta is between the gun lobby/NRA’s Arizona-style free for all and the current-state of Illinois law since Atty Genl could appeal the lower court’s anti-states rights ruling to SCOTUS.

This is a smart compromise.

If it were up to me the bill would be even more strict as in meeting the letter of the case ruling but perhaps not the spirit of it.

If it were up to you the bill would be much more lax and allow for a very broad, very wide ability to carry loaded guns throughout the state.

But it’s not up to either of us as individuals. It’s up to those we’ve elected to represent us.

Don’t let your own biases blind you to the fact this is a solid, middle of the road compromise.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:49 pm
G. Wilikers

The reason why this is not a compromise is that IL’s current statute is no longer an option. So the real compromise has to be between Shall issue like Arizona and May/issue like NY. this is pure May/issue so no compromise.

Kwame keeps pointing to Indiana for his good reason language what he leaves out is Indiana defines good reason as “defense of self or state of Indiana”. I wonder if he’d be willing to insert that definition??

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Rich - I am uniformed about vehicle Bills, maybe at some point someone with the political knowledge can fill me in. I apologize for my ignorance on that.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:54 pm
I noticed Kwame also overrides home rule. How does he think he can make the 60 vote number in house with a may-issue when the last May-issue couldn’t reach a simple majority.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:55 pm
This “vehicle” is dead on the side of the road.

John

Comment by John Boch Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:57 pm
“. . .how to I verify that a FOID card is valid?” By contacting the State Police. Go read the amendment.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:59 pm
–The reason why this is not a compromise is that IL’s current statute is no longer an option. So the real compromise has to be between Shall issue like Arizona and May/issue like NY. this is pure May/issue so no compromise.–

In Arizona, those over 21 can carry concealed weapons without a permit. Jared Loughner was not required to and did not have a c-c permit.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:06 pm
@Mason -

Perhaps you overlooked the part where I reiterated that the AG still has the right to appeal the lower court’s anti-states rights decision to SCOTUS.

That said, retired cops and a few other classes of Illinois citizens DO have a right to CCW right now.

A hypothetical gun control activist “CCW” bill could be a CCW bill in name but still be much, much more restrictive than what Sen. Raoul introduced.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:06 pm
FormerParatrooper @ 12:54 pm:

Illinois GA Actions 101 (short version):

At the beginning of the session, introduce a lot of bills you have no actual intention of passing “as is” that have just a title and some small amount of language, ie, a “shell” of a bill.

Since the title and language are inoffensive, advance the bills through the appropriate committee (based on the title) reviews, then the floor readings (1st, 2nd) until it it is ready for the final vote. Everyone knows they are just “shell” bills that won’t be called for final vote “as is”, so the bills get approved. At that point, shelve the bill and just let it hang out there to eventually die a death from inaction at the end of the year.

When you get a hot topic that needs immediate action, either because it is a real problem or because you want to run something though with little time for public comment and opposition, grab one of those pending “shell” bills regardless of it’s original language, amend it but totaly replacing all the language, and hold the final vote.

For more detailed informaiton on the process, read the actual rules for legislation in the Illinois GA.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:08 pm
Okay, G. Whillikers, I’ll rant along with RonO- It is NOT a “solid, middle of the road compromise” bill. It is a MAY issue bill for everyone in the state. I may qualify, but it all depends on who is making the decisions the day my application comes up for review, or more importantly, who has set the policy for issuing the permits, with RonO and you from this blog being examples of the extremes.
Also, as Mason said, qualifying to carry with every gun you wish to carry would be time-consuming and expensive (if you believe they won’t charge for EVERY gun, I’ve got a nice bridge to sell you).
This is not a good bill at all for ccw advocates.

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:12 pm
PS Mason and RonO - similar to Illinois, New York has a spectrum of legislators when it comes to guns.

Ergo, the NY law in place now started out as a compromise in and of itself.

That said, Scalia’s own remarks in Heller clearly stated 2A is not without limits which legislatures may determine.

PS - “Shall issue” didn’t pass home rule muster either.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:16 pm
G. Willikers

While i will give you that LM may decide to Appeal. the fact that she did not do so back in December seems to me at least to be evidence that she isn’t sure she will win.

Therefore the compromise is still between the May issue and Shall issue. I will grant you that there are quite a few legislatures who would like a carry in name only which is basically May/issue.

As for the Retired Cops arguemment that hardly falls into il law since Federal law signed under bush forced all states to recognize LE carry.

the other factor i think you are neglecting is the house at least has two factions on this. Downstate dems + Repubs vs. chicago area dems. That is a little broad of course but they are the two groups who need to compromise.

There could be some bones to build on in this but this isn’t an attempt to compromise. As evidenced by the Legislator Mr. Raoul was working with backing out when it got too restrictive.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:21 pm
===the fact that she did not do so back in December===

Oh, please. Nobody files an appeal to the United States Supreme Court within hours of an appellate court decision.

Appeals take months to construct.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:28 pm
G.

I am well aware Shall issue didn’t pass however Shall issue was closer to making the 60 vote threshold than may issue was at making a simple majority.

Ny has a law that is a compromise for NY. What we need is a compromise for IL. This bill isn’t it. My Senator (Dem) ran on CCW here in IL being shall issue. While it is possible he will Crawfish and vote for this he can’t play this as a compromise.

Make no mistake the bones of Raoul’s idea have merit. A Chicago endorsement doesn’t bother me if CPD is required to give the endorsement or provide a clear, Legitimate, and appealable reason why not. The problem is Raoul decided to go quite a bit past reasonable.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Kevin Highland -

Under current law any seller is supposed to sell only to a person with a valid FOID Card. But only licensed firearm dealers and gun show vendors are required to actually call a hotline and check with the state police. Raoul’s amendment requires anyone selling or transferring a weapon (except someone transferring to a close family member) to actually contact State Police and verify that the recipient’s FOID Card hasn’t been revoked. This had NOT been done before and is a pretty major loophole.

Mason born - Just to clarify, HB 183 preempts home rule, but under a section of the constitution that allows the legislation to pass with a simple majority, not three-fifths. You and others also call this legislation “may issue.” Some of the qualifications for a concealed carry license are more subjective than others. But it does not give the ISP a choice as to whether or not to issue if the applicant meets the criteria. Because of the written documentation requirement for objections and the appeals process (for both the statewide license and the Chicago endorsement), the licensing framework cannot be operated in an arbitrary fashion. It’s not a “may issue” bill; it’s a “shall issue” bill that’s more restrictive than many people would like.

Comment by Yossarian Lives Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:31 pm
Rich

Let me make an Amendment then remove December and replace with “has not yet.”

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:31 pm
@RNUG… Thank you for the info.

Rich.. I will be studying to preclude any more mistakes.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:32 pm
==is a responsible person of good moral character ==

Who gets to decide if I’m responsible and moral? If you ask my ex-wife I’m hosed.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:33 pm
its no wonder Sen. Bivins walked away !! I was expecting better from Sen. Raoul the “may” issue dog won’t hunt !!!! period ..

Comment by railrat Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Printed out amendment-missed this on first reading - “25 endorsement fee for each municipality in which applicant is seeking a separate endorsement” . Would this include every home rule city that a person would go into? If so, the price of my permit would double or triple…Some people even more.
So much for compromise…

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@Downstate -

It’s also not a good bill for those of us who think the problem with America’s gun violence epidemic is due to too many guns (not too few).

So yes, it is a compromise.

You claimed I was on one extreme. If I had may way this bill would be way more restrictive.

@Mason -

Don’t let the good be the enemy of the perfect.

You and I will never get bills we consider perfect. They won’t pass. Don’t forget Quinn has to sign it into law and he’s not exactly the NRA’s best friend.

Why do the pro-gun people think the court ruling gives them all the power? The “shall issue” side hit your ceiling and all the “may issue” legislators know what that number is.

You need “may issue” votes to get a rational CCW bill instead of a hodge podge county by county mess.

PS - L Madigan did file for an extension on appeal and it was granted by SCOTUS.

She’s not going to waste time appealing while the legislature is still debating bills. Any work on an appeals case would be a waste if the lege passes something that Quinn will sign.

If the legislature cannot pass a bill the gov will sign (or pass with veto-proof majorities) then the June 9 deadline will hit and she will appeal.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:47 pm
Yossarian

The frame work for a Shall issue is in there it is the little line about provide a valid reason to carry that turns it from a restrictive shall issue to a may issue. That fact that there is no Definition as to what is to be considered a “Valid Reason” means that whoever is chosen to implement the administration is given the ability to set whatever arbitrary “reasons” he likes. For instance NYC will issue you a permit to carry inside the city. However if your reason is self protection and you aren’t a politician, Celebrity, or carry large amounts of cash then it isn’t a “valid reason.” Take that line out or define it as Indiana does and this turns into a very restrictive Shall issue.

Thanks for the Info on the Home rule part though. I wasn’t aware of that very clever on his part.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:50 pm
Hey Rich, will you qualify for a permit under the “good morals” clause? Especially the Chicago special review? After all you do run that subversive “capitol fax blog”.

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:51 pm
“Who gets to decide if I’m responsible and moral? If you ask my ex-wife I’m hosed.” Been littering? Have a seat over there on the Group W bench.

Comment by Skeptic Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Got that ol’ switched around….

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And don’t let your support for very lax gun oversight blind you to the fact this is a good compromise.

Shall issuers cannot get their version of a relaxed bill passed, and the court ruling absolutely does not mean what your side thinks it means.

There are still stays in the decision, appeals of the ruling, home rule ordinances, etc. that all could dramatically restrict CCW — even more restrictive than Raoul’s compromise bill.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Downstate commissioner - what amendment are you looking at? I don’t see anything in HB 183, Senate Amendment #1, about a $25 endorsement fee for each municipality. And Chicago is the only municipality where a separate endorsement would be needed.

Comment by Yossarian Lives Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 1:59 pm
G.

What i have said is there are usable parts of this. But to say that somehow this is the best anyone is going to get is a fallacy. The main sticking point is the whole valid reason part define it or cut it and the bill gets much better.
With the exemptions of a few items i actually didn’t find this heinous. However there are some big ones.

Here is what I think needs to be fixed to make this palatable.
A. Deal only with the CCW adding additional items is really asking for a lot more resistance then it needs.
B. Use Indiana’s definition of Valid reason or remove it. (While it may not be an issue it does leave the definition of valid reason up to an Administrator to decide)
C. Take out the training with each individual weapon to be carried. I think this has to do with a lack of experience with firearms. Most Semi-Autos function identically to each other. Same with revolvers. In my case two of my weapons are identical except for barrel length testing for both is kind of silly.
D. Redefine the Alcohol provision to prohibit Bars and not restaurants.
E. A little clarification on fees. HE mentions 100 to ISP plus 50 to Municipality but then mentions ISP charging for the processing of prints and background checks. He may mean they are all part of the 100 but it isn’t very clear.

It would also be nice to define training as any honorable discharged Combat MOS and not just mp’s.
It would also be nice to see some oversight as to what the home rule communities can restrict. So as to avoid something like entire blocks for political reasons.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:19 pm
G.

On a seperate idea why not take Phelps bill add the Chicago Endorsement and the Homerules being able to add additional locations. Then if Yossarion is right you wouldn’t need 60 votes just a majority. If the Bill got same votes as last time it is a done deal.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:37 pm
Any idea if Gov. Quinn will sign any of the proposed Carry Bills?

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:41 pm
–Then if Yossarion is right you wouldn’t need 60 votes just a majority. If the Bill got same votes as last time it is a done deal.–

Sixty is a majority, dude. You need 71 to trump home rule and beat a veto. I think Phelps got 64 last time out.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:42 pm
Wordslinger

My bad 71. Isn’t that 60 percent?

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Phelps had 72 but a couple things happened (including typos in the bill) that caused a few to drop. I think the final was 67 votes on 997 - a few votes shy of a supermajority, but those votes can be gotten back easily

Comment by anon Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:51 pm
===Phelps had 72 ===

Not when it counted.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:51 pm
Word
My point was Phelps bill was closer to the target number he needed than the May issue was to a simple majority. For some reason 60 was stuck in my head probably from following Feds 60 vote threshold for closure of debate.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:53 pm
Mason, you need a super-majority to trump home rule or override a veto.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:54 pm
anon

Don’t forget those votes who dropped off last time could drop off again. they aren’t ours until the vote is finished.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:55 pm
Word

I do actually know that but somehow 60 was stuck in my gray matter.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 2:56 pm
Yossarian, I followed a link which led me to the Senate Republican page, which had a synopsis of the bill. If I am in error, I apologize. I assumed it would be all “home rule” cities, not just Chicago.
But you bring up a point as others also seemed to interpret-is home rule preempted in this amendment, or not?

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:00 pm
–My point was Phelps bill was closer to the target number he needed than the May issue was to a simple majority. –

That’s true. It’s a standoff.

I’ve been an advocate of a New York/California/Massachusetts c-c law as a way to get off the schneid and bring legal c-c to, more than likely, 101 counties.

It got creamed last time out, but as we get closer to June 9, who knows? Not me.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:03 pm
I don’t know what the Senate Republicans have up, but the actual language that just passed the Senate Executive committee is here: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183sam001.htm. I would suggest you read it.

As for your other question, the best way I can put it in layman’s terms is that it preempts home rule but in such a way that a 3/5 vote is not constitutionally required, only a simple majority. See Article VII, Sec. 6(h). The LRU website has a great annotated Illinois Constitution that explains it.

Comment by Yossarian Lives Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:11 pm
@ Mason -

Word and Rich make my point perhaps more efficiently than I do.

Phelps had votes, but not enough to get past a Quinn veto, etc.

He needs “may issue” legislators just as much as Raoul needs “shall issuers”.

Re “On a seperate idea why not take Phelps bill add the Chicago Endorsement and the Homerules being able to add additional locations”

…I already brought up my major issue with the Phelps bill.

It very specifically allows loaded guns into my kid’s preschool room. And on playgrounds. And in the local rec center gym. Etc.

Nobody’s ever heard of an irate parent whose going through a divorce getting upset and “ending it all” so their soon-to-be Ex can’t get the kids in the settlement, now have they?

And of course there are never any brawls when a pick up basketball game goes a bit “over the edge” at the local park’s gym.

We shouldn’t be making it easier to bring loaded guns into those situations - but Phelps’ bill did.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:12 pm
Word.

You are right on that no one can be sure what happens after June 9th as it relates to the two sides of the debate. If every homerule city enacts conflicting ordinances I could see your side being bolstered. If the Majority of home rules enact Ordinances more in line with what Spfld. is discussing, where a permit from Peoria would be good in Spfld etc., than i see the Shall issue side being bolstered.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 3:29 pm
In so far as I am a firearms instructor, and weekly I place loaded handguns into the hands of strangers who take my courses and I sign on on their competency and ability to demonstrate that they can safely load, unload and discharge a firearm; I wonder if THAT would be sufficient reason to allow ME to have a CCW permit?

Comment by Paladin63 Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:15 pm
The first major issue I have with Sen. Raoul’s bill is the prohibition on storage of a firearm in a locked container in parking lots for, near or adjacent to certain prohibited places.

You’re on the way to the courthouse to pay your tax bill, and you know the courthouse is a prohibited place. So, when you get there you unholster and secure your weapon in a locked container inside your vehicle. Common sense would tell a reasonable person that a properly secured weapon should be acceptable. Despite this being a common feature of CCW statute in other states, under the Senator’s bill this action would be illegal.

The bill’s language as presented effectively constitutes a ban on carry for many people by placing unreasonable restraints on carry.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:24 pm
“If every homerule city enacts conflicting ordinances”

If the GA fails to enact a CC bill by the deadline I would expect that there would be many differences between the various ordinances enacted in the home rule communities. As different people would be working on this issue from different points of view and with different needs in the various cities, a large number of differences in the resulting ordinances is to be expected.

Comment by Small Town Taxpayer Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:31 pm
G.

I missed your post earlier. I think you are forgetting something Phelps may need 7 votes from middle of the road or May issue types. However the last May-issue got only 31 votes. It isn’t quite an even stalemate here. It seems to me the final bill needs to be closer to Phelps than to Cassidy’s. Add to that the other items Raoul put in seems like he almost expects it to fail. As for PQ i think he may veto anything just to say he did so on the campaign trail.

As for your concerns with the Phelps bill. I appreciate your apprehension. A private daycare can, under phelps bill, prohibit firearms on the premises. A public preschool run out of a school is already restricted. A school Playground is restricted. As for the rec center and pick up basketball games has this been a problem in the other 49 states?? Remember there are some pretty specific hopes to go through to get the license under either bill. You shouldn’t, if the system works as designed under either bill, have the type of people who would shoot someone over a bball game in posesion of a permit.

If we tried to foresee every possible place where two adults could get into an arguement we’d be stuck with the same thing we have now. That however is not an option.

As for the disgruntled ex unfortunately that happens now when it is restricted throughout the state as well as in CA and NYC. Thankfully it doesn’t happen often. I doubt you could find any evidence that it becomes more prevalent with CCW.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Ken

I must of missed something. I am pretty sure Language was included allowing storage in your vehicle as long as it was out of site etc. I may be wrong but i believe it is in there.

Palladin

From what i read Instructors are considered trained. As for whether it is a valid reason i don’t know that Raoul actually knows what he means by that. At least if he does he isn’t saying.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:35 pm
“Any person licensed under this Act who is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun into a building by the provisions of subsection (a) or under an ordinance… shall be permitted to store that handgun or ammunition out of plain sight in his or her locked vehicle in a container designed to hold a firearm located within the vehicle, or in a locked container securely affixed to the outside of the vehicle, unless firearms are otherwise expressly prohibited, in accordance with subsection (h) of this Section, from the parking area in which the vehicle is located.”

Comment by Yossarian Lives Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:43 pm
hopes should have been hoops.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:44 pm
Yossarian

Do you know what he means in regards to ” in accordance with subsection (h) of this Section,”. Subsection h unless i am mistaken seems to deal with Signage. Ken may be right if Raoul is basically saying unless you put signage saying parking lot is off limits. Which would seem to make the section you listed essentially worthless.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:51 pm
Mason, what I was reading starting at the bottom of page 27 and continuing on page 28:

(d) Any person licensed under this Act who is prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun into a building by the provisions of subsection (a) or under an ordinance, resolution, or policy adopted in accordance with subsection (a-5), (a-10), or (c) shall be permitted to store that handgun or ammunition out of plain sight in his or her locked vehicle in a container designed to hold a firearm located within the vehicle, or in a locked container securely affixed to the outside of the vehicle, unless firearms are otherwise expressly prohibited, in accordance with subsection (h) of this Section, from the parking area where the vehicle is located.

“Subsection (h)” is the signage section. As I read it a parking lot can be signed - and if the main premises is prohibited, I have no doubt there will be many attempts to make parking areas prohibited places if the statute allows it. Can you see Oak Park not signing the library parking lot? That’s why Indiana passed a change to their statute that gave CCW holders the right to store in their cars even if the associated premises were off-limits.

On a more positive note, did you catch 1-22(f)? Allowing CCW holders to drive through the city without a Chicago endorsement? I’m stunned.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:58 pm
Mason, sorry - you posted while I was typing.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 4:59 pm
–On a more positive note, did you catch 1-22(f)? Allowing CCW holders to drive through the city without a Chicago endorsement? I’m stunned. –

That was a big issue against any sort of home rule/may issue authority, right?

Could that not be considered a compromise?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:32 pm
The bottom line is that the so-called “compromise” bill wouldn’t survive Federal Court review; the 7th COA made it plain: uniform and statewide carry; no exceptions, no home rule shenanigans; no Chicago/Cook County exceptions. Apparently many of our Legislators are either stupid or stubborn to keep sponsoring and supporting bills that simply will be overturned.

Comment by CrookCounty60827 Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:32 pm
Uniform and plain? If you think that’s the rule, you haven’t read the opinion.

I don’t agree with Kwame, but that idea that the idea is simple is insane. There is a heck of a lot of grey when it comes to what can pass scrutiny.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:38 pm
http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2013/05/senate_panel_advances_concealed-carry_bill_over_nra_objections.html

includes quote from Todd

Comment by Amalia Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:43 pm
The more I read this, the less I like it.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:45 pm
–The bottom line is that the so-called “compromise” bill wouldn’t survive Federal Court review; the 7th COA made it plain: uniform and statewide carry; no exceptions, no home rule shenanigans; no Chicago/Cook County exceptions. –

Did it now? Show me, from the opinion, since it’s so plain. Find the words:

“uniform and statewide”
“home rule”
“no Chicago/Cook County exceptions”

You’re just making it up.

Here’s what I read, as far as the court’s parameters:

“…we need not speculate on the limits that Illinois in the interest of public safety constitutionally imposes on the carrying of guns in public; it’s enough that the limits it has imposed go too far.”

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/guns-CST-121212.pdf

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:58 pm
This is a may issue bill just worded to trick some this should not pass June 10th is our best bet

Comment by crunch Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:37 pm
GW -
You may see this as “reasonable” as you mention the AG’s extension of request for cert, but consider that if the legislation that’s proposed would result in Mary Shepard being disarmed the day she was nearly killed? It’s a no-deal for the court, and all their “hard work” goes for naught.

Comment by Tango Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:49 pm
Ken

Ya i caught that one of the reasons why i thought that with work this could reach a compromise.

Word as for that alone making it a compromise. It’s kind of like saying i am going to get 99% of what i want but here i’ll give you this inconsequential piece. That being said the language he used is common sense.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:57 pm
And yet Tango 1000s are killed by guns every year because no one with a gun for “self defense” has ESP and can predict the future to know when someone else with a gun is planning to kill them.

Even in states that allow people to carry loaded guns there are many more gun-related deaths each year than there are “near misses”.

As someone mentioned above, Jared Lochner was legally allowed to carry the guns he used to kill that little girl and all those others as he tried to kill Congresswoman Giffords.

And yes, there were others there that day who also had loaded guns for “self defense”. They admitted later they almost shot the wrong guy in the mayhem.

We shouldn’t be encouraging more domestic terrorism and yet pouring more gas on the fire (ie, more guns on the streets) is all some gun industry supporters seem to want.

You and Crunch may want to re-read the court’s decision. It doesn’t have the June 10th impact you think it does.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:03 pm
Kind of makes sense to rush it the quicker they rush it the less likely anyone will realize how bad it is.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:07 pm
This bill seems to be going backwards. Why can’t they just produce a clean CCW bill and leave out all the stuff that just ticks people off?

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:36 pm
I was pulled over teo days ago while looking for my license the chicago police officer seen my utah ccw and said this to me it will be a cold day in hell when you or anyone that isnt a officer will carry in chicago buddy i simply responded its looking that way.

Comment by @jason Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 7:43 pm
I used to live in Illinois and now live in Florida. We have concealed carry here and I actually went through the process to get a permit. I found it to be straight-forward and not overly burdensome. Florida has over 1 Million active CCW permits. It works and I have not noticed a crime problem. I see the proposed bill having an issue with allowing each community to have their own places prohibiting concealed carry. This has the potential to create a patchwork of laws that the average citizen would not be able to memorize. Certainly for the communities you regularly visit, you would know the rules. But what about the road trip to visit Galena or Garden of the Gods? You would pass through many communities. There should be one standard for the whole state.

Comment by With Liberty For All..... Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:23 pm
@ Mr. Wonderful - “Why can’t they just produce a clean CCW bill and leave out all the stuff that just ticks people off?”

Because the very fact that some back bencher lower court judicial panel decided to legislate from the bench and usurp our states rights already ticks off all the people who think things are fine the way they are.

Welcome to a representative democracy. You don’t get everything you want… nor do I.

–

@ With Liberty -

I hardly think Tampa, Gainesville, Miami, etc. don’t have crime problems.

According to neighborhoodscout.com you have a higher likelihood of being a victim of violent crime in Miami (1 in 84) and in Florida in general (1 in 194) than you do in Chicago (1 in 97) and Illinois overall (1 in 233).

Oops. There’s goes that pro-gun fallacy that more guns helps reduce crime rates.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:46 pm
But things are not fine the way they are.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:00 pm
@ Mr. Wonderful - “But things are not fine the way they are.”

You are correct. It is far too easy for criminals, terrorists, and the criminally insane to get their hands on guns and kill our fellow Americans with them.

Perhaps it is because our nation’s, and the several states’, gun laws are far too relaxed.

Maybe it is because the gun lobby has successfully overtaken the supposedly grassroots ‘gun enthusiasts’ groups and convinced a relatively small, if vocal, minority that they MUST stockpile weapons that America - by far - has an exponentially larger number of deaths-by-gun than any other civilized nation.

It could be that the gun lobby’s decades long marketing efforts to convince gun owners that they can predict the future and successfully ‘defend themselves’ like Rambo instead of accidentally shooting themselves or their relatives is preventing 2A supporters from realizing they are more likely to be shot by their own gun than by a criminal.

Could be that you’re right - maybe things are not fine they are.

Maybe Sen. Raoul’s proposal is far too lax and dangerous.

In fact, I think it is.

But I can support it because I understand the reality that it’s a common sense middle ground between what you want and what I want.

Comment by G. Willickers Friday, May 17, 13 @ 8:18 am
Willickers you sound like you are of of those college boys with all your fancy sentences and such. So help me out here a bit with all your “perhaps” and “maybe” stuff.

So let me see if I have this right. This “gun lobby” went to the “gun but not a lobby” people and took them over and made them part of the gun lobby. Then this gun lobby got in the heads of tens of millions of Americans and tricked them into buying guns. But, luckily you were too smart to be taken in by the gun lobby so you’re now here to warn us all of our folly.

Dunno…but it looks like what you’re saying in your post is that the gun lobby has done a better job selling its ideas than the gun control lobby. Just sayin’…

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Friday, May 17, 13 @ 10:09 am
Devil’s advocate question (for the sake of discussion): It is hardly likely to have an agreement that both sides will accept; what about accepting the bill that has Chicago and Cook county as ‘may issue’ so the remaining citizens of IL can get their applications started and then file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality so as to open the doors back up for CHI and Cook county?

It is not likely that a lower court would re-interpret the SCOTUS decision specifically as it references the fact that a person in Chicago is more likely to need a firearm on the streets; than in their 34th floor apartment.

For years the anti-gunners have used a divide and conquer tactic against us. Why don’t we use the same in reverse.

We take the ball on the opposing teams 40 yard line (meaning we’ve already advanced 60 yards) and we fight and push for the remaining 40 yards?

I’m interested in serious discussion on strategy.

Comment by Paladin63 Friday, May 17, 13 @ 11:01 am
@ Mr. Wonderful -

Heaven forbid someone should work their tail off to educate themselves. Sheesh.

And yes, the NRA, etc. were clearly taken over back in the 70s etc.

The NRA of old helped write many of the gun supervision laws in the early and mid-20th Century that the NRA of new has been working so hard to repeal.

–

@ Paladin -

Tell us your strategy for the “well-regulated militia” gun owners are supposed to be in.

Comment by G. Willickers Friday, May 17, 13 @ 1:45 pm