Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

This just in… House’s concealed carry bill surfaces

Posted in:

Illinois

* 3:13 pm - Read it here and discuss in comments.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:14 pm

Comments

(5) Any building or potion of a building under the control of a unit of local government.

-Pretty vague. How do you define control?

Is that a building issued an occupancy permit?
That could be twisted to include any bulding that requires a permit.

Comment by Pete Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:24 pm
16 hours of training. Ban on public transportation.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:26 pm
” Any building or potion of a building under the
control of a unit of local government.”

Found a typo!

Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:27 pm
$150 application fee.

Comment by 332bill Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:39 pm
This is nuts:

Sec. 6-103.2. Developmental disability; notice.
If a person is determined to be developmentally disabled as defined in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner, whether practicing at a public or by a private mental health facility or developmental disability facility, the physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner shall notify the Department of Human Services within 24 hours of making the determination that the person has a developmental a disability.

1. The loopholes are ginormous, starting with all of those folks in the quad cities and metro-east who receive care across the border.

2. The burden is incredible. Do the authors even have any idea how many people with developmental disabilities there are? And we’re going to keep a central registry of them, but we’re worried about violating someone’s constitutional rights by requiring firearms to be registered?

The same could probably be said for the mental health provisions.

The sane, simple solution is to require anyone applying for a conceal carry license to take a psychological exam and an IQ test. If they don’t pass the psych exam or have an IQ below 100, no license.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:41 pm
No Chicago/Cook carveout and shall issue, vs. $150 fees/16 hours of training/no public transportation and a long list of prohibited places.

I say take it and work on prohibited places later.

Comment by mjrothjr Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Just as insane- “The sane, simple solution is to require anyone applying for a conceal carry license to take a psychological exam and an IQ test. If they don’t pass the psych exam or have an IQ below 100, no license.”

Comment by Charlatan Heston Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:45 pm
It’s a good chance this bill will pass. They’ve added public transportation as a prohibited area, which was not in HB997. That’s why we didn’t get the 71 votes we almost had in April.

Comment by Mike Ovitz Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:46 pm
It will be interesting to see if crime on the CTA, or areas near entrances/exits increases.

Most of the research shows, after CCW laws pass, certain types of crime increase (ones that don’t involve person-to-person interaction) and that crime increases in bordering counties that don’t have CCW laws (border states back when many didn’t have it).

The basic point is that criminals adjust strategy to reduce their risk.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:50 pm
CTA and Metra are out at least, but I always figured they were there to be taken out as a “compromise,” anyway.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:50 pm
Funny how this happens on the same day protestors try to storm the chamber.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:52 pm
I really hope this bill passes and that Lisa Madigan doesn’t appeal to the SCOTUS.

Comment by Mike Ovitz Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:54 pm
I agree with mjrothjr - “Take it” if we get the opportunity. However, Since it was filed by Rep. Phelps I expect push some more back from the other side!

Comment by Frank Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:55 pm
Just the way I like it. Short and easy to read…LOL

Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:56 pm
I must be reading too quickly…I read $300 application fee. 16 hours of training (another $300) sounds like the UTAH process plus Florida, which would be about 12 hours. I’ll make another pass, but I must have missed qualifications for those providing the training.

Comment by Charlatan Heston Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 3:57 pm
=== The sane, simple solution is to require anyone applying for a conceal carry license to take a psychological exam and an IQ test. If they don’t pass the psych exam or have an IQ below 100, no license ===

Do you have ANY idea how much such an eval costs? Who pays for that? It adds hundreds to the cost of a permit.

Your whole post is absurd. How hard can it be to identify anyone receiving DD care who lives in Illinois? Duh, their care is paid for by the state of Illinois. Link that to the cognitive evals done on the DD population on a regular basis (typically about every 3 years) and mandate that the psychologist put a copy into an envelope, seal it and put a stamp on it. Duh.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Given the training criteria, it will be tough to meet the mandated 16 hours. Wonder if the courses will include two three hour naps?

Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:00 pm
This preemption would also invalidate Chicago’s ban on assault weapons.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Did not see if the bill will recognize ccw from any other state? Anyone see anything about that?

Comment by boat captain Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:02 pm
***…but I must have missed qualifications for those providing the training.***

Section 80 on page 31.

Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:02 pm
can we assume the NRA and ISRA have “written off” on this verbage?

Comment by railrat Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:04 pm
***Did not see if the bill will recognize ccw from any other state? Anyone see anything about that?***

From Section 75. Applicant firearm training.

(g) The Department and certified firearms instructor shall recognize up to 8 hours of training already completed toward the 16 hour training requirement under this Section if the training course is approved by the Department and recognized under the laws of another state. Any remaining hours that the applicant completes must at least cover the classroom subject matter of paragraph (4) of subsection (b) of this Section, and the range qualification in subsection (c) of this Section.

Comment by Slick Willy Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:05 pm
I can live with this one. It gives local authorities a place at the table along with a well defined appeal process for denied applicants.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:05 pm
Slick

I used to help teach Marines a two week Firearm range course. Class time was 2hrs with the rest of the first week spent sitting around snapping in on barrels 2nd week on range. How in the world they are going to use up 16 hrs fathoms me. Range time is what 30 minutes. Maybe 2 hours on IL law. Even accounting for lunch and potty breaks seems like there is about 10 hours left to fill.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:06 pm
railrat

My guess is no i think they want the NRA to oppose in order to get Anti votes.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:07 pm
“Did not see if the bill will recognize ccw from any other state? Anyone see anything about that?”

I didn’t see anything either, and a search reveals no hits on the term “reciprocity.” Hopefully this would be resolved.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:08 pm
Couple more typos:

Section 75. Applicant firearm training.
25 (a) Within 45 days of the effective date of this Act, the

09800SB2193ham001 - 29 - LRB098 10174 MRW 46317 a

1 Department shall begin approval of firearm training courses and
2 makes a list of approved courses available of the Department’s
3 website.

Line 2, “makes” should be make, second “of” should be “on”

still reading …

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:11 pm
rich or anyone who knows

Why did Phelps Amend a Senate bill and Raoul amend a house bill? Why not one from their own chamber?

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:12 pm
@Slick Willy-Thanks-saw that but saw no mention of reciprocity of any other state. Scanned it too quick.

Comment by boat captain Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:13 pm
I don’t think they will recognize out of state CCW. The language spoke of a $300 permit for “non-residents”

Comment by Mike Ovitz Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:13 pm
How can you not have reciprocity. Don’t all the other CC states have it?

Comment by DocNoyes Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:16 pm
@DocNoyes-My Florida permit covers several states (I think 37) but not all states with CCW.

Comment by boat captain Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:19 pm
>>>>>> How can you not have reciprocity. Don’t all the other CC states have it?

It’s still Illinois, don’t forget that. Also, it’s par for the course for a state to have CCW tune-up bills after first getting CCW.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Another reason to make it only IL residents. Out of staters wanting to carry here in IL will bring in $300 to the states coffers.

Comment by boat captain Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:22 pm
==Why did Phelps Amend a Senate bill and Raoul amend a house bill? Why not one from their own chamber? ==

Because the bill only has to go back to the opposite chamber for concurrence. It’s a procedural thing.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:31 pm
–How can you not have reciprocity. Don’t all the other CC states have it?–

No, they do not.

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

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:32 pm
Not perfect but appears to address the major concerns (including parking lot storage). There are a few points I could quibble with but they aren’t deal breakers.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:32 pm
Demo

Thanks i thought it might be something like that but wasn’t sure.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:36 pm
@ Mason born 4:12
=Why did Phelps Amend a Senate bill and Raoul amend a house bill? Why not one from their own chamber?=

The deadline to get bills out of the original chambers has passed. This late in session all you can do is amend a bill that is alive in your chamber and that means a bill that originated across the hall.

Comment by Namaste Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:36 pm
I’m amazed that while they ban concealed carry in schools, courthouses, and other locations, it explicitly allows them to store weapons in the parking lot. Now they have added language ALLOWING a person to take the weapon out of their vehicle in the school parking lot in order to place it in the trunk.

Do we really want weapons in school parking lots?

Comment by dazed & confused Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:38 pm
If the Speaker is behind it, it should get through the House.

But what is in it for the Senate?

This seems like a nice exercise, but I can’t see it going any farther.

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:41 pm
“Now they have added language ALLOWING a person to take the weapon out of their vehicle in the school parking lot in order to place it in the trunk.”

Why - do you have a way of magically transporting a weapon from the vehicle interior to a lockbox in the trunk? You did notice that it requires the weapon to be unloaded, right?

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:43 pm
Having now read it fully, if the choice is betwen this and Kwame’s bill (which is probably the case), as a CCW supporter, you take this, warts and all. There is ample in here for both sides to feel like they won and lost, which seems to be the point of the political process.

Comment by mjrothjr Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:43 pm
dazed & confused @ 4:38 pm:

If you’re going to ban from buildings, you have to have a way to store outside the building.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:44 pm
I wonder if we won’t see some sort of challenge towards depriving the financially challenged of their right. As i add it up.
$250 for a highpoint 9mm (this is a cheap pistol get into quality and the numbers skyrocket)
$150 for fee
$100+ for a 16 hr class
$100 for a bicycle (since no Public Transport)
$120+ for 16 hrs off work.
$30 for a box of 9mm hardball
Looks like about $750 for the whole shooting match. I’m not saying right or wrong or the merits of the case but one could argue that the working poor who live in the worst neighborhoods are being priced out of their right to carry. Add to that there is no range they can go to in Chicago and No way to use Public Transportation to get to a range.

Comment by Mason born Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:51 pm
In the Daley Center, most off duty police officers and law enforcement personnel who are carrying weapons report to a locker room supervised by Sheriff’s deputies and put their weapons into storage while conducting business in the courthouse. I am sure that similar facilities exist at many other courts.

Comment by Esquire Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:52 pm
@Mason born: You can carry on public transportation in accordance with current law (broken down in a non-functioning state; not immediately accessible; or unloaded and enclosed in a case. And Chicago’s ordinance banning ranges would be invalidated.

Comment by charles in charge Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 4:57 pm
Good point, Mason.
We should just have Illinois give guns away.
It is SO UNFAIR that people need to pay for them!
WAAHH!

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:05 pm
By the way Mason, if I want to lobby for something important to me and my pals, I need to pay:

$300 fee for lobbying;
Ink;
Paper;
Business cards;
Travel expenses to and from Springfield;
Really nice suits, because no lobbyist ever wants to look like bad.

Mason, I think the State should start picking up the tab for all those things.

You with me, Mason?

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:10 pm
16 hours is a lot. Took a 40 hour MAG 40 class from Ayoob and we spent at least 20 in class. Can only get 8 hours credit if he registers. No range credit. 8 hours should be plenty. Drives up cost.

Comment by RSW Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:12 pm
I see nothing wrong with allowing the purchase of guns and ammo with a LINK Card.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:14 pm
Otherwise, not the best but take it and move on.

Comment by RSW Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:14 pm
Seems to respect a private business owners ability to limey concealed possession on their premise. Not keen on the idea of designated parking at certain public facilities specifically for ccw users. Seems reasonable for downstate for as much as I’ve read thus far.

Comment by Midstate Indy Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:15 pm
I was intrigued by the training requirements in that beyond demonstrating that you understand the ins-and-outs of gun safety, you have to show that you’re a pretty decent shot.

Does anyone know if that’s similar to other states?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:16 pm
40 class was $800 and that is comparitively cheap.

Comment by RSW Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:18 pm
Still find it fascinating just how dumb Illinois citizens are. That we need so much TLC from our government when 49 other states don’t seem to have a problem with conceal carry. So. let me see if the answer I heard from McArthy in a hearing was correct. When asked, of the number of murders in Chicago in 2011, how many were done by FOID card holders? ZERO!

Comment by Fan Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:19 pm
Domes states do require range qualification. Nevada. Texas.

Comment by RSW Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:19 pm
@wordslinger-I was required to shoot in my Florida CCW class. At different distances and with the target moving toward me.

Comment by boat captain Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:20 pm
That public transportaion clause is tough to swallow. When someone gets off the train, they can’t pull the weapon out of the bacpack on the street, reload it, and then holster it concealed. Effectively no carry allowed. Guns on public transportation is an irrational fear anyway.

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:27 pm
Interesting, Allen.

Some people think that opening fire in the combined space of a train car is irrational.

You think banning people from doing so is irrational.

Luckily we have our fine elected representatives to sort that out for us!

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:30 pm
$150 for five years doesn’t seem like that much compared to how much it costs annually for auto plates.

Comment by Jack Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:31 pm
Sixteen hours of training could be too long, but you could always fill it in with some group discussion like are green laser guides really better than red laser guides and in what situations would one or the other be appropriate.

Comment by Jack Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 5:46 pm
Charlatan Heston: if the goal is to keep firearms out of the hands of the psychologically unstable, and as advocates have said supplement an inadequate police force, i dont know why we wouldnt simple require a basic psych exam.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:11 pm
i would wager that only a fraction of a fraction of the people with a mental illness have ever been “adjudicated” mentally ill. The provision is a fig leaf.

i also imagine a blanket prohibition against people with a developmental disability wont stand up to the americans with disabilities act.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:15 pm
CCW isn’t within the scope of the ADA.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:18 pm
>>>>>> $150 for five years doesn’t seem like that much compared to how much it costs annually for auto plates.

License plates are a tax on a privilege, not a right.

How does that $150 compare with the cost of your voter’s ID? With the lobbyist’s ID? With the ID required to buy books? With the one required to speak in public?

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:25 pm
Interstate travel is not a right, John?
That’s news.

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:28 pm
–License plates are a tax on a privilege, not a right.–

Where has it been established that concealed-carry is a right under the 2nd Amendment?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:29 pm
@HenryVK it has been stated here before, you have the right to interstate travel but being able to drive yourself in your own car is a privilege
.

Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:36 pm
Kevin,
You mean you can limit a fundamental right?
Really?
That’s fascinating.
Tell me more about how fundamental rights become a privilege.
You sure you want to go with that defense?

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:44 pm
@HenryVK,

Sure, if you abuse a fundamental right say murder someone, your fundamental right to freedom may be limited as a punishment.

If you abuse your right to travel by operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous fashion that right maybe limited by saying you can’t drive any more.

The important thing to note here is that these limits apply to the individual and are not imposed as preventative measures to the population as a whole.

Comment by Kevin Highland Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:54 pm
16 hours! They have to be more reasonable. Military training does not qualify? What is the matter with these people. We are watching and laughing at them showing there ignorance about most issues involved here. They have no excuses as they have 49 other states CCW laws to guide them. Shame on them all!

Comment by Bill K Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:54 pm
Kevin,
What do murders have to do with auto licenses and plates?
I’m not following that logic.

Comment by HenryVK Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:56 pm
–If you abuse your right to travel by operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous fashion that right maybe limited by saying you can’t drive any more.–

Travel within the United States for citizens is unrestricted but driving is a licensed activity.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 6:57 pm
after a breath, my gut tells me that this IS what we are faced with!(possible tweeks) the options will be worse (New York) lets just watch how the roll call evolves and be prepared to take issue with the votes against ……that may include some broken ties with long established relationships and may also cause us to divest from “party loyalty” I beleive the forces against are going to overwhelm some and we will see some we thought as allies fail us!! but always remember “nothing ever dies in springfield” and please do NOT, if this draft gets passed hold the reps for the NRA & ISRA to judge, I believe that 3 dimensional chess and the gavel may have prevailed against…”The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possiblity of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy” Sun Tzu

Comment by railrat Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 7:22 pm
Allen, what prevents someone from holstering their weapon upon exiting a train?

Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 7:31 pm
“Travel within the United States for citizens is unrestricted but driving is a licensed activity.” As with CCW, Chicago is exempt.

Comment by Anon. Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 7:34 pm
Unbelievable! 114 pages of fees, restrictions and requirments, pre and post.I really like the part where they say Psychologists,Psychiatrists and health workers are equal. If this is what IL. Law abiding sportsmen and women are faced with, we must abstain!

Comment by Tankr Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 8:42 pm
>>>>> what prevents someone from holstering their weapon upon exiting a train?

There are no more phone booths.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 9:16 pm
STL - I suspect if someone pulls out the weapon to holster it, the weapon will be visible and they could be guilty of brandishing. They would need to find a private place to holster or leave an unloaded weapon in their backpack (same as we have now).

No one is for gun fights on buses or trains. It’s a silly, irrational fear.

Comment by Allen Skillicorn Wednesday, May 22, 13 @ 11:05 pm
>>>>> No one is for gun fights on buses or trains. It’s a silly, irrational fear.

No one is for gun fights anywhere. The gun fights that break out now are not by civilians with CCW and FOID cards. And those gun fights might reduce under CCW in Illinois (+Chicago).

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:15 am
For this guy, an NRA-sponsored bill to allow loaded guns will come too late to carry out his plan…

https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130522/news/705229833/

If he lived in Arizona he might’ve already done it. A lot easier to do there.

Luckily, no Rams were hurt.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:39 am
Why does the NRA get special treatment with its own seat on the state commission?

Shouldn’t Illinois Council on Handgun Violence, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Americans for Responsible Solutions or Brady Campaign (or all 4) be given a place at the table for balance?

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:54 am
The “state commission” to which you refer is, I presume, the FOID task force to develop recommendations to consolidate the FOID card and the CCW license to a single card.

The NRA presumably has some expertise to bring to the table on how to do that. What would those anti-gun organizations bring to the table to aid the legislature in combining the FOID card and CCW license card? Further, why would they even want to do that?

Comment by Lawrence Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:24 am
The gun control organizations offer little, if any value added to the process. Their only expertise is drafting bills that nobody will vote for - witness the CCW follies of Cassidy and Raoul. And no, the gun control folks do not have the political horsepower to balance anything.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 5:27 am
Say what you will, but at least this bill would create another review board that is populated with appointees selected by the Governer. That approach has worked wonders in the past. /snark

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 8:20 am
Basically, if I read this right, the commenters here who hate the idea of shall-issue right-to-carry hate this bill. Meanwhile, the commenters elsewhere who’ve been waiting for shall-issue right-to-carry . . . . also hate this bill.

We may actually have achieved compromise. That’s what it’s called when everybody hates it but everybody votes for it, right?

Speaking for myself, this bill is not what I wanted. 16 hours of training is ridiculous when Indianans are carrying on lifetime permits with zero training and the sky has not fallen. $150 plus the cost of a full weekend of training is a ridiculous onus to put on the exercise of a constitutional right (and to answer the snarky question above, the Federal Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit found that “bearing arms” is a constitutional right, that’s who.) I’m paying $400 for 20 hours of training next month (it won’t count toward training requirements under this bill, I just want the training) and it’s only that cheap because it’s classroom only–and frankly because the Massad Ayoob Group makes a point of keeping the price reasonable. The list of restricted areas is foolishly huge and will almost certainly provoke lawsuits.

HOWEVER . . . it wasn’t that long ago that I understood that Illinois would likely not see right-to-carry in the foreseeable future. This bill is a BIG step forward and leapfrogs us several steps past places like, for instance, California, New York, and New Jersey. I’m telling my representative that I expect him to vote for it, but also that I’m going to back him up if he gets any flak for doing so, whether from the other side or our own.

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 8:29 am
–(and to answer the snarky question above, the Federal Court of Appeals in the 7th Circuit found that “bearing arms” is a constitutional right, that’s who.)–

Not concealed.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 8:33 am
>>>>> We may actually have achieved compromise. That’s what it’s called when everybody hates it but everybody votes for it, right?

Great stuff, Don!

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:07 am