Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Friday House floor vote slated for concealed carry

Posted in:

Illinois

* David Ormsby probably has the House situation read well…

A new, compromise conceal carry bill that surfaced on Wednesday will likely capture 80 votes or more in the Illinois House, sources say.

* But as I told subscribers this morning, there will be a big problem with this bill among Senate Democratic leadership and Gov. Pat Quinn…

“[The House bill] would overturn every gun regulation that home rule communities already have in statute, including Cook County’s Assault Weapons Ban, Calumet Park, Chicago, Cicero and Highland Parks reporting of lost or stolen ordinances and the Chicago responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. Your community would have NO input on who can carry in public!” [wrote Illinois Council Against Gun Violence Executive Director Colleen Daley]

* Another sticking point between the House and the Senate…

The House version would ban guns in bars where more than 50 percent of sales come from liquor. The Senate bill has a more restrictive standard. […]

A spokeswoman for Senate President John Cullerton said he would review the House bill with Sen. Kwame Raoul, a fellow Chicago Democrat who is sponsoring the stalled but more restrictive Senate version.

Raoul said he was not prepared to support the House bill as is. He said guns should not be allowed in places where any alcoholic beverages are served and that the bill is too restrictive on major cities that may want to crack down on a variety of other firearms issues. Raoul, however, did like the House provision adding a ban on carrying guns at street festivals.

* However…

“Every request from the city of Chicago on a prohibited location is in the bill,” Madigan said.

* A list of places where concealed carry will be prohibited, from a House Democratic fact sheet…

* Preschool, elementary, and secondary schools
* Child care facilities
* Playgrounds
* Public parks located within a municipality under the control of a municipality or park district
* Cook County Forest Preserve
* Bars (more than 50% of its gross receipts from the sale of liquor)
* State buildings
* Local government buildings
* Libraries
* Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes
* Stadiums, arenas, and sporting events
* Airports
* Amusement parks, zoos, and museums
* Colleges and Universities
* Public transportation paid in part of whole with public funds
* Public gatherings authorized by a unit of local government
* Areas prohibited by federal law

* Other stuff…

* A non-resident who has a concealed-carry permit from another state could carry a weapon only in his or her vehicle while traveling in Illinois. A non-resident from a state that has substantially similar requirements as Illinois for a license could obtain a non-resident license at a cost of $300.

* Police, doctors, mental health professionals, health facilities, nursing homes and school personnel would be required to report any person they determine poses a clear and present danger to self and others.

* An applicant would be required to complete 16 hours of training, including exercises at a shooting range and a review of laws. Only one state requires more training. Costello said he’s hopeful that part of the training will be available online.

* Local units of government, including large municipalities that have “home rule,” would not be allowed to set their own rules on carrying firearms.

* More…

Under the plan, local law enforcement could object to carry permit applications based on the person’s arrest record and whether they believe the person to be a danger to themselves or to the public. The objection would be submitted to a newly created seven-member licensing review board that investigates further to make a final determination.

The board would consist of a federal judge, two attorneys, three FBI agents, and one mental health expert — all appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. The additional scrutiny by the board would be in addition to the person having passed a background check and having a valid Firearm Owner’s Identification Card.

* House voting schedule…

House Speaker Michael Madigan, who was involved in negotiations, said the legislation is a “good, sound” response to the court order by appeasing both gun-rights and gun-control advocates.

Madigan said the bill will be up for a vote today in the House Judiciary Committee with a House vote as early as Friday.

The Judiciary Committee meets this morning at 9:30 in room 114. Watch or listen here and keep an eye on our live session post for constant updates.

* Some react…

Pro-gun lawmakers, such as state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, also expressed hope for passage, saying the measure is a compromise intended to meet a federal court order that Illinois get a concealed-carry law on the books by June 9.

Missing from the conversation Wednesday night was the National Rifle Association, which has not taken a position on the measure. The usually vocal Todd Vandermyde, who lobbies for the NRA, said he was reviewing the legislation.

Phelps said it’s a good sign that no one is claiming victory or defeat.

“I don’t know if anybody’s happy right now,” Phelps said.

* More on the NRA…

Phelps conceded that the lack of NRA approval might help the plan’s chance for passage in the Senate, where many Democrats support a much more restrictive bill. Phelps’ legislation appears to try to skate a thin line of avoiding excessively angering the NRA, thus pushing them to lobby against the bill, while also not giving them a reason to jump for joy, which might scare Senate votes off the plan. But the proposal does not allow Chicago or Cook County to be any more restrictive on licensing than the rest of the state, which some in the Senate may find tough to swallow.

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:25 am

Comments

Can you post the link to Phelps Bill again? I failed to capture the # or save it.

Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:30 am
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/09800SB2193ham001.htm

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:31 am
Thanks Rich

Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:35 am
80 votes is a lot.

I would take NRA silence as assent.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:37 am
Kwame is never going to agree to anything.

He’s too busy positioning himself for his race for AG. He seems to think he can do it with strong Chicago support.

That may not be his best move since even if he gets the nod, what he’s doing right now is annoying downstate Dems who he will need if the GOP nominates a half decent alternative.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:38 am
I support Kwame’s bill and will call my Rep., Barbara Flynn Currie, and ask her to vote no on this.

Comment by wndycty Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:41 am
As a supporter of CC…I can get behind this bill…a little bit restrictive in the hours of training, but not overly burdensome in my opinion. Seems like the biggest challenge here is getting the program set up as written, instructors approved, signs posted, etc….it effectively postpones CC for at least a year for most gun owners, but what’s another year for those of us who have waited so long for this legislation. Hope the Senate doesn’t try to play politics with this bill and adopts it as written. Any attempts to water this down would result in effectively killing any chance at a law, and constitutional carry would arrive here on June 8th. That would be bad for both sides of the issue, but especially so for the anti-gun crowd.

Comment by Boondocks Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:45 am
When I consider the CCW i usually attempt to look at it outside my own interests. Primarily because I can most likely get a permit under anything but a Hawaii or NYC Law and have many options to avoid trouble. Therefore i try to look at things from the perspective of two hypothetical types of people.
1. The single woman w/wo kids who has a potentially violent stalker Ex.
2. The working poor who live in the more violent neighborhoods of either Chicago or East St. Louis.

To me these people do not have the options of avoiding the dangers. Since 1. will never know when the danger may choose to strike and 2. lives in the neighborhood the danger occupies.

The problem i have with the bill as written is if you look at those two types of individuals the restrictions on where pretty much rules out anywhere they would routinely go with their kids. I get the schools, Amusement parks, museums and i can understand the childcare. To me Amusement parks and Museums aren’t routine trips that parents would make daily the neighborhood park however is. To follow this bill the single mom, in order to take her kids outside to play, would have to leave the weapon she carries to protect them and herself at home. I would like to see an amendment leaving whether a city park or playground is off limits up to the municipality. Apply appropriate signage if off limits and then, in theory, the single mom can go where she feels safe.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:48 am
Why sporting events, zoos and museums but not movie theaters or malls? Why bars that serve a lot of liquor but not restaurants where some patrons may get very drunk. These carve outs just seem arbitrary to me.

Also just seems crazy to me that we can prohibit smoking in restaurants based on second hand smoke with no concern for the individual rights of smokers yet the individual rights of gun lovers trump the rights of everyone else who would rather not be around guns.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:53 am
Boondocks

I can agree with what you are saying a few tweeks would be nice however this is a great deal better than Raouls. If for no other reason then creating a state wide standard on gun laws.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:54 am
These are the daffiest bills I have seen recently. what is the enforcement measures and penalties. Do you go into bars or Soldier Field and frisk everyone or wait til the shooting begins and pinch concealed weapons violators? Maybe those authorized can wear a little lapel button. Great place Springfield.

Comment by The Fox Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:55 am
@ Mason - you really want guns in playgrounds?

Both Phelps and Raoul bills have the common sense to not allow this.

Yes, loaded guns and little kids is always a winning combination. Not.

Get a grip man.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:55 am
@Mason:

Don’t you believe it’s better to have a single standard statewide? I’m not in favor of giving anybody discretion to set their own rules, with the exception of private business owners who should be able to say whether they want guns in their establishments or not.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:59 am
===what is the enforcement measures and penalties===

Hmm. I thought y’all have been saying that you’re law abiders.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:03 am
@mason - why does your single woman scenario where you want to let her carry guns on the playground not also contemplate that if she can carry there so can her stalker ex?

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:04 am
@ the fox
No one who is going to go through all the trouble, time, and expense….the background checks, training, and jump through all the other hoops in order to obtain a CCW is going to try to take a concealed weapon into a restricted area and begin shooting….only the criminal will do this.
Check your hysteria at the door….law abiding gun owners are the least of your worries!

Comment by Boondocks Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:04 am
Mason born, I think what you have to consider is what happens in a real world situation. If a woman carries a concealed handgun into a park and is accosted by her violent stalking ex-boyfriend and she uses the gun to protect herself, what do you think will happen to her. In the past, when guns were illegal in Chicago, and folks protected themselves with illegal guns, there typically were not charged with a crime. I know it sounds like I am encouraging criminal behavior but some reality will kick in when an otherwise decent, law-abiding individual breaks the law to save their own life. It is a decision a person may have to make so as to protect her own life but I could see something like that happening.

I don’t like many of the provisions in the bill but it is better than the more restrictive bills that have been presented. It is also likely to satisfy the appeals court and has a better chance of passing due to MJMs involvement.

If we wait for perfect it’ll never happen. If we wait till 6/9, it’ll be a mess with home rule resulting in a multitude of lawsuits that will drag on and on.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:06 am
===if she can carry there so can her stalker ex? ===

You actually just made his point. The stalker can’t carry legally anywhere if there’s an order of protection filed against him. So, in your scenario, he’d actually be carrying illegally, but the woman would not be able to carry legally.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:08 am
there should have been they’re.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:08 am
@hisgirlfriday
It is my understanding that the “stalker” ex would have his CCW revolked if he is a violent offender, or unable to obtain it in the first place if it occurs prior to his CCW application.

@demoralized
I agree with you that a uniform law is best…but understand why Mason would prefer less restricted areas…the woman in his hypothetical has no choice but to leave her gun at home if she is walking her kids to the park.

Comment by Boondocks Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:10 am
Hey, Wordslinger, on the last comment thread, when I pointed out that the 7th Circuit had found a constitutional right to carry, you pointed out “Not concealed.” The comments were closed before I got a chance to reply, but I just wanted you to know that if you’re calling for open carry in Illinois, I’m for you. The precedent in the Supreme Court indicates that a state may prohibit either concealed or open carry, but not both. But it’s not the pro-gun side that’s demanding that bills be concealed-carry-only.

Anyway, regarding parks . . . it’ll be interesting to see whether that provision lasts, if the bill passes. I walk my dogs to a local park every morning and afternoon this time of year, and my kid likes to go to the playground for awhile before we go home. “Guns and kids,” in the form of holstered weapons on the belts of licensed, background-checked, trained citizens, already *do* go together all over the country. Ever been to Indiana? Kentucky? Missouri? Iowa? Wisconsin?

The hysterical BUT-WHAT-IF?!? situations people come up with in Illinois are simply commonplace all over the country. The biggest benefit of this bill is that it’s going to be even harder to oppose the next liberalization of carry laws after people look around in a couple of years and realize that the sky hasn’t fallen.

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:11 am
I am in full agreement with the statewide standard. However if they would just add movie theatre to the list I would be sold (snark intended). Every place on the restricted list have been locations of major shooting sprees in our nations past. So we can conceal a gun where? on the sidewalk, in our cars ??? Don’t get me wrong there are some places on the list I agree with, however, as a legal FOID card holder and citizen intending to get a CC card I don’t agree with entire list. Guess I better call my Rep

Comment by Metro Girl Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:11 am
This bill is the best, so far, but should not eliminate current local gun control regulations.

Comment by Wensicia Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:12 am
NON-SEQUITOR ALERT !!!

=== Also just seems crazy to me that we can prohibit smoking in restaurants based on second hand smoke with no concern for the individual rights of smokers yet the individual rights of gun lovers trump the rights of everyone else who would rather not be around guns ===

Oh, Prunella.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:13 am
===the woman in his hypothetical has no choice but to leave her gun at home if she is walking her kids to the park. ===

Not true. She can pull out the magazine and put it in a pocket of her purse, then put the unloaded pistol in another pocket.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:17 am
@Boondocks:

I understand what @Mason was saying and I wasn’t dismissing his argument (at least that was not my intent). I would just prefer a single standard. If that means taking parks out of the bill I think that’s a better solution than letting things like that be decided municipality by municipality.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:18 am
@hisgirlfriday, of course they’re arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions. That’s why NRA and Illinois Carry and so many citizens opposed them. But apparently, Madigan and company are dedicated to forcing them in anyway.
I hope no one will be surprised when people start demanding that those arbitrary restrictions be lifted not long after the law goes into effect. It’s not exactly hard to foresee.

As far as your analogy of guns to secondhand smoke goes, there are some big differences. Personally, I think an establishment should have the option of allowing smoking on the premises, even though I’ll probably avoid them if they do.
But if we start from the assumption that it’s right to bar smoking, why not bar guns?

Because you’re not talking about prohibiting the discharge of the weapon (already illegal.) You want to ban the harmless (and usually unnoticeable) possession of the gun at all. The correct analogy would be a law that forbids the restaurant’s owner from allowing the possession of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, lighters or matches. We’re talking about a person possessing a firearm in a holster, concealed from view, where it’s perfectly safe, and never so much as touching that firearm unless an extraordinary emergency requires that it be used in defense of self or others.

You may be tempted to tell me that’s not the case, but again I say: ever been outside Illinois? Ever been to a restaurant in Indianapolis? It’s being done everywhere else, and there’s no reason to think it won’t be done in Illinois (especially after you force people through 16 hours of training!)

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:20 am
By the way, that’s current law. ISRA years ago exposed this “fanny pack” loophole.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:20 am
==of course they’re arbitrary and nonsensical restrictions==

Why? Should there not be ANY limitations on where you can carry?

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:21 am
===yet the individual rights of gun lovers trump the rights of everyone else who would rather not be around guns. ===

If you’d rather not be around loaded, concealed guns in a local restaurant, you can tell the owner and that owner can ban loaded, concealed guns.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:22 am
This bill is the best, so far, but should not eliminate current local gun control regulations.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind, without pre-emption there would and should be no bill. Apparently neither side wants to “go over the cliff” and fight out 100 different local carry laws in the next few years, but without pre-emption, that happens anyway.
That would mean that, for the pro-gun side, a bill without preemption does absolutely nothing to solve the problem as we see it.

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:23 am
“The board would consist of a federal judge, two attorneys, three FBI agents, and one mental health expert — all appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate.”

I am having a real problem with a federal judge, even on senior status, being able to serve on such a board. Some doubts about active FBI agents also.

Comment by Bigtwich Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:24 am
If CC is done properly people will never know who has a gun and who doesn’t. It seems that some people on this board never travel out of state.

As to the restricted places list, the pols have to make sure they keep open some GFZs so the criminals have somewhere to go without the threat of running into an armed citizen.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:24 am
Info on the fanny pack loophole: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2002/04/from-the-archiv.html

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:25 am
==As to the restricted places list, the pols have to make sure they keep open some GFZs so the criminals have somewhere to go without the threat of running into an armed citizen. ==

Another person I would ask whether or not you beleive there should be ANY places where you shouldn’t be able to carry a gun.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:26 am
@ Don - “Anyway, regarding parks . . . it’ll be interesting to see whether that provision lasts, if the bill passes. I walk my dogs to a local park every morning and afternoon this time of year, and my kid likes to go to the playground for awhile before we go home. “Guns and kids,” in the form of holstered weapons on the belts of licensed, background-checked, trained citizens, already *do* go together all over the country. Ever been to Indiana? Kentucky? Missouri? Iowa? Wisconsin?”

Isn’t Kentucky where that 5 year old boy just shot and killed his 2 year old sister WITH HIS OWN GUN?

The hysterical “what-if’s” are coming from you and your comrades Don.

What if 10 armed men invade my bathroom at 3am?!?!

What if a drugged-up biker gang doesn’t like my Ford and starts shooting at me on the highway?!?!?!

What if Dr. Evil and his henchmen starts a shoot-out in the middle of Happiness Park while my kid’s on the swing?!?!?

What if my neighbor’s brother’s ex-wife’s dog sitter goes nuts and starts shooting at me and he’s got a 30-round magazine?!?!

What if two ex-cops bring their loaded guns to their grand kids’ schools and the guns accidentally discharge in a crowd of school kids?!?!??

Oh, wait. That did just happen. Not once but twice in the span of a few days.

What if a disgruntled Glenbard East kid decides to go all Columbine before the end of the school year?!?!!

Oh, wait. That DID just happen too. If we had Arizona’s type of anything goes gun laws (in case you need to protect yourself) it would’ve been very easy for that kid (he’s 19) to get all the guns and ammo he wanted.

Being that we live in Illinois all he was able to do was get some ammo and make up plots.

We should be making it more difficult to kill people, not easier.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:31 am
–But it’s not the pro-gun side that’s demanding that bills be concealed-carry-only–

Huh? They’re the only ones demanding any carry at all. Is there an NRA open-carry bill that I missed?

You’re ignoring the history of the conceal-carry movement, anyway. Since the 1980s, the NRA has been pushing for conceal-carry in all states, even those that had previously allowed open carry.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:32 am
Airports and Federal buildings. Places with security in place. If I am denied the right to carry a gun into an establishment when CC is legal, then the owner of that premise needs to be responsible for my safety.

Most places are not secured and by posting a no guns allowed sign in say a restaurant, then the owner of that establishment obviously does not need my money.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:34 am
I just saw on the ticker that Rep. Reboletti suggested combing the FOID and Concealed Carry applications. I’m sure it’s been suggested before but I think that’s a good idea. There is no need to have separate processes. The ISP has a hard enough time dealing with FOID applications and if you throw a new application on top of that it will create all kinds of problems because you know they probably won’t be able to meet the deadlines in the bill (unless they get more people and more money). If you can get a gun you should be able to carry it. No need to have to ask twice.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:34 am
If I remember correctly, there was someone marketing a fanny pack that was supposed to satisfy the law - one pocket for the gun, one pocket for the magazine. I thought there was supposed to be a test case or something that was to clarify whether or not it passed legal muster. Did I miss that?

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:36 am
The image of Rich Miller wearing a fanny pack makes me shudder…

Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:36 am
@downstater:

Thanks for the answer. I’m not chastising you for your opinion, I just have a disagreement with you. I think there are probably some things on the list that are a bit much but for the most part I don’t want people carrying guns into my kids school and I don’t think it’s too much to ask that guns not be allowed on univeristy campuses, in child care facilities or in hospitals. I don’t think any of those are unreasonable.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:37 am
Demoralized

–I understand what @Mason was saying and I wasn’t dismissing his argument (at least that was not my intent). I would just prefer a single standard. If that means taking parks out of the bill I think that’s a better solution than letting things like that be decided municipality by municipality. –

I agree with you on a state standard. On my point i was trying to find a compromise. Which to me was treating municipalities as if they were property owners of the park i.e. like a business. Then if you live in the vicinity of Michigan Avenue and want to believe that restricting the guns out of your park makes it nirvana go ahead. However if you are a community that doesn’t fear the idea of a mother carrying a weapon to protect her child then you can act accordingly. Then the mother in question can choose what community park she wishes to go to.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:38 am
Oh, and I would add I certainly don’t want guns in state buildings. I also think everybody that goes into those buildings (I’m referring to the Capitol Complex) should be screened. I always said it’s the state employees you need to worry about having a gun.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:40 am
This bill is crap but its the best thing with a chance of passing. All restricted areas should require that the floor or ground be painted yellow so I don’t accidentally earn a class B misdemeanor. The anti gun folks would know where to feel safe and the ccw folks would know where to feel at risk of criminals or prosecution.
Madigan should be lead sponsor and phelps should be ashamed to have his name on it even if he votes for it. Madigan won this one.

Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:46 am
wordslinger

I have agreed with you in the past that an open carry would comply with the decision. I think the reason why it is the focus now has more to do with Societal norms than anything else. I am pretty sure that is why the NRA at least wants Concealed covered in bill. BTW the Original Phelps bill covered both Open and concealed.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:46 am
@rich - I didn’t read masons scenario based on the guy having an order of protection against him because mason didn’t add that detail to his hypothetical. Nor did I read that the guy has a violent record. My assumption

Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:47 am
Tequila,
It really isn’t that complex.
If you think it is, you probably lack the basic intelligence needed to properly handle a weapon.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:47 am
I posted before reading the info Rich provided. It was way down at the bottom of a very long debate but it does appear 2 folks were charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon while having an unloaded weapon on their person and the magazine was also being carried by the same person. In both cases, the charges were later dropped.

Certainly better than nothing but the lag time while trying to load the weapon and chamber a round is problematic, no?

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:48 am
=== Tequila,
It really isn’t that complex.
If you think it is, you probably lack the basic intelligence needed to properly handle a weapon ===

This cr@p that is supposed to pass for wit is truly boring.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:50 am
@ G Willikers

Isn’t Kentucky where that 5 year old boy just shot and killed his 2 year old sister WITH HIS OWN GUN? *** the 5 year old wouldn’t qualify for CCW permit under the Bill***

What if 10 armed men invade my bathroom at 3am?!?! ***Haven’t seen 10, but my family has had 2 home invaders at once ***

What if a drugged-up biker gang doesn’t like my Ford and starts shooting at me on the highway?!?!?! ***drugged up bikers sound like the sorts already carrying illegally, and likely don’t qualify for legal CCW permits ***

What if Dr. Evil and his henchmen starts a shoot-out in the middle of Happiness Park while my kid’s on the swing?!?!? ***far fetched, but in which case, I would rather also be armed ***

What if my neighbor’s brother’s ex-wife’s dog sitter goes nuts and starts shooting at me and he’s got a 30-round magazine?!?! ***a little less so, but still somewhat far fetched, but in which case, I would rather also be armed again ***

What if two ex-cops bring their loaded guns to their grand kids’ schools and the guns accidentally discharge in a crowd of school kids?!?!?? *** ex-cops can already carry legally, don’t need the CCW Bill to pass ***

What if a disgruntled Glenbard East kid decides to go all Columbine before the end of the school year?!?!! ***the high school kid, if old enough to get a CCW permit under the Bill, couldn’t have lawfully taken them to school ***

If we had Arizona’s type of anything goes gun laws (in case you need to protect yourself) it would’ve been very easy for that kid (he’s 19) to get all the guns and ammo he wanted. ***If he is old enough for a FOID card, he was old enough to buy the guns, isn’t he? Again the CCW Bill does nothing as to that kid ***

We should be making it more difficult to kill people, not easier. ***the people doing the killing usually aren’t FOID holders and likely would not be CCW permit holders either - they wouldn’t be enabled, but those who do follow the laws and are currently in the victim pool would have greater chance to protect themselves ****

Comment by titan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:54 am
Wordslinger: Huh? They’re the only ones demanding any carry at all. Is there an NRA open-carry bill that I missed?

You’re ignoring the history of the conceal-carry movement, anyway. Since the 1980s, the NRA has been pushing for conceal-carry in all states, even those that had previously allowed open carry.
HB0997 was only the latest carry bill that included both, and only the latest example of open carry being purged early on to satisfy demands from the anti-gun side. Take a look at any forum where proponents of right-to-carry gather, and you’ll see the inevitable open-carry proponents lamenting that fact.

The “NRA bills” as you call them, have ranged from bills where open carry was left as “a fight for another day” to bills that allowed both open and concealed carry (which I favor.) My ideal is to leave it up to the carrier to decide how to carry; if that isn’t allowed, then since most will choose to carry concealed, that’s the next best thing. But again, if the NRA, Illinois Carry, or whoever thought we could get open carry included in this bill without costing votes from fence-sitters, we’d do it.

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:54 am
DuPage, you seem very angry.

Now put down the gun . . .

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:55 am
Demoralized @ 10:34 am:

There’s a proposal in the bill to combine the FOID and the CCW permit

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:55 am
I am sorry to report their are already too many guns in the playgrounds and in school zones. The gang bangers do not seem to be deterred by the numerous “safe school zones” created by prior laws.

Comment by Esquire Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:55 am
– If I am denied the right to carry a gun into an establishment when CC is legal, then the owner of that premise needs to be responsible for my safety.–

Why’s that? Do private property rights have to be repealed for you to feel safe?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:57 am
Sure Esquire, and all those bank robbers do not seem to be deterred by the numerous “no bank robbing” laws.

So what’s your point?

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:57 am
Don’t ride the subway. With the ban on public transportation, criminals will know people on the subway will be easy and defenseless targets and crime will rise there. Why would you not want people to protect themselves in such a vulnerable position.

I was in London shortly after their gun ban went into effect. A woman was sexually assaulted on a train in plain sight of others because the attacker knew no one could have a gun. One slight miscalculation on his part was the 110 woman was carrying a 10 inch kitchen knife. Creating gun free zones creates traps for citizens, not violent free zones. Just sayin.

Comment by the Patriot Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:57 am
@dd, according to the ISP, under current law, it is legal to carry a loaded magazine and the unloaded firearm (magazine not in well, no bullet in chamber) in the same case. In that situation, the gun could be ready to fire in just a few seconds.

Comment by 332bill Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:58 am
There is no federal court order requiring Illinois to enact a concealed carry law by June 9th. The ruling finding Illinois’ present law unconstitutional was merely stayed until June 9th. If no new state law is enacted by June 9th then there are no restrictions on concealed carry in Illinois, and each municipality and county could enact its own ordinance. Even the NRA doesn’t have the money to challenge all these dozens of new proscriptions, each of them different. This might be a good result for the gun control advocates!

Comment by Curmudgeon Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:58 am
–Don’t ride the subway. With the ban on public transportation, criminals will know people on the subway will be easy and defenseless targets and crime will rise there. –

You make no sense. You can’t carry now.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:02 am
One more point: Federal judges and FBI agents cannot and would not sit on any such local boards. That is a goofy idea.

Comment by Curmudgeon Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:02 am
“If I am denied the right to carry a gun into an establishment when CC is legal, then the owner of that premise needs to be responsible for my safety.”

I thought you gun lovers hated frivolous lawsuits.

But in any case, if you fear for your safety, don’t go in.

Problem solved.

By the way, yesterday Downstater was arguing that we should deny gay people the right to marry, since he doesn’t like it when that happens.

Today Downstater is arguing that we should expand his right to carry, despite the fact that others don’t like it when that happens.

Downstater believes he should have the freedom to do what he wants, and others should have the freedoms to do only stuff that he wants.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:02 am
Curm,
Actually the NRA does in large part because in the past it has not paid for litigation.
It has won, so the other side was required to pay.
Do the municipalities have the funds to pay their own lawyers and also the NRA lawyers?

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:04 am
Phelps original bill was much better. I hope this fails and it goes back to the court or constitutional carry.

Comment by Fan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:07 am
@Fan:

Phelps original bill couldn’t pass. And maybe some of you will get your wish of no bill. You have no idea the problems that come along with that.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:10 am
=== - HenryVK - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:55 am:

DuPage, you seem very angry.

Now put down the gun . . . ===

Sophomoric attempts at provocation. blahblahblah

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:11 am
-Why’s that? Do private property rights have to be repealed for you to feel safe?-

If I can carry up until your doorway and you don’t provide security and I have to leave my firearm outside, then you would be responsible for my safety while I am on your property if something were to happen. By making GFZs, we have seen how well that has worked out. There has only been one mass shooting that has not been in a GFZ.

I vote with my wallet. If a business owner decides they don’t want me to carry a gun onto their property I will respect that and not do business with them.

I work as a teacher in a school and would welcome the ability to carry. I am completely vulnerable while at work and am responsible for the safety of my students. We have an armed officer on campus but it would be several deaths before he could respond. That would be if he wasn’t targeted first.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:12 am
Last post was by me. Switched computers.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:13 am
“If I can carry up until your doorway and you don’t provide security and I have to leave my firearm outside, then you would be responsible for my safety while I am on your property if something were to happen.”

Under what legal theory?

Is somebody forcing you to go in?

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:14 am
@ 332bill,

In a life or death situation, I think the act of taking out both the firearm and the magazine, inserting the magazine into the weapon and chambering a round, all the while someone could very well already be shooting at you would not turn out well for the vast majority of folks.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:14 am
In the whole Northern District of Illinois (Chicago area and Rockford) , I can only think of four people who once were federal judges and are now resigned, who could qualify for appointment to this Board. Even Senior (retired) Federal judges cannot serve on such a Board. So how does any Governor fill this Board? Pool of eligible applicants is infinitesimal.

Comment by Curmudgeon Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:15 am
I really hate to throw a turd in the punchbowl, but all this excitement is over nothing.

This bill, or something very close to it, will be signed into law. Probably about a half million people will get applications for permits. Less than half of those will actually complete the training, etc, and submit their applications.

Of the people who are granted permits, probably 20-50K will carry on a regular basis and that will be because they are genuinely at high risk all the time. The rest will carry from time to time if ever, because carrying a gun and a few loaded magazines around is a royal PITA.

No, the papers won’t be flooded with stories about shootouts at the deli counter at Jewel or firefights over who is the fanciest stepper at the Grange Hall dance. Implementation of CCW in Illinois will be just as transparent as it has been everywhere else.

The most important thing is that Illinois citizens concerned about their personal safety will now have the option of contributing to their own security - so long as they meet the licensing requirements.

This bill isn’t perfect from anyone’s standpoint. But it seems to do a pretty good job of addressing legitimate concerns on both sides while culling out the political posturing. Over time, the legislature will act to fine tune the CCW law so that it achieves the objective of providing law-abiding citizens with the opportunity to enhance their security while, at the same time, ensuring that licensees do not cause more problems than they solve.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:17 am
@HenryVK,

No legal theory. Just by saying they don’t want my gun in their business then they don’t want me to spend my money there. Of course, if properly CCing, then the owner of the business would never know.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:23 am
@Demoral - I would rather take my chances with a court that has already said it was illegal to ban CCW.

I know there are thousands, heck maybe tens of thousands of us who have a current Foid card. Passed the National background check (NICS) when buying our gun that can’t wait to start shooting the State up when we are allowed a constitutional right. We are all just foaming at the mouth, to pack heat, walk into a bar, get hammered, then jump on the train and start shooting. Chicago Dems are like the Jack Nicholson character in a a Few Good Men. Spouting “You can’t handle the truth”!

Comment by Fan Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:24 am
@ Mr Wonderful
WELL SAID!

Comment by Boondocks Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:26 am
“Of course, if properly CCing, then the owner of the business would never know”

But you are a law abiding citizen, so you would never do that, so why even bring up that option?

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:26 am
G Willy - You ever think about trying decaf or Prozac?

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:26 am
to bad those of us with CC from other states that now reside in Ill. aren’t “grandfathered” been printed, tested, backround checked etc…to me it would be like drivers lic. and other licensing issues oh well probably inconsequential…not really believing Rep. Phelps is truly content having his name on this….

Comment by railrat Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:27 am
Downstater

I usually disagree with HenryVK on this issue most of the time. However you are choosing to go into a private business and assuming the risk.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:27 am
–Of course, if properly CCing, then the owner of the business would never know.–

By “properly,” you mean “illegally,” if the property owner bans guns, which would be allowed under the proposed bill.

C’mon now, let’s keep it law-abiding.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:28 am
Mason born,

That is the point. I won’t be choosing to go into those businesses.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:29 am
Mr. Wonderful -

For the most part, you are spot-on. Most people quickly realize that constantly being responsible for a loaded weapon is a significant burden and only those that are routinely in high-risk situations will regularly carry.

This was what happened to most of my friends when CC was passed in their home state. Many rushed out to get their permits and started carrying. Most still have their permits and only carry when they feel the need to.

Where I think you fall short is the idea that the legislature will fine tune this bill. I think that once they comply with the Court’s mandate, there will be little desire to touch this bill for a long time. Kind of like a divorce decree. Neither side got what they wanted, but both realize that they could end up signficantly worse off if they try to change it, so they leave it be and learn to live with it.

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:34 am
==I would rather take my chances with a court that has already said it was illegal to ban CCW.==

They didn’t say it was illegal to restrict it though. Do you really want to take the chance of having multiple ordinances of varying degrees on concealed carry, some probably more restrictive than this bill? If that’s the path you prefer so be it. I think it will be a complete mess. You aren’t going to get perfection. This sounds like the final best compromise Phelps was able to get. Take it and run.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:34 am
downstater

You mentioned a legal liability that is what i am saying is not true. The choice to go or not go to the store is yours just as if you disagree with a store’s viewpoint on anything else. I also will prefer to visit stores that do not ban CCW but if i go into one i won’t expect them to be legally liable.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:36 am
This bill will simply wind up being overturned due to the excessive restrictions placed on carrying. Crime doesn’t happen in the parks, public transit, near schools, etc.?? Another giant legislative FAIL for Illinois.

Comment by CrookCounty60827 Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:39 am
@dd, I don’t disagree that it could be difficult to get your gun ready while someone is shooting at you. However, the real point of my post is that a person would not need to be completely disarmed in a prohibited place. If the woman with a CCW permit and an order of protection against an ex was in the park (i.e. a prohibited CCW location) and legally carrying a cased gun when she saw her ex approaching, (assuming he is not alrady firing a gun) she could discretely get her gun ready to fire, call 911 and attempt to leave the park. Would she be in violation of the law after she loaded her weapon? Yes. But she might also stay alive and would not be without her weapon.

Comment by 332bill Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:41 am
–I would rather take my chances with a court that has already said it was illegal to ban CCW.–

Sigh. No court has said it was unconstitutional to ban conceal-carry. The Posner opinion, drawing on Heller, stated a blanket ban on carrying any firearm in public violated the 2nd Amendment.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:42 am
==This bill will simply wind up being overturned due to the excessive restrictions placed on carrying==

Good luck with that argument. The courts have NEVER SAID that restrictinos aren’t allowed. Some of you people aren’t going to be satisfied unless you have an absolute unlimited right to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions. That’s the very definition of radical.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:44 am
@Curm, do you really want to walk into a public place downstate and wonder if you are the only one that is unarmed? And the persons who are armed haven’t had any training, may have psychological issues, and don’t like the looks of you, a stranger in their parts. Because that is exactly what you are asking for if a state-wide conceled carry doesn’t pass.

I am totally for a state-wide CC with some reasonable restrictions. If I wanted to live in the wild, wild west, I would move to Texas or Arizona.

Comment by Jack Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:51 am
Demoralized

This bill needs tweaks is what i think his point and mine is. I can live with it as is. However there are a few tweaks that would help both sides to make it easier for everyone IMHO.

1. Training would be better if it was “comercialy” available. Proven training and available instructors would make more sense for both sides.

2. Some reasonable local discretion would allow some areas to reflect their populations. Something like allowing municipalities to opt in on restricted areas. Then if you carry you assume you can’t unless it is posted.

3. Fees should be more in line with costs. I.e. it doesn’t cost $75 dollars to reprint a card because someone moves.

If those changes aren’t made it is still worlds better than existing law and as Rich pointed out the Backpack/dayplanner route is still there. Let’s face it making one law statewide is a huge accomplishment.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:52 am
Slick, my suggestion about fine tuning comes from what other states have experienced. As others on here have suggested, there are some provisions that may pose enforcement challenges and those challenges may be impetus to change the language of the law. And, let’s not forget, implementing guidance written after the bill is signed into law will leave its fingerprint as well.

Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:53 am
word

–Sigh. No court has said it was unconstitutional to ban conceal-carry. The Posner opinion, drawing on Heller, stated a blanket ban on carrying any firearm in public violated the 2nd Amendment. —

Question then wouldn’t that imply that if you are banned from concealed you should be permitted open in most areas??

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:54 am
Will someone *please* take away G. Willickers’ hyperbole machine? The breathless stuff is getting old - style is completely obscuring substance.

* * *

The bill in question isn’t my dream CCW bill but it’s close enough. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 11:57 am
–Question then wouldn’t that imply that if you are banned from concealed you should be permitted open in most areas??–

Scalia in Heller wrote of “sensitive areas” where carrying arms outside of the home could be restricted and listed a few examples.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:02 pm
whatever, its coming. Those that post about wild west, and shoot outs and how CCW in a park is bad will realize their fears are unfounded and move along. those that dont like guns at all will always have a fear of what they dont understand then it will be shown (like it has in all the studies) that those that go through the CCW process tend to be some of the most law abiding folks.

pass the bill, move along. ‘we’ have won, ccw is coming to Illinois. Chicago will deal with it and the law will be tuned over the next couple of years.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:06 pm
== “sensitive areas” where carrying arms outside of the home could be restricted and listed a few examples. ==

Sensitive Areas should also be controlled areas. If I don’t go through a metal detector manned by a guard then the location isn’t truly sensitive.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:11 pm
I have often wondered what the open carry laws were anyway, but have not bothered to check. I had a second-cousin who was open-carrying a shotgun in downtown Springfield back in the 70’s. The police didn’t arrest him for that, but did arrest him when he jumped Governor Walker’s fence with the gun. Since he didn’t resist, they took away the gun, which they gave to his parents, and then took him to the psyc ward. I ended up with the shotgun, but always wondered why it wasn’t illegal to open carry a shotgun in downtown Springfield.

Comment by Jack Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:18 pm
@ Slick -

Ever notice how when someone makes a point that is spot on for which an opponent has no legitimate retort that opponent immediately jumps to non sequitors and ad homenim attacks about “trying decaf or Prozac”?

I do just fine without caffeine or Prozac as it is, thank you very much.

As for the hyperbolic “what-if” scenarios I posted… Titan piped up to make excuses for why he thinks he needs to be prepared for all those situations.

Like it or not, to those of us without an irrational paranoia about such scenarios that over the top rhetoric is what the so-called “NRA types” sound like.

They’re preparing as if their living room, at 3am, will be Ground Zero when World War III starts.

–

@ Titan - if your home has been broken into twice, and you live in Chicago, you have and have always had the right to own a gun to defend your home. Chicago has allowed homeowners to have long guns in their home for a very long time.

If you live in a town that does not allow homeowners to keep a gun in their home….. You are free to move to Chicago which does, and has done so for very long time.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:21 pm
Exactly. The breathless ones on both sides will be disappointed, but life will go on much as before for most.

Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:26 pm
Kevin, my bad, Scalia wrote “sensitive places” not “areas.”

Here’s the applicable section from Heller:

–Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons–

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:28 pm
@ Rich- Have you ever had any other topic get as much activity as “CCW” or guns?

Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:30 pm
Yes, CH. Rod

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Wordslinger

Let me rephrase my question. It would be hard to argue even using Scalia’s wording that a public park is a sensitive place. (i.e. open to anyone, no controlled entrance, no security) If that is the case then couldn’t some of these places which are proposed to be banned not be could options for Open Carry.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:48 pm
could = good

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:49 pm
@ Ken - “Will someone *please* take away G. Willickers’ hyperbole machine?”

Are you saying your version of the Second Amendment is somehow more important than my widely-accepted First Amendment rights?

–

@ Kevin - “Sensitive Areas should also be controlled areas. If I don’t go through a metal detector manned by a guard then the location isn’t truly sensitive.”

That doesn’t hold water.

Who has the money to put a metal detector and an armed guard at the front door of their house — ergo, our homes are not sensitive areas.

Really?

Nor do most communities have enough disposable tax monies to fund metal detectors and armed guards at every school (or, more expensively, arming every teacher). Thus, in your scenario you would not declare schools to be sensitive areas.

And those who want to carry loaded guns anywhere they want are calling me hyperbolic?

Whatevs.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:52 pm
@G Willikers,

the government isnt banning carry in your home. Instead they give property owners or tenants the ability to not allow carry (or other behaviors) in their own residence.
You home is not a “sensitive place” governed by something like this as each person/family’s wishes should be (and will be) followed.

The two are not the same. Just a retail store or burger joint are not sensitive places, BUT the owners can define and display their wish to not have guns anytime they want. it doesn’t make them sensitive places as referenced in the Heller ruling.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:56 pm
–Let me rephrase my question. It would be hard to argue even using Scalia’s wording that a public park is a sensitive place–

I don’t know. Given the small amount of direction, it would seem to be in the eyes of the beholders — meaning those who can ever muster the most votes — until inevitable further challenges bubble up through the judicial system.

And then it will be determined by whoever is on the court at the time.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm
Mr Wonderful-

I hope you are right. That is what they should do. However, given this legislature’s track record, I am not gonna’ hold my breath.

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm
“Not true. She can pull out the magazine and put it in a pocket of her purse, then put the unloaded pistol in another pocket.”

Technically Rich, I don’t think that would meet the test of cased and unloaded. Just saying.

Comment by wishbone Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 12:58 pm
“shall not be infringed”

Sure am glad we can follow the Constitution.

At some point, restricting where a person who legally CC reaches a point of defacto blanket prohibition at some point. (Do we get a Google Earth overlay to suss out the restrictions? |:’) ) With so many prohibitions there will be many otherwise law abiding citizens being caught up in a ‘trick bag’ of violations. Of course punishment and enforcement will be swift and sure.

And yet none of these restriction will take a single weapon out of the hands of a member of the criminal class.

Comment by Plutocrat03 Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:01 pm
It seems odd that so many of those who wanted carry loaded guns around keep reassuring folks that “this won’t be like the Wild West” while simultaneously telling everyone they need to be prepared, by any means necessary, in the event they need to play the role of Dirty Harry at a moment’s notice.

I also notice that –

(A) our nation by far has more gun violence and more deaths by gunshot wounds then any other civilized nation. Yet these folks seem to think adding more guns into the mix will somehow help — forgetting that pouring more gasoline on fires only makes them worse.

And, (B) despite CCW laws in other states our nation still has exponentially more deaths by gun than anywhere else — including nearly 5000 dead just in the six months since Adam Lanza used his legal guns and legal 30-round magazines to kill 20 school children.

It’s almost as if people who think guns will solve everything think they can predict the future and if, only if, they could carry a gun then they’d be able to shoot these other shooters first.

Kinda like how George Bush pre-empted Iraq’s “mushroom cloud” by invading a country that had no way of invading the US.

Or, kinda like how that guy in Florida shot and killed that teenager who had a hoody on and was armed with a bag of Skittles.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:03 pm
===Downstater believes he should have the freedom to do what he wants, and others should have the freedoms to do only stuff that he wants. ===

And it’s more than just him.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:04 pm
–And then it will be determined by whoever is on the court at the time. –

That there is no arguing.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:05 pm
—===Downstater believes he should have the freedom to do what he wants, and others should have the freedoms to do only stuff that he wants. ===

And it’s more than just him. —

Rich how DARE you point out hypocrisy! shame on you!!

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:06 pm
“And it’s more than just him.”

Sure, but since he was the one (and really the only one if I recall) taking the contradictory positions here, I thought it had relevance.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:08 pm
@ Plutocrat03 - “shall not be infringed”

You skipped the first part which is an inconvenience for the more radical amongst the “NRA types”.

And if you are such a literalist please explain why we cannot commit fraud, libel, slander, etc.

Those are all forms of “Free Speech” that have been infringed by the legislature and the courts.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:09 pm
G. Willy

I appreciate your comments it reminds me of the mindless drivel people like Vandermyde have to put up every day on my behalf. You might want to hold off though on the Travon Martin thing for awhile. Last i heard it doesn’t look good for the prosecution.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:09 pm
“Are you saying your version of the Second Amendment is somehow more important than my widely-accepted First Amendment rights? ”

No, I’m just suggesting you exercise your First Amendment rights in an more intelligent fashion. (Besides, your 1A rights aren’t at issue for posts made to a privately owned and operated blog.)

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:10 pm
@ Mason -

At least he gets paid to promote his opinions.

I have to put up with YOUR mindless drivel out of the goodness of my heart.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:12 pm
===“shall not be infringed” Sure am glad we can follow the Constitution.===

The actual extent of that “right” is defined by the courts. And they’re in the process of redefining it. It ain’t unlimited.

Also, I find it odd that you are declaring a rather vague constitutional amendment to be so clear, yet you consistently argue here for reducing pension benefits that are quite clearly and succinctly protected by the state constitution.

In other words, you’re a complete phony. You’re hiding behind a strict construction argument that you do not actually believe in except when it suits your purposes.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:15 pm
G.

Your welcome to do to my posts what most of us do with yours. Scroll Down.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:15 pm
@ Ken -

Nor yours.

And just because you disagree with my values and beliefs, or my defense of them, doesn’t mean they are unintelligent.

Or, as Rich occasionally will say…. bite me.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:15 pm
@G. will

while you point out the stats on gun deaths, you fail to mention that over the last 2-3 decades carry laws have become less and less restrictive in more and more states, while violent crime has continued to trend down during this period.

Now I am not suggesting causation here, just pointing at the data, and point at the fact that every state that has adopted CCW laws has had nay sayers saying it WOULD be the wild west and there WOULD be shoot outs over parking spots etc and it just hasnt happened.

We say it wont be the wild west, and it wont. But that doesnt mean we cant have this as an option to defend ourselves should you need to.

your hyperbole does not help your cause.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:16 pm
@ Mason - “Your welcome to do to my posts what most of us do with yours. Scroll Down.”

You clearly are not since you keep replying.

Welcome to America, where you get to speak up and defend your “mindless drivel” just as much as I get to speak up and defend my values and beliefs.

–

Rich is spot on in saying it is not an unlimited right and it is one which the courts are in the process of re-defining.

I’m going to use my First Amendment right as much and as loudly as I can while these courts do that re-definition and foist decisions on me with which I vehemently disagree.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:21 pm
–while you point out the stats on gun deaths, you fail to mention that over the last 2-3 decades carry laws have become less and less restrictive in more and more states, while violent crime has continued to trend down during this period.–

That’s true, but as you say, trying to apply any one factor for causation is unwise.

Vermont has the loosest guns laws in the country, and has about the lowest rate of violent crime. Same with Utah. DC has strict gun laws and a very high violent crime rate.

On the other hand, the highest violent crime rates among the states can be found in South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada and Florida.

I don’t think it’s going out on a limb to say that concentrated areas of poverty have high violent crime rates.

No magic bullets, so to speak, for solutions there.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:28 pm
@ Ron - “your hyperbole does not help your cause.”

You’ve got more fingers pointed back at you when you point to me and say that.

PS - I know I will never get you to see the light.

But there’s more than just you and Mason and Ken etc. reading this blog and other public venues.

–

@ Ron, part 2 - “Now I am not suggesting causation here, just pointing at the data, and point at the fact that every state that has adopted CCW laws has had nay sayers saying it WOULD be the wild west and there WOULD be shoot outs over parking spots etc and it just hasnt happened.”

Yes it has. …Repeatedly.

These are just a few (a few) recent cases of shoot outs over parking spots, since that was the example you offered.

There are others over similarly petty arguments.

Florida –
2 shot at Florida Walmart over parking space, police say
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/23/2-shot-at-florida-walmart-over-parking-space-police-say/

Texas -
Police: Mother and son shot by man fighting over parking space
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/police-mother-and-son-shot-man-fighting-over-parki/nXRL2/

Pennsylvania -
“Profoundly stupid” shooting over parking spot nets Harrisburg man 20 to 40 years in prison
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/12/profoundly_stupid_shooting_ove.html

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:34 pm
Ron and others will look at those cases of innocent people being shot during an argument over parking spots and think, “those victims should’ve been carrying loaded guns too.”

No.

We as a soviet shouldn’t be making it so easy to shoot people in the first place.

Period.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:37 pm
@word,

I was just wanting to point out that the dire predictions against CCW in most states adopting it have been found to be unfounded. And it will likely be the same here. That and equating the loosening or liberalizing of gun rights has not lead to an increase in gun related or violent crime.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:41 pm
We as a soviet shouldn’t be making it so easy to shoot people in the first place.

“Society”… Not “soviet”…

LOL.

That has got to be the funniest auto-correct I’ve seen in a while, especially given the conversation we’re having.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:41 pm
@ Ron - “- RonOglesby - Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:41 pm:

@word,

I was just wanting to point out that the dire predictions against CCW in most states adopting it have been found to be unfounded. And it will likely be the same here. That and equating the loosening or liberalizing of gun rights has not lead to an increase in gun related or violent crime.”

(A) As I pointed out, using your example of shoot outs over parking spots, you are wrong.

(B) Even if rates of gun violence haven’t increased, America is already by far #1 when it comes to gun deaths as it is.

You don’t see that as a problem for some unknown reason.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:44 pm
@G.
Thanks for putting words and thoughts on me that I dont have sir.

Actually we wont think that, but again your hyperbole is showing. anecdotes and dire predictions (that havent come true in any other states) are not a good way to shape public policy. Sorry.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Rod……How could I forget?

Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@ G

really? you have stats to show crime and random shootings increase after CCW?

I will start to ignore you now, not because we disagree (plenty of us disagree here) but because you dont want to actually have a civil conversation.

good bye all must earn a living. But on a parting note: CCW is coming to Illinois and Chicago at that! and to think just a couple of years back there was a handgun ban in all of Chicago… look how far have we come.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:52 pm
What are folks experience with their reps on this issue? I live in Cook. My rep has taken the time to read my emails, respond and asked my thoughts on very specific provisions. Now that’s representation even if we (she and I) don’t always agree!

Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Those 3 examples were shootings not shootouts. Shootouts implies bidirectional fire.

It would be interesting to know how many of those shooters had a CCW permit even more so how many of those shooters were prohibited people because of felonies, drug addictions or mental illness.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Charlatan

Actually my reps have been very responsive as well. actually called and was put through to my Rep on this issue. Please note though both my rep and sen are downstate and supportive.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:03 pm
@G. Will,

None of your links had a CCW holder doing the shooting.

Since you seem to be arguing that CCW will lead to wild west shootouts over parking spots, why don’t you find some articles that relates to the issue at hand.

Comment by downstater Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:05 pm
=@G. Willickers - if you are such a literalist please explain why we cannot commit fraud, libel, slander, etc.

Those are all forms of “Free Speech” that have been infringed by the legislature and the courts=

The difference is there is no prior restraint placed on your 1st Amendment rights. You are not required to wear a muzzle to prevent you from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. However, if you do so (and there is no fire) you are prosecuted. However, you want to place prior restraint on all who would CC a firearm to ensure one does not commit a crime with the firearm. Those who jump through all the hoops and bear the expense of obtaining a CC permit are not the ones you should be concerned with. All of the hysterical “What if” scenarios raised to justify why CC should be prohibited have not occurred in any other state when CC was legalized. There have been no gun battles in parking lots over a parking space. If fact, the trend among many states is to lessen restrictions on CC. What makes the citizens of Illinois so different from the citizens of other states? I believe the term for your condition is hoplophobia.

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:06 pm
Déjà vu, what is happening here in Illinois has happened before in other states. Google “Ohio concealed carry 2003” and see what I mean. During legislation they also confronted statements from anti gun lobbyists “The widespread carrying of concealed handguns, however, will result in far more cases of senseless killings that occur simply because a loaded gun was readily available.” (Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, March 4, 2003). Well the reality of it is that in Ohio their CCW law has evolved to the point that in 2011 “Ohio Gov. John Kasich, signed a measure allowing concealed weapons in bars, malls, stadiums, museums and other venues that serve alcohol” (USA Today, July 01, 2011). Rep. Brandon Phelps has been involved with CCW for Illinois Law Abiding Citizens for several years now and his bill may not be perfectly what some want it to be, it however is a start and as shown by Ohio it can evolve into a Law Abiding Citizen compatible, sensible law. Let’s not squander a chance to have a starting point to work from.

Comment by Just-My-View Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:08 pm
Come on Retired.

There are all sort of prior restraints, licensing and restrictions.

Lobbying registration.
Parade permits.
The list goes on.

I’m continuously amazed at how little the pro-gun people know about constitutional issues.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:10 pm
Rich

I don’t think this bolsters any particular side of the debate but it may have some context. Especially for those of us that forget from time to time what all is going on in Chicago. actually has nothing to do with first lady but it is the link.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/first-lady-s-chicago-shows-gun-toll-for-city-that-bleeds.html

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:11 pm
You guys can argue about whether the bill is right or wrong or should it be changed all day… the important thing is whether it will pass the House (supported by Madigan????) and them be accepted by the Senate? Then it has to be agreed to by the person “will never go to prison, but is not a leader” (GREAT summation, Rich).

Comment by Downstate commisssioner Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:12 pm
It has to pass both chambers with super-majorities to get around home rule, correct? And if it does, that takes Quinn out of the equation, for all intents and purposes, right? Or am I forgetting something?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Jack @ 11:51 am:

You might want to check the actual Texas laws; it’s not exactly the Wild West. No open carry for pistols and somewhat regulated open carry for shotguns / rifles. Concealed carry allowed but the restrictions are similar to what is being proposed, just not quite as broad.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:18 pm
===And if it does, that takes Quinn out of the equation, for all intents and purposes, right? Or am I forgetting something?===

You’re forgetting that Quinn often vetoes bills that will clearly be overridden. Ask ComEd.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:22 pm
Charlatan Heston @ 1:53 pm:

I’ve had conversations with both my former Senator and my current Senator on various issues; this issue really wasn’t a topic for much discussion because we hold basically the same viewpoint.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:23 pm
=There are all sort of prior restraints, licensing and restrictions.

Lobbying registration.
Parade permits.
The list goes on=

These examples do not, strictly speaking, constitute “prior restraint.” The example I gave is being physically prevented from engaging in the prohibited activity. In your examples, you are not prevented from engaging in the activity, but can be prosecuted for breaking the law. Prohibiting CC is “prior restraint” to ease the fears of those who believe anyone who chooses to CC is just one dirty look away from going on a shooting spree.

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:25 pm
Downstate Comm.

You have mentioned what i have feared for quite awhile that he who “will never go to prison, but is not a leader” is going to veto anything that comes out of the General Assembly. He will try saying it just isn’t strict enough for him imagine something like the gambling bill. Of course if the bill overrides home rule it would overrule a veto as well. However with Quinn that thought may come after the action.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:25 pm
@ Mason -

I read your link. Interesting that after the Heller and McDonald decisions and your highlighting of the fact that Chicago’s ban was struck down …. It hasn’t helped people avoid the scourge of gun violence.

And that is because the problem isn’t a lack of guns.

The problem is the ease with which guns are obtained.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:26 pm
Come on Retired.

Are you claiming that somebody is physically holding you back?

How is a permit required for a protest, and being denied the right to protest in certain areas, substantially different from being required to have a CC permit, and being denied the right to carry in some areas?

Drop the paranoia, son. Stop whining.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:35 pm
I was in Texas a month ago. Texas is a concealed and open carry state. I was surprised, and really, appalled, at the number of locations that have signs on their doors warning against the carrying a a weapon on their premises. I’m still wondering if every bad guy, upon seeing such a warning, just turns around and takes his weapon back to his car. Gun free zones such as the unbelievably long list cited just seem to invite bad guys, and leave the good guys helpless to prevent or intervene.

Comment by BehindTheScenes Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:38 pm
@ Kevin - “Those 3 examples were shootings not shootouts. Shootouts implies bidirectional fire.

It would be interesting to know how many of those shooters had a CCW permit even more so how many of those shooters were prohibited people because of felonies, drug addictions or mental illness.”

Pardon my lack of political correctness in my phraseology.

I don’t really care if you call it a shooting or a shootout.

Point is an argument over a parking space resulted in someone firing shots at people.

As for CCW or not, I thought you were arguing that the reason Illinois needs CCW is to deter such shootouts.

Are you saying your theory doesn’t hold water?

Of course you won’t admit it but the facts speak for themselves.

That said, again I repeat that we should be making it more difficult for people to obtain a gun … Not easier.

(ie, how do proposed requirements for licensing, fees and training “infringe” any rights???)

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:39 pm
@ Behind
—
Texas is a concealed and open carry state.
—

no its not.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:43 pm
BehindTheScenes @ 2:38 pm:

I was just in Texas 2 weeks ago and didn’t encountered all that many “guns banned” signs. As to carry, it’s not open … see my previous post to Jack.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:49 pm
=Drop the paranoia, son. Stop whining=

No one is whining or paranoid, ecept those who deny properly trained citizens from legally possessing and carrying the most effective means of self defense simply because of their own irrational fears that anyone who chooses to CC is just waiting for an excuse to shoot someone. As I noted in an earlier post, Those who jump through all the hoops and bear the expense of obtaining a CC permit are not the ones you should be concerned with. All of the hysterical “What if” scenarios raised to justify why CC should be prohibited have not occurred in any other state when CC was legalized. There have been no gun battles in parking lots over a parking space. If fact, the trend among many states is to lessen restrictions on CC. What makes the citizens of Illinois so different from the citizens of other states? I notice you did not address the question, but instead chose to take the snarky condecending position of denigrating and dismissing that with which you do not agree - SON.

Also, I have never said there should be no restrictions on who can CC or that there should no places where it should be prohibited. You may have assumed that. The current bills attempt to prohibit CC by designating virtually all public places as “sensitive areas.” I was addressing the position of those who believe CC should be prohibited at all times and in all places.

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 2:55 pm
@ Retired - “own irrational fears that anyone who chooses to CC is just waiting for an excuse to shoot someone”

Who said that? No one as far as I can see.

More @ Retired - “All of the hysterical “What if” scenarios raised to justify why CC should be prohibited have not occurred in any other state when CC was legalized.”

Fact is America has far and away more gun violence and gun deaths than any other First World country.

The “what if” scenarios about gun violence you say have not occurred in any other state are occurring.

Repeatedly.

Everywhere.

Every day.

In fact, I’m curious as to why you and others keep bringing up the issue of so many shootouts over parking spaces — trying to say it doesn’t happen — after I pointed out that it does repeatedly happen despite your claims that it won’t/doesn’t happen.

CCW in those other states hasn’t deterred shootouts over parking spaces (or over other minor arguments).

Instead, the ease with which guns are available has led directly to guns being used to shoot people while arguing, for instance, about a parking spot.

No matter how many times you state things that are opposite of the true they don’t become any more true than the first time you made the false claim.

If Australia can fix its gun problem why can’t we? Not only did Australia put common sense gun regulations on the books, that nation has been magically blessed (I’m sure out of pure coincidence) with dramatically lower death rate due to gun violence AND an overall much lower crime rate.

The only significant variable that changed was a new, comprehensive set of reasonable gun regulations.

Aussies can still watch violent movies and play violent video games.

They can still go hunting or shoot target practice on a range.

They are realizing a drastic reduction in murders.

But it’s a lot harder for them to get a gun and shoot people … over a parking spot or otherwise.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:16 pm
=The “what if” scenarios about gun violence you say have not occurred in any other state are occurring.Repeatedly. Everywhere. Every day.=

You seem to equate “gun violence” with CC. How much “gun violence” is committed by those who satisfy all the legal requirements of bakground checks, training, etc, have no prohibiting factors in their background, i.e., criminal past, order of protection, mental illness, etc. If you check your “sources” more thoroughly, you’ll see that the gun violence you decry is committed by those already prohibited from carrying or even owning firearms, i.e., gang members, drug dealers, those with prior felony convictions, etc. Repeatedly and loudly proclaiming that properly trained and vetted citizens carrying concealed firearms are the cause of all gun violence in society doesn’t make it true.

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:30 pm
@GW….My advice to you is move to Australia, you seem to think they have it all worked out.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:37 pm
M.P.

–Repeatedly and loudly proclaiming that properly trained and vetted citizens carrying concealed firearms are the cause of all gun violence in society doesn’t make it true.–

That to some is a distinction without a difference. I really think that a certain percentage think the gun controls the user and not the inverse. Must be some strange form of Possession that only Police and Federal agents are immune too.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:38 pm
– Repeatedly and loudly proclaiming that properly trained and vetted citizens carrying concealed firearms are the cause of all gun violence in society doesn’t make it true.–

It would be silly and wrong for anyone to say that, just as it would to claim that no crimes are committed by legal c-c gun owners. Nothing’s so cut and dried or simple.

Stats are hard to come by, thanks to some weirdness in Congress, but there is some tracking.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:42 pm
@ Retired - “You seem to equate “gun violence” with CC.”

You seem…..

No. You ARE claiming things I’ve never said.

I am equating gun violence with gun violence.

You, and the several others of your comrades here, are claiming that CCW will somehow deter gun violence and other crimes.

And that just is not true.

It is so demonstrably false in fact that you guys look silly constantly repeating it.

CCW has not prevented America from becoming #1 in the world for gun violence.

Nor, to again cite the example your side often repeats, has it deterred shootouts over parkig spots, among other shootouts over other similarly petty malarkey.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 3:56 pm
I’ll also add to my previous comment that was stretched over a 5 year period from May 2007 to present.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Word

According to VPC in the stat you listed there were 377 incidents since ‘07 508 casualties. Assuming even distribution and using the number of permits from the top 10 States (4.8 mil) it works out to about 1.8 homicides per 100k CCW holders. That is 37.6% of the National average of 4.7/100k. It appears that CCW holders are considerably safer than the rest of U.S.. In fact that is a lower gun death rate than France.

Comment by Mason born Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:09 pm
=Stats are hard to come by, thanks to some weirdness in Congress, but there is some tracking=

I would not equate the Violence Policy Center, whose goal is the total prohibition of firearms ownership, has only about five employees, and obtains its information from culling news stories, as a credible source of information. Their own website notes “No comprehensive data exists on non-self defense killings by private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.” It says the examples they provide are taken from news reports and limited state data available. It also states “These examples are only an unknown fraction of the unreported number of similar incidents that routinely occur across the nation.”

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:11 pm
These guys will screw this up just like they do everything else. June the 9th lock & load

Comment by Strobby Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:19 pm
Oh, just bring it to the floor already, and see if there’s 80 votes.

No matter what, a lot of concerned people are going to be disappointed — which is called “compromise”.

Phelps deserves major credit for going as far as anyone could go in resolving this issue, and the final changes were determined by what would get any bill over the hump.

Time to get over this.

Comment by walkinfool Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:26 pm
“Oh, just bring it to the floor already, and see if there’s 80 votes.”

Exactly. This isn’t anyone’s dream bill, so it’s probably a pretty good compromise solution.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:28 pm
==June the 9th lock & load ==

Good luck with that because that isn’t the panacea you think it is.

Comment by Demoralized Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 4:31 pm
their is no reason for a committeto be appionted by a rabid anti gun gov. or pro gun gov. illinois has a full back round check fire arms owners id card. their is no reason for any other checks,cost 10 dollars.let the illinois state police do their job. have a appleal set up to them to solve dispute. that dont work that is what the court system is for. what i am also interested in was the senate list of places you could not have gun had a 1000 foot no gun in car zone from the parking lot or surrounding street, their is no reason not to let people carry on buses -trains .most muggings assults occur just after leaving.fed law already says no plains. as for public play grounds and parks yes to carry. look at the robberies assults etc that occur regularly their. accordig to you lady jogger or bike riders could not carry because they are in so called parks. i wish they would get thewir head out of their posteriors and actually think a little bit.

Comment by dagman Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 6:42 pm
It sure will be interesting to see how this one pans out, particularly with President Cullerton displeased with its’ language, but, just gotta say, gee–170+ Comments and growing: impressive. Post something significant about gun rights/laws and the Land of Lincoln (+ Plenty Out of State, Interested Guest Gabbers no doubt, too) Peanut Gallery goes wild…!

Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 9:50 pm
@ dagman -

We already two accidental shootings in schools (at the hands of retired cops, no less).

And you want MORE guns near kids?

You claim guns are needed in parks because something might happen.

Facts show that the more guns we have near kids the more likely it is they will accidentally be shot.

Just ask those two embarrassed ex-cops who came this|close to shooting a little kid at school.

You can save your hypotheticals.

I’ll stick to reality and facts — including the fact that America has by far the most gun fatalities per year of any other country.

Clearly CCW is a failed experiment.

If it worked we wouldn’t be leading the world in gun deaths.

Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 23, 13 @ 10:02 pm
GW - Your logic has been taking hallucinogens again, hasn’t it?

Comment by dupage dan Friday, May 24, 13 @ 9:28 am