Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Johnson tries to blame anyone but himself *** UPDATED x3 *** State funds gravely endangered ***
Next Post: This just in… New DNR director
Posted in:
* A new and interesting twist…
Support for allowing concealed carry of firearms in Illinois — one of just two states that still outlaw it — is coming from what seems like an unlikely direction: the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association. The group, for the first time in its history, is taking a qualified stand in favor of the controversial practice.
State Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, proposed a bill (HB245) last week that would allow residents to obtain concealed firearm permits. It would require background checks and training in handgun use, safety and marksmanship. Similar bills have been introduced in the past, and died with little support.
“I believe to be successful the key to concealed carry is training,” said St. Clair County Sheriff Mearl Justus, voicing his support Wednesday. “If we allow concealed carry, we must make sure only the right people have the guns. This is best done by requiring training, proper identification, and a thorough background check — including a mental evaluation. […]
Gun control groups warn of the dangers of putting more weapons into circulation, and say few people will ever use firearms to defend themselves — and normally don’t use the same level of consideration as law enforcement regardless of training.
* More about Rep. Bradley’s bill…
Under the proposed bill, which is similar to bills that have been proposed and failed to pass the Illinois legislature in the past, a person would be eligible to carry a concealed firearm if he or she is:
• At least 21 years old;
• a resident of Illinois for the past six months and a permanent U.S. resident;
• has not been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
• does not demonstrate a lack of mental capacity according to Illinois State Police records;
• and does not have a problem with substance abuse.
In addition, those seeking a concealed carry permit must complete firearms and deadly use of force training.
Under the proposal, concealed firearms will not be allowed inside police stations, prisons, government offices, courthouses, bars, airports, schools, riverboats, amusement parks, arenas, stadiums and churches, similar to concealed carry laws in other states.
The legislation is here.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:01 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Johnson tries to blame anyone but himself *** UPDATED x3 *** State funds gravely endangered ***
Next Post: This just in… New DNR director
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think it’s about time.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:04 pm
Illinois — one of just two states that still outlaw it
in favor of the controversial practice.
Does anyone see a disconnect between those two?
Gun control groups warn of the dangers
Shouldn’t they just point to all the problems in the other 48 states? If they are right, that is.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:07 pm
Why are there only DEMs listed as the sponor and co-sponsors? No GOPs, yet?
Comment by chicountryguy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:12 pm
Serious question - who would be permitted to conduct the training?
Semi-serious question - can we make this the basis not just for concealed carry, but for gun ownership generally?
Comment by lincoln street Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:13 pm
===”and does not have a problem with substance abuse.”===
Does that mean you can abuse substances as long as it isn’t a problem? Or as long as substance abuse doesn’t bother you?
And how does one “demonstrate a lack of mental capacity according to State Police records?” Would I have to audition? What if my craziness isn’t record-setting?
Can’t wait for the enlightened debate that follows here in 3-2-1…
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:16 pm
I wonder what prompted the Sheriffs’ Association to take this stand? Could it be with the economy tanking and their police forces likely to be stretched to the limit, they would just as soon let people take, shall we say, a more do-it-yourself approach to crime prevention?
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:16 pm
First thought: this is gonna make Daley go bananas, and his face turn crimson.
Second thought: A number of studies show that concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crime.
Third thought: The potential for licensing fees et al might result in more support for the bill this time around.
Comment by The Doc Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:17 pm
===Does that mean you can abuse substances as long as it isn’t a problem? Or as long as substance abuse doesn’t bother you?===
What about just substance use?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:20 pm
I guess Mayor Daley doesn’t understand that when he spends time at his summer house in Michigan, a lot of people he lives around could be packin’. That goes for just about any other place he visits outside of Illinois. People in Illinois are already packin’. It’s the crooks and those are the ones who worry me - not some responsible, trained person. Bring it on. It’s about time.
Comment by Little Egypt Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:21 pm
I’m with the doc. Make the FOID/license fees painfully high. We need all the $$ we can get.
And the reverse, if you carry without a permit and get caught, make the files equally as painful.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:21 pm
If consealed carry finally makes it to Illinois, we must add a provision that requires shooters to not use their cell phones while shooting.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:21 pm
I agree with Ken in Aurora. I hope to be in the first class for the training, if the training I’ve already completed isn’t accepted for some reason.
Comment by Firebelle Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:22 pm
I was having fun with the language Rich, but since you asked, how would we define “substance?”
Booze? Prescription drugs? Over the counter medication?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:24 pm
“Make the FOID/license fees painfully high.”– Yeah, cuz only rich people should be able to conceal carry. Please.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:25 pm
I’m not saying “senate seat” prices, but far more than the measly fee a FOID card goes for now.
License plates skyrocketed, but people still pay for them.
If it’s that popular of an idea, the state might as well profit on it..
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:29 pm
“First thought: this is gonna make Daley go bananas, and his face turn crimson.”
I can’t wait! What is it Kass calls him in this mode - “Mayor Chucky”?
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:31 pm
I am thinking this is reason #1 why I am glad Quinn is governor. I see no way he signs this bill into law.
Rod on the other hand, would have told both sides he was with them and then “improve” the bill in the end by giving free guns to sick kids and seniors.
Comment by carbon deforestation Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:33 pm
Anon, you said “painfully.” Now it’s somewhere between $5 (I think that’s still the FOID fee) and $500k for a senate seat? Thanks for clarifying that. Maybe citizens should pay a fee to cover the cost of instruction and licensing and no more. You know, like the cost to administer the program?
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:36 pm
“I was having fun with the language Rich, but since you asked, how would we define “substance?””
Read the bill - it’s all spelled out for easy digestion.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:36 pm
I personally believe that gun control laws tend to disarm those who tend to be more responsible and law-abiding more than those who are not. The pro-gun tag that they are “victim disarmament laws” is not as big an exaggeration as you might hope.
Also, if you’re going to “have fun with the language,” read the bill, not the article. The bill is a little more precise in talking about substance abuse.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:38 pm
1. Amend it to require applicants to carry liability insurance for injury to others, identical to what is required of drivers, as well as health insurance that covers self-injury, so taxpayers aren’t left on the hook for either.
2. Require applicants to pass an initial drug test, which they would pay for, and subject them to random drug tests for enforcement purposes.
3. Require them to pass the same psychological fitness exams we require of police officers, both the MMPI and a 30 minute psychologist interview.
4. DON’T make the fees exorbitant, but DO make them adequate to pay for both all of the direct and indirect costs.
BTW, I would apply 1, 2 and 4 to ALL FOID Cardholders.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:39 pm
I support concealed carry. Training is an important factor as is background checks. We are the last of two states that do not have such a law. Bout time we moved on with it. The ‘world will end folks’ will start shouting from the rooftops but I venture to say those that would take advantage of concealed carry probably already own a side arm and are proficient in its use.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:39 pm
Break even? I guess I’d Ok with that… If the state could learn to just ‘break even’ on more things, we would be in far better shape.
But $5 for something that costs far far more to administer is fiscally nuts..
Kinda like this digital TV converter box ‘rebate’ program.. But I digress.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:41 pm
Retired cops are paying $75.00 per year to the Law Enforcement Training Board for their conceal/carry permits.
Comment by Bullseye Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:41 pm
Thanks for the advice Ken. I came across this langauge in the bill synopsis:
===Provides that the Family and Personal Protection Act supersedes an ordinance of a unit of local government inconsistent with that Act. Prohibits a home rule unit from regulating the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms.===
So I guess I can get my very own handgun in Chicago now. Thanks, that void in my life can now be filled.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:42 pm
Wonder what Quinn and Cullerton think about this. Madigan has been labeled anti-gun, but don’t know that he has ever expressed an opinion on this issue.
Fees are expected, but don’t get silly-have no problem with raising fines for concealed carry without permit-no reason not to if permit is available.
Am glad that DEMS are sponsoring-might have a chance. Actually, other than getting past leadership, this is not a partisan issue; it is more of a regional issue, although less so than the “assault” rifle ban.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:42 pm
47th - Actually, I don’t think this bill would affect current Chicago ordnances for Chicago residents regarding ownership and possession. They could get a CCW but nothing to carry.
For the moment, anyway - I think the Chicago ban isn’t long for this world.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:46 pm
I don’t know why it would be surprising that sheriffs support it. At the class (in a collar county) I took to qualify for out-of-state ccw permits, the sheriff’s office volunteered en masse to assist the instructor.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:53 pm
So you mean the underlined section in 13.1 means that you and your buddies from Aurora can dine at the wonderful Chicago Joe’s on Irving Park Road with your guns stuffed in your trousers?
And all I have in my pants is my hand?
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:54 pm
I agree that the 48 other states’ data should drive this debate. With that said, I think home rule communities should be allowed to pass their own regulations, and the apparent blanket exemption of permit holders from assault charges seems outrageous. I can’t find the actual language in the act that covers this; it is only mentioned in the summary.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:55 pm
BTW, I think this bill is intended to be a joke:
- No background check requirement, just the applicant “affirming” that they’ve never been convicted;
- Amends Home Rule, so it requires a super-majority;
- You can get 30% of the written test wrong and still get your concealed weapons license (I believe the driver’s license written exam is 90%);
- You can completely miss the firing range target 45% of the time in your field test and still get your concealed weapons license;
- Course INSTRUCTORS are only required to get a 70% on their written exam for certification;
- “substance abuser” is defined as someone with MORE than one DUI in the past five years
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:56 pm
YDD, if your tests were the tradeoff for this law, I’d happily agree. I do think they make some sense. For example, I don’t like the fact that a clean-cut 40 year old who got busted for drugs when he was 18 can’t get a FOID card, but the alcoholic who never got busted can.
There’s something to be said for subjective kind of tests.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:57 pm
“So you mean the underlined section in 13.1 means that you and your buddies from Aurora can dine at the wonderful Chicago Joe’s on Irving Park Road with your guns stuffed in your trousers?
And all I have in my pants is my hand?”
If it makes you feel any better, we’ll put our hands in our pants, too.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:57 pm
What does Cook County’s Sheriff, Tom Dart, have to say?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:57 pm
LOL, that would make me feel better. Remember to keep us Chicagoans safe when you visit!
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:58 pm
I would think that if you have a license to carry in one state, that would be recognized if you travel to another state. Is that true?
Comment by One of the 35 Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 2:58 pm
For anon and the yellow dog:
For all your insight, the existing FOID act is charging a fee to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
How much did you pay for your voter’s reg card?
Doesn’t matter that it costs something to implement it, the voter’s reg card is free.
The fee for the FOID won’t stand a constitutional challange, ie. a trip to SCOTUS.
Comment by photogram Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:00 pm
I think it is about time. If someone is going to commit a crime, he might think twice about it. Is this person armed or not???
It would be a good deterent.When I was in charge of persons caring firearms I would tell them “The only time you use your weapon was to protect your life and the life of others when all other means have failed.”
Comment by DeepFried Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:01 pm
Why is it unlikely that IL Sheriffs Assoc support concealed carry? Ask any cop who has seen & handled 100’s of deaths from vehicles as well as deaths from firearms…. death by car is far more likely than death by firearm in or out of concealed carry states. No concealed carry, even complete firearm bans sure has not worked well on the south side of Chicago.
Whatever rules & conditions & licensing & insurance required on vehicles, apply to those carrying firearms. Stiff penalties for all those in violation.
Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:03 pm
“might get 60 in the House, but will never get veto proof. This is just the NRA keeping the anti-gun lobsters busy..
Comment by ivoted4judy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:03 pm
== charging a fee to exercise a constitutionally protected right. ==
Look at Amendments 6 and 7. Getting drug into a courtroom isn’t free either…
But yes, you have a valid point about FOID.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:07 pm
Just went and read the bill-looks like it is pretty comprehensive; think most gun owners probably would support it-have a problem with property owners being allowed to prohibit carry in public businesses- this has caused problems in other states.
Also, re the Democratic sponsorship-didn’t Bill Mitchell (R) recently introduce something about concealed carry, or am I confusing this with something else?
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:09 pm
you have a license to carry in one state, that would be recognized if you travel to another state. Is that true
Depends. Some states do have “reciprocal” right to carry laws. That is the sort of thing you need to be VERY sure of though!
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:13 pm
You mean the Socialist Republic of Illinois would let us keep and bare arms? What a concept.
Comment by Ernest T. Bass Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:15 pm
OOT35 - “I would think that if you have a license to carry in one state, that would be recognized if you travel to another state. Is that true?”
My FL nonresident CCW is recognized by (IIRC) 25 other states. I regularly carry under its authority in IN and OH.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:15 pm
If legislators don’t want their constituents to show up to their offices packing heat, why do the rest of us have to go to business meetings to negotiate with people who might be armed?
Owners and property managers of buildings should have a right to make their buildings forbidden for conceal carry.
And municipalities should have the right to forbid conceal carry in their communities.
And if you violate a conceal carry restriction ever, you have to report it to the authorities who will then revoke your conceal carry privilege. If you violate conceal carry after your privileges are revoked, you do prison time and forfeit all your firearms.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:24 pm
oh, great. Can’t bring the gun to church….well, just expect longer sermons.
Comment by You Go Boy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:26 pm
And I think that people should be required to provide references when they apply for a conceal-carry permit.
Everybody in the immediate family, parents, spouse, ex-spouse, siblings and children (over 18) should attest to the fact they know the person is getting a conceal-carry permit and they are fine with it. Family with know about mental health problems and substance abuse issues before there’s a paper trail with the state.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:27 pm
Carl, why don’t you just come out and say you’re against CCW. We can take it.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:29 pm
===Everybody in the immediate family, parents, spouse, ex-spouse, siblings and children (over 18) should attest to the fact they know the person is getting a conceal-carry permit and they are fine with it.===
Great idea. We all know that a bitter ex would never ever say anything that was not true about their ex.
Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:35 pm
Go read the bill-property owners have right to prohibit concealed carry-that will probably be biggest problem to gun owners with bill as written. Reciprocity is addressed too, although am not quite sure what it means to out of staters.
EVERBODY in family should have say? Understand what you are saying, but totally unrealistic. Suppose the relative is the reason you want a gun?
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:38 pm
What fun is it if you can’t take the guns into bars?
Comment by Gathers No Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:41 pm
I was just curious. Tom Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, would he be at odds with this? Assuming that he is a part of this organization. I also understand that he doesn’t deliver policing services in say Chicago.
Comment by Levois Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:41 pm
Using arbitrary BS to make it onerous to get an abortion is a legit game for Republicans to play.
The restrictions I came up with all seem more sensible than waiting periods for abortion.
I would liberalize one aspect of the conceal carry law. I would not make it apply to churches. Churches would be handled the way other businesses are handled. If you don’t want people packing heat in your building, you have to put up a sign.
Let’s see how many Right Wing churches support conceal carry.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:41 pm
===We all know that a bitter ex would never ever say anything that was not true about their ex.===
And there are plenty of situations where the ex-spouse will know someone shouldn’t be packing heat before law enforcement has an official paper trail.
If you don’t want your ex-spouse to mess with your right to carry a gun, you have options.
1. Don’t get married.
2. Don’t get divorced.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:43 pm
Or you could follow Drew Peterson’s example: get married a lot, no need for divorce when you’re on the Bolingbrook force!
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:52 pm
Carl - I’m no right winger, but I fully support CCW in churches so long as the church agrees. I feel most private property owners have the general right to control access and activities on their own property.
That said, most businesses invite customers onto their property and they should have limitations on what they can restrict. It’s not the same as a private home.
Really, there’s noting controversial in the bill language - it’s based on settled law in other states. You know, like from some of the other *forty-eight* states that actually recognize the right to effective self defense.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:54 pm
“Don’t get married, Don’t get divorced.”
That’s the answer to a lot of problems, but not this one…beyond that, words fail me…
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 3:55 pm
I gotta wonder how the public protections in this conceal-and-carry law stack up against the public protections in the medical marijuana law that the IL Sheriff’s Association opposed…
Again, for all the bluster, I doubt this bill gets the required 71 votes in the House.
But if I were gun safety advocates, I would ignore it in the House. Chicago Democrats will vote against it, but if that many suburban and downstate lawmakers wanna run over the cliff, let them.
Let any fool who wants to vote in favor of a bill that allows convicted drunk drivers to carry a concealed weapon, or a wife-beater who’s got an outstanding order of protection. A measure that allows concealed weapons in public parks, shopping malls and day care centers. Kill the bill in the Senate and then replace the House members in the next election. The direct mail and t.v. ads practically write themselves, but I’ll gladly do it for a fee.
Have you yahoos forgotten what the assault weapons ban vote did to Terry Parke’s 20 year legislative career?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:02 pm
Re the question of disgruntled ex-spouses: I would assume that anyone who had an order of protection in effect against them, or had had one filed against them in recent years, would be denied a concealed carry permit. That would take care of at least some of the cases involving domestic violence or stalking victims.
Comment by Secret Square Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:02 pm
Yeeoooww…the scramble is on. It was so harmonious and united when we all had Blago to toss bricks at….now, DUCK!!!
Comment by You Go Boy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:08 pm
I’m confident my ex would okay my CCP if I agreed to okay hers! Sauce for goose . . .
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:08 pm
“I think it is about time. If someone is going to commit a crime, he might think twice about it. Is this person armed or not??? It would be a good deterent.”
LOL. 50% of homicides in Illinois go unsolved. Wanna deter crime? Try solving a few.
By the way, New Orleans, with the highest per-capita murder rate in the U.S., is a conceal-carry city in a a conceal-carry state.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:11 pm
Currently, the fee for an Illinois FOID card is $10.
Like many Illinoisans, I enjoy shooting skeet and sporting clays. I also hunt pheasant three or four times a year. Occasionally, I’ll target shoot with pistols.
In accordance with the law and common sense, my guns are unloaded and secured when they’re being transported. When they’re not in use, they’re secured in a gun safe. I have taught both my wife and my teenage children how to safely handle a firearm. They respect firearms, appreciate the sport of hunting, understand the responsibility that they impose and, God forbid it should ever be necessary, know how to use firearms to protect their lives and the lives of others.
But because we live in Chicago where, at taxpayers’ expense, Mayor Inarticulate, his wife, and their home are protected around-the-clock by armed bodyguards, and where all 50 Aldermen are permitted to legally carry a concealed firearm, I cannot even legally POSSESS in my home an unregistered weapon. Of course I can’t register them either because Mayor Inarticulate and the 50 Aldermen said so. And they said so because they think the streets of Chicago will be safer and the murder rate won’t skyrocket if I don’t own a firearm that someone else might try to steal from me.
The current law is as hypocritical as it is ineffective in reducing gun violence in Chicago.
Allow concealed carry. Require background checks. Require professional training. Require refresher training. Charge a reasonable fee to cover the administrative costs. And imprison and fine anyone carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, including the gangbangers.
Comment by Responsible Gun Owner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:21 pm
YDD, annecdotal evidence from just about every other state suggests that ccw doesn’t trigger voter revolts. Or at least I never saw it where it was legal and expanded under Democratic control.
I imagine 2010’s ads and passions will be largely tax and budget oriented.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:24 pm
The New Orleans example is meaningless. Practically every city is a ccw city. And practically every suburb and rural area too.
Comment by Greg Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:26 pm
“And imprison and fine anyone carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, including the gangbangers.”
Exactly - once you have a reasonable must-issue permit system in place the penalties for unlicensed carry must be severe.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:27 pm
YDD - “Let any fool who wants to vote in favor of a bill that allows convicted drunk drivers to carry a concealed weapon, or a wife-beater who’s got an outstanding order of protection. A measure that allows concealed weapons in public parks, shopping malls and day care centers.”
And what bill would this be? It certainly isn’t an accurate description of this bill being discussed.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:28 pm
It’s definitely about time. I certainly hope it passes. As for FOID, it’s absurd we have to pay a fee to exercise a constitutional right. Of course, that right just doesn’t seem to apply in Chicago. I assume the ACLU will be all over suing the City on that one. . .
Comment by Transplant Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:32 pm
Re: ORDERS OF PROTECTION
How many times have we read about people being killed by those against whom they’ve had a Order of Protection.
If Tom Dart and our elected officials REALLY care about battered women, then let them arrange it so that every Order of Protection will come with a “loaner” revolver and immediate instruction by a sheriff’s deputy in its proper use.
An Order of Protection without a firearm to neutralize the threat the Order is intended to protect against is . . . worthless.
Comment by Responsible Gun Owner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:33 pm
What about concealed carry by persons approved in other states, if they are property owners in Illinois? I moved to Missouri several years ago, but still work at our family farm in southern Illinois about two weekends a month. Seems to me that if I’m not allowed to carry with my Missouri permit, I should be eligible to sit for the tests and gain approval in Illinois. After all, I’m an Illinois taxpayer just like residents…
Comment by Out of State Concealer Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:34 pm
Why not unconcealed carry? Cops have been doing it for years, and they deter quite adequately.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:38 pm
YDD calls the anti’s “gun safety advocates”.
LOL shows you where he is.
The ads that write themselves:
Illinois’ elite wants you disarmed and helpless so that you don’t hurt one of their criminals. 48 other states in this nation believe you have the right to protect yourself. Let’s bring Illinois into the 21st Century with CCW.
Comment by photogram Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:47 pm
Is Tom Dart’s opinion worth more than that of all the other sheriffs combined?
Comment by photogram Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:49 pm
It’s interesting to see so much conjecture and not discuss what is in the bills.
First public opinion. 10 of the 14 referendums passed. Those that didn’t, lost by a couple of points – no blowouts. Neither side did much campaigning on the issue, which tells me that when left to the general public, it’s not that big an issue to most folks.
What Carl and a few others seem to forget is what we now have in an ENUMERATED CONSITUTIONAL right. Your favorite choice of abortion is not enumerated, simply opined by the justices. And the court clearly talked about right to carry in last year’s Supreme Court decision. In that decision, the Court’s majority stated “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
The debate is on a whole new level. So the general assembly can pass a bill, or the courts will toss out the ban. Either way it will happen.
Carl and some think that you can just regulate rights out of existence. In Heller, the court addressed this by citing from STATE V. REID “A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional” Pg 57.
The balance of the bills gets to what most think would be permissible under Heller or Reid, and is what is similar to most other states. As for how it would work, well….
For Yellow Dog there are background checks two sets of them. First is the FOID, second is the submission of the finger prints, unless you think that they were just there for giggles. It’s so they can run a FBI type background check based upon your prints.
Yes there is training, class room on safety and deadly force, plus range time and qualification.
And it would not necessarily require a super majority. The IL Constitution does not require a super majority where the state occupies the field of regulation. A felony for carrying a gun seems quite clear that the state occupies the field of “regulating” the subject matter. Seems we had a series of special sessions about that some 8 years ago.
As for Dart, interesting he now carries a gun – a Glock in fact. Funny how someone who voted very anti-gun changes their mind on the subject when it comes to themselves being able to carry a gun.
As far as business go, first if the workers are union they will have to bargain it as it is a change in working conditions. Second, if they want to ban it for patrons, fine, I don’t have to patronize them, however, if I do happen to be there disarmed and am injured by a criminal act of another, they are civilly liable for my safety. And to answer the question, yes a person is liable if they do something wrong while carrying, accidental discharge, miss and injury a bystander, it a simple normal tort claim.
You want to debate the bill or the issue fine, but in a post Heller world, the grounds of the debate have shifted in the gun guys favor. And now, you have a major law enforcement group saying, written properly, they have no problem with it – and support it.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 4:54 pm
Boy, there sure is a lot of ignorance showing here. Lots of it.
Tell Hizzonor in Chi-town and the ousted governor you said hello when you move there.
Comment by GOP Fan Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:05 pm
Todd, excellent, thanks. Everybody who has an interest in this NEEDS to go read the bill-Rich has a link to it, right before his requet for comments.
Comment by Downstate Commissioner Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:08 pm
actually there are three right now;
HB-245 Bradley
HB-367 Mitchell
HB-462 Phelps
Comment by Todd Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:16 pm
Has anyone seen a link to how each county’s Sheriff voted? As much as I personally like Pat Perez, I fear he wasn’t one of the 90% that supported the resolution.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:22 pm
I now live in Tallahassee, FL which is actually fairly similar to Springfield, IL where I previously lived. There is far more gun violence in Springfield than in Tallahassee. Florida allows citizens to carry firearms after taking training and a background check (similar to what is being proposed in IL). Strong-arm robberies and outright mugging do not seem to occur here.
I truly believe that criminals in Illinois will carry firearms and know that law-abiding citizens will not. This gives the criminals an advantage.
It works here and I don’t see the wild west shootouts everyone fears will occur in Illinois. I have been really surprised by the lack of gun violence here, we still have other issues but guns don’t seem to be one of them. I feared guns more in Springfield than I do here in Tallahassee.
Comment by With Liberty For All...... Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:36 pm
Ernest T Bass - I believe “bare arms” are already allowed! Bearing arms is also allowed, unfortunately in my opinion. And I do believe concealed carry is a bad idea. I personally don’t feel safe if anyone around me is carrying a gun, even in plain view. That includes the local Police Chief who I routinely encounter at meetings because of what I do. I agree with all those who point out problems involving domestic violence perpetrators, situations that arise during heated arguments and the like. I would certainly not like to get out of my car to deal with a fender bender or other minor problem if I believed the other driver might be carrying a hidden firearm!
Comment by Way Northsider Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:45 pm
Way Northsider, why would you expect our experience would differ with that of other states that have CCW? There were almost always dire predictions of “blood in the streets” and shootouts over parking spaces, but (emphasis) it never happened - not in a single state. (/emphasis)
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:49 pm
Rich, What do you know about the new govs.stand on the second? It matters not what bill John Bradley introduces if we don’t have Quinns support.It might just go through if he is for it. Conceal carry is a great idea for rural areas that have a long response time to law enforcement.
Comment by NIEVA Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 5:56 pm
Despite the conventional wisdom, most cops are in favor of concealed carry.
What started the Illinois Sheriff’s Association down this road is it’s new president, Henry County Sheriff Gib Cady. They just concluded a conference in Moline.
How did this happen? Why does the association of Illinois Police Chiefs not support this?
Sheriff’s are elected.
Chief’s of police departments are appointed by politicians.
As usual, good debate here, very interesting to read.
Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 6:44 pm
Well, I live downstate. I have hunted all my life. My question is, if the rationale for conceal carry is to serve as a deterent to crime, then why do we not allow “open and notorious”. That way everyone can see who is packing and what an incredible chilling effect that would have on would be rougues.
Comment by south of 74 Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 6:48 pm
Maybe we should try discussing something a little less contentious like abortion or illegal immigration (lol).
Seriously, I’m for this for the simple reason that people have a natural right to defend themselves, and if they are capable of using a gun to do so, the state should allow them to exercise that right unless some good reason exists to deny it (e.g. criminal record).
It seems to me the best way to reduce gun crime is not to take away guns from people who use them properly, but to more severely punish the MISUSE of guns — meaning, added prison terms when a gun is used to commit a crime, jail or fines for carrying without a permit or with a forged permit, etc.
Comment by Bookworm Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 7:19 pm
As said numerous times already, 48 other states allow some form of this already.
All the chaos, up-risings, blood-in-the-streets dire warnings have been proven to be garbage. Every single time.
Guess we’re all not as in-competent and crazy as some would believe.
News flash to the folks afraid of the consequences to this.
Unless you’ve spent the last 15 years never traveling outside Illinois, you’ve been in states and around armed folks already and lived to tell.
Not a big deal in those states that treat their citizens as adults instead of treating them like children that have to be fed in little bites.
Comment by shermans ghost Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 7:20 pm
Those who are intent on injuring the innocent are already disregarding numerous laws when they act criminally. It is only the honest who are restricted by the laws that criminals routinely break. So, yeah, honor the Second Amendment. Respect the right of the law-abiding to protect ourselves and our families. Good job, Rep Bradley.
Comment by ragtopme Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 7:23 pm
I will be signing up for CCW class if it ever gets approved. Don’t know that I would actually carry a weapon but will sign up for sure.
Currently own 10 long guns and 3 handguns and they have never hurt anyone. Locked in a safe when not in use and both my children have been taught the proper handling and safety proceedures. In fact my 22 yr old daughter can shot the lights out of a bullseye with her Ruger .22.
Recently I went to purchase some scope rings for one of my rifles and had to show a FOID card. Getting a little out of hand. Not many crimes committed with scope rings.
FOID card should be (and probably is) illegal.
Comment by State worker w/ an MBA Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 8:19 pm
Rich, Good discussion but as we know this bill won’t pass or die because of the discussion on this blog.. A few additional thoughts. The bill would be lucky to get to 60 in House. If gun lobby had 60 votes in past years they would have called the bill but NRA/ISRA didn’t want to deal with PR embarrassment since they knew bill would lose. They lost 2 more votes in House in recent election with Hassert and Schock being replaced by new members (McAsey and Gordon) unlikely to support CCW. There are also other members in House who generally support ISRA on most issues but won’t support them on CCW. Todd, you and I both know who they are. Bottom line is the numbers aren’t there for CCW but let’s offer this to gun lobby, you support the Daley package(AW BAN, One gun a month etc.) in exchange for CCW. What do you think about that?
Comment by Tommy Boy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 9:22 pm
I fully support Mr Bradley’s concealed carry bill. It is a reasonable piece of legislation that allows for reasonable law abiding citizens to receive training in the use of firearms for personal defense under concealed carry conditions. I will absolutely vote for this legislation when/if it gets to the public for a vote.
Comment by jamzywamzy Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 10:04 pm
The time for concealed carry in Illinois came about in 1818 and it should have never been made illegal. Issues of such importance seem to get the same votes over and over again…most always with the expected Chicago outcome. Our legislators need to realize that Chicago does NOT speak for the rest of Illinois or its citizens.
Comment by soilman Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 10:58 pm
Conceal carry is a great idea for URBAN areas that have a long response time to law enforcement.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Comment by Fortunate Ones Thursday, Feb 5, 09 @ 11:18 pm
When I was 18 the army had me toating a 92f/s beretta 9mm pistol. By law I needed to be 21,but the military law is different. I carried machine guns,rifles,and pistols. We took a civilian plane to train at Ft Irwin CA. Everyone had weapons on the plane. No ammo in them. The flight crew said that it felt like the safest plane ride they ever had. Everyone was armed but who was gonna do something stupid. I am now a little older and hope this law passes.
Comment by BATT BOY 75TH RANGER REGIMENT Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:19 am
Way too go batt boy. Your point is very clear. Thanks for your service. AIRBORNE ALL THE WAY.
Comment by Johnny Custer Park, IL Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 1:23 am
Tommy
I take a guess that you might be the Tom that works for ICHV.
UEar I work for NRA I never hide that fact since there only seems to be one Todd here
Madigan has ruled in the past that we need 71 votes not 60. If it had been a 60 vote ruling would have called the bill a long time ago.
And I am not about trading away rights. The Supreme Court sided with us. the AWB won’t pass muster, one gun a month, hmm I don’t think they would approve rationing newspapers to one per month or one books to one per month. Now if you want to mandate buying one a month I’ll thin about that, but business is pretty good right now and things are backordered for 6 to 9 months.
The fact remains, that with a Supreme Court ruling onour side, and now the Sheriffs supporting RTC the playing field has changed.
Comment by Todd Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 6:04 am
BATT BOY - Thanks for your service to our country.
Comment by Slick Willy Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 7:58 am
That fear you are feeling? It’s called projection.
Comment by Melancton Smith Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:12 pm
BTW… thank you, Rich for covering this bill!
Comment by Ken in Aurora Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 12:55 pm
Concealed carry is the way to go.
Comment by Hell Yeah Friday, Feb 6, 09 @ 2:12 pm
WE should all carry guns just like John Wayne in the old west.
Comment by Nobodys Fool Monday, Feb 9, 09 @ 5:41 pm
I will be attending the Utah and Florida ccw class at GAT guns in Dundee on the 21st of February so my opinion on the issue is obvious. I do support more stringent rules for carrying a concealed firearm versus simply owning one. As a veteran of the Army and the Navy I see a firearm as a tool which when needed, there is no acceptable substitute. Once you pull that gun out of its holster there in no going back so a person should use the most impotant tool to try everything possible to avoid that type of circumstance in the first place… his or her brain.
Comment by Monty Monday, Feb 9, 09 @ 11:01 pm
its time for the law to pass!!! every other state that has passed it crime is down 30% i fully suport it and the right for poper training to get it!!!!!
Comment by vinman Tuesday, Feb 10, 09 @ 8:40 pm
[…] Could Illinois be changing their CCW rules? Posted in the Chicago Tribune Illinois Sheriffs announce backing for concealed-carry of firearms | Change of Subject Originally posted: February 5, 2009 Illinois Sheriffs announce backing for concealed-carry of firearms The St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Belleville News-Democrat are reporting that the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association has announced support for the Family and Personal Protection Act (Illinois House Bill 245), legislation recently introduced by Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion) that would allow trained and otherwise qualified citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed guns. (via Rich Miller’s Capitol Fax) It disappoints my liberal fellow travelers that I, a non-gun owner, am not reflexively opposed to the idea. Most states have it. And most states say it works just fine. Is it time for what they call CCW (concealed-carry of weapons) in Illinois? __________________ “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” - Sigmund Freud […]
Pingback by Could Illinois be changing their CCW rules? - CalCCW Wednesday, Feb 18, 09 @ 2:38 pm