Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Our sorry state
Next Post: Fun with numbers
Posted in:
* Should Illinois county sheriffs and police chiefs have the right to deny individual concealed carry permits, or should this be a “shall issue” state? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:39 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Our sorry state
Next Post: Fun with numbers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And, please, stick to the topic at hand. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:40 pm
A “may issue” law would effectively prevent Cook County residents from getting permits, no matter how qualified.
Comment by reformer Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:49 pm
I can understand the idea that no-one would know better than local a PD who would be a concern for having a CC, unfortunately there are simply too many police departments in the state to keep the system fair. Right now there are over 1,000 police departments (county, municipal, university) and if each of them had the ability to decide there would not only be inconsistency but more law suits and paperwork than they could ever dig through.
Comment by MOD Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:50 pm
I prefer “may-issue” because it accommodates local standards. A one-size-fits-all law doesn’t seem to have worked too well up to now for many in Illinois.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:50 pm
As some commenters on this site have said in the past, politics could get in the way if handled at the Sherriffs level. This should be a state wide option ONLY. Too many games could be played if handled at the County level.
Comment by Fan Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:51 pm
many people should not have a permit issued to them and there might be loopholes in state law. local law enforcement knows the score locally.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:51 pm
RM, have you ever done a basic demography poll of your blog’s readers? Would be curious to know what portion of readers/respondents to questions like this are from each area of the state/party/profession/state employees/etc.
Comment by Empty Chair Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 1:52 pm
I voted for May Issue, but I’ve changed my mind and believe in Shall Issue. County-specific issuing would be a nightmare to track, especially if you have people who’s residence is in one area, but they are in another for some reason - like school or work. If I live in Chicago, but go to school at UIUC, would I need two CC card - one for Cook Cook and the other for Champaign county?
That said - let the Sheriff’s departments handle issuing the CC permits, and then have them report the info to the state, and have a requirement that you have to be issued the card from the county in which you reside. That puts locals on the spot who are more likely to know the people applying for the permit.
Comment by Name Withheld Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:00 pm
I believe it should be “may issue” with an appeals process. There could be very legitimate reasons to deny a permit such as previous arrests, pending investigations, history of domestic violence, etc.
I know some people are concerned that politics or whatnot could be at play if you have a “may” clause, but an outlined appeals process should alleviate this.
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:03 pm
I voted for may issue. I understand there are politics played at local, but really every, level. local police know local people and better able to judge who should or should not carry. of course there will be abuses, there is in every regulation on the books. still believe locals know better than the state; no one size fits all.
Comment by Susiejones Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:05 pm
In some of these “may issue” comments, I don’t understand it. Are Illinois citizens that much different than the rest of the country? I beleive there are four may issue states. California, New York, Hawaii and New Jersey maybe. Are we as Blue as these states.
Comment by Fan Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:11 pm
“Shall issue” with the exceptions clearly spelled out in State law and suitable sanctions against abuse by local officials. I live in Chicago and “may issue” would be a joke, here.
Comment by Harry Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:15 pm
Shall issue.
For something like guns, we need uniform rules and standards. Discretion is a bad thing. It puts too much power in certain hands and has the potential to create too much litigation.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:15 pm
I voted for “shall” issue, as I think that if you leave it entirely up to the discretion of the local PD, in certain municipalities you would see the discretion amount to a near blanket ban. I think you can structure a “shall” issue regime such that the local PD or sheriff could object to an application without leaving the issuance totally at the discretion of law enforcement.
Comment by mjrothjr Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:15 pm
The “fair play” part of me argues for shall issue but in the end I think we all are better served by having the folks with the boots on the ground, if you will, weigh in on this matter. Give the Sheriffs and PDs a bit of the lug, if need be, to cover their overhead. Can’t be any worse than the ISP and their new mainframe.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:17 pm
Shall issue. This is Illinois! I can see people being forced to make “donations” to a local LEO’s campaign fund in order to get their permit. Also, I would expect that much (if not all) of the concerns regarding an applicant’s past be part of the application/background check? If such a process is not acceptable, then the current FOID reqruirement is broken/ineffective.
Comment by Slick Willy Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:18 pm
I voted for May issue, but there needs to be a way for those with permits issued in say, Pike County, to legally carry in counties like Cook that might otherwise deny permits to some segment of its residents.
So even though the Cook County sheriff may (or may not) issue a CCW permit to a resident of Cook, somebody with a permit from outside Cook should be able to easily understand the rules in Cook when and if they visit.
Some residents may not get a permit from their county Sheriff, but the ones that do should be able to carry in all 102 counties without having wildly different and confusing rules.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:23 pm
Shall issue for consistency and fairness throughout the state. We are talking about a right, not a privilege and the sheriffs have said they don’t want it. They don’t have the resources for it.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:24 pm
I understand the “may issue” argument about local officials having their “finger on the local pulse.”
In a perfect world, there should be provisions to raise concerns to an issuing body by a local official. The concern could be vetted and addressed and responded. At least at that point, if a deccision is made to not issue, it would have more credibility.
Comment by Richard Afflis Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:24 pm
Vote for “shall”
Why: residents of the biggest county in the state would be held prisoner to local politics, when they need effective self-defense the most.
Comment by CarrollCounty Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:24 pm
“Shall Issue”. I just see too many potential issues (operationally) happening under the “May Issue” concept, and using an ‘outlined appeals process’, if it works like other non gun related ‘appeals processes’ I have seen at both the local and County levels, well, it’s just going to turn into a never ending nightmare.
A ‘local appeals process’ sounds like a great idea until you actually have to make it happen. And make it happen consistently. Then, it’s not such a wonderful idea.
Comment by Judgment Day Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:25 pm
I voted for shall issue, with the local PD being able to review the permit and give input back to the state but not have total local control. As for the funding to do that, our local PD has money problems now, not enough people to do the duties and patrols that are needed, and the state is cutting back on funding everywhere else, there would be no funds to help the local PD.
Comment by boat captain Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:27 pm
Shall Issue. If a person is a legal firearm owner, the permit should be issued. Using May Issue is an excuse to circumvent the rights of Inner City Residents again.
Comment by SO IL M Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:29 pm
“May issue.” Local sheriffs and PDs know the village idiots. I like one commenter’s idea of a clear appeals process.
Comment by Ray del Camino Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Shall issue.
I retired as an Investigations Sergeant from the State Police after a 29 plus year career. I believe if we use “may issue” there will be too much power given to local authorities.
With that said, I also think the State of Illinois should adopt the same program for Retired Officer Concealed Carry, 18USC926C.
Every year I go to State Police District 5 in Lockport. I pay $10, my FOID card is run in the L.E.A.D.S. system and a 30 round qualification shoot is conducted. The person does not have to shoot the weapon he intends to carry, only the type (semi-auto or revolver). If you want to carry both types, you must qualify with each one.
I think a shall issue with a yearly qualification shoot would work well.
Comment by Tsavo Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Two words…Sheriff O’Grady. Anybody wanna buy a CC permit?
Comment by Anon Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:35 pm
“may issue” w/ clear standards established to define scope of discretion. “Shall issue” is an NRA lawsuit waiting to happen for some unqualified person waiting to happen…especially if there are no standards included for obtaining a permit. I can see a shall issue being picked up as the guy arrested the night before w/ charges dropped on the way out of the jail.
Comment by D P Gumby Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:41 pm
Shall issue … but with a clearly specified process and criteria for local law enforcement to file an objection. And with a specific fine against local law enforcement for filing objections in excessive amounts, say maybe over 10% of all CCW applicants in the governmental unit; that should allow for legitimate objections while stopping Chicago from effectively turning it into may issue.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:42 pm
–Are Illinois citizens that much different than the rest of the country? I beleive there are four may issue states. California, New York, Hawaii and New Jersey maybe–
Add MA, CT, DE, RI, MD.
Basically, Northern states that have a mix of large urban centers and rural areas. Kind of like….
Again, I see may-issue as a way for local standards to rule. If you don’t like the way the sheriff is doing business, elect another sheriff.
I don’t the different set of rules as being unworkable. Under every previous proposal, no matter where you are in the state, there are going to be plenty of places you can’t carry as you go about your daily business.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:44 pm
=In a perfect world, there should be provisions to raise concerns to an issuing body by a local official. The concern could be vetted and addressed and responded. At least at that point, if a deccision is made to not issue, it would have more credibility.=
HB 0997, which is this year’s reintroduction of the CC bill that almost passed last year, requires that a person submits the application for a CC permit to ISP through their county’s sheriff’s office. The sheriff may file an objection to the person receiving the CC permit. However, the burden is on the sheriff to justify why it should be denied, not the person to justify why it should be issued.
Comment by RetiredArmyMP Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:46 pm
Shall issue. If you are mentally ill in one county, you are in all. If you have any domestic violence issues, the state has access to all that info. Too much power in the hands of local folks with personal agendas with may issue.
Comment by dupage dan Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:48 pm
On a related note, here’s a nifty interactive tool from The Guardian that let’s you compare all the states’ gun laws.
–http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states–
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:49 pm
The sheriffsdont want may issue. It is only the anti-gun politcal types that want may issue. The sheriffs in 101 conties dont want to be in the middle of this administrative decision.
So the only types argueng for may issue is the city who want sto be able tocarry statewide on a chicago permit and no body else could carry in chicago, same with cook by the version of the anti-gun bill i saw before.
We wont take may issue. Put a fork in it. We have the votes to pass a clean shall issue bill. And more courts are rulling against illinois’ uuw/aguuw statute. Just had anotherone last week.
Comment by Todd Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 2:59 pm
Shall Issue.
And the HB 997 has a way to allow county sheriff’s to object. the permit goes THROUGH that office. See someone you dont think should have a permit (too many drunk nights, to many calls to their house for domestics with no arrests) they can object.
May issue is just a great way for Dart and the Cook Cty folks to reward people. Dont say it wouldnt happen in Illinois either.
Comment by Really? Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:02 pm
The sheriff does not like me or my family, thinks we don’t tithe properly at church and thinks that I don’t leave the four corners of my field big enough.
Why should he get to decide if I get a permit?
The sheriff is white and old fashioned, I’m mixed race.
Why should he get to decide if I get a permit?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:06 pm
Shall Issue. Too much potential for shenanigans at the local level.
Comment by The unknown poster Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:21 pm
Shall issue, takes possible “abuse” and temptation options out, and really glad to hear TV has the votes !!!!
Comment by railrat Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:22 pm
Shall issue because this is Illinois. That really doesn’t need further explanation, does it?
Comment by benji Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:33 pm
Todd, the more you bluster and huff and puff, the more you sound like the cliches.
Comment by D P Gumby Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:47 pm
In theory, I like the decision for CC to come from a law enforecement group near the applicant, but….
The history of political influence in Illinois makes me queasy and I defer to the shall carry position.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:52 pm
May issue with the legal right to carry anywhere in the state. Local authority should state reasons for refusal which can be challenged before some kind of review panel.
Comment by Wensicia Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:54 pm
I voted ’shall’ because I doubt Tom Dart knows all.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 3:57 pm
Personally, “may isue” wouldn’t be a problem to me (I could get enough - quantity and quality - calls from the local political mandarins to get my Sheriff to issue one to me if it came to that), but American concepts of equal protection and nondiscrimination and such call for shall issue with some solid, clear cut standards.
“May issue” is a license for political abuse in Illinois (like all those precinct captains with the auxiliary sheriff badges and gun licenses back in the day).
Comment by titan Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:06 pm
I don’t have any problem with the application going to the local Sheriff and being processed at that level (with appropriate amdimistrative review available for denials), but it shouldn’t be discretionary
Comment by titan Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:10 pm
It needs to be “Shall issue” for all the reasons cited in today’s thread and previous ones. As to local law enforcement input, HB0997 provides for that. HB0997 is actually a very good and well balanced bill. It isn’t utopia for the pro-gun rights folks and it isn’t nirvana for the pro-gun control folks either; but it’s a good, workable compromise.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:25 pm
Shall issue….one state-wide approval and clearance system….I locals want to object…assign a resaonable review and appeal system….not one purely locally biased.
Comment by one day at a time Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:39 pm
Shall Issue- remember the old days of “Special Deputies” with political supporters of the Sheriff carrying badges, guns , and clout. They were outlawed for good reason.
Comment by x ace Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 4:53 pm
Anyone who wants “May Issue” with fairness and appeals actually wants “Shall Issue”.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 5:03 pm
Shall issue! Local police may, but often do not know the people in town (I live in Chicago — the police don’t know me), and may issue allows police chiefs/sheriffs to deny permits simply because they do not approve of cc. In NYC, where they have may issue, you have plenty of law-abiding citizens w/o a criminal record denied permits because the police don’t think they have a bonafide need for self-defense while the NYC rich and famous are allowed a permit.
Comment by Just Observing Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 5:10 pm
It needs to be worded as “may issue,” the public interest of denying CC permits to perpetual and potential violent users (known alcoholics, wife beaters and the such) greatly outweighs the the private protection on any accepted Constitutional litmus test (Strict Scrutiny or Rational means tests).
Comment by NIref Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 5:19 pm
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt,
No I actually want “may issue” but thanks for trying to let me know what my opinion was when I clearly already know. I think “shall issue” is a mistake that does not allow enough discretion, you can not write enough laws or code to cover all the instances where clearly a concealed and carry permit should not be given.
To the person who says Sheriffs don’t want to be in the middle of this administrative decision, than they should set clear policies and procedures. It also shouldn’t be about what they want or don’t want, but what is a good and rational law.
I have read through all these comments and have not seen a good argument for “shall approve” as long as you have a separate appeals process (ie one that does not have the Sheriff involved).
Comment by Ahoy! Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 5:32 pm
I vote for the State Police: The problem with local cops is a person could have a record in another county/state, or declared mentally ill in a different county/state, and the local cops may not have access to that info…
Comment by Mama Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 6:15 pm
“May issue”
Here in Springfield we have a prominent gun rights advocate who thinks he will get a concealed carry permit under “shall issue.” The general populace thinks he will get “shall issue.” People involved in the legislation seem to think he’ll get a concealed carry permit. I remember he is a convicted misdemeanant for an incident nearly 20 years ago that involved him discharging a firearm on his property, with the result of an animal being killed by firearm. Local police would remember that. If we have “may issue” the issuing authority could be made aware of this conviction. Under all forms of “shall issue” I’ve seen, he gets a concealed carry permit. Is that what we want?
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 6:19 pm
Local Law Enforcers would tend to have a much better feel about their own turf, such as history, “problem” people in their area based on criminal or other problematic background (e.g. a person with multiple domestic violence reports or calls against him/her but no arrests, etc.) and so could make better determinations on who should be issued one, plus, it keeps control in local hands, a good thing for a State as diverse, (i.e. rural, suburban, mid-size citie-ish, major Urban) as Illinois. I’m quite sure also (though not positive) that’s the System they instituted in New York State and other States and it has worked quite satisfactorily on the whole, although someone else might want to shore it up a bit on that last point….
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 6:24 pm
ahoy @ 5:32 “separate appeals process” please try to understand “logjam” and “political dancing” with your concept the length of application and cost to the state will be extensive. and I have the utmost respect for most sheriffs but in reality its a political job run for paid for and supported by the networks of either party !!! don’t see self funded sheriff candidates do ya ?? and maybe you should re-read the shall stuff I find some very compelling arguments !! have a nice safe evening
Comment by railrat Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 6:47 pm
The rule of thumb is the wider the discretion the wider the abuse. When officials have wide discretion, as in New York City, it’s the powerful insiders who get permits, while the unwashed masses are out of luck.
Comment by reformer Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 6:55 pm
Shall Issue
To get a permit for shall issue you have to pass a background check, get training, and show that you can shoot halfway decently.
If my background is good enough for the Illinois State Police and the FBI, then it’s got to be good enough for the county sheriff.
My local cops don’t know me and I don’t want to know them. The local cops have no business deciding whether I should have the means of defending myself.
Comment by Pahaska Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 7:15 pm
Smitty, I know who speak of. He shouldn’t be carrying an Airsoft gun, let alone the real thing. That’s why I’m torn over the issue. Our sheriff would bounce this dude in a second.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Mar 25, 13 @ 7:51 pm
There should be no government requirement for training or permission or any fee, to exercise a core and fundamental Right.
The RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms is not a privilege, it is a RIGHT.
Comment by Keith E. Turner Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 7:52 am
OK Keith, put down the gun and slowly raise your hands. . .
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 8:26 am
I voted May issue. I believe that local control is usually better. Local officials are more accountable and more accessible than state officials.
In this case, County Sheriffs are also going to be more aware of relevant criminal or potentially difficult issues involving an applicant or a neighborhood.
Comment by siriusly Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 8:26 am
It is hilarious to watch Republicans explain their way out of their anti-big government, pro-local control mantra.
except when it comes to public safety, right?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 8:33 am
For all those who advocate that the local sheriffs have the opportunity to object / provide input to help weed out those who shouldn’t have a weapon, I believe HB0997 provides for that. For those that advocate shall issue due to fear of political games by local officials, I believe that HB0997 has protections against that type of conduct too. In short, everyone should review (and I think support) HB0997.
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Mar 26, 13 @ 8:53 am