Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Dart says concealed carry bill “fatally flawed”

Posted in:

Illinois

* Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart sent the following letter to Gov. Pat Quinn pointing out the defects in what he believes is a “fatally flawed” concealed carry bill…

Every day, we are reminded of the tragic toll gun violence takes on our communities, here in Cook County, throughout Illinois and across the country. On June 5th, HB183 was sent to you for action. As you know, this bill sets forth the requirements and process by which a person, if eligible, could carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.

While I applaud the General Assembly’s commitment to meet the June 9th deadline imposed last December by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, this bill creates a process that is designed to fail and will put Illinois communities at increased risk. The bill is fatally flawed and creates the illusion of public safety.

Section 15, Objections by law enforcement agencies, authorizes law enforcement agencies to object to an applicant if they have a “reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety.” It appears that this section is designed to identify people who may be unfit to possess a conceal carry license, but who otherwise meet the criteria set forth under the bill and requires this determination to be made within an impossibly short time frame.

As drafted, the bill would require federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as state’s attorney’s offices and the Office of the Attorney General to monitor a database of applicants for those who reside in their jurisdiction at the time of the application, who resided in their jurisdiction in the past or for those who they may have had any contact with and to assess whether they have a reasonable suspicion the individual is a risk to themselves or the public.

In Cook County alone, over 358,000 residents have been issued a Firearm Owners Identification (“FOID”) card from the Illinois State Police. Statewide, the number of FOID card holders is over 1.5 million. Under the requirements of section 15, assessments of each and every applicant would be required by law enforcement and prosecutors throughout Illinois.

While the public dialogue has focused on gun violence, we must also acknowledge the connection between guns and suicide. Suicides by gun account for approximately 6 of every 10 firearm deaths and in 2010, over 19,000 Americans killed themselves with a gun, amounting to 61 percent of all firearm deaths that year.

I strongly believe it is imperative to identify applicants who may be a risk to themselves or others. Unfortunately, the process set forth in this bill will not accomplish that critical objective. Without a crystal ball, the objection process is unworkable and creates a shockingly false sense of security.

However, of even greater concern is that the bill lacks any process by which law enforcement could object to a person for whom they have reasonable suspicion is a risk to themselves or a threat to public safety after they are issued a license to carry a concealed handgun.

We have a seemingly endless list of tragic examples of the devastating harm and loss of life that occurs through gun violence, including when guns are in the hands of those with undiagnosed or unrecognized serious mental illness. We must work to ensure Illinois’ regulation of the concealed carrying of weapons is strong, thoroughly vetted and capable of successful implementation.

Most importantly, our law and process must ensure that those who are a risk to themselves or the public will be identified and determined ineligible to carry firearms as long as the risk they pose remains.

All emphasis is in the original.

* The AP’s coverage…

In an interview, Dart told the AP that small counties may be able to keep up with the with permit applications - but that in Cook County, home to Chicago and more 358,000 Firearm Owners Identification cardholders, that would be impossible. He said the job would be even more difficult because there appears to be no requirement that applicants reveal if they’ve received mental health counseling or any other information that might raise concerns among law enforcement.

“All we are given is a name, that’s it,” Dart said.

The sheriff said he was particularly troubled that the legislation appears not to allow law enforcement to do anything if they come across information after applicants are granted concealed-carry permits.

“If we find out later there is a well-known Gangster Disciple (gang member) who got a permit and everyone agrees that it should have been prevented, there is nothing we can do about it,” Dart said.

Thoughts?

* Related…

* Pat Gauen: Illinoisans armed with guns but not legal clarity: In Missouri, which endorsed concealed carry in 2003, it took until 2005 before permits were available everywhere. While waiting, some people obtained non-resident permits from Florida to use in Missouri, which honors them. Illinoisans wouldn’t be able to do that, since the pending statute recognizes no reciprocity with other states.

* Evanston plans assault weapons ban: City Attorney Grant Farrar said HB183, now awaiting Gov. Quinn’s signature, largely preempts the power of cities to regulate guns. But the bill contains an unusual provision regarding assault weapons — which would let a local ban on them stand, provided it was adopted within 10 days after the bill is signed.

* Northbrook mayor says state or federal officials should decide gun laws: A small group of Northbrook residents pleaded Tuesday with the village board to ban assault weapons before the concealed carry law prohibits it. But the request fell on deaf ears.

* State’s attorney won’t issue new concealed-carry decree: St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly said Wednesday he’ll use “prosecutorial discretion” in determining whether a person carrying a gun in public should be charged with a crime, but it’s too early to issue any policy changes on the concealed-carry issue. Kelly said he’s a supporter of a person’s right to carry a gun, but issuing a concealed-carry protocol for St. Clair County at this point would only create confusion, especially while the law is in a state of flux.

* Area prosecutors not ready to forgo concealed carry charges: “I support concealed carry, we need a concealed-carry law, and we’re going to have a concealed-carry law,” said Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser. “But until we have one, I can’t come out and say I’m not going to enforce the law.” Milhiser said a blanket announcement “doesn’t make sense.”

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:03 am

Comments

With regard to volume — maybe he should pull a few of the people who mill out aimlessly at Daley Center and have them do some work.

Or sell a few of the segways and buy a computer or two.

His office is notorious for inefficiency. Can’t keep up? Great. Resign and we can replace you with a professional.

That being said, his comments about objecting after a permit is issued may be valid. I haven’t looked to see if he is right, but that would seem to be the sort of A/V that would make sense.

Comment by HenryVK Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:09 am
Kind of late to the party, aren’t you Sheriff Dart?

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:13 am
Actually Dart is just storing the pot…

The CCW applicant has to have a FOID already. So you actually get a Name, Address, FOID, Probably a DL# since you have to have a DL or eye sight good enough for a DL, training records, etc, etc.

besides, he had a bill also for Cook Co, remember? same type of asks though it was may issue, more expensive AND had no time limit for him to deny a permit… that and he sees he isnt getting any $ for the permitting process.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:14 am
This quote kills me:

—
“If we find out later there is a well-known Gangster Disciple (gang member) who got a permit and everyone agrees that it should have been prevented, there is nothing we can do about it,”
—

So… this well known gang member had fewer than 5 arrests, went through the 16 hour training, Got a FOID card (approved by the state of Illinois) Submitted finger prints and a national background check and uh no flags came up? How is he such a well known GD then? Sorry dart, you are just making crap up now.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:17 am
- wordslinger - Not too late for the pending veto!

Comment by Richard S. Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:17 am
-RonOglesby - “So… this well known gang member had fewer than 5 arrests, went through the 16 hour training, Got a FOID card (approved by the state of Illinois) Submitted finger prints and a national background check and uh no flags came up?”

Ron, who do you think is making all those straw gun purchases for the GD’s?

Comment by Richard S. Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:25 am
Richard S.

Well known GD’s ??? If they are well known they are not making straw purchases. The reason someone is a well known 4CH or GD or LK, etc, is because they have been arrested, got street cred etc. Those are not the straw purchasers which are generally girl friends.

Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:27 am
While he is late putting in some input, a couple of his comments actually make sense, i.e. the ability to take a second look, after the application has been approved, especially as to mental state. Why didn’t he bring this up BEFORE the bill was passed?

Of course, the letter does give Quinn an excuse to amendatorily (?sic) amend the bill; more politics in play here?

Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:29 am
= While the public dialogue has focused on gun violence, we must also acknowledge the connection between guns and suicide. =

Someone who’s simply looking to commit suicide won’t be applying for a concealed carry permit.

Comment by cover Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:31 am
I know we are supposedly one State, but in reality, there’s the IL north of I-80 and south of I-80…what a mess…too much government that can’t speak to the nuances…

Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:32 am
Sounds like another reason for Quinn to outright veto the bill and ask Lisa Madigan why she didn’t appeal the ruling.

Never mind the way that will play in Cook County during the Democratic primary.

Of course, this is all about principle not politics.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:33 am
No use trying to figure out if Dart’s arguments make much sense. This is all overture for Quinn’s sanctimonious veto message, nothing more.

Comment by Skirmisher Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:35 am
Can anyone explain the connection between concealed carry and suicide? Because I sure can’t.

Comment by Harry Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:40 am
So the CC bill would have been workable if the good sheriff had the authority to grant or deny the CC permit, which was in his own Cook County CC ordinance, but it is fatally flawed and impossible to comply with when he only gets to file an objection to the application? Apparently, if he had the authority to deny the permit, he would have denied any permit application from Cook County (except for the politically connected). That would have been workable as it would only take one person to handle all the applications.

Comment by RetiredArmyMP Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:41 am
If I’m reading it correctly, Dart assumes the 358,000 Cook County FOID holders will all be rushing to get a concealed carry permit. However, based on other states, a very small percentage will actually do so. I for instance, a Cook County resident, have a FOID, but do not even own a gun… so it is unlikely I’ll be applying for a cc permit anytime soon.

As for his suicide concerns… what does that have to do with concealed carry?? Concealed carry doesn’t have much to do with access to guns. And where is the evidence that someone that wants to kill themselves and does not have access to a gun, won’t try to commit the act using some other means?

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:44 am
Sheriff Tom Dart talks about being overwhelmed by the number of permit applications. He fails, however, to address issue of the under funded, under manned, and under resourced small town police forces in Illinois. Here the police will have fewer people seeking permits often they will not even be able to look at the permit applications let alone object to them because of their resource constraints.

Comment by Small Town Taxpayer Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:50 am
I am certainly happy Sheriff Dart pointed out this fatal flaw that is crippling all other states that have CCW on the books, because as everyone knows they all have blood running in the streets. Oh, wait…

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:02 pm
Also, it’s funny how the state association for professional sheriffs supports CCW, while Dart (a political creature with no real law enforcement experience beyond being a prosecutor when he was a freshly minted J.D. years ago) is so strongly against it.

Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:10 pm
I don’t understand why Dart talks about suicide in his letter. How will concealed carry have any impact on suicide? If someone wants to commit suicide with a gun, all they need is a FOID card. If that person wants to go to the middle of a shopping mall to kill themselves, I doubt they are going to apply for a CC permit before doing so.

Dart doesn’t have enough compelling evidence against the CC bill, so he sneaks a few extra lines in there that will invoke a negative emotion among people who don’t use any logic in their thought process. It reminds me of the times in high school where I had to write a persuasive essay, but ran out of ideas, so I tried to pull a fast one on my teachers by making a non-issue sound like an issue.

Comment by dalton22 Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:29 pm
So wait. Is Tom Dart saying that once the CC permit is issued, it cannot ever be revoked?

Seems there is a whole laundry list of actions one can take which would allow the FOID or CC permit to be recinded if there a bad action of the permit holders part.

Comment by plutocrat03 Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:36 pm
What I hear is that the FOID requirement is essentially useless. If you really look at the requirements, meeting the obligations for a FOID card should address the majority of people’s concerns about whether or not someone is fit to CC. Everything else should just be paperclipped to the application (ie - a certificate of some sort indicating that you passed the requisite training classes at a local gun range).

Comment by Slick Willy Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:52 pm
dart is just upset because he cant just object to any permit application from cook county and automatically have it denied which is his true intentions.. The mental health check goes with our without his objection so was dart saying the ISP is in competent and cant do thier job??

Comment by c Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:59 pm
@ - Ken_in_Aurora - “I am certainly happy Sheriff Dart pointed out this fatal flaw that is crippling all other states that have CCW on the books, because as everyone knows they all have blood running in the streets. Oh, wait…”

The United States leads the world in gun-related deaths — suicides, murders and accidents.

So yes. The streets are running with blood.

A very vocal minority of strident gun idealogues simply chooses to ignore this fact.

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 12:59 pm
we also lead it in automobile accident deaths anonymous but i dont hear the legislators saying to ban cars.

Comment by c Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:00 pm
–we also lead it in automobile accident deaths anonymous but i dont hear the legislators saying to ban cars.–

Why do you say that? It’s not even remotely true.

Here are auto deaths:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/18/a-surprising-map-of-countries-that-have-the-most-traffic-deaths/

Here are gun deaths:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

So yes, compared to the rest of the developed world, the streets of the United States are running with blood from gun violence. That’s just the way it is.

We’re doing much better on auto safety.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:09 pm
The streets of Chicago are already running with blood without CCW. Maybe we could learn a lesson from a favorite winning campaign slogan, “It’s Time for Change”.

Comment by Phenomynous Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:24 pm
Sheriff Dart need to have another job this one is to big for him to handle especially when it envolves finding criminals that are actually breaking the law NOW

Comment by crunch Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:32 pm
I am curious, why didn’t Dart cite the suicide stats for ccw holders nationally? There should be data available.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:43 pm
–I am curious, why didn’t Dart cite the suicide stats for ccw holders nationally? There should be data available.–

Where would you find that? There’s a lot of opposition to funding gun violence research by the NRAs friends in Congress.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:46 pm
- RonOglesby - Chicago Police officers fill out “contact cards” on gang members they confront on the streets but don’t arrest. The Sheriff screens everyone who goes through the jail for gang affiliation, includings the tens of thousands who come in on minor charges that are dropped within days. All this info is compiled in a shared gang database. As such, there are thousands of gang members who are “well known” to the Chicago police who have light criminal records and may qualify for CC permits.

Comment by Richard S. Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Much of what Dart says is just inaccurate, but the one that gets me is his comment that they cannot “take a second look.” He KNOWS this that law enforcement has this opportunity now under current law with FOID and will continue to have it under CCW.

Also, law enforcement is REQUIRED to notify the State Police of any person who is a danger to themselves or others. What more does Dart want?

Comment by ugh Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 1:58 pm
“There should be data available.”

There should be but there is not. There has been very little research on gun use/misuse and gun violence in the US since the federal government stopped funding it in the mid-1990’s. What data has been collected on gun violence since then has mainly gone unanalyzed. At the request of the NRA, Congress has decided that gun related research money should be redirected to conduct research on traumatic brain injuries. The main data that I have found to be currently available is the raw gun homicide and suicide stats collected by the FBI.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347#.UboWkuYo7bg

Comment by Small Town Taxpayer Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 2:15 pm
There is no ban on gun research, there is a ban on such research being used by Federal agencies for political purposes as there should be. The use of half truths by the gun banners is simply astounding.

Comment by wishbone Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 2:33 pm
Even if there was more funding for studying gun use, it is doubtful that there would be national data for who committed suicide while also maintaining a cc permit. To do so, it would likely require every county coroner (or equivalent authority) to not only classify the death as suicide by gun, but also to cross-check if the person had a cc permit and include it in the data. Government doesn’t generally track data to that degree.

Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 2:39 pm
I’ve posted before; but it apparently needs repeating… One big problem with the CDC research on this issue is the bias that would likely be incorporated into it and I say this as someone who has had numerous contacts with numerous CDC staff and who has a great deal of respect for the CDC.

Here are a couple links related to the CDC research issue.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/06/170844926/debate-rages-on-even-as-research-ban-on-gun-violence-ends

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/us/new-tactics-urged-in-fight-against-crime.html

Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 2:46 pm
–There is no ban on gun research, there is a ban on such research being used by Federal agencies for political purposes as there should be. The use of half truths by the gun banners is simply astounding.–

You like the word “ban.” Please point out here anyone who said there was a ban on gun research or who has advocated banning guns.

And what are the “political purposes” you speak of? Establishing policy? (Note the shared root of “political” and “policy).

What are are you supposed to do with research? Wallpaper the kitchen?

Your use of your Jump to Conclusions mat is simply astounding.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 2:46 pm
“There is no ban on gun research”

Very true. However, in the world of academic research the federal government typically provides significant funding ranging from physics to farming. For fields in the social sciences this is normally in the range of 60 to 70 percent of total funding depending on the specific field. The current ban on federal funding of gun related research has effectively ended most research without banning it.

Comment by Property Owner Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 3:06 pm
Sorry Dart. Seems like he’s mad he doesn’t get to hand pick who gets permits like the highly limited may-issue states where functionally no one gets one. You SHALL issue them. Looking forward to it.

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 3:09 pm
–Seems like he’s mad he doesn’t get to hand pick who gets permits like the highly limited may-issue states where functionally no one gets one. You SHALL issue them.–

No, he won’t. Not his job.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 3:17 pm
===Seems like he’s mad he doesn’t get to hand pick who gets permits===

They used to have a program for that in Cook, but I’m pretty sure Dart ended it. I could be wrong, though.

Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 3:49 pm
{While the public dialogue has focused on gun violence, we must also acknowledge the connection between guns and suicide.}

In the Chicago metro area we must also acknowledge the connection between trains and METRA-cide.

You don’t need a permit to live near; walk to, sit, or stand on the tracks yet I’d guess that METRA-cide victims would rival or perhaps even surpass suicide victims by gun-shot in this area.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 4:10 pm
–You don’t need a permit to live near; walk to, sit, or stand on the tracks yet I’d guess that METRA-cide victims would rival or perhaps even surpass suicide victims by gun-shot in this area.–

Why would you think that? Nationally, about half of all suicides are by guns.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 4:19 pm
=== Someone who’s simply looking to commit suicide won’t be applying for a concealed carry permit ===

This is one of the problems with this debate. Dart is appealing to the emotional side while citing supposed “facts”. This kind of canard has been tossed about by both sides of the debate. For those who pay minimal attention it can appear legitimate but when you read the whole thing the logic falls apart.

Comment by dupage dan Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 4:51 pm
Word: Are you claiming a causative relationship between gun ownership and suicide? If so, please cite your sources or provide the supporting evidence. If not, what’s your point? I’ve participated in research on this issue and I’ve read tons of info on it. Firearms are a highly effective means of attempting suicide; but suicidal individuals find other means if one is unavailable. You might find a small percentage that might have resisted the impulse if a firearm was not readily available; but I believe even that small percentage is over-estimated. Once you really delve into the issue, you start to wonder how many car “accidents” are really accidents. Logic

Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 4:54 pm
–Word: Are you claiming a causative relationship between gun ownership and suicide?–

You read what I wrote: do you see me doing so?

I was responding to Quinn suggesting more people commit suicide by stepping in front of a train than with a firearm. I was wondering where he got that from since national figures show half of suicides are by firearms.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 4:57 pm
Word I was being only somewhat facetious. I ride METRA regularly; receive all of their system/service alerts via e-mail and text, subscribe to virtually every print, radio, and television news feed in the metro area as well as follow all of the major outlets via multiple social media platforms like FB, Twitter and Instagram. I actually learned once of a METRA-cide train vs. pedestrian incident via a passenger Instagram photo before METRA or any of the news organizations ever put anything out on it.

Intentional death by train seems to occur on almost a weekly basis here in this area. Intentional death by firearm may be even more prevalent but may not get reported as often.

The gun deaths are not likely to increase the rate of suicide due to a concealed-carry permit however there could be some variance in methodology.

Comment by Quinn T. Sential Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 5:31 pm
“What are are you supposed to do with research? Wallpaper the kitchen?”

If you don’t know that government agencies are not supposed to engage in partisan politics then you are probably happy that the IRS is targeting people based on their political views. As to people (primarily my fellow Democrats) wanting to ban guns, if you don’t think Dart, Quinn and Emanual, for example, would not ban guns if they could there can be no reasonable discussion with you. If we can’t have honesty about where people actually stand on issues we don’t have much at all.

Comment by wishbone Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 6:28 pm
Wishbone, you’re hardly interested in an honest discussion, you’re just tossing out bumper-sticker lines.

I speak only for myself. You referred to those writing here on gun research as “gun banners,” with absolutely no evidence.

Also, you first said research can’t be used for “political purposes.” Research can and should be used to set public policy, don’t you think? Isn’t that a “political purpose?”

Now you switch up to “federal agencies” and “partisan politics.” Whatever that means in this context.

Get your story straight, without bringing in strawmen and you’ll have your honest discussion.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 6:37 pm
Is Dart similarly concerned about Chicago aldermen and other law-making political creatures being allowed to carry a concealed firearm without any background checks or training or even a FOID card? Or is that ok, since they’re his guys?

Comment by Chicago Gunowner Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 7:25 pm
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=733&ChapAct=50%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0710/&ChapterID=11&ChapterName=LOCAL+GOVERNMENT&ActName=Peace+Officer+Firearm+Training+Act.

Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 7:55 pm
@richard s.
I know all about the contact card system… that means they have the name and can run it when the permit app comes in and can object. So you either understand that and ignore it to back dart or dont understand that a sheriff has the ability to object to a permit… and noting that the persom is a known gang member.

Sorry. Dart is full of it here.

Comment by ronoglesby Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 7:59 pm
“Now you switch up to “federal agencies” and “partisan politics.””

My original post said “…there is a ban on such research being used by Federal agencies for political purposes as there should be.” I clearly did not “switch” to government agencies I started with government agencies, and still maintain that the civil servants who work in government agencies should not engage in politics, partisan or otherwise. As far as the word ban is concerned have you already forgotten that our largest city had a “ban” on handguns until it was overturned by the Supreme Court, or that our state had a “ban” on concealed carry until it was overturned by the Seventh Circuit court of Appeals? I don’t see why those who want to return to these unconstitutional bans can’t at least be honest about their intentions.

Comment by wishbone Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 8:26 pm
–our state had a “ban” on concealed carry until it was overturned by the Seventh Circuit court of Appeals?–

Yet no one hear was talking about banning anything. Just lack of funding for research.

By the way, you’re wrong on the Seventh Circuit ruling. The court found the state’s blanket prohibition on carrying guns outside the home unconstitutional.

The court said nothing about conceal-carry, and did not mandate anything. The state law did not ban guns.

The court’s ruling certainly gave impetus to the conceal-carry efforts that have been underway for years. But more restrictive bills than the one that passed certainly would have been acceptable within federal court rulings to date. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to New York’s law.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 8:38 pm
>>>>> ===Seems like he’s mad he doesn’t get to hand pick who gets permits===

>>>>> They used to have a program for that in Cook, but I’m pretty sure Dart ended it. I could be wrong, though.

That was the old “Holiday Court Deputy Sheriff” scheme, and it got kiboshed while Sheahan was sheriff, but it was court ordered.

Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 10:37 pm
@Precinct Captain - “50 ILCS 710/5) (from Ch. 85, par. 519)
Sec. 5. This Act does not apply to any home rule unit.”

Doesn’t apply to Chicago Aldermen or anyone in Cook County government or any other home rule district.

I wonder if Dart ever had any training?

Comment by Chicago Gunowner Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 10:40 pm
Give Tom Dart a break. He’s a former legislator in recovery a slipped off the wagon a bit…

Comment by just thinking... Thursday, Jun 13, 13 @ 11:43 pm
“Conservators of the Peace training course. The Board shall initiate, administer, and conduct a training course for conservators of the peace. The training course may include all or any part of the subjects enumerated in Section 7. The Board shall issue a certificate to those persons successfully completing the course.”

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=731&ChapterID=11

Section 7 includes “firearms training”

“An alderman is a sworn peace officer, and we have to go through 40 hours training in order to obtain the license.”
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Anthony-Beale-QA-189223951.html

Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:17 am
@Precinct Captian - OK, I stand corrected. But somehow I doubt Dorothy Tillman (who famously waved her pistol around in the City Council) had 40 hours of training.

Comment by Chicago Gunowner Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 7:21 am
@ “Give Tom Dart a break. He’s a former legislator in recovery a slipped off the wagon a bit…”

I don’t think so; the Sheriff is prone to self-promotion and often steps in front of the camera (and apparently now the pen) with a sentimental twist. It was no slip, that’s him. He’s gets no break here.

PS. a poorly drafted letter and an odd point to advance as criticism of “fatally flawed” legislation.

Comment by Charlatan Heston Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 8:43 am
To wordslinger.

The very enumeration of a right necessarily removes certain policy positions from the table of debate.

The Second Amendment is the product of the interest balancing approach you, like Ginsburg, attempt to impose while ignoring this reality. The very purpose of enumeration is to remove from the hands of government the power to decide if a right is really worth insisting upon.

Dart is right, in that this legislation is fatally flawed, but his reasons are, well, lacking logic, reason and standing. From poll tax violation to multiple pre qualification demands, this legislation is a basket case of ignoring SCOTUS precedent from start to finish. The worst of which is the FACT that it attempts to keep in place every word of code that has flatly been adjudicated as guilty - the charge being unconstitutional on its face and in application.

Quinn should indeed veto this legislation and do so on the 59 Day. Then, Forby AND PHELPS should refuse to call it for override.

Comment by Ummm Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 9:31 am
–The very purpose of enumeration is to remove from the hands of government the power to decide if a right is really worth insisting upon.–

Well that settles it. We’ll just blow off 200-plus years of Constitutional interpretation by the courts and go with you.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:04 am
Sorry, the above was me.

You are aware of what the word “enumerated” means, right? It doesn’t mean unlimited.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:14 am
=== The United States leads the world in gun-related deaths — suicides, murders and accidents.===

Pure fantasy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Comment by Roman Umpire Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 10:35 am
Hey wordslinger. I gotta laugh at your statement that you’ll just go with me….. Seeing as how it’s SCOTUS that wrote that and all. With that you just proved to everyone here that you have never read Heller or McDonald. You might try doing so because you could then avoid looking so foolish.

Seriously. Give them a read.

Comment by Ummm Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:25 am
–With that you just proved to everyone here that you have never read Heller or McDonald.–

I have, actually. What’s your point regarding them?

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 11:54 am
Of course the Second amendment isn’t unlimited. I have no right to grab up an axe, head into a 7-11 with the intent to rob the place. The right is specific. I own the right to own, which entails buying and selling property) and the right to carry and use in self defense those things called arms. In the pubic square is exactly where rights are protected!

Rich Miller no more needs a government issued permission slip to publish his blog than does anyone who wishes to exercise their right to arms. The same is true regarding arbitrary preconditions and qualifications. In the context of the First Amendment, the Second Amendment is no different. Pssssst, wordslinger, SCOTUS wrote that bit too-

So as folks talk about limitations and applications and licenses and costs and training, I suggest everyone think long and hard about that last bit. BECAUSE they are “no different”, that which applies to the Second also has to apply to the First.

Banning entire classes of weapons doesn’t pass muster anymore than banning carry passes muster. Limiting magazine size is like telling rich he can only publish ten words a post or accept ten subscribers.

It’s just time to admit what is true. Owning and carry arms are rights due the same protection as speech. Lets all accept that and focus the regulatory code in uses OUTSIDE the right - like Robert rape and murder. I have yet to understand why some are against that. Remember innocent until proven guilty? Remember due process?

The Second Amendment limits government expressly. That “not unlimited” may enter the discussion properly does NOT translate to mean government is empowered to regulate without limit. Proper regulation and due authority exists outside the express rights - keeping AND bearing.

Comment by Ummm Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:10 pm
My point was that you attributed something to me that SCOTUS wrote. So while saying we should go with the court you dismiss what the court decided. Which way will you have it? If you read them seriously why don’t you recognize what comes from them? Why say what you did in just going with me? See, that makes no sense…. So help me understand what you meant.

Comment by Ummm Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 12:15 pm
Um, I’m not sure what you’re talking about regarding the Supreme Court in relation to Illinois’ concealed-carry bill.

The 7th Circuit, interpreting Heller, ruled Illinois blanket prohibition of any gun carriage in public unconstitutional. Other circuits have not gone so far.

Regardless, the 7th Circuit did not require Illinois to do anything. It simply ruled current law unconstitutional.

The Supremes and all other courts have been silent on conceal-carry and have not set Constitutional standards for public carriage.

If the bill that passed the GA does not become law (I think it will), home rule units would be able to set their own carriage ordinances within the Supreme’s opaque parameters, to now.

The bill heading to Quinn’s desk is not federally mandated. It certainly was passed under pressure from the 7th Circuit, but it is a state law, passed in good faith within federal court parameters, and will be subject to change in the future, on way or the other.

You recall, of course, after Heller and McDonald, that the Supremes declined to hear an appeal of New York’s gun laws, which deprive a city with a population larger than 39 states of either conceal or open carry.

So that’s where the enumerated right stands today.

Enumerated, by the way, means “numbered” or “listed.” Nothing else.

Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jun 14, 13 @ 3:40 pm