Illinois bill by Reis introduced for CCW


PDA






Clinton
January 13, 2013, 09:09 PM
Looks good so far.

Ill edit once I havr the link for proposal on witness slips.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=154&GAID=12&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=69138&SessionID=85&GA=98

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun to an applicant that meets specified qualifications, has provided the application and specified documentation, and has submitted the requisite fees. Provides that a license to carry a handgun entitles a licensee to carry a loaded handgun, either concealed or openly, on or about his or her person or in a vehicle, except in certain prohibited locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 45 days of receipt from a sheriff and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. Establishes qualifications for licensees, certified firearms instructors, and instructor trainers. Provides for home rule preemption. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Prohibits from inspection and copying information about applications for licenses to carry a handgun and about license holders contained in the database created by the Family and Personal Protection Act, except as authorized by that Act. Amends the State Finance Act and the Criminal Code of 2012 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.

Clinton

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois bill by Reis introduced for CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MedWheeler
January 13, 2013, 10:20 PM
Looks pretty run-of-the-mill so far, as compared to legislation currently in effect on other "shall-issue" states. There is, of course, some room for fine-tuning, in either or both directions.

VVelox
January 14, 2013, 05:04 AM
The home rule part is not good as it allows places like cook county and Chicago to ban it.

VVelox
January 14, 2013, 05:26 AM
To expand my last comment, I would strongly recommend calling your GA critters and say you don't want it with home rule.

Smatek1001
January 14, 2013, 08:03 AM
Interesting from section 70:

"If a community college, college, or university elects to prohibit the carrying of firearms on its campus, it shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the premises."

Section 95 rules out home rule, except prohibiting carry in municipal buildings. It also seems to overrule any and all city/county firearm restrictions. Excellent.

"Section 95. Preemption. It is declared to be the policy of this State that it is an exclusive power and function of the State to regulate the possession and transportation of handguns and the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm. Except as provided in subsection (b) of Section 70, a home rule unit shall not regulate the possession or transportation of handguns. A home rule unit shall not regulate the number of handguns or require registration of handguns possessed by a person licensed under this Act. This Section is a denial of home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution."

Section 100 amends FOIA to bar FOID and CCW permit info from being released. Excellent.

This looks to be a "shall issue" law. Open carry seems to be permitted as per the synopsis as well. Training is required and must include live shooting, with more shooting for each renewal. Registration and renewal fees aren't too bad at $65 for a new permit and $25 renewals every 5 years. Police and former military with combat MOS are exempt from the shooting requirement.

I'll bet we don't get reciprocity with states that don't require marksmanship training.

C0untZer0
January 14, 2013, 08:46 AM
The home rule part is not good as it allows places like cook county and Chicago to ban it.
This bill pre-empts home rule - it doesn't bow to it. This law would overrule anti-gun city ordinances in places like Chicago and Oak Park.

Clinton
January 14, 2013, 09:00 AM
Can someone elaborate more on what home rule is?

Clinton

Hunter125
January 14, 2013, 01:35 PM
Does it outline specifically what the training requirements are?

Clinton
January 14, 2013, 02:19 PM
Yes. Must pass 1 of 5 or 6 classes approved by the NRA. And a firing test at silhouettes. At 7 and 14 yards I think. But yes its in the full test.

Clinton

C0untZer0
January 14, 2013, 05:28 PM
In a nutshell, if the State of Illinois passed a carry law by a simple majority in the House and the Governor signed it into law - it would only take effect in cities that did not have home rule. Chicago is a home rule city - so Chicago wouldn't have to abide by the law.


http://www.cityoflakeforest.com/pdf/cg/HRq&a.pdf
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con7.htm

However, if a law is passed in the House with a 2/3 majority - it overides home rule or pre-empts it.

it is extremely important that we have a bill with preemption otherwise trying to carry in Illinois would be very precarious. For instance you might get on a train in Geneva where carry is allowed, but as you pass through Oak Park - you would be in violation of Oak Park's ordinances, and a stop in Chicago would land you in violation of Chicago ordinances which theoretically could be 6 months in jail, a $10,000 fine or both.

For more really up to date information on the events affecting Illinois the folks at IllinoisCarry.com do a great job, not only of keeping people informed with alerts, but also by explaining the issues unique to Illinois in detail:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/

Clinton
January 15, 2013, 12:18 PM
Groupon
http://touch2.groupon.com/deals/sovereign-arms-2?c=deal_button&d=deal-page&date=20130115&division=stlouis&mobile=true&p=1&s=body&sid=db6d52ec-f13e-4bc7-ae48-1158fd67d5c7&user=430b5be22192c07504be69211ed6417947d2dcd55ba9bae79b8cdd4a44c656b3&utm_campaign=sovereign-arms-2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

Clinton

JFtheGR8
January 15, 2013, 03:00 PM
Very good post by Phatty in legal breaking this bill down. I'd put the link here but can't from my phone. I concur 100% with him and will be providing that information to my representatives.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Clinton
January 15, 2013, 06:28 PM
Whos Phatty?

Clinton

JFtheGR8
January 15, 2013, 06:44 PM
Whos Phatty?

Clinton

A fellow member. Look for Illinois ccw as a topic in legal.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Onward Allusion
January 15, 2013, 07:35 PM
Clinton
Can someone elaborate more on what home rule is?


Local municipalities can override State law. For example, Chicago lowered penalties for possession of less than 15 grams of Marijuana to a citation offense. I think the fine is like 250 to 500 bucks. Heard on their AM news radio that it earned the city something like 98K in a month or something like that.

w9trb
January 15, 2013, 07:43 PM
So Onward Allusion, Chicago de-criminalized pot and wants to criminalize guns? Yeah, that sounds about par for the course. Sheesh!

Phatty
January 15, 2013, 08:01 PM
Local municipalities can override State law. For example, Chicago lowered penalties for possession of less than 15 grams of Marijuana to a citation offense. I think the fine is like 250 to 500 bucks. Heard on their AM news radio that it earned the city something like 98K in a month or something like that.
In Illinois there are home-rule and non-home rule municipalities. A non-home rule municipality only has the powers and authorities to enact ordinance which are expressly allowed by State law.

A home-rule municipality, on the other hand, can enact any ordinance that is not expressly prohibited by Illinois law. So, a home-rule municipality cannot have an ordinance that directly conflicts with Illinois law. For example, if there was no state law prohibiting nudity, a home-rule city could pass an ordinance banning nudity. A non-home rule municipality could only pass such an ordinance if there was a state law expressly allowing such a ban. If the state wished to freely allow nudity throughout the state, it could enact a law that nudity is permitted everywhere in the state. At that point, a home-rule city could not enforce its ban because it would directly conflict with state law.

State laws that have the effect of limiting what a home-rule municipality can do (such as the example above permitting nudity throughout the state) must be passed with a super-majority.

Phatty
January 15, 2013, 08:04 PM
Whos Phatty?

Clinton
That's me! It's funny how one person can read a bill and think it looks good and another can read the same bill and be disappointed.

OH_Spartan
January 15, 2013, 10:58 PM
So patty, on which side of look good/bad do you fall?

OH_Spartan
January 15, 2013, 11:08 PM
Never mind....just saw ur thread in legal.

Davey Wavey
January 16, 2013, 05:46 AM
Don't pay too much attention to any carry bills at this point. According to our NRA lobbyist it is early in the session and lots of things will change.

Phatty
January 16, 2013, 09:47 AM
According to our NRA lobbyist it is early in the session and lots of things will change.
That's true, but based on prior years, a handful of concealed carry bills are filed at the beginning of the session and usually start off relatively gun friendly. As the session progresses, one of the bills will be chosen to advance and it gets amended multiple times, each time becoming more restrictive and burdensome in order to win over more votes from democrats.

I was really hoping that the pro-gun legislators would recognize their additional leverage this year and put forth a much more gun friendly bill as the first bid.

Clinton
January 28, 2013, 07:02 PM
I just read cullerton a democ. Wants to get ccw passed. Hes against ccw but wants a may issue bill introduced ao we dont get what we need for ccw. Hope nothing gets passed so we get constitutional carry! Anyone w a foid would take hen be legal to carry. Is my logic correct?

Clinton

Phatty
January 28, 2013, 07:43 PM
I just read cullerton a democ. Wants to get ccw passed. Hes against ccw but wants a may issue bill introduced ao we dont get what we need for ccw. Hope nothing gets passed so we get constitutional carry! Anyone w a foid would take hen be legal to carry. Is my logic correct?

Clinton
I don't doubt that we'll get proposals from traditionally anti-gun legislators that are highly restrictive concealed carry laws. A Chicago Sun-Times editorial advocated for a New York "may issue" regime where the right to carry is illusory because the right is almost never granted to any person.

If no law is passed within the 180 day period, the anti's aren't as screwed as you might think. They can still pass laws in their own cities restricting concealed carry and wait for somebody to challenge it in court. I'm sure Chicago will pass some ludicrous concealed carry law that is "may issue" where the only persons who receive licenses are Chicago aldermen. So, if no law is passed by the legislature, we'll likely end up with a patchwork of laws across the state.

But, keep in mind that the vast majority of Illinois legislators are not as pro-gun as the folks here. Yeah, they might be all for concealed carry, but I bet the thought of having no law governing the carrying of firearms (as you mentioned, "constitutional carry") is just as scary to them as to the anti-gun crowd. So, when it comes down to it, I bet the pro-gun folks fold in the end to the demands of the anti-gunners and compromise on the final bill.

If you enjoyed reading about "Illinois bill by Reis introduced for CCW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!