New IL CCW law introduced


PDA






Hunter125
January 30, 2013, 09:39 AM
It looks like a good one.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=997&GAID=12&LegID=71413&SpecSess=&Sessio

If you enjoyed reading about "New IL CCW law introduced" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
10/22plinker
January 30, 2013, 09:48 AM
As some of you may already know, Illinois has been given a 180 day window to pass legislation that will finally allow concealed carry within the state.:cool: Yesterday, A bill sponsored by Brandon W. Phelps(D) has been filed as a possible solution. I haven't read the full text yet (only the synopsis) and honestly I like it. Thoughts, concerns, comments?

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html
http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0997&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=71413&SessionID=85

10/22plinker
January 30, 2013, 11:37 AM
A big thank you to the mod who combined these! I guess his thread was created while I was finding links for mine and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do.

mljdeckard
January 30, 2013, 11:39 AM
"Shall Issue". I guess we'll see.

Silent Bob
January 30, 2013, 11:50 AM
"Shall Issue" with lots of ifs, buts, and maybes...

10/22plinker
January 30, 2013, 12:09 PM
What exactly are you referring to? The safety course? Also it would be nice to hear from someone out of state on whether or not you learned anything valuable while attending the safety course if your state requires that.

dab102999
January 30, 2013, 12:15 PM
What exactly are you referring to? The safety course? Also it would be nice to hear from someone out of state on whether or not you learned anything valuable while attending the safety course if your state requires that.
personally I myself....no. Many years of shooting and safty behind me and my wife. Now with that said, two people in my class ABSOLUTLY. I honestly didn't think at first they were gunna issue a permit to them. They needed total attention during the shooting part of the coarse. And it took the whole time to get them to get consistant. Not saying they were not being safe, but they obviously had never been exposed to a firearm ever.

10/22plinker
January 30, 2013, 12:23 PM
Do any states require the handgun owner to have experience with their weapon? i.e. Explain all of the parts and their function to the instructor. Maybe even demonstrate "tap, rack, boom" or other malfunction clearing procedures.

gondorian
January 30, 2013, 12:39 PM
It looks better than I was expecting. Now we just need to wait and see if it has enough votes

Blackbeard
January 30, 2013, 01:22 PM
If they don't pass one, then we get Constitutional carry in June. I almost hope they go that route.

bhk
January 30, 2013, 02:31 PM
This looks very similar (almost a copy) to ours in neighboring Missouri. It has worked well for us.

GlockFan
January 30, 2013, 02:48 PM
I am at work and can't read all of it but from what i did read it sounds good. In parts it sounded like it was also going to include open carry.

Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to a person to: (1) carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person, concealed or otherwise; Hmm

Phatty
January 30, 2013, 03:09 PM
This bill (HB997) sponsored by Brandon Phelps is better than the first concealed carry bill that was filed this session (HB154) by David Reis. However, I still have quite a few concerns.

First, my biggest logistical gripe with this bill and pretty much every other concealed carry bill that has been filed in Illinois in past years is that they completely ignore the FOID system already in place in Illinois. It is wasteful, duplicative and downright ridiculous to have a separate FOID system and CCL system.

Anyone with half a brain would come to the conclusion that, "Hey, we've already got a gun owner's licensing scheme in place in Illinois, why not just build on top of that?" Do we really need to have people carry both a FOID and a CCL in their wallets? People should carry one card. A person that meets additional requirements (such as training) would simply receive a FOID card with an additional designation showing that the person is licensed to carry in public. If you already have a FOID card and want to be able to carry in public, you would complete whatever training is required, send that information to the State Police, and they could upgrade your card.

That being said, here are some of my specific complaints with Phelps' bill:

(1) It purports to be "shall issue" except that it isn't. The State Police can still refuse to issue a license if they believe that the applicant is a danger to himself or others, and any police agency or sheriff can send an objection to the State Police that could override a person's ability to get a CCL even if they otherwise meet all of the objective qualifications.

I have no problem with the police or sheriff sending an objection to the State Police about a person based on that person not meeting an objective requirement, such as that person being a felon. But, subjective impressions such as, "we don't think it will be safe for that guy to carry a gun" can be abused.

(2) Mandatory disclosure of CCL without being asked. I have no problem requiring CCL holders to disclose the existence of a concealed handgun when asked by the police. But, I hate the idea that they must immediately disclose that information upon contact with a police officer. If a police officer wants to know, let him ask. This rule can be heavily abused and serves absolutely no purpose. You also risk freaking out a police officer when you voluntarily blurt out "I've got a concealed gun" as your first communication to that officer.

(3) I'd like to see reciprocity with other states. Reciprocity is granted for 180 days after the bill's effective date, which I think is provided to give nonresidents time to apply for and receive an Illinois license. Living close to Missouri, it sure would be nice to not have to worry about carrying when going back and forth across the border.

(4) Applicants are required to waive privacy privileges, such as mental health records, juvenile records, etc. Is it really necessary that people have to completely give up their privacy rights to exercise their 2A right?

(5) State Police maintains a searchable database of applicants containing all of the information provided with the application (which is a lot of private info). This database is available to a wide group of people and could easily be abused. There should only be a simple database that can be checked to see whether or not a person is, in fact, licensed to carry.

(6) The list of restricted areas is too broad. Strangely, HB154, which is generally less gun friendly than this bill, is actually a bit better in this regard.

(7) The bill allows private businesses to exclude carrying in their businesses, but a CCL holder is not in violation of the Act if the business does not conspicuously post the ban at its entrances. I have no problem with this, but I believe this idea should be exanded to all restricted facilities. If people aren't allowed to carry in a specific government building, for example, a conspicuous notice should be posted at the entrances so that people do not innocently violate the law.

Phatty
January 30, 2013, 03:10 PM
I am at work and can't read all of it but from what i did read it sounds good. In parts it sounded like it was also going to include open carry.

Hmm
Yes, I also interpreted it to permit open carry.

w9trb
January 30, 2013, 03:21 PM
Where can we find a list of approved prior service MOS's. It does not seem to be specified in the posted text.

Bubba613
January 30, 2013, 03:40 PM
I have no problem with the police or sheriff sending an objection to the State Police about a person based on that person not meeting an objective requirement, such as that person being a felon. But, subjective impressions such as, "we don't think it will be safe for that guy to carry a gun" can be abused.
They can be and might be, esp in IL. But we have the same thing in TN. And there are one or two people who really don't need to have a permit but haven't done anything wrong. Yet. And they've had them pulled.

The little bit that I'm seeing looks pretty good. Especially by comparison with what IL has done in the past. Curious about reciprocity.

kcgunesq
January 30, 2013, 06:23 PM
This looks very similar (almost a copy) to ours in neighboring Missouri. It has worked well for us.
In many ways yes, it does. But, assuming it passed in this form, one could not rely upon their knowledge of Missouri law to get them through a day carrying in IL. There are several very important differences.

Overall, considering the state, I'd give this a solid B, maybe even a B+. Hopefully knowledgeable in-state experts will help continue shaping it as it moves through the assembly.

Hunter125
January 30, 2013, 06:24 PM
So if I'm reading it right, since I hold a non res license from a different state, I can immediately carry for 6 mos while I get my IL CCW?

The open carry portion is nice too, so we don't have to worry about printing.

Phatty
January 30, 2013, 06:45 PM
So if I'm reading it right, since I hold a non res license from a different state, I can immediately carry for 6 mos while I get my IL CCW?

The open carry portion is nice too, so we don't have to worry about printing.
Yes, you are reading it right. And the option to carry either open or concealed is good.

gbran
January 30, 2013, 07:45 PM
My biggest problem is that even if passed, it will likely not include Chicago.
If anybody believes Chicago will ever have shall issue ccw...........

JTHunter
January 31, 2013, 12:49 AM
It is too reasonable. "Q-ball" Quinn will never sign it. Mainly because Rahm won't let him sign it!

Scimmia
January 31, 2013, 05:47 AM
(3) I'd like to see reciprocity with other states. Reciprocity is granted for 180 days after the bill's effective date, which I think is provided to give nonresidents time to apply for and receive an Illinois license. Living close to Missouri, it sure would be nice to not have to worry about carrying when going back and forth across the border.

It's there, pages 15 and 16. If a state honors Illinois' permits, Illinois will honor theirs.

Davey Wavey
January 31, 2013, 06:16 AM
If they don't pass one, then we get Constitutional carry in June. I almost hope they go that route.

Assuming your location tag is correct...no pro gunner in Cook County wants a bill to not be passed.

IL has no preemption in regards to guns. No state law means Chicago and Cook County will simply pass NYC style shall not issue laws.

No bill is NOT good.

wildbilll
January 31, 2013, 10:11 AM
It is too reasonable. "Q-ball" Quinn will never sign it. Mainly because Rahm won't let him sign it!
In IL, when a new law has an effect on Home Rule, it requires a 3/5th majority of the votes to pass. I would therefore be veto proof. Quinn's signature isn't relevant.

Phatty
January 31, 2013, 10:23 AM
It's there, pages 15 and 16. If a state honors Illinois' permits, Illinois will honor theirs.
Thanks. You are correct. I missed that the first time I read through it.

Scimmia
January 31, 2013, 03:17 PM
In IL, when a new law has an effect on Home Rule, it requires a 3/5th majority of the votes to pass. I would therefore be veto proof. Quinn's signature isn't relevant.

There's no such thing as "veto proof". 3/5th majority may be required to pass it, but the Governor can still veto it. The legislature then needs to override the veto, which is generally more difficult than getting the votes in the first place. For one, it gives the Governor time to work on the legislators that voted for it. For another, overriding a veto is seen as a direct insult to the Governor, so legislators that voted for it the first time may not be willing to do so the second time.

wildbilll
January 31, 2013, 04:09 PM
I agree that anyone who voted for the law could change their vote after the Governor rejects the law. But why would someone want to take the chance on voting for the law, only to turn around and vote against the law just because Quinn doesn't like it. Seems to me that it would be easier on everyone who is against the law if the vote was cast against the law in the first place. I should have said "Veto Proof Majority". Any bill could fail after a veto if enough legislators change their minds and votes.
As far as the insult factor, it's not like the governor wouldn't have been twisting arms at every step of the process.

Scimmia
January 31, 2013, 04:13 PM
Politics doesn't work that way, especially in Illinois. How would you react if Quinn threatened to veto every bill you were a sponsor of if you didn't change your vote? Or if other legislators offered to support something important to you, but only if you change your vote? Directly opposing the Governor with a veto override is also a much stronger statement than the original vote was. Making an enemy of a Governor that's a member of your party is generally considered to be a bad career move. What if he publicly supports your opposition in the next election?

It's not about who supports and who opposes a bill, it's about how the game is played. What I'm describing is part of the normal process, not even getting into the dirtier side of Illinois politics where lives are ruined and people disappear.

wildbilll
February 1, 2013, 12:32 AM
The only way this CCW bill passes is because the hoplophobes have a greater fear of the UUW and aggravated UUW laws being rendered null and void than passing a sensible CCW law.
So the way politics works, if they vote for the new law it is because they must.
The calculation would have already been made in the governors office.
If it is going to pass anytime soon, it will be because the Appeals court refused to re-hear the Moore case or the sense is they re-hear it and uphold it.
The legal downside to asking to the full panel was zero. The legal downside to a appeal to SCOTUS is that Bloomberg would be afraid that the communist weapons policies of his feifdom would be struck down. They would rather let IL go Shall issue if it means protecting NY, NJ, etc.
So back to the IL vote. If IL is going to pass the CCW law, they are not going to let the whole thing blow up at the last minute for Quinn. The result would be open and concealed carry without anything more than a FOID for the residents, and nothing required for the non-residents.
No politician would want to be the one blamed for causing "the wild wild west".
Quinn is viewed as in his last term. There is less incentive to lie in bed with him now.

Jeff White
February 1, 2013, 12:34 PM
Politics doesn't work that way, especially in Illinois. How would you react if Quinn threatened to veto every bill you were a sponsor of if you didn't change your vote? Or if other legislators offered to support something important to you, but only if you change your vote? Directly opposing the Governor with a veto override is also a much stronger statement than the original vote was. Making an enemy of a Governor that's a member of your party is generally considered to be a bad career move.

That would be true if a Madigan were governor. Quinn is considered a buffoon by the real power in the state, Madigans, Daileys, Rahm Emmanuel and various and sundry Chicago Aldermen. Quinn's agenda has met more resistance from his own party then from the democrats.

Quinn is a figurehead who's purpose in life is to be the public face of all of the stupidity and ignorance that the crime families who run the state put the people of Illinois through.

Gag_Halfront
February 1, 2013, 04:38 PM
(h) A violation of subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or
(f) is a petty offense. A willful violation of subsection (a),
(b), (c), (d), or (f) is a Class B misdemeanor.


What's the difference between a violation and a willful violation? How is that determined? I'm curious how any violation would not be considered willful.

wildbilll
February 1, 2013, 05:20 PM
That is an excellent question. On another board, one of the authors of the bill says it has a few issues, they just needed to get it submitted to get a number on the bill. They plan on making the corrections as they are discovered.
I am guessing, until this is clarified, that a violation means "golly gee, officer, I did not realize I was in a place that is off limits. I guess I better skee-dattle!"
and I am guessing that a willful violation means " golly gee, officer, I guess I am in a place that is off limits, but, guess what? I knew it and I don't care"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_violation

Blue .45
February 1, 2013, 06:43 PM
That would be true if a Madigan were governor. Quinn is considered a buffoon by the real power in the state, Madigans, Daileys, Rahm Emmanuel and various and sundry Chicago Aldermen. Quinn's agenda has met more resistance from his own party then from the democrats.

Quinn is a figurehead who's purpose in life is to be the public face of all of the stupidity and ignorance that the crime families who run the state put the people of Illinois through.


I know you meant to say he gets more resistance from his own party than the republicans, as Quinn is a democrat. However, you are absolutely correct in your description of how he is perceived by the top dems in the state. I wouldn't be surprised if Lisa Madigan takes him out in the next primary.

I heard on the radio today that (R)Bill Brady might take another run at it. From what I remember about him, he was pretty solid on the second amendment and the concealed carry issue.

Gag_Halfront
February 2, 2013, 01:40 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I recon in Chicago (at least) there's going to be a lot of violations that are booked as willful violations because you "should have known" or whatever. :-/

Another interesting thing is that according to 70.b:
A municipality or school district may prohibit or limit licensees from carrying a firearm into or within any building or portion of any building owned, leased, or controlled by the municipality

Chicago could (and therefore would absolutely) decree any government building to be off limits.

According to the same section:
The resolution, ordinance, or policy shall not prohibit a licensee
from carrying a concealed firearm into or within any building used for public housing; into or within any publicly-accessible restroom or rest stop; into, within, or on any bridge, tunnel, overpass, underpass, elevated walkway, or other structure used as a public right of way;

In the city of Chicago there is a pedway system. One section of the pedway system includes the basement of the Daley center and the lobby of city hall. To my mind, these two statements in the same section appear to contradict each other in this scenario. While it's possible that after spending some time in jail and a lot of money on lawyers a court might find in favor of the liberty of the individual, I am certain that the city of chicago and its agents will likely find the opposite. In other words, if you get stopped in the lobby of city hall by one of the many police officers present there as you use the pedway system and as per the new law have to disclose that you are carrying to the officer who stops you (or he spots your not well enough concealed weapon), my guess is you will probably go to jail that day. As someone who uses the pedway system frequently, I would certainly feel better if the language were more clear here about which of these rights (of the property owning municipality versus of the individual using a public passageway) trumps the other.

tpelle
February 2, 2013, 11:12 AM
Regarding the question as to whether I learned anything in the required safety course for my CCW. For me, no, as I already had years of experience in gun handling. But in my class we had several people who not only didn't own a gun yet, there were a few who had never even touched one before the "marksmanship" range test!

As a matter of fact other students in the class were very accommodating in freely lending their firearms to these folks, and the instructor, a police detective, spent extra time with these people instructing them and coaching them, and discussing the pros and cons of each to help them make a wise purchase.

As to the classroom work involved with a CCW, keep in mind that many states will not establish reciprocity with CCW holders from a state that does NOT require a safety and use of force training class to gain a CCW.

10/22plinker
February 2, 2013, 07:23 PM
For anybody who hasn't recently checked the bill status, it has gained many new sponsors. Would this be a good time for their constituents to say thank you?

Nanook
February 5, 2013, 08:30 PM
Yes, I believe so. My rep is a supporter, and has just signed on as a co-sponsor. I emailed her this evening with my appreciation.

She also co-sponsored the last bill that came oh so close, HB148.

plodder
February 5, 2013, 09:06 PM
Too many restricted areas and it will be virtually impossible to legally carry where you need it most (Cook County and environs)

Trent
February 12, 2013, 12:06 PM
Too many restricted areas and it will be virtually impossible to legally carry where you need it most (Cook County and environs)

Wrong. Did you read the part that pre-empts home rule, then goes on to specify that if a local unit of government violates a person's right to carry they are subject to a MINIMUM of $10,000 a DAY in punitive damages to that person? A *minimum*.

Hell, let them tell me I can't carry! Every DAY they keep me from doing it they owe me almost a year's worth of mortgage payments!

Chicago can't try to do ANYTHING to people if this passes.

As far as the LEO concerns (concerns it's MAY issue instead of true SHALL issue).

If the Law Enforcement agency that DENIES you cannot prove their cause (burden of proof is on THEM to show you are a danger), then THEY have to award you punitive damages! Again, if you are denied unjustly, you get paid by the Government that has tried to deny you, unjustly.

Guys, it doesn't get much better than this.

The ONLY complaints I have is the restrictions on WHERE you can carry (gun free zones) are very extensive. And, the "Shall Notify" provisions are kind of annoying, but I can understand the logic behind it. (Although I do NOT agree with it, personally).

Anyway here's a synopsis "cheat sheet" I put together that summarizes the key points if you don't want to take an hour to read the full bill:


#1 Shall issue (within 30 days of application)
#2 Requirement to notify law enforcement if you are carrying a concealed weapon.
#3 $25 application fee.
#4 license valid 5 years.
#5 If a license is denied and the department fails to meet the burden of proof, the applicant is to be awarded punitive damages.
#6 Allows non-resident licenses to be valid for 180 days, after which time the IL resident MUST get an IL license. (So if you have a Florida permit, you're legal from date of enactment, but have to get an IL license within 180 days)
#7 Shall not carry while under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Under the influence means BAC of .08 or greater)
#8 Extensive list of places you can NOT carry, schools, sporting events, amusement parks, etc.
#9 posted businesses that disallow firearms carry force of law.
#10 NO preemption by local units of government (overrides home rule)
Cities which violate this are subject to a fine of $10,000 per day per individual denied the right to carry, in punitive damages, paid to that individual.
#11 applications data is Freedom Of Information EXEMPT. (No public disclosure of applicant's data)
#12 changes UUW code so that if you are caught carrying a loaded firearm WITHOUT a permit, and you are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is a PETTY OFFENSE (not a misdemeanor or felony)
#13 Applicant must pass ONE of the following training courses:

NRA basic personal protection in the home
NRA basic personal protection outside the home
NRA Basic pistol shooting course
Other class covering 4 hours of training, marksmanship, laws on deadly force by a certified instructor.

Pass a live fire qualification of a minimum of 30 rounds, 20 fired from a distance of 7 yards and 10 rounds fired at a distance of 15 yards at a B-21 silhouette target with 70% hit ratio, with no safety violations.

EXEMPT from training requirements:

NRA certified instructors
Retired LEO
Active, retired, or honorably discharged military who had a combat related MOS
Certified LEO

Certified Instructors to teach classes must have:
NRA personal protection instructor
NRA pistol marksmanship instructor
Certification for instruction from a state or government agency
Certification for teaching courses approved by Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standars Board



First violation of carrying in: (a, b, c, d, e, or f) is petty offense. Willful violation is (a, b, c, d, f) is class B misdemeanor. Violation of (e) is additional $50 fine.

Second violation of carrying in (a, b, c, d, or f) is license suspension for 30 days, or 90 days for willful violation of (a, b, d, or f).

Three or more violations is permanent revocation.

Restricted Locations:

(a) general assembly, courthouse, local government meeting hall, establishment that dispenses alcoholic beverages (> 50% of annual sales), airport, any place prohibited by Federal law, elementary school, child care facility (except home day care operators), casino, amusement park, stadium, arena, or collegiate or professional sporting event, mental health facility, community college, university (without consent of school authorities), public library, police station or sherrif's office (without consent of police chief or sherrif, detention or correctional facility. (Judges, states attorneys can carry in THEIR courthouse)

(b) municipality or school district buildings (unless consent is given)

(c) owner of a business which posts notification of no weapons (however, lesees can NOT be prohibited by their landlord from carrying in a leased commercial or residential space, or egress/ingress TO that space - e.g. through a shopping mall or other commons area)

(d) if you cannot carry in a building you can store your firearm (loaded) out of sight, in a locked vehicle ONLY. (violation of D, leaving the car unlocked or leaving the firearm visible, is a violation)

(e) MUST provide notification to law enforcement during traffic stops or vehicle accidents as soon as reasonable.

(f) can not carry while under influence (.08 or greater)

Trent
February 12, 2013, 12:09 PM
Also worth noting:

If you are caught carrying concealed WITHOUT a license, the way I'm reading this, is it is a PETTY OFFENSE, as long as you would otherwise qualify for a carry permit.

It does AWAY with the requirement to have an FOID card to transport firearms. (That's nice in case you forget your wallet when you go to the gun range, and get pulled over with guns in the car).

Also ELIMINATES the ban elsewhere in the criminal code, on carrying a gun on public property, and limits the ban to only within certain public buildings.

E.g. if I'm walking downtown and cut across the courthouse lawn to get from point A to point B, I'm no longer committing a Felony.

Phatty
February 12, 2013, 01:25 PM
If the Law Enforcement agency that DENIES you cannot prove their cause (burden of proof is on THEM to show you are a danger), then THEY have to award you punitive damages!
It's not quite that broad. They don't have to pay punitive damages in all scenarios where the denial is overturned. Punitive damages are only awarded where the denial is "arbitrary, capricious, malicious, or without merit." In other words, if they had no basis at all for the denial, then punitives are awarded. If one of your ex-girlfriends comes out of the woodwork and reports to the Sheriff that she thinks you are dangerous and may be violent if you are allowed to carry, and the State Police base their denial on that evidence, even if it is weak evidence, that denial is not "arbitrary, capricious, malicious or without merit."

The reason that the proposed bill is "may issue" instead of "shall issue" is that there is not a defined set of objective requirements that once met, guarantees the issuance of a license. The proposed bill does have a list of objective requirements, but then retains a trump card where the State Police still has ultimate discretion to withhold a license if they believe an applicant is dangerous to himself, others or to public safety.

The severity of punishment that you have noted for wrongful denials will only motivate state judges to avoid those punishments by finding that the State Police properly denied permits. In a state like Illinois, you absolutely cannot allow any agency discretion in the approval process. Discretion can and will be abused.

The highlights you listed are really good and helpful as a quick go-to guide. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my main complaint with this bill (and every other proposed CCL bill in Illinois) is that the legislators have lazily copied bills from other states without recognizing the unique FOID card system in Illinois. Instead of dumping a CCL bill on top of the existing FOID act, it would have made so much more sense to amend the FOID act to integrate the CCL provisions.

razorback2003
February 12, 2013, 02:43 PM
So would a TN handgun carry permit be recognized by those from out of state who travel there?

Phatty
February 12, 2013, 02:54 PM
So would a TN handgun carry permit be recognized by those from out of state who travel there?
Yes, if TN honors Illinois concealed carry licenses. I have no idea if TN would honor Illinois CCL's.

razorback2003
February 12, 2013, 03:24 PM
TN honors all state licenses and permits.

Trent
February 12, 2013, 06:38 PM
Yes. One of the most interesting provisions I read about, is Illinois residents with other state permits can USE those permits in lieu of getting a CCW for Illinois for 180 days.

This means with my Florida permit I can start carrying from day #1 in Illinois, while the State drags it's heels getting applications created, a process in place, staff hired and trained, database and software put together, trains LEO's, etc.

I've done both the NRA basic pistol and personal protection in the home (PPITH) classes so I'm good to go with the training requirement. By mid-July I should (hopefully) be licensed as an instructor as well, I'm already signed up for the instructors class in Chillicothe. CCW classes will be PACKED (Basic pistol was nearly 30 people this last Saturday - I only managed to get in due to a last minute cancellation!).

The way the bill is CURRENTLY written I'll be able to do 4 hour personal classes with the live fire and certify people for CCW. I will also run the full 8 hour Basic Pistol class (and later, PPITH).

The instructor and training portions of the bill were very well written.

The language about "Shall Issue" should be cleaned up.

No CCW on Colleges and Universities were a bit disappointing, and the Sporting Events clause was likewise.. I'll have to disarm when I go to watch my kids sporting events.

But, even with the "conciliatory language", it's worlds better than where we're at. I'm qualified to carry a firearm in like 40 frigging states now, but I can't carry past the end of my damn driveway here!

JellyJar
February 13, 2013, 02:00 AM
I live in Alabama and have an Alabama Handgun Permit that allows me to CCW. Does #6 from above post #39 mean that if I visit Illinois I can legally CCW as long as I don stay more than 6 months at a time?

Trent
February 13, 2013, 08:29 AM
JellyJar - it's only for Illinois residents and only for the first 180 days following passage of the bill.

The exact text in the bill (currently) is:


(h) Any Illinois resident who has a license or permit to
4 carry a handgun issued by another state shall be able to carry
5 a handgun in accordance with this Act using that license for
6 180 days following the effective date of this Act.

Trent
February 13, 2013, 08:32 AM
Apologies; here's the rest that applies to out of state residents:


1 Section 65. Non-resident applications and reciprocity.
2 (a) A person from another state or territory of the United
3 States may apply for a non-resident license. The applicant
4 shall apply to the Department and must meet the qualifications
5 established in Section 25. The applicant shall submit:
6 (1) the application and documentation required in
7 Section 30;
8 (2) a notarized document stating the applicant:
9 (A) is eligible under federal law and the laws of
10 his or her home state to possess a firearm;
11 (B) if applicable, has a license or permit to carry
12 a firearm or concealed firearm issued by his or her
13 home state and that a copy is attached to the
14 application;
15 (C) is familiar with Illinois laws pertaining to
16 the possession and transport of firearms; and
17 (D) acknowledges that the applicant is subject to
18 the jurisdiction of the Department and Illinois courts
19 for any violation of this Act; and
20 (3) a $25 application fee.
21 In lieu of an Illinois State driver's license or
22 identification card, the person shall provide similar
23 documentation from his or her state or territory.
24 (b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a) a nonresident of
25 Illinois may carry a handgun in accordance with this Act if the
26 nonresident:

1 (A) is 21 years of age or older;
2 (B) has in his or her immediate possession a valid
3 license that authorizes the individual to carry a concealed
4 firearm issued to him or her by another state; and
5 (C) is a legal resident of the United States.
6 The Department shall enter into reciprocal agreements with
7 any other state whose requirements to obtain a license or
8 permit is substantially similar to those requirements
9 contained in Section 85.


Not only will this bill establish a non-resident permit system (similar to FL, UT), but it allows for non-resident permits to be honored. It then goes on to talk about reciprocity but there's really no need since the Act reads that anyone with a valid permit to carry in another state.

JellyJar
February 13, 2013, 11:13 AM
Thanks Trent!

Perhaps I will visit Illinois in the future. :)

Trent
February 13, 2013, 02:36 PM
And perhaps I won't have to MOVE out of Illinois in the future. :)

OpelBlitz
February 14, 2013, 01:00 AM
While this is nice, it'll take much more than this to keep me from wanting to move out of state. :)

Trent
February 14, 2013, 10:56 AM
Looking at your location, I can't say I blame you, but maybe you just need to move a little more downstate.

But I definitely understand, if I was "one state over" I'd have cans for half my guns, and some that waste ammo REALLY REALLY FAST. :)

It's ironic that if I moved from THIS cornfield to ANOTHER cornfield, 90 miles east, I could own such fantastic things....

But 5 kids are difficult to uproot. I'm not shocking their lives with a transplant to a new school.

After they're grown, and out? I'll have a summer home in Wyoming and a winter home in Texas.

OpelBlitz
February 14, 2013, 11:40 AM
Trent: So true. However, I will mention that life here is very quiet for a Chicago suburb. There is a large Hispanic population and everyone really minds their own business. Relatively speaking, there's definitely a feeling of "live and let live" around here. It can certainly be much worse. That all being said, it's still Illinois. :)

Johnny Dollar: also true. There is a very active pro-2A movement in Illinois who are very passionate about fighting for our rights. Makes me proud to fight alongside them. But sadly, there's far more wrong with our state besides Chicago's leftist influence on gun control.

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