New IL CCW Law - Chicago PD Directive


PDA






gmark340
July 13, 2013, 01:53 PM
There are a lot of moving parts to the new law so it will be interesting to see how it goes:

http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-13fc5603-92613-fc59-b4c8c0aba767ee8c.html?hl=true

All in all, though, is it any more draconian than other restrictive states' laws? There seem to be many specific prohibitions. How to local prospective CCW holders feel about it?

If you enjoyed reading about "New IL CCW Law - Chicago PD Directive" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mbogo
July 13, 2013, 10:12 PM
If you cannot carry on trains or buses or in parks, you're still at the mercy of thugs, of which Chicago has many thousands.

Those are places where you are likely to need a gun.

mbogo

Deltaboy
July 13, 2013, 10:22 PM
It is time to sue the State for violations of the US Court Order.

Deanimator
July 14, 2013, 12:10 AM
If you cannot carry on trains or buses or in parks, you're still at the mercy of thugs, of which Chicago has many thousands.
A large number of the recent attacks on INNOCENT people seem to have happened in and around parks and beaches.

As far as I'm concerned, it's criminals (in the Chicago City Council and the Illinois State Legislature) protecting other criminals in the street.

Archaic
July 14, 2013, 09:34 AM
I just really read the list of prohibited places. I think I'm taking back my congratulations, you guys basically got the right to be issued a transport permit.

Libraries? Hospitals? Parks?

Lame.

Old Fuff
July 14, 2013, 11:44 AM
It would seem that a lot of you are pretty discouraged this morning. Don’t be.

When we started to fight for the right to carry concealed weapons in Arizona the practice was completely prohibited for anyone but law enforcement officers. This was not because of a law, but rather an Article in the Arizona State Constitution!

It took time and work to acquire the public support to move from then to now, where no license or permit is required, and yes we did force a change in the state constitution. But this did not come in one leap, it came over time in measured steps. We even got to the point where Democrat governors were singing gun-rights bills into law.

Today in Illinois you have a tremendous advantage we didn’t – The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and MacDonald, as well as a recent District Court decision in Illinois.

The judge who found the “old law” to be unconstitutional did not say he’d let the legislature off the hook if they passed any ol’ law. The law they passed had to remedy the faults he’d identified in the original law. Until he is satisfied, (or the state wins an appeal) this case isn’t over. To insure against a reversal he will move carefully (and probably slowly) to produce a “bullet proof” decision. In doing this he will be able to draw on the experience of other states (in particular Florida, Texas and Arizona) where years – even decades – have shown that widespread civilian concealed carry does not result in blood flowing down streets over the bodies of little children; and other similar emotional garbage.

So take what you got, and be thankful you got it. But at the same time don’t be satisfied. If you don’t like it as it is, (and obviously you don’t), go forward and get it changed. But keep in mind that change usually does take time and always takes hard work.

627PCFan
July 14, 2013, 02:33 PM
There alot of "Public places" that are barred from CC. I expect the next stepping stone is to get that overturned in court. Seems like a defacto carry ban.

Dframe
July 14, 2013, 03:00 PM
Basically the new law, bans carry in the places you're most likely to need it.
Typical chicago political Bovine Excrement

joeschmoe
July 15, 2013, 01:43 AM
500 murders last year and they spent more effort fighting law abiding citizens than the slaughter on their streets.

Speedo66
July 15, 2013, 09:27 AM
I like the one about a place that derives less than 50% of their revenue from alcohol.

Are you supposed to ask about reviewing their books?

Bubba613
July 15, 2013, 09:36 AM
Not nearly as bad as I would expect. For starters, you have no obligation to inform LE that you are carrying. Second, you are allowed to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. TN spent about 10 years trying to get this right.

Looking at the law reciprocity is pretty good. This means I can walk down the street in Chicago and carry on my TN permit. Wow. Who would have thought?

Willie Sutton
July 15, 2013, 09:41 AM
"I like the one about a place that derives less than 50% of their revenue from alcohol."


That's pretty standard actually, and is less restrictive than several other states.

Bottom line: You don't go into bars. You do go into a place that serves a drink (to others) with dinner.

Be smart enough to know the difference.


Willie


.

Godsgunman
July 15, 2013, 10:51 AM
Willie's got it 100% right. Among most states it's pretty common to find that carrying in bars is prohibited. Why? Simple, guns and alcohol don't mix well. Alcohol can turn any mild mannered easy going person into the biggest numbskull one could ever meet in no time. It's pretty easy to determine where you can carry and can't; Applebee's, Chili's yes as long as its not posted. Your local pub which may have the best wings in town but doesn't have a full menu, NO. If it doesn't allow people in under 21 it's a pretty safe bet it's prohibited to carry.

bdickens
July 15, 2013, 11:51 AM
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

marb4
July 15, 2013, 01:18 PM
"The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Yep. +1

Kaeto
July 15, 2013, 08:30 PM
Bubba613 said
Looking at the law reciprocity is pretty good. This means I can walk down the street in Chicago and carry on my TN permit. Wow. Who would have thought?

What reciprocity? There isn't any reciprocity in this law. In order to be able to carry you will have to get an Ill non-resident permit at a cost of $300.00.

MrFaust
July 16, 2013, 01:18 AM
Said Bubba "Not nearly as bad as I would expect. For starters, you have no obligation to inform LE that you are carrying. Second, you are allowed to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. TN spent about 10 years trying to get this right."

!! IF ASKED - you must disclose concealed carry to LE in IL !!

Section 10 paragraph (h)
If an officer of a law enforcement agency initiates an
investigative stop, including but not limited to a traffic
stop, of a licensee who is carrying a concealed firearm, upon
the request of the officer the licensee shall disclose to the
officer that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm
under this Act, present the license upon the request of the
officer, and identify the location of the concealed firearm.

As a former TN permit holder and former IL resident, my opinion is that the Illinois law is overly complex and unpolished in a legal sense compared to TN. It looks like it was cobbled together by disjoint factions instead of a single body. There was a rush to get the legislation in place because the deadline has been extended and the pols were dragged kicking and screaming to complete it, otherwise there would have been no law and the gun ownership would have been legal and totally unregulated. (wouldn't that have been grand?) Yes, it does amount to a "transportation and storage" bill and has no reciprocity. You can see from approving the instructors to every other damm thing, they are draggin the implementation of this bill along as slowly as possible. The head of law enforcement in Chicago said he does not know how they can process the permits at $150 each. That gives you some idea on how anti gun Chicago is. Chicago based Joyce Foundation is the mothership of all anti gun funding in the U.S. Follow the money and it all trickles up to Joyce Foundation. The mayor and that person at 1600 Pennsylvania have sold out to them.

I would suggest you seriously consider not buying any gun made in Illinois, and/or contact the major companies in Illinois - Kraft, Caterpillar, Abbott, Boeing, OLIN BRASS AKA WINCHESTER, Navistar and tell them you are going to avoid their products and the City of Chicago, until Illinois makes "reasonable" (isn't that what anti-gunners are always asking for?) amendments to the law.

FOID card, that's a licence to get a license. Wha?? God I'm glad I don't live there anymore. WHEW!.

Willie Sutton
July 16, 2013, 01:49 AM
"!! IF ASKED - you must disclose concealed carry to LE in IL !!"


<sigh>... Yes, the same as everywhere else in the country...


Don't buy any guns made in Illinois. That's good advice.
I bet it'll *really* hurt the (nonexistant) Illinois firearms industry...


Willie

.

HC_Jack
July 16, 2013, 02:00 AM
Nonexistent? Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory come to mind right away.

gc70
July 16, 2013, 02:15 AM
!! IF ASKED - you must disclose concealed carry to LE in IL !!

That is a strange "duty to disclose" requirement. In most states, if a duty to disclose is included in the statutes, it means that a permit holder must inform a LEO, at the beginning of an official encounter, that the permit holder is armed. Even in states without a statutory duty to disclose, a dishonest response to a LEO's question about being armed will result in an unpleasant experience.

Willie Sutton
July 16, 2013, 02:17 AM
I stand corrected.... since my Springfields all came from Massachusetts... :p

I don't see the need to harass businesses where the laws are being changed to our benefit. This is a great step forwards for 2A rights. We should be darned pleased.


Willie

.

joeschmoe
July 16, 2013, 03:36 AM
"!! IF ASKED - you must disclose concealed carry to LE in IL !!"
<sigh>... Yes, the same as everywhere else in the country...


Not here. I have to show permit when asked. That's it.

Willie Sutton
July 16, 2013, 09:23 AM
^^^

Uhhh.....

It's the SAME.... :banghead:




Illinois, as I read the statute, is NOT a "must disclose" state (as Ohio, Michigan, etc). The statute simply codifies the fact that IF ASKED you need to answer the question. That's not rocket science to understand.




Willie

.

jack44
July 16, 2013, 09:30 AM
150. wow that's a lot! for the permit

Godsgunman
July 16, 2013, 10:42 AM
150 isn't horrible, KS is 135 and we are a pretty "free state" ranked #8 as a gun friendly state. Considering how anti Illinois is, its not to high a price.

Scimmia
July 16, 2013, 11:01 AM
Nonexistent? Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory come to mind right away.

Don't forget Armalite and Lewis Machine & Tool. Les Baer was in Illinois until he moved across the river a few years ago.

straitnate14
July 16, 2013, 11:19 AM
Does this count the classes you have to take when you get a DUI? A lot of good people will be screwed if that was the case.
"Not have been in residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the last 5 years"

jack44
July 16, 2013, 11:21 AM
150 isn't horrible, KS is 135 and we are a pretty "free state" ranked #8 as a gun friendly state. Considering how anti Illinois is, its not to high a price.

Wisconsin CCW cost a lot less I payed 50. with hunter safety.

Bubba613
July 16, 2013, 11:56 AM
What reciprocity? There isn't any reciprocity in this law. In order to be able to carry you will have to get an Ill non-resident permit at a cost of $300.00.
Simply not true. I found the reference the other day and dont have patience to pour through the bill again. But it specifically references TN and other states with substantially similar requirements for permits.

bdickens
July 16, 2013, 01:07 PM
150. wow that's a lot! for the permit
Texas is $140.

Kaeto
July 16, 2013, 01:09 PM
In the instructions to the Chicago PD there is absolutely no mention of any form of reciprocity. Also if you have any form of laser sight your gun will be seized. And your car if you are in one will be impounded.


#
E. Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms
Members will only enforce MCC 8-20-250 "Seizure and Forfeiture of Firearms" under the following circumstances:

*
1. if the possessor of the firearm does not have either a FOID card or a CCL and the weapon is not lawfully transported.
NOTE:
Pursuant to 720 ILCS 5/24, the proper transportation of weapons is defined as the weapon being:
o
a. broken down in a non-functioning state; or
o
b. not immediately accessible; or
o
c. unloaded and is enclosed in a case, in a firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container (e.g., closed glove compartment or closed center console).
*
2. the firearm is a sawed-off shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, short barrel rifle, machine gun, or assault weapon.
*
3. the seized object is a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

#
FF. Impoundments
Members may only impound a vehicle pursuant to MCC 8-20-070 "Possession of Firearm" under the following three circumstances:

*
1. if the UUW offender does not have either a FOID card or a CCL and the weapon is not lawfully transported.
*
2. if the vehicle contains a sawed-off shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, short barrel rifle, machine gun, or assault weapon.
*
3. if vehicle contains a laser sight, firearm silencer, or muffler.

Kaeto
July 16, 2013, 01:16 PM
Also according to handgunlaw.us Ill recognizes no other states concealed carry permit. And I think they know a bit more about it than you do bubba.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Jim K
July 16, 2013, 02:07 PM
And of course there is the unwritten part - even with a license, there is a ban on carrying while black.

Jm

Bubba613
July 16, 2013, 03:30 PM
Also according to handgunlaw.us Ill recognizes no other states concealed carry permit. And I think they know a bit more about it than you do bubba.

Since they just passed the law a week ago or something I doubt HGL.com has been updated that recently.

dc dalton
July 16, 2013, 03:53 PM
Well don't look now but there's a new bill trying to be pushed through that adds more places and penalties ... these clowns are amazing:

Amends the Liquor Control Act of 1934. Provides that any owner of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises who maintains a retail liquor license as provided in the Act and allows for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises as an on premise consumption retailer, (deletes if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol) who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition of concealed firearms on its premises under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act shall be guilty of a business offense with a fine up to $5,000. Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a licensee under the Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into any building, real property, and parking area under the control of an establishment that maintains a retail liquor license as provided in the Liquor Control Act of 1934 and allows for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on its premises as an on premise consumption retailer (rather than serves alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol).

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Illinois-Gun-Law-HB3646/State-Law/9771

Kaeto
July 16, 2013, 04:09 PM
Since they just passed the law a week ago or something I doubt HGL.com has been updated that recently.

Actually it has been updated since the law was passed. If you would bother to look. It was last updated on Monday, July 15th

joeschmoe
July 16, 2013, 05:43 PM
^^^
Uhhh.....
It's the SAME.... :banghead:
Illinois, as I read the statute, is NOT a "must disclose" state (as Ohio, Michigan, etc). The statute simply codifies the fact that IF ASKED you need to answer the question. That's not rocket science to understand.
Willie.

Not the same thing. I do not have to disclose if I have a pistol, even if asked. They can ask to see the permit, but I do not have to disclose if I am carrying or not. Some states require this, but not all. Some people just assume you must disclose if asked.

Willie Sutton
July 16, 2013, 08:11 PM
^^ I can guarantee that if you are asked and either lie, or equivocate, you are not going to be very happy with the result.


Cop: "Do you posess a permit to carry a concealed weapon"

You: "Yes"

Cop: "Do you have a weapon with you now?"

You: "I don't legally need to answer that".

Cop: "OK, well that might be true, but I need to know *right now* that I am not in danger from you. So...Up against the wall and spread-em".



As opposed to what has happened to me several times, after handing over my CCW with my DL after being stopped for (burned out light, etc) which is:


"Do you have a weapon?

"Yes"

"Where is is located?"

"On my hip"

"OK, well leave it there then, OK?"



You want to be a wise man, or a wiseass?



Uhh...



Being a CCW holder means you have decided to be a *good guy*. Good guys show their permits with a smile, and when asked if they have a weapon they answer truthfully. To do otherwise is really silly... and to what "gain"?


Willie

.

JFtheGR8
July 17, 2013, 09:24 AM
Quote:

What reciprocity? There isn't any reciprocity in this law. In order to be able to carry you will have to get an Ill non-resident permit at a cost of $300.00.

Simply not true. I found the reference the other day and dont have patience to pour through the bill again. But it specifically references TN and other states with substantially similar requirements for permits.

There is no reciprocity. There is a grace period for out of state permits to be allowed. Once that grace period is up only Illinois permits will be recognized. That's my understanding of the new law anyway.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

jack44
July 17, 2013, 10:04 AM
I would not expect any good CCW law to come out of ILL.

Scimmia
July 17, 2013, 11:36 AM
Simply not true. I found the reference the other day and dont have patience to pour through the bill again. But it specifically references TN and other states with substantially similar requirements for permits.

Are you sure you were reading the right bill? HB0183? If so, point me to the section you're referencing. The only places the phrase "substantially similar" appear in the enrolled bill are in reference to non-resident applications and when talking about disqualifying offenses. I cannot find any specific reference to TN at all.

swan hunter
July 17, 2013, 12:40 PM
My wife is Valinda Rowe...She is the main organizer of IGOLD. We spent most of the last 3 weeks of session in Springfield working the bill to law. We helped author the previous carry bills including 997.

I'll try to shed light on any issues I see addressed here.
First of all, for IL this is a great starting place!
We are in a anti-gun Democrat controlled Congress with a rabidly anti-gun Governor. Getting a carry bill passed is about like building an Igloo in Hell!

What we have is a SHALL issue law.

We have Total preemption on carry and transportation.

You can FOID transport anywhere in the state as long as you meet the state transport laws...So, you can haul your AR-15 through Chicago just like you do in any other town down state.

For non-resident folks, we have safe passage which means they can carry loaded in their vehicles. If they wish to carry outside their vehicles, they have to get the $300 Illinois permit...but, at least they aren't subject to felonies in gotcha traffic stops anymore.

There are no restrictions on carry weapons (magazines, lasers, bayonets...etc) even in home rule communities that prohibit normal cap. magazines.

The Chicago handgun registration scheme is gone!
We already see cases of UUW being dropped because of the new law and ruling.

Is it expensive... yes...for money hungry IL...not so much...We are less than MO.

Are there a lot of prohibited places? YES! This is where our efforts will go in the future. State and federal parks are carry legal (except playgrounds)...However, even in the prohibited places, you can carry unloaded-enclosed in a case...like on mass transit.

Bottom line...We were the last state in the union to pass this law...it isn't just because they forgot! It is because we have the most anti-carry state in the union...
We need to work together to start the wart removal process which also requires removing some politicians!!!!

wildbilll
July 17, 2013, 01:19 PM
(e) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a non-resident from
transporting a concealed firearm within his or her vehicle in
Illinois, if the concealed firearm remains within his or her
vehicle and the non-resident:
(1) is not prohibited from owning or possessing a
firearm under federal law;
(2) is eligible to carry a firearm in public under the
laws of his or her state or territory of residence; and
(3) is not in possession of a license under this Act.

It would appear that a permit from another state is not actually required.

swan hunter
July 17, 2013, 01:34 PM
(2) is eligible to carry a firearm in public under the
laws of his or her state or territory of residence;
It was my understanding that when this was being crafted that you would have to possess what ever makes you legal to carry in your state...So, from Indiana, you would need your permit...Alaska, just need to not be a prohibited person.

wildbilll
July 17, 2013, 01:47 PM
I don't know that a permit is required. It seems that there are plenty of states that allow someone to carry a firearm in public, it just needs to be carried in a particular way. Some require a cased unloaded. Some don't really care how it's done. Some require a permit. Some don't allow it period.
I find it ironic that a IL resident can't carry a loaded firearm inside a car after they have obviously undergone a background check to get the FOID card, yet someone from VT or AK is good to go.

swan hunter
July 17, 2013, 02:01 PM
I find it ironic that a IL resident can't carry a loaded firearm inside a car after they have obviously undergone a background check to get the FOID card, yet someone from VT or AK is good to go
In 997, we gave any IL residents with current non-resident permits a year grace period to get the IL permit...this would have eased the rush to get them issued to everyone.

When we first heard of the pass through legislation, our first complaint was that non-resident folks would be able to carry loaded before residents...

It went unaddressed in the law.

Right now, the non-resident carry folks are the only ones that can legally have loaded weapons in their vehicles until the training and application process is set up for IL folks.:banghead:

Trent
July 17, 2013, 02:05 PM
There is no reciprocity. There is a grace period for out of state permits to be allowed. Once that grace period is up only Illinois permits will be recognized. That's my understanding of the new law anyway.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

There's no grace period for out of state permits.

The only mention of out of state permits in the new law (which went effective last week), is NON RESIDENT out of state permit holders may travel through IL with a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

If they exit the vehicle they must disarm / unload.

RESIDENTS who have an out of state permit DO NOT GET THIS PRIVILEGE.

With the exception for through-travel, an out of state permit grants you NO privileges to carry in Illinois, period. Even then, if you get out to pump gas, or take a leak in a rest stop, you are required by law to disarm.

wildbilll
July 17, 2013, 02:55 PM
Please take a look at post #43. There is no requirement for a permit. Just a requirement that your home state allow you to publicly carry a firearm.

JFtheGR8
July 17, 2013, 07:48 PM
I stand corrected, however, I would not call being able to carry only while in your vehicle reciprocity. It's better than nothing though. It was my belief that the grace period made it into the new law.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Trent
July 17, 2013, 08:35 PM
Please take a look at post #43. There is no requirement for a permit. Just a requirement that your home state allow you to publicly carry a firearm.

Yup, sorry about the phrasing I made.

This means someone from California with a Florida non-resident permit can't carry in their vehicle, while someone from Vermont could carry regardless of not having a permit.

Now, this begs the question; how many IL cops are going to research all other 49 state laws to find out who is eligible to carry, and who is not?

I feel bad for those Vermont or Arizona people who can't produce a permit to the state trooper that stops them. Very high likelihood they will get arrested and have to go to court to prove they were 'eligible.'

swan hunter
July 17, 2013, 08:45 PM
I feel bad for those Vermont or Arizona people who can't produce a permit to the state trooper that stops them. Very high likelihood they will get arrested and have to go to court to prove they were 'eligible.'
Actually, the police officer should be apprised of those few states that don't issue a permit...But, of course, we know not all police will have this knowledge. However, the state police officers I have talked to say they already give a pass to out of staters. I can't say what percentage of police that would "do the right thing" but, I feel it is a majority....But there is always that few that won't do the right thing!!!:fire:

Old Fuff
July 17, 2013, 09:18 PM
Not to worry about this Arizona resident. The Old Fuff has a current Concealed Weapons License. While they are not required, they are available. Folks here that travel often get one because they are recognized by some other states, but I am dumbfounded that Illinois is apparently going to be one of them, at least in the short term.

Also if they come to visit, non-residents can also get Arizona licenses, but it seems that those won’t be recognized up there.

Bummer… :banghead:

jawman
August 29, 2013, 12:03 AM
There are no restrictions on carry weapons (magazines, lasers, bayonets...etc) even in home rule communities that prohibit normal cap. magazines.

You might want to double check this. Per the Chicago Police Department, the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act as outlined in Department Notice D13-10 prohibits possession of a laser sight, and if you have one, your firearms may be confiscated. If you have a laser sight in your vehicle, your vehicle may be impounded. See E and F under section IV Procedures, http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-13fc5603-92613-fc59-b4c8c0aba767ee8c.html?hl=true.

swan hunter
August 29, 2013, 12:14 AM
You might want to double check this. Per the Chicago Police Department, the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act as outlined in Department Notice D13-10 prohibits possession of a laser sight, and if you have one, your firearms may be confiscated. If you have a laser sight in your vehicle, your vehicle may be impounded. See E and F under section IV Procedures, http://directives.chicagopolice.org/...c.html?hl=true.

I can't address what unlawful acts the city of Chicago may impose on its citizens...all I know is that Illinois State law regulates handguns and accessories. No local government can regulate it.
What you posted is what Chicago is saying but, it is being challenged...They will lose this fight also. In the meantime, you decide how you want to proceed.

jawman
August 29, 2013, 01:10 AM
I can't address what unlawful acts the city of Chicago may impose on its citizens...all I know is that Illinois State law regulates handguns and accessories. No local government can regulate it.
What you posted is what Chicago is saying but, it is being challenged...They will lose this fight also. In the meantime, you decide how you want to proceed.

But no where does it say that that is 'Chicago only' law. It is stated as Illinois law. The only relation it has to Chicago is that the CPD are the ones who posted the document online. Other than that it is all regarding the state of Illinois. Also, "assault weapon" is also included in that outlaw. Unless you can show me some other document which does not outlaw laser sights, I wouldn't risk having my firearms confiscated or vehicle impounded over a laser sight, because per that document they can definitely do that.

I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to ruffle anyone's feathers, I just want to get it right and inform others of what the real law is so no one gets in trouble. I know you and your wife have played a big role in following this for a long time and fighting for our rights, and you both have my utmost respect and appreciation.

Edit: I also am really concerned because I want to print out the laws, read every word and specification, and have a copy with me, a copy at home, a copy in my vehicle, etc. If I'm ever stopped, I can cite the law itself.

swan hunter
August 29, 2013, 01:27 AM
I'm not saying you're wrong or trying to ruffle anyone's feathers,
Hey! I personally have no problem with anyone just trying to figure out what is going on in this crazy state. I'm just glad you are asking nicely!:)

I know of no STATE law that prohibits laser sights...It is in the Chicago ordinance....

Elm Creek Smith
August 29, 2013, 03:54 PM
My revolvers and I'll stay in my car or truck if I ever have to drive through Illinois. If I need gas, my wife knows how to run a pump! :what::D

ECS

garymc
August 29, 2013, 04:50 PM
It will be a relief to be able to drive from St. Louis to Michigan without being paranoid about having a gun in the car or having to render it useless. But they are still keeping people from stopping overnight and paying their motel taxes.

Officers'Wife
August 29, 2013, 05:08 PM
My neighbor's new laws are far from perfect, or for that matter acceptable. But, they are a very good start into dragging the state of Illinois in line with the rest of the United States. Hopefully, these statutes will be improved on as time goes by. My compliments to those in that state that have worked so long and so hard against impossible odds.

Let the record reflect I still maintain that Indiana is a long way from heaven and far too close to Chicago but I'm far more comfortable being a mere 22 miles from Beaverville.

Officers'Wife
August 29, 2013, 05:13 PM
My revolvers and I'll stay in my car or truck if I ever have to drive through Illinois. If I need gas, my wife knows how to run a pump! :what::D

ECS
Try hard to make it to Jasper County Indiana to have the nozzle removed. I'll leave a call on dibs to be the surgical nurse for the procedure. :neener:

Keep in mind that now that random Illinois thugs are no longer assured of unarmed victims they will be less likely to random acts of violence. Your long suffering wife is another story.

44Brent
August 29, 2013, 08:52 PM
In my opinion the 16 hours of training needs to be expanded to 40 hours, just to test the applicants knowledge of all the places that are off limits.

Instructor: OKAY students here's 20 sheets of paper -- it's test time, so start filling out the list of 600 places in which you are prohibited from carrying.

Student: Wouldn't it be easier to just list the few places we can carry? Like in our cars?

Instructor: That would turn this into a 15 minute class, and the legislature wanted this to be a 16 hours class.

mnhntr
August 30, 2013, 02:31 AM
This is not a carry law but a list of every place you should carry and can't

savanahsdad
August 30, 2013, 03:24 AM
I have a daughter in IN and a WI CCW and so dose my wife , it's nice to know when we go through IL we no longer have to do the speed limit ,,,,, I mean unload and lock are guns :neener:

Schutzen
August 30, 2013, 10:43 AM
It is nice that I will be able to cross Illinois with a CCW in my vehicle, but the Illinois State government just guaranteed that I will not stop. I will gas up in Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa, or Missouri and drive through Illinois with no stops and no money spent.
I will also ask my state to not honor an Illinois CCW permit. You don't trust me, why should we trust you?
However, I do agree that it is a good start and was a Heurculenian effort by the decent people of Illinois to defeat the corrupt Chicago political machine. Good job and continue with the fight for good people's rights.

Prince Yamato
August 31, 2013, 09:38 PM
You know what? They restrictions on CCW in Illinois stink compared to Texas, but they're sure as heck better than Illinois a year ago. The restrictions will be relaxed.

goon
August 31, 2013, 11:00 PM
On the firearms makers in Illinois, isn't DSA in that state?
I've heard they have had QC issues lately. Maybe they should move to a gun-friendly state and rehire.

And though the new ILL law isn't perfect, it's progress. Take just a second to lean back in your lawn chair and sip your beer. Job well done.
Even in Texas, there was a time when you couldn't legally carry concealed.

MisterMike
September 9, 2013, 03:47 PM
Not nearly as bad as I would expect . . . you are allowed to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. TN spent about 10 years trying to get this right.

Here's the latest on this aspect of Illinois' new statute. According to local news sources I saw over the weekend, the Chicago City Council is taking up a provision that would revoke the liquor license of any restaurant that refuses to "voluntarily" put up a "no guns" sign.

The strategy of the Emmanuel administration is clearly to make the right to carry so limited as to render it practically impossible to comply with the law nearly everywhere in the City. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/09/06/aldermen-seek-to-make-bars-restaurants-gun-free-zones/?utm_medium=VPH&utm_source=topvph_news&utm_campaign=487691

HC_Jack
September 13, 2013, 02:06 PM
...and Jenner & Block (fairly big law firm) has pledged to defend the city for free.

The current restrictions would make it very impractical for me to carry. This pushes it over to entirely impractical, which is the whole point.

Mind you, this was proposed by longtime alderman Ed Burke who is the only alderman with 24 hour taxpayer funded police bodyguards.

Dframe
September 13, 2013, 04:40 PM
Chicago will do what it always does and defy all gun laws until the courts FORCE them to submit. Then they'll write their own rules to restrict it as much as they possibly can, until the NEXT court challenge. The term "spoiled brat" comes to mind! Think of the bratty kid in the commercial taunting. He puts his finger 1/4 inch from his sibling and yells "NOT touching you"! Thats the chicago political attitude toward the second amendment.

Buzznrose
September 13, 2013, 07:50 PM
"I like the one about a place that derives less than 50% of their revenue from alcohol."


That's pretty standard actually, and is less restrictive than several other states.

Bottom line: You don't go into bars. You do go into a place that serves a drink (to others) with dinner.

Be smart enough to know the difference.


Willie


.
We have that restriction here in TX, but I don't agree with it here either. We have a zero BAC level while carrying firearms that I do agree with. Don't stop me from carrying in a bar if I'm there to meet friends and drinking soda, but stop me from drinking...okay by me.

splithoof
September 13, 2013, 08:00 PM
Hopefully both Chicago and Los Angeles will go the way of Detroit.

Officers'Wife
September 13, 2013, 09:15 PM
There is a rural legend around here that Fort Dearborn was built on an Indian burial ground and the Sachem cursed the area with insanity. Reading quotes from the various mayors of Chicago I have to wonder if the graveyard is actually under city hall.

mg.mikael
September 14, 2013, 02:47 AM
Hopefully both Chicago and Los Angeles will go the way of Detroit.

Yikes, that's a little harsh. Chicago might have it's problems but it's not that bad speaking from first hand experience. Considering Illinois had no type of carry just a year ago and no prospects of getting a law on the books, the situation now is a borderline miracle and all in all nothing to complain about (with democrats in control there's no point in arguing anyways as no positive changes would occur.)

Trent
September 14, 2013, 01:30 PM
Yikes, that's a little harsh. Chicago might have it's problems but it's not that bad speaking from first hand experience. Considering Illinois had no type of carry just a year ago and no prospects of getting a law on the books, the situation now is a borderline miracle and all in all nothing to complain about (with democrats in control there's no point in arguing anyways as no positive changes would occur.)

Not commenting on the bankruptcy thing, that's a different animal.

But there IS plenty to complain about here.

At the time all of this started, we had the 7th's decision with an ultimatum on UUW. Now we have not only that, but we also have the new IL supreme court ruling on AUUW which rules that unconstitutional as well.

The problem I have with the situation is simple; we had them over a barrel, and our devout pro-gun lawmakers pushing CCW blinked at the last damn minute leaving us with a useless pile of trash for a concealed carry bill.

Not only that, but they also gave up private transfers and other stuff in back room deals to get it through the senate. (Jan 1st you can still do private transfers, but need to have the ISP do a background check to approve the transfer...)

Sorry, I just don't see a lot of "win" here. Even after a couple months to reflect over it.

Dframe
September 14, 2013, 02:14 PM
I agree with trent on this one. The chicagocrats lost the battle but won the war.

JTHunter
September 15, 2013, 12:11 AM
:evil: Dframe - with the new Illinois Supreme Court rulings, the entire state may have lost both!

Read the PDF of "People vs. Aguilar" at this site.
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp
Many people are opining that this may even open the door for "open carry". :eek: :D

rockhopper46038
September 15, 2013, 12:29 AM
Looking at the IL Supreme Court decision in light of the delay that IL has imposed on issuing the court ordered carry licenses - isn't IL as of this moment, a Constitutional Carry state?

Trent
September 15, 2013, 12:59 AM
Perhaps. The UUW law was effectively killed by the 7th. The Aggravated UUW law was just effectively killed by the Supreme court.

HOWEVER.. the Legislature modified UUW with the passage of the concealed carry bill, allowing for an exemption for permit holders.

Which means the original UUW is dead, BUT it still exists in resurrected form as part of the concealed carry bill.

A judge would have no choice but to convict you, based on the new form of UUW that is on the books. (A jury, well, up to how good your lawyer is and how sympathetic they are.)

How your subsequent conviction of a felony UUW would withstand during appeals ... ??

Aggravated UUW is partly dead now thanks to the new supreme court ruling. I think the part about machineguns still stands, unfortunately. :)

Trent
September 15, 2013, 01:05 AM
Perhaps MORE interestingly...

Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon was just found unconstitutional by the IL supreme court. Since it was JUST included in the BODY of the new law (quoting here)


Sec. 24-1.6. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon.
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use
of a weapon when he or she knowingly:
<snip>
(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or
handgun, possessed was uncased, loaded, and
immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(A-5) the pistol, revolver, or handgun possessed
was uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible at the
time of the offense and the person possessing the
pistol, revolver, or handgun has not been issued a
HB0183 Enrolled LRB098 05760 MGM 35799 b
Public Act 098-0063
currently valid license under the Firearm Concealed
Carry Act; or
<snip>


This raises an interesting possibility.

In order to modify the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons law to work with the new law, they incorporated the entire text in to the new law. By incorporating the entirety of the Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons code in to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act... well, it basically overwrote everything in there before; Aggravated UUW became part of the new law.

This is important.

Because.. the new Firearm Concealed Carry Act that was passed... was passed with such haste, it lacks severability. (Whoops, small oversight on their part).

Normally, they DO include severability language in really big, complex bills.. just in CASE some part of it is found unconstitutional.

They FORGOT this time.

Duh.

(One could now argue that ALL firearms law, excepting FOID act, is nullified because there is no severability and a piece of the law was found unconstitutional.)

Trent
September 15, 2013, 01:16 AM
There is precedent for striking down entire laws in Illinois, which are found to be unconstitutional.

"Clearly, the 1970 Constitution removed the severability provision that existed in the 1870 Constitution. We therefore reject the State's invitation to construe the two provisions as if they were the same."

"For the foregoing reasons, we hold that defendants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Public Act 88-669. We find that Public Act 88-669 violates the single subject clause of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, §8), and therefore hold that Public Act 88-669 is void in its entirety. The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed"

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2005/December/Opinions/Html/98932.htm

The litmus test to apply based on People Vs. Olender is this: "Can the act be fixed by subsequent legislation or amendment".

Considering that they JUST passed an amendment modifying the law, which was found to be unconstitutional (again) by the Supreme Court...

The Supreme Court passed down their opinion on Aggravated UUW ---- AFTER ---- the governor signed the amendments to Aggravated UUW in to law.

So the ruling by the IL supreme court has to be considered valid on the amended law, which was in place and effective at the time of the Supreme Court opinion.

Gaiudo
September 15, 2013, 05:35 PM
Huh. How does that interesting information get verified legally? Does it require someone to push on it?

junglebob
October 4, 2013, 09:02 PM
Goon, thanks for your encouragement to us Illinoisans. One thing better in our concealed carry law is it says the gun must be concealed or mostly concealed. If your gun prints or the you bend over or the wind blows and your cover garment allows your gun to be seen you are still within the law. That is better than Texas law I understand, correct me if things have changed.

Someone mentioned not traveling through because they couldn't carry in a motel. Carry on private property is permitted with permission. You can also keep a loaded gun in your motel/hotel room as it is your abode. Now the question is would the motel allow you to carry from the parking lot to your room?

junglebob
October 4, 2013, 09:08 PM
On the firearms makers in Illinois, isn't DSA in that state?
I've heard they have had QC issues lately. Maybe they should move to a gun-friendly state and rehire.

And though the new ILL law isn't perfect, it's progress. Take just a second to lean back in your lawn chair and sip your beer. Job well done.
Even in Texas, there was a time when you couldn't legally carry concealed.
Goon, in your post #66 the comments encouraging us Illinoisans were appreciated. Yes it took us a long time to finally get carry. There is one thing in our carry law that I believe is better than in Texas, correct me if I'm wrong on this. The law says you have to have your gun concealed or mostly concealed, so if you bend over or the wind blows your cover garment exposing your handgun you are OK. In Texas printing isn't acceptable, correct. We did get a shall issue law unlike some eastern states.

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