Ridgerunner665
Member
exactly...
NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL
- Thread starter Megistopoda
- Start date
- Status
exactly...
Phatty
Member
Looking at the various responses here, it seems that those who oppose a CCW bill with preemption argue two main points:
If there's no preemption, it will be too confusing trying to figure out where CCW is allowed.
I live in a home-rule city. Five times a week I drive to work, which is in a non-home rule city. To get to work, I have to drive through two cities, which are not home rule. When I'm not at work, I generally stay in my home town and an adjoining non-home rule village except for special trips. So the vast majority of my time will be spent in those five towns. Only one is home rule, so I will really only have to check on the laws of that one city. If it hasn't preempted the CCW law, I'm good to go for 99% of the places where I spend any time.
For those rare occurrences where I have to travel through Illinois, sure, I probably will leave the gun unloaded and cased so that I don't have to worry about the laws of unfamiliar Illinois cities. For those people who are unable or too lazy to check the laws of their local jurisdictions to see where they can carry, that's fine, they can simply choose not to carry. But why penalize those people that still want to carry in the locations where it would be allowed in Illinois?
If there's no preemption, we will never succeed in getting state-wide CCW.
I fail to see any logic in this argument, and I haven't seen anyone here really even try to explain the point. Hypothetically, assume that in 5 years we have enough votes in Illinois to pass a CCW bill with preemption. Why wouldn't those same exact legislators amend a previously passed CCW bill to include preemption?
As others have mentioned, I fail to see how a statewide CCW bill will ever pass in Illinois if a supermajority is required. If the political climate changes so much in Illinois (and Chicago) that a supermajority in favor of CCW exists, then the preemption argument won't really matter because presumably all of these previously-hostile cities will have come around and wouldn't preempt it anyway.
If there's no preemption, it will be too confusing trying to figure out where CCW is allowed.
I live in a home-rule city. Five times a week I drive to work, which is in a non-home rule city. To get to work, I have to drive through two cities, which are not home rule. When I'm not at work, I generally stay in my home town and an adjoining non-home rule village except for special trips. So the vast majority of my time will be spent in those five towns. Only one is home rule, so I will really only have to check on the laws of that one city. If it hasn't preempted the CCW law, I'm good to go for 99% of the places where I spend any time.
For those rare occurrences where I have to travel through Illinois, sure, I probably will leave the gun unloaded and cased so that I don't have to worry about the laws of unfamiliar Illinois cities. For those people who are unable or too lazy to check the laws of their local jurisdictions to see where they can carry, that's fine, they can simply choose not to carry. But why penalize those people that still want to carry in the locations where it would be allowed in Illinois?
If there's no preemption, we will never succeed in getting state-wide CCW.
I fail to see any logic in this argument, and I haven't seen anyone here really even try to explain the point. Hypothetically, assume that in 5 years we have enough votes in Illinois to pass a CCW bill with preemption. Why wouldn't those same exact legislators amend a previously passed CCW bill to include preemption?
As others have mentioned, I fail to see how a statewide CCW bill will ever pass in Illinois if a supermajority is required. If the political climate changes so much in Illinois (and Chicago) that a supermajority in favor of CCW exists, then the preemption argument won't really matter because presumably all of these previously-hostile cities will have come around and wouldn't preempt it anyway.
chibiker
Member
Swan Hunter, I admire your passion and I understand your arguement...truly.
We are not talking about Nebraska or Ohio here, Illinois just doesn't work like that... I wish this was not the case. We have a gun ban here in Chicago and it's still not enough for the likes of Daley and his cronies...they want more. Daley travels the state and the rest of the nation trying to promote his vision.
Illinois as of now has 198 home rule municipalities. Approxiamately 66% of the population lives in the Northeast corner of the state, which by the way is almost completely made up of HRMs. Now you head out west and south and you run into a net of others....Peoria, Springfield, Moline, Bloomington, Galesburg and so on and so on. You factor in the population of these HRMs and all of the sudden we are talking what, close to 80% of the population of the state now?
Illinois is the only state in the entire union that has handgun bans, prior to Heller there was what, 6 or 8 municipalties in which this was the case, now there are two.
The timing on this bill as of right now is just wrong in my opinion. Let the ban be overturned in Chicago/Oak Park, incorporation take place and then come back.... The NRA is confident of a win, I am, most others far more knowledgable than I feel this way.
I don't really understand the arguement either over the felony/misdemeanor factor... of course it's a felony now as is there is no carry period. Also of course it would then become a misdemeanor because a Home Rule authority cannot make it a felony. Still though, arrested is arrested, I have no desired to be cuffed and hauled in regardless the penalty.
I have supported this bill in the past and will continue to do so... right now I would like to hold off on any further support until some very important cases are decided. Several years back I wrote a letter to my legislator urging them to support the bill and got a canned response back, I should have saved it. In a nutshell... "thanks for your interest but yeah, whatever, you can't even legally possess one so carrying it is a moot point." Voted against him but he's still there.
Who was the NRA lobbyist you spoke with? What is his name?
The Carbondale and Peoria city councils or the Jackson and Peoria County Boards? There is a huge difference between city councils and county boards and often they are at odds with each other.
Absolutely meaningless when the Illinois Constitution permits any municipality to become a home rule municipality by referendum. It won't matter one bit what the county board thought if a city council or board of alderman decided to ban CCW.
Really!! I'm an antigunner because I have a better understanding of how local and state government works then you do and oppose this bill because it's a worthless piece of legislation? I think you need to put up or shut up. PM me for my number I have some things to say to you that aren't for public consumption!
What part of Home Rule Is Enshrined in the Illinois Constitution is so hard for you to understand. There is no way an Illinois court is going to force the home rule municipalities into compliance. Home rule is not just in the legislation laying out how Illinois government works. It's part of the state constitution. Show me one Illinois case where a court forced a home rule unit of government to comply with a state law that specifically gave the home rule government the ability to opt out of. Just show me one case. You can't because there has never been such a case in Illinois.
Reciprocity means nothing to me. It shouldn't mean anything to you either. CCW in Illinois is an Illinois issue. No legislator is going to support it because it includes reciprocity. Without preemption and out of state resident would be more confused then a resident.
You are dreaming if you think Madigan won't impose the Super Majority vote. All you are doing by not letting him off the hook is killing good legislation with this home rule compromise. Madigan doesn't need the vote of any Illinois gun owner to get elected or keep his seat as speaker. So what hook are you letting him off of with your compromise?
I wouldn't be so sure that all the home rule municipalities in Southern Illinois would support CCW. As I said earlier, county boards are much different entities then city councils. There is plenty of support for smoking bans, curfews, and other restrictions on city councils all over Southern Illinois. While you would be hard pressed to find one that would ban possession of guns in the city limits, I bet you'd find a lot who would rstrict the carry of said guns.
CCW is an issue that is only important to us. The general public doesn't care enough about that many don't even realize they can't get a permit here. The public gets most of it's knowledge about firearms matters from TV. And people on TV get permits all the time. I even have had one guy insist that he personally knew a judge who issued permits.
Not a chance.....I have called Cavaletto and Jones and told them NOT to support this abomination.
There are a few cases but they turn on what authority the constitution actually gives HR units. Its pretty clear home rule units can ban firearms carry, just as they can ban handguns. At least they can right now.
Maybe Jeff is right and the thing to do is wait 5 or 10 or 20 years and get something perfect.
It is not as if the HR units have to actually do anything real difficult to ban CC either. I know at least a few have long standing ordinances that mirror state law on UUW. That allows them to charge under a municipal ordinance instead of state law. Its not like they would have to write a complicated law. All the would have to do is adopt the existing state law, at least the non-felony side of it. HR units can't enact laws that would create a felony.
You can get 90 days in jail if you happen to drive through Chicago with an unregistered and unloaded gun locked in your trunk.
mljdeckard
Member
If Jeff White has been wrong, I haven't seen it. I'm with him 100%
What I find, whenever anyone comes out with criticism of the NRA in here, one of two things is true: Either they don't fully understand the REASON the NRA did something, or they don't KNOW everything the NRA might be doing WITHOUT publicity, or a combination of both.
What I find, whenever anyone comes out with criticism of the NRA in here, one of two things is true: Either they don't fully understand the REASON the NRA did something, or they don't KNOW everything the NRA might be doing WITHOUT publicity, or a combination of both.
I think his opinion has merit. But its an opinion about what might happen rather than a fact, so its really not a right or wrong kind of thing. He is no more a prophet than I am.
He appears to be wrong about the felony UUW thing though since the state constitution specifically forbids home rule units from being able to pass such a law.
This is what HB2257 says about municipalities limiting the right to carry:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...m=2257&GAID=10&LegID=44127&SpecSess=&Session=
So any current home rule municipality or anyone that becomes home rule in the future can say you can't carry. Of course they can't keep you from getting a permit:
They can just keep you from using the permit within their jurisdiction. This bill if passed (and it won't even with the pitiful attempt to buy off the Chicago machine) would make it such a pain to carry that most people wouldn't bother. Maybe some of you all want to download a list of municipal laws on CCW before you drive across the state, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone in my family to have to worry about it.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...m=2257&GAID=10&LegID=44127&SpecSess=&Session=
So any current home rule municipality or anyone that becomes home rule in the future can say you can't carry. Of course they can't keep you from getting a permit:
They can just keep you from using the permit within their jurisdiction. This bill if passed (and it won't even with the pitiful attempt to buy off the Chicago machine) would make it such a pain to carry that most people wouldn't bother. Maybe some of you all want to download a list of municipal laws on CCW before you drive across the state, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone in my family to have to worry about it.
Phatty
Member
We probably can all agree that we're more likely to obtain the right to carry via a federal court decision before we ever get state legislation enacted.
Do you really think that a federal court would give us CCW? On what grounds?
We'll see CCW and we'll see it state wide with preemption. And it will be done in the General Assembly.
We'll see CCW and we'll see it state wide with preemption. And it will be done in the General Assembly.
swan hunter
Member
FYI, we already have a patchwork of ordinances
Last week, we spent 3 days in Springfield including a day with the NRA Lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. There is your name!
We talked about this issue and disagree on the Home Rule. We pitched the home rule idea to a couple of legislators and they saw no reason not to try it. They cautioned about all the hurdles any carry bill faces but, we already know about them.
We only want to get the bill in the state and all the things the NRA is wanting us to wait for can still be continuing on to achieve preemption. This is our Goal...If a bill was passed today with preemption, do you think the Mayor of Chicago would allow it there? NO, the lawsuits would have to begin all over again! I say get him on all fronts now!
It is obvious there are some minds made up on this issue and so be it. This isn't about a couple of individuals that want to take this debate to an ugly place.
For the life of me, I don't know how anyone would just as soon have a felony as a misdemeanor!!! But that's just me???
Last week, we spent 3 days in Springfield including a day with the NRA Lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. There is your name!
We talked about this issue and disagree on the Home Rule. We pitched the home rule idea to a couple of legislators and they saw no reason not to try it. They cautioned about all the hurdles any carry bill faces but, we already know about them.
We only want to get the bill in the state and all the things the NRA is wanting us to wait for can still be continuing on to achieve preemption. This is our Goal...If a bill was passed today with preemption, do you think the Mayor of Chicago would allow it there? NO, the lawsuits would have to begin all over again! I say get him on all fronts now!
It is obvious there are some minds made up on this issue and so be it. This isn't about a couple of individuals that want to take this debate to an ugly place.
For the life of me, I don't know how anyone would just as soon have a felony as a misdemeanor!!! But that's just me???
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Virginia only recently passed preemption...and IT IS A BIG DEAL.
Just think: OC in Fairfax, but cross the line into Alexandria...something that's easy to do...boom...you're a criminal.
Then Fairfax had an EXTRA background check...the FBI wasn't good enough for them...and the county wanted a cut of the sale.
Then there are all the shenanigans with CCW permits (still having trouble to this day). Preemption is making that goofiness go away.
So, yeah, you really do need it.
Just think: OC in Fairfax, but cross the line into Alexandria...something that's easy to do...boom...you're a criminal.
Then Fairfax had an EXTRA background check...the FBI wasn't good enough for them...and the county wanted a cut of the sale.
Then there are all the shenanigans with CCW permits (still having trouble to this day). Preemption is making that goofiness go away.
So, yeah, you really do need it.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
RE: federal court & national carry
So, now, why is it that the states, SCOTUS, and the fed are IGNORING the supremacy clause in the Constitution? They agreed to it when they joined. Instead, we get this BS 14th Amendment crap...with loads of regulations (all because some governments wanted to give some freed slaves partial citizenship). Unfortunately, SCOTUS has built a who house of cards on this.
I DO NOT want a federal CCW bill. It will NOT be based upon the notion on inalienable rights...far from it. It will be based upon the 14A limited citizenship that they're trying to foist on all of us.
***
Is there any way to force the Chicago Crime Machine to liberalize the gun laws?
So, now, why is it that the states, SCOTUS, and the fed are IGNORING the supremacy clause in the Constitution? They agreed to it when they joined. Instead, we get this BS 14th Amendment crap...with loads of regulations (all because some governments wanted to give some freed slaves partial citizenship). Unfortunately, SCOTUS has built a who house of cards on this.
I DO NOT want a federal CCW bill. It will NOT be based upon the notion on inalienable rights...far from it. It will be based upon the 14A limited citizenship that they're trying to foist on all of us.
***
Is there any way to force the Chicago Crime Machine to liberalize the gun laws?
The bill isn't going to pass, in fact it's not even going to get a vote on floor of the general assembly. Politics is the art of the possible. Why expend the political capitol we've built up on flawed legislation just for a chance to get a vote on the floor of the general assembly?
You need to look at all the other things that are going on in Springfield right now. The state is dealing with massive deficits, it can't pay it's bills and the general assembly doesn't have the nerve to do anything. Blagojevich is going to go on trial in the fall and that's going to be a circus. Shots will be fired at his political enemies, especially the Madigans. Poor Quinn is going to be floating a reform package and with the national news coverage Blago's trial is going to get something will pass. The second year of the 96th General Assembly will probably be much different then the first session. What's not possible now, may very well be possible then.
crebralfix
member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,356
Quick question: Have IL gun owners started making demands?
I vaguely remember one or two counties in southern IL passing some local rules about disobeying any additional state gun laws. Did that ever go anywhere?
Perhaps some Tea Parties are in order.
Perhaps Illinoisan gun owners need to start sending letters that have "you WILL", rather than "please give us", in them.
What about getting with the local sheriff and county officials...and refuse, as a group, to send ANY tax money to the state? Keep it local for county use...I bet they wouldn't like that.
I vaguely remember one or two counties in southern IL passing some local rules about disobeying any additional state gun laws. Did that ever go anywhere?
Perhaps some Tea Parties are in order.
Perhaps Illinoisan gun owners need to start sending letters that have "you WILL", rather than "please give us", in them.
What about getting with the local sheriff and county officials...and refuse, as a group, to send ANY tax money to the state? Keep it local for county use...I bet they wouldn't like that.
It was another useless political gesture that had no weight and no effect outside of making us feel good. If any local or county officials were to actually refuse to enforce any state laws they could be guilty of official misconduct and prosecuted criminally.
There were plenty of tea parties in Illinois. The state is financially ruined. I don't know what the odds makers in Vegas would give you on which state will go bankrupt and default first, California, Illinois or Michigan, but I'm betting on Illinois. As I stated in my last post, there will be change of some type. The current system is broken beyond repair and there is no way to patch it to keep it going. The state's bond rating has been lowered and the people who have been feeding at the public trough for decades here are running radio and TV spots urging the public to support raising taxes to keep state services funded.
The meltdown is coming and we need to be prepared to ride the groundswell of revulsion against the current criminals running the state to get CCW through. People will give issues like CCW a little more protection when programs that call for the release of massive numbers of convicts from prison hit the news.
You have to remember that CCW is a fringe issue in the shooting community. Most gun owners really don't care much about it. As long as you let them have guns, and don't do things like restrict magazine capacity, they are pretty much satisfied. You'll find many people in the shooting community who don't see the need for CCW. Heck people, even here in gun loving Southern Illinois get most of their firearms knowledge from TV. I have run in to people here in Illinois who aren't even aware the can't get a permit if you want one. You aren't going to see a groundswell of public demand for CCW North of I80. You won't even see it down here.
For the most part, taxes collected locally stay local. Fines on tickets written by the ISP go to the coffers of the county they are written in, not to the state. Most of the money that's collected locally for the state, goes directly to the the state and then comes back down to the city or county after the state takes it's cut.
Last edited:
chibiker
Member
Why is this a repeating theme in your posts? Who are you even talking about?
Out of staters? How many people nationwide with CCW permits do you honestly think don't know that there in NO carry in Illinois? I am guessing the only ones that wouldn't are the ones that pretty much never leave their state.
So you are talking about IL residents? Without preemption I would be willing to bet almost all 198 home rule municipalites would be against CCW, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if more would put a Home Rule referedum on their ballots strictly for no other reason THAN to make CCW illegal. I can't speak for anyone else I guess but I for one would not carry even if the bill was passed. I travel quite a bit in the state and how could I possible keep track of all the rules and regs? I am not in danger of getting a felony now as I don't carry because it's illegal..... I WON'T get a misdemeanor either because I won't carry because probably wherever I am it will be ILLEGAL. It's not a matter of whether I want one or the other.... I want neither.
swan hunter
Member
I don't want any law abiding citizen to loose their gun rights
Because of a goofed up state law. Felony= no gun ownership for rest of your life...along with severe penalties and more prison time. All it takes is a simple mistake...Be out shooting start to rain...Throw your gun in the back of the car. Forget it's there drive anywhere at all in this state, get pulled over cop finds it and you can be charged with a felony.
Felonies happen to good people when bad laws are alive. I just think it is important for law abiding people to not get felonies. Do something stupid, maybe pay a fine, maybe loose your gun...but you don't loose your gun rights!
That is why I keep bringing it up.
Because of a goofed up state law. Felony= no gun ownership for rest of your life...along with severe penalties and more prison time. All it takes is a simple mistake...Be out shooting start to rain...Throw your gun in the back of the car. Forget it's there drive anywhere at all in this state, get pulled over cop finds it and you can be charged with a felony.
Felonies happen to good people when bad laws are alive. I just think it is important for law abiding people to not get felonies. Do something stupid, maybe pay a fine, maybe loose your gun...but you don't loose your gun rights!
That is why I keep bringing it up.
Ok Jeff, I'll never write or email a politician in Illinois, in defense of your 2nd Amendment rights, ever again.
You're on your own from here on out.
Btw, I completely disagree with you. You get what you can now and work to improve it. Little by little, town by town, city by city and on, and on and on....... you never stop the fight and take what you can whenever you can.
Phatty
Member
I believe a federal court will make the natural progression from Heller and hold that people have a 2A right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside of their home. A lawsuit was recently filed in California on this exact issue.
At that point, law-abiding IL citizens will have a right to at least open carry throughout the state. I think the legislature would quickly respond in that instance to set up a regulatory scheme to govern that new right, which would likely include CCW.
A lawsuit was filed on CC permit issues in CA, but I am not sure that it will hinge on 2A issues.
It seems to be more along the lines of questioning the power of sheriffs to arbitrarily determine what is good cause for a permit and what constitutes good character.
It is not an attack on the CC permitting system itself.
It seems there is some case law in CA about what good character means and it basically means non-felon. If the court says that self defense is a good cause, then as a practical matter anyone who asks for a permit for self defense and is of good character should be issued.
Phatty
Member
That would be strange since the lawsuit is based on a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Here are the first five paragraphs of the Statement of Facts section of the complaint:
The first issue that must be decided by the judge in this case is whether the 2A gives people the right to carry handguns in public for self-defense. If it doesn't, then the plaintiffs lose immediately, because if there is no protected right to carry handguns, then the state can do whatever it wants in regards to regulating that action.
If the judge decides that the plaintiffs do have a 2A right to carry handguns in public, then the judge will have to determine whether California's regulatory scheme infringes that right.
Jeff. I looked up the Carbondale city code online. Its UUW ordinance seems to mirror the Illinois UUW statute including the three exemptions that allow us to take a gun out of the house at all.
Is there another ordinance that would prohibit it?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
