NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

rbernie · May 26, 2009

More importantly, it looks like a right but it's not. It's the worst of both worlds - a whitewash job that satisfies only the casual inspection but that provides no actual value.

I cannot grok why it is that some folk cannot see how they're being played.

TexasRifleman · May 26, 2009

Jeff White said:
A right that is restricted as much as the right would be under this bill is not a right at all.

No kidding.

Good grief guys think about this. Not even California and New York, 2 VERY restrictive states, as far as RKBA goes, have this patchwork of city, county, etc game of follow the bouncing gun law.

This is a horribly bad idea and all it would do is make a bunch of unintended criminals out of people that happen to take a wrong turn on a highway with a loaded gun in the car.

That is not "progress".

Phatty · May 26, 2009

You know good and well what I meant!

Yeah, I know. That's why I originally wrote, "I know what you're trying to say here."

This is the exact same thing an anti would argue in trying to deny a rural person the right to carry.

Click to expand...

When have the antis ever tried to say that rural people shouldn't carry? I want the link to that argument and I want it now. You can't back up what you say. You aren't intellectually honest to accept the truth, are you?

Have you ever heard of future tense verbs? "Would argue" means it is an argument one would expect an anti to make in the future. I don't have a time machine, so you'll have to excuse my inability to get you a cite at this time.
It's common knowledge that antis, also known as progressives, have a plan to take away rights little by little, not all at once. I think we would agree that the current battleground for them is high crime inner cities. They argue that stronger gun control regulations are needed to combat the high crime and "unique" dynamics at play in urban areas. "What works in the plains of South Dakota does not work in Chicago," is the current theme. Do you think they would just go ahead and stop fighting if they succeeded to ban guns in the big cities? No. They would move on to everybody else, using the opposite argument that worked for urban areas. "There's no need for a person to carry a firearm in low crime areas because the tiny chance of being attacked is heavily outweighed by [insert argument against gun ownership here.]"

"If you can't carry where you really need to carry, what good is the law?"

"Where you need to carry" is a subjective standard. I know plenty of people that live in Illinois that have never even been to Chicago. Some people that spend 99% of their lives within the confines of a single town in Illinois would argue that the place they need to carry is the place where they live. The law would be great for them. I realize that the law may not be any help for a lot of people, but would it make things worse? As far as I know, the bill you oppose did not take away any rights, it just didn't give as much as you wanted. This isn't a situation like the '86 federal bill where gun owners gave up machine guns to get other rights.

You are willing to maintain a list of all the municipal ordinances in the state and make certain you disarm, unload your weapon and place it in a gun case when you cross a municipal boundary. I think that is ridiculous.

We are going in circles arguing the same points. As I've mentioned here before, I think there are only two home-rule municipalities that I ever step foot in on a daily basis. It wouldn't be much trouble for me to check those out (and most people would be in the same scenario). If I have to make a non-routine trip somewhere else in Illinois, my options are to leave the gun at home or get out the code book. If I choose to leave the gun at home, I'm in no better or worse position than the current status quo. But at least I would have the option.

You find it perfectly acceptable to disarm when your business takes you to the most dangerous places in the state.

This is the current status quo which I do not find acceptable.

Your desire to carry a gun is so great that you are willing to accept all these restrictions just so you can strap on your gun every day and feel safe...but only in certain places.

Again, the current status quo is zero right to carry. Any improvement is, well, an improvement. There's no set rule of law that says once you ever get an advancement in gun rights you're forever foreclosed from getting any more. You act like a preliminary gain means we won't ever reach our optimal state, but I just don't agree with that view.

TexasRifleman · May 26, 2009

You act like a preliminary gain means we won't ever reach our optimal state, but I just don't agree with that view.

How is that a gain exactly?

You expect a person to know every law in every area he might travel into, and be able to follow all those law changes as he crosses imaginary lines on the highways of your state? If he fails to do so perfectly he's a criminal.

That doesn't sound like a gain to me.

You are right that incremental change is most likely the way to go but there has to be a REASONABLE starting point, and this kind of thing is not it.

I realize that the law may not be any help for a lot of people, but would it make things worse?

It probably will make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens who happen to drive across the wrong line on a map without adjusting the condition of their firearm.

What you end up with then is a "statistic" of the number of crimes committed by concealed carriers.

The anti's will then argue against preemption by saying "look how many crimes were committed by these gun people, you can't trust them".

I just don't see how that's a gain. Potentially it's a step backwards in a way.

Phatty · May 26, 2009

What you end up with then is a "statistic" of the number of crimes committed by concealed carriers.

The anti's will then argue against preemption by saying "look how many crimes were committed by these gun people, you can't trust them".

TexasRifleman, that is a good point and definitely one to consider.

However, I have a libertarian mindset, and I think adults should be given the responsibility to take on that burden if they so choose. Nobody is being forced to carry weapons. The ones that responsibly decide to carry can also be trusted to know the laws of the places they want to carry. As I've said multiple times now, if there is any doubt as to the laws of the place where you are or where you are going, just don't carry. But why strip the ability of responsible people to carry just because there may be irresponsible people who may carry recklessly?

Jeff White · May 26, 2009

I think there are only two home-rule municipalities that I ever step foot in on a daily basis. It wouldn't be much trouble for me to check those out (and most people would be in the same scenario). If I have to make a non-routine trip somewhere else in Illinois, my options are to leave the gun at home or get out the code book. If I choose to leave the gun at home, I'm in no better or worse position than the current status quo. But at least I would have the option.

Isn't that nice, you'd sell out the majority of the population of the state for your personal convenience

and someone here said I didn't have a dog in this fight because I can carry......

I realize that the law may not be any help for a lot of people, but would it make things worse? As far as I know, the bill you oppose did not take away any rights, it just didn't give as much as you wanted.

It would make us fight this fight in every home rule municipality in the state. And in every municipality that votes in home rule. Instead of winning once in the legislature, we potentially have to win hundreds of times. That's better?

You act like a preliminary gain means we won't ever reach our optimal state, but I just don't agree with that view.

How long have you been following Illinois state and local politics? I'd guess not very long. That's ok though, at least you follow it now, most people would be hard pressed to tell you the name of their state representative or state senator. State issues aren't usually covered on the network or cable new shows or national talk radio.

If we pass CCW legislation that lets home rule units of government opt out, we will not see it statewide in our lifetime and I'd be willing to bet my 3 year old grandson won't see it in his lifetime either.

Giving home rule units of government the ability to opt out guarantees that there will be groups who have been silent or taken no position on CCW will speak up when legislation is introduced to expand it statewide. The mayors groups and other groups who's big issue is local control will be fighting us, so far they have been silent.

There are a lot of reasons a municipality votes in home rule, but the biggest one is money. A home rule unit of government can raise sales taxes and they can also do things like adopt the vehicle code into city ordinance and beat the county and the court out of their share of the fines. They won't want to give up control of allowing or not allowing CCW once they have it.

Who's voice do you think will carry more weight with your state rep or senator, yours or the mayor's?

You go ahead and support your bill, after all it would benefit you personally and we all know that's more important then have true shall issue CCW state wide...........

Phatty · May 26, 2009

Isn't that nice, you'd sell out the majority of the population of the state for your personal convenience and someone here said I didn't have a dog in this fight because I can carry......

It's only a sell out if you conclusively assume that intermediate progress kills the chances of complete progress. I, and others, believe that such an intermediate step neither increases or decreases the chances of statewide preemption.
Am I a sell out because I currently possess a handgun in my home? Or should I give up that right until my fellow citizens in Chicago have the same ability as me to keep a handgun in their home as a showing of unity? If we force ourselves to stay aligned with the lowest common denominator, we will forever be stuck at the lowest common denominator.

It would make us fight this fight in every home rule municipality in the state. And in every municipality that votes in home rule. Instead of winning once in the legislature, we potentially have to win hundreds of times. That's better?

Hopefully, we would just have to win statewide twice. Between those two wins, the locals would at least have the option to fight and win.

How long have you been following Illinois state and local politics? I'd guess not very long.

I'll concede you probably have me beat here. I've only been following Illinois state and local politics closely for the last 8 years. Prior to that I was more of a casual observer, as I suspect would be the case for most people.

Giving home rule units of government the ability to opt out guarantees that there will be groups who have been silent or taken no position on CCW will speak up when legislation is introduced to expand it statewide. The mayors groups and other groups who's big issue is local control will be fighting us, so far they have been silent. . . . They won't want to give up control of allowing or not allowing CCW once they have it.

Maybe I missed it in a previous post, but I think this is the first articulated argument I've seen for why an intermediate step would potentially kill the chances of getting statewide preemption. Although I disagree with the premise that local municipalities would suddenly fight harder against preemption in the future than now, that's based on my own speculation. I'm willing to be patient and "try it your way" for the next couple of years (through the next voting cycle). But at some point in the future we may need to recognize that statewide preemption isn't going to happen in one fell swoop (although by that point, it probably won't happen in baby steps either).

Don Gwinn · Jun 2, 2009

Superlite said:
Why do downstaters continue to be bamboozled by Chicago politicians? There are more people in downstate Illinois than Chicago. Yet, next election, downstate will put yet more Chicago bosses in office.

Actually, that's not true. The Chicago metro area holds roughly 2/3rds of the state population, while Chicago proper is close to half--but that's half the population in one TV, radio and newspaper market.

Jeff White said:
Did I say that self defense wasn't needed in the urban areas? NO! Stop reading things that aren't there in my pos

No, you only said that self defense isn't needed in the rural areas. I think perhaps part of the reason Swan Hunter disagrees is that he and his wife were stalked and threatened for years in a rural area. I know part of the reason I disagree is that I live in a rural area, and I've seen violence here. Certainly violence is less likely in rural areas simply because there are fewer people around to commit it. But as we so often say, it's not the odds, it's the stakes. House fires are rare, but I've been through two of those. School fires are rare, but I've been through one of those, too. Besides, this entire argument requires us to accept your premise that all or most urban areas will opt out, and you haven't given us any evidence for that. Did you catch the news this weekend when the Mayor of Peoria announced that he'd like the legislature to make Peoria a "test case" for concealed carry?

Jeff White said:
Are you suggesting that I lie about the fact that one is more likely to need a firearm to defend him/herself in some parts of the state then others just so it sounds better?

That isn't what you said, Jeff. You said people don't need the ability to defend themselves outside urban areas. Specifically, you told Swan Hunter that it would be useless for him to have the right to carry a concealed weapon where he lives because he won't need it there. You couldn't have known when you posted it that he's already experienced the need there, but it's still an incorrect argument. No need to accuse anyone of dishonesty because they disagree with your assertion.

Jeff White said:
You are willing to maintain a list of all the municipal ordinances in the state and make certain you disarm, unload your weapon and place it in a gun case when you cross a municipal boundary. I think that is ridiculous.

2257 required that the Illinois State Police maintain that list, with any home-rule entity that wanted to opt out required to notify the ISP within 30 days. And I don't know about you, but I transport my guns unloaded inside gun cases everywhere I go in this state right now, because that's the current law. I believe that's worse than the dreaded "patchwork."

TexasRifleman said:
How is that a gain exactly?

I'm going to take your question at face value and answer it as if you really don't understand what the gain inolved would be. Don't take this the wrong way.
The gain would be in the fact that in all parts of the state, it is currently illegal to carry a loaded defensive firearm, but if STHR LTC were enacted, it would then become legal to do so in most parts of the state. That's the gain--legal carrying of self-defense weapons where it didn't exist before. It's pretty straightforward when you think about it.
There would presumably be areas where the carrying of defensive firearms would remain illegal, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to pretend that the clear gain doesn't exist.

TexasRifleman said:
You expect a person to know every law in every area he might travel into, and be able to follow all those law changes as he crosses imaginary lines on the highways of your state? If he fails to do so perfectly he's a criminal.

That would be persuasive except that today the status quo is that if he carries the firearm at all, he's a criminal. He has no chance to follow the law by watching where he is or knowing where a boundary is, because it doesn't matter--exercising that constitutional right is flatly illegal in the entire state. It's surprising to me how quickly that fact gets glossed over in this debate, because it is significant. We are starting from a state in which it is a felony to carry a loaded firearm for self-defense. That's the baseline. Pre-emptive statewide carry is not the status quo because it doesn't exist. If it did, I would not be arguing that we begin with a step toward it.

TexasRifleman said:
You are right that incremental change is most likely the way to go but there has to be a REASONABLE starting point, and this kind of thing is not it.

I've had bad luck with asking this question in the past, because people think it's a rhetorical question. It's not. I want to know your answer to this question, please:
Since making LTC subject to home rule is not a reasonable starting point, what do you propose instead? What would be the reasonable intermediate step that you would support?

Don Gwinn · Jun 2, 2009

Jeff, I have a question for you too, because I honestly don't remember. You alluded to your ability to carry legally as a police officer. I don't begrudge you that, by the way. If I could do it legally, I would, too. Did you oppose HR218 when it was enacted, since it would establish the right to go armed for police officers and leave everyone else behind?

I didn't. Maybe I was naive, but my thought was that if you really believe that arming citizens works, then more armed citizens was better than fewer armed citizens, even if I wasn't going to be one of the armed ones. I looked at HR218 as another step toward carry rights for everyone, part of an incremental strategy of progression. I view this similarly.

I'm sure you'll tell me that it's not the same, and of course, no two cases ever are exactly the same. But the principles are the same--do you hold out for everything, or do you take every increment you can get?

Jeff White · Jun 3, 2009

No, you only said that self defense isn't needed in the rural areas. I think perhaps part of the reason Swan Hunter disagrees is that he and his wife were stalked and threatened for years in a rural area. I know part of the reason I disagree is that I live in a rural area, and I've seen violence here.

Don I said no such thing and you know it. I even specifically stated that it didn't mean it was safe everywhere, go back a couple pages and look it up. I have lived and been a police officer in rural Southern Illinois in a county that has one of the highest crime rates for rural counties in Illinois, I've seen plenty of violence. But what kind of violence is it? Is it the kind of street crime most people think they are carrying a firearm to protect themselves from? How many carjackings, armed street robberies or armed robberies of any kind happen in rural Illinois? The violence in rural Illinois is mostly domestic, gang or alcohol related and you are most likely to be victimized by someone you know.

My point was and still is that, this bill would not allow you to carry where the crime rate is the highest. Where carjackings, street robberies and the kind of stranger on stranger violence that most people worry about happens.

That isn't what you said, Jeff. You said people don't need the ability to defend themselves outside urban areas. Specifically, you told Swan Hunter that it would be useless for him to have the right to carry a concealed weapon where he lives because he won't need it there. You couldn't have known when you posted it that he's already experienced the need there, but it's still an incorrect argument. No need to accuse anyone of dishonesty because they disagree with your assertion.

You want to quote me on that Don? I think if you'll look I said he wouldn't be able to carry where he needed it most, not that he didn't need to carry.

2257 required that the Illinois State Police maintain that list, with any home-rule entity that wanted to opt out required to notify the ISP within 30 days. And I don't know about you, but I transport my guns unloaded inside gun cases everywhere I go in this state right now, because that's the current law. I believe that's worse than the dreaded "patchwork.

And what penalty does 2257 impose on a home rule entity that didn't notify the ISP? Refresh my memory Don, because I didn't see any penalty or other incentive to comply. If you think that the people in local government in Illinois are aware of all the arcane provisions of state law or feel obligated to follow them if they are aware of them, then I've got some ocean front property here in Marion County you might be interested in buying.

Since making LTC subject to home rule is not a reasonable starting point, what do you propose instead? What would be the reasonable intermediate step that you would support?

There is no intermediate step. There is either LTC statewide or there isn't.

Jeff, I have a question for you too, because I honestly don't remember. You alluded to your ability to carry legally as a police officer. I don't begrudge you that, by the way. If I could do it legally, I would, too. Did you oppose HR218 when it was enacted, since it would establish the right to go armed for police officers and leave everyone else behind?

No I supported HR218. I still support it and I still believe that it will help lead to more reciprocity for permit holders. Before HR218 permit holders had more legal ability to carry across state lines then peace officers. I always thought it was kind of funny that states that issued permits and accepted permits from other states had laws prohibiting peace officers from out of state from carrying.

But you aren't going use the I've got mine argument now. It took over 10 years to pass HR218 and see it signed into law. CCW has only been a serious issue in Illinois for about 2 years. We've got a lot of work to do to pass good statewide legislation. Letting the home rule units opt out will kill any chance for statewide carry for at least a generation.

Don Gwinn · Jun 3, 2009

Jeff, I guess I misinterpreted this post from you:

Stop the drama. You wouldn't be permitted to carry in the places where lives are at stake under this bill. Why don't you show me some cases outside of the urban areas where CCW would have saved someone's life? It's going to be hard to do, because the kind of street crime that most people envision using a CCW to protect themselves from is pretty much confined to the urban areas where home rule will prevent you from carrying. Oh it happens it the rest of the state but it's not a significant problem.

What does the crime rate in Illinois look like when you subtract Chicago and the metro East?

That's what you posted, Jeff, in its entirety. All I'm saying is that it's significant to the people it's happening to, and we should leave that kind of dismissal of self defense to the other side.

My point was and still is that, this bill would not allow you to carry where the crime rate is the highest. Where carjackings, street robberies and the kind of stranger on stranger violence that most people worry about happens.

Yes, I know. And my point is that just because one area has "the highest" crime rate, that doesn't mean that the other areas have none. And again, I must point out, you're talking as if we're proposing to take something away from Chicago and East St. Louis. We're not, because those places don't have a carry law now. The status quo is that it's a felony to carry a loaded firearm anywhere in Illinois. That includes all the urban areas you say are the most important places to carry a firearm.

And what penalty does 2257 impose on a home rule entity that didn't notify the ISP? Refresh my memory Don, because I didn't see any penalty or other incentive to comply. If you think that the people in local government in Illinois are aware of all the arcane provisions of state law or feel obligated to follow them if they are aware of them, then I've got some ocean front property here in Marion County you might be interested in buying.

Snark aside, that's an excellent point I thought I had addressed it earlier, but maybe I forgot. You've found a weakness in the bill, and it's been brought up to the group that created the bill and will be taken up with the sponsor if HB2257 is re-introduced. It should be a simple thing to amend the bill so that there is a legal penalty for failing to follow that provision. If a new bill is written, I'll make sure there's a penalty for failing to comply with the requirements of the bill.
What would you recommend as the appropriate penalty for the ISP? And if it should be different, what do you recommend for the home-rule entity? Personally I'd favor a provision that simply says their ordinance goes into effect after it has been posted to the list for 30 days and is voided if it comes off the list. Then, if they don't care enough to post it, they simply don't get to enforce it, and they can hash out the rest with the ISP on their own dime.

Since making LTC subject to home rule is not a reasonable starting point, what do you propose instead? What would be the reasonable intermediate step that you would support?
There is no intermediate step. There is either LTC statewide or there isn't.

I was actually asking TexasRifleman, because he stated that he would support other intermediate steps, but not STHR because it's unreasonable. Your position is pretty clear; all or nothing. I disagree, but I understand it.

No I supported HR218. I still support it and I still believe that it will help lead to more reciprocity for permit holders. . . .

But you aren't going use the I've got mine argument now.

Actually, I was planning to argue that HR218 was an intermediate step that you supported even though it didn't give you everything you wanted--and even though a lot of people said at the time that it would hurt the CCW movement badly by hardening resistance to "civilians" carrying guns while taking the police out of the debate since "they'll have theirs." Very similar to your arguments in this thread that STHR will harden the resolve against licensed carry in home-rule cities, and take the rest of us out of the debate since we're just trying to "get ours" by "selling out" the home-rule residents.
Those arguments were wrong before and they're wrong now.

Jeff White · Jun 3, 2009

That's what you posted, Jeff, in its entirety. All I'm saying is that it's significant to the people it's happening to, and we should leave that kind of dismissal of self defense to the other side.

Don, the truth is the truth no matter who says it and we have to be intellectually honest enough to accept the truth and we should be able to speak the truth without it being totally misconstrued. I have never once dismissed the need for self defense in the rest of the state, I have merely pointed out that this bill would deny effective means of self defense in the parts of the state where it is most needed. Do you disagree with that? You tell me honestly where are you most likely to be the victim of violent crime, 25th and State Street in East St Louis or Springfield Street and Virden Road in Virden? Your bill will allow you to carry at Springfield Street and Virden Road in Virden but would most likely deny you the right to carry at 25th and State Street in East St Louis. Is that right? Is that fair? Is that a good compromise? Does it make the guy who has to drive his delivery truck to service the businesses on State Street in East St Louis any safer? Does it give the 38 year old woman who is trying to raise her grandchildren and has to shop on State Street any safer from the predators out there? Of course it doesn't.

I must point out, you're talking as if we're proposing to take something away from Chicago and East St. Louis.

Yes, you are taking something from them. You are denying them the same right to effective self defense that you want for yourself and your family. You are creating another rift in the fabric that is holding this totally fubar'd state together. You are taking a natural right and complicating it by creating large parts of the state and I might add, the most populous ones where that natural right is not recognized. Your bill leaves us with a situation that is totally unsatisfactory for everyone involved. The citizens residing in the urban areas are denied effective means of self defense and the citizens who live in the rural areas are faced with having to research their travels throughout the state in order to remain legal when they cross a municipal boundary.

You've found a weakness in the bill, and it's been brought up to the group that created the bill and will be taken up with the sponsor if HB2257 is re-introduced. It should be a simple thing to amend the bill so that there is a legal penalty for failing to follow that provision. If a new bill is written, I'll make sure there's a penalty for failing to comply with the requirements of the bill.
What would you recommend as the appropriate penalty for the ISP?

What would you penalize the ISP for? Failing to update their website? The way I read the bill you've given authority to issue the LTC to DNR. This in itself is problematic and I can tell you that DNR is not set up or staffed to handle that, yet I see no provision to increase their staffing to issue the LTC. In 2004, the first year that permits were available in Missouri the Missouri Highway patrol processed 14333 background checks for CCW permits. If Illinois would generate that number of applications the first year, which I doubt considering the bill cuts out a good portion of the population of the state, the $25 fee would raise $358,325.00, hardly enough to create a new office within DNR and the bill doesn't begin to address the cost for the ISP to conduct a large number of additional background checks. You are talking thousands of additional fingerprint cards each year. I suppose that DNR could require digital fingerprints like the Department of Professional Regulation requires for security guards, but that is going to add increased cost and difficulty for the people who want a permit because in the rural areas where you want to issue the permits there aren't a lot of places one can get digital prints, applicants may drive 50 miles or more to find a police department that has that capability and have to pay whatever fee that agency would charge for the permit, in addition to the $25.00 fee. What keeps agencies with digital fingerprinting capabilities or headed up by anti gun chiefs from refusing to take the prints, charging high fees or setting one hour a day when someone will be available to take the fingerprints? All of those things have happened in other states, the bill should address that. It doesn't. Here's an idea, make the FOID card the background check. We've lived with that meaningless piece of legislation since what, 1968 and it's had no effect on anything. It's been a drain on the state budget and taken staffing away from the ISP since it's inception. Make the FOID card the background check and present it with proof of training in order to get your permit. For once that useless laminated card and all the money it takes to support it will be worth something.

If a new bill is written, I'll make sure there's a penalty for failing to comply with the requirements of the bill.
What would you recommend as the appropriate penalty for the ISP? And if it should be different, what do you recommend for the home-rule entity?

The only way to ensure compliance is to hit them in the budget. Failure to comply means they aren't eligible for grants administered through the state for one year per violation.

Allow me to mention some other things I see problems with in the bill as written.

(1) Completion of a firearms safety or training course
10 or class available to the general public, which includes a
11 minimum of 8 hours of instruction on the safe use of
12 firearms, marksmanship principles, a live fire exercise of
13 at least 50 rounds, and the presentation of a DVD produced
14 by the Illinois Attorney General's office explaining
15 Illinois law regarding the lawful use of deadly force; or a
16 course instructed by a law enforcement agency, junior
17 college, college, private or public institution or
18 organization, or firearms training school, utilizing
19 instructors certified by the National Rifle Association,
20 the Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, or the
21 Department.

I am against any training requirements as it is another way to deny a right, but I do recognize the need for one in order to pass a bill. The bill doesn't say who fills in the details of what is covered in this 8 hours of instruction on the safe use of firearms, marksmanship principles and other subjects. This needs to be addressed in the legislation or it will be 8 months to a year before some agency actually writes the training course, publishes it and disseminates it to the instructors. No funding is provided for the Attorney General's office for production of the dvd and there is no provision for when it has to be updated as the law changes. As I mentioned above the $25.00 fee is not going to cover the expense of starting the program. I don't see where you're going to be making enough from the program to make it self sufficient. While I'd rather see state funds spent on that then a whole lot of other things the state funds, it's just another reason for the bill not to be supported.

There is nothing in the bill requiring courthouses and other prohibited places to provide secure storage for the weapons of LTC holders who have business there. Of course that's a double edged sword because those requirements that will make CCW convenient for the license holders will be seen by the sheriffs and other local officials as an unfunded mandate and could cause them to oppose the bill.

Actually, I was planning to argue that HR218 was an intermediate step that you supported even though it didn't give you everything you wanted--and even though a lot of people said at the time that it would hurt the CCW movement badly by hardening resistance to "civilians" carrying guns while taking the police out of the debate since "they'll have theirs." Very similar to your arguments in this thread that STHR will harden the resolve against licensed carry in home-rule cities, and take the rest of us out of the debate since we're just trying to "get ours" by "selling out" the home-rule residents.
Those arguments were wrong before and they're wrong now.

What's the plan to expand it state wide and what's the timetable? I don't think you really understand that to most of the people in Illinois, in fact I'd dare say the US, concealed carry is a total non-issue. The people simply don't care about it. It's a gun culture issue and it's not even an issue throughout the gun culture, there are plenty of people who own guns who don't care one way or another or actually oppose it. I don't see the legislature being swayed to take the issue state wide once they give the home rule entities the option to opt out.

Phatty · Jun 3, 2009

Jeff, I'd still like to see you square your logic behind this:

I supported HR218.

With this:

Yes, you are taking something from them. You are denying them the same right to effective self defense that you want for yourself and your family. You are creating another rift in the fabric that is holding this totally fubar'd state together.

There is an elementary difference between taking something and not giving something.

Regarding penalizing state agencies for inaction, I don't think that's the way to go. I think the better approach is to automatically grant a citizen the relief they were seeking from the agency when the agency fails to act. A good example of this is the ISP's failure to comply with the 30 day requirement for issuing or denying FOID card requests. Right now, there's nothing you can really do if the ISP decides to take 90 days to process your renewal or new card request. It's hard to penalize the ISP because they really don't have the money or staffing to handle the amount of requests. The easy solution to that is this: after 30 days, if the ISP has not issued you a card or sent you a denial, you are automatically exempt from the FOID act.

The same solution can be applied to training requirements. If for whatever reason, you cannot get a LTC because some state agency has not yet approved training, then you are exempt from the training requirement.

Lamb of Gun · Jun 3, 2009

They are better of WITHOUT CCW than with this bill. I think if they are considering passing a bill for it then it is only a matter of time until a more organized bill comes along.

Like I said, I would rather see residents waiting on a solid system instead of dealing with a mess like this just so they could have it right now.

And as far as the the NRA attempting to shoot down a pro-gun bill, well that just makes for an interesting bit of trivia because the NRA were definitely in the right.

ilbob · Jun 4, 2009

They are better of WITHOUT CCW than with this bill. I think if they are considering passing a bill for it then it is only a matter of time until a more organized bill comes along.

I think a fair number of people would disagree with you. Even the NRA has acknowledged that the bill might well benefit some people, but they have been pretty clear that they are not going to support a bill that does not include the whole state.

The bill as originally introduced had a preemption clause that was taken out to make it no longer require a super majority. The rest of the bill was not all that bad, although really it could have been cleaned up some.

IMO the whole thing is a moot point at this stage of the game. Unless the NRA actively supports a CC bill, it won't pass. thats just the way it is.

Personally, I would prefer to see running such a program removed from the ISP's purview in any case. Its not really a LE function to issue licenses of any kind.

I have never really understood the fascination with fingerprinting as a requirement for a CC license. AFAIK, every person in LE or the military has been fingerprinted. yet occasionally one of them commits a crime.

swan hunter · Jun 4, 2009

The rest of the bill was not all that bad, although really it could have been cleaned up some

ILbob,

FYI, We were of the understanding that the LRB (where bills are submitted) would clean up the bill. We were disappointed in their final draft but, the bill didn't last long enough to get fully amended before the NRA lobbyist basically ended it.

ilbob · Jun 4, 2009

FYI, We were of the understanding that the LRB (where bills are submitted) would clean up the bill. We were disappointed in their final draft but, the bill didn't last long enough to get fully amended before the NRA lobbyist basically ended it.

Making technical changes to it so it becomes a valid bill is properly the venue of the LRB.

Getting rid of silly things that should not be in it in the first place is not.

I would hope that next time around they take the best part of both of the "normal" CC bills that are introduced and merge them into a single bill that is well thought out.

Maybe it would be a good task for Illinoiscarry to undertake such a mission as a template for the legislators who introduce them.

Don Gwinn · Jun 4, 2009

Don, the truth is the truth no matter who says it and we have to be intellectually honest enough to accept the truth and we should be able to speak the truth without it being totally misconstrued.

Certainly, I agree.

I have never once dismissed the need for self defense in the rest of the state, I have merely pointed out that this bill would deny effective means of self defense in the parts of the state where it is most needed.

And here you've lost me again. I quoted you dismissing the need for self defense in the rest of the state. I realize you don't actually think self-defense isn't important outside high-crime urban areas in Illinois, but it seems to me that your position led you to write that in an attempt to support it. Again, I'll let others decide whether I misconstrued your point or whether you wrote something you probably wouldn't write again in the heat of the moment.

Is that right? Is that fair? Is that a good compromise? Does it make the guy who has to drive his delivery truck to service the businesses on State Street in East St Louis any safer? Does it give the 38 year old woman who is trying to raise her grandchildren and has to shop on State Street any safer from the predators out there?

One at a time, in order:
1. The status quo is not right. What I propose is better than the status quo.
2. The status quo is not fair. What I propose is better than the status quo.
3. It is a large net gain for our side and a large step toward extending LTC into the home-rule areas. Yes, it is a good compromise.
4. No, it does not make her any safer, unless very indirectly. What your question fails to address is the fact that it doesn't make her any safer because it doesn't change the circumstances she already lives in today. If she deserves LTC to increase her safety (and she does) then why don't people in the rest of the state deserve it? For that matter, why should those elitists across the river in St. Louis get to have CCW when they didn't bring Illinois along with them so she could have it, too?

Yes, you are taking something from them. You are denying them the same right to effective self defense that you want for yourself and your family.

I am? OK, then let's make this easy. I'll just implement a LTC carry system in those urban areas, shall I? In fact, since I'm in charge, and I'm the one who's been denying them their rights all these years, I think I'll just go ahead and make it Vermont style. Since I can just have my druthers, I see no need for a permitting system.
I had been under the impression that it was the government of the state of Illinois that had been refusing to allow LTC, and that under STHR it would have to be their local legislators. I wish someone had told me sooner that it was actually me all along; this could have been a short movement.

Honestly, Jeff, I'd be happy to discuss all your procedural issues with the bill the NRA killed, but it's hard to see the point. You just stated flatly that the central concept of the bill is unacceptable and, in fact, that every intermediate step between total denial of the right to bear arms and statewide pre-emption is also unacceptable. But, briefly, it's my understanding that there was a lot of discussion of raising the fee. It apparently wasn't done because the sponsor wanted to wait and see how much of an increase was absolutely necessary before committing to anything. The training requirement is modeled on, to the best of my recollection, Florida, Texas and others. I'd have to look it up to be certain, but it was modeled on the existing language in several other successful states specifically to short-circuit criticism from the other side of the aisle. Again, though, should I take it that if these details are addressed, you will then be in favor of a similar bill? Or are these

You know, I just had a thought: it would be a lot more fair and even-handed if we all adopted Chicago's registration scheme/handgun ban for as long as it lasts. Actually, in the interest of fairness, we probably should have adopted it statewide years ago so as not to take away the rights of people in Chicago by allowing someone else to exercise the rights they were denied . . . because clearly, if Person A is denied the exercise of a right, and Person B is not, then it is Person B who is responsible for taking away Person A's right.
Well . . . . actually, I don't think I agree with that. Never mind.

As for your assessment of all the reasons nobody cares and it's impossible . . .I simply disagree. Either way, it's not going to become any more impossible because we try. If we fail, we fail.

Jeff White · Jun 4, 2009

I simply disagree. Either way, it's not going to become any more impossible because we try. If we fail, we fail.

I will do everything in my power to see that any attempt to pass CCW without preempting the home rule units fails. It's that simple.

No one who supports this has once answered my question about what the next step is. Why is that? I am sure it's because you don't have a next step. Until you give me a reasonable legislative strategy to expand it statewide within the next legislative session I will continue to oppose it. You keep saying intermediate step but if you don't have a plan for what the next intermediate step is then you are are just talking.....No more mention of intermediate steps until you are willing to reveal what the next step is. Fair enough?

Phatty · Jun 4, 2009

No one who supports this has once answered my question about what the next step is.

Are you serious? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that step one is get a CCW bill passed without preemption and step two is get a subsequent bill passed that expands the original CCW law to include preemption.

The "next step" for the intermediate crowd is exactly the same as your first step. After arguing in circles ad nauseum on this subject, it seems to me the central point of disagreement between the "all or nothing" crowd and the "intermediate" crowd is whether or not passing a CCW bill without preemption diminishes the chances in the future of passing a CCW bill with preemption.

The progressive movement learned long ago that it is extremely difficult to get everything you want all at once, and the most effective strategy is to chip away bit by bit.

Jeff White · Jun 4, 2009

Are you serious?

I am serious as a heart attack!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that step one is get a CCW bill passed without preemption and step two is get a subsequent bill passed that expands the original CCW law to include preemption.

Where is that bill? Let's see the draft. Who is going to introduce it? How many co-sponsors have you lined up for phase II, and who are they?

When you can answer these questions truthfully and post the draft of the bill I will believe you have a plan. Until then it's just so much wishing on the internet.

After arguing in circles ad nauseum on this subject, it seems to me the central point of disagreement between the "all or nothing" crowd and the "intermediate" crowd is whether or not passing a CCW bill without preemption diminishes the chances in the future of passing a CCW bill with preemption.

That is exactly the point and until you can address the questions I asked in the last paragraph you won't convince me or anyone else that you have given this any thought at all.

The progressive movement learned long ago that it is extremely difficult to get everything you want all at once, and the most effective strategy is to chip away bit by bit.

This is a ridiculous strategy on this issue. Show me one instance where the legislature has exempted home rule entities from a law and then revisited the issue and taken the exemption away from home rule units. I asked you to show me that instance pages ago. So either you don't know of any, can't find any or are too lazy to look for one. Which is it? When you can prove to me that here in Illinois it's possible for the legislature to tell Chicago it can go its own way and then convinced the same Chicago majority in the legislature to vote to take power away from the city, I will believe that your incremental approach is even possible.

I think you and I both know that the odds of that happening are about equal to the odds that Daley is going to turn himself into US Attorney Fitzgerald and confess to generations of corruption because he wakes up tomorrow morning and feels he needs to unburden his soul.

In my opinion those pushing this idea are politically naive and have had their common sense over ruled by their desire to get CCW, any CCW now.

PCGS65 · Jun 4, 2009

The bit by bit method is successful. That's how we ended up with all the infringements we have on firearms today among other things like taxes,fees ect.

County by county CCW would be a great start. Then when most counties have it we can go for statewide. Too confusing naw, trust me if I had CCW I sure would find out which counties don't allow it much the same that I keep track(before Heller)which municipalities banned firearms.

Shame on the NRA once again.

Jeff White · Jun 4, 2009

County by county CCW would be a great start. Then when most counties have it we can go for statewide.

Can't let the fact that counties aren't empowered by the Illinois Constitution to make laws like that get in the way of wanting to carry a gun now can we?

PCGS65 · Jun 4, 2009

So the Illinois constitution trumps the US constitution? But municipalites can outright ban firearm ownership?

Jeff White · Jun 4, 2009

I suggest you go to this link and read up on what local governments can and can't do:

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con7.htm

NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

Contributing Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Similar threads