ISRA Asks Court To Let Illinoians Carry Weapons Now

I hate to rain on the pity-party, guys, but "shall issue" after "no issue" is pretty reasonable.

The training requirements are probably good ones, there is shall issue for out of state residents, and compared to "may issue, meaning no issue" places like NJ the law is positively excellent.

Advice... quit whining, apply, and enjoy. it could be LOTS worse. And give it a few years to sort out.

I plan to apply the first day applications are available.


Willie

.

I agree 100% rugerman. These stupid clowns have known this was going to happen. Just another stall tactic by the antigunners.

^^

Has anyone really contemplated the real-world logistics of dealing with the 300,000 applications expected year 1?

I guess they could wave a magic wand... Or more probably build a procedure, staff the positions needed, and design the process. Anyone dealing with business analysis can tell you it's a big job. Although we want it overnight, that's *really* not realistic.


Willie

.

Willie Sutton said:

^^

Has anyone really contemplated the real-world logistics of dealing with the 300,000 applications expected year 1?

...

Willie

Click to expand...

I am not in Illinois, but have been following this and similar Illinois threads. To paraphrase, “Until the state has a permitting system sounds like reasonable delay” [ at first ]. BUT the State of Illinois has an FOID system. If a person has the firearm legally [ that is they has a valid FOID ], then the permitting system is already in place. Said differently, if they have already proven that they are illegible at the state level to own the firearm … what other hurdle should they have to overcome? Additional training? "They can own a firearm that have no idea how to operate?" Sounds like a stonewalling effort.

Besides that, if a law had been enacted which prohibited an activity, performing “said activity” one minute after the effective date would lead to arrest. Why is an law that permits an activity that was previously illegal any different?

chuck

^^

Because it's the norm to require CCW specific training before issuance, in nearly every state where CCW's are issued. Legislating that there be a training requirement for the CCW is "reasonable" by any rational argument.

While the FOID permits ownership (this is the real law that ought to be removed from the books, BTW), the background check for issuance of this has no bearing on the "norm" of states requiring training to carry.

Knowlage of "how to operate" a firearm is a far different thing than to train someone on the law and "when to operate it". And with some of the buffoons I see carrying where I live, I'd be happy to know that fellow CCW's might actually have shot a handgun... once.


Willie

.

Willie,
I checked the Illinois State Police web site at http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/firearmsfaq.cfm and confirmed that there is no training requirement to get the FOID. Thanks for correcting me on that. The FOID seems to be just a state police list of legal "gun persons".

Illinois residents however should have reasons for concern that the governor is not fully dedicated to the cause of getting concealed carry implemented (i.e. not acting in good faith) considering the overridden veto. Then there is Chicago ... I would not be surprised if they are not doing everything they can (legit or not) to undermine the effort as well. Chicago does not like that neighboring states having guns.

Chuck

Willie Sutton said:

^^

Because it's the norm to require CCW specific training before issuance, in nearly every state where CCW's are issued. Legislating that there be a training requirement for the CCW is "reasonable" by any rational argument.

While the FOID permits ownership (this is the real law that ought to be removed from the books, BTW), the background check for issuance of this has no bearing on the "norm" of states requiring training to carry.

Knowlage of "how to operate" a firearm is a far different thing than to train someone on the law and "when to operate it". And with some of the buffoons I see carrying where I live, I'd be happy to know that fellow CCW's might actually have shot a handgun... once.


Willie

.

Click to expand...

I've never needed to take a training course for my permits obtained in PA or FL. I have never received official training on a handgun or qualified with it in the Army either. Nor have I caused injuries to innocent bystanders in a shootout, unlike multiple cases involving trained Law Enforcement Officers with a little adrenaline in their system.

Honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but I could care less about your level of happiness if I'm around you carrying. My individual right to lawfully own and carry a firearm is my own business. I'm not a fan of open carry here in AZ, nor does it require a CHL to do so, but my opinion or level of "comfort" on the matter is entirely irrelevant.

Regarding Illinois: you might think it is reasonable for the state to drag their feet at every occasion to issue permits; I disagree. A failure to adequately plan and resource for this onslaught of applications is exactly that, a FAILURE. Leaders plan for contingencies, so they are prepared when something like this happens. Every additional day that the State of Illinois deprives its residents of a CHL is a day worth fighting for...whatever the reason.

Your advice to quit whining, apply, enjoy, and give it a few years...is cringe-worthy.

Torion hit it right on the nose. The bottom line is the stalling is crap (to use a nicer word.) Those involved in crap need to be remembered in the next upcomming election.

I have nothing nice to say about the crap they are trying to pull.

Because it's the norm to require CCW specific training before issuance, in nearly every state where CCW's are issued. Legislating that there be a training requirement for the CCW is "reasonable" by any rational argument.

Click to expand...

That's not a true statement.

SOME states require training. Many do not. Some states require that that training include firing the weapon. Some do not. (The most popular "non-resident" permit in the US, Utah's, does not require a live-fire segment.) No objective measure exists which can support the claim that gun carriers in states that require training are even a smidge safer than those gun carriers in the rest of the states.

^^ And many states do. Simply playing devils advocate, it can be argued that requiring training is a "reasonable" limitation, as it is not a requirement that is unique to Illinois.

I don't object to training, half of which ought to be training CCW carriers how to stay out of George Zimmermans shoes. Knowing the legal bounds is just as important as knowing how to safe a weapon. Many folks just will not self-study. Taking training is a smart choice, even if not required. Requiring it is not something I strongly object to. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what is incorporated into the curriculum, seeing as how I will need to take it 'soon" myself.

Points:

Florida absolutely requires live fire training, or prior military qualification, etc. You do need to have been trained "somehow" to obtain a Florida CCW, which contradicts one of the prior posters claims. If he was issued a CCW "without training" he provided a DD 214 in leiu of training. Other states are similar: Wisconsin required me to either train, or show another CCW issued by another state that requires similar training as to Wisconsin requirements (my Florida CCW was accepted). Illinois is not "standing alone" in requiring training, and as a result the requirement is "reasonable" by any rational argument.

To think that Illinois is simply going to throw the doors wide open without having a permit system designed and implemented is magical thinking. There is zero percentage chance of that happening. We can wish all you like... it's not gonna happen. The battle is won: Sit back, relax, and bask in the glory. We've been patient for decades. Another few months isn't going to *really* hurt.

If you want to rant and rave about "rights being rationed", the Illinois FOID system is what ought to be ranted about. That system is a travesty. Ditto NJ's nearly identical system. Both are ripe for court challenge.

Things on a national basis are really tipping our way. NJ's "may issue" challenge is due out of 6th District "any day now". My guess is that the delays in the issuance of a decision means that the circuit is having to actually do something that they do not wish to. It's a good time to be a CCW advocate. We should be celebrating Illiniois as a victory. Perfect? no... but adjustments are a lot easier to get than the huge initial change that has just taken place.


Honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but I could care less about your level of happiness if I'm around you carrying. My individual right to lawfully own and carry a firearm is my own business. I'm not a fan of open carry here in AZ, nor does it require a CHL to do so, but my opinion or level of "comfort" on the matter is entirely irrelevant


I don't take it the wrong way at all. The opposite, in fact: I could care less what your opinion of my opinion is... it's completely irrelevent to me. ;-)


Best,


Willie

.

Willie Sutton said:

^^ And many states do. Simply playing devils advocate, it can be argued that requiring training is a "reasonable" limitation, as it is not a requirement that is unique to Illinois.

I don't object to training, half of which ought to be training CCW carriers how to stay out of George Zimmermans shoes. Knowing the legal bounds is just as important as knowing how to safe a weapon. Many folks just will not self-study. Taking training is a smart choice, even if not required. Requiring it is not something I strongly object to. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what is incorporated into the curriculum, seeing as how I will need to take it 'soon" myself.

Points:

Florida absolutely requires live fire training, or prior military qualification, etc. You do need to have been trained "somehow" to obtain a Florida CCW, which contradicts one of the prior posters claims. If he was issued a CCW "without training" he provided a DD 214 in leiu of training. Other states are similar: Wisconsin required me to either train, or show another CCW issued by another state that requires similar training as to Wisconsin requirements (my Florida CCW was accepted). Illinois is not "standing alone" in requiring training, and as a result the requirement is "reasonable" by any rational argument.

To think that Illinois is simply going to throw the doors wide open without having a permit system designed and implemented is magical thinking. There is zero percentage chance of that happening. We can wish all you like... it's not gonna happen. The battle is won: Sit back, relax, and bask in the glory. We've been patient for decades. Another few months isn't going to *really* hurt.

If you want to rant and rave about "rights being rationed", the Illinois FOID system is what ought to be ranted about. That system is a travesty. Ditto NJ's nearly identical system. Both are ripe for court challenge.

Things on a national basis are really tipping our way. NJ's "may issue" challenge is due out of 6th District "any day now". My guess is that the delays in the issuance of a decision means that the circuit is having to actually do something that they do not wish to. It's a good time to be a CCW advocate. We should be celebrating Illiniois as a victory. Perfect? no... but adjustments are a lot easier to get than the huge initial change that has just taken place.


Honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but I could care less about your level of happiness if I'm around you carrying. My individual right to lawfully own and carry a firearm is my own business. I'm not a fan of open carry here in AZ, nor does it require a CHL to do so, but my opinion or level of "comfort" on the matter is entirely irrelevant


I don't take it the wrong way at all. The opposite, in fact: I could care less what your opinion of my opinion is... it's completely irrelevent to me. ;-)


Best,


Willie

.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, and I stand by my original "contradiction" regarding FL. Let me break it down for you as someone who has actually gone through the process in the last 6 months:

A CAC ID card is all that is required for military personnel, and that is all I provided to the state of FL to get my permit. No DD214, no proof of qualification / qualification card, no memorandum signed by the CO, etc. The state of FL considers the military ID to be sufficient to meet any such requirement, which is this case...is NOTHING!!!

Although I have trained and qualified on a litany of other weapons, I never received military training on a handgun, nor have I ever qualified on one. It hasn't stopped me from employing them in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it certainly hasn't stopped me from getting and using my CHL back in the states.

Willie Sutton said:

If you want to rant and rave about "rights being rationed", the Illinois FOID system is what ought to be ranted about. That system is a travesty. Ditto NJ's nearly identical system. Both are ripe for court challenge.

Things on a national basis are really tipping our way. NJ's "may issue" challenge is due out of 6th District "any day now". My guess is that the delays in the issuance of a decision means that the circuit is having to actually do something that they do not wish to. It's a good time to be a CCW advocate. We should be celebrating Illiniois as a victory. Perfect? no... but adjustments are a lot easier to get than the huge initial change that has just taken place.


Best,


Willie

Click to expand...

Illinois FOID (Firearms Owners ID) card came about in 1968. Illinois got their idea from New Jersey's FID (Firearms ID) card for purchasing long arms when NJ instituted it in 1966. NJ FID card is only needed for purchasing long arms and ammo (a separate permit to purchase is needed for pistols). Illinois requires the FOID in order to possess any kind of firearms. NJ FID card is not required for possession.

In the cases of NJ and IL, (and in the case of Massachusetts, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and NY for pistols. The requirement of a license or permit to possess or to purchase a firearm is an outright infringement. Even after said permits or licenses are acquired there is still the state NICS or Federal NICS one must pass to finally purchase the firearm. These 'pre-permission' licenses or permits can and probably are used to collect information by the state to track gun owners and are an invasion of privacy and intimidating to anyone wishing to exercise their second amendment rights. These schemes intentionally lower the amount of gun owners in the state.

Unlike in most states where you just go down to your local gun store or Walmart and pick out what you want and 5 minutes you are out the door. It is not like that in other states...Just buying a .22 rifle or a shotgun in NJ means one is required to apply at a police station for a FID card. Fill out intrusive forms which require up to three background references including a reference from your employer in some towns, get fingerprinted, open up your private medical history to the state, and pay nearly $100 in fees and wait 3 to 6 months for the damned card.

Once you got all that done then go you through ANOTHER background check with the STATE NICS and pay a $16 fee on top of that. If that isn't an outright infringement, that I don't know what is. All this redundancy is intentionally keeping the number of gun owners in NJ low. I'm surprised New Jersey's onerous requirements to purchase long arms for self defense has not been struck down.

We haven't even touched upon the point that it is nearly impossible for all intents and purposes for someone to get a carry permit in NJ. And the law currently is so daconian onerous that one has to go directly to a range and then home (with no deviations) even if they have their pistol pistol locked in the trunk in a metal box. There is no relief for gun owners in NJ. Their gun laws in my opinion are unconstitutional and needs to be over turned.

And I'm just using NJ as an example, NY state is even worse for pistol ownership. People have waited upwards up to a year to get permission to buy a pistol. But unlike NJ, NY does have some counties that allow for conceal carry for citizens.

It is my hope that once everything settles down in Illinois and when they actually have a CCW permit system is really in place. We can turn our attention to other states like NJ and and try to get real reform and relief for gun owners there as well as other states. Why do I keep mentioning NJ when the subject is on Illinois CCW?

I keep mentioning NJ a lot because it has been my main study on gun control laws. NJ's FID card scheme spawned Illinois in 1968 and Massachusetts later on to institute their card schemes as well. You see, NJ has historically been the birthplace of NATIONAL BAD GUN LEGISLATION like the "Lautenberg Amendment" and the "Hughes Amendment" (Hughes was from NJ) as well as NJ Attorney General Arthur Sills who was the architect of the 1966 FID law...also helped Dodd with drafting the 1968 Gun Control Act!

This means people you never elected and people you never had the chance to help defeat.... In another state hundreds or thousands miles away from your state affected YOUR gun rights. Because some of us live in so called 'free states' don't think that your state is safe. Look what happened in Colorado.


As far as training, I find this interesting. Here in Kentucky (as well as other states). You can already open carry with no permit, no training, no permission. But for some reason, the minute that firearm is covered with a piece of cloth. It is considered concealed and then it requires a $90 training course , background checks, fees and weeks waiting for a permit. Why? Really, what is the difference other than the firearm is covered by a piece of cloth? It still is the same firearm, nothing has changed. A piece of cloth requires training to operate a pistol?

Good Luck Illinois.

NJ FID card is only needed for purchasing long arms and ammo (a separate permit to purchase is needed for pistols). Illinois requires the FOID in order to possess any kind of firearms. NJ FID card is not required for possession.


Not "exactly" right... (I lived in NJ for 50 years as a firearms enthusiast, so it's first hand).

The NJ FID is a prerequisite to even apply for a handgun purchase permit. So you could say that the FID is required to purchase a handgun. It's just one more step. So for long arms you need a NJ FID, and for handguns you need to have the FID in a roundabout way, since you cannot get a handgun purchase permit without it.

You CAN move into the state and bring your long arms and handguns with you, but you cannot transport them "once you are a resident" without the card, so... it's a catch 22.

You need a NJ FID to posess any firearm outside of your own home. You can legally posess in your house without, but... how did you get it there? You cannot transport without the FID. Nor can you purchase or otherwise obtain unless thru inheritance. I guess if you inherit Pops shotgun as well as his house and you never move it out, you are OK without the ID.

And you are dead on with NJ leading the charge towards bad gun laws. It's the birthplace of oppression for 2A rights.


Willie (delighted to be gone)

.

All this grumbling about minutia. There is a CCW law in Illinois now. Its not fair, its not ideal, its not <name your complaint>.

Let me say again. There is a CCW law in Illinois now.

That's more of a fantasy tale than Jake & Elwood Blues being chased by 500 cop cars and the National Guard as they try and pay the tax assessment on a nunnery.
The fact that the official reaction to an attempt to follow the law in Cook County now appears to be identical to the reaction in a movie is sad, but life became an Onion article some years ago and no one else seems to have noticed.

Have you noticed that Illinois has a CCW law now?

Illinois is the state that made sure its people were disarmed from the beginning by subjecting RKBA to the police power, in effect from the constitutional convention Chicago was two faced and intent on keeping the peons subservient to the minions of Mordor on Lake Michigan. Yet there is a CCW law in Illinois now.

Illinois is the State where a self admitted domestic terrorist was not only protected but promoted into the highest level of academia. A ruling class that does such things does not want the serfs to be armed. Yet there is a CCW law in Illinois now.

Illinois is the state where the mafia not only intimidated the police and the politicians, but actually took over, placing their people into 'elected' positions. Criminals dread armed honest citizens. Yet there is a CCW law Illinois now.

Illinois is the state where people are surprised if a Governor doesn't end up in prison for selling the his office. Corrupt politicians fear an armed citizenry, because they have genetic memory of tar, feathers and riding a rail, from times when the people held the monopoly on the use of force instead of a hand select praetorian guard. Yet there is a CCW law in Illinois now.

For those who are not happy, not satisfied, instead of grumbling like the splitters of the Judean Peoples Front vs the Peoples Front of Judea, take heed of Winston Churchill's words and support the next attempt at increasing liberty:

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

^^

Could not have said it better myself. Well done.


Willie

.

Yes, well said, but...

Our strength as gunowners stems from a grass-roots discontent that The Powers That Be are responsible for the safety of our communities, and sorely lacking in execution of that duty and obligation.

I fear a complacent, content gun-owner MORE than I fear a despot in office. A despot only has to be in the right place, at the right time, with the right message ONCE while we are asleep, to steal our momentum back from us (e.g. New York - surprise AWB).

No.

Keep the gun owners in this state riled up. DO NOT SETTLE FOR WHAT WE HAVE.

Now is not the time to sit back and say "ooh good enough".

Not even close.

NOW is the time to be OUTRAGED that they have the AUDACITY to restrict our rights and ability to protect our families. NOW is the time to demand restrictions be removed on where we can carry. NOW is the time to demand that the exorbitant fee be lowered so poor people can carry, and not just the middle class. NOW is the time to demand this ridiculous 16 hour training be lowered to a reasonable level, or eliminated altogether.

For those of you wanting to sit back and say "good enough", you disgust me. It is NOT good enough.

If you think that way, if you allow our ranks to "settle down", if you allow this tidal wave of activism we've built to break and dispel, WE WILL LOSE the battle in the end. They'll chip away at this law over the coming years piece by piece until it looks more like NYC.

No, no, and no... stay angry, motivated, and active.

Trent said:

For those of you wanting to sit back and say "good enough", you disgust me. It is NOT good enough.

If you think that way, if you allow our ranks to "settle down", if you allow this tidal wave of activism we've built to break and dispel, WE WILL LOSE the battle in the end. They'll chip away at this law over the coming years piece by piece until it looks more like NYC.

Click to expand...

Yes, I thought I read that the IL anti-gunners originally wanted to compromise with a NY State CCW law where only some counties would issue carry permits and those permits would not be valid in Cook County/Chicago.

Trent has summed up my feelings on this matter.

Nothing has changed until the first citizen of Illinois gets their hands on an actual CHL. Getting excited about anything that happens prior to that, or resting on your laurels until then, is giving the enemy time, and freedom of movement, to continue their efforts to willfuly obstruct the process. There are still many barriers, both monetary and administrative that exist. Certainly none of them in current form encourage the citizens of Illinois to get a CHL.

Illinois has passed a law saying they will eventually issue CHLs. It's a start, if you recognize it's just that; a beginning. They only did so because they were forced to do so, and included in it was a litany of restrictions. It wasn't passed because they felt they were doing a service to the people of the state, recognizing the oaths of office they took, or because the Constitution compelled them to do so.

These are no longer people you can trust to do what's in the best interest of the people of Illinois. Therefore, they should continue to be closely watched and supervised / kept on a short leash.

Trust...but VERIFY. The status quo is still in full force in the state of Illinois.

Willie Sutton said:

^^

Has anyone really contemplated the real-world logistics of dealing with the 300,000 applications expected year 1?

I guess they could wave a magic wand... Or more probably build a procedure, staff the positions needed, and design the process. Anyone dealing with business analysis can tell you it's a big job. Although we want it overnight, that's *really* not realistic.


Willie

.

Click to expand...

I get what youre saying...BUT.....


IL has politicians that don't want it and are dragging the feet and knuckles.

The flip side, CA has politicians that wanted gay marriage and when the Supreme Court overruled the CA ban, CA ignored the 24 day appeal period, opened the flood gates, and the Mayor of LA personally married people a couple days later (had to have time to get the media ready to make the most of it


While CA already had a system in place, its a glaring example of the actions of politicians after a court ruling are based on their desires rather than the ruling.

And anyone dealing with business analysis knows it shouldn't take 9 month to write a procedure and accept 300k applications.

^^ There was not an entire clerical procedure to invent from scratch, including approval of training courses, procedures for conducting and collating criminal backgrouind checks, the need to create forms and writtten procedures, and all of the other seeming simple but in reality complex procedures needed to administer a new program.

Imagine how complex motor vehicle license issuance is, from an administrative standpoint, and tell me that a system could be in place overnight. Now add the need to do background checks, and tell me how long it would take to simply write the procedures down in a cogent way, as an administrative document. The fact is that governments work according to procedures, and the procedure for this is has not even been established. It's a huge job... I bet that new people will need to be hired, trained, and all of that as well. Wishing for it to magically "be done" overnight is simply not realistic.

I want my permit tomorrow too... but I expect I'll actually get it sometime in 2014. That's just how it is. It's a LOT sooner than my friends in NJ will get theirs...

The difference between theory and reality is that in theory they are the same, but in reality they are different. There's no magic "invoke new procedure" button to push. It's going to take a lot of work to get the system running. You try dealing with 300,000 pieces of paper *all at once*. Let me know how you do...


Willie


.

It wasn't passed because they felt they were doing a service to the people of the state, recognizing the oaths of office they took, or because the Constitution compelled them to do so.



Actually, the VAST majority of Illinois legislators support the measure wholheartedly, and the process to get this passed failed by only the slightest margin a few years back in "the last try". Just because a FEW folks from Cook County (including the Governer) were/are buffoonish does not indict the entire state government. Many (most) police departments are fine with it. Many (most) Sherriffs are fine with it. We won (by a HUGE margin of legislative votes), and they lost. Be happy.


Willie

.

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.