Quantcast

IL CC Permit applications approved - it's starting

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by stargeezer, Jan 20, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    It's pretty easy to pass this test.
    At 5 yards (15 feet), can you hit 100% of the 10? I sure hope so. At that distance everyone should be able to make sure that each bullet makes a separate hole.
    At 7 yards (21 feet) can you do the same?
    At 10 yards (30 feet) can you make at least 1 of the 10 hit inside the rings?

    If someone can't make this happen, they need real help.

    Having said that, they should change the law to allow someone to hit everything at 7 yards, and that be that. Also allow for a maximum of 30 rounds and a minimum of 21, so someone with experience can just put 21 in there and be done. Plus, why should a person has be shooting a live target beyond that 7 yard distance?
     
  2. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    Well, I was right there with you until that line.

    If I'm being shot at by someone 25 yards away, I'm going to return fire. *I* know I can hit at that distance very reliably.

    I don't understand when people impose arbitrary, imaginary limits on things like this. If you are getting shot at, are you going to get out a yard stick and make sure that they're within 7 yards?
     
  3. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
  4. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    I guess the 21 foot thing, which many of the shooting standards for permits is based on, has to do with the studies about distances and threats. Someone proved that you can't stop someone from getting to you if your gun isn't out and ready to fire if the threat is rushing you from within 21 feet.
    Beyond 21 feet, you have a little more time to decide what the proper course of action is. (theoretically)
    It starts to to look bad (to the jury) when firing at a person if they are outside the immediate threat ring.

    And while you can hit at 25 reliably, is that when you are cool and calm or freaking because someone is shooting at you? I ask because the cops don't have a very good scoring record when the real SHTF. And they are "supposedly" good at it.
     
  5. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    27,087
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    C0unZer0 said;
    My take on this whole thing is that the ISRA thinks that this is their law. It's not their job to clarify it, it's not their job to administer it (I didn't see any mention of the ISRA having any enforcement authority in the text of the law). Pearson's last few weekly updates, the headline article in the last issue of the Illinois Shooter have me convinced that winning the fight to allow people to pay the state $150.00 to have permission to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle has really gone to his head.
     
  6. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    The old "21 foot rule" is designed to make people think about how far a person can be and still close to attack with a hand-held weapon, or unarmed, before you can draw and fire. (Hint; if you practice, you can usually still draw and hit them before they get to you, if you fire from retention)

    The point of the 21 foot rule is just because someone is far away, don't drop your guard, or think they aren't an imminent threat.

    You are somehow twisting that and reversing it to mean that anyone outside of 21 foot isn't a threat, and there's no legal justification to engage them with deadly force.

    If someone is running directly at me from 60 or 70 feet away, with a baseball bat or knife, clearly intending on attacking me, I'm going to SHOOT them. I can't run away (motorcycle crash injury). Even when I *could* run, I was not especially FAST at it. Getting away from someone younger and healthier than myself just isn't going to happen.

    The point here, is the situation determines whether or not lethal force is justified. If the person attacking you is using lethal force (regardless of distance), then lethal force is justified.

    Having actually faced an attacker with a knife before, when I was unarmed,I know how I respond to lethal force threats. And yes, I stayed cool and collected when it happened. I shook a little afterwards from adrenaline. But during the event? Picked my target, strike, strike again, and done. They were unconscious missing teeth, I took control of the blade, and that was that.

    TRAINING is what makes the difference. Muscle memory built up over nearly three decades of martial arts training had my body moving on autopilot; I felt like a spectator.

    This is why we train. So you CAN make those shots when you need to, and have the confidence to do so.

    (EDIT/afterthought; WildBill, I'm not trying to lecture you or argue; I'm just trying to dispel an incorrect preconceived notion about threats. People outside of 21 feet can DEFINITELY threaten you with lethal force, so don't drop your guard, buddy! If you have other options - by all means, run, evade, escape, get away. The only SURE way you have of surviving a lethal force encounter is not to be involved in one. But if you suddenly find yourself under direct attack RESPOND WITH LIKE FORCE; force vs. force, lethal force vs. lethal force.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2014
  7. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    Precisely. Pearson *had* a big ego to start with, this just made it even worse. He seems to think he's the messiah of gun rights in Illinois.

    I seem to remember it was the Second Amendment foundation that worked the magic in court?

    Or am I mis-remembering things?
     
  8. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    People consistently underestimate the distances that an attacker may very reasonably be attacking from; some thoughts on the subject here.


    Larry
     
  9. stargeezer

    stargeezer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    94
    Location:
    Illinois
    I shoot at a 100yd target with my 1911 every time I carry it to the range. With fair results. Why, because I can't run and my wheelchair is not fast. I also shoot it at 50 and 25 yds because you never know where a BG will be. IL refuses to let us carry a rifle, so I train with my 1911 like it was a rifle.

    The day I can mount a SBR on my wheelchair, I'll relax a bit.
     
  10. Comrade Mike

    Comrade Mike Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    997
    If only us regular people could see the police training video about interaction with CCW holders. It would be nice to know what to expect and be a gesture of good faith I think.

    Kind of a "hey here's what to expect so we understand each other"
     
  11. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    I can understand why you could consider someone more than 21 feet away to be a threat. I mean a deadly threat.
    I just feel that, with limited reasons for, things will tend to work against you if you drop someone coming at you and the body is laying there on the ground if they are not inside the ring. I agree that there is a distance from where you simply can't justify, and the ability to justify becomes easier and easier as the target gets closer and closer.
    But the farther the target is from you, the harder it is to hit it. I firmly believe the accuracy of the shots will drop dramatically as the fear factor rises.
    Between those 2 factors, this is why I asked why.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
  12. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    Wildbill;

    The litmus test in Illinois that matters is;

    * Is there an imminent threat with a level of force that could cause serious bodily injury or death?

    Or

    * Are you acting to stop a forcible felony?

    While it's obvious that a weapon immediately ramps up things to this level; it is also possible that due to disparity of force, lethal force would be still be justified. If an 80 year old woman is being rushed by a group of gangbangers, even if they are unarmed, it is quite likely that a single blow could seriously injure the woman or cause death.

    This is an extreme example of "reasonable man" and "disparity of force". The distance of the attackers doesn't really matter if you are in "imminent threat".

    These are all moving targets. What is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury on me, may not be the same for you, or my 14 year old daughter. (I can fend off an unarmed attack just fine, from someone roughly my size; but my daughter isn't going to be able to defend against a 200 pound male aggressor without risk of serious bodily injury or death.)

    Can the distance come in to play? Sure! It's going to be one of many factors that are presented to the jury, when they determine if the homicide you committed was justified. If you shoot someone in the back from 50 yards away, you're going to fail the first of the two litmus tests; you weren't under imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

    But if that person was in the process of committing a forcible felony? Were they actively shooting at someone else? Well, that's the other fork in the road that is used to determine justification.

    And this is where things get real interesting. If you intercede on behalf of someone else, you lose the right to the first litmus test for yourself; and now it becomes the mindset of who you were protecting that matters to the jury. Were they in fear of serious bodily injury or death? Your future largely depends on their answer when they are called to testify.

    There's thousands of scenarios we could play, where distance to the target would be largely irrelevant. And there's thousands we could play where it could be the deciding factor. It depends on the sum total of all of the factors, and how those are presented to the jury by the defense attorney you hire (because the prosecution, if you are charged, will be doing everything they can to paint you in a bad light... such is the truth of our adversarial law system).

    It's important to have as clear of a picture as possible of these murky waters, because if the time ever comes to choose shoot/no-shoot, you may only have a split second to make the decision. The jury will have weeks, or months, to rehash it with perfect 20/20 hindsight. Obviously the best case (for your defense) is if you are under imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. But that's not the only situation you may find yourself in.

    I didn't really want to derail this thread with lethal force doctrine in Illinois, but it's important to get some of the basics out there, since we branched off subject.

    Let's try to get back on topic a little.

    Last I heard, we're now looking at mid-march for the first permits to be issued!

    Is anyone surprised? (Truthfully, I expected they would take the full 90 days and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, but .. doesn't look like that is going to happen.)
     
  13. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,763
    Location:
    Illinois
    one would hope that the legislative drubbing we took this time around will lead to learning and ultimately to some changes in how the problem is attacked as we go forward.

    but to date, I have seen no evidence of any learning by those involved.

    the other day it was suggested on another forum that it could be a good idea to install lockers in courthouses for licensees to use. I pointed out it would be illegal to use them. The suggestion from one of our leaders was that the county board could just order the cops not to enforce that provision of the law and thus the problem would be solved.

    some are still convinced that because during the process of the legislative debate that one of the legislators was claimed to have stated it was Ok to carry an unloaded and encased gun on the CTA that his statement constitutes "legislative intent" and thus it is legal to do so, despite the fact that the law that was actually passed does not allow for it,and the language of the actual law specifically forbids doing so.

    just this morning a poster on another forum claimed that what the forum leaders and the NRA is claiming about the law is what matters, and not what the law actually says.

    there seem to be at least some people who actually believe this kind of nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
  14. wildbilll

    wildbilll Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    L5
    It will be interesting to see if they try to time it out so it's really 90 days or if they go ahead and issue before that date. It would be a shame if they let things sit idle just to make it take that long.

    You would think that by the time the initial 30 days were over, some of these early applicants would have their checks completed by then and it would move quickly to the generation of a card.

    For me, 30 days is Feb 4, 2014. If I did my math right. I did not submit prints. If it goes all the way to May 5, 2014 I will be surprised but I'll survive somehow. And I should probably factor in a few days for the USPS.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
  15. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    Well, I think everyone got their hopes up (artificially), as it appeared for all intents and purposes that the Illinois State Police were right on top of the ball.

    But during JCAR it was made clear that several things are "out there pending" and will definitely go over the mark on those. Paper applications for people who don't have internet, pushed to mid-summer. Out of state non resident permits... probably going to take a lawsuit.

    I have a few people in Wisconsin that have been asking about driving down to take my class, but I'm cautioning them not to until we've got some clarification on it. You can't even get through the application process for out of state ID unless you are in Hawaii, from what I've heard. (I haven't verified this myself, so that's second hand information; can't make another 'digital id' to start the app process over again).

    I don't understand this; if your state doesn't qualify you directly, you should STILL be able to come to IL, take a class from an IL instructor, and get a damn permit! At that point you've met the training requirements, period, no if's, and's, or but's...
     
  16. sig228

    sig228 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    975
    Location:
    South Florida
    I know, useless post / reply, but you inquired!!

    12256179983_07c403e0f3_z.png
     
  17. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,763
    Location:
    Illinois
    nacho station should be last.

    you do not want to be walking around the store with melted cheese all over your cover garment.
     
  18. UpperAtmosphere

    UpperAtmosphere Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    Central IL
    I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see it pushed out until close to 120 days. I'm in the same boat - I applied January 5th, didn't submit my prints.

    We didn't jump through all the hoops they wanted, so I don't expect to see it any early.

    If it gets here before that, fantastic!
     
  19. GT1

    GT1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    IL
    Yeah, my birthday is in early May. If I get my CCL any time around there I'll be happy, I guess. I'm a couple weeks behind the early instructor applicants.

    Mr. Pearson is the reason I refuse to renew my ISRA membership. I won't give them a dime as long as that buffoon is the mouth of that organization. In an email several months ago he as much as stated anyone not buying a membership was freeloading on their hard work.

    It will be a very cold day...
     
  20. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Illinois
    Just for the record, I want all law-abiding Illinois citizens to have their right to self-defense restored to them, and at no cost - no one should have to pay to exercise a fundamental right.

    But having said that I am going to be pissed if non-instructors who didn't submit fingerprints get their license the same time as me.

    Because they're gonna say:

    Ahhh ! I told ya so I told ya so !
     
  21. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,763
    Location:
    Illinois
    I have been a member of the ISRA several times over the years.

    I let my membership lapse after various fiascoes (remember the range fisaco) they have been involved in.

    But the last time I let it lapse it was after I asked a board member if I could get a copy of the bylaws of the organization. I did not hear from him for some time so I emailed him and asked about it. He said the president of the ISRA had denied my request for a copy. Why would I want to be a member of an organization that operates like that?

    I have never heard him speak but I have read several Internet comments that suggest his speeches on gun issues have strayed into some tin foil hat areas.
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2014
  22. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    I can personally vouch for that. At iGold 2013 he went on and on about APC's and the department of homeland security buying billions of rounds of ammunition, up on stage, in front of everyone. Very fortunate the news cameras didn't grab some sound bites of it. They'd have cast the whole lot of us in to a very bad light.

    I'm not saying that there isn't some stuff there that citizens shouldn't be concerned about. BUT.. the point of the rally was to protest for concealed carry. Going off topic on Federal issues, serves no interests to that end.
     
  23. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,889
    Location:
    Illinois
    Last year's IGOLD was after the win in Moore v Madigan. We were on the cusp of regaining the constitutional rights that we had been denied for decades. it was a momentous occasion. I expected speeches that talked about the long history of the struggle and how far we'd come. I expected speeches vowing to fight AG Madigan's stall tactics and Speaker Madigan's corrupt hold on the Illinois House.

    All of a sudden he's talking about drones and APCs and the government buying up ammo.

    I was a little stunned.

    My thought at the time, was a speaker who was slated to give a speech dropped out or something and he was just up there winging it. Or maybe a scheduled speaker was running late and he was up there filling in until the speaker arrived...
     
  24. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,763
    Location:
    Illinois
    There is not a small amount of delusional thinking going on.

    There are still people that think we won some great legislative victory.

    What really happened was closer to Madigan taking pity on the amateurs and throwing us a few bones. He could have done anything he wanted to us, but he showed some human decency that I did not know he had in him.
     
  25. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    23,624
    Location:
    Illinois
    I was a little taken aback too. I'd somehow convinced my accountant to come along to Springfield to take part in the iGold rally. He's somewhat liberal, not even a gun owner.

    He's still not a gun owner.

    He's been to the range a couple of times with me, but I still can't help but think that damn APC and Drone speech turned him off the whole gun owner thing, a lot.

    That was his FIRST exposure to the gun rights movement, BTW. We arrived just as Pearson was taking the stage.

    The rest of it went better, from there, but still.. first impressions are important.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice