I re-reviewed HB148 today to refresh my memory on the various conditions and limitations contained in it. What once seemed palatable when it was "better than nothing" and our only hope of concealed carry, now seems ridiculously burdensome and unreasonable.
Here's just a partial list of the problems in the current bill:
* It's limited to handguns only. People should have the right to carry other weapons as well, such as a knife. Doesn't make sense that it should be illegal for a person to choose a less lethal alternative.
* It purports to be a "shall issue" statute, but there are provisions in the bill that seem to convert the "shall issue" nature of the bill into a "may issue." For instance, in Section 20(e), it states that "Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Department may consider any objection or recommendation made by the sheriff and may determine the applicant is ineligible based solely on those objections." In other words, even if an applicant satisfies all of the statutory prerequisites, the application can still be denied if their local sheriff objects.
* I don't like the co-existance of FOID and a concealed carry bill, because they are largely duplicative. You go through the whole background check and application process to get a FOID card, and then you have to be put through the same wringer again to get a CC license. The entire gun scheme in Illinois needs to be harmonized. In my own opinion, having a FOID card should be completely sufficient to be allowed to carry. But that probably isn't going to happen, so instead, how about having FOID cards that indicate somewhere on the card whether the holder is allowed to concealed carry in public.
* Cut out the whole Sheriff layer of the application process. The FOID application process takes way too long with just the State Police to deal with. Adding in the Sheriff's office will only further delay the process and it is completely unnecessary and drives up the cost and administrative hassle.
* The $100 application fee is way too high. It should cost $10 at most. The right to carry is a fundamental, constitutional right -- not simply a privilege like a driver's license. Similarly, a $50 renewal fee is ridiculous.
* The license only lasts 5 years. Why does a FOID card last 10 years but a CC license only lasts 5 years? Makes no sense. Should last for 10 years at least, especially if there are going to be excessive fees.
* One of the requirements for getting the license is that the applicant not have a misdemeanor in the past 10 years involving the use, possession or distribution of a controlled substance or cannabis. This goes too far. A simple possession of pot misdemeanor should not disqualify a person from holding a license for the next 10 years.
* The bill requires an applicant to sign a "waiver of privacy and confidentiality rights and privileges enjoyed by the applicant under all federal and State laws, including those governing access to juvenile court, criminal justice, psychological or psychiatric records, or records relating to the applicant's history of institutionalization, and an affirmative request that any person having custody of any such record provide it or information concerning it to the Department." This is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to sign away your constitutional right to privacy to excercise a different constitutional right.
* Have to submit a full set of fingerprints with the application. Of course, this increases the cost of application by up to another $25 on top of the $100 fee and whatever it costs for the training and education classes.
* The Department has to establish a searchable database available to a whole host of people containing just about every private piece of information existing about every applicant, including everything contained in the applications. This is totally overboard. At most, the Department should be allowed to keep a list of current license holders, and if local law enforcement or a judge wants to know if a person is licensed they should submit a request for that information with justification for why they need to know. This is another example of the State trying to get people to give up all their privacy rights in exchange for the right to carry. No way.
* A license holder is required to report a change of address within 30 days and must report a lost or stolen license within 30 days.
* Speaking of change of address, if a license holder changes their address, they have to pay another $25 fee and issue all sorts of new information including a new photograph just to get a new card with the new address on it.
* If the license is lost or stolen, a person has to get a police report in order to get a new license.
* The list of places where you can't carry is way too broad.
* You cannot carry in "any establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises if less than 50% of its annual gross income comes from the sale of food." How the hell is a person supposed to know the annual gross incomes of an establishment? There are tons of bars/restaurants where patrons won't be able to figure this out. The prohibited locations are supposed to put up a sign saying that guns aren't allowed, but if they fail to put up the sign, it doesn't excuse you from breaking the law by carrying a gun in that location.
* The bill requires a license holder to "immediately disclose" to a police officer if they are carrying a firearm. Failure to do this is a Class B Misdemeanor. I don't mind the separate provision that requires license holders to inform police officers when asked, but an "immediate disclosure" law is just a trap to ensare innocent victims. It seems to me that such immediate disclosure would simply spook an officer. If an officer stopped a car for a simple speeding ticket and the officer approached the driver who immediately shouts, "I've got a gun!" that would be unsettling.
* The training/education requirements are too excessive.
So, if our legislators want to pass HB148 they need to do a ton of editing.
Edit: Just saw the more recent posts about the FOID card playing the role of a concealed carry license. This is exactly right. FOID card holders have already been screened as responsible citizens permitted to own guns, so what's the big deal about letting those same citizens walk out their front door now?
