Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Illinois Concealed Carry Bill (proposed by the dark side)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Phatty, Feb 15, 2013.

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

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    As most everyone knows, the federal appellate court has put Illinois on the clock for implementing a concealed carry bill, so even most anti-gun folks in Illinois know it is inevitable. The anti-gun crowd in Illinois can't just sit back and play defense this go around, because something needs to get passed.

    Well, today Illinois Senator Antonio Muñoz (D-Chicago) filed a proposed concealed carry bill with a bit of an anti-gun slant. Basically, it permits concealed carry for those with a particularized need (like New York) and then tosses in every wish list item that the anti-gun crowd has wanted in Illinois for years.

    Here is the official summary for those that don't want to put themselves through the torture of reading the whole bill:
    This will give you an idea of what the anti-gun folks have in mind for satisfying the federal court's mandate permitting concealed carry.
     
  2. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    Yeah, screw that noise. Not giving up other rights to "gain" another.
     
  3. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    Yup! That's generally correct.
     
  4. tomrkba

    tomrkba Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,952
    Why do people think that a concealed carry permit system means a state is honoring the right to keep and bear arms?
     
  5. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    Good question? I don't really know how to answer that.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2013
  6. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    california
    This is "May Issue" where "may" will be defined as likely not.
     
  7. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    Yep. I mean, for what other reason would someone want to conceal carry? Self defense, right? The lack of logic of "May-issue" systems boggles my mind. But then I realize nothing about anti-gun legislature is about logic.
     
  8. Autolycus

    Autolycus Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,456
    Location:
    In the land of make believe.
    I don't think this will actually pass in Illinois. Having grown up there I know the pain it is to be a gunowner there but I do believe it is changing. The ISRA has a strong position and can simply not back anybody who votes for this and votes against a better bill.
     
  9. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    I doubt this would pass either, but I don't assume anything here.
     
  10. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,193
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    This may pass in Illinios, but it won't go unchallenged. And there is evidence that such wording may fail if challenged in higher courts.

    US District Court Judge Legg had this to say about the very subject of "particularized need", as it's worded in this bill:

    “If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.

    (Memorandum, Civil Case No. L-10-2068, Raymond Wollard v. Terrence Sheridan, Maryland’s handgun regulation statute, dated 3/2/2012.)


    In other words, a citizen does not have to JUSTIFY why he should be able to do something that is granted to him as a fundamental right by the U.S. Constitution.
     
  11. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    If necessary, it looks like the pro-gun forces will just sit on the ball until the deadline passes and Illinois has semi-Constitutional carry (with an FOID).
     
  12. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    398
    Location:
    West Chicago, IL
    ^ This.
     
  13. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,007
    Location:
    Illinois
    Earlier this month when we were asking for sponsors for HB 0997 and SB-1284, some representatives responded by saying things like "We know there are a lot of gun bills out there, and we're not sure which ones we're going to suport yet."

    Which is admission of the fact that the waters have been muddied.

    It's one tactic of the anti-gunners.

    As far as Muñoz goes - you have to remember this bill is coming from a guy who proposed a bill in early January that would have outlawed every Glock and virtually every other semi-auto handgun in Illinois.

    There is an action plan for what to support and what to oppose, it can be found at IllinoisCarry.com:

    http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34600
     
  14. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,414
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    Deanimator said:
    +1,000!!
    That's why I've been hoping the state-level government has as much gridlock as the feds!
     
  15. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,993
    Location:
    Illinois
    Even if that passes the Senate, that'll never pass the house.

    Still, I'll use it as fuel to rile up more folks to attend IGOLD in a couple weeks. :)
     
  16. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    There's no chance that this bill even passes the Senate, at least not in the bill's present form. My point for posting the bill was simply to show the state of mind of the anti-gun legislators in Illinois and their "wishlist" for gun laws. Even though this bill has no chance, don't be surprised if some of the contents of this bill end up in another concealed carry bill as part of a compromise.
     
  17. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,993
    Location:
    Illinois
    Oh I'm sure if the HB997 or the senate version gains much more traction, they're going to be tripping all over themselves to pass hostile amendments to ruin it, and failing that, some last minute Gubernatorial grandstanding with an executive Veto that'd get overruled.

    They won't go quietly in to the night.
     
  18. 627PCFan

    627PCFan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,002
    Location:
    Sterling, VA
    particularized need.

    As soon as Gansler of MD loses the "Good and substantial" part of Maryland permit process I'll can run thus up the legal chain based on Woolard
     
  19. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,839
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    I'm not sure that "and (3) has particularized need" will fly in the 7th Circuit. Posner trashed Kachalsky which upheld the NY carry law.

    It will be interesting to see what the 7th does once Illinois does nothing.
     
  20. F-111 John

    F-111 John Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    974
    Location:
    Holt, MI
    Uh, question from the back of the class: Isn't this alreay illegal in Illinois? Doesn't Illinois already have an FOID system that prohibits possession without an FOID card?
     
  21. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,993
    Location:
    Illinois
    Yeah, the way IL submits modifications to laws for record, if they are modifying a law, the new / modified piece is underlined and bold while the original is stricken out.

    Since they're modifying the FOID statutes the entire original will show up, with only the underlined bold parts being of concern.

    It is different than some states where they just put "replacing the contents of subsection A following the word "years" with the number 7". (e.g. New York; those amended laws are ridiculously hard to decipher and you need a legal textbook sitting next to you to track down everything they're doing.)

    IL law amendments are pretty straightforward and easy to read by comparison.
     
  22. Rob G

    Rob G Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    Location:
    Cypress TX
    I haven't been following this real closely but if I'm not mistaken IL was orderd to allow CC right? So basically the anti-gun folks HAVE to compromise on this one. I say IL gun owners should stick it to them and refuse to compromise on one single thing. Just tell them: "you have to pass a CC bill, we don't have to agree on anything to get you to do it."
     
  23. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,014
    Location:
    Illinois
    They were not ordered to do anything. The court ruled that because there is zero provision to carry that the UUW law was unconstitutional. The court stayed the ruling for 180 days, presumably for the state to have a chance to deal with this issue.

    The state could just do nothing. The result would be basically that there would be no LTC in IL, we still couldn't carry in any practical way (at least legally), and it would have no effect on criminals at all since they can't carry now but do anyway.
     
  24. joatman66

    joatman66 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    It's my understanding from info put out by local state Rep. Brandon Phelps that if IL does not pass CC the state reverts to constitutional carry. Given that, something will pass, it's just a matter of how many hooks the anti-gun faction can get included in the bill.
     
  25. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,014
    Location:
    Illinois
    You understand both right and wrong. The suit only challenged a couple of sections of the UUW act and those were the only sections ruled unconstitutional.

    However, the suit never challenged other sections of IL law, or any provisions of home rule entities that infringe on the 2A. Those provisions would remain in effect including a tptal ban on possessing even unloaded firearms on any land or in any building supported in whole or in part with public funds without written permission. Think anyone will give you that permission?

    The way the law is currently written it is possible that it could include things like TIF zones.

    So you could end up with constitutional carry in very few places that you would want it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page