Limited right-to-carry bill reaches Illinois governor's desk

Status
Not open for further replies.

44Brent

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
398
Location
Illinois
Gun curbs suffer setbacksDownstate, suburban lawmakers outdueling Chicago on issue

By Ray Long and Molly Parker
Tribune staff reporters

March 27, 2004

SPRINGFIELD -- The Illinois Senate Friday approved legislation to allow retired police officers and former military police officers to carry concealed weapons, the latest example of a growing mood against gun control in the legislature despite the Democratic takeover of both chambers.

In addition to the concealed-carry measure, lawmakers in recent days have voted for bills that would lower the age to obtain a gun owner's permit without parental consent and allow a court to override enforcement of municipal handgun bans in cases where weapons are fired in self-defense.

The developments show the National Rifle Association and gun-rights advocates are making inroads around the edges of existing gun laws, critics of the legislation charge.

"I think what they're trying to do is erode what protections we have in place," said House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago).

Rather than attacking the few broad restrictions on weapons sales that are in place, Currie said, gun-rights activists appear to be adopting a "strategy of eating away at the principle that guns are a public health menace" by trying to do away with less-sweeping limits.

But Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist, said the gun-rights group was simply reflecting the will of its members as it pressed for looser gun laws. "We have an obligation to respond to our membership, and our membership wants us to one, protect their rights, and two, fight for their rights," Vandermyde said.

The votes on the gun measures tend to break along regional lines, with Chicago lawmakers opposed to relaxing restrictions and Downstate and many suburban lawmakers largely backing the changes.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich aggressively pushed for tougher gun-control measures when he served as a member of the U.S. House. But that stance caused him problems with Downstate voters in the Democratic governor's primary in 2002, and his advocacy for gun control has been far more muted since he has taken office.

Still, he pledged in a January interview with the Tribune to renew his efforts this spring.

He has yet to push any gun-control legislation of his own, however, and has so far been silent about whether he would approve the relaxation measures if they land on his desk. Aides said he needs more time to review the bills, which have won approval in different forms in the House and Senate.

"The governor hasn't even had a chance to be briefed on these bills," said Cheryle Jackson, Blagojevich's spokeswoman. "The governor has a very strong record in the fight against gun violence, and I'm certain that, should these bills ever reach his desk, he'll act accordingly."

Governor urged to act

Currie urged Blagojevich to show more leadership in fighting measures that roll back gun controls.

The governor said in the January interview that he would enthusiastically support gun-control measures such as ones pushed by Mayor Richard Daley to ban assault weapons and restrict the number of handguns a person could legally buy to one a month.

Movement on major pieces of the Daley package has stalled, and to date Blagojevich has not overtly wielded his influence to push it forward.

Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston), a gun-control advocate, said politicians who have "traditionally stood for tougher gun-control measures, including the governor, need to rethink the existing strategies because the gains that we've made in the past are slipping away. Politically, we're overmatched.

"The NRA has been pumping iron and flexing all week, and we're getting sand kicked in our faces," Schoenberg said. "I don't think we can simply allow this to continue."


On Thursday, the NRA successfully pushed separate bills through the House and Senate that would lower to 18 from 21 the age at which a person may apply for a firearm owner's identification card without a parent's permission.

Vote backs self-defense

Also on Thursday, the Senate approved NRA-backed legislation inspired by a Wilmette man who shot an intruder in his home and then was charged with violating the village's handgun ban. The legislation, similar to a bill that the House has passed, would allow self-defense as a legal argument in such municipal cases.

The NRA took a neutral position on the concealed-carry bill that was passed Friday, not because it didn't like the idea but because the group didn't think the measure went far enough, Vandermyde said. The NRA believes all law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, he said.

The concealed-carry bill would authorize the Illinois State Police to issue concealed weapon permits to retired local, state and federal police officers as well as former members of the military police. To qualify for the permits, the retirees would also have to have at least 10 years' experience at their former law-enforcement positions as well as hold valid firearm-owner's cards, supporters said.

The legislation, if it were to become law, would also require that an applicant have graduated from a police academy or training institute.

The measure is sponsored by Sen. Ed Petka (R-Plainfield), a former Will County state's attorney. In debate Friday, he said retired police and MPs should be allowed to carry concealed weapons as a protection against retribution from someone they may have once confronted on the job.

"The individuals who would be asking for this permit are individuals who we've already given the honor and the trust in protecting us in society, not only domestically, but also perhaps foreign," Petka said.

The Senate this week did pass two minor pieces of Daley-backed gun legislation that would stiffen penalties against people who use guns to commit crimes. But more-controversial gun initiatives backed by the mayor are not moving.

Sen. Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), a gun-control advocate, warned that people are becoming too "laid back about violence."

But Rep. Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro) said Downstate residents grow up around guns and so have learned to deal with them responsibly.

"We don't have the fear of them," Bost said. "The only time someone in an inner city sees a gun, either a police officer is carrying it or it's being used in a crime."

The measure was passed 40-12, with most opposition coming from Chicago-area Democrats. One who backed the measure, however, was State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago), the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.

Obama, a liberal who is trying to broaden his appeal to Downstate voters for the Senate race, said he voted for the bill because law-enforcement officers may be "more vulnerable and need protection" and because they're experienced and trained in handling firearms.

"I don't think anybody thought that this was going to be somehow opening the door to the Wild West," Obama said.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
 
My Analysis

The bill to allow retired cops to carry is a positive development for the following reasons:
  1. It effectively reverses the underlying assumption of Illinois law that private citizens should not be able to use a handgun to protect themselves from criminals. If the bill is signed, the debate will then be focused to which classes of private citizens should have the right to protect themselves from criminals.
  2. The bill has a sunset clause that limits the lifetime of the law to 2010. For the next six politicians will get to listen to complaints from citizens about the privileged status of retired police officers.
  3. Retired police officers are not going to let their rights disappear in 2010. They are going to be raising cane with the legislature to make sure that the bill gets renewed.
  4. The bill creates a bureaucracy for issuing the licenses. By nature, bureaucracies tend to grow larger because bureaucratic administrators like to build their own little empires. Furthermore, a way to increase the budget and size of this bureaucracy will to expand the pool of qualified licensees.[/list=1] Now consider the pressures that the legislators will be experiencing down the road. They will be getting pressure from retired cops to not let the program expire. The will be getting pressure from gun rights activists to expand the program. And, the bureaucratic administrators will probably endorse the idea of expanding the program, in exchange for receiving a bigger budget, and authorization to hire more workers.

    How does this bill affect Governor Blagojevich? I suspect that he is pretty unhappy about having this thing delivered to his desk. He knows that if he vetoes it, that the NRA will beat him over the head with it when he comes of for re-election. The NRA will have a ready-made campaign sound bite of something like "Governor Blagojevich wants to take away guns from cops". He also knows that if he signs the bill, that the anti-gun nuts in Chicago are going to be pissed off at him. He also knows that the camel will have gotten his nose under the tent. In short, Blagojevich is screwed no matter what he does.

    Here's what I recommend gun owners do:
    1. Contact Governor Blagojevich and tell him to sign the bill (SB2188) .
    2. When the bill becomes law, contact your representative and senator in the Illinois legislature that you aren't happy about retired cops receiving special treatment, and DEMAND that they pass a right-to-carry bill that doesn't discriminate against private citizens who have not work in law enforcement.
      [/list=1]
 
I must respectfully disagree with 44Brent.

I understand his premise to be that by making inroads for LEOs, it paves the way for the civilians.

NJ has had a similiar law allowing a separate class of "shall issue" carry permits for retired officers for many years. (Carry permits for Joe & Jane Normal are "May Issue")

This has proven to be of absolutely ZERO benefit to Joe & Jane Normal.

If things follow the NJ pattern, and they most likely will:

1 It effectively reverses the underlying assumption of Illinois law that private citizens should not be able to use a handgun to protect themselves from criminals. If the bill is signed, the debate will then be focused to which classes of private citizens should have the right to protect themselves from criminals.

I'm sorry. What will happen is that retired LEOs will still be considered LEOs in the public imagination, and there will be no rub off effect on the citizens. If anything, this will be a step towards institutionalizing the privileges of being a LEO.


Points 2 & 3 are related to the sunset clause. While this will renew the debate, it won't have any relevance to civilians.


The bill creates a bureaucracy for issuing the licenses. By nature, bureaucracies tend to grow larger because bureaucratic administrators like to build their own little empires. Furthermore, a way to increase the budget and size of this bureaucracy will to expand the pool of qualified licensees.

This hasn't proven to be useful at all. The issuing authority in NJ is the cops, acting on court orders for civvies, (county Judges determine "need", and they are of remarkably consistent and uniform opinion that normal citizens don't "need" a carry permit) and cops acting for retired cops.


The bottom line, IMHO, is that at best, these sorts of laws are of no benefit as a step towards carry permit reform, and at worst, "buy off" the police unions and associations by granting special exemptions and privileges, thus institutionalizing and cementing the wedge between citizen and LEO in the process.

Even if you choose to interpret the "wedge" issue softly, as might be reasonable, you still have to acknowledge that with their end already cared for, a significant motive for LEO support for permit reforms are eliminated.



BTW:
-----------------------
Some basic NJ stats, for folks who haven't heard them:

Population: 8.3 million
Estimated Gunowner % (According to Lott) 12-14%
Estimated Gunowners: 1.2 million

"Shall Issue" Retired LEO Permits: 1500 (ish)
"May Issue" Civilian Permits: 650 (ish)
 
When did they change it to retired MPs?

The orginal bill I saw was retired military from any branch. Geekwitha45, I have to disagree, by putting retired military in the mix, the author has expanded the base of people eligable to get a permit. I think it's a big first step for Illinois.

Jeff
 
Quote
Sen. Iris Martinez (D-Chicago), a gun-control advocate, warned that people are becoming too "laid back about violence." Quote

That is a real swift statement coming from the murder capitol.
 
Jeff,

I certainly must acknowledge that this is _A_ step, and _A_ step is better than _NONE_.

But what I'm trying to articulate is that the history in NJ suggests it doesn't _necessarilly_ lead anywhere further, and I'm skeptical that the criterion is former service to the state.

I'm also please to see that retired .mil is included, but I'm willing to bet a dollar that it doesn't mean the guy who did a stint or two and was honorably discharged, I'll bet it means the 20 year full ride kind of guys.

There are a LOT of people who have done a term of service or two, but comparitively few who have made a full career of the military.

My contention is that in places like IL and NJ, the public doesn't question the existence of an armed elite, and extending membership in that armed elite to its retired members does not change THE SHAPE of the issue in the public's mind.

The public still has this equation:
service to state = presumed trustworthy
otherwise = presumed not trustworthy

--------------
Here's my knowledge gap, an honest non-rhetorical question:

Of the states that have enacted permit reform, how many were preceded by a law like this? Can anyone show examples where this sort of thing ultimately lead to general reforms?

It may well be the case, and I'd like to study some examples. One of the significant things missing from our RKBA history are the "war stories" behind the reforms in each state, and the collected experience/knowledge/wisdom there.
 
Interview with the bill's sponsor

http://www.illinoisleader.com/spotlight/spotlightview.asp?c=12318

IN THE SPOTLIGHT -- In Part 1 of this 2-part interview, Senator Ed Petka (R-Plainfield) spoke about his new role as Deputy Republican Leader in the Illinois Senate, his disappointments with former Governor George Ryan and the death penalty controversy. Today, Senator Petka talks about legislation he is promoting in the General Assembly that will promote gun owners' rights to self defense.

A public meeting will be held on February 21, 2004, at the LakeView Center in Wilmette's Gillison Park at 6:00 PM. Senator Petka will be presenting, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association's Richard Pearson and Illinois Leader.com's President and co-founder Dan Proft. The public is invited to attend.

IllinoisLeader.com's conversation with Senator Petka resumes with Part 2. . .

IL: What are you currently focused on legislatively?

PETKA: Right now, I'm involved with a very, very hot button issue dealing with unfortunate situation in Wilmette where a homeowner was forced to defend himself in his own home. The village of Wilmette said he should not have ended up being charged with having a firearm in his home when it was obviously used to defend himself and his family from an intruder.

An intruder was there for the second straight night. I'm going up to Wilmette next week. I filed Senate Bill 2165, which says that an individual who uses a firearm in self defense in his home has an affirmative defense to charge he unlawfully possessed the firearm in his home. It may create considerable controversy and because of the controversial nature, I'm happy our message is getting out.

This is by and large the position of almost every Republican in the Senate, if not all, and the gun control the gun grabbers of Richie Daley are really on the fence with this one. It again gives us an opportunity to illustrate the difference between radical ideas and our common sense approach to government.

IL: This will take place on the 21st, I believe?

PETKA: Yes.

IL: This is a constitutional issue. It's one area where the law can be preserved and upheld -- our readers are very interested in that.

PETKA: This issue, again, demonstrates the enormous divide between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats and the testimony on this bill that was heard in Springfield earlier this week, members were in opposition.

My legislation came forward and with a straight face, they said that it's the duty of the government and hence the obligation of the government and a function of the government to protect people in their homes. They said citizens really don't have any rights or duties to offer their own protection.

They said it. The word government has to do everything it can to protect you. The act that I referenced in the Senate Bill 2165 reaffirms what I believe is the real role of a citizen and that is that he has the right and some would say the duty to defend himself and his family in his own home, you know, the person's home is their castle. And that is right that is part of the natural law, the law of nature dealing with self-preservation.

And I believe this is a God-given imprint on a person's mind and heart to engage in the defense of one's self and defense of his family and that no government can take that right away. But more importantly, that no government can supersede and basically by limit the person's right to self defense. The government is violating the natural law, and the Democrats don't see it that way.

The liberal gun grabbing Democrats state that will take care of you. The government has the obligation, not that you are on your own to defend yourself or your family. It's the government's job to do it.

IL: Did that bill get out of committee?

PETKA: Yes, it did 6 to 4. All the Republicans voted for it and Senators Haines and Clayborne voted for it. Jim Clayborne was a victim of a home invasion when he was 14 years old. He understood exactly what I was talking about.

IL: So you were able to get this out of Rules alright?

PETKA: Yes. It's just too hot. The Democrats realize if they didn't let this out of Rules, we would be calling press conferences all over the state.

And it does provide protective cover for some of their downstate members.

IL: I see.

PETKA: I'm not necessarily optimistic that the bill is going to pass. Oh, it will get out of the Senate. I think we have more than enough votes to get it out. But there are certain things that can be done. They can rule, for example, in the House that it requires 36 votes. They will say "home rule," or both chambers can pass slightly different bills and neither will call the other chambers' version.

And remember, Mayor Richard Daley is still in control of things and he is opposed to this legislation. There are all kinds of legal barriers that they can insert and political barriers to see it never becomes law.

IL: My understanding this man in Wilmette has actually filed suit against the city. That was the last information I have?

PETKA: No. The person who was shot has sued the homeowner, and I sponsored another bill that took away the right of any aggressor or home invader to ever file a lawsuit against a homeowner.

IL: What happened?

PETKA: That bill got out too. That has Democrat Senator George Shadid as the sponsor. I was co-sponsor and spokesman on the bill.

IL: But it didn't go anywhere?

PETKA: It will be on the floor and we are debating it.

IL: You mean it's currently there?

PETKA: It got out of committee and it's headed for floor action. I've got two bills dealing with self defense in the home.

IL: Senator, as we finish up, let me ask one more question. How much does it mean to hear from constituents when you are doing a good job?

PETKA: It's always nice to know there are roses among the thorns. Actually it's very important. I did a survey one of the two thousand sponsors and there are a few cranky letters that came in a couple of people who do not agree with my conservative positions. I survey on questions dealing with gay rights, with firearms, with illegal aliens, with so called gay marriages, with the Ten Commandments, on budget issues.

There were very conservative ideas that I have which I surveyed my constituents and made statements like, "We are very proud to have you as our senator," "We appreciate what you are doing for us."

When I read stuff like that, it makes some of the down days just seem a little brighter.

When we get kicked around by the other side, it does tend to discourage one. With getting letters like that, we know we are fighting the battle they would want us to fight. I'm very pleased to have that opportunity. I thank the Lord for giving me the opportunities He has given us to serve Him in the General Assembly. . .

IL: Plan on staying around for a while?

PETKA: Of course. I have been here for sixteen years. I don't think I'm in a safe district, but as long as I feel I'm getting something done in a constructive manner I'm going to submit my candidacy to the people of my district and if and when they get tired of me, I will be out. . .
____________

Senator Petka can be reached through his office in Springfield or Plainfield. His information is available at the Senate Republican website.
 
The bill is now dead - vetoed by Governor Blagojevich

Governor Blagojevich has announced that he is going to veto the bill:

"He's putting the General Assembly on notice that if these two bills were to reach his desk, that he would veto these two bills," spokeswoman Cheryle Jackson said. "They're nothing more than Trojan horses to turn Illinois into a conceal-and-carry state."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-gun28.html
 
I can see the campaign commercial now....

Visual of police cars with light bars lit in front of a suburban home. Camera pans towards the front of the house, there is yellow crime scene tape close to the house, the paramedics emerge with a shrouded body on a gurney. Voice over begins;

"Everyone likes to feel safe in their home. Governor Blagojevich dosen't feel that you should have the right to defend your family. He vetoed a bill that would allow you to keep a handgun in your home for your own protection in violation of a local ordinance. He vetoed a bill that would have allowed retired police officers and citizens who had served 20 years in the military to legally carry a concealed weapon to defend themselves and their families from people who may want to harm them because of the job they did protecting you."

Scene changes to visual of inmates walking in prison yard. Voice over;

"Who are your true constituants Governor Blagojevich, the wolves who prey on the weak and helpless among us," visual changes to surburban neighborhood, children playing, birds chirping etc. "or the hard working, law abiding citizens of Illinois? We like our neighborhoods like this. We don't want this cancer," Scene changes to shots of open air drug market in Chicago, montage of newspaper headlines, "Chicago murder capitol of USA", "Four killed in crack deal gone bad," "Girl, 7 shot down by stray bullet in drug feud." Voice over continues "To spread from Chicago through the rest of the state."

He's giving us the tools we need to beat him. He needs to look at what guns and concealed carry is doing to the Democrat governors in Missouri and Wisconsin....

Jeff
 
I tend to agree with geek. I'm not sure this was good legislation to pass. I see it as a way to split the average LEO/ex GI from the rest of us pitiful folk.
I AM sure that this bill reaching that big, fancy desk causes some anxiety. It put the guv on the spot but we all know Daley has his hand up Blago's back making his mouth move. Jeff, yer right, he's giving us the tools to beat him next time around. Hope we can keep him boxed in 'till then.
 
Well the veto hasn't happened yet....

And ISRA is lining up votes for an over ride of the Willmette Bill. While the bill won't be as good as pre-emption, it will nullify most of the local laws (including Chicago's) concerning keeping firearms in your home.


From the ISRA mailing list:
GOVERNOR PROMISES VETO OF COMMON-SENSE LEGISLATION

As many of you know by now, Governor Blagojevich has promised to veto legislation that would protect citizens from prosecution under gun control laws if they use a firearm to defend their homes and families.

Late last week, the both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly passed bills to extend such protections to law-abiding citizens.

Despite the fact that both the House and Senate versions passed with huge bipartisan support, Blagojevich swiftly announced his plan to veto the legislation.

Of course, "overwhelming bipartisan support" means nothing to Blagojevich since he serves a constituency of one - Chicago Mayor Ritchie Daley.

If Blagojevich does indeed veto this life-saving legislation, we'll make sure that that decision dogs him the rest of his political career - just like his plans to raise the FOID card fee to $500.

This week, the ISRA will be working with legislators to secure enough votes to override Blagojevich's planned veto. We urge all of our readers to contact their state legislators and express opposition to the governor's planned veto of any legislation that allows citizens to defend themselves against criminals
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top