CCW Bill Introduced in IL

Status
Not open for further replies.
...carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his
or her person, concealed or otherwise
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Or otherwise?

Skimmed through it, looks pretty decent, with reasonable(compared to the spectrum) fees and requirements. Didn't see anything about preemption though, which would be critical to not winding up with a patchwork of municipalities(Chicago/Cook county being the main concern) where carry is prohibited.
 
Pretty much shall-issue, with reasonable fees, a basic training requirement, statewide preemption, and reasonable restrictions on carry.
 
They put a 3 month timelimit on reciprocity?!
Any Illinois resident who has a license or permit to
carry a handgun issued by another state shall be able to carry
a handgun in accordance with this Act using that license for
180 days following the effective date.
 
Last edited:
Remember folks: if this does NOT pass you get full-on constitutional carry in July, because there's a "death sentence" on the existing laws banning carry.

So this critter better be VERY good indeed...this is one situation, possibly the first ever, in which we can indeed say "no".
 
Not at all surprised the bill is favorable -- remember, the Ill legislature is not the city of Chicago. They were thisclose to overriding a veto of an earlier carry bill.

Getting a simple majority should be a walk in the park.
 
If the Gov veto's this one maybe they should just find a reason to send him off for a long visit with his predicessor. He's a Chicago politician after all, I'm sure if the dug a bit they could find something.

It would be Very nice if IL actually passes this all the way.
 
Oh, and one other thing to those that constantly blame Democrats and equate all of them to anti-gunners; Brandon Phelps is : eek:*shriek* :eek: a DEMOCRAT!!!!

Now, back to the bill...
 
Not at all surprised the bill is favorable -- remember, the Ill legislature is not the city of Chicago. They were thisclose to overriding a veto of an earlier carry bill.
Click to expand...

Completely untrue. They were close to getting super majority to get the bill passed, NOT for overriding a veto. Overriding a veto is traditionally MUCH harder than getting the bill passed in the first place, even one needing a super majority.

Remember folks: if this does NOT pass you get full-on constitutional carry in July, because there's a "death sentence" on the existing laws banning carry.

So this critter better be VERY good indeed...this is one situation, possibly the first ever, in which we can indeed say "no".
Click to expand...

You're assuming that a lot of people in the legislature want constitutional carry. I don't see that happening, a lot of the "pro-gun" legislators will compromise before they would let things get that far. Wanting a concealed carry bill is a far cry from wanting constitutional carry. There's far too much fear out there, especially in northern IL, for that to happen.
 
constitutional carry
Click to expand...

From what I have heard it would toss out unlawful possession of a firearm and Gang Banger's would have a field day.

Plus you would HAVE to open carry.

As stated above even the pro gunners don't want constitutional carry.
 
Just read through much of the bill. Has requirements for informing an officer at a stop, signage that carry force of law, and allows for (which will mean requires) fingerprinting, and maintains a centralized database of permit holders. It also bans carry from places deriving more than 50% of their income through alcohol with no way for a person to know that.

On the plus side, it recognizes permits from any states that recognize Ill, allows for non-resident permits, has decent preemption, and has reasonable qualifications.

What's really interesting is that it would removed a lot of the requirements for a FOID card from the Unlawful Use of Weapon section.
 
The previous bill that was also shall issue and almost passed but was two votes shy of a "super-majority" - meaning that had it passed it would have had to have received enough votes override the Governor's veto to pass in the first place. Now the governor could have vetoed the bill but if the same "super-majority" simply required for initial passage voted for it again it would have overridden his veto.

The super-majority is a parliamentary rule that Majority Speaker Madigan imposes for all pro-gun legislation to stop it from passing as he doesn't have the votes to stop a simple majority in the House or Senate.

With the court ruling so far imposing a deadline to get legislation passed the majority in both the House and Senate are willing to block any CCW law that is not shall issue. They only need a few votes to get shall issue passed and the pressure of the deadline and threat of no law regulating the carrying of firearms has per reports given then the votes to pass shall issue.

The constitutional carry option sounds good superficially, but what would happen in reality is that Chicago and some other liberal bastions in the state would quickly pass under home rule their own laws banning carry completely or if they feared a court ruling against a complete ban pass highly restrictive may issue for their city that essentially was no issue in practice. And the state would be a patchwork of carry laws.

So, the shall issue law will have enough support to win passage with a super-majority, even over the Governor's veto.

We are not talking about or debating the details of the legislation on Illinois gun boards, that the gun controllers read, as we do not want them to glean ideas for sabotaging some parts of this bill or give them ammunition to raise concerns that might help them to try to block good parts of this bill.

Therefore I will not go into some of the potential good things about this bill.
 
Mostly true

Scimmia said:
On the plus side, it recognizes permits from any states that recognize Ill,
Click to expand...

Only if the state has "The Department shall enter into reciprocal agreements with any other state whose requirements to obtain a license or permit is substantially similar to those requirements contained in Section 85"
I, for example, come from a state that has NO training requirement for OC or CC. Luckily, if I wanted to get a non-resident IL license, I have the training needed, but that pre-requisite is there...
 
Only if the state has "The Department shall enter into reciprocal agreements with any other state whose requirements to obtain a license or permit is substantially similar to those requirements contained in Section 85"
I, for example, come from a state that has NO training requirement for OC or CC. Luckily, if I wanted to get a non-resident IL license, I have the training needed, but that pre-requisite is there...
Click to expand...

Read it again. It never once says that those agreements are required to be recognized. It says

a nonresident of Illinois may carry a handgun in accordance with this Act if the nonresident:
(A) is 21 years of age or older;
(B) has in his or her immediate possession a valid license that authorizes the individual to carry a concealed firearm issued to him or her by another state; and
(C) is a legal resident of the United States.

And goes on to say that it "applies only to nonresident concealed weapon or concealed firearm license holders from states that honor Illinois concealed weapon or concealed firearm licenses."

There are a number of states that will only recognize a state's permit if that state recognizes them, so the reciprocal agreements are important and "the Department" is required to make them, but they are not required to be recognized. Iowa, for example, has universal recognition. Since Iowa recognizes the permits that would be issued under this law, Illinois would automatically recognize Iowa's.
 
This paragraph (1) of subsection (b) applies only to nonresident concealed weapon or concealed firearm license holders from states that honor Illinois concealed weapon or concealed firearm licenses.
Click to expand...


Now here is how I understand it:

IL will enter into reciprocity agreements with States that have similar trianing requirements (see my above quote, or lines 6-9 on page 16 of the source document). If the state, such as Indiana, doesn't require training, there will be no recipriocity agreement.
 
Last edited:
Pro gunners here in IL want more for a bill to be passed than none.

Without a bill all those in Cook County, which includes Chicago, will be bent over. Hello NYC style CCW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top