CCW Bill Introduced in IL

Status
Not open for further replies.
What Mack said, this is the bill our NRA Lobbiest Todd has been working on. It is ALSO not going to be the final forum. It was discussed over @ Illinois Carry they felt the need to get it filed but some changes would be coming.

As others have stated we were about 2 votes shy of a super majority, required to overrule home rule authority last year. With a court win under our belts and people starting to walk on UUW/AUUW charges already the heat is going to be on big time to pass this. I am sure the legislature will come back later and try to "fix it" but that will be the next battle.

This bill will pass in as a shall issue bill and soon.
 
Question (s)

Took/passed the NRA class for Chicago. Anyone sense if this would be enough or if it would be something similar?

Also, is there something in this bill about being a veteran?

Lastly, we are looking at July?

thanks so much
 
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.
Click to expand...

Scimmia, do you have a link for that? I'm reading that a 3/5 majority overrides gubernatorial vetos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_General_Assembly#Veto_powers
and that a simple majority passes a bill:
http://www.surs.com/pdfs/legal/How_a_Bill_Becomes_a_Law.pdf
unless it's after May 31 and meant to go into effect before June of the next year.

Maybe I'm missing something important in the Ill legislative process...
 
Took/passed the NRA class for Chicago. Anyone sense if this would be enough or if it would be something similar?

Also, is there something in this bill about being a veteran?

Lastly, we are looking at July?

thanks so much
Click to expand...

If the class is listed in the courses the law will have then it should but, you still need live fire test if that was not part of your class?

Nothing in the bill in regards to Vets.

From what I am hearing it is closer to mid-late May we are looking for a vote.
 
speedrrracer, Scimmia is simply wrong on the point of overriding the Governor's veto - the 3/5 super-majority that was required to pass a bill would also be enough votes to override a Governor's veto if the same majority that initially vote for the bill, vote to override the veto.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. It looks like we MO folks would also be good to go, since we also have universal recognition. It would be great to be able to carry when I visit the in-laws.
 
From what I can see the Chicago Democratic Machine is trying to trade a pretty oppressive AWB for a very watered down carry bill.

If I'm following the story right, the democrats (yes democrats since Emanual, Culllerton, Munoz and Acevedo are democrats) showed their hand in taking two swings at trying to get an AWB passed earlier this month.

Good luck to the people of Illinois - last state to have carry.
 
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.
Click to expand...

True. What you're missing is the reciprocity and recognition are two separate things. With the bill as written, Illinois will recognize (honor) any state that recognizes them. There will be no reciprocal agreement with Indiana, but if Indiana independently recognizes Illinois, Illinois will recognize them, no formal agreement required.

Scimmia, do you have a link for that? I'm reading that a 3/5 majority overrides gubernatorial vetos:
Click to expand...

speedrrracer, Scimmia is simply wrong on the point of overriding the Governor's veto
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong. The bill was never passed, so it was never veto'd, so there was never a vote to override a veto.

A bill passing with a 3/5ths majority doesn't magically become immune to a veto. The Governor can still veto the bill, which would then require the legislature to vote to override the veto.
 
Luger_carbine said:
If I'm following the story right, the democrats (yes democrats since Emanual, Culllerton, Munoz and Acevedo are democrats) showed their hand in taking two swings at trying to get an AWB passed earlier this month.
Click to expand...

And, since you either didn't/won't read what I JUST STATED in this very thread and are either refusing to provide the FULL facts of this case or failed to see the author of this bill, I'll try and say this again in plain language you will hopefully understand;

Brandon Phelps, a DEMOCRAT, is the author of this bill!!!
 
The point being that the bill was two votes shy of the 3/5 requirement for passage and to override the Governor's veto would require no more than the 3/5 vote again by the same legislators who would have passed it originally. Those members were already voting against the wishes of Madigan, Cullerton, and Rham, who wield more real power than the Governor. So your statement that "Overriding a veto is traditionally MUCH harder than getting the bill passed in the first place, even one needing a super majority." is not accurate. Quinn's veto is almost irrelevant in this issue as it currently stands.
 
So your statement that "Overriding a veto is traditionally MUCH harder than getting the bill passed in the first place, even one needing a super majority." is not accurate. Quinn's veto is almost irrelevant in this issue as it currently stands.
Click to expand...

You can think that if you'd like, but as I said, traditionally it is much harder to override a veto. Check some veto override votes, they're virtually never the same as the original vote. Give the Chicago political machine more time to threaten, blackmail, and run a negative public opinion campaign, and I guarantee they would be able to influence the second vote.

"The point being" that where you said I was wrong, I was absolutely right. There was no vote to override a veto, so we have no idea how it would have come out.
 
As Shane intimated, this isn't a blue vs. red issue. A friend from Illinois has pointed out stark differences between Chicago Democrats and Democrats from Illinois as a whole. There's a whole state outside of Chicago.
 
There's a whole state outside of Chicago.
Click to expand...

Wow, you don't know how funny that is... or perhaps you do.

As a MO resident in the St. Louis area, I know a lot of Illinois folks... It always seems like Chicago thinks it is a state, and the rest of Illinois is a third-class attachment to the Great State of Chicago...
 
This thread at Illinois Carry has a request that members not discuss on the open forum, any concerns with the current bill.

It seems that the anti-gunners have been viewing these threads on open gun boards to find out the strategy and related issues to the current bill.

I've talked it over with the staff and I feel we should follow their lead.

Hence, this thread will be closed, but stickied, until such a time that the bill has been voted up or down in the Illinois legislature. Todd Vandermyde (the NRA lobbyist) has put a lot of time and work into this bill. However, there are still things to be added or deleted from the bill over the next couple of weeks. Hence discussing strategy or direction in a public forum might very well be a very bad idea.

I know that this seems to be counter-productive to open discussion, but I feel this is a time for us to be discreet and respect the wishes of the Illinois carry community. Solidarity is called for.

Those of you that are also members of IllinoisCarry can let our brothers and sisters know that we at TFL, stand with them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top