Concealed Carry Illinois

B

bk688

New member
Hello!

As of June 9th if the Illinois house has not passed a concealed carry law It has been ordered by a federal judge that federal regulations shall apply and Illinois shall be a "constitutional carry" state.

My question is what are the federal regulations? What restrictions or "hoops" do i have to jump through to abide by federal law? I've spent a bit of time looking but all i have found are regulations applying to cops and retired law enforcement.

I know due to the political climate in Illinois that simply carrying after the ordered date will send most people (especially around Chicago) to the slammer and to appeal in federal court. My particular circumstance already has me in a grey area where most Police Officers just assume I'm carrying anyway, so really I'm just being anal trying to follow whatever law I can. (In Illinois all peace officers can carry as long as their dept. allows. Mine doesn't because of a jack-wagon 15 years ago who got drunk and stupid with his gun. But most local PD either doesn't know about that policy or doesn't care as long as you dress in blue for you job)

If any one has any knowledge into the federal regulations I would really appreciate your incite.

Thank You!


(Edit)

To clarify my concerns, the night I'm writing this, I was the DD for a friend and ran across a few (4) former inmates. Luckily they were plenty satisfied with my work, but there has been several times where I've had to bluff and ask the former inmate if he thinks he can out draw me, as a buddy runs to the restroom with my phone to call some friends (local PD) who are on duty.
 
Last edited:
No particular federal regulations on carry. The federal law restricts who can buy and posses guns and regulates what types of guns. It also regulates the possession on federal land and in federal buildings. Anyone who can get a Illinois FOID card should be good to go with carry using weapons you can buy with your FOID card.

Possession of weapons in certain places like Chicago may still be an issue as they have a possession ban outside the home not a carry ban and require registration. Not sure how voiding the no carry law effects such things.

I have not read the court ruling so I do not know if it applied to other weapons besides hand guns. For instance in VA a CHP would not allow you to carry a dirk concealed. Illinois may have regulated such weapons under a different law than the one found unconstitutional.
 
Without a valid state permit, you'll also need to pay attention to the Federal Gun Free School Zone act. You can't knowingly go within 1000 ft of a school while carrying.
 
Common misconception

^ Actually that one I already know's incorrect.

The feds left that 1000 ft requirement out specifically although its a common misconception that they require tat you stay 1000 ft away.

The federal regulation on that is simply that the school grounds itself is a gun free zone, if I want to walk across the street on the side walk with my gun in my pocket its not illegal.
 
18 USC § 921 (a):

(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

There are a number of exceptions in the law, one being for permit holders of the state in which the school zone is located, which gets rid of this requirement and subjects you to whatever the state requirement is. Like I said in my original post, without a valid state permit, you have to pay attention to the Federal law as written.
 
OK...here's where we're at in terms of IL law.

AG Madigan has told the courts that she needs a one-month extension on writing up her appeal to the US Supreme Court. She will get it. Once she's finished (and that will be before the month is up and before the 7th's deadline on the carry law) she will ask that the 7th's ruling on carry be set aside until the Supremes act.

She'll get that too.

Second, her act of starting the process to go to the Supremes functionally put the process of doing a new state law on hold too. They COULD in theory do a new carry law but...yeah, no. Politically not possible. To get a new carry law the anti-RKBA side would have to appease the gunnie legislators and without a deadline, won't happen.

Now. This will likely be all for the good in the end.

If the Supremes either decline to hear it or (more likely) rule our way, IL will suddenly get full carry rights.

Can you say "epic party"?

But the downside is, I would not bet that you'll have carry inside of a couple of months.
 
10 pm CBS 5-16-2013

CBS has just announced that something has passed and we have a CCW and the NRA doesn't like it. I'm sure more will follow in the next few hours.
 
Nothing has passed yet; according to this story at HuffPo, the bill has been advanced by the Senate Executive Committee.
The committee voted 10-4 in favor of the bill, which would require gun owners in the state of Illinois to pass a background check and get training before being granted a permit by Illinois State Police, the Associated Press reports.
...
The bill -- HB 183 -- further bans guns from being carried inside bars, hospitals, child-care centers, sports arenas, schools and casinos and while riding on public trains and buses and would require gun owners to get an additional OK from Chicago police before they are allowed to legally carry weapons in the city.​
There's a lot of opposition to it, and a long way to go before it comes to a vote, much less passes.
 
This CCW bill being advanced by Illinois Senator Kwame is a bad bill and must be defeated. This bill is a "may issue bill" Home rule entities will be able to pass additional restrictions on where you can carry in the State. It also appears that these home rule units could change their ordinances indefinitely. You could be legal in one town and illegal in the next. No mass transit carry, no restaurant carry, no carrying in parks, blah blah blah blah. Looks like they also added some gun control in the bill too, i.e., no private sales. This bill needs to be defeated. Anything short of "shall issue" with no special carve outs for The City of Chicago, Cook County and other home rule districts is unacceptable. This bill is garbage that needs to be defeated.
 
Let's clarify the current status a bit more. Madigan has asked for a one month extension of time to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which application was granted. She has as yet sought no further relief. One would anticipate that she would request that the decision of the Court of Appeals be stayed (not "set aside") pending the determination of the Petition, but she has a very high burden to meet to get that relief given the nature of the appellate court's ruling. The Court of Appeals ruling imposes no standard--all it will do is to invalidate the Illinois "no carry" law and enjoin any governmental entity in the state from enforcing it. All other laws regarding the ownership or possession of firearms remain in effect, and indeed, Chicago has its own special ownership and possession laws that will not be specifically invalidated by any injunction issued; the police will simply charge under a municipal ordinance rather than under the State criminal code.
On the other hand, any stay granted by the Supreme Court would be of limited duration, as it will only last until the petition is decided. If certiorari is denied, the stay will evaporate and the injunction goes into effect. A grant of the petition, however, will supersede, the appellate court decision and we will go back to the same status we are at now.

There is one final factor that must be considered. Any injunction issued by the Circuit Court will last only so long as Illinois does not pass some sort of carry law. The moment a carry law becomes effective, the injunction will essentially evaporate as the law it enjoined will no longer be in effect. So the only real risk in Illinois is that there may be a gap between the old law invalidated by the court and any new law enacted. This state of "constitutional carry" as I've stated above, is still subject to all federal and state laws regarding ownership and carry I restricted places.
 
Maybe if we can't carry, LEO s and Federal agents and security guards shouldn't carry either. Perhaps this should be extended to carrying even when on the job. If they really need a gun to handle a bark robbery or something, they can get a court order to be issued a gun and 10 bullets for a few hours. These should be issued only under the gravest extreme.
Let's make this a gun free state and see how that works out. Considering how well a gun free Chicago has worked out, a gun free state should be a paradise.
 
As a Chicago resident, I'll just say that "it ain't lookin' good."

I've seen the bills introduced and fail for too many years to believe it will be anything but difficult. Most likely, it will be impossible. I don't see Chicago politicians giving an inch and they will not settle for anything less than Home Rule laws. If we do clear that hurdle, and that's a big if, we also must contend with a Chicago Ordinance AWB passed in 2006 that bans most high capacity firearms and makes the ownership of a Glock 17 magazine illegal.

I had really high hopes for a while but I'm starting to come back down to Earth. It's just business as usual and we're along for the ride.
 
For "Onwards" comment -I gather from his post the OP is a corrections officer and someone where he works got crocked and lit off his gun years ago creating a policy where they can't carry off duty, or maybe not at all?

A number of correction facilities and private incarceration companies don't arms their staff on or off duty as I understand it.
 
Question

If you have taken the class, paid your fee, gone through the background check & already have a Chicago card, shouldn't that automatically mean approval for a Chicago CCW?
If they are sincere here in providing them to only those with background checks, isn't the current card sufficient? What else do they want?
 
I think it is a pretty confusing legal landscape in Illinois

Here is a summary of the goings-on in the Illinois Senate this past week:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-legislature-0519-20130518,0,2454696.story

One Cook County judge has ruled Illinois AUUW unconstitutional, another Cook County Judge has stated that Moore v Madigan doesn't apply to the Illinois AUUW statute - or parts of it (confusing exactly which parts are being referred to)

Absent a state law Chicago could enact city ordinances that could carry six months in jail and $10,000 fine.

Given Chicago's history of litigation I would think that Chicago would pass restrictive and even unconstitutional ordinances, (crafted in ways to avoid 1983 lawsuits) and force Second Amendment activists to resort to the courts to overturn those ordinances.

A template for types of restrictions were created in January basically using sensitive place restrictions on:

your vehicle
restaurants
truck stops ( gas stations ?)
any place that has video gaming to include but not limited to casinos
church, temple, or any other place of worship
zoos
parks
amusement parks
museums
schools, colleges, daycare
state government buildings
libraries
hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices, to include veterinarian offices
public transportation - including stations and bus stops
any other private property unless express permission is given

to include parking lots for any of the above mentioned places and any adjacent or nearby areas (not well defined)
 
Last edited:
They'll be "going off the cliff". Chicago's carry bill is a non-starter, and it seems peeling off the last few needed votes for shall-issue won't happen.
I'm thinking Madigan will have to apply for cert(and a stay w/SCOTUS) before the June 9 deadline, even though she has until late June technically. It wouldn't look good to have the deadline pass and then come running to SCOTUS last second begging for a stay because they can't get their act together.
 
Another vote for "they are going off the cliff". No one wants to get blamed for a bad CCW bill. Of course "Bad" has different definitions to different folks. Once it goes off the cliff and Constitutional Carry is in place, there's no way in hell the pro-gun folks will want any type of CCW law that has any restrictions, short of background checks and maybe formal training. Think about it, why would you want more gun restrictions when you are already paying for a FOID card along with a background check? You got a FOID, you probably already have shot a gun, right?

The anti's will feel good about themselves because they got someone to blame for the failure of a CCW bill. It was NOT the anti's fault whatsoever that a proper CCW bill didn't get passed. They will blame, blame, blame... The funny thing will be is what they are going to do when the crime statistics show crime had dropped dramatically after CC.

In the meantime, the AG will try to move forward on the appeal. If and when it goes to the SCOTUS, it will be groundbreaking. It could mean Constitutional Carry for all or we take a step back on CCW across the country.

Hey, that's just my prediction...
 
It is a confusing mess here in Illinois. This coming week the Sandy Hook families are being flown in to Springfield to lobby for another proposed semi-auto ban and a magazine ban with confiscation and no grandfathering. Those will fail, but there will be a lot of yelling, high emotions, and exhausting grassroots politics before it is over.

The Senate has a may issue CCW bill that passed out of committee but that does not have the votes yet to pass the Senate and may never have the votes to do so. That Senate bill is dead in the House anyway - not just per CCW advocates but also per the House Speaker - who is opposed to a bill out of the Senate.

Right now the original NRA bill has been scrapped and the primary author of that bill is in negotiations with the Speaker of the House (the most powerful man in the State) to make a deal on a shall issue bill without a Chicago carve out.

The Democratic Senate President and the Democratic House Speaker are at odds right now and there is infighting over the CCW issue. It looks however like the House Speaker is attempting to get a CCW bill passed before the June 9th deadline, one that has his name on it and will help downstate democrats retain their seats and help his daughter get elected to Governor. He doesn't like CCW and supports all kinds of gun control laws, but he also appears to desire to further his daughters career and to stay in power by maintaining democratic dominance through keeping seats downstate - where there are pro-gun and pro-CCW majorities.

No one knows how the Senate President will respond - but the Speaker was ****** that the State Senator who wrote the Senate may issue bill was in the House on the day of the vote on the NRA bill and queered the deal by telling Democratic representatives not to vote yes on the NRA bill as he and the Senate were going to pass a better bill. The Speaker is playing payback for the Senate and Senators messing around on his turf.

Everything is fluid right now and going down to the wire. That Illinois States Atty - the Speakers daughter will not file for cert with the USSC unless her father gives her the okay and he is presently negotiating or making the appearance to doing so with the CCW majority in the House. How the Senate and the Senate President and the Governor will respond is unknown. But if a bill is passed out of the House with implicit or explicit approval of the Speaker they will be hard pressed to oppose it as they will force Illinois to go over the June 9th Cliff and look like the bad guys.

But the situation is highly fluid and one day to the next one never knows what is next. It's hardball politics, Chicago politics and it is as dirty and nasty as heck.

Hard to see all this with 20 plus years of hard work by thousands of us to get a real shall issue bill passed - and it all coming down to a series of last minute backroom deal making sessions.

Lots of people on a tight string right now, emotions are high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top