Concealed Carry Illinois

The ban on public transportation carry seems particularly untenable.
Click to expand...
There's definitely the possibility of a lawsuit there.

One of the judges in Moore mentioned this possibility in her dissent. They may have acknowledged the existence of the right to carry, but the legislature has done its best to restrict the number of places in which it can be exercised.

There are some time, place, and manner restrictions on 1A rights. There will probably also always be some on 2A rights. The question to hash out now is, where do we draw the lines?
 
The ban on parking lots seems untenable as well, especially after a federal district court ruled that a ban on firearms in post office parking lots was invalid. Laws like this constitute a de facto ban on carry by commuters who take the train into the city and park their cars at lots by the station. There is certainly not enough parking outside of the station lots to accommodate the volume of those who carry and store in their cars--and it would be pretty obvious that their cars contained firearms. Not a good plan.
 
62coltnavy said:
The ban on parking lots seems untenable as well, especially after a federal district court ruled that a ban on firearms in post office parking lots was invalid. Laws like this constitute a de facto ban on carry by commuters who take the train into the city and park their cars at lots by the station. There is certainly not enough parking outside of the station lots to accommodate the volume of those who carry and store in their cars--and it would be pretty obvious that their cars contained firearms. Not a good plan.
Click to expand...
Under the law you are allowed to store it in your locked car in the parking lot of a prohibited place, and just outside your car in order to put it in your trunk.

What is the parking lot exemption for CCL holders in prohibited places?

Notwithstanding any prohibition to the contrary - except those pertaining to property regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission or where firearms are prohibited under federal law, any licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location shall be permitted to carry a concealed firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle into the parking area and may store a firearm or ammunition concealed in a case within a locked vehicle or locked container out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area. A licensee may carry a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding his or her vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicles trunk , provided the licensee ensures the concealed firearm is unloaded prior to exiting the vehicle.
Click to expand...
http://www.isp.state.il.us/firearms/ccw/ccw-faq.cfm
 
maestro pistolero,
That would be my observation as well. Cook/Chicago simply won't give an inch until a superseding law or court action forces them too. Kind of taking a play from the NRA playbook, ironically. In reality though, it looks like the tide has changed based on recent court rulings. I'm pretty confident that most of the more onerous restrictions will eventually go down just like the handgun ban. It's just going to take time and legal action.
 
There are some time, place, and manner restrictions on 1A rights. There will probably also always be some on 2A rights. The question to hash out now is, where do we draw the lines?
Click to expand...

The "common sense" answer is to prohibit weapons in prisons, jails, the lockup area of police stations and sheriffs' offices, and (probably) courtrooms and pre-trial holding facilities. Period.

Private property owners should be allowed to post their properties as off-limits to firearms.

HOWEVER, any facility, gov't or private, which prohibits the carrying of weapons should be required to have an adequate number of secured lockers at EACH ENTRANCE where visitors can secure their weapons while inside. ALSO, private facilities should, by statute, be strictly liable for any injury to a patron which could conceivably have been prevented had the patron been armed. :eek:
 
I realize that this thread is a little old, but it seems to have been our most active one related to CC developments in Illinois of late.

Aaaaannnyway, I ran across this in a link posted by Tom Servo: SB2669
Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a person shall not carry a concealed firearm onto private real property of any type without prior permission from the property owner. Provides that a real property owner shall indicate permission to carry concealed firearms onto the property by clearly and conspicuously posting a sign at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property under his or her control, except this posting is not required if the property is a private residence. Provides that the sign shall be at least 4 inches by 6 inches in size (rather than exactly that size). Effective immediately.
Click to expand...
Wow. I'm not even sure where to begin. My gut reaction is that this is just going to be one of many attempts to gut CC in Illinois.
 
You need a sign that says you can carry? No sign, or a sign that says you can’t carry, and you can’t? Is it just me, or is everyone else confused? Exactly where can you carry? Your home and your car, and that’s it? Looks like it's back to the Court Room to solve this one.
 
I can say "Men's restroom" in Spanish.

This flies in the face of every other state law which allows businesses to opt out but this law would require that they opt in. So in the absence of a sign, CCW holders are persona non grata.

What is the penalty for getting caught up in this stupid law? Enough to lose your CCW and possibly your firearms rights as well?
 
Last edited:
They actually tried to amend the original law (our governor, "Duh" Quinn, at least did) to read this way. It was struck down in the override.

Yeah, they just don't get it. But in two months, folks will be walking around Illinois with guns, and it's going to make them insane. :)


Larry
 
According to Harmon (per the article linked to by Armed_Chicagoan):
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has reported that of nearly 9,500 county residents who applied for five-year concealed carry permits since early January, 300 had records for domestic violence, gang activity, gun crimes, sex crimes, burglary and other criminal activity.Yet, the Illinois State Police had given initial approval to all but five of those applicants for concealed carry (Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 12, 2014).
Click to expand...
That has to be a B.S. statistic. He says 300 had "records." I wonder if he is counting misdemeanors and traffic offenses or if the 300 is totally fabricated.
 
I would bet anything that 95% of Dart's objections are overruled by the review board. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is objecting to people with the same name as prohibited persons, or people who have been arrested but not convicted of crimes.

I submitted my concealed carry application last week, maybe Dart will object on the basis of the speed camera warning I got a few weeks ago. :rolleyes:
 
300 out of 9,500 is not beyond the pale.

300/9500=.031 or 3.1%.

As noted, some of those are going to be found to be same name or no conviction so will be approved upon further investigation/appeal.
 
300 out of 9,500 is not beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
That's not the outrageous part and it's not beyond the pale until you consider the fact that state police gave initial approval to all but five of these 300. That is a 5,900% error rate made by the sheriff (295/5). That figure is SO far off, it can only mean two things: (1) they counted a bunch of things they shouldn't have like arrests without convictions, misdemeanors, etc. or (2) they simply picked a number out of the hat. Either way, it shows the sheriff is engaged in disingenuous propaganda.
 
Yet, the Illinois State Police had given initial approval to all but five of those applicants for concealed carry
Click to expand...

I can assume that the initial approval was before the results of the background checks came back denying the approval.

I can give an initial approval based on the completion of the forms, accuracy, and the content of the forms such as denial of priors. That is but a single step in the process. Where the denial happens is in the next step which would be the background check.

Jus' sayin'.
 
"I can assume that the initial approval was before the results of the background checks came back denying the approval."

All applicants for an FCCL in Illinois must have a valid FOID card. FOID card holders in Illinois are given a background check every single day, and the card is revoked if anything is found making one ineligible. And the requirements for a FOID card are very similar to those required for a FCCL, it's extremely unlikely that Dart has found so many people who have slipped through the cracks.
 
I can assume that the initial approval was before the results of the background checks came back denying the approval.
Click to expand...
I didn't read it that way. I read it that the background check cleared but final approval (processing, etc.) hasn't yet been given.
 
Actually the steps are "Under Review" > "Approved or Denied".

If a local law enforcement agency objects it's "Under Review" > "Under Board Review" > "Approved or Denied".

Many applications have already been approved, believe it or not the only reason the licenses haven't been sent out yet is that they did not like the card stock they received to print them on and the Illinois State Police employees don't know how to use the printer yet... you can't make this stuff up!

Supposedly first ones will be mailed the first week of March.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top