Concealed Carry Illinois

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.

That's kind of odd. Why would those Dem reps(ones that supposedly might vote yes on the NRA bill) be swayed by an anti-gun senator saying there's going to be a "better" bill? Kind of like Dianne Feinstein telling GOP senators to vote against National Reciprocity because there's going to be a National Constitutional Carry bill.
 
Because those Democratic representatives did not want a shall issue CCW bill, but were unable to pass a may issue bill in the House, and thus felt that they had to pass something or come June 9th when the Illinois law banning all carry became invalid per the 7th circuit, that anyone could carry without significant restriction. As they were afraid of that and as the pro shall issue democrats who were authoring the shall issue CCW bill offered some minor concessions for them going along they were going to vote for the shall issue bill - but the Senator convinced the Reps not to vote for the bill because he told them that the Senate was going to pass a bi-partisan may issue bill with a Chicago carve out. That as it turned out was not true, the Senate bill does not yet have enough support among democrats to pass the Senate and has no support from republicans thus offering no political cover for downstate Democratic senators. Also the bill has no chance at all to pass in the house.

Thus the Senate made Madigan (the speaker) look bad and it threatened to possibly hurt the speakers daughters (Lisa Madigan the States Atty General) statewide electoral chances when she runs for Governor or US Senate as it may end up making her have to appeal the decision to the USSC if there is no CCW law passed.
 
Interesting. Mike Madigan can choose to either accept shall-issue and shield his daughter from potential disaster or keep fighting and not shield his daughter. She's seems to already have one foot toward asking for cert because of the extension.
The other option is they don't file for cert, don't pass shall-issue and try to roll the dice with CA7 and try to play games by letting municipalities come up with all sorts of nonsense. If that happens I hope every ambulance chasing attorney heads to IL to sue each municipality for whatever ridiculous laws are passed(i.e. can't carry on a sidewalk).
 
Good I hope this does make the Madigans look bad for their political maneuvering.
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL? God bless them as I have 4yr old and couldn't cope if that was him but what do they have to do with IL?
I went to IN and bought $12.00 30 round ak47 clip and they did not even check my I'd!!!!!!
 
+1k ammo said:
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL?
Click to expand...

To testify in the Senate Executive committee on SFA2 to SB1002 banning the transfer or sale (within Illinois) of "ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than 10 rounds" - though (oddly for this state) not possession or use.
 
And why are Sandy Hook being flown to IL?
Click to expand...
Do you really need to ask? The antis see emotional pleas from the parents of dead children as their best bet for passing any and all of their policies. :mad:
 
Yes the Illinois gun control politicians presented Sandy Hook victims to promote a magazine ban - that really is separate from carry in Illinois and complying with CA7 decision in Moore v Madigan.

BTW the gun-control politicians are not saying who paid to have the Sandy Hook parents flown out to Springfield, IL and pay for their stay. I believe when someone inquired they were advised to file a FOIA.
 
BTW the gun-control politicians are not saying who paid to have the Sandy Hook parents flown out to Springfield, IL and pay for their stay. I believe when someone inquired they were advised to file a FOIA.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it's Bloomberg and/or the Brady Campaign. As manipulative and morbid as it is, it's not illegal.

That said, Sandy Hook isn't really the topic here.
 
Yes they are here for the magazine ban and not concealed carry. I think they are being abused a bit, but if they wanted to come then they can do what they want..they have lost more than we will ever know.

But the Mod is right, that is not the topic and concealed carry is, so any updates to the demise of the Senate bill or to this new better bill that is supposed to be coming from the House side, please let us know.
 
What I've read is that about 2 years ago Illinois representative Brandon Phelps created the core of a CCW bill in conjunction with the NRA, and then he worked with all sorts of different groups, like universities and a wide array of different police groups like FOP and Sherriff's associations (not just law enforcement agencies), to try to get a compromise bill that would appease just enough people to get some kind of carry law passed for Illinois.

The persons and groups who would not enter discussion with Phelps at all were:

Chicago Mayor's Office - Chicago as a whole to include Chicago Police Department

The Governor

Illinois State Police (might be considered to be the same as the executive branch of Illinois government / the Governor's office). Although the State police do cooperate with Phelps in providing cost analysis and things of that nature...

Cook County / Cook County Board to include Cook County Sherriff

Speaker of the Illinois House - Mike Madigan

All of the people who refused to discuss a carry bill with Phelps were opposed to any type of carry - period.

The bill came to a vote in the Illinois House of Representatives in March 2012 as HB148 and fell a few votes short of passing.

The CA7, in Moore v Madigan found Illinois law prohibiting carry outside the home unconstitutional.

HB 148 was re-written with some minor changes as HB997 and reintroduced. It seemed on the verge of passing earlier this month but just minutes before the vote was to be taken, Illinois Senator Raoul Kwame came onto the Illinois house floor and began circulating, talking to house democrats asking them to withhold their vote for 997 because a better bill was being generated in the Illinois Senate - a compromise bill with wide bi-partisan support that addressed the concerns of gun owners and gun control advocates, rural and urban constituents, republicans and democrats alike. Enough democrats withheld their vote to prevent passage. It turned out that Raoul Kwame's bill was a pipe dream. Raoul's bill was pronounced DOA and in comments to the press Senator Raoul said the bill was killed by "extremists".

In the meantime, Brandon Phelps reached out once again to groups who opposed his HB997 and began work on revising the bill. It appears though that Representative Phelps has done this without bringing the NRA or Illinois State Rifle Association along on all the talks. I would think it would be impossible to include the NRA or the ISRA in all of the talks because there is so much animosity between the NRA and some of these politicians - like Governor Quinn for example.

The anti-gun faction in Illinois which formerly opposed any carry of firearms outside the home seems to have changed their position and are mainly trying to get a "carve out" for Chicago. At one point they were trying to get a carve out for all of Cook County and they seem to have given up even on getting that.

While HB997 is being worked on the Illinois Senate has been re-introducing gun control bills that had previously been defeated, such as a magazine ban and a lost or stolen bill carrying pretty serious felony charges.

So I think the situation in Illinois right now is that gun owners are fighting off gun control legislation while waiting to see what Brandon Phelp's revised legislation looks like.
 
At first glance that bill appears to be a shall issue bill. Is that true, and if so, what are its chances at this time? I understand that if passed, such a bill would estop the Moore cert request, correct?
 
The amended bill, SB 2193,

That is the first bill that actually looks like a good compromise. One rule for all without different communities making up their own rules etc.

Someone might object to 150.00 fee and 16 hours of training, but I paid twice as much for Chicago Firearms Permit, but the training was only 4 or so hours I think.

Anyway, sounds like a plan and if I was one of the politicians I think in my novice opinion I might vote for it.
 
I don't understand it at all. It seems to me like Moore over-ruled the Illinois AUUW / UUW law and reading through this bill - it seems more like a no-carry-bill than a carry bill.

But I guess its better than New Jersey...
 
There are so many restrictions on where you can carry in the bill to make it troublesome. If I were in the Illinois legislature I would certainly try to reduce the number of restrictions. The bus and public transport restrictions basically means poor and even the middle class in Chicago cannot carry very far. Transportation, parks, almost all public spaces except courts and jails need to be free for carry. The bill listed is better than no carry, but given the legislature in Illinois and there ability to block bills I would not expect to see the gradual peeling back of regulations like is being seen in some states. So get it as good as possible now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top