Concealed Carry Illinois

Illinois House Passes CCW Bill

http://www.bnd.com/2013/05/24/2629537/illiois-house-passes-concealed.html

The above article provides pretty much any background information that you need to know, and frankly, most of it is irrelevant to my question. If you scroll down about halfway through the article, the author describes the "highlights" of the proposed bill - that's the part I wanted to focus on.

Basically, what are everyone's thoughts on the restrictions stating that you can't carry in a public park or on public transportation?
Also, while I know that not being able to carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol is pretty much standard, what do you all think about the possibility of not being able to carry in any establishment that sells alcohol?

Suddenly it's starting to seem to me that I would only be able to carry while driving in my car, which makes me think that this "win" for gun owners is becoming a hell of a lot more like a tie.
 
Well, that law sounds awful in many ways. I guess it is a place to start though. Like OH, perhaps many parts of the law could be revamped as IL sees their crime rate reduced and no CCW crime to think of. Still, the lists and placards and public transportation ban is a bit much. Why charge non-res $300....cause they don't vote!
 
The public transportation ban is probably the worst of this bill, and could be seen as a way to disarm poor and/or city residents. On top of that 150$ license fee along with 16 hour training which will probably bring the cost to 300-500 easy. Those who ride mass transit to work are effectively disarmed 5 days a week.
The restaurant bans are unconstitutional IMO, because they're privately owned and should be up to the owner, not the government. At the very least, a permit holder shouldn't be drinking while carrying. But whether the restaurant gets 51% or whatever from alcohol is irrelevant.
It's a win for sure, but definitely not a complete win.
 
You're correct however most of the people on the inside are saying there's no way they go off the cliff. With this bill passing overwhelmingly, it looks like this will get through the Senate with veto proof majorities. The governor would then be in a box and would either sign(or just let it go through w/o signature) or have his veto overriden.
There may be some kind of back room deal to let this pass in the Senate in exchange for another unrelated bill to pass. Don't forget Speaker Madigan is Lisa Madigan's father. She is running for governor. A trip (and a humiliating defeat) at SCOTUS could be devastating to her chances. She'd rather cut her losses now, and daddy will help her.
It looks like Moore will be mooted by this, which could be a bad thing if SCOTUS wants to hear a total carry ban case as opposed to a may-issue case. We'd then probably have to wait for Palmer(DC case which has been stuck in district court for FOUR YEARS) for a pure carry ban case.
 
Not Ill resident: Am I to assume that a restaurant must post it's income statement so a ccw carrier will know it's percentage of business attributable to alcohol??:confused:
 
If Moore is mooted by this legislation, then wouldn't the Scotus be more inclined to take Woollard or any of the three cases out of the ninth that are hovering?

Gura has never been slow on the draw with an appeal if it was part of his strategy. Since he has already announced the appeal in Woollard, I can only believe he is waiting to see how Moore plays out.
 
I expect that restaurants that get a less than 49% alcohol sales get a different license than places with more than 49% alcohol sale. So the type of license should be evident and I am sure Illinois requires they be posted in prominent places.
 
As far as SCOTUS goes-you'd think Moore getting mooted would help Woollard or Peruta get cert. But it's hard to say, maybe they just wanted a total ban outside the home to rule on. That means waiting(potentially forever) for Palmer to get there.
 
I'm an Illinois resident and I can guarantee madigan is up to something maybe not now but in the next session for sure.I find it amusing how the foid card is backed up with tens of thousand of applications yet we cant seem to vote in some politicians that will look after our rights.If more people would get on there phone-email-fax carrier pigeon whatever and let there reps know that they are a 1-2 issue voter we wouldnt be in the situation that we have to choose over a bill that is full of it or nothing.BTW I dont live in chicago-I live 30 minutes south of it but I do have to drive into chicago everyday for bussiness and everyday I get sick to my stomach with these crooks.
I say let it go over the cliff and lets get the Supreme Court to finally tell these morons to go jump in there lake once and for all either way we cant lose something we dont have..
 
An argument could be made that the public transportation portion of the bill is racist in that people of Color would be disproportionally inconvenienced and actually hurt. Lower income people tend to use public transportation more often and at odd hours. The Red Line at 4am is fairly scary and that is the time many nurses, factory workers and others are going to or coming from work. I'm going to guess that sooner or later the minority community will object to this portion of the law.
No one wants gang bangers having weapons on the subway, but they have them illegally now and are unlikely to change their methods with a new law.
 
Under the bill, a non-IL resident gets in car carry IF their home state allows the carry of a concealed firearm and you have whatever permits are necessary.

For full carry in IL (subject to the place restrictions) a non-resident permit is $300. No recognition otherwise of other states permits.
 
Basically, what are everyone's thoughts on the restrictions stating that you can't carry in a public park or on public transportation?
While I am certainly not keen on the restrictions, the bill is a package deal and we either work with it or around it. Keeping the NRA and the ISRA mum over this bill gave them the votes they needed to make sure this bill passes and defeats Quinn's veto. He will veto the bill. He's explicitly stated this numerous times in reference to this bill and every single bill Phelps bill before it. The restrictions are a huge concession, but one that was necessary (my humble opinion, anyway). I think that we won't really know how enforceable these restrictions will be until the bill becomes law and IL residents start carrying.

Also, while I know that not being able to carry in an establishment that makes 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol is pretty much standard, what do you all think about the possibility of not being able to carry in any establishment that sells alcohol?
A total ban on carry in establishments that serve alcohol is not a provision of the bill. Hearing that the provision set forth is similar to other states, I can't say that I am particularly concerned with it.

Suddenly it's starting to seem to me that I would only be able to carry while driving in my car, which makes me think that this "win" for gun owners is becoming a hell of a lot more like a tie.
I don't know what gains would be had if this heads to SCOTUS, but the state preemption provision is, to me, one of the biggest hurdles of this whole thing. Anyone with a glancing knowledge of firearm restrictions in the Chicago metro aware is well area of the confounding and idiotic patchwork of ordinances.

To anyone living outside of Chicago, this might seem like a concession too sour to swallow. As a city dweller, I am more satisfied than neutral about this bill because the state preemption provision is a huge one. My opinion is that this is NOT a bunk deal by any stretch of the imagination. We've never had a CCW law on the books and now it's happening. It seems to me that many people concerned about the public transportation caveat are not even IL residents, and if they are, live in areas where public transportation consists of a PACE bus that runs every four hours. For those downstate, hardly any public transportation exists. Given the horrifying frequency of public shootings recently , even in states with good CCW laws, I think that the restricted locations are places best avoided for the time being anyway. That's just my personal opinion. I try to avoid concentrated masses of people whenever possible. I don't have to mention how awful public transportation can be here. Those of you that have experienced it, know it.
 
The state preemption is probably the biggest deal in the bill. Everything else can be won through the courts, but preemption is something I don't think the courts would want any part of.
 
Thanks for the link mack. While I'm not entirely happy with the bill (mainly the not being able to carry on public transit - even though I don't use it that often), I definitely prefer it to any other bill.
 
Well HB183 got passed out of committee and SB2193 got held up in committee. The witness slips filed by supporters or opponents on HB183 ran over 1,000 opposed - which is I believe a record for witness slips filed in opposition.

No vote today in the Senate on HB183 - guess it will be tomorrow - don't know if Cullerton has the votes - though he is trying to ram it through with a bare majority of 30 - which is contrary to the Illinois constitution which states that all legislation that contains preemption of home rule require a 3/5 majority. Though they stripped all preemption on other gun laws they left it in for concealed carry.

They may be tinkering with amending the bill to get votes to get it passed, or just playing chicken with Madigan and the house.

The only good thing is that SB2193 is still alive and could be given a floor vote if HB183 fails or if the House fails to pass HB183.

So we need to kill HB183 and leave no alternative except for SB2193.
 
Nope, the bill HB183 does not contain a Chicago carve out - that was in a prior senate bill or version of HB183 but not the current amended version.
 
Back
Top