Concealed Carry Illinois

Some are quite similar to TX. I wouldn't be that upset. Once in place, they can be modified - although that might be hard in IL.

For example, even in gun friendly TX - campus carry has been a flop and supposedly gun friendly governors haven't stood up.
 
Once people get a taste of freedom, blood doesn't 'run in the streets', and there are no 'wild west shootouts', attitudes will begin to shift even more. People who can generally carry concealed will more clearly begin to see the folly of many T, P, and M restrictions.
 
I don't think he can be charged with the UUW successfully. However it would seem they have more than enough to put him away(possession w/o FOID, stolen gun, maybe resisting arrest).
 
Quinn has put in his 2 cents... I guess he couldn't just say nothing and risk whatever appearance that would generate.

The 10rd limit is a standard "magic number for safety" that anti's pull out their butt. Maybe he's just looking to get one or two of his amendments approve to save face... so now the legislature will "ACCEPT" the elimination of restaurant carry but override the round-limit and it will go through? And he removes the pre-emption for home-rule on semi-auto's... no surprise there.

Quinn pointed out the bill would allow people to carry more than one gun with unlimited numbers of ammunition rounds, which he called a "public safety hazard." He rewrote it to limit gun owners to carrying one loaded, concealed gun with an ammunition clip holding no more than 10 rounds.
Click to expand...
The language Quinn added would prevent gun owners from taking their weapons into any establishment that serves alcohol, including restaurants whose liquor sales amount to less than half of their gross sales. That's a provision gun owners would not bend on in legislative negotiations.
Click to expand...

The governor also removed a provision that requires communities wanting to ban semi-automatic assault-style weapons to do so within 10 days after the legislation takes effect, saying communities should maintain local control over guns not covered by the concealed carry law.
Click to expand...
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-...cle_90cba633-69a7-544f-94e8-f433aa6a0d2e.html

Correct me if I'm wrong... but now it goes back to the legislature and they can either override his veto, or accept his ammendments? What happens next?
 
Last edited:
Ah, the glory of the the amendatory veto.

Honestly, the deadline comes in a week. I'd say scrap the bill and let the deadline pass. That puts more pressure on the other side and leaves the ball in our court.

That said, I'm not in Illinois, so it's easy for me to say...
 
That said, I'm not in Illinois, so it's easy for me to say...
Click to expand...

Me too. That said, there's no way I'd agree to Quinn's amendments. The restaurant restriction, the preemption of home rule, and the mag limit would be non-starters for me.

Override them all.
 
I believe the General Assembly will override Quinn's veto and pass the bill they originally sent to his desk in May. The requirement of no guns in any establishment that serves alcohol is ridiculous. I guess we can't have anyone driving a motor vehicle allowed in an establishment that serves alcohol either, as motor vehicles and alcohol don't mix either. Also, has Quinn looked at who is killing who in Chicago? How many of those guns are owned by people with valid FOID cards? Guessing ZERO! It's all a game to him and we are tired of it. Pass the damn bill, regardless of its flaws.
 
Some of those I can live with, but the whole "One magazine with 10 rounds or less" is just asinine. I mean, I've never been a fan of magazine restrictions in the first place, but really... You should(IMHO) be allowed to carry as many mags(holding the standard designed amount of rounds for the firearm) as you can comfortably and prudently carry. Now that doesn't mean I think hauling a backpack or such with as many mags as it can hold is ok, but I'm not going to tell someone they can't. Personally, I'm looking to get a Paraordinance 14-45(as long as these silly round restrictions don't pass) and carry 2-4 extra mags. I'm a fairly large framed guy and when I worked at a gun store found I can easily conceal one of the Para's with little to no printing on the back of my hip or in a shoulder holster.

The big item that I have an issue with is this...

Recommends that when a concealed carry licensee uses the parking lot exemption for a location where the concealed carry of a handgun is prohibited under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, the handgun must remain within the vehicle at all times while in the prohibited location parking lot, rather than the licensee being allowed to take the handgun outside of the vehicle to place it in the vehicle’s trunk and to retrieve it from the trunk.
Click to expand...

I mean really? The trunk is usually a very secure location. This is probably one of the dumbest parts of his amendatory veto... Ooooo don't look, scary guy with a gu... Oh wait, he's safely and responsibly storing it in a semi-secure location...
 
2nd Militia Act of '92

Unfortunately the state quickly dispels with the statutes they hid behind in their amicus briefs during Heller & McDonald. Even in Shepard & Moore. They paraded around the 2nd Militia Act of '92 as living proof that ONLY soldiers can carry guns. What BS.

As we all know from READING the 2nd Militia Act that it imposes strict MINIMUMS on anyone carrying a gun. The requirement is a minimum of 2 PISTOLS and a minimum of 24 Cartridges for EACH PISTOL. That's 2 guns & 48 rounds MINIMUM.

How little we like our own laws as soon as Collectivism is struck down.:D

In your face Paddy Boy.
 
Last edited:
I'd say scrap the bill and let the deadline pass
Click to expand...

The legislature must act in some way, must it not? If they do nothing, isn't Quinn's version of the bill left standing?

On the other hand, I read somewhere that they need 51 votes to pass the amended version and 60 votes to override it. Perhaps doing nothing is an option. Anyone know?
 
The legislature must act in some way, must it not? If they do nothing, isn't Quinn's version of the bill left standing?
Click to expand...

The sponsor of the bill controls the fate of the bill somewhat. In this case Representative Phelps has called for an over-ride vote. So it must be voted on now.

The sponsor also has the power to pull the bill, so if the legislature does not over-ride the veto, the sponsor can pull the vetoed bill and Illinois is back to not having any law to replace IL UUW.

I believe the stay of mandate expires on July 9th, but the IL AG can file for cert anytime up to midnight July 22.
 
Something I have not heard yet. The 7th through out the laws prohibiting the carry of a firearm, correct? No mention of the ability to openly carry without a license (one of the things I understood would happen if they did not pass a law.)

So, is there anything in this new law the specifically prohibits Open Carry? or does this new law require a license for any carry outside your home or business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top