Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7)

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5496748&postcount=209

Luger_carbine:
The Kachalski denial seems to have had an immediate effect on Illinois politics
Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831

It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the shall-issue proponents have the votes, and they know they have the antis over a barrel. Vermont-style carry looms should Madigan fail to file for cert and get a stay.

This is going to get interesting very quickly.
 
Last edited:
The attempt to pass a "may issue" CCW law in Illinois failed today.

Some of those no votes were coming from Chicago anti-gun dems who are going to vote no to any kind of carry bill period.
 
How convenient that they are so ignorant and blinded by ideology that they will just sit back while the clock ticks out. This is one train wreck I won't mind watching, LOL!
 
Not constitutional carry, it would be carry w/FOID. Not to mention each county can pass all sorts of local ordinances to make it very confusing. You can bet Chicago will pass a bunch. I'm getting a feeling this is Madigan's plan.
A shall-issue bill would pre-empt these ordinances.
 
Many localities, outside of even the Chicago area already have carry bans on the books. It FOID Carry would be a nightmare, cross and invisible line and you are a criminal.
 
on a wandering meandering road no less.
Click to expand...

Which most country roads and many suburban roads are.

Anyone traveling North or South on I294 would be a criminal as you pass by I90/I190 by O'Hare because you cross into Chicago.
Anyone driving through Peoria would also be a criminal.
I know a lot of down state gun owners could care less about Chicago passing restrictions on right to carry so long as it doesn't effect them, the thing is it does if they ever plan on driving up to Wisconsin.
 
The 7th Circuit's ruling doesn't override the home-rule thing? Wow... I'm guessing that's what they're going to do. No State-wide CCW and let the local counties or cities do their own thing.

Wow...that would be a nightmare. Kinda like going from one State that has reciprocality and stopping at the border of a State that doesn't and putting the pistol in the trunk.

Oh, wait - I already do that now with y'all...
 
Wow...that would be a nightmare. Kinda like going from one State that has reciprocality and stopping at the border of a State that doesn't and putting the pistol in the trunk.
Click to expand...

I can see the rest stop signs now.. Last Gasoline for 25 miles. Last chance to box up your firearms before the border...
 
For those who are interested the carry bill is "supposed" to come up for a vote later today. I would say this thread @ Illinois Carry is good for starters, contains links if you want to hear live debate etc.

Also this came out earlier

Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”
Click to expand...

We must be getting very close if they are making small technical changes like that.
 
We must be getting very close if they are making small technical changes like that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that would pass a constitutional challenge. Because IL does not allow open carry, they must allow concealed carry. That's the driving force allowing you to get this passed in the first place. As there is a right to bear arms, and some form of bearing is included in that right- I'm not sure they can tack on the extra fees to fix the FOID, and do this and that with mental health reporting, and so on.
 
Well, Spats, were one to give them benefit of the doubt, one might say they had people look at actual costs of running the system, and adjusted fees accordingly.

This being the Chicago bunch, I do not give them any benefit of the doubt, and I am quite sure this is just their way of making it too painful for the majority of working poor to even apply.
 
MLeake said:
Well, Spats, were one to give them benefit of the doubt, one might say they had people look at actual costs of running the system, and adjusted fees accordingly.

This being the Chicago bunch, I do not give them any benefit of the doubt, and I am quite sure this is just their way of making it too painful for the majority of working poor to even apply.
Click to expand...
Excellent points.
 
This being the Chicago bunch, I do not give them any benefit of the doubt, and I am quite sure this is just their way of making it too painful for the majority of working poor to even apply.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see someone suggest a bill to waive these costs for those receiving government assistance, or fixed incomes- i.e. Social Security recipients, families below the poverty line getting "welfare" or "food stamp" type programs. I'd very curious to see how that vote played out as regards to party lines.
 
Yesterday the shall-issue bill failed to get the 71 votes needed to get pre-emption or make it veto-proof or over-ride home rule or something like that. I don't know, I just read that the bill needed 71 votes and only got 64. I can't understand Illinois politics, on the same day, a may-issue bill failed.

So they don't want may-issue and they don't want shall-issue. Does that mean they want constitutional carry, handing the cities and county government all the authority for gun regulations?

It seems that it's a dysfunctional legislature that relies on courts to create or delimit it's legal framework.

If that's the case - the cities in Illinois will probably be generating all sorts of new 2A cases in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top