Illinois NRA members - NRA/ILA may need your input

[JohnKSa]

As mentioned before, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's Lobbyist in Illinois, told us he killed the bill. He later told me in person. Yes, he killed the bill.

Fair enough. All I had to go on was the linked thread provide in the op.

So, assuming that he did lobby against the law, one should ask: "Why is this guy (with whom everyone seems to be "very impressed" and who does this for a living) opposing this law?"

There's a patchwork of laws across the country, too, but I don't see Indiana or Kentucky jumping to standardize on the Illinois model to make sure nobody ever gets confused.

Not even close to the same problem. State lines are almost always pretty well defined. Municipal boundaries, especially in less rural areas, are not at all clear, in general.

...fears about landing in jail because you pass through a "no-carry municipality" are real, and people would certainly need to keep them in mind.

Unless the law comes with a rider stating that all municipal boundaries need to be clearly marked, warnings to "keep them in mind" are pretty pointless. Unless things are VERY different in IL than they are everywhere else I've ever been, municipal boundaries tend to be very inconsistently marked when they're marked at all.

There are roughly 1300 municipalities in Illinois. There are roughly 200 home-rule entities. That means that the vast majority of municipalities will not have the option of opting out of this measure.

Assuming of course that none of the other 1100 municipalities decide to take the relatively simple step of becoming home-rule entities.

The reason it's (theoretically--remember, this hasn't been tested) easier to pass LTC if it's subject to home rule is that it requires 60 votes rather than 71, and 60 is less than 71.

Assuming, of course that the anti-gun speaker for some reason lets a carry bill pass with a simple majority. Which, I suppose, he might do if the perceives the bill as worthless--which should tell IL gun owners pushing for this bill something. If, indeed, it IS allowed to pass with a simple majority, the only reason that can happen is if an anti-gunner lets it happen. In other words, the very fact that everyone seem to think it will be much easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT.

They expect the legislative end to be rendered moot. Of course, if that happens, it's going to take years, but what are years between friends, right?

It's would also take years to turn a non-preemption carry law into a workable solution. And there's the real possibility that having a carry law in place would make a legal challenge much more complicated. The only reason Heller went through is because there was a TOTAL ban on firearms. While aspects of it might be useful in overturning a TOTAL ban on carry, there's no way it's going to be useful once there's a carry law (even a practically useless one) in place.

 

[Don Gwinn]

How likely do you consider it that 1100 cities that have not gone through the process to become home-rule entities in the last four decades will now choose to do so in order to opt out of license-to-carry? I don't see that as very likely.

You're right about Heller, if we assume that Heller will be the last case and nothing will change, but I disagree with your definition of "workable." You are arriving at your label of "unworkable" by comparing STHR LTC to statewide, pre-emptive LTC. Once again, if that's your approach, please explain how you plan to pass preemptive, statewide LTC in Illinois. NO ONE is saying that STHR is better than preemption. When I go to BLADE in Atlanta, Paducah is not where I want to end up--but if I don't get to Paducah and find a place to stay, I might not make it to Atlanta. It's a step along the way.

Mike Madigan thinks a lot of things with which I don't agree. If he thinks LTC is worthless unless it includes Chicago metro, let him think it. He's just as wrong as all the deer hunters who think we should let the other side have their one-gun-a-month scheme or their bans on "Saturday Night Specials" because those laws are worthless and don't really affect "real" gun owners anyway.

 

[JohnKSa]

How likely do you consider it that 1100 cities that have not gone through the process to become home-rule entities in the last four decades will now choose to do so in order to opt out of license-to-carry?

Assessing the likelihood of such an action across the board is pretty much impossible. Breaking it down a little makes it much simpler.

In cities where the city government, a majority of the movers & shakers or a majority of the citizens, want to ban carry, it's obviously very likely. In other cities I would say it's pretty unlikely.

In TX, we saw a large number of entities react negatively to the initial passage of the carry laws. Pre-emption negated many of those reactions by governmental entities, and the utility (workability) of the law meant that there were enough permit holders that they were able to pressure businesses into eliminating their anti-carry policies. That's not going to happen were you are--the effect of this law will almost certainly be a publicly visible "anti-carry movement" generated by the passage of the law.

You are arriving at your label of "unworkable" by comparing STHR LTC to statewide, pre-emptive LTC.

I'm arriving at my label of "unworkable" based on the fact that even in TX, where the carry laws are quite strong and well-supported by the general populace, it's pretty easy to find one's self in a situation where carry is effectively restricted due to "loopholes" in the law. I can't imagine trying to deal with keeping track of municipal boundaries while going about my daily business--it would mean that I would just never carry--it would mean that the law would be "unworkable".

I do agree that for those who do not mind risking misdemeanor violations that this law might be a step up--at least for a little while. Those kinds of violations in TX can result in the loss of one's permit putting that person back to square one.

I'm a big fan of the Russian philosophy: "The best is the enemy of good enough.", but this law, in my opinion, is not "good enough". In other words, it's passing a law just to pass a law--getting "something" just to get "something" even though that "something" isn't a practically viable solution.

 

[Don Gwinn]

We may have a fundamental disagreement. It sounds like you don't consider the difference between STHR carry and the present status quo (I feel like I'm belaboring this, but the current status quo is that it's a felony to carry a loaded weapon anywhere in Illinois) is significant enough to justify the fight that comes after. We have three options, here:
1. No carry at all. Current status quo, likely to continue for some time.
2. Carry subject to home rule. Not as good as statewide preemption, but more likely to pass. Much better than the status quo, but much less likely to be put in effect.
3. Statewide preemption. Much better than STHR, but so unlikely as to be considered impossible in present circumstances (I hate to say that, but I've asked several times for the plan to pass preemption, and nobody has put one forward.)

Your position requires you to accept that people all over the state will remain in a disarmed, defenseless state every time they leave their own property because people in other parts of the state might choose to remain so. I know you wouldn't accept that if you thought there was a better way. I think there is a better way, and I do not accept it.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. No carry at all. Current status quo, likely to continue for some time.
2. Carry subject to home rule. Not as good as statewide preemption, but more likely to pass. Much better than the status quo, but much less likely to be put in effect.
3. Statewide preemption. Much better than STHR, but so unlikely as to be considered impossible in present circumstances (I hate to say that, but I've asked several times for the plan to pass preemption, and nobody has put one forward.)

In my opinion, options 1 and 2 are so practically similar that there's no real point in making the distinction. I'll explain more at the end of this post.

Second, if it really is "more likely to pass" than option 3 then there's GOT to be a reason, and that reason is strong support for my opinion that options 1 & 2 are very similar in practice.

Your position requires you to accept that people all over the state will remain in a disarmed, defenseless state every time they leave their own property because people in other parts of the state might choose to remain so.

No, my position only requires me to believe that law-abiding citizens (the only people who care about permit laws in the first place) will not find it significantly more attractive to risk breaking the law when the penalty is a misdemeanor than when it's a felony. Having a weapons related misdemeanor on your record is not like getting a traffic ticket.

 

[ilbob]

My guess is that in Illinois a fully preempted LTC bill will never happen, short of a court order. It just is not in the cards. I don't see the courts requiring CC, even if they ever get around to ruling on the "bear" part of "keep and bear" before Obama packs the courts or some idiot case screws us out of it.

The preemption part of it is part of the problem. Even home rule units that could care less about the LTC issue, may well lobby against the bill because it intrudes on their prerogatives as HR units.

Don't get me wrong. I realize the STHR option creates some serious problems that license holders would have to deal with. I also realize these problems are more serious than the more strident supporters of a STHR LTC are willing to admit. I am still unwilling to give up on it completely because it is quite clear there is no other realistic option to any kind of LTC in Illinois.

 

[Swan Hunter]

I'm not sure you know what that means!!

will not find it significantly more attractive to risk breaking the law when the penalty is a misdemeanor than when it's a felony. Having a weapons related misdemeanor on your record is not like getting a traffic ticket.

With all due respect!!! I realize a weapon related misdemeanor isn't like a traffic ticket but, under current law, you get a weapons related FELONY which means loss of gun rights, and MUCH STIFFER SENTENCES and fines!

Would you rather get a splinter in your hand or have it chopped off???
Would you rather get a misdemeanor or a felony?
I wouldn't only find it significantly more attractive to get a misdemeanor I would find it freakin beautiful!

 

[JohnKSa]

...under current law, you get a weapons related FELONY...

With all due respect, how is it possible you could think I didn't realize that when I clearly said: "...will not find it significantly more attractive to risk breaking the law when the penalty is a misdemeanor than when it's a felony."?

You're perfectly correct in that those who abide by the law solely to avoid the punishment a felony offense incurs will find this law a big improvement over the current situation.

However, that's not the end of the story.

There are many people who are unwilling to accept the penalty for even a misdemeanor (which, by the way could even involve jail time).
There are many people who abide by the law simply because it's the right thing to do.
There are many people who abide by the law because of other peripheral issues associated with breaking the law (background checks for work, loss carry permit, etc.) that carry a penalty beyond the obvious punishment imposed.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Those people will have two choices: they can avoid carrying a gun at all, or they can carry their gun, but look at the Illinois State Police's list of municipalities that still prohibit carrying and disarm before entering those places. If they can't avoid those towns, all they have to do is unload and encase the firearm before they enter them.

And before anyone says that's too much to ask, keep in mind that at this moment, that's the requirement on every inch of Illinois soil, not in a few selected municipalities.

 

[Don Gwinn]

No, my position only requires me to believe that law-abiding citizens (the only people who care about permit laws in the first place) will not find it significantly more attractive to risk breaking the law when the penalty is a misdemeanor than when it's a felony. Having a weapons related misdemeanor on your record is not like getting a traffic ticket.

First of all, I didn't say anything about traffic tickets. However, you and I agree that the act of carrying a firearm should be legal throughout Illinois. The difference is that I say it's clearly a step in the right direction to turn an act that is currently a felony in all locations into an act that is legal in most locations and a misdemeanor in some locations. You say it's not a big enough step, but you've offered nothing in its place. I ask again, what's your plan and why is it better?

Second, you say your position requires you to believe that law-abiding citizens will not find this system of licensing an attractive option. I grant you that could be true. However, why not let them determine that for themselves? Why be opposed to even giving them the choice? If you're right, and they decide that carrying a firearm in a state where home-rule entities can still prohibit carry is too risky, then they won't carry, which is exactly what they're doing now, because that act is currently a felony under state law.

You may think you know what choice they're going to make, but that's not a compelling reason not to offer the choice.