Illinois Concealed Carry Bill Revealed: No Chicago Carve-Out

(courtesy news.yahoo.com)

HB0977, Illinois’ long-awaited concealed carry bill, has dropped. Click here to read it. The executive summary: HB0977 puts the Illinois State Police in charge of the permitting process and turns The Land of Lincoln into a “shall issue” state. To wit: “The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant would pose a danger to the applicant’s self, another, or public safety, or would use a firearm unlawfully, if granted a license to carry a concealed firearm under this Act.” Did Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel just throw up in his mouth a little? There’s no carve-out or exemption from the State permitting process for Cook County or Chicago . . .

It is declared to be the policy of this State that it is an exclusive power and function of the State to regulate the possession, carrying, and transportation of handguns and the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm.

Except as provided in subsection (b) of Section 70, a home rule unit shall not regulate the possession, carrying, or transportation of handguns.

A home rule unit shall not regulate the number of handguns or require registration of handguns possessed by a person licensed under this Act. This Section is a denial of home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Get this: if Chicago messes with the State government on this they get whacked with a $10k per violation per day fee.

Applicants for Illinois’ concealed carry license must sign a waiver giving the po-po access to their legal and medical records. An Illinois permit is good for five years; there’s a mandatory four-hour training and basic marksmanship requirement (see: below) and a re-qualification requirement after five years. Reciprocity is definitely on the cards.

License holders can’t carry in the General Assembly, court houses, town meetings (and suchlike), bars, child care facilities, casinos, amusement parks, stadia, mental health facilities, libraries, cop shops and . . . wait for it . . . schools and colleges. Unless school/college authorities authorities grant the license holders their consent.

All prohibited places must post a standard sign stating that firearms are not welcome. If a license holder breaks the rules he or she faces ejection and a $100 fine. Do it again and it’s a 30-day time out. Three or more violations and the Staties can pull your paper. Permanently.

The shooting test consists of a minimum of 30 rounds: 20 rounds from a distance of seven yards and 10 rounds from a distance of 15 yards at a B-21 silhouette or equivalent target as approved by the State Police Department. To qualify, applicants must hit the silhouette portion of the target with 70 percent of the 30 rounds fired.

License holders have a duty to inform police if they’re carrying when stopped. And we have the duty to inform you that Americans in all 50 states will soon be able to carry a concealed weapon.

Only not really, as many states have a de facto ban (try getting a concealed carry permit in New Jersey). The battle to defend and extend Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms continues . . .

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

143 Responses to Illinois Concealed Carry Bill Revealed: No Chicago Carve-Out

  1. So far so good with a “shall issue a license” part. Looking for the Chicago carve out.

    • avatarAnmut says:

      ^^ This

    • avatarmatt says:

      The law really doesnt prevent CPD from arresting people. All the city has to do is pay 3.6m per year, which is a drop in the bucket for Chicago. I’m pretty sure between the lawyers for the city, and the lawyer fees for the NRA and other groups, they all ready spend more than 3.6m per year to keep people from carrying.

      • avatarBarstow Cowboy says:

        I believe it’s $10K per day per infraction, meaning that it would be about $452Gajillion per year to deny everyone who could be denied, potentially.

        • avatarAJ says:

          But it doesn’t really cost the city a dime. They’re spending taxpayer dollars, which politicians treat as coming from an ATM with no withdrawal limit and an unending supply of cash.

    • avatarJames says:

      No home rule means no super majority needed so Quinn and the Cullerton gang have no room for negotiation in June Illinois will become a carry state. Reject all the bills we will carry in June.

  2. avatarLyleJames says:

    Anyone who doubts Mayor Tiny Dancer or Tom Dart will use ” home rule ” to exempt the county of Cook or the Chi-Coms …. would be a fool.

    • avatar1911moocher says:

      Originally I heard the original bill before this one put the State Police in charge that way Chicago/Cook County could not overstep and not allow conceal carry. It also had a provision revoking any municipal laws banning firearms or conceal carry.

      • My understand of the home rule is that it mainly applies to taxes, but I have no doubt Tiny Dancer will do anything legal or illegal to deny my right to self defense. The lawsuits will fly and the city will lose again and end up paying out some large sum of money.

        Ol’ Shortshanks Daley once said that it would be the Wild West if CC ever happened. Right now, it’s more like Mali, Egypt or Kabul.

        heyjackass.com

    • avatarJoe says:

      Read before speaking:
      A home rule unit shall not regulate
      the number of handguns or require registration of handguns
      possessed by a person licensed under this Act. This Section is
      a denial of home rule powers and functions under subsection (i)
      of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

  3. avatar1911moocher says:

    Glad to finally see this moving forward being and Illinois resident. The way the bill is now it seems like there is more places you can’t carry concealed then where you can. Some of the places are exactly where I would want to carry a firearm. At least they did put in a provision for school facilities to allow conceal carry on a case by case basis.

    • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

      It may be a bit of a stretch, but how effective would a boycott of all types places where CC was banned? Not brand-specific, but type-specific?

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      Thats the way it starts. In Wis. everybody put up the no weapons signs & I could barely carry anywhere,legally. My bank had a sign up & 2 weeks later they took it down. Was it the realization they were wrong? no, I’m guessing it was the fact that the law says they can post, however they can be sued for their actions. What will turn this all around is lawyers. I’ve mentioned black civil rights before & they only thing that turned this around was MONEY. Expensive multi million dollar civil rights suits. Hopefully we can overcome this bullshit too, Randy

      • avatarJoe Grine says:

        Sued for what? What is the cause of action?

        • avatarDuke says:

          I suppose you have to wait for someone with a CC license to get attacked in a posted no-CC business. Then the victim (or their surviving spouse/parent) sues the business for his injuries/death due to them disarming him. The theory being that if a business disarms you they are assuming the responsibility of keeping you safe.

    • avatarABCD says:

      As long as you can carry on the CTA, I’m fine with it.

  4. I never thought I would see the day Illinois turns into a Shall issue state. If Our Friend in Illinois is behind this, I get the feeling we will see that very shortly.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Nick, I’m having trouble decoding your comment. Could you perhaps offer a further hint as to your meaning?

  5. Ugh. I knew the state that doesn’t allow carry at all would blow past NJ’s de facto no issue (may issue). Congrats to IL, but at the same time screw you (and I mean that in the nicest way possible) lol.

    • avatarEvan says:

      Lol well we ARE so advanced here. In NJ we are civilized.

      • avatarTeutonicTenifer says:

        A state with no CCW is hardly civilized.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          What would you call a state where you have shall-issue CCW, but only if you’re at least 100 miles from the western border?

          Oh, yeah. “California”. {sigh}

    • avatarMr Pierogie says:

      NJ will not have CCW, ever. I just glanced over the original decision in the case SAF had in NJ from 2012 (I think it’s being appealed now). Judge Walls, appointed by Clinton, basically stated that the 2A is OK when you’re at home, but somehow it does not apply to carrying a gun outside the home. He also states that the ‘justifiable need’ requirement is A-OK because, after all, government officials decided so and they know what’s best for you. It’s in the interest of the government to maintain public safety, and if the officials decided that no CCW permits = public safety, then that’s constitutional. Walls also stated that “the challenged provisions do not vest uncontrolled discretion to state officials.” In practice, the state officials can do whatever they want and deny your application for whatever reason they want, then simply check the ‘lack of justifiable need’ box, and this judge does not see this as ‘uncontrolled discretion’??????? I don’t know the exact current status, but with judges like that, there’s no hope for the Dirty Jerz.

      • avatarChuck says:

        I used to think the same about Illinois. Keep up the good fight, the good guys always win in the end.

      • avatarSeanC says:

        And this is why I’m thinking Illinois won’t be fighting this in court. Right now, the 7th Circuit ruled the right to bear arms is not confined to the home and is quite expansive on why that is the case. That ruling is in direct conflict with the NJ ruling. If the 7th Circuit ruling is appealed to the the SCOTUS and is upheld, then concealed carry becomes the law of the land, not just simply the law of the 7th Circuit as it is now. The liberal elite in the East is most likely putting pressure on the Illinois AG to not fight this given the current makeup of the SCOTUS.

        Here in Illinois, we’ve had a back-door concealed carry, sometimes called a 4-second carry, wherein it’s legal to carry a firearm in an approved case if it is unloaded. The practice is to use a CC fanny pack or case with a loaded mag that’s not in the magwel (or rounds in a speed loader for wheel guns) + a FOID. The state police website has been clear on the legality of this carry but Chicago and Crook County LE have threatened to arrest and prosecute anyone testing that law. They NEVER brought anyone up on charges for fear of loosing in court and setting a precedent.

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Aren’t there provisions in NJ for “security guards” to conceal carry? Has anyone there thought about forming a security corporation or co-op that uses volunteer officers? Let anyone join for a small fee (to cover liability insurance) and voila, you’ve gamed the system for the good of society. Not that anyone should have to game the system to exercise their rights…..

  6. avatarTexanHawk says:

    … and VERY IMPORTANTLY….

    wait for it……

    RECIPROCITY!!

    Page 14 Line 24 and after

    • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

      As an out-of-stater, I celebrate this advance in 2A rights for the land of Lincoln. However, reciprocity means little to me, since I will not voluntarily set foot in Illinois until you folks run the Chicago fascists out on a rail.

      Wait, on second thought, I’d rather have them in Illinois than have them land any closer to where I live.

  7. Arizona will immediately honor their permit as soon as they actually exist. I expect they won’t honor ours though.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      You might be surprised. This bill already includes language that requires IL authorities to honor your out-of-state CCW permit for 90 days after moving into the state. Given that this mandates (IMHO) a reasonable training, safety and marksmanship requirement, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see IL get full reciprocity with other states.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      The Department shall enter into reciprocal agreements with
      any other state whose requirements to obtain a license or
      permit is substantially similar to those requirements
      contained in Section 85.

      Looks like they’ve mandated reciprocity with other states that have equivalent training (NRA Pistol, etc.) and range-test requirements. Seems pretty reasonable to me — unlike RF I am just fine with requiring some form of basic instruction from a neutral third party AND demonstrating basic safety and marksmanship.

      • avatarChris Mallory says:

        I don’t see a “basic instruction” exemption to “..Shall Not Be Infringed…”. Unless you plan on providing the classes at all times of day and free of charge you will be infringing on some citizen’s ability to own a weapon.

  8. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    The number of times the NRA is mentioned in this bill, and the degree to which they are acknowledged as the reference authority in firearms training, is just ridiculously gratifying.

    Also, I’ve read the first half of the bill, and I’ve gotta say — it looks pretty damn reasonable. Even the school-zone provisions don’t suck: you can CCW on school property as long as you don’t enter any buildings. From what I’ve heard, that’s massively better than some other states where you can’t get out of your car while CCW.

    I also very much like the “if you ban guns in your buildings STFU about what people do in the parking lot” rule. Somebody clearly gave good thought to recent court cases that resulted in bizarre inconsistencies in other states, where you could be prohibited from CCW at your job AND prohibited from putting your weapon into safe storage in your trunk while on company property.

    I dream of the day the courts force CA to adopt a similar statute. With the elimination of open carry here in CA I believe that day is coming.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Wait. WTF. No Tasers for IL residents?

      That sucks — if my wife (for example) wanted to qualify with a handgun but carry a Taser instead, that should be her choice. Hell, if I wanted to carry a Taser AND a handgun, they should encourage me to do so!

      Apparently silencers are Right Out as well. I guess IL isn’t immune to legislating based on popular perceptions fostered by Hollywood.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I might be mis-reading the Taser restrictions. I don’t really care that much (don’t live in IL, sure as hell not planning to move there anytime soon) but if someone would like to offer a clear interpretation of Taser restrictions I’m all ears.

        • avatar16V says:

          Specifically prohibits them. It’s like page 10 or so. I cruised it when RF posted the link earlier, but it’s like 70 pages, so I don’t recall the exact one.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          A law crafted for Illinois simply has to take the realities of Chicago into account. Tasers have fallen out of favor in many jurisdictions, been banned, because their abuse by gangs, muggers, and sickos has been documented. Indeed, experience has shown that police themselves often have difficulty understanding what abuse-by-Taser is, and require expensive training in this regard. I think the informal thinking goes something like this: “If you are really being attacked unlawfully and with apparent and immediate lethal or maiming intent and ability, you ought to be willing to make a very loud noise, and a hole, when you respond with lethal force. Nothing quiet and potentially unnoticed by others should be encouraged.”

        • avatarandarm16 says:

          The relevant law is:
          “Firearm” means any device, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion, expansion of gas or escape of gas; excluding however:
          any pneumatic gun, spring gun, paint ball gun or B-B gun which either expels a single globular projectile not exceeding .18 inch in diameter and which has a maximum muzzle velocity of less than 700 feet per second or breakable paint balls containing washable marking colors;
          any device used exclusively for signalling or safety and required or recommended by the United States Coast Guard or the Interstate Commerce Commission;
          any device used exclusively for the firing of stud cartridges, explosive rivets or similar industrial ammunition; and
          an antique firearm (other than a machine-gun) which, although designed as a weapon, the Department of State Police finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector’s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon.

          Tasers expel a projectile, and aren’t BB/paintball guns, and are thus firearms. Therefore, while you can have one at home, you can’tr carry one. (Providing you have a FOID)

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          16V, Ropingdown — thanks, both of your comments were helpful.

          RD, I get your reasoning, especially given the quiet operation of the Taser, strangled grunting and screaming from the recipient notwithstanding. My own personal philosophy on use-of-force aligns with that just fine.

          However, I’m not sure I buy the argument that it should be unlawful for lawful citizens to carry a Taser instead of or in addition to a pistol if they choose to do so. Seems to me that if someone wants to carry a less-lethal force option (i.e. my wife) they should be permitted to do so.

          Your example of prohibited or soon-to-be-prohibited persons using Tasers is irrelevant to the licensed, lawful citizen case, as those same perps are (ahem) exceptionally unlikely to be properly licensed for the Glock they “got from a friend, can’t remember their name…”

        • avatarChris Mallory says:

          ” gangs, muggers, and sickos”

          It is easier to just say “cops”.

    • avatarAccur81 says:

      It’s about time I’ve read some good news! It would be great if CA suddenly became shall-issue as well. However, I still have issues with schools as Gun Free Zones. I hate to say this, but history shows us that it is only a matter of time before some nutcase shoots up another GFZ, and then the fight continues.

      Maybe I’ll use some of my paternity time and see if I can influence Ed Royce into putting more support into eliminating GFZ’s, which is HR133 if memory serves. In the meantime, if it was an off-duty LEO who put a stop to one of these shootings, I would be very happy with that. Actually I would be even happier if it wasn’t an LEO – that would demonstrate the value of the 2A as it has done in the past.

      CA needs a “shall issue” CCW. It would be awesome if “gun nuts” went on the offensive and expanded rights.

      • avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

        This is the response you get when you send an email in support of CC Reciprocity:

        “Thank you for your letter regarding the “Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012″ (S. 2213). I appreciate your taking the time to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.

        Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) introduced the Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act on March 20, 2012. The bill would effectively allow the concealed carry gun laws of one state to nullify restrictions on concealed carry in other states. This bill would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states—including states with less restrictive gun control laws.

        While I appreciate knowing your views on this issue, please know that I do not support concealed weapons license reciprocity. It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. A federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit.

        California sets a very high bar for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. California’s strict rules ensure that felons, the mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses or are considered a threat to others are automatically disqualified. This legislation would force California to honor permits issued by all other States, including those which allow minors, convicted criminals, and people with no firearm safety training to carry concealed weapons.

        Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may have different views on this issue, please know that I appreciate hearing from you and hope you continue to inform me of issues that matter to you. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841, or visit my website at http://feinstein.senate.gov.

        Sincerely yours,

        Dianne Feinstein
        United States Senator

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          There’s a huge difference between Federally-mandated reciprocity (the topic of your correspondence) versus the state-by-state system being discussed.

          We have a long way to go before national reciprocity is on the table. Frankly, I don’t think it will ever happen, because even if all states go shall-issue (heh) there will still be a huge gap between those which mandate training and qualification, and those which do not.

        • avatar16V says:

          So sad that Miller never got reheard on the Circuit level.

          NFA ’34 could have been declared unconstitutional, constitutional concealed carry could have been elaborated and specified, and we could have stopped this cancer before it spread.

      • avatarmatt says:

        It would also be great if CA LEOs like yourself would stop arresting people for exercising their 2A right to bear arms. Just because the politicians are doing something unconstitutional doesnt mean you have to too.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          You really have no idea how to tell friend from foe, do you?

          Did a policeman touch you in a bad place when you were a child? Perhaps that is why you’re such a seething fountain of hatred towards anyone working in law enforcement, even those who are clearly on our side like Accur81.

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          That’s at least the third time I’ve seen you level that accusation at him, despite his protestations to the contrary. Are you privy to some information the rest of us, possibly including Accur81 himself, are not?

        • avatarjwm says:

          So, matt. What have you done for the 2a? You don’t vote. Do you belong to SAF? NRA? Where exactly have you paid your dues for the cause?

          You’re very quick to judge the actions of others, but what of your actions? Or lack of actions?

    • avatarreiser says:

      The restrictions in this bill look like Missouri’s. It gives you list of “unauthorised” places not “prohibited” places. So with that said, in missouri you can carry anywhere that is unauthorised but if you are found to have a conceal “WEAPON” not just gun in an unauthorised place then you have to be FIRST asked to leave or remove weapon from said unauthorised place, if you don’t complie then the police can be involved….

      So the way I read and interpret the IL bill, carry anywhere you want just don’t get made.

  9. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I just read most of it, and I’d be reasonably happy, if I was an Illinoisian. Illiniosite. Illinoiser.

    A few notes:
    1. The restriction on public libraries was interesting and unusual to me.
    2. The restriction on colleges and universities was disappointing, but expected.
    3. No gun signs carry the weight of law, which is unfortunate, because it means you have to walk carefully. (But at least the penalties are not draconian.)
    4. Must inform law enforcement upon contact.
    5. Looked like state level preemption, so that’s good. If I read that right, municipalities can’t pass their own little stupid laws. However, see #3, businesses still can.
    6. Reciprocity. I’m gonna get a non-resident Illinois permit, even though I’ll likely never set foot in that state. Just because I can.
    7. Illinois rules for carry in and around airports are less restrictive than Florida’s. We have a stupid rule. We have really good gun laws here by most standards, and then that one just makes it all wonky.

    All in all, as I said, I’d be relatively happy.

    • avatar16V says:

      MattFL, where did you see see the ‘must inform on contact’?

      I read ‘must inform when queried’ by LE. Did I miss something?

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Page 21:

        (e) If a law enforcement officer initiates an investigative stop, including but not limited to a traffic stop, of a licensee who is carrying a concealed firearm, the licensee shall disclose as soon as reasonably possible to the officer that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm under this Act. Disclosure may be accomplished by oral notification or by providing or displaying the license to carry a concealed firearm to the officer.

        • avatar16V says:

          Thanks Matt, I had to re-read that. Earlier it says ‘must inform if asked’ and I kinda tuned your citation out.

          Mea culpa.

        • avatartdiinva says:

          That is the way it is in Virginia. You are required to present your permit at a traffic stop and then inform the officer if you are carrying. I always lead by showing the permit or the words I have a carry permit so he doesn’t hear the word “gun” before “permit.”
          Speaking of cops and concealed carry. I was had a chuckle tonight when I was out with the hounds. There was K-9 cop who was “exercising” his dog and it started to get vocal and aggressive when we walked by. The cop thought that his dog was reacting to my dogs when I knew the dog was reacting to the smell of my 9mm.

        • avatarElliotte says:

          @tdiinva Not true. VA does not require you to inform LE upon contact. VA does require you to present your permit & photo ID upon request by a LEO, but you are not required to inform them you have a permit or are carrying.

          Check the VA State Police website on firearms and concealed carry http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm scroll all the way to the bottom, it’s the last question of the FAQ.

          That said, it’s generally a good idea to inform an officer upon contact, but it’s not a requirement in VA

    • avatarandarm16 says:

      So I assume that Chicago could just pass an ordinance requiring that all licensed businesses post a no concealed carry sign, or lose their business license?

      • avatarOld Ben turning in grave says:

        That would be consistent with their past behavior. Or they might not even pass a regulation, just start denying permits to those who don’t play ball (or suddenly non-compliant businesses would start failing inspections, etc.).

        • avatarMatt in FL says:

          While both of those are theoretically possible, be assured that the lawyers, and by extension the courts, will be watching very closely for shenanigans in this area.

    • avatarCarrymagnum says:

      Come on guy, the libraries should not surprise you. What is the trademark sound of a gun going off( minus a silencer)? You really shouldn’t disrupt someone studying for the simple reason of protecting your life. Sheesh Matt

  10. avatarChris says:

    Wow. SC has tougher standards

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      Ohio requires 12 hours of training, this only calls for 4! Never thought I’d see the day. Hope it goes through as written

      • avatarandarm16 says:

        I think the thinking behind this was to try and make us the new go to state for non res permits.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          You know, that might actually work, even if they didn’t intend it that way. Having both training and range-qual requirements means that IL permits are likely to be valid in most other states.

  11. avatarSakiri says:

    I wonder if this means CA’s “may issue” will be challenged.

    I’m not much a fan of letting them into medical records though. Anyone that has ever seen a mental health professional for any reason, regardless of that reason, will likely be denied. Seen a therapist after your spouse died in a car wreck? No CCW for you! Saw a doc for Ritalin as a kid? No CCW for you!

    /sigh

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Short answer: that challenge is coming. It became inevitable with the demise of open carry in CA — and boy howdy am I elated to see this happen in IL, as it is extremely likely to be the template for a similar law in CA when the state is forced to go shall-issue.

      • avatarBrooklyn in da house says:

        When you say coming do you have any idea what that time frame is?

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Years, not months, from what little I’ve been able to deduce from the progress of various court cases, the overall pattern of suits filed, and cryptic comments by some of those involved.

          I’m pretty sure the court-action priority in CA right now is on winning shall-issue on a county-by-county basis — see the recent victories in Sacramento Co and elsewhere for examples of progress.

          Here in Alameda Co we’ve “won” the gun-show case (opposition conceded rather than set a precedent which would topple a bunch of other unconstitutional laws) and now the fight is over the government making it impossible for a new gun store to open for business.

          Unfortunately it seems like Alameda Co is one of the final citadels of anti-2A CCW laws as far as our legal champions are concerned, and because they’re going after all of the softer targets first to get precedents established before trying to crack this nut.

        • avatar16V says:

          Alameda is 800 sq/mi with 1.5MM people jammed into it, half of which are ‘people who vote never see evil directly’ like in P-Ton, Dublin, San Leandro, and the like. Even the snobs in the Oakland Hills have no idea what the rest of Oakland is comprised of – other than ‘scary negros with guns’…

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          16V, I generally agree, but… roughly 1/6 of that total population lives in my city (Fremont) and we are daily proof that criminals have learned not to shyt where they live. Not when they can travel half an hour down the road and commit crimes where they’re far less likely to be recognized by their buddy’s grandmother.

          Burglaries, car thefts, armed robbery, probationers using Motel 6 as their halfway house, and of course, the occasional random murder of a mother walking her kids to elementary school. From my many recent interactions with Fremont PD and other Bay Area LEOs I can share that the vast majority of these predators travel to nearby communities to commit their crimes.

        • avatar16V says:

          AlphaGeek,

          I agree with you completely. I was just pointing out that a good potion of the ‘voting public’ in Alameda County was rather unknowing of how the world really works.

          (Former P-Ton, Twin Peaks, and Campbell denizen perspective…)

      • avatarMark N. says:

        There are at least three cases pending right now in the Ninth Circuit which have been briefed and argued, and are awaiting decision. No telling how long it will be before we hear whether or not our may issue system passes constitutional muster. If may issue is overturned, the case will likely be reviewed en banc, and again, there is no telling how long that will take, and there is little doubt that the loser will seek SCOTUS review, absent some case decided by the high court in the interim. California will go down kicking and fighting on shall issue, IMO. So it will likely be four or five years until the issue is settled here. (Our first big case, that ultimately fizzled, Nordyke v. King, went on for thirteen years before Alameda caved and allowed gun shows on county property.)

  12. avatarOHgunner says:

    This is awesome. Can’t wait for it to pass

  13. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    We New Yorkers are JEALOUS!

  14. Now we just need to fix Massachusetts, NJ, NY, Hawaii, and Maryland. Forget anyone?

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Look to the west… no, further west… there it is. California.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      California and DC.

      • avatarTexanHawk says:

        Heck California I can almost understand. What still gets me is that my Texas license is not honored in Nevada, Oregon or Washington. Away from the cities, all of those 4 states (Cali included) are very outdoorsman, hunting, ranching etc.

        • avatarCarlosT says:

          What’s especially weird about that is my Washington license is honored in Texas. Thanks Governor Perry.

          I honestly don’t know why the reciprocity doesn’t go both ways. Texas has more requirements than we do, so that’s not it.

    • avatarMike S says:

      Rhode Island. By law, a shall issue state, handled by individual municipal PDs……however they just do whatever the hell they want. An applicant in one town will have no trouble, while someone literally down the street, but on the wrong side of a town border hasn’t a chance in h3ll.

  15. avatarKen Rangen says:

    I find that HB1001 is for something altogether different. I did find that particular bill that this story is about (concealed carry) listed on the Illinois General Assembly website as HB0997.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      True dat. Text amended.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      Um, when I click on the link in this article, the PDF document that opens is called the “Family and Personal Protection Act” and is designated HB1001. I think RF’s original designation is correct.

  16. avatarJoshinGA says:

    This is awesome. Can you imagine Rahm when he gets told he cant fvck with this? I would pay money to see his face when that happens.

    • avatarMark N. says:

      Hearing it would be more entertaining. He is famously capable of tossing perjoratives, insults, slurs, threats, and cuss words.

  17. avatardirk diggler says:

    1) FOAD Ballerina Boy

    2) National Reciprocity will happen. Barbara Boxer (ie Mini-DiFi) introduced a bill to require states to have minimum standards for carrying, etc, recently. I read it as an elimination of constiutional carry recognition/reciprocity outside of those 4 states in return for some national license, or at least some minimum standard to carry nationally. It was odd she would do this if they thought Barry had the real authority to issue an EO. But since the SCOTUS just pimp slapped him, this may be tacit recognition and her attempt to get something out of the inevitable.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I know this may be sacrilege to some folks ’round these parts, but Barbara Boxer is not actually a demon from hell like, um, our other US Senator.

      • avatarGreg in Allston says:

        She may be the lesser of two evils but she is still evil. And she did come from hell, she grew up in Brooklyn in the 40′s and 50′s.

  18. avatardirk diggler says:

    Another benefit appears to be the no registration requirement. Definitely conflcits with the chicago rule on mere ownership. :-). Looks like Ballerina Boy does not get to know who has what. For a control freak, that’s huge.

    • avatarTaurus609 says:

      Dirk, just our luck here in MO, Ill-noise probably won’t allow MO reciprocity being we’re neighbors. I was happy when WI finally got CC, I figured another state to add to reciprocity. But then found out, even though we honor theirs, they don’t honor ours. Something to do with our background check policy (according to the MO. AG’s office).

  19. avatarToo close to Chicago says:

    Can’t wait for this to be a reality!! Woo hoo!!

    • avatarCGinChicago says:

      You and me both. I esspecially cant wait to see the tribune/sun times articles when the first group of thugs “just turning thier lives around” get a rude awakening from those they try to harm.

  20. avatarToo close to Chicago says:

    I particularly like this part…

    (h) Any Illinois resident who has a license or permit to carry a handgun issued by another state shall be able to carry a handgun in accordance with this Act using that license for 180 days following the effective date of this Act.

    I will have up to 6 months to get my Illinois CCL and will be legal to carry at the same time.

    • avatarBen says:

      Where exactly is that?

      • avatarMatt in FL says:

        Page 6.

        You know you can hit Ctrl-F to pull up a search box on basically any webpage or .pdf open in your browser, right? Since he gave you the exact wording, you don’t even have to guess the search term. I just typed in “180.” It probably took me less time to find the quoted section than it took you to type your question and hit Post.

        If you’re on a mobile device, it’s not quite that easy, but the concept remains the same.

  21. avataruncommon_sense says:

    The introduction to the bill states that the Illinois Department of State Police shall issue a license within 30 days of receiving a completed application. What happens if the Department of State Police are backlogged and processing licenses takes longer than 30 days?

    Does a person get a temporary license? Are there any sanctions for the Illinois Department of State Police if they are routinely taking longer than 30 days? What if they simply refuse to process applications or process applications so slowly that they are in effect refusing to support the bill/law?

    • avatar16V says:

      I’m not trying to be a huge Richard, but re-read the thing (it’s only 60 pages).

      It’s spelled out on the end of page 5 and the beginning of page 6. There are remedies for individuals (and penalties for gov) for failure to issue within 30 days without valid cause spelled out.

    • avatarBrad_in_MA says:

      There’s a similar case happening right now in Massachusetts. MA law says that a license must be issued within 40 days or be denied in writing with the reasons for denial clearly stated. Since MA reworked its laws in 1998, some towns have been very good about the 40-day limit, others have played games. The case I mentioned had one town sued because they took 11 months to issue a license.

      What can be done . . . .
      1) Send in your application via certified mail with a return receipt. You now have documentation as to when the 30-day counter begins.
      2) If your application is hand delivered, come with two copies. Note which one is the copy, and have the receiving clerk sign and date that the app was received.

      Of course the PoPo could always indicate that a received application was incomplete and thus delay the 30-day counter. Bottom line . . . it is plausible to see a court challenge.

  22. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    For the times, they are a changin’. And then there were none.

    It’s been a very rough few weeks for Team 2A. We’d been on a pretty good roll for a number of years and is all too typical and predictable we had gotten mushy and complacent. I’m pretty sure that most folks that have been following the 2A scene knew that it was only a matter of time before we’d have our very own and uniquely American Dunblane. Our opponents have been patiently waiting for the right crisis to drop into their laps. All of this flurry of legislation has been sitting in filing cabinets just waiting for the launch command. It should come as no surprise that they’re waging a scorched earth campaign. The good news is that we’re still on a roll and we’re making good head way even if now we’re running into a strong head wind. Illinois is a good example. There are many other important cases in the works that will likely go our way. Take heart, stay focused, keep working.

    Like I’ve said many times before, if gun owners had voted with their wallets by organizing and funding legal challenges to many of the most egregious gun laws across the country, we wouldn’t be in near the predicament we find ourselves in today. Imagine if SAF and Alan Gura had a full time staff composed of David Hardy, David Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, and a hand full of other hot shot 2A lawyers, along with a staff of sharp, young legal eagles, researchers, clerks and assistants. Now imagine that Gura’s staff has a $400 million war-chest (4 million plus NRA members @ $100/member) with which to rain down death and destruction on our opponents in the courts. What do you think that might do to alter the current 2A landscape?

    Imagine if every post Sandy Hook freaked out panic buyer had sent a small fraction of what they’ve spent in the last month to SAF how different our position and options might be.

    We all know that our opponents are in this for the long haul, that they are relentless and that they are well funded. We have to be smarter, even more relentless, more tenacious and better funded. They must be crushed and swept from the field. Hoarding all of your over priced goodies in your bunker isn’t the smart play. Pony up, lend a hand, speak out.

  23. avatarGyufygy says:

    Holy crap, this is exciting, but what are the odds that it will pass? Are there any opposing, more restrictive bills being introduced, ones that might be more palatable (relatively speaking) to the goons in Chicago?

  24. avatartdiinva says:

    I would like to see this happen and have reciprocity with Virginia so I can avoid doing the lockup at the Indiana and Iowa borders but unless Governor Quinn has grown a pair in the New Year he is going to veto any CCW legislation. The only way that this bill can get signed is if there is some sort of carve out for Chicago. Sorry to piss in the punch bowl.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Let’s not forget that IL is under court order to pass legislation meeting certain standards, and they’re on a deadline. The rules are a little different when you’ve lost the court case and have been ordered to comply with the Constitution within 180 days.

      • avatartdiinva says:

        The case has been appealed and will be heard by the entire Appellate Court. Then it will be on to the Supreme Court for side that loses Just don’t get your hopes up. If it happens CCW could be several years away.

        • avatarChuck says:

          There is no guarantee that the 7th circuit will hear it en banc. If they refuse, I’m not sure what happens should they decide that.

        • avatar16V says:

          If they refuse to hear en banc the party may request The Supremes perform certiorari or more plainly known as “hear the case”.

    • avatarGreg in Allston says:

      Read the Court’s decision, there won’t be any carve out. If Quinn vetoes the legislation, Illinois will go shall issue whether they like it or not, per the Court’s order.

  25. The Chicago carve out is right there. All the mayor needs to do is declare the entire city one giant child care facility.

  26. avatarBackyardsniper says:

    I bet tiny dancer did more than just throwing up a little in his mouth, I hope he’s leaning over the $hi#er in agony.

  27. avatarmahagowitz says:

    Do we still need the FOID cards?

  28. avatarJohn Boch says:

    Todd did good on this bill, with the help of a number of pro-gun leaders in Illinois.

    Guns Save Life enthusiastically supports this bill.

    Yeah, it’s not perfect.

    We’re merely human though.

    John

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Damn fine work, John. Pass along our thanks to Todd, and be sure to send him a link to this post and encourage him to read the comments. I think he’d be feeling pretty good after reading all of the glowing feedback from a bunch of picky b@stards like the TTAG commenter crew. :)

  29. avatarJLG says:

    That was my thought too. Maybe make it where if they choose not to post no gun signs they have to purchase some additional insurance of some sort

  30. avatarJoe says:

    Bringing a Taser to a gun fight? You’ll lose. It has two darts that must hit the same object. Gun only has one projectile and multiple shots, while the Taser has one.

  31. avatarPat says:

    Quick question. Under this bill I have questions on the mental health. I have never committed a crime and never any violence. I did see a psychologist to help quit smoking cigarettes due to the anxiety I was feeling at that time. I also saw him with my wife a couple times to strengthen our relationship. Does this mean I will be denied? I would seriously be crushed if that were the case. I never had problems other than anxiety for the year after I quit, I was a heavy smoker for 20 years. Thanks

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      I find a denial under those circumstances extraordinarily unlikely.

    • avatarKevin Gibbs says:

      Usually the wording is something along the lines of “a state sponsored entity like a court has found you mentally defective.” Quiting smoking or working on your marriage isn’t a court order of mentally defective.

      Lots of people see counselors for troubles like stress. That’s not being a mentally defective person. I think even the armed services are trying to get some cases of PTSD cleared so soldiers won’t have to give up their CCW rights if they see a DR about this.

      • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

        “Usually” being the operative word here. We are talking about a desperate group of individuals, the anti’s that is.

  32. avatarBob23 says:

    I live in Jersey (face2palm and shaking head)

  33. avatarAnonymous says:

    “It is declared to be the policy of this State that it is an exclusive power and function of the State to regulate the possession, carrying, and transportation of handguns and the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm.”

    Sounds like Chicago’s “assault pistol” crap is going out the window. :)

  34. avatarBen says:

    Where exactly is that?

  35. avatarAl G. says:

    The Bill Number is HB0997.

  36. If this does not pass, then anyone with a FOID will be able to carry concealed as a result of a recent 7th circuit decision. Unless the en banc appeal is granted, or SCOTUS grants cert. in which case the 7th Circuit order will be stayed.

    Something MUST BE DONE by the legislature to setup a method to allow carry in public, or the court order takes effect, and there will by no other requirement than “not prohibited to possess”.

  37. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    Now if NJ would just get their crap together, I could go back to visiting family in those states w/o having to ditch the heater every time I cross a bridge, ugh…

  38. avatarMike says:

    House bill number should be HB0997 instead of HB0977, just a point of interest. Glad to hear it for the good citizens of the state of IL!

  39. avatarAlan Rose says:

    Hmmm. Maybe after a couple years of blood NOT running in the streets, etc. and people actually learning to VALUE their permits, and a few BGs down, the rules can loosen some more. Any word on open carry in the bill?

  40. avatarBob in Amarillo says:

    Chicago politicians don’t care. The $10k fine a day for violation will be paid by the taxpayers, not the politicians.

  41. AND NEXT CALIFORNIAAAAAAA…aaaaa..aaaaa…….. uuuuhhhhhh… Right? This is the Shall-Issue party right?

    California STATE police should be incharge of issuing. Here in Los Angeles, Lee Baca has denied thousands of citizens their right to carry. He has however authorized LTC’s for celebrities, big wigs, and Scientologist supporters.

    Now if we could only get records of the CCWs he’s issued and find their scientology connection we might have a discrimination case.

    We need BACA OUT!

  42. avatarJPT says:

    I live in IL(the real IL not Chicago area) and just breezing through the bill left me pleased overall. I have some issues with it but considering what we had before I cant complain too much. Pluse being a HDveteran from the infantry i wouldnt have to take any classes or qual. on the range, saving me a couple bucks!

  43. avatarMark N. says:

    I just spent a half an hour perusing the web pages of the Chicago Tribune. And there is not a single mention of this bill. Not one. If it isn’t in the Trib, it isn’t news, right? Or if we bury our heads in the sand, this “problem” will go away? And this lack of reporting mere days after the Trib reported that Rahm announced he would be introducing his own Chicago gun laws because the Legislature had not reached any consensus….I wonder how he planned on incorporating the Moore decision?

  44. avatarsirmatthew says:

    A few comments about the bill.

    Page 6 (h): At the time of passage, any IL resident who has a valid carry permit from another state will be allowed to carry in IL under that permit for 180 days. So, for a period of six months, the state of IL will trust IL citizens to carry with a permit obtained without live-fire training. This would include permits from PA, GA, UT, and others. Yet, after six months, those same citizens can no longer be trusted to carry without live-fire training and the out-of-state permits will no longer be acceptable when held by IL residents. However, non-residents having those same permits will continue to be free to carry in IL (see page 15-16 of the bill). Why would we want to treat non-residents better than IL taxpayer citizens?

    Suppose I get this new IL permit in 2013 (background check #1), renew my FOID card in 2014 (background check #2), renew my permit in 2018 (background check #3), renew my permit again in 2023 (background check #4), and renew my FOID card in 2024 (background check #5). Even if I do not buy a firearm during this ten-year time period (each of which will require yet another background check), I’ll have to submit to background check every other year (on average). This seems excessive. Also, the 2A secures one right with two parts (keep and bear), so why does IL feel the need to license each part separately? Are there some gun owners who do not wish to carry? Of course, but all bearers are also keepers. Why not have the carry permit replace the FOID card entirely? Eliminate the training requirement and the qualifications for both cards are nearly identical. If someone doesn’t qualify for a carry permit chances are they won’t qualify for a FOID card either. Other states get by just fine with a single firearm card and I think IL could too.

    Lastly, we know there are some people in IL who cannot afford the time and expense needed to fulfill the training requirement. The unemployed, for example, account for nearly 9% of all IL citizens. Since minorities have a higher unemployment rate the training requirement poses a greater burden for people of color in IL. Another quarter-million families live below the poverty line, so chances are they won’t be paying for training. Hard-working single parents, college students, disabled, homeless, and the elderly (retired on a fixed income) can’t always carve out the time, expense, and logistics (e.g. transportation) to get certified training. Many other people do not live near or have access to a firearm range. The people who wrote this section of the bill are obviously none of these classes of people and they can afford the time and money for training, but this bill needs to take into account the 2A is for ALL the citizens of IL. The 2A says the people, not just NRA pistol course participants who have the time and money to spend on training, have the right to both keep and bear arms. It makes no sense to impose this burden upon IL citizens when non-residents having PA license (no training required) are free to carry when visiting IL. Well, I take that back. Since the NRA is behind this bill then the training requirement does make sense to them. What better way to generate tons of new business for NRA certified trainers than to mandate it by law from all potential IL permit holders?

    In summary, I cannot support this bill until the training requirement is eliminated and the permit replaces the FOID card entirely. That’s just my two cents worth.

  45. avatarSA Operator says:

    (a-5) The Department is authorized to issue licenses to
    carry a handgun under this Act. A license shall permit the
    licensee to:
    (1) carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his
    or her person, concealed or otherwise;
    (2) keep or carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or
    about his or her person when in a vehicle; and
    (3) keep a loaded or unloaded handgun openly or
    concealed in a vehicle.

    Does subset (1) imply open carry? What is meant by otherwise. If this meant only concealed, why put in OTHERWISE???

  46. avatarJames says:

    No home rule means no super majority needed so Quinn and the Cullerton gang have no room for negotiation in June Illinois will become a carry state. Reject all the bills we will carry in June.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.