House-Senate Compromise Reached On Illinois Concealed Carry

By John Boch

A compromise has supposedly been reached, according to State Senator Kwame Raoul via an AP report.

(AP) – Raoul told The Associated Press that lawmakers are “still tightening up details” but the package has reached common ground on key issues. Those compromises include preserving local gun ordinances and prohibiting weapons from being carried in places including schools and public parks, and tightening penalties.

Sources are telling us tonight that it’s a mixed bag. The big one is the sweeping pre-emption on gun laws has been thrown out.  Frankly, it was really the only carrot in the bill as we saw it.

The language isn’t available yet, and best guess is that both sides are going to be up late tonight negotiating the final details. We’ll withhold castigation until we’ve seen the language. The good news is that the mag ban bill is dead for procedural reasons.

That’s the latest tonight.

John is president of Guns Save Life. This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission.


  1. avatar dwb says:

    There is no cliff. Madigan can probably get a stay pending appeal, and buy another year.

  2. Yeah….I’d rather see so many lawsuits filed that SCOTUS steps in and just rules that Constitutional Carry is mandated in all 50 States and that Gun Free Zones are Constitutional violations.

    Anything else is just BS.

    1. avatar WA_2A says:

      YES. +1

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Haha, SCOTUS would never in a million years do that.

  3. Local radio is saying that Phelps (the downstate House D who pushed the less restrictive bill) says the House will not pass anything with a strict Chicago carve out. It sounded like it’s state-wide shall issue, but with most local ordinances still in place.

    At this point, I say they keep bickering and let the June 9 deadline take effect.

    Illustrating Chicago’s Murders, Homicides, Violence and Idiocy at

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      We should not give up preemption. We have a lot of leverage now. Use it.

    2. avatar J- says:

      I was really hoping for preemption, I know Chicago would never go for it, but it would have wiped out Aurora’s assault weapon/mag capacity limit ban. Other than that, CCW or not, I don’t go any closer to Chicago than O’Hare.

  4. avatar ChainsawWieldingManiac says:

    Losing pre-emption would be a HUGE loss. Definitely fight to keep that, if you can.

  5. avatar Mistereveready says:

    Is sickening that a government body can and do dictate where a person may fend for their lives. Some sort of magical line where street, fine, cross over into park and you’re an evil criminal who should disarm so that others may prey upon you with relative safety (theirs).

    Imo, there are only a few places that I’d see as legitimate No Gun Zones. First are prisons/courts. Barely at that. Mostly due to the ability of multiple buddies coming in to spring a friend. The second would be any place with a bunch of explosive chemicals that could be set off by gun shots.

    Anyhow, I wish Illinois gun owners luck. Sucks that you have to plead for what is rightfully yours.

    1. avatar Gtfoxy says:


      1. avatar B says:

        If a place is a gun free zone, that place has an obligation to provide security for the people inside. You can’t just disarm people in a building then claim no responsibility when those people get gunned down. That seems really obvious to me.

    2. avatar Pat says:

      Now the bad guys know where to concentrate…the parks. Stupid libtards.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        wait, don’t they already do that, at least here in oregon, they do.

  6. avatar ST says:

    Lets fast forward to the end of the story;


    Illinois enacts county by county May Issue CCW, which is later upheld under the Heller clause of “reasonable restrictions”.No county north of I-80 issues to anyone not a member of the Public Establishment, and Chicago continues to arrest anyone daring to defend themselves or pass through with a legally owned firearm.

    Why? Quinn will not sign anything else into law, and we do not have enough legislature members in support to override a veto.

    1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

      Then let him veto & explain to SCOYUS why he did so. Then SCOTUS can defend their decission via the Ill. Legislature.

      Push hard & don’t compromise on principles, otherwise you compromising on your principles.

  7. avatar Ron Burgundy says:

    You’re allowed to concealed carry, except in parks and of course murder capital Chicago.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Appalling legislative sleight of hand from the most corrupt state west of Rhode Island.

  9. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Keep your eyes on Kwame Raoul. I have $20 that he will be indicted within the next 10 yrs. He is very much a Chicago politician . . . . . and I will be there when he enters the federal pen. Laughing.

  10. avatar Too Close to Chicago says:

    The bill that passed the house last week was barely palatable and full of compromise. I am not eager to see what we lose on this bill. I guess it is still a starting point and going over the cliff is just not an option that will help me up in the Northern part of the state. If we go over the cliff, the local ordinances will come fast and furious, making it impossible to carry anywhere North of I-80.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      You’ll get a bill stating that you are legally allowed to carry your gun (with a permit that costs $500 and a mandatory $2,500 training course) from your front door, to your mailbox, and back. No stopping along the way to even pick up the newspaper or you will be guilty of a felony with a minimum sentence of 30 years and a $1 million fine.

      1. avatar Too Close to Chicago says:

        That sounds about right.

  11. avatar JeffR says:

    The Illinois Observer is reporting what appears to be preemption of handgun laws with Chicago’s gun registry gone but the Cook County AWB remaining. On the Illinois Carry forum, the NRA lobbyist, Todd Vandermyde, is saying that details of any compromise are still not known.

  12. avatar JeffR says:

    Btw, for those not from Illinois, the Senate President, John Cullerton, is anti-gun and wants to go over the cliff. He wants 200 separate home rules relative to concealed carry and to preserve all the local bans. Going past the June 9 deadline may not be so wonderful, at least north of I-80 and in a few downstate counties. Losing complete preemption sucks, but I’d rather see aspects of this bill challenged in court than starting anew with challenges to multiple local ordinances and no statewide law. And there are no guarantees SCOTUS will take up anything. These court battles, in all likelihood, will end in the 7th Circuit which is split almost down the middle on this issue and with outcomes dependent on which 3-judge panel is drawn.

    1. avatar mike123 says:

      Sadly, even with Preemption gun-totters will need to take every city to court to enforce it. Preemption is an empty suit unless someone is willing to step up and fight for it.

      Let me share GeorgiaCarry.Org’s experience in Georgia. Georgia has preemption but hundreds of cities banned firearms in parks. GCO sent letters and called city leaders and none would repeal their park bans. GeorgiaCarry had to sue nearly 20 localities before the signs/bans came down. There are still some holdouts and those cases are still pending (last I looked).

      From an uninformed but long term view, I believe Illinois gun owners will be better off going off the cliff. A bill, any bill, will allow the courts to smile and walk away and say their job is done. Without it being resolved at a state level, the courts involvement will still be required. Think of all of the good cases you can sue for (unequal protection, discrimination, etc.).

      Pick out the weakest city financially and sue ’em. Illinois gun-totters need to create a target rich environment. Don’t look for a short cut. Take the long term view.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Very good points Mike123 … we need more careful thought and planning like this.

  13. avatar andarm16 says:

    This has made a lot of people angry. From what I’ve read on Illinois Carry, the only reason some people were accepting last week’s bill was the preemption, and the loss of Chicago / Cook County’s AWB. If this bill doesn’t preempt Chicago / Cook’s mag bans, this could create a crap ton of trouble.

  14. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    So criminals and rapists magically stop and don’t enter parks. Sounds legit to me…

  15. avatar JeffR says:

    This quote almost made me throw up:

    Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, who also was involved in negotiations, said municipalities could keep current gun ordinances, such as Chicago’s assault-weapons ban and Cook County’s firearm and ammunition tax, but would be prohibited from enacting ordinances that could potentially deter a person’s Second Amendment rights.

    Read more:

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      Grandfathering existing gun ordinances but disallowing new ones is not without precedent. I am aware of Delaware and West Virginia, but there may be more cases than that.

      Speaking of preemption, this one worries me (not IL-related):

    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      Gradfathering existing local gun ordinances but preempting new ones was done in West Virginia and I think Delware in the past, so it is not a new concept. It may be better than no preemption at all.

      1. avatar JeffR says:

        Agreed, but I live in Cook County and was already dreaming of the banned rifle that I would buy first. My vomit inducing reaction was more to the reference about laws that could potentially deter 2A rights immediately after the comment about Cook County’s firearm and ammunition taxes.

  16. avatar Dave357 says:

    It’s a bit early to speculate, but let’s not forget that a blanket preemption of all local gun ordinances unrelated to concealed carry was a rather unexpected “bonus” that sounded a bit too good to be true and that may have been introduced as an item to trade away as needed.

    One does need a preemption of all local ordinances related to carrying, otherwise the bill would make no sense. It would be very nice to not end up in a situation where a Chicago resident can get a concealed carry permit that is valid everywhere, including in Chicago, but can’t in practice get a handgun to carry because handgun licensing/registration procedures in Chicago are just too much of a pain to deal with. If they fix at least these items, it would still be a big step forward for IL, Chicago AWB or no Chicago AWB. And no, you don’t want to go over a cliff – going to SCOTUS is just too risky, although it may yet happen anyway if the Governor of IL vetoes whatever bill lands on his desk.

    What a cliffhanger, no pun intended.

  17. avatar Ropingdown says:

    Perhaps there should be a “Foreign News” section in this website to highlight coverage of Chicago, CA, NY, RI, MD, and CT?

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      More like Extra Terestrial News

    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      Don’t forget NJ, MA, and DC. What else am I missing? As for RI, it’s actually not quite clear yet what’s going to happen there, or so it seems.

      1. avatar JeffR says:


  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Am I the only one who thinks that the phrase “Illinois Concealed Carry” is a non sequitur?

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      You are not being fair to all the gangbangers in Chicago.

  19. avatar peirsonb says:

    This isn’t the first time I’ve seen “the full text isn’t available yet.” I can’t speak for Illinois specifically, but I know in Michigan that as soon as a bill is introduced into either the state house or senate it is made available on the legislature’s website. Usually it takes some digging to find because no one likes to make the bill number available, but the text is usually available. I’ve followed several bills from introduction on the floor, through committee, and on to passage this way.

    I even managed to find the FEDERAL gun control bill, with the ban on evil black rifles, on their website. Again, it took three days to dig up the bill number but it was there in full.

    I would imagine this bill is also available if someone could find out the number assigned to it…

  20. avatar Kirk says:

    Illinois is going the California route. I can say, from personal experience, it should work out quite well.

    For the State.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email