Previous Post
Next Post


Reader Tony Comella isn’t quite so sanguine about the latest attempt to get a concealed carry bill passed in the Land o’ Lincoln. Here are a few questions he posed for the bill’s sponsor, State Rep. Brandon Phelps, on our MyFace page:

I’ve now read SB2193 nearly a dozen times. Each time I read it, I narrowed my objections down to the most important issues I see with the bill. Representative Phelps, please address the following issues and why these items are important to the passage of this bill:

#1. Why do we need to include so many restricted zones? It has been proven, and facts and history indicate that violence is most prevalent in areas designated as “gun free”. Point of fact: criminals do not honor gun free zones, so are we not promoting more violence in these areas? Remember . . .

…and I stand firm on this fact, it is the “prospect” that citizens “may be” armed that serves as the absolute best dissuader. Criminals are cowardly, and don’t want to be confronted by an armed citizen; this fact has been attested to by jailed criminals in various published studies. Also, it seems as no coincidence that areas of the inner cities where crime is at its highest are also restricted, providing no opportunity for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Example, CTA, public parks, stadiums and events.

#2 Why are the fees so high? The cost of not only the fees, but the cost to acquire training is cost prohibitive to those who need concealed carry the most. It is wholly unreasonable to expect a working man to dedicate the time and associated costs to attaining a CC permit, once again prohibiting those who need this the most.

#3 Why does the bill need to be so administratively “heavy”? It seems that the costs required to fund these various panels and processes are entirely unnecessary, and serve only to increase costs and cause delays in the process. Again, this is not rocket science, and our constitutional rights do not call out the need for such complexity. (as a side note, there are groups that are forming to file litigation against this point).

#4 The approval process is unnecessarily intrusive, and while one would expect a thorough vetting of candidates, much of the information required (especially to address a denial) to submit application is neither necessary nor relevant, and I have concerns that this information will be shared with others that have no reason or need to be privy to same. There are no safeguards in place, and even if there were, the people do not trust that the government will keep this information in complete confidence. (side note 2, the intentional or inadvertent release of this information to unauthorized parties opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation towards the state, especially if it violates HIPPA).

#5 Why does the licensing authority require so much time to issue the permit? This part smacks of impropriety on behalf of the Chicago contingent and Mr. Madigan. From the point of approval, that is after the applicant has meet the very stringent requirements, It will be fully one year until the first permit is issued. This seems like nothing more than a contrived delay, and does nothing more than buy the Chicago contingent more time to work to overturn the bill/law. To this point, of the many people I have discussed the bill with, all agree that this is a transparent attempt to protract the process for the benefit of the Madigans and Chicago/Cook legislators.

Further, I would allege dubious intent, as the bill does not recognize military service or reciprocity with other state CC holders. These last points all but prove that the legislators are resolved to keep CC out of the hands of law abiding citizens until such time that the Chicago contingent get their ducks in a row to overturn any potential CC law in our state. The bill is designed to placate the public, and nothing more. Please prove my assumptions wrong.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The cost issues aren’t going to change..the idea that it will take a year to get the first permit issued is more than unacceptable, to the point that I would bet that CA-7 will chime in on that.

    • If the case is settled, the CA7 will have nothing to say. It is in no position to evaluate the pluses and minuses of any bill that may be passed. All it is concerned with at this time is that some method of concealed carry be approved. If not, then it will issue an injunction barring prosecutions for the various “carry” crimes.

  2. What are they going to do for 16 hrs of training?? What about 3 hrs of live fire when only 50 rds are required to be shot? Even if I pause to take a break after every shot, I couldn’t get more than an hour. Madigan did this so his sweet little Lisa doesn’t have to file w SCOTUS to overturn the 7th’s ruling in Shepard. She wants to be governor, but will the litigation all of these restrictions create cause sweet little Lisa to piss off the downstate Dems so that Quinn gets back into office??

    • Yeah, Ohio requires 12 hours of training and it’s mostly a waste of time for anyone who already knows how to shoot. Doing the CCW training was one of the worst days of my life.

      • California required 16 hours for the initial app., four hours for the renewal every two years. Half the class is shooting, but for the classes I’ve seen, that is only 200 rounds. I assume that some of the training will be the basic NRA safe handling course, some shooting, and a bunch of coaching. Classes are generally held over two consecutive Saturdays. Around here, costs are around $165 for the class, and another $150 for various parts of the application. Though that may seem like a bunch of money, I live in a semi-rural and impoverished county that nonetheless has over 5000 permits issued (from a county population of 250,000), and classes for new permits are full. California law allows the Sheriff of each county to require a psych exam with a statutory cost not to exceed $200. Some counties (illegally) require 3 or more personal references and/or reference letters–and the popo actually contact these people. That costs money. So the fees are not a money maker for the county, or in Illinois’ case, for the state.

      • Arizona required 16 hours of training, and I had no difficulty filling that up. I have studied defensive shooting most of my adult life, and I am still learning things. I included the Tueller drill for everyone, for example. I gave a demonstration on concealed carry methods that my students went ga-ga over. I devoted an hour to likely post-shooting psycological responses.

        It is easy to come up with ways to give good instruction for 16 hours, if that is what you want to do.

        Will it make any difference, statistically? Probably not, as very few people ever have to fire in anger.

        Will the training the Illinois State Police come up with end up being good? It is very hard to say. I know that after a number of years, the Arizona DPS standardized all the CCW training in Arizona, and it was very close to what I taught.

        However, very close is not equal, and there were areas where I felt as though I was forced to teach, or teach around things that I had some disagreement with.

        In the end, we were able to pass Constitutional Carry, which was one of the end goals that I had for teaching my course. (my teaching of Constitutional issues was not in the DPS version, for example.)

        DPS now does not have a mandated course, which has its good side and its bad side.

  3. Illinois’ legislature and governors office are in the hands of the enemy.As such no true carry friendly bill will emerge from Springfield. A shall issue ,Constitutionally proper carry bill will be vetoed by Quinn,and Madigan can “excommunicate” any downstate Democrat who doesn’t play ball.

    No matter how this shakes out,either we get no bill at all in Illinois or a New Jersey style may issue-but-really-no-issue regime.

  4. I’m afraid that what Illinois citizens will get is a de facto “no issue” in Chicago and a 2A-friendly “may issue” in the Prairie State’s pro-gun areas. Much like the results in MA, where friendly communities are de facto “shall issue” while Boston is more like “you must be out of your f^cking mind” issue.

    • Then you should read up on the bill. It is a shall-issue bill which preempts all local restrictions on firearms. If it passes (which is still a big if because of the Illinois Senate), Illinois residents will, regardless of where they reside in the state, be able to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms once they complete the training requirement and pay the requisite fees.

      • “Illinois residents will, regardless of where they reside in the state, be able to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms…”

        Sure they can. Once they pass the onerous training requirement and pay the exorbitant fees. And wait a full friggin YEAR to go through the process from the time the bill has passed.

        Oh, and you can’t carry there. Or there. Or that place. Nope, not there either. Yeah, that’s… no wait, not there either. But hey! We worked in a provision so it’s at least legal for you to lock your gun in your trunk before you go into someplace where you can’t have it. Don’t worry about those guys across the street watching you lock stuff in your trunk before walking into a marked “no guns allowed” zone. I’m sure they’re just admiring your rims.

        • But the comparison isn’t to any reasonable gun rights state. I’m not arguing that this bill is what gun owners wanted, or that it is without severe flaws –

          However, no matter how many businesses restrict CC, there WILL be CC in downtown Chicago. The training requirement is severe, certainly, but I compare the fees to Texas ($140), Tennessee ($115), and Louisiana ($125) and they don’t seem like such an outlier.

          I don’t like the list of prohibited places any more than the next person here – but these were the compromises that proved necessary to get a supermajority. With preemption, it is a bill that can serve as a base on which to build better gun laws – rather than any other plan which would have thrown Chicago & Cook county under the bus.

        • I am sorry compare this “Monster” to Maryland’s crappy law. We would be happy to have this flawed bill in Maryland.


      • This is Illinois were talking about.

        Inside of 12 months ,the ISP-which answers to the Governors Office-will have a backlog of applicants,Chicago will arrest anyone carrying irregaddless of legality,and every business north of I-80 will surely be posting “No Guns” signage at breakneck speed.

        Two years from now ,Springfield will be back in court because the “advisory panel” is denying every application by default.

      • @Dshim83, read the part that allows any law enforcement agency to object to a license applicant based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety.

        Then tell me that the Chicago pukes won’t object to a whole lot of people.

        • They might. But they’ll need to do so with evidence or they’ll be shot down by the first lawsuit which can simply point to the requirements laid out in the law. I don’t expect Cook county or Chicago to go down without a struggle, no – but if this bill passes as currently written, quashing police abuse of the review provision will be a matter for the judicial branch, and an easy case at that.

  5. The answer to all of the questions above are “that is how Madigan wanted it to be”. Logic be damned, this is what he wanted and what he got.

    • This. I totally agree with most objections to this bill. Should have heard me when I first read it. NSFW.

      But, it don’t matter.

      This is the bill we could get the votes on. What is reasonable, what is fair, what is constitutional – none of that matters if you can’t get the bill through the Illinois General Assembly.

      So all the posters eloquent arguments are so much mental masterbation unless he has the real goods on a couple dozen or so Illinois legislators. If you can’t produce the votes either, maybe hammering on Mr. Phelps just makes you look really stupid.

  6. Wisconsin the 49th ccw, had Walker sign the bill June 8, 2011.
    3 months 22 days later,
    The first permit issued on the first day of eligibility November 1, 2011.
    Illinois doesn’t even care that they prove themselves administratively incompetent.

    • Note, I dropped off my application At noon, (lunch hour 2 blocks from my office), got my permit in the mail in 3 biblical days.
      One day to receive, one day to background check, print the card, get it to Uncle Sam post, one day for Sam to deliver.
      $50 and we are running a surplus.
      Tell me an imaginary line on a map does not make difference.
      Hey sounds like a new tourism slogan for WI:
      Citizens of Illinois , Rise up to Wisconsin.
      Free men of IL, dare to cross the line

        • Either a normal day not including Sundays, or a few million years if you’re trying to rationalize Creationism with the big bang theory for origin of the universe.

          We’re talking government here, so the second one might be more appropriate.

  7. 1) This is a concession to Chicago and Cook county, since this bill will repeal every Chicago and Cook county gun law. They requested a list of prohibited places – they got all of their prohibited places. The bill does entertain a bit of a “safe harbor” provision in that you can ‘carry’ your firearm in a prohibited parking lot in the immediate area of your car if doing so for the purpose of storing that firearm in your trunk (so long as the gun is unloaded before you exit the vehicle.)

    2) Ostensibly so that the program is solvent – part of Phelps assurances to the legislature were that the CC bill would not draw any money from the general fund or add to Illinois’ budget crisis; it also serves to facilitate the state’s transition away from the FOID card system. The expectation is that with so many new gun owners applying, the funding is necessary to ensure that the processing takes place in a timely fashion.

    3) More concessions to Cook county to make shall-issue more palatable.

    4) This may well be true, but we have to remember who we are working with here. The House, Senate, and Governor’s mansion are all Democrat-controlled. The 7 member review board, FWIW, cannot have more than 4 members of either party. There is certainly risk that there will be HIPAA violations – but many in Illinois would prefer taking that risk to continuing to be denied their constitutional rights.

    5) The time to issue the permit is largely concerned with the new implementation of concealed carry. The last thing the state wanted to do was open itself up to lawsuits when it fails to deliver the first batch of concealed carry applications within 60 days. They let themselves off the hook here, certainly, but the reasons were not necessarily malicious.

    Regarding exemptions for military service – it would be nice – but is ultimately one of those things that proved contentious to the point of derailing the main bill. And while IL will not recognize reciprocity with any other states, part of the pitch of this bill to lawmakers is the fact that it has the “nation’s strictest training requirement.” On the upside, training you already have can be grandfathered in for up to 8 of the total 16 required hours of training – the downside being that nonresident permits will cost $300.

    This bill is not designed to placate the public – it is designed to be a shall-issue concealed carry bill with enough restrictions to be palatable to enough Cook county Democrats to pass the House and Senate – while still complying with the 7th Circuit ruling. There are no ducks for the Chicago contingent to get in a row – Michael Madigan is on board with the shall-issue house bill with preemption, and the ball is now in Cullerton’s court. There were never enough legislators willing to go off of the June 9th cliff – so the question was always, how can we get a shall-issue bill to a supermajority? 2193 is the best answer to that question. It could have been may-issue. It could have carved out Cook county. But instead, we’re looking at one state, one shall-issue law. It is FAR from perfect.

    But it is a step forward to protect the future of gun rights.

    • With regard to point #2, their fee is right at double what Florida’s is. Florida’s CWFL statutes are written to be revenue neutral, that is, fees for the licenses are deposited not to the general fund, but to a special fund earmarked for administering the system. Approximately a year ago, after running a surplus in that fund for two years in a row, they actually lowered the fee by $10, to its present level, which, as I said, is about half of what IL is going to charge for an in-state permit.

      • True, though Florida has an established system. The funds are (purportedly) to start the program. I don’t believe that these fees are deposited into the general fund – however, I do know that some portion are earmarked for improvements to the Illinois crime database system.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to claim its a reasonable fee – but it also isn’t New York’s $430.

        In context, Texas’ fee is $140 for non-discounted classes of people, Tennessee is $115, and Louisiana is $125 for people 21-64.

        It may be the 16 hours of training which kills people – though I have seen discounted 16hr classes being discussed over at for $100, which isn’t too bad.

        • Washington is $52.50, which is composed of a statutorily fixed $36 cost from the state, which also has statutorily defined distribution, and additional costs from the FBI passed on to the applicant. Renewal is $32, no additional costs. Washington has no training requirements, so you go in, fill out your paperwork, get printed, and then check the mail for the next month.

        • Michigan Fees
          $125 Training 8 hours NRA run
          $105 Processing Fee
          $5 ID Photos
          $1 To Clerk Day of Receipt of card

          $236 Total for CPL good for 5 years

        • New Hampshire:$10 four minimum four years*, no training requirement, shall issue, $10 renewal, 2 week max to issue. Non-resident is $100, same otherwise.

          *Your initial permit is good until your fourth birthday after it is issued. Apply the day after your birthday and you get almost 5 years.

        • In Texas, now $40.00 for both new and renewal. No minimum caliber requirement, no change in classroom hours, still goood for 5 years. Just passed most legislative session. Abbot has stated if passed, he will sign.
          Effective, I believe in July 1. 2017

    • Maryland Also requires 16 Hours of training on there May Issue CCW permits. Although Maryland is attempting to join New York and New Jersey on the least free states in the country list.


  8. You’ll excuse me if I don’t actually hold my breath while waiting on reasoned, logical answers to any or all of these questions.

  9. “side note 2, the intentional or inadvertent release of this information to unauthorized parties opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation towards the state, especially if it violates HIPPA”

    HIPPA ONLY pertains to healthcare professionals that bill electronically. Not the police. Not janitors. Not even healthcare providers that never use electronic billing.

    Having said that, there are other patient privacy laws in place, but don’t confuse them for HIPPA.

  10. Why, why, why… I can tell you why, they’re Democrats. They don’t like the Supreme Court of the United States telling them that the Bill of Rights applies to them too and they intend to make it as onerous as possible.

    • The lead sponsor of the carry bill is a Democrat who has been working on this for over a decade, who if he had his way would not have included most of the prohibited places language or endorsed the review board.

      At least in Illinois – the line is not between Democrats and Republicans on gun rights – it is between Cook County and the rest of the state; rural legislators and those from the Chicagoland area.

      • In full disclosure, I live in Iowa where it was the Democrats who passed the right to carry law. They did it because the were about to get wiped out in the 2010 election and were under a lot of pressure to do something people actually liked. There are pro-2nd Amendment democrats in the mid-west, but I wouldn’t put a whole lot of trust in them. The Chicago Democrats are more like New Jersey Dems – very liberal and very corrupt.

        A quick check on Wikipedia and a calculator reveals that almost 3/4 of the population of Illinois live in the Chicago metro area and over 40% live in Cook County alone. So you’ll have to forgive me for lumping the not necessarily enemies of freedom Dems in with the majority civil rights hating Dems.

  11. I hate to say this, but I would take this over what we have in CA. Unless I don my knee pads for the Sheriff I won’t get a CCW. Some counties in CA are shall issue but not many.
    It isn’t perfect but it is a start. You can amend laws later.

  12. Simple answer to every question posed:

    “Why, to keep you disarmed, my dear.”

  13. As a resident of IL I would have to say that this bill is far better than the other choice(40hrs classtime). Our reps came right out and said they wouldnt let us go past the deadline and would pass whatever was in front of them if it came down to the line. At least we got preemption out of the way. Now if we want to make a change it only takes a simple majority, but that can swing both ways.

  14. I really wish this was something decent for my Illinois neighbors, I doubt it though. I question the “gotta do something” wisdom. This just looks like manchin/toomey 2, a big trojan horse/dog & pony show, Randy

  15. You folks have got this all wrong. I have been involved in the fight here in Illinois for a long time.

    Take a look at any other State that has moved to concealed carry over the past twenty years and see where they started and with what restrictions.

    Looking at the fee, Illinois is high but it’s not the highest. We are wiping out all of the ‘home rule’ ordinances written by local governments including any bans on so called assault weapons and cook County’s $25 gun tax.

    And it’s true that Brandon Phelps is a democrat but he has been fighting to get concealed carry passed in Illinois since he was first elected twelve years ago.

    Thus far in Illinois and post Sandy Hook, we have defeated every single anti-gun Bill presented to our House and Senate, we’re the verge of passing a “shall issue” carry bill with state-wide preemption (no New York City-like carve out for Chicago) and destroyed every AWB already in effect in Illinois.

    ASsk anyone in New York City, Maryland, New Jersey, California or Hawaii if they would like to have this as their law and guess what their answer would be? This time next year, the City of Chicago will have more concealed carry permits issued than the Cities of New York and Los Angles combined.

    I have listened for decades about how Illinois would never have a concealed carry permit system and if they did, it would only be for the elite.

    Well blow out your collective arseholes because we won. But we ain’t done yet. Now we will get rid of the stupid waiting periods and the Firearms Owners ID ()FOID) card

    • Well, we won’t have “won” until the bill passes the senate. I’m not celebrating until the first CCW cards are in the hands of Illinois residents.

  16. I am going to assume this is the same Bud from the illinoiscarry website. You are spot on, we have started off pretty good considering the state we live in. Could it have been better ya, but it could have been a hell of a lot worse. Overall I am happy and this is a win for our side.

  17. A LAW-ABIDING BLACK MALE IN CHICAGO (such a person does exist, you know) who is lawfully concealed carrying WILL be gunned downed by police as if he were a threat should he exercise any “right” to carry. No apology, no national outrage (since the vast majority of Americans are conditioned to believe any black man with a gun=armed thug).

    I know most readers can’t relate to this, but that doesn’t make it less true.


    Black law-abiding male from Chicago.

    • There is a stereotype, for sure, I don’t believe anything like it used to be though. When you understand that blacks commit most of the robbery crime & whites most of the mass murders, then you understand why you are targeted on the street. Gun people in general need to be accepted & a black with a gun is no different. Randy

  18. So we shouldnt have passed a law because your scared of being gunned down for CC? I cant figure out what you are getting at other than trolling for a race debate

    • Sorry but I’m not race-baiting. I’m just stating that concealed carry law or not, there will be no net change for those who need it most. Lawfully carrying a gun in Chicago will remain a life-threating proposition for black law-abiding males. As it pertains to law abiding BMs and a non law-abiding BMs in Chicago, who would have best odds of coming out unscathed during an encounter with police?

      As a side note, what’s your experience with CPD?

      • nobby, you are sounding a lot like antigunners. “This might happen”, “people will be killed by the police” and people will be “gunned down”.

        Please give me some FACTS about where that has happened and the rate that that has occurred in the other 49 states that have concealed carry.

        PS Per your question “what’s your experience with CPD?” More than 30 years experience in dealing with CPD. Yes I have seen crooked cops take bribes and beat people who did not deserve it oh yeah. Shootings of good guys, especially with bodies produced, are far rarer and MUCH harder to cover up.

        • I think the just of what he’s saying is changing the law is one (very welcome) thing, but changing attitudes and SOPs is another. Until the two equalize, there will be trouble.

  19. I’m reading heaps of comments regarding this being a “decent starting point” and it makes me ask, if “they” start here do you think there will be future tweaks to liberalize CC?

Comments are closed.