Illinois Concealed Carry Bill (proposed by the dark side)

[Phatty]

As most everyone knows, the federal appellate court has put Illinois on the clock for implementing a concealed carry bill, so even most anti-gun folks in Illinois know it is inevitable. The anti-gun crowd in Illinois can't just sit back and play defense this go around, because something needs to get passed.

Well, today Illinois Senator Antonio Muñoz (D-Chicago) filed a proposed concealed carry bill with a bit of an anti-gun slant. Basically, it permits concealed carry for those with a particularized need (like New York) and then tosses in every wish list item that the anti-gun crowd has wanted in Illinois for years.

Here is the official summary for those that don't want to put themselves through the torture of reading the whole bill:

Referred to as the Illinois Public Safety Act. Creates the Gun Safety and Responsibility Act. Allows State Police to issue a concealed carry license to a resident at least 21 who: (1) is eligible to possess firearms; (2) meets qualifications and training; and (3) has particularized need. $100 fee. License valid throughout the State subject to prohibitions for 4 years. Creates the State Police Firearm Services Fund for duties under the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID), concealed carry licensing, and assault weapon registration. Amends the State Police Act to authorize emergency procurement necessary to implement these gun measures. Amends the FOID Act to require background checks for the transfer of firearms, except to family member, by operation of law, or gun show. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Bans possession, delivery, sale, and purchase of assault weapons, attachments, and .50 caliber rifles and cartridges, except possession of weapons registered in time provided. Provides exemptions. Prohibits delivery, sale, or purchase of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Provides exemptions. Prohibits sale, delivery, or possession of a firearm to or by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. Raises minimum imprisonment for gunrunning. Creates failure to report a lost or stolen firearm offense. Requires safe firearm storage where a minor (now under 14) or person prohibited from possessing a firearm may gain access. Requires firearm owners to keep records. Amends various Acts regarding suspension and revocation of FOID cards and concealed carry licenses. Makes conforming changes. Effective immediately.

This will give you an idea of what the anti-gun folks have in mind for satisfying the federal court's mandate permitting concealed carry.

 

[OpelBlitz]

Yeah, screw that noise. Not giving up other rights to "gain" another.

 

[OpelBlitz]

Yup! That's generally correct.

 

[tomrkba]

Why do people think that a concealed carry permit system means a state is honoring the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[OpelBlitz]

Good question? I don't really know how to answer that.

 

[gbran]

This is "May Issue" where "may" will be defined as likely not.

 

[OpelBlitz]

This is "May Issue" where "may" will be defined as likely not.

Yep. I mean, for what other reason would someone want to conceal carry? Self defense, right? The lack of logic of "May-issue" systems boggles my mind. But then I realize nothing about anti-gun legislature is about logic.

 

[Autolycus]

I don't think this will actually pass in Illinois. Having grown up there I know the pain it is to be a gunowner there but I do believe it is changing. The ISRA has a strong position and can simply not back anybody who votes for this and votes against a better bill.

 

[OpelBlitz]

I doubt this would pass either, but I don't assume anything here.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

This may pass in Illinios, but it won't go unchallenged. And there is evidence that such wording may fail if challenged in higher courts.

US District Court Judge Legg had this to say about the very subject of "particularized need", as it's worded in this bill:

“If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason” why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

(Memorandum, Civil Case No. L-10-2068, Raymond Wollard v. Terrence Sheridan, Maryland’s handgun regulation statute, dated 3/2/2012.)


In other words, a citizen does not have to JUSTIFY why he should be able to do something that is granted to him as a fundamental right by the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Deanimator]

If necessary, it looks like the pro-gun forces will just sit on the ball until the deadline passes and Illinois has semi-Constitutional carry (with an FOID).

 

[OpelBlitz]

^ This.

 

[C0untZer0]

Earlier this month when we were asking for sponsors for HB 0997 and SB-1284, some representatives responded by saying things like "We know there are a lot of gun bills out there, and we're not sure which ones we're going to suport yet."

Which is admission of the fact that the waters have been muddied.

It's one tactic of the anti-gunners.

As far as Muñoz goes - you have to remember this bill is coming from a guy who proposed a bill in early January that would have outlawed every Glock and virtually every other semi-auto handgun in Illinois.

There is an action plan for what to support and what to oppose, it can be found at IllinoisCarry.com:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34600

 

[JTHunter]

Deanimator said:

If necessary, it looks like the pro-gun forces will just sit on the ball until the deadline passes and Illinois has semi-Constitutional carry (with an FOID).

+1,000!!
That's why I've been hoping the state-level government has as much gridlock as the feds!

 

[Trent]

Even if that passes the Senate, that'll never pass the house.

Still, I'll use it as fuel to rile up more folks to attend IGOLD in a couple weeks.

 

[Phatty]

There's no chance that this bill even passes the Senate, at least not in the bill's present form. My point for posting the bill was simply to show the state of mind of the anti-gun legislators in Illinois and their "wishlist" for gun laws. Even though this bill has no chance, don't be surprised if some of the contents of this bill end up in another concealed carry bill as part of a compromise.

 

[Trent]

Oh I'm sure if the HB997 or the senate version gains much more traction, they're going to be tripping all over themselves to pass hostile amendments to ruin it, and failing that, some last minute Gubernatorial grandstanding with an executive Veto that'd get overruled.

They won't go quietly in to the night.

 

[627PCFan]

particularized need.

As soon as Gansler of MD loses the "Good and substantial" part of Maryland permit process I'll can run thus up the legal chain based on Woolard

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I'm not sure that "and (3) has particularized need" will fly in the 7th Circuit. Posner trashed Kachalsky which upheld the NY carry law.

It will be interesting to see what the 7th does once Illinois does nothing.

 

[F-111 John]

Prohibits sale, delivery, or possession of a firearm to or by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm.

Uh, question from the back of the class: Isn't this alreay illegal in Illinois? Doesn't Illinois already have an FOID system that prohibits possession without an FOID card?

 

[Trent]

Yeah, the way IL submits modifications to laws for record, if they are modifying a law, the new / modified piece is underlined and bold while the original is stricken out.

Since they're modifying the FOID statutes the entire original will show up, with only the underlined bold parts being of concern.

It is different than some states where they just put "replacing the contents of subsection A following the word "years" with the number 7". (e.g. New York; those amended laws are ridiculously hard to decipher and you need a legal textbook sitting next to you to track down everything they're doing.)

IL law amendments are pretty straightforward and easy to read by comparison.

 

[Rob G]

I haven't been following this real closely but if I'm not mistaken IL was orderd to allow CC right? So basically the anti-gun folks HAVE to compromise on this one. I say IL gun owners should stick it to them and refuse to compromise on one single thing. Just tell them: "you have to pass a CC bill, we don't have to agree on anything to get you to do it."

 

[ilbob]

I haven't been following this real closely but if I'm not mistaken IL was orderd to allow CC right? So basically the anti-gun folks HAVE to compromise on this one. I say IL gun owners should stick it to them and refuse to compromise on one single thing. Just tell them: "you have to pass a CC bill, we don't have to agree on anything to get you to do it."

They were not ordered to do anything. The court ruled that because there is zero provision to carry that the UUW law was unconstitutional. The court stayed the ruling for 180 days, presumably for the state to have a chance to deal with this issue.

The state could just do nothing. The result would be basically that there would be no LTC in IL, we still couldn't carry in any practical way (at least legally), and it would have no effect on criminals at all since they can't carry now but do anyway.

 

[joatman66]

It's my understanding from info put out by local state Rep. Brandon Phelps that if IL does not pass CC the state reverts to constitutional carry. Given that, something will pass, it's just a matter of how many hooks the anti-gun faction can get included in the bill.

 

[ilbob]

It's my understanding from info put out by local state Rep. Brandon Phelps that if IL does not pass CC the state reverts to constitutional carry. Given that, something will pass, it's just a matter of how many hooks the anti-gun faction can get included in the bill.

You understand both right and wrong. The suit only challenged a couple of sections of the UUW act and those were the only sections ruled unconstitutional.

However, the suit never challenged other sections of IL law, or any provisions of home rule entities that infringe on the 2A. Those provisions would remain in effect including a tptal ban on possessing even unloaded firearms on any land or in any building supported in whole or in part with public funds without written permission. Think anyone will give you that permission?

The way the law is currently written it is possible that it could include things like TIF zones.

So you could end up with constitutional carry in very few places that you would want it.