Hunter125
Member
It looks like a good one.
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex...cNum=997&GAID=12&LegID=71413&SpecSess=&Sessio
http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltex...cNum=997&GAID=12&LegID=71413&SpecSess=&Sessio
New IL CCW law introduced
- Thread starter Hunter125
- Start date
- Status
10/22plinker
Member
Concealed Carry in the State of Illinois
As some of you may already know, Illinois has been given a 180 day window to pass legislation that will finally allow concealed carry within the state.
Yesterday, A bill sponsored by Brandon W. Phelps(D) has been filed as a possible solution. I haven't read the full text yet (only the synopsis) and honestly I like it. Thoughts, concerns, comments?
http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html
http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0997&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=71413&SessionID=85
As some of you may already know, Illinois has been given a 180 day window to pass legislation that will finally allow concealed carry within the state.
Yesterday, A bill sponsored by Brandon W. Phelps(D) has been filed as a possible solution. I haven't read the full text yet (only the synopsis) and honestly I like it. Thoughts, concerns, comments?http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/2012/12/big_win_for_gun-rights_groups_federal_appeals_court_tosses_state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html
http://ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=0997&GAID=12&GA=98&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=71413&SessionID=85
10/22plinker
Member
A big thank you to the mod who combined these! I guess his thread was created while I was finding links for mine and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do.
mljdeckard
Member
"Shall Issue". I guess we'll see.
Silent Bob
Member.
"Shall Issue" with lots of ifs, buts, and maybes...
10/22plinker
Member
What exactly are you referring to? The safety course? Also it would be nice to hear from someone out of state on whether or not you learned anything valuable while attending the safety course if your state requires that.
personally I myself....no. Many years of shooting and safty behind me and my wife. Now with that said, two people in my class ABSOLUTLY. I honestly didn't think at first they were gunna issue a permit to them. They needed total attention during the shooting part of the coarse. And it took the whole time to get them to get consistant. Not saying they were not being safe, but they obviously had never been exposed to a firearm ever.
10/22plinker
Member
Do any states require the handgun owner to have experience with their weapon? i.e. Explain all of the parts and their function to the instructor. Maybe even demonstrate "tap, rack, boom" or other malfunction clearing procedures.
Blackbeard
Member
If they don't pass one, then we get Constitutional carry in June. I almost hope they go that route.
bhk
Member
This looks very similar (almost a copy) to ours in neighboring Missouri. It has worked well for us.
GlockFan
Member
I am at work and can't read all of it but from what i did read it sounds good. In parts it sounded like it was also going to include open carry.
Hmm
Phatty
Member
This bill (HB997) sponsored by Brandon Phelps is better than the first concealed carry bill that was filed this session (HB154) by David Reis. However, I still have quite a few concerns.
First, my biggest logistical gripe with this bill and pretty much every other concealed carry bill that has been filed in Illinois in past years is that they completely ignore the FOID system already in place in Illinois. It is wasteful, duplicative and downright ridiculous to have a separate FOID system and CCL system.
Anyone with half a brain would come to the conclusion that, "Hey, we've already got a gun owner's licensing scheme in place in Illinois, why not just build on top of that?" Do we really need to have people carry both a FOID and a CCL in their wallets? People should carry one card. A person that meets additional requirements (such as training) would simply receive a FOID card with an additional designation showing that the person is licensed to carry in public. If you already have a FOID card and want to be able to carry in public, you would complete whatever training is required, send that information to the State Police, and they could upgrade your card.
That being said, here are some of my specific complaints with Phelps' bill:
(1) It purports to be "shall issue" except that it isn't. The State Police can still refuse to issue a license if they believe that the applicant is a danger to himself or others, and any police agency or sheriff can send an objection to the State Police that could override a person's ability to get a CCL even if they otherwise meet all of the objective qualifications.
I have no problem with the police or sheriff sending an objection to the State Police about a person based on that person not meeting an objective requirement, such as that person being a felon. But, subjective impressions such as, "we don't think it will be safe for that guy to carry a gun" can be abused.
(2) Mandatory disclosure of CCL without being asked. I have no problem requiring CCL holders to disclose the existence of a concealed handgun when asked by the police. But, I hate the idea that they must immediately disclose that information upon contact with a police officer. If a police officer wants to know, let him ask. This rule can be heavily abused and serves absolutely no purpose. You also risk freaking out a police officer when you voluntarily blurt out "I've got a concealed gun" as your first communication to that officer.
(3) I'd like to see reciprocity with other states. Reciprocity is granted for 180 days after the bill's effective date, which I think is provided to give nonresidents time to apply for and receive an Illinois license. Living close to Missouri, it sure would be nice to not have to worry about carrying when going back and forth across the border.
(4) Applicants are required to waive privacy privileges, such as mental health records, juvenile records, etc. Is it really necessary that people have to completely give up their privacy rights to exercise their 2A right?
(5) State Police maintains a searchable database of applicants containing all of the information provided with the application (which is a lot of private info). This database is available to a wide group of people and could easily be abused. There should only be a simple database that can be checked to see whether or not a person is, in fact, licensed to carry.
(6) The list of restricted areas is too broad. Strangely, HB154, which is generally less gun friendly than this bill, is actually a bit better in this regard.
(7) The bill allows private businesses to exclude carrying in their businesses, but a CCL holder is not in violation of the Act if the business does not conspicuously post the ban at its entrances. I have no problem with this, but I believe this idea should be exanded to all restricted facilities. If people aren't allowed to carry in a specific government building, for example, a conspicuous notice should be posted at the entrances so that people do not innocently violate the law.
First, my biggest logistical gripe with this bill and pretty much every other concealed carry bill that has been filed in Illinois in past years is that they completely ignore the FOID system already in place in Illinois. It is wasteful, duplicative and downright ridiculous to have a separate FOID system and CCL system.
Anyone with half a brain would come to the conclusion that, "Hey, we've already got a gun owner's licensing scheme in place in Illinois, why not just build on top of that?" Do we really need to have people carry both a FOID and a CCL in their wallets? People should carry one card. A person that meets additional requirements (such as training) would simply receive a FOID card with an additional designation showing that the person is licensed to carry in public. If you already have a FOID card and want to be able to carry in public, you would complete whatever training is required, send that information to the State Police, and they could upgrade your card.
That being said, here are some of my specific complaints with Phelps' bill:
(1) It purports to be "shall issue" except that it isn't. The State Police can still refuse to issue a license if they believe that the applicant is a danger to himself or others, and any police agency or sheriff can send an objection to the State Police that could override a person's ability to get a CCL even if they otherwise meet all of the objective qualifications.
I have no problem with the police or sheriff sending an objection to the State Police about a person based on that person not meeting an objective requirement, such as that person being a felon. But, subjective impressions such as, "we don't think it will be safe for that guy to carry a gun" can be abused.
(2) Mandatory disclosure of CCL without being asked. I have no problem requiring CCL holders to disclose the existence of a concealed handgun when asked by the police. But, I hate the idea that they must immediately disclose that information upon contact with a police officer. If a police officer wants to know, let him ask. This rule can be heavily abused and serves absolutely no purpose. You also risk freaking out a police officer when you voluntarily blurt out "I've got a concealed gun" as your first communication to that officer.
(3) I'd like to see reciprocity with other states. Reciprocity is granted for 180 days after the bill's effective date, which I think is provided to give nonresidents time to apply for and receive an Illinois license. Living close to Missouri, it sure would be nice to not have to worry about carrying when going back and forth across the border.
(4) Applicants are required to waive privacy privileges, such as mental health records, juvenile records, etc. Is it really necessary that people have to completely give up their privacy rights to exercise their 2A right?
(5) State Police maintains a searchable database of applicants containing all of the information provided with the application (which is a lot of private info). This database is available to a wide group of people and could easily be abused. There should only be a simple database that can be checked to see whether or not a person is, in fact, licensed to carry.
(6) The list of restricted areas is too broad. Strangely, HB154, which is generally less gun friendly than this bill, is actually a bit better in this regard.
(7) The bill allows private businesses to exclude carrying in their businesses, but a CCL holder is not in violation of the Act if the business does not conspicuously post the ban at its entrances. I have no problem with this, but I believe this idea should be exanded to all restricted facilities. If people aren't allowed to carry in a specific government building, for example, a conspicuous notice should be posted at the entrances so that people do not innocently violate the law.
Phatty
Member
Yes, I also interpreted it to permit open carry.
They can be and might be, esp in IL. But we have the same thing in TN. And there are one or two people who really don't need to have a permit but haven't done anything wrong. Yet. And they've had them pulled.
The little bit that I'm seeing looks pretty good. Especially by comparison with what IL has done in the past. Curious about reciprocity.
In many ways yes, it does. But, assuming it passed in this form, one could not rely upon their knowledge of Missouri law to get them through a day carrying in IL. There are several very important differences.
Overall, considering the state, I'd give this a solid B, maybe even a B+. Hopefully knowledgeable in-state experts will help continue shaping it as it moves through the assembly.
Hunter125
Member
So if I'm reading it right, since I hold a non res license from a different state, I can immediately carry for 6 mos while I get my IL CCW?
The open carry portion is nice too, so we don't have to worry about printing.
The open carry portion is nice too, so we don't have to worry about printing.
Phatty
Member
Yes, you are reading it right. And the option to carry either open or concealed is good.
gbran
Member
My biggest problem is that even if passed, it will likely not include Chicago.
If anybody believes Chicago will ever have shall issue ccw...........
If anybody believes Chicago will ever have shall issue ccw...........
JTHunter
Member
It is too reasonable. "Q-ball" Quinn will never sign it. Mainly because Rahm won't let him sign it!
Scimmia
Member
It's there, pages 15 and 16. If a state honors Illinois' permits, Illinois will honor theirs.
Davey Wavey
Member
Assuming your location tag is correct...no pro gunner in Cook County wants a bill to not be passed.
IL has no preemption in regards to guns. No state law means Chicago and Cook County will simply pass NYC style shall not issue laws.
No bill is NOT good.
In IL, when a new law has an effect on Home Rule, it requires a 3/5th majority of the votes to pass. I would therefore be veto proof. Quinn's signature isn't relevant.
Phatty
Member
Thanks. You are correct. I missed that the first time I read through it.
- Status
