alsaqr
Member
#1
Excellent post.
NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL
- Thread starter Megistopoda
- Start date
- Status
#1
Excellent post.
flyingdeserteagle
Member
the reason we chose lawsuits to fight for 2A rights in CA?
because our legislators would never vote pro 2A.
to the OP,
being in an anti- state myself, I commend you for sticking to your beliefs. however, we abandoned the quest to right our wrongs through the legislators here after years of trying. hopefully you can achieve more via a 2A Incorporation type lawsuit.
because our legislators would never vote pro 2A.
to the OP,
being in an anti- state myself, I commend you for sticking to your beliefs. however, we abandoned the quest to right our wrongs through the legislators here after years of trying. hopefully you can achieve more via a 2A Incorporation type lawsuit.
The statement of facts is just that - statement of facts.
Take a look at what the plaintiffs are actually asking for and on what grounds.
It would be nice if they said this is a 2A issue, but I think they could also avoid the 2A issue altogether and decide it on 14th amendment grounds. The equal protection and due process issues alone ought to cover it.
I think the 14th amendment case based on equal protection and due process issues are far stronger than the 2A case.
The court could just ignore the 2A issue altogether. I don't know that the court is ready to say CC is a right. But they probably will say you have to treat everyone fairly, and it is quite clear CA sheriffs don't do that with their CC permit issuance.
RE. the California suit, the one section refers both to the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it is the 14th which incorporates the Second. I agree, however, that the strongest claim goes to the arbitrary power of the local sheriffs.
KBintheSLC
Member
I agree with the NRA on this one... without Statewide preemption, this bill is nothing but hot air. It will allow any little po-dunk municipality to make any regulations they want to, with no blanket protection for CC'ers. This type of carry law would make traveling within the State a major PITA. You will have to prepare for months by studying all of the city and county regs before making a trip.
I think the NRA is basically saying "give me liberty or give me death" on this one. And I agree. This half-a$$ed carry bill is not the answer. Don't accept the table scraps IL... fight for the choice cuts, and accept nothing less.
...
I think the NRA is basically saying "give me liberty or give me death" on this one. And I agree. This half-a$$ed carry bill is not the answer. Don't accept the table scraps IL... fight for the choice cuts, and accept nothing less.
...
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Boy, am I late to the party. Jeff, I have to disagree with you on this one. These guys are telling you the truth. Here are the highlights so far:
1. Carbondale, according to its mayor, no longer has the prohibitions you mentioned. He says that the ordinance was updated specifically so that it wouldn't interfere with CCW if and when the state passes it.
2. The NRA lobbyist people are talking about is Todd Vandermyde. He's the one who thinks the courts will give us CCW; he spoke to us in person of court-ordered licenses and how easy it will be to work with legislators when he can tell them that if they don't play ball, he'll go back to the courts and have a CCW system ordered.
3. Yes, there are 198 home rule entities. That's 198 out of about 1,300 total municipalities, and the part everyone still misses is that there's no reason to think that all or even most of those home-rule municipalities will actually opt out of a license-to-carry system. They can, but that doesn't mean that they will.
4. It will not be possible to be charged with a felony for carrying in compliance with a subject-to-home-rule LTC law, even if you do wander into a home-rule area that has voted to opt out. Home-rule entities can't create felonies. At most you could be charged with a misdemeanor. Right now, on the other hand, there are 1300 towns in Illinois where you will be charged with a felony.
5. KB mentions not settling for the table scraps. I ask, who's settling? The NRA and the Illinois groups (IllinoisCarry, ISRA, and GunsSaveLife) are all working on winning the whole thing: concealed carry for the entire state. The difference is that the NRA doesn't want to take any intermediate steps; they say we have to demand the whole thing now. The Illinois grassroots groups have decided it makes more sense to take the intermediate steps first and use that ground to take more later.
We've been doing it the NRA way for almost 20 years now. It hasn't worked. The NRA has more or less given up on it; they're looking to the courts to solve things, as far as I can tell.
There's no need to convince us that we should be going for CCW statewide. But if you want us to give up on subject-to-home-rule bills, you do need to explain the plan for getting preemptive CCW passed in this state. What are you planning to do differently than the last 16 years so that the preemptive bills that failed then will pass now?
Keep in mind, we were never asking the NRA to support the bill they killed. We knew they differed with us on this, and that was fine. We figured we'd do it our way and they'd do it theirs, and we supported their preemptive bills wholeheartedly. They chose to kill the bill--which tells me it had a chance, no matter how slim--and that's crazy to me. The NRA should not be in the business of lobbying against CCW bills in the last state in the nation with no form of legal carry.
1. Carbondale, according to its mayor, no longer has the prohibitions you mentioned. He says that the ordinance was updated specifically so that it wouldn't interfere with CCW if and when the state passes it.
2. The NRA lobbyist people are talking about is Todd Vandermyde. He's the one who thinks the courts will give us CCW; he spoke to us in person of court-ordered licenses and how easy it will be to work with legislators when he can tell them that if they don't play ball, he'll go back to the courts and have a CCW system ordered.
3. Yes, there are 198 home rule entities. That's 198 out of about 1,300 total municipalities, and the part everyone still misses is that there's no reason to think that all or even most of those home-rule municipalities will actually opt out of a license-to-carry system. They can, but that doesn't mean that they will.
4. It will not be possible to be charged with a felony for carrying in compliance with a subject-to-home-rule LTC law, even if you do wander into a home-rule area that has voted to opt out. Home-rule entities can't create felonies. At most you could be charged with a misdemeanor. Right now, on the other hand, there are 1300 towns in Illinois where you will be charged with a felony.
5. KB mentions not settling for the table scraps. I ask, who's settling? The NRA and the Illinois groups (IllinoisCarry, ISRA, and GunsSaveLife) are all working on winning the whole thing: concealed carry for the entire state. The difference is that the NRA doesn't want to take any intermediate steps; they say we have to demand the whole thing now. The Illinois grassroots groups have decided it makes more sense to take the intermediate steps first and use that ground to take more later.
We've been doing it the NRA way for almost 20 years now. It hasn't worked. The NRA has more or less given up on it; they're looking to the courts to solve things, as far as I can tell.
There's no need to convince us that we should be going for CCW statewide. But if you want us to give up on subject-to-home-rule bills, you do need to explain the plan for getting preemptive CCW passed in this state. What are you planning to do differently than the last 16 years so that the preemptive bills that failed then will pass now?
Keep in mind, we were never asking the NRA to support the bill they killed. We knew they differed with us on this, and that was fine. We figured we'd do it our way and they'd do it theirs, and we supported their preemptive bills wholeheartedly. They chose to kill the bill--which tells me it had a chance, no matter how slim--and that's crazy to me. The NRA should not be in the business of lobbying against CCW bills in the last state in the nation with no form of legal carry.
Phatty
Member
Don, thank you for the informed and well-reasoned response. It was refreshing to read.
Polar Express
Member
First of all, I don't have a dog in this fight, to say that I don't live (nor do I plan to) live in Ill. But I do have some personal experience that might apply here.
My parents are both from the Chicago area. My dad grew up in Forrest Park, my mom in Wheaton. Dad was a Secretary of State police officer from '70 to '72. For those of you who know Chicago, his district was from 35th to 55th from the Dan Ryan east to the Lk. shore. For a blond haired, blue eyed guy, that's a scary part of town to work in. I have heard some very interesting stories from just his short time in service, some of which no doubt had a heavy influence on his decision to leave the police service.
The reason I offer that background is mostly to the locals in an effort to offer some support in the way that I have a VAGUE idea of how corrupt that city/county/state is. Out in the Seattle area, the folks here have NO IDEA of how politics are run back there. No concept of how 'things get done'. It's a machine, and you have to learn to play ball.
I work in a Fire Deptartment, and it's a closed shop, and as such I'm a part of the union. My personal values generally don't jive with those of organized labor. But, I understand and believe they have done a lot of good for the common American laborer, and they have their place. When our department is trying to negotiate for a benefit, or such, we can either try strong-arming, by forcing things to a vote, (our history is the voters have supported almost anything we ask for) or we can give and take with the contract negotiations. Most efforts are a variant of either of those methods. Sometimes, we have to take a little now, and wait to expand on that later, other times, we want to shoot for the whole wad, and try to force something. As a member of the rank and file, often, I don't understand all the little details of why our union leadership decides a particular path. But, what I try to do, is vote for union leaders that I trust, folks that are passionate about our situation (usually more passionate that I) and that are intelligent. In my ~10 yrs, I have seen a brilliant and passionate union president make some great progress, yet get pressured out because the majority did not recognize that he had a plan, and it was WORKING. He understood the process of politics and the games far better than the majority of the union members. When he left his office, we had vastly better benefits, (and were in a position to get even better ones, by his design) than when he entered office.
An easy reply, is to 'keep the masses informed of your plan'. This does not always work. In negotiations, sometimes you have to be secretive. If your opponents learns of your intentions, it can ruin the whole plan.
I think Jeff White's comments are well written, he sure looks like he has a lot of information, and its clear he really cares, he's put a lot of thought into it, and wants whats best for gun owners. His is not a knee-jerk reply. Don Gwinn's was also a very interesting rebuttal, and it appears that some of Jeff's information may not be accurate. But that doesn't negate his perspective.
So sometimes what may appear to be a good plan, may not be the best option. But, on the other hand, if you've tried one approach for a long time without results, perhaps its time to consider a different method.
PE
My parents are both from the Chicago area. My dad grew up in Forrest Park, my mom in Wheaton. Dad was a Secretary of State police officer from '70 to '72. For those of you who know Chicago, his district was from 35th to 55th from the Dan Ryan east to the Lk. shore. For a blond haired, blue eyed guy, that's a scary part of town to work in. I have heard some very interesting stories from just his short time in service, some of which no doubt had a heavy influence on his decision to leave the police service.
The reason I offer that background is mostly to the locals in an effort to offer some support in the way that I have a VAGUE idea of how corrupt that city/county/state is. Out in the Seattle area, the folks here have NO IDEA of how politics are run back there. No concept of how 'things get done'. It's a machine, and you have to learn to play ball.
I work in a Fire Deptartment, and it's a closed shop, and as such I'm a part of the union. My personal values generally don't jive with those of organized labor. But, I understand and believe they have done a lot of good for the common American laborer, and they have their place. When our department is trying to negotiate for a benefit, or such, we can either try strong-arming, by forcing things to a vote, (our history is the voters have supported almost anything we ask for) or we can give and take with the contract negotiations. Most efforts are a variant of either of those methods. Sometimes, we have to take a little now, and wait to expand on that later, other times, we want to shoot for the whole wad, and try to force something. As a member of the rank and file, often, I don't understand all the little details of why our union leadership decides a particular path. But, what I try to do, is vote for union leaders that I trust, folks that are passionate about our situation (usually more passionate that I) and that are intelligent. In my ~10 yrs, I have seen a brilliant and passionate union president make some great progress, yet get pressured out because the majority did not recognize that he had a plan, and it was WORKING. He understood the process of politics and the games far better than the majority of the union members. When he left his office, we had vastly better benefits, (and were in a position to get even better ones, by his design) than when he entered office.
An easy reply, is to 'keep the masses informed of your plan'. This does not always work. In negotiations, sometimes you have to be secretive. If your opponents learns of your intentions, it can ruin the whole plan.
I think Jeff White's comments are well written, he sure looks like he has a lot of information, and its clear he really cares, he's put a lot of thought into it, and wants whats best for gun owners. His is not a knee-jerk reply. Don Gwinn's was also a very interesting rebuttal, and it appears that some of Jeff's information may not be accurate. But that doesn't negate his perspective.
So sometimes what may appear to be a good plan, may not be the best option. But, on the other hand, if you've tried one approach for a long time without results, perhaps its time to consider a different method.
PE
Don,
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you my friend. Having been involved as much as I have with city councils, I can tell you that many of the do gooders who populate them and have nothing against keeping a gun in one's home will go absolutely ballistic over people carrying guns.
I am well aware that home rule units cannot create felonies. But I see nothing in the proposed legislation that would keep a person from being charged with UUW on the state side. And don't think for one minute that the antis won't amend the legislation to make it UUW to carry even with a permit in a home rule municipality just to kill it.
This bill has no more chance of passing then any of the others and I think you know that as well as I do. Why expend political capitol on a flawed bill that has no chance of passing?
As for the courts awarding the people of Illinois with CCW permits, anyone who thinks that is doing too much Ambien PM.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you my friend. Having been involved as much as I have with city councils, I can tell you that many of the do gooders who populate them and have nothing against keeping a gun in one's home will go absolutely ballistic over people carrying guns.
I am well aware that home rule units cannot create felonies. But I see nothing in the proposed legislation that would keep a person from being charged with UUW on the state side. And don't think for one minute that the antis won't amend the legislation to make it UUW to carry even with a permit in a home rule municipality just to kill it.
This bill has no more chance of passing then any of the others and I think you know that as well as I do. Why expend political capitol on a flawed bill that has no chance of passing?
As for the courts awarding the people of Illinois with CCW permits, anyone who thinks that is doing too much Ambien PM.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
If they try to add poison pill amendments, then we'll have to deal with that as it comes. But again, you're offering a criticism that applies to any bill that goes through the legislature. The concept of STHR carry has nothing to do with killer amendments, unless we believe that the antis won't amend a preemptive CCW bill to kill it. Does anyone believe that?
Poison pill amendments are common, and like any other tactic, they have their strengths and their weaknesses. But again, that's a "what-if" hypothetical scenario, and we won't know because the NRA killed the bill.
You know, that's what the NRA lobbyist says, too, and I don't buy it. Here's my problem:
The NRA says Madigan will simply declare that this bill limits home rule (in the face of the facts) and require 71 anyway. OK, he has the power to do that, and maybe he would. But if they're so sure, why not let him do it? They weren't involved with this bill in any way. Why jump in and take the bullet for Madigan? If they're so certain, then he would have killed it for them and they would have avoided all this mess with the grassroots. Instead they chose to oppose the Illinois State Rifle Association, IllinoisCarry, and Guns Save Life. If they're right, they took a load of blame they didn't need to take. Nobody would have been the least surprised if Madigan had killed it, and nobody would have blamed the NRA.
It's enough to make one think the NRA is not as sure as they claim to be about this bill's chances.
HB2257 was sponsored by Brandon Phelps, the ISRA's 2008 Legislator of the Year. Phelps says he thinks he had 60 votes. The NRA's lobbyist says he doesn't think you could get to 60 since fence-sitters would think you needed 71 and would not want to join a losing cause . . . . but he also says they haven't counted the votes, and Phelps, who has counted the votes, disagrees. Who to believe?
They also tell us that Governor Quinn will veto the bill, so we'll be back to 71 votes for a veto override no matter what happens. That may or may not be true; the NRA's lobbyist admitted to us that he hadn't met with Quinn yet. Quinn has stated publicly that he's opposed to CCW, but he has not been asked about STHR--nor has he been asked during a race for Governor. Personally, I don't see how getting vetoed by a very vulnerable Governor is the end of the world. He vetos our bill, we cream him and come back next year.
One more thing to keep in mind: I think HB2257 is a good bill. I am biased; I helped write it, so I don't look at it dispassionately. But I think it strikes a good balance of training, an impartial issuing agency, and some other good features. HOWEVER, this is not a debate over HB2257. The NRA says it is opposed to any bill that is subject to home rule, so it's really the concept itself that matters. And, on a practical note, they've killed 2257 for this session, so there's not much point debating that particular bill anymore. I'm not limiting myself to what can pass this year.
It's even worse than that.
1. By passing this law one reduces the support/standing for future actions. The: "There's already a carry law, what's the big deal?" effect.
2. In TX there was a backlash from the passage of the law. That backlash was effectively stymied and reversed by pre-emption (applicable to governmental entities) and by the fact that the law was practical and therefore a reasonably large number of permit holders were able to pressure businesses (regardless of their locations) into reversing their anti-carry policies. Without those two factors in IL, the inevitable backlash will be publicly visible as an effective anti-carry movement--that's not going to be a positive influence on RKBA.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
1. If that is so, then why hasn't it worked that way in Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio . . . . ? Even in Illinois, people said the same thing about so-called "fanny pack carry." Experience has not borne out their fears.
2. What (aside from your objection to STHR) was impractical about HB2257?
I would say that the ability to stymie all attempts to pass any sort of concealed carry whatsoever for decades is also publicly visible as an effective anti-carry movement.
2. What (aside from your objection to STHR) was impractical about HB2257?
I would say that the ability to stymie all attempts to pass any sort of concealed carry whatsoever for decades is also publicly visible as an effective anti-carry movement.
Are you saying that the situations in those states are identical to what you're facing in IL? It doesn't seem that way to me.
You mean what (aside from the particular aspect of the bill that made it so completely impractical) is impractical about it?
Come on.
No, that's publicly visible as the current status quo. Getting a law passed and then having a public backlash that can't be countered is a whole different situation.
Phatty
Member
What is the "public backlash" you are referring to?
See post #67 by me on this thread, three posts above yours.
Ok, this is not going anywhere particularly useful or enlightening so...
I wish you all in IL the best of luck in solving the problem of getting a carry law passed and I hope when something does get passed that it turns out to be a workable solution.
I realize that this has been a frustrating endeavor but I encourage you all to not let your frustration cloud your judgement nor turn you against those who could be valuable allies in this effort.
And that's all I've got to say about that.
A really evil thing has occurred to me that may make the argument on this bill moot. it turns out there is a section of the bill that specifically limits home rule units power to regulate the defensive carrying of firearms.
This is horribly written. No HR unit could invalidate a state law to issue LTCs in the first place, so that would be a moot point.
however, one might argue that a HR unit would not have the power to invalidate the defensive carry of firearms under this bill.
IANAL, but subsection (g) of Article VII requires a super majority to limit home rule units. Nothing in Article VII subsection (h) says the state can exercise exclusive jurisdiction without complying with article (g). So it would appear to me that a super majority would be required to pass this bill in any case.
Maybe I am wrong, but I can't see the ILSC saying section (h) means the state can eliminate a HR units ability to exercise power more easily than it can regulate it.
It would seem to me the bills only redeeming feature was it got around home rule. It seems as it is written that it does not.
This is horribly written. No HR unit could invalidate a state law to issue LTCs in the first place, so that would be a moot point.
however, one might argue that a HR unit would not have the power to invalidate the defensive carry of firearms under this bill.
IANAL, but subsection (g) of Article VII requires a super majority to limit home rule units. Nothing in Article VII subsection (h) says the state can exercise exclusive jurisdiction without complying with article (g). So it would appear to me that a super majority would be required to pass this bill in any case.
Maybe I am wrong, but I can't see the ILSC saying section (h) means the state can eliminate a HR units ability to exercise power more easily than it can regulate it.
It would seem to me the bills only redeeming feature was it got around home rule. It seems as it is written that it does not.
Last edited:
swan hunter
Member
removed from bill in amendment
I believe this section was removed by the amendment.
I believe this section was removed by the amendment.
Bob, this is what was removed by amendment 1:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...s=0&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=2257&GAID=10&Session=
Makes the bill totally worthless. Anyone who thinks Heller will cause a court to force the home rule municipalities to eliminate restrictions on carry should contact me, I have some prime ocean front property here in Marion county I'd like to sell....
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ful...s=0&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=2257&GAID=10&Session=
Makes the bill totally worthless. Anyone who thinks Heller will cause a court to force the home rule municipalities to eliminate restrictions on carry should contact me, I have some prime ocean front property here in Marion county I'd like to sell....
I might buy that eventually Heller will somehow force the most restrictive states to relax their various prohibitons on carrying, but its not likely to happen real soon. maybe I will be able to carry to visit jeff when they put him in the home 20 years from now, unless that is declared a sensitive place subject to reasonable restrictions.
And I am less sure that CC will be what the courts see as a right.
Phatty
Member
Of all the possible extensions of Heller, I think the right to carry a handgun for self-defense is the most likely to occur. Almost every other gun law will probably be deemed a reasonable regulation that does not infringe the 2A. However, the complete prohibition on carrying a functional weapon outside of the home runs completely counter to the Heller opinion. I would be shocked if the Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to self-defense does not extend outside of one's home. A state will likely be allowed to regulate that carry, such as determining if it has to be open or concealed and issuing permits, but will not be allowed to just say no. The real fight is when the court determines what is a "sensitive" place. (Is the City of Chicago, a densely populated urban area with high crime rates, a sensitive place?)
There is a CA case recently filed in federal court on the right to carry that will likely be in front of the Supreme Court in less than five years.
The weird thing is that when/if the Supreme Court holds that a person has a right to carry a firearm outside of the home in "non-sensitive" places, Illinois will go from the most restrictive carry state to one of the least restrictive carry states in the US. This is because Illinois citizens will not have any regulations in place governing the carrying of a firearm (except FOID). If you want to see politicians get some legislation rammed through in a hurry, wait till you see what Illinois does when they are scrambling to get laws in place governing the carrying of firearms once the Supreme Court says all citizens have the right to carry.
I would not bet on that. there are all kinds of laws regulating where Illinois citizens can bring guns.
its already specifically prohibited to bring guns (even unloaded ones) to places that are publicly supported or places that have licenses to sell alcohol. No doubt there are others.
I am guessing that the courts are going to have a tough time deciding what restrictions on bearing arms are OK. It would not surprise me one bit if through intellectual dishonesty they decided that the RTKBA does not extend past your door step.
These are the same people that have come up with the idea that even a remote threat to police officer safety justifies gutting the 4th amendment for every law abiding citizen.
The thing is that Heller is almost a year old and DC residents are really not much better off than they were before Heller was decided.
All or nothing = nothing
Concealed carry without preemption is certainly not ideal.
However, Ohio never would have passed a CCW law had we insisted on preemption from the get-go. That was 2004.
March 2007, HB347 went into effect mandating state wide preemption.
There were some cities that refused to acknowledge preemption, so Ohioans for Concealed Carry sued the city of Clyde for a test case. Just last September (2008) we won our case.
This took time. If OFCC had refused to support the carry law just because it didn't include preemption, we would be in the same condition as Illinois today.
Concealed carry without preemption is certainly not ideal.
However, Ohio never would have passed a CCW law had we insisted on preemption from the get-go. That was 2004.
March 2007, HB347 went into effect mandating state wide preemption.
There were some cities that refused to acknowledge preemption, so Ohioans for Concealed Carry sued the city of Clyde for a test case. Just last September (2008) we won our case.
This took time. If OFCC had refused to support the carry law just because it didn't include preemption, we would be in the same condition as Illinois today.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
