NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL
- Thread starter Megistopoda
- Start date
- Status
Phatty
Member
This is bad for the residents of DC but very good for the rest of us. The more that the DC council stubbornly fights, the more good case law will be generated for the rest of us. The Supreme Court will get pissed off at the way the DC council is trying to skirt its ruling and will fight back. Courts try to be conservative in their rulings at first, only extending their holding as far as is necessary to resolve the instant case. But if they observe that their ruling is being frustrated by the city government, they will come down with a much more expansive opinion that clarifies what is and is not allowed.
And those laws may or may not be perfectly legal based on what the Court determines is a "sensitive" place. Even states with carry laws still have many places that are off-limits. I wasn't so much referring to those types of laws as I was to the whole permit/training scheme in place in a lot of states.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Sorry, John, I thought you were saying that you had other objections. I realized you hadn't decided that STHR was practical, but I misread your meaning.
I certainly disagree, though, when you say that the past three decades of LTC sweeping the nation, with the anti-gunners always holding the line in Illinois, has not been seen publicly as a victory for them and a loss for us. I don't know how often you get to Illinois, but I tend to talk to a lot of people who have no interest in this fight, and that's their perception. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that we shouldn't try a different strategy because it might fail, but our current 20-year failure is more acceptable because it's publicly perceived as the "status quo."
I certainly disagree, though, when you say that the past three decades of LTC sweeping the nation, with the anti-gunners always holding the line in Illinois, has not been seen publicly as a victory for them and a loss for us. I don't know how often you get to Illinois, but I tend to talk to a lot of people who have no interest in this fight, and that's their perception. I just can't wrap my head around the concept that we shouldn't try a different strategy because it might fail, but our current 20-year failure is more acceptable because it's publicly perceived as the "status quo."
Buck Snort
Member
Persuasion Over Force wrote: "Please, give us the condensed version. I'm not reading that entire post."
Fer Chrissake, how "condensed" does it have to get?!!!
__________________
Fer Chrissake, how "condensed" does it have to get?!!!
__________________
The following was in the 2004 CCW bill. You don't consider this preemption?
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=125_HB_12
mgkdrgn
Member
I must respectfully disagree. A bill that could get you arrested for a gun violation simply because you crossed the street might be a "foot in the door" for you, but it's a "foot in the grave" for the gun rights of anyone arrested/convicted.
A bad bill can be several times worse than no bill at all.
swan hunter
Member
Lets see the numbers...
The NRA and folks in carry states are so critical of the "patchwork of laws" which by the way, we already have in IL, but lets see the numbers of "stupid gun owners" that were actually made felons by this approach. How many folks are prosecuted because they "took a wrong turn". I failed to see any collected information...It is much easier to second guess when you aren't affected. How many people in the rest of the state will be raped, or killed because they had no ability to protect themselves while waiting for the "perfect bill"?
This isn't just a fun debate...Lives are at stake...Again, right now if you are caught with a loaded gun = felony! If bill passes and you are caught in no carry zone = misdemeanor!
The NRA and folks in carry states are so critical of the "patchwork of laws" which by the way, we already have in IL, but lets see the numbers of "stupid gun owners" that were actually made felons by this approach. How many folks are prosecuted because they "took a wrong turn". I failed to see any collected information...It is much easier to second guess when you aren't affected. How many people in the rest of the state will be raped, or killed because they had no ability to protect themselves while waiting for the "perfect bill"?
This isn't just a fun debate...Lives are at stake...Again, right now if you are caught with a loaded gun = felony! If bill passes and you are caught in no carry zone = misdemeanor!
Stop the drama. You wouldn't be permitted to carry in the places where lives are at stake under this bill. Why don't you show me some cases outside of the urban areas where CCW would have saved someone's life? It's going to be hard to do, because the kind of street crime that most people envision using a CCW to protect themselves from is pretty much confined to the urban areas where home rule will prevent you from carrying. Oh it happens it the rest of the state but it's not a significant problem.
What does the crime rate in Illinois look like when you subtract Chicago and the metro East?
"Not to possess firearms." Boilerplate language in every order of probation I've seen. Get a fine and a years probation or a years court supervision and you are most likely giving up your RKBA for a year. Better then a felony, but not as good as not being arrested at all.
swan hunter
Member
If you aren't sure of the laws...DON'T CARRY. It is that simple...Again, lets see the numbers of year long incarcerations in the states that had cities opt out!
Mr White...Can you currently carry a loaded gun in IL? If you can currently carry, you have less of a dog in this fight! And, I am further surprised the see that you are a moderator due to your tone and statements...
I guess there isn't any crime other than Chicago & Metro East??? Why do we even need LEO in the rest of the state??? Is it just for seat belt enforcement??? Glad to know that you can't get raped, beaten, or murdered outside of Chicago & Metro East?
Explain that to the 5 women murdered in a dress shop in Tinely Park, explain that to the nurse and her 19 year old daughter murdered by an estranged ex, explain that to every woman that lives in fear of being the victim of a stalker - explain that to the women who are issued one of the more than 4,000 orders of protection that are violated every year in IL . . . explain that to the women who are the victims of rape, violent assault, and murder . . .
This type of argument is more than absurd, sir, it is an insult to the people of IL!
Last edited:
We aren't talking about cities in other states, we are talking about Illinois.
Less of a dog in this fight? Who are you to tell me what I have in this fight? I have a family who can't carry, don't even think I have less of a dog in this fight. I'd like for my family to be able to carry state wide like I can. I'd like for you to be able to also, despite your attitude.
Did I say it couldn't happen outside of Chicago or Metro East? NO I DIDN'T! My point was under your compromise program you'd be denied the legal right to carry in the very places you'd be most likely to need to be carrying. Just look at these statistics from the ISP report Crime in Illinois
http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/cii2006.cfm
Cook County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
547.................2,254..............18,887.........21,2003
McHenry County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
0 76 36 286
Dupage County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
10 177 227 796
Lake County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
10 194 349 873
Madison County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
10 191 201 690
Rock Island County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
10 107 134 596
St Clair County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
37 204 611 2,577
Sangamon County 2006:
MURDER....SEXUAL ASSUALT...ROBBERY...ASSUALT/BATTERY
8 135 377 1,452
I'm not going to list all 105 counties here for you, download the report and look at it for yourself. I can't believe that you are willing to give up your right to carry in the very places you are most likely to need to...
Maybe you should explain to them why they can't carry where they live? Maybe you should explain to them, "I'm sorry that you are laying there with your lifeless eyes staring at the blood spatter on the ceiling your ripped pantyhose knotted around your neck and your legs spread in the classic rape/murder victim pose, but I sold out your right to carry a firearm for protection in order to secure my right, too bad you had to make the unfortunate choice to live or work where a home rule entity decided you didn't need to carry a gun."
You ready to tell the victim that? Your plan effectively disarms most of the population in Illinois and everyone who has business in any home rule entity that outlaws concealed carry....Your plan is a step backwards not a step forward.
swan hunter
Member
"My program" is statewide preemption.
My method is to arm as many potential victims as possible until we get there.
My method is to arm as many potential victims as possible until we get there.
No son, MY program is statewide preemption, yours is sellout the majority of the population of Illinois so you can get yours...and you have the nerve to say I don't have a dog in this fight 
Your method is to get yours, because it's just too hard to cover everyone. You know darn good and well that without statewide preemption the bill is worthless, but you want to be able to legally carry a loaded firearm and you don't care how you get to do it. Sell out most of the population of the state, allow it to continue to be unlawful to carry in the most dangerous areas of the state...oh but it's only a misdemeanor if you get caught if your Bill passes. I guess you are willing to accept a misdemeanor conviction and loss of RKBA for up to a year and an officer safety alert in LEADS linked to your name that you are known to be armed.....
Just what pray tell is your plan to get the rest of the state onboard? Do you even have one? The courts? Hardly!
Admit it, you have no plan.
Your method is to get yours, because it's just too hard to cover everyone. You know darn good and well that without statewide preemption the bill is worthless, but you want to be able to legally carry a loaded firearm and you don't care how you get to do it. Sell out most of the population of the state, allow it to continue to be unlawful to carry in the most dangerous areas of the state...oh but it's only a misdemeanor if you get caught if your Bill passes. I guess you are willing to accept a misdemeanor conviction and loss of RKBA for up to a year and an officer safety alert in LEADS linked to your name that you are known to be armed.....
Just what pray tell is your plan to get the rest of the state onboard? Do you even have one? The courts? Hardly!
Admit it, you have no plan.swan hunter
Member
I repeat: "My program" is statewide preemption.
My method is to arm as many potential victims as possible until we get there.
No one is more committed to statewide preemption than myself and my wife.
Refresh my memory - pray tell what is your plan and timeline?
My plan is to pass a good statewide bill during the coming legislative meltdown as state government crashes and burns when they are unable to deal with the 12 billion dollar deficit, things will be possible then because there is a good chance that voter rage will finally drive some of the legislative crime families from power.
State government is broken and it's finally dug itself a hole it won't get out of in it's present form. There are changes coming and that will be the best chance to get a good statewide bill.
swan hunter
Member
Best wishes with your plan.
Phatty
Member
I hope this is the case, Jeff, but I'm not holding my breath. I've yet to see a single instance where dire or "emergency" circumstances resulted in an expansion of rights. Everything in history points to the opposite. Legislatures always use a catastrophe as a means to seize more rights from the people.
The most frustrating thing about Illinois voters is that no matter how badly their elected rep screws them over, they will keep voting the same bum back in office. I constantly see banter in my area about "vote every one of them out", but then the same incumbents keep winning. Bottom line is that those Chicago dems are so entrenched that no matter how bad things get they've got nothing to worry about.
Superlite27
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 712
Good luck fighting for your right to conceal carry.........in a cornfield.
Because if this bill passes, every major township in Illinois will have a law against CCW, and you'll never see it changed.
Here's what you'll hear:
"Hey, we compromised and passed a concealed carry law like you wanted, now you want to change it? It's your turn to compromise now."
Have fun protecting yourself in your cornfield. That will be the only place that won't have a local ordinance against it.
Or, do what I did after living there for 30 years: Leave. You probably won't have any regrets either.
State government is about to collapse under it's own weight. They can't sustain a 12 billion dollar deficit, they can't do like the feds and put off the day of reckoning by a few months by printing more money, and the economy will not support increasing taxes enough to pay for the government that exists.
The legislature and the governor refuse to consider significant cuts in spending and the Blagojevich trial which will be national news and even the Illinois voters who are usually ambivalent to state government will kick off the 2010 election season. The same players who gave us this mess are going to be running for reelection or higher office during this time. There will be shakeups as the state's bond rating is lowered to junk status and they are unable to borrow the money to continue spending.
That is the time to move on concealed carry and other reforms. The public is going to be watching massive layoffs of state government and services they are used to having disappear. What do you think the early release of thousands of convicts is going to do for the popularity of CCW? All of this is in the immediate future here. Old political power bases will be changing. There is no way the Illinois political machine is going to survive this intact. Remnants of it will undoubtedly survive, but there will never be a better time in our lifetime to see substantial reform.
Phatty
Member
Holy crap, Jeff! I know what you're trying to say here, but man, you're really giving the anti's some good material to quote mine. I wouldn't be surprised to see this little nugget in a court brief some day - "Even a moderator for thehighroad.org, a gun enthusiast web forum, admits that self defense is not really needed outside of high crime urban areas."
By the way, this reminds me that thehighroad.org was just recently cited in an anti brief in the NRA v Chicago case being argued tomorrow in the 7th Circuit. The brief pointed to comments made by members here about a shotgun being preferred over a handgun as a home defense weapon (to support their argument that a handgun is not really needed, and, in fact, a shotgun would be better for self-defense in the home).
Phatty
Member
If that is true, then we have no hope of getting a statewide CCW bill passed. Did you ever stop to think that the same voters that vote for city councilmen also vote for the state reps and senators? The vast majority of Illinois citizens live in the "major townships." If the public sentiment against CCW is so great that every medium to large town in Illinois would vote against it, then I guess the state isn't ready for it.
Please forgive this digression -- but how many discussions have we seen on this board and others about whether anyone pays any attention to what get posted?Phatty said:
Superlite27
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 712
Then change their minds. I believe there have been several municipalities who have passed gun friendly ordinances recently. I believe the city of Ottawa was one of them. I also think the Illinois Sheriff's Association (or something along those lines) has also recently voiced an opinion if favor of a CCW law. I also think many downstate towns are in fovor of it.
You're problem is your largest city. Where do all your politicians come from? What city is your entire tax code based on? Where is the power in your state? Where did your former governor insist on living?
Why do downstaters continue to be bamboozled by Chicago politicians? There are more people in downstate Illinois than Chicago. Yet, next election, downstate will put yet more Chicago bosses in office.
You have the power to elect gun friendly legislators. There are plenty of people in Illinois politics who are gun friendly.
Support them.
When I go to buy a new gun, I don't buy something I don't want. I refuse to let the guy behind the counter say, "Well, it shoots bullets! It has a trigger, sights, and a barrel! It looks very similar to the one you want!"
Why would you do it for a CCW law? Are you going to let them sell you something you don't want because it looks similar?
Did I say that self defense wasn't needed in the urban areas? NO! Stop reading things that aren't there in my post. As for court briefs, if all the antis have to argue with is what the so called gun culture posts on the internet, then they are doomed.
Our side needs to stand for the truth. Are you suggesting that I lie about the fact that one is more likely to need a firearm to defend him/herself in some parts of the state then others just so it sounds better? I'm sorry but the truth is the truth and if you can't take it then I don't want you on my side in this argument. You would lower yourself to the level of the antis and lie? You sir are welcome to, but don't expect me to lie.
Phatty
Member
Well, let's a look at what you actually wrote:
Whatever your true intent may have been, your question here infers that CCW is not necessary outside of urban areas. This is the exact same thing an anti would argue in trying to deny a rural person the right to carry.
Again, anyone reading your comment would assume you are implying that a right to carry is not necessary where there isn't a "significant" crime problem. If you think I'm taking your comments out of context, remember that these comments were in direct response to a post that argued that downstate IL should not be forced to wait for the right to carry until Chicago comes around. Your response could accurately be summarized as "people in downstate Illinois don't need the right to carry, so let them wait."
I'm not faulting you for being honest about there not being a significant crime problem outside of Chicagoland in Illinois. My beef was taking that undisputed fact and making a policy argument [which I disagreed with] regarding the value of the right to carry a weapon based on that fact.
You know good and well what I meant! When have the antis ever tried to say that rural people shouldn't carry? I want the link to that argument and I want it now. You can't back up what you say. You aren't intellectually honest to accept the truth, are you?
My response is accurately summarized by by saying "If you can't carry where you really need to carry, what good is the law?". One can carry in one's home and on ones own property now. We all can find all kinds of arguments as to why that's not sufficient, but by me telling the truth about how the proposed bill forbids one from carrying where one might need to carry the most, that's saying I am for denying the people in rural areas the right to carry? No sir, it means exactly what I said it means and you know it.
You are willing to maintain a list of all the municipal ordinances in the state and make certain you disarm, unload your weapon and place it in a gun case when you cross a municipal boundary. I think that is ridiculous. You think that a misdemeanor conviction, loss of RKBA for up to a year while on probation, and an officer safety alert keyed to your name in LEADS is a small price to pay for the ability to carry...some places. You find it perfectly acceptable to disarm when your business takes you to the most dangerous places in the state. Your desire to carry a gun is so great that you are willing to accept all these restrictions just so you can strap on your gun every day and feel safe...but only in certain places.
I say that's unacceptable. For that I've been called an anti several times in this thread, I've been accused of not having a dog in this fight because I can carry under HR218 and now I've got people twisting my words into something they know I wasn't saying.
I think there are too many people who think there is something so special about being able to carry a loaded firearm that they are willing to accept all kinds of restrictions just so they can do it. A right that is restricted as much as the right would be under this bill is not a right at all.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
