Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: They introduced "THE" bill.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    62

    They introduced "THE" bill.


  2. #2
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: They introduced "THE" bill.

    Please provide a little more info other than a blind url...

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    it's polite to provide some detail...

    Here's the synopsis:
    Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to a person to: (1) carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person, concealed or otherwise; (2) keep or carry a loaded or unloaded handgun on or about his or her person when in a vehicle; and (3) keep a loaded or unloaded handgun openly or concealed in a vehicle. Prohibits the carrying of the handgun in certain locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 30 days of receipt of a completed application and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. Establishes qualifications for licensees, certified firearms instructors, and instructor trainers. Provides for home rule preemption. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Prohibits from inspection and copying information about applications for licenses to carry a handgun and about license holders contained in the database created by the Family and Personal Protection Act, except as authorized by that Act. Amends the State Finance Act and the Criminal Code of 2012 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.
    Here's the text. This page has a link if you want a PDF instead.
    http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext...Sess=&Session=

    And various provisions in the proposed law:
    shall-issue
    $25
    information not subject to open records request
    local PD or Sheriff can get the application denied by claiming the person is a danger
    issue or deny in 30 days
    valid for 5 years
    an IL resident w/ a license from another state may, upon implementation of this law, carry in IL on that license for 180 days
    will issue to non-residents
    must be 21
    requires training - at least 4h + live fire
    must agree to release medical records relating to psych, drug, or alcohol treatment
    color photo
    may require fingerprints
    state database, NO local ones (provides a fine)
    non-residents may use any license, as long as requirements are similar
    Some lawyers can carry in a courthouse
    OK on public transport
    can't prohibit storage in car
    all public entrances to banned municipal & commercial / private businesses must be posted
    signs must be at least 6" square
    must inform officer @ traffic stop
    can't carry under the influence (defined as 0.08)
    instructors must maintain records for 5 years, must make those records available to the gov't on demand
    no more than 40 classroom students per instructor
    no more than 5 range students per instructor
    department shall maintain registry of instructors
    instructors NOT limited to LEO
    provides preemption
    large fine for local gov't ignoring preemption


    prohibited carry in: general assembly, courthouse, meeting of gov't body, bar, secure area of airport, child care facility, casino, amusement park, sporting event, residential psych facility, jail

    prohibited carry in: schools, colleges, libraries, and LEO station (though authorities may give consent, and must inform LEO of that consent)

    municipalities may prohibit in their buildings EXCEPT: rest stops, rest rooms, public housing, parking facility


    And my eyes are starting to glaze over...
    Last edited by MKEgal; 01-30-2013 at 04:16 PM.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by skeith5 View Post
    Please provide a little more info other than a blind url...

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    It's a link to the IL legislature's website with the bill, including history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Devin Hutchison View Post
    Clicking on the link and reading a tad bit would yield miraculous results.
    He's accessing the forum on one of these: Click image for larger version. 

Name:	t999_294x294_medium3_cf.jpg 
Views:	191 
Size:	25.9 KB 
ID:	9939
    so it might be a little difficult for him to do that.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    62
    I also posted from my phone, from work. I didn't have much time to read it myself. Just trying to get the word out to those who hadn't heard.

  6. #6
    Regular Member skeith5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    357

    Re: They introduced "THE" bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrj_51 View Post
    I also posted from my phone, from work. I didn't have much time to read it myself. Just trying to get the word out to those who hadn't heard.
    I appreciate getting the word out. Even though I'm not an Illinois citizen, I think we should be aware of what is going on in other states.

    I believe there is a forum rule about blind links, if not it's just courtesy to give a little heads up about the link.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
    Too lazy to do a blog! Follow me on Twitter instead! @6ShotScott

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Haven't finished reading it yet

    EDIT: truncated.
    Last edited by Oramac; 02-01-2013 at 04:24 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by skeith5
    I believe there is a forum rule about blind links
    Nope. But posting a excerpt is a nice thing to do. Lets people make an informed decision if they want to read more.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    Haven't finished reading it yet, but given the blank slate the courts gave to you guys, I personally think it looks kinda pathetic. "Shall Issue" but the sheriff can deny it based on "danger to himself, another or public safety". Yet no definition is given as to how to determine those dangers. Sound way too much like May Issue to me.

    Y'all have a perfect chance at Constitutional Carry (sadly, a better chance than we Missouri people have). I'd hate to see it end up like this.
    As far as the sheriff situation , they have to have provable cause to deny .

    While Constitutional carry sounds like a grand idea , since we have home rule forms of Government , it would be a major PITA . We could be walking down one side of the street , perfectly legal , cross the street and become a felon.

    Just look what Chicago did after the SCOTUS decision in McDonald vs. Chicago. That is why we need to pass a carry law with preemption . Chicago wouldn't be the only place we would have to worry about either.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    Illiinoiscarry.com is asking that specifics of the bill not be discussed opening on the forums, due to the mining of information by the anti's. The Mods on other sites are removing post with specific's from the bill and as a member of Illinoiscarry.com would ask the Moderators to do the same here.

    We don't want to give the Anti's anymore ammunition that what they can gleam from reading the bill themselves.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    RANDYT brings up a great point. Questions removed.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 01-31-2013 at 01:04 PM. Reason: to remove questions that tip our hand.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Releasing medical records? This will not fly IMO.

    But why wait for a court case .... kill the bill now.

    You will get to carry soon ... if the bills are killed then you'll likely be able to carry sooner.

    And what are the requirements to carry? Put the specifics and disqualifies into the law.

    Once the police say no then your chances of an admin appeal are going to be about zero.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    Illiinoiscarry.com is asking that specifics of the bill not be discussed opening on the forums, due to the mining of information by the anti's. The Mods on other sites are removing post with specific's from the bill and as a member of Illinoiscarry.com would ask the Moderators to do the same here.

    We don't want to give the Anti's anymore ammunition that what they can gleam from reading the bill themselves.
    As I understood it you all don't want any bill to pass anyways. So the more fighting and less consensus the better right?
    "Public opinion and votes have nothing to do with this. The challenge of the Court is not what they're going to do with votes. The challenge-- of the Court is are they going to protect people's rights." - Al Sharpton


  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    due to the mining of information by the anti's.
    They do this, no doubt.

    where do they post their thoughts? Goose/gander thing...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    As I understood it you all don't want any bill to pass anyways. So the more fighting and less consensus the better right?
    Killing the bills and not passing one before the 180 day clock runs out, is a problem because Illinois doesn't have firearm preemption, so home rule cities (chicago) can pass there own laws on what you can carry, where you can carry, how many bullets it can contain.

    We saw what can happen after Mcdonald. Chicago said OK we can't ban handguns, but we can make them register them, Limit what they can own, make them take training to own the handgun, complete with range training, then ban gun ranges within the city limits, under the "they can go outside to another city to get training".

  16. #16
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    As I understood it you all don't want any bill to pass anyways. So the more fighting and less consensus the better right?
    At first, I thought the lack of a bill would lead to constitutional carry, therefore, the way to go.

    After further consideration, the lack of a bill would lead to many questions remaining unaddressed, therefore, troublesome.

    One thing it WOULD do is allow unregulated carry of firearms in the state. This behooves the anti's to address the issue and pass a law. If they don't, COOL! Anyone can carry anything, anywhere. Sounds good to me! So, if anti-gunners wish to table the issue and refuse to pass legislation providing for a CCW process, that's great for pro 2A supporters, and means there's nothing forbidding you from slingling your AR-15 over your shoulder and marching right into the local courthouse, football game, or corner bar.

    So, I'm pretty sure the anti's are going to want to address this.

    Which also tosses the ball right back into our court. After all, the previous issue with nullification of all Illinois' carry prohibitions also adds some problems for Pro 2A supporters.

    1) Without a permit process, how would an Illinois citizen lawfully carry if he/she chose to travel out of state?
    2) Carrying a firearm without a "permission slip" would almost certainly lead to continued enforcement of nullified law until a person arrested could "prove their innocence". What do you honestly think would happen if you did, indeed, choose to tote your perfectly legal AR right down Chicago's Michigan Avenue? I'll tell you: You'd be illegally arrested, illegally tossed into the klink, have your legal AR illegally siezed, and have to sit there, spend money on attorney's fees, and go through the whole rigamarole in order to be acquitted, (which you probably would be). Being found completely innocent under these circumstances might feel wonderful, but it falls right into the hands of the anti's, anyway. Are you willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars, sit in a jail cell, and spend untold hours in court to finally be told you did nothing wrong? The anti's aren't banking on "right or wrong". They don't care. They simply wish to inconvenience you, hassle you, and make your life a living hell to the point that, even though legal, lawful behavior is still thwartd by "political threat". It's the Chicago way.
    3) How would constitutional carry be regarded by home rule cities? (The same as it would in #2: Municipalities would most likely enforce nullified anti-carry laws anyway and claim they are exempt from the findings that gun bans are illegal. This would lead to the entire process all over again. We'd have to await the process of a court to find that the recent finding nullifying carry bans does, indeed, apply to home rule cities.)

    Pro 2A Illinoisians, and anti-carry rights grabbers are BOTH better served by a law stating the requirements for lawful carry. This removes any and all dispute any municipality in Illinois could possibly raise.

    The cool part is, it is a WIN/WIN situation for Pro 2A Illinoisians.

    #1) If there is no CCW law passed, Municipalities will definately face instances of having to allow carry of anything, in any manner, anywhere (WIN).......or having to go through numerous cases of litigation that would, most likely, prove very expensive for the cities and state if they try to uphold anti-carry laws that have been nullified. Even though the process would prove a complete pain for carriers (getting arrested under vague [read: no] carry guidelines), it would eventually prove more problematic for the state once expensive payouts following lawsuits begin happening because there is no law forbidding carry of any type, anywhere. (WIN)

    #2) If there is CCW law passed, Pro 2A Illinoisians should, pretty much, be able to name their terms and receive a Christmas list of everything they want in a CCW bill like: low fees, full reciprocity, long renewal rate, full pre-emption, shall issue, and a host of any and all other goodies imaginable. (WIN), or.......see #1.

    I may be completely out in left field, but I welcome any discussion about whether this opinion is valid/invalid, including whether or not these concerns should be publicly aired in the interest of Illinoiscarry.com, in which case mods should feel free to remove it. I'll edit to do so, if asked.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 01-31-2013 at 01:51 PM.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Excellent news! Make sure you get preemption, WITH TEETH! Or, better yet, no bill at all. THAT ought to be the trump card.

    And, get rid of the criminal empowerment zones.

  18. #18
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    Haven't finished reading it yet, but given the blank slate the courts gave to you guys, I personally think it looks kinda pathetic. "Shall Issue" but the sheriff can deny it based on "danger to himself, another or public safety". Yet no definition is given as to how to determine those dangers. Sound way too much like May Issue to me.

    Y'all have a perfect chance at Constitutional Carry (sadly, a better chance than we Missouri people have). I'd hate to see it end up like this.
    Far from constitutional carry, we still have all the local laws and trespassing statutes that prohibit firearm carry on public lands.

    I do agree with your assessment that the bill is way too restrictive for a starting point given we get carry in one way or another on June 9th without the proposed legislation.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Abolutely, lockman.

    There is NO, repeat NO reason for those who support firearms rights to agree to all the B.S. that is part of the bill.

    It would be MUCH BETTER to not agree to any but the most insignificant limitations than to agree to the bill as proposed. The court decision has put the gun rights people in the catbird seat - why screw up a good thing?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ILLINOIS
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Abolutely, lockman.

    There is NO, repeat NO reason for those who support firearms rights to agree to all the B.S. that is part of the bill.

    It would be MUCH BETTER to not agree to any but the most insignificant limitations than to agree to the bill as proposed. The court decision has put the gun rights people in the catbird seat - why screw up a good thing?
    Without statewide preemption, Chicago, and other cities can write there own carry laws, like you can only carry a single shot .22 pistol, on Sundays between 2:30-3:00 AM. Most people don't agree with the restictions in the carry bill, but you also need to understand that we need 71 votes in the house just to past a carry bill. If some of the restrictions are not there, we will never get the required votes. Then it has to pass the senate with a supermajority also, then go to the governor which most likely veto the bill then we will need the same votes to override the veto.

    It takes a supermajority to pass any bill that preempts home rule communities, or as father Madigan puts it, a supermajority is required to pass any of the pro gun bills, but a simple majority to pass a anti gun bill.

    Without a carry bill, we run into the situation that just crossing the street can be a violation, resulting in arrest, time in jail, loss of firearm(s), attorney fees, not counting the possible wildlife code violations for us that live in a rural area

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Abolutely, lockman.

    There is NO, repeat NO reason for those who support firearms rights to agree to all the B.S. that is part of the bill.

    It would be MUCH BETTER to not agree to any but the most insignificant limitations than to agree to the bill as proposed. The court decision has put the gun rights people in the catbird seat - why screw up a good thing?
    +1

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    They introduced "THE" bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    Illiinoiscarry.com is asking that specifics of the bill not be discussed opening on the forums, due to the mining of information by the anti's. The Mods on other sites are removing post with specific's from the bill and as a member of Illinoiscarry.com would ask the Moderators to do the same here.

    We don't want to give the Anti's anymore ammunition that what they can gleam from reading the bill themselves.
    Sorry for the intrusion from a Texan, but my home office is up there...
    This is has got to be the most idiotic request I've seen today. Governing is about public discourse.

    If a bill can't garner support without hiding the details and making last minute amendments, then it's bad legislation.

    Get the word out, loud and clear.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    They introduced "THE" bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by RANDYT View Post
    Without statewide preemption, Chicago, and other cities can write there own carry laws, like you can only carry a single shot .22 pistol, on Sundays between 2:30-3:00 AM. Most people don't agree with the restictions in the carry bill, but you also need to understand that we need 71 votes in the house just to past a carry bill. If some of the restrictions are not there, we will never get the required votes. Then it has to pass the senate with a supermajority also, then go to the governor which most likely veto the bill then we will need the same votes to override the veto.

    It takes a supermajority to pass any bill that preempts home rule communities, or as father Madigan puts it, a supermajority is required to pass any of the pro gun bills, but a simple majority to pass a anti gun bill.

    Without a carry bill, we run into the situation that just crossing the street can be a violation, resulting in arrest, time in jail, loss of firearm(s), attorney fees, not counting the possible wildlife code violations for us that live in a rural area
    You are absolutely right, based on my experience in Texas (which had statewide prohibition on all handgun carry from 1870 to 1996, when a concealed permit was established), this is a very lenient regulation. It is a step in the right direction, and going from 100% prohibition to this is an excellent first step.

    Compromise is about those without getting something from those who have. In this case, you have no carry. Digging in and saying "we want constitutional carry now", instead of taking a good compromise probably means no action at all. Unless you can get your 71 votes for unrestricted carry.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    instead of taking a good compromise probably means no action at all.
    In 6 mos. you'll be asked to compromise more ... then 6 mos. later, more ... then etc

    Be a Winston Churchill ... no compromises..ever
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-01-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    This is has got to be the most idiotic request I've seen today.
    I think not discussing things the anti-gunners forgot to address in proposed legislation is a pretty good idea on a publicly viewed forum. (Unless you think, "HEY, EVERYBODY! THEY MISSED THIS DETAIL! IF THEY DON'T ADDRESS IT AND ADD RESTRICTIONS, WE'LL GET EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT!" is a GOOD thing to toss out for the whole world to see before the amendments are offered by anti's who may be publicly viewing this board?)

    Digging in and saying "we want constitutional carry now", instead of taking a good compromise probably means no action at all.
    ...and what would be wrong with that?


    In the end, lack of a decent CCW law will prove more of a pain for the state than it will for the public. Especially if there are some financial "teeth" in the form of lawsuits filed as soon as the first person is harrassed, detained, arrested, or even looked at sideways for carrying.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 02-01-2013 at 04:45 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •