• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

They introduced "THE" bill.

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
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.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
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:

Archtus

New member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
9
Location
Wisconsin
Delighted Wisconsinite

I can finally feel safe going through the gang warzone that is Chicago. Not like the previous gunbans did anything to deter them, but this bill for conceal carry should deter them some. Maybe granny's packing a hand cannon in that purse, now.

Also, if/when this passes in the near future, I will make Illinois my first non-resident CCW permit/license(Just makes dressing for inclement weather so much easier).

Did anyone read how it will affect open carry? Skimming suggests permit allows carry concealed or otherwise. Biggest deterrent to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.
 
Last edited:

kurt555gs

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
234
Location
, ,
HB0997 was designed to be able to pass in Illinois. It's not a " ha ha we won " bill at all. Given Chicago's power in the ILGA, the compromises are necessary. The good news is that it really is very well written leaving very little ambiguity that would be abused by Chicago et al and then end up in lawsuits. This rather than the restrictions is why we should support it.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
I fail to see why "compromise is necessary".

Let's pretend you, the state of Illinois owned a house. If I wanted the house you live in, and I just received a judgement awarding it to me completely in 180 days, why should I compromise on an agreement to sell it to me before that deadline? What's that? You want $100,000? How about giving me everything I want like a new coat of paint, a remodeled bathroom, and an updated furnace. I'll give you $50,000 and we'll both come out happy.

You think I should compromise?

How about we just wait 180 days and I'll own that sucker anyway? Sure, I might not have a new bathroom, and have to replace the furnace.

Good luck sleeping on your park bench. That $50,000 doesn't sound too bad now, huh?

You'll have to do better at explaining how a compromise does pro-2A Illinoisians any good when it's the state that will be facing a loss of everything If they don't pass restrictions in less than 180 days. Sure, there is some heartache in constitutional carry for pro-2A folks. No permit = no out of state carry, Home rule infringement vagueness, etc. So it does behoove us to pass a concrete CCW Bill that will write our freedoms in stone. But, We're the ones sitting at the table. Why should we compromise when it's the state that will ultimately lose? Let THEM compromise and accept the table scraps we choose to toss them. Otherwise, they can go hungry as we flip the switch on the garbage disposal.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Compromise? When victory is within your grasp, you don't give up ground, unless there is something greater to be gained.

Make no mistake - you are joined in a battle with those that do not care for you or your goals.

I am reminded of a quote posted by another elsewhere on this forum:

Ragnar Redbeard Excerpt from: Might Is right

" 'Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despite fully use you,’ is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back, when kicked. Obey it, O! reader, and you and all your posterity to the tenth generation shall be irretrievably and literally damned. They shall be hewers of wood, and carriers of water, degenerates, Gibeonites. But hate your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, smash him down; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest law.

Give blow for blow, scorn for scorn, doom for doom, with compound interest liberally added thereunto. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, aye four-fold, a hundredfold. Make yourself a Terror to your adversary and when he goeth his way, he will possess much additional wisdom to ruminate over. Thus shall you make yourself respected in all the walks of life, and your spirit — your IMMORTAL spirit — shall live, not in an intangible paradise, but in the brains and thews of your aggressive and unconquerable sons. After all, the true proof of manhood is a splendid progeny; and it is a scientific axiom that the timid animal transmits timidity to its descendents."

I do not personally espouse the "might is right" philosophy, but it is thought provoking.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snip--
I do not personally espouse the "might is right" philosophy, but it is thought provoking.
Similar to "those who have the guns, make the rules"?
Not that you espouse it ... do you agree with the premise?

Have read many such cliches - they make colorful, additions and lend a ring of truth through familiarity to whichever side is using them.

I OC basically 24/7, believe in the intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment, support, promote and defend the RKBA through my actions, activities and memberships.

I chose to not respond directly to the question.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
If the bill is passed it will not stop the lawsuits challenging the restrictions. If the bill is not passed, we will still be dealing with some of the same issues only multiplied by every jurisdiction with regulations restricting or effectively banning carry.

The 7th's decision in practice applies to all government entities within this state but if will take more litigation to set those boundaries. In the meantime rights denied. Both options move us forward, I can only speculate which one reaches the goal line first.
 

kurt555gs

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
234
Location
, ,
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.

Who? LOL.
 

jrj_51

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2011
Messages
62
Location
Michigan
I'm with the "No Compromise" crowd. There is no REQUIREMENT to pass any legislation by the deadline and there is no restriction prohibiting legislation after the deadline. A permit would be nice for reciprocity and homerule override would be excellent but we have to remember that most of the time a GA or other legislative branch will not loosen restrictions on things like this. Especially in Illinois. Passing this bill and saying "We'll fight for more later" is plain stupid. Illinois has been handed one heck of a jewel and the people want to trade it for a dirty rock? If legislation is really what you want, let the deadline pass. When the anti's can no longer afford Depends from all the crapping their pants from the guns around them at the grocery store, let them come begging for something, anything. Make THEM panic. THEN get preemption and reciprocity. If you expect the people who tried to pass some last minute, garbage, gun grabbing bill during the New Year hangover to play nice because they are on the ropes you are just as naive as the people who think banning guns prevents violent crime. These are the people who are responsible for the murder of our children, the rape of our daughters and wives, the predation of our elderly and the destruction of our great society. The Court hands them to us with their hands tied and we want to let them go in the name of compromise? Not a chance.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Maybe I misunderstand the predicament. Let me see:
1) you have to be licensed to buy or own or possess a gun right now
2) you may not lawfully carry a gun anyplace or any time, except under the federal interstate transport requirements and/or similar state rules.
3) the courts say they have to let you carry somehow, somewhere, maybe, since the prohibition is excessively restrictive, and the right to defend oneself with a gun outside the home is vaguely a constitutional issue.
4) if you do nothing, or say no to this proposal, nothing changes, except a court somewhere will say it has to change and they cannot continue to enforce the old law.
5) instead of getting a fairly good carry proposal thru the legislature, which would establish preemption and establish some baseline, you all would rather just let the chips fall where they may. (I truly expected to see something equivalent to NY's rules.)

Or do you think that the full court will strike down the law in such a way as to void all existing rules and preempt the state, or the City of Chicago, from imposing ridiculous ones in their place?
The state's appeal for reversal will most like go to the whole court, and the outcome could well be "no change is required."
--
I know a lot of Chicagoans (including in the suburbs) that really and truly don't understand why anyone would want, need, or should be permitted to have a handgun. I think the battle for constitutional carry is an uphill one that could result in a loss.
I say go for three and win the game that gets you to the playoffs. And I would never suggest accepting a compromise when in a superior position, but you do not currently have that.
 

ILARNG11B

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2013
Messages
4
Location
Illinois
my $.02

The bill has a very small likelihood of passing, unfortunately. Attorney General Lisa Madigan, daughter of IL House Speaker, Michael Madigan, is going to pursue another hearing from the 7th US Court of Appeals before the 180 days are up(tick tock). Luckily, the 7th US Court is mostly made up of judges who rose through the ranks because of their intellectual merit(unlike Lisa Madigan) and all but two were appointed by Republicans. The courts will play hardball with the crazies who run IL, but IL lawmakers still have the ball in their playing field. Not to be overly pessimistic, but the odds of IL becoming shall issue is marginal at best. Carry on:dude:
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I'm with the "No Compromise" crowd. There is no REQUIREMENT to pass any legislation by the deadline and there is no restriction prohibiting legislation after the deadline. A permit would be nice for reciprocity and homerule override would be excellent but we have to remember that most of the time a GA or other legislative branch will not loosen restrictions on things like this. Especially in Illinois. Passing this bill and saying "We'll fight for more later" is plain stupid. Illinois has been handed one heck of a jewel and the people want to trade it for a dirty rock? If legislation is really what you want, let the deadline pass. When the anti's can no longer afford Depends from all the crapping their pants from the guns around them at the grocery store, let them come begging for something, anything. Make THEM panic. THEN get preemption and reciprocity. If you expect the people who tried to pass some last minute, garbage, gun grabbing bill during the New Year hangover to play nice because they are on the ropes you are just as naive as the people who think banning guns prevents violent crime. These are the people who are responsible for the murder of our children, the rape of our daughters and wives, the predation of our elderly and the destruction of our great society. The Court hands them to us with their hands tied and we want to let them go in the name of compromise? Not a chance.
+10,000
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
No or little compromise.

Make the FOID a "carry permit" for holstered handguns anywhere in the state. Do not add "concealed" or Illinois will NEVER have open carry in our lifetimes.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Any bill passed should have constitutional open carry. Open carry should not be tied to concealed carry privilege cards.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
No or little compromise.

Make the FOID a "carry permit" for holstered handguns anywhere in the state. Do not add "concealed" or Illinois will NEVER have open carry in our lifetimes.

I would suggest them get rid of the FOID card, but if push comes to shove the FOID card should be the only permission card for either concealed or Open carry. I don't live in Illinois but the idea of a permission card to open carry any state really bugs me.
 
Top