ILLINOIS LEGISLATUE PASSES CONCEALED CARRY! On Governor's Desk.

But the general prohibition you outlined above is from the current law. That was struck down, was it not?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

But the general prohibition you outlined above is from the current law. That was struck down, was it not?

Click to expand...

If I understand the ruling correctly, the law was conditionally struck down. The condition was that it would be struck down UNLESS the legislature changed the law so that carrying of a handgun in public was not absolutely and completely prohibited. Therefore, if this law is signed by the governor, if my understanding of the ruling is correct, and if there are no further legal challenges to the law, then the original law will stand, with the amendment to allow licensed concealed carry.

Here is the 168 page replacement amendment that became HB183, mostly:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183sam005.htm


There is almost no Open Carry versus Concealed Carry in Illinois, now.

Here is a definition from the Illinois HB183 Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

Section 5. Definition. As used in this Act"
...
"Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle.

Click to expand...

Arguments and discussions will abound, but most will agree that few people can do what is commonly called "Open Carry" with a handgun, and NOT have the handgun "completely or mostly concealed from view of the public" at some point in time... Many Open Carry style holsters already cover 50% or more of the handgun.

1. Sitting/standing next to a wall inside a building, or in an elevator.
2. Walking next to another pedestrian, 50/50 chance.
3. Walking near a building, fence, car or truck.
4. In a large crowd of people.
5. Sitting in a booth, or even a bucket type chair.
6. Sitting in a stadium, theater with people close by on either side.
7. Jacket or sweatshirt slips partially over the top of the holster.
8. Checking out your groceries at the store, if the cashier is on your "off side" no one can see the handgun or holster.

You know what I mean. At that point in time, according to this new Illinois definition, you are carrying a "concealed firearm"

The phrase 'On or about a person within a vehicle." pretty much forces any reasonable kind of carry in a vehicle, is going to be called by the law "Concealed Carry"

---

The good news is that there are a number of circumstances under which an Illinois concealed carry license is not required. They are most completely spelled out in Section 155 of the ACT (page 126 - where it has the law in the Criminal Code of 2012, that covers "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon".

Here is part of Section 155 (a):

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

_(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or
...

Click to expand...

There are a LOT of exceptions, and also exemptions. Read thru it, page 126 thru 142, and then you can summarize it for yourself.

In these circumstances, you may be doing what most people would consider "Open Carry" but the IL law would probably call it "Concealed Carry", at least occasionally.

Here is the 168 page replacement amendment that became HB183, mostly:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183sam005.htm


Illinois Statewide Preemption of Firearm laws, not so much.

Here is a section from the Illinois HB183 Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

Section 90. Preemption

(NOTE: This section was modified by Senate Amendment 6, which deleted/struck "concealed", leaving the term "handgun" to standalone. In this post, the word "concealed" will have a strikethru formatting, like this: [STRIKE]concealed[/STRIKE]. In SB2193, "firearm" was used instead of "concealed handgun" and preemption was NOT limited to the laws "application to licensees".)

The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of [STRIKE]concealed[/STRIKE] handguns and ammunition for [STRIKE]concealed[/STRIKE] handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State. Any ordinance or regulation, or portion thereof, enacted on or before the effective date of this Act that purports to impose regulations or restrictions on licensees or [STRIKE]concealed[/STRIKE] handguns and ammunition for [STRIKE]concealed[/STRIKE] handguns in a manner inconsistent with this Act shall be invalid in its application to licensees under this Act on the effective date of this Act. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Click to expand...

I am very disappointed in this Section. In the SB2193, there was a fairly simple, broad State Preemption. I was never in the Navy nor have I played golf, so I swear like a 1950's cartoon character:

DagNabbit, this stinks!

It Preempts ordinance or regulations, by making them "invalid in its application to licensees under this Act".

So it only protects IL Concealed Carry Licensees from these laws, and then, only in this fashion:

The regulation, licensing, possession, registration, and transportation of handguns and ammunition for handguns by licensees are exclusive powers and functions of the State.

Click to expand...

I truly hope that Judge Posner will find this to be insufficient in complying with the judges objections and injunction.

I think "they" were very careful to eliminate any possibility of Open Carry in HB138. I have read it several times, and what I am seeing is a very careful narrow law limiting carry to concealed only, and then only after intense scrutiny and in extremely limited areas. Trying to find any way to Open Carry in HB138 is like trying for find corn in a steaming pile of poo, where there is no corn. And, that is the nicest thing I can say about the carry provisions of this law.

so basically illiniois is now more carry friendly than California ?

This is far from perfect, but let's take a few positives shall we: Illinois joins the rest of the country in having some manner to carry outside your residence, this legislation is shall issue and not even Chicago can refuse to issue or prevent someone from carrying in a manner under this law, there is ambiguity in the words "partially concealed" which to me says that there is an avenue to obtain some form of open carry down the road through additional legislation or through case law, and there are protections for interstate travellers ... there is still a mess in the land of Lincoln ... Chicago's registration requirements, home rule laws, the maze of gun free zones ... yes Springfield did the bare minimum, but IL was never going to get everything at once. Welcome IL to the CC family ... almost.

Someone PLEASE tell me they got a picture of Rohm Emmanuel's face when he was told this passed!! :banana:

Mostly concealed. Over 50% concealed is mostly concealed. IWB holster will conceal at least 50 or more with at least another 1/3 of what's left concealed by the flap on the body side or your body itself. That would be compliant under the law. The question I have: is a holster obvious as designed for a firearm considered concealed if it is fully visible with none or very little of the firearm exposed?

Therein lies the answer to mostly concealed.

Does the bill that was passed exempt Chicago?

ETA: It appears it does based on posts. So if when this all goes into effect and I travel through Chicago with a Michigan CPL I'd be good to carry in my car?

xmanhockey7 said:

Does the bill that was passed exempt Chicago?

ETA: It appears it does based on posts. So if when this all goes into effect and I travel through Chicago with a Michigan CPL I'd be good to carry in my car?

Click to expand...

Not sure "exempt" is the word you're looking for based on context....I think you mean preempt...?

Because no, the bill doesn't exempt Chicago, which means yes, you could travel through with your firearm in your car.

Teej said:

Not sure "exempt" is the word you're looking for based on context....I think you mean preempt...?

Because no, the bill doesn't exempt Chicago, which means yes, you could travel through with your firearm in your car.

Click to expand...

I meant exempt. I know in other bills they were all saying Chicago would basically be "exempt" from the rest of the state. It's great that they are preempt in regards to carry. Thank you

The bill that was passed is equal to a large dump truck load of brown stuff.

Let's face it - concealed (and open) carry is most needed in the dangerous cesspool which is Chicago.

So what does it do for those who live or frequent there? Well, it's great for those who don't visit parks or public get-togethers, or who have the money to not have to ride public transportation - but others? Not so much.

And with the Chicago-centric legislature can improvements be expected when those who pay out good money for a ridiculous amount of "training", and even moreso for the license itself? LOL

No, like someone else said, it's a steaming pile of poo. And I don't think that IL's gun "rights" organizations, the Negotiate Rights Away people, or the honest citizens of IL are going to get any improvements in my lifetime, unless A) hell freezes over, B) a court recognizes there are still no gun "rights" in IL, C) a court overrules the overwhelmingly discriminatory nature of the "off-limits" places, or D) the gun "rights" people amp up their game - in a big way.

The bill clearly discriminates against the poor, and many of the poor are those minorities that government claims to champion. The good people of Illinois were fed a huge load of crapola. The NRA, and the CC mafia, again show their true colors blocking civil rights for payola. Maybe people could file a lawsuit forcing the NRA and CC instructors to provide CC classes to the poor for free. They should also have to pay for the government fee for the poor. Maybe that would get their attention.

Some day I hope the poor and lower income minorities in Illinois wake up.

So it's the NRA's fault the legislature had to pass a bill like this? Come on now. If they could get a perfect bill passed they would but that's in a perfect world with politicians who are all 100% pro-gun.

xmanhockey7 said:

So it's the NRA's fault the legislature had to pass a bill like this? Come on now. If they could get a perfect bill passed they would but that's in a perfect world with politicians who are all 100% pro-gun.

Click to expand...

Give us a break with the NRA rah rah. They have supported gun control for decades, and the end to gun control means an end to their money monopoly. They clearly and openly fight against open carry, they are not the solution, they are and always have been part of the problem. They are no different than Obama, he just uses welfare, and class warfare as his agenda to keep him powerful and rich. NRA uses gun control to keep power and money.

MAC702 said:

"Far as I see it, you people been given the shortest end of the stick ever been offered a human soul in this crap-heel 'verse. But you took that end, and you - well, you took it. And that's - Well, I guess that's somethin'."

-Jayne Cobb

Click to expand...

Excellent reference and apropos quote.

WalkingWolf said:

Give us a break with the NRA rah rah.

Click to expand...

I **** on the NRA.

JTHunter said:

Shicago gets to keep its AWB and "not on public transit".
Can't carry in parks, NO reciprocity with other states, the most restrictive requirements in the country, the high expense (lic. app., "digital fingerprints", training, etc.), ID methods that even the State Police are unable to handle ("digital fingerprints"), long timeline from application start to permit (or final denial), just to name a few.

This bill is a P.o.S. and I hope Queball veto's it. If he does, it will be at least a week (probably longer) before they can convene an "emergency session" so June 9th will happen before that.
The only drawback to that is the 200+ homerule towns & cities will create a hodge-podge of conflicting laws.

As if Illinois wasn't already the "laughing stock" of the U.S.!

Click to expand...

You know, it would be kindof interesting if all the gun owners that hate this bill could act like anti-gun people, write an email or make a phone call to the governor, emphasize the good parts of the bill (pre-emption, the fact that out-of-staters from states that don't require a permit could technically carry in their car without a license, and the places that are not off-limits), and urge him to veto it. It would be funny if he got duped into vetoing it, thereby allowing Illinois to basically get constitutional carry on June 9th (subject to home rule restrictions).

xmanhockey7 said:

...So it's the NRA's fault the legislature had to pass a bill like this?...

Click to expand...

The legislature HAD TO PASS a bill like they did??

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your implication.