Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...=16115&hl=

    With friends like these - who needs enemies . . .
    NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

    A little background first. For the past decade and a half license-to-carry bills introduced in the IL General Assembly have become routine and hold little to no expectation of passing due to opposition from the Chicago/Cook Co. legislators. That opposition means every year the same old bills calling for statewide preemption which would force the carry law into Chicago guarantees the bill is dead on arrival. A bill or two may make the headlines but never to the floor for a vote largely due to the opposition of Mayor Daley and Cook County legislators. The likelihood of a statewide preemption bill being passed is greatly reduced by the fact that bills preempting home rule status require 71 votes for passage rather than a simple majority of 60. Double or triple that reduction by the fact that in Chicago it is illegal to even own a handgun let alone carry one for self-defense purposes. We find it somewhat ludicrous to even consider a statewide preemptive bill passing in the state of Illinois given those circumstances.

    Other states like Ohio and Nebraska faced years of major opposition like this. They finally won their battle by passing a carry law which we in Illinois would call "subject to home rule". An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state. Pro-Second Amendment groups in Ohio were then able to prove carrying firearms for self-defense works and they came back in just a few short years and successfully expanded the law to include everyone. Nebraska, just two short years after passing their license-to-carry bill now has statewide preemption according to their state's Attorney General and are now working to amend their law.

    With those recent successes in mind many license-to-carry supporters in Illinois were very excited when down state Representative Brandon Phelps courageously decided it was time to try the same strategy in Illinois - how about a bill that would require only a simple majority of 60 votes, would provide an opportunity for license-to-carry to get a foot in the door, something similar to what has been so successful in Ohio and Nebraska . . . how about a "subject to home rule" bill which would allow home rule municipalities to opt out if they so chose but citizens in the vast majority of the state would be free to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The Citizens Self-defense Act, HB 2257, was born.

    Keeping in mind a statewide preemptive law is the ultimate goal, IllinoisCarry members, including members residing in municipalities sure to ban the practice, have given their full support to the idea of subject to home rule carry and believe the premise behind it is the best hope of getting any kind of license-to-carry bill passed in the state of Illinois.

    HB2257 started off with good promise, the sponsor reported he felt sure he could garner the 60 votes needed to pass it out of the House. So it came as a huge shock and disappointment to learn from legislators that the NRA was actually lobbying against it.

    When contacted by lllinoisCarry the NRA-ILA lobbyist confirmed the NRA-ILA was indeed lobbying against the bill and vowed to kill it. The reason given for the opposition was that the bill did not include statewide preemption, that it would create a patchwork of ordinances all across the state which could be detrimental to license holders, and it would ultimately be vetoed by Gov. Quinn and still need 71 votes for a veto override. Therefore we should continue to wait and work toward a change in the political makeup of the IL legislature.

    IllinoisCarry maintains that statewide preemption didn't pass even when we did have a more favorable party in office and continuing to wait for countless more years will only result in more defenseless victims being violently assaulted and murdered. Citizens in the rest of the state where license to carry is being welcomed should not be denied the right to defend themselves just because other municipalities choose to infringe on their citizens' rights.

    Furthering the argument for a subject to home rule bill like HB2257, IllinoisCarry is confident it will lead to statewide preemption as it has in Ohio and Nebraska. IL firearm owners already have to work within a patchwork of city ordinances concerning firearms and a look at the listing of city ordinances on the Illinois State Police website would verify that fact. Although Gov. Quinn may very well veto the bill, we will never know that if every such bill is killed by the NRA-ILA without a good hard push for passage.

    We need the NRA-ILA and their hardworking lobbyists on the IL Second Amendment team. But we differ greatly on this issue of denying an opportunity for a subject to home rule bill to come to a vote. The NRA-ILA lobbyist for Illinois is one of the best in the country and has been invaluable in the battle to curtail bad gun bills in the state of Illinois. We recognize a lobbyist must follow the bidding of the organization they represent. We have been assured by him that if the NRA-ILA changes their stance on the issue to one of support then he will support the issue also.

    Now after weeks of conversation with the NRA-ILA, their leadership team has temporarily changed their position from opposition to neutral while they claim to study the issue. It is our opinion a subject to home rule license-to-carry bill will not advance in Illinois without the support of the NRA-ILA. We need the NRA to SUPPORT subject to home rule carry in Illinois.

    WHAT CAN YOU DO? LOBBY THE NRA!

    If you are an NRA member, resident of Illinois, visit Illinois, or even travel through Illinois please call the numbers below - REMEMBER BE POLITE BUT FIRM- and tell them you want their support for subject to home rule license-to-carry in Illinois. If you are a resident of Chicago or any other municipality that might exercise the right to "opt out" of concealed carry, assure the NRA-ILA that you know the most effective and expeditious way to get concealed carry into your area is to get it into the rest of the state first. Do not let them get caught up in HB2257 specifically - bills can be amended, it's the issue of subject to home rule we want them to support.

    Contact the following NRA-ILA leadership team:

    Chris Cox
    Executive Director
    NRA-ILA
    1-800-392-8683
    1-703-267-3973 fax
    CCox@NRAhq.org

    Scott Christman
    Assist. Ex. Dir.
    NRA-ILA
    703-267-1140
    SChristman@NRAhq.org

    Randy Kozuch
    Director
    ILA-State and Local Affairs
    703-267-1202
    703-267-3976 fax
    RKozuch@NRAhq.org

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Stratford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    646

    Post imported post

    Or give your donation to GOA the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington....

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

    Post imported post

    Big Chris wrote:
    ...Other states like Ohio and Nebraska faced years of major opposition like this. They finally won their battle by passing a carry law which we in Illinois would call "subject to home rule". An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state...
    An interesting, if INACCURATE, article - at least as far as the reference to Ohio.

    Ohio's first CCW law,wasHB 12.The legislature defined it as a "general law", a term used in the state's legal structure toconveypreemption.

    But, various anti-gun city legislators took umbrage and dragged the matter into court, claiming "home rule" authority. Home rule is indeed in Ohio's Constitution, and works as long as the law in question is not in conflict with general laws (among other things).

    Finally a court case, Clyde (city) vs Ohioans for Concealed Carry, went to the Ohio Supreme Court and the court ruled that Ohio's CCW law was preemptive.

    Yes, a preemption bill waspassed (I'm not sure of the timing) that dealt with preemption of state firearm laws in general (striking down local "assault weapon" bans, etc. in favor of statewide legislation, if any), but the decision in the court case was not dependant on the passage of that preemption law - rather it addressed the generality (or lack thereof) of Ohio's CCW law.

    Finally, the statement "An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state..." is out and out FALSE in reference to Ohio. The original bill did nothing of the sort.

    I've been in this since the days of Ohio's Open Carry "Defense Walks" and know the history - the writer of this article is clearly mis-(or un) informed.


    edited to add: http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4064/53/

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    I have a special expertise in understanding Illinois need for a preemption law, as I am the person who actually took the time to read and document all of the known municipal ordinances in Illinois: http://www.isra.org/links/illinois_m...e_firearms.pdf I also wrote several editorials around 2005 on this topic.

    Having said that, I find it incomprehensible that the NRA lobbied to kill thisRTC bill, on the basis that it did not have preemption protection. For year, after year, after year, people have been trying to pass aRTC law in IL, and failed, and failed, and failed, because supporters could not get the 3/5 majority required to pass the preemption component of the bill.

    It was the conventional thinking among gun rights activists back in 2005 that a pre-emption law needed to be passed before, or simultaneously to a LTC bill. However, even a very weak and limited preemption bill was not able to make it past the governor's veto.

    I no longer live in Illinois and don't follow things there as closely as I once did, but I can tell you that the old strategy of trying to get a pre-emption law passed prior/simultaneously to aRTC bill, IS IMPOSSSIBLE given the political makeup of the Illinois legislature.

    • A pre-emption bill requires a 3/5 majority vote in both houses of the legislature.
    • A RTC bill requires a 51% majority vote in both houses of the legislature.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Brent Hanson wrote:
    I have a special expertise in understanding Illinois need for a preemption law, as I am the person who actually took the time to read and document all of the known municipal ordinances in Illinois: http://www.isra.org/links/illinois_m...e_firearms.pdf I also wrote several editorials around 2005 on this topic.

    Having said that, I find it incomprehensible that the NRA lobbied to kill thisRTC bill, on the basis that it did not have preemption protection. For year, after year, after year, people have been trying to pass aRTC law in IL, and failed, and failed, and failed, because supporters could not get the 3/5 majority required to pass the preemption component of the bill.

    It was the conventional thinking among gun rights activists back in 2005 that a pre-emption law needed to be passed before, or simultaneously to a LTC bill. However, even a very weak and limited preemption bill was not able to make it past the governor's veto.

    I no longer live in Illinois and don't follow things there as closely as I once did, but I can tell you that the old strategy of trying to get a pre-emption law passed prior/simultaneously to aRTC bill, IS IMPOSSSIBLE given the political makeup of the Illinois legislature.
    • A pre-emption bill requires a 3/5 majority vote in both houses of the legislature.
    • A RTC bill requires a 51% majority vote in both houses of the legislature.
    I'd say at this point that a lawsuit by Gura (and Gura only, he's the only one I trust to do this given the good complaint he made in the Sykes case in California) is the only way to fix this situation.

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/syk...2009-05-09.pdf

    Pro-Chicago and against incorporation, but even the this organization agrees we have a right to carry openly.

    http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-con...onf_mayors.pdf

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Who is "Pro-Chicago and against incorporation" but supports the right of open carry?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post

    Who is "Pro-Chicago and against incorporation" but supports the right of open carry?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Brent Hanson wrote:
    Who is "Pro-Chicago and against incorporation" but supports the right of open carry?
    You confuse "Agree" and "Support". They are not the same thing. Look at the chicagoguncase.com link I posted, the amicus brief from the US Conference of Mayors on Behalf of Chicago and Oak Park.

    It's a fascinating read. They make the argument that the 2nd amendment is not an right essential to ordered liberty because gangs and drug cartels will use the 2nd amendment to terrorize the population by openly carrying their guns on the street. I guess no one explained to these folks that the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment can be used in the same manner, allowing the "guilty" to go free when they've been determined innocent by a jury, etc.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    5

    Post imported post


    From the U.S. Conference of Mayors:


    The stringent eighteenth-century version of the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment, however, threatens to cripple state and local law enforcement by granting gang members and drug dealers a right to carry firearms.
    But in Chicago, the police and gangs are the same thing. So how would granting gang members and drug dealers a right to carry firearms threaten to cripple state and local law enforcement?

    Chicago Police Department to disband elite drug and gang unit
    http://www.masscops.com/forums/natio...gang-unit.html

    By DON BABWIN Associated Press WriterCHICAGO (AP) -- The Chicago Police Department will disband an elite drug and gang unit under state and federal investigation for allegations ranging from armed violence and home invasion to kidnapping and plotting a murder-for-hire, officials said Tuesday.

Posting Permissions

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