Then we would have IL all most surrounded.
"The bill had been opposed by some members of law enforcement, who said it would contribute to the challenges of tackling rising violent crimes that involve firearms. In an interview last week, a top law enforcement officer in Cincinnati, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, said the new law would contribute to the wave of violence."
Sheriffette McGuffey is an idiot. She is not allowed to testify in court because she is on the “brady” list. She is a known liar. She also had her car stollen and her gun stollen out of the car as sheriff."The bill had been opposed by some members of law enforcement, who said it would contribute to the challenges of tackling rising violent crimes that involve firearms. In an interview last week, a top law enforcement officer in Cincinnati, Hamilton County Sheriff Charmaine McGuffey, said the new law would contribute to the wave of violence."
“To vote for people to be able to concealed carry without a license, without any training, without any documentation, it makes it exponentially harder for law enforcement to prevent gun crimes,” McGuffey said. 'It is going to promote lawlessness. I think that there will be people who carry weapons concealed for the purpose of being vigilantes.”
(excerpted from https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/598243-ohio-governor-signs-permitless-carry-bill/)
Sheriffette McGuffey's comments reflect a serious lack of understanding of the role of law enforcement in the U.S.; she wants to be able to "prevent gun crimes", but prior restraint is illegal and unconstitutional in this country. ("Prior restraint" consists of a limitation on a citizen's liberty in anticipation of wrongful behavior.) The only job of law enforcement is just that, enforcement. Their job is to detect criminal activity, gather evidence, apprehend criminals, and assist with prosecution. All that stuff about "community caretaker" is at best, a matter of volunteerism, since that is not their job. Moreover, her fears are merely an emotional reaction (or a cynical attempt to induce others to buy into that view by appealing to their emotions rather than their reason). Being afraid of what MIGHT happen is all about the boogeyman in the closet. (You can't buy stainless steel "chore boy" scrubbers in bulk anymore because BATFE is afraid that someone MIGHT turn 'em into silencer baffles.)
I have always been puzzled by the phrase, "constitutional carry". Presumably it means that one can carry a weapon in a way that fully exercises his rights under the applicable constitution. As a Constitutional Fundamentalist, my view is that, under the U.S. Const., there can be no interference at all with a citizen's right to be armed in any way he sees fit. "No infringement" means exactly what it says, and the plain language of the amendment would suggest that you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. But that's all because the Bill of Rights really only applies to the U.S. Congress - it was judicial lack of intellectual honesty (which they refer to as "interpretation") that made any of that apply to the States. So the question, what constitutes "constitutional carry" depends on the constitution of the state in question.
I just read the statute that's been enacted, and I wasn't impressed. §4 of Ohio's constitution simply states that "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; ..." That would suggest that the right is limited to those purposes. That is to say, one has no right to hunt with weapons is unconstitutional in Ohio (not that the legislature could not grant that power by statute), and that one's ability to carry a weapon may be subject to regulation by the State. So "constitutional carry" in Ohio don't mean much.
In Virginia, where I live, and whose "keep and bear arms" Constitutional language was the model for the U.S. provision, "no infringement" means "no infringement". So, in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean the same as for the U.S. Constitution: you can carry tactical nukes if you want to. As I see it, at least in Virginia, "constitutional carry" would mean simply repealing all the statutes that "infringe" with ownership and transport of weapons. Nothing in that would eliminate the police power of the states to enact statutes that punish criminal use of weapons, of course. But that would mean identification of a crime, probable cause to believe that a certain person committed the crime, apprehension of that person, etc., not prior restraint.
The bottom line for me is, that a state cannot lawfully make criminal that which its constitution specifically authorizes. Now, I couldn't care less what the citizens of Illinois choose to do about "gun control" (though their Constitution says essentially the same as Virginia's, so if they want to be unable to defend themselves and promote crime, that's their business. But, to paraphrase what a character said in "Josey Wales", Don't be pissin' down my back and tell me it's raining.