chancemccall Posted November 23, 2018 at 05:01 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 05:01 PM https://www.pjstar.com/news/20181116/local-public-defenders-challenging-state-weapons-law Above is a link to an article in the Peoria Journal Star relating a suit challenging the way the concealed carry law was constructed in Illinois. The contention is that the law is unfair (although the article is vague about this) because of the costs of licensure and maybe other things as well. I find it interesting because after the court ruling that set this in motion, I was urging pro-gun groups to drag out any legislation efforts so that by court ruling we would have ended up with constitutional carry by fiat. For some reason I could never fully understand, the very groups I was a member of were afraid to do that. In the end we gave away far too much in my opinion. The ability to legally carry in Chicago and some of the suburbs is difficult, if not impossible because of all the allowed limitations. I would further contend that our concealed carry licensure excludes far too many people who do not have the money it takes to get a license. If the Peoria attorneys focus enough on that, I believe this case could end up successful which would be interesting because I think the permit system would change and that as the law was being rewritten, we could correct some of the give-a-ways in the original law. Who knows where this will go? Certainly the Democrats who control Illinois are very anti gun and they will do all they can to stop any regaining of rights. But, concealed carry exists in Illinois not because of our pro gun organization working the legislature (not that they hadn't tried for years) but because of a court decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundguy Posted November 23, 2018 at 05:39 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 05:39 PM I think this should be promoted: “Stricter gun laws, or laws that don’t apply equally to every citizen, do not necessarily decrease crime or shootings. People will get their hands on guns, legally or not. It makes more sense to address gun violence as a social and economic issue, rather than tighter control,” Justice said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:04 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:04 PM There is a case making its way through the courts arguing the fees are excessive. So far it has failed because the plaintiffs did not prove the fee exceeds the amount needed to implement the act and issue licenses. Court ruled burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. I find it interesting because after the court ruling that set this in motion, I was urging pro-gun groups to drag out any legislation efforts so that by court ruling we would have ended up with constitutional carry by fiat. For some reason I could never fully understand, the very groups I was a member of were afraid to do that. In the end we gave away far too much in my opinion This was never an option. Mike Madigan said he would not let that happen. Then he said the pro-rights bill would be put to a vote and fail, Kwame's bill would be put to a vote and fail, then he would run his bill, pass it in the House, pass it in the Senate, and override the Gov's veto. That is exactly what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bird76Mojo Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:43 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:43 PM It's not always about one's income being too low, as the main issue. Sometimes it's more about the fees being too large of a percentage of overall yearly income. Can it be afforded, absolutely. But will one have to sacrifice many others things in their life due to wanting the right to legally defend their life? Again, absolutely.A right that one has to purchase and renew is no longer a right. It's a privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitter Clinger Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:45 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 06:45 PM As we all know, the requirement for a FOID and CC license is unconstitutional on its face, but that's not going to deter the Democrats here in IL.This challenge will probably go nowhere as it sits today. I think they can't attack it at the angle that they're trying. I'm not sure really what the correct challenge will be. Even though it's unlikely to ever go anywhere, I've learned never to say "never" since we did get Concealed Carry in this state and I thought there was no way that could ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomG Posted November 23, 2018 at 07:00 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 07:00 PM I think voting classes should be mandatory as well as a $150 licensing fee to get a 5 year license to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 23, 2018 at 07:28 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 07:28 PM Charge $1 per person to get a ballot. People who actually want to cast their ballots must provide proof of taking 3 hours of classroom instruction on the structure of government and current political issues within the last year. Charge $30 per person to cast the ballot, in addition to whatever the required class may have cost. Having fingerprints taken at the time of casting the ballot would help insure that the ballot would be counted, but also cost an additional fee. People who want to vote absentee would be charged an additional $1 "convenience" fee. People whose credit cards are declined would be ineligible to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted November 23, 2018 at 10:01 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 10:01 PM I posted this at the other thread about this subject I have heard that the reason our CCW fees and training were established are these: 1) at $150, Illinois sits just below the $152.50 imposed by the County of Denver, who adds $100 to the state required $52.20 fee. 2) California law states that training "shall not exceed 16 hours" CA Penal Code 26165. Aware of these existing laws, {D}a machine used these as backstops to any challenge of them being "unreasonable". I may be wrong, but it makes sense. Don't kill the critter outright, just strangle it enough to keep it from being able to fight. Having the highest renewal fee in the country? That may still be grounds for a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtr100 Posted November 23, 2018 at 10:18 PM Share Posted November 23, 2018 at 10:18 PM Again I hope this case is on the reservation with one of the major groups like NRA or SAF - a poorly done case can easily do more harm than good. I bet the court case that gave us permission slips was planned and a plaintiff sought for many many years to make it happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodrift Posted November 24, 2018 at 12:35 AM Share Posted November 24, 2018 at 12:35 AM I think this should be promoted: “Stricter gun laws, or laws that don’t apply equally to every citizen, do not necessarily decrease crime or shootings. People will get their hands on guns, legally or not. It makes more sense to address gun violence as a social and economic issue, rather than tighter control,” Justice said.*slow clap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just some guy Posted November 24, 2018 at 04:51 AM Share Posted November 24, 2018 at 04:51 AM I have always felt the fees associated with firearms in IL put a hardship on the economically disadvantaged. Only those who can afford the fees have the right to self defense. An income test to exercise 2A rights was not what the Framers had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 24, 2018 at 07:25 AM Share Posted November 24, 2018 at 07:25 AM I have been saying for the past several years, on here and everywhere else I discuss this, that the FCCL especially is onerous in its fees and requirements in terms of how it prevents low-income, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I have actually had to "sponsor" people I have taught to shoot in getting their concealed carry license, because they literally couldn't afford the several hundred bucks minimum that getting it requires. If I didn't, and they chose to spend their own money instead, it would have made them not able to eat, or pay rent, or be late on paying utilities, or not afford necessary medication. For me, I make more than enough that I can afford to buy new "toys" (although I have a line item in the household budget for that), but a lot of the people I know, or who I train in self-protection, don't have that luxury. It's a tremendously racist, classist, and discriminatory law that pretty much ensures that mostly affluent, white, and individuals in the social "mainstream" are the majority of applicants who can get a concealed carry license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinmcc Posted November 24, 2018 at 12:36 PM Share Posted November 24, 2018 at 12:36 PM I think voting classes should be mandatory as well as a $150 licensing fee to get a 5 year license to vote. Don't forget the hours of training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted November 24, 2018 at 07:23 PM Share Posted November 24, 2018 at 07:23 PM I think voting classes should be mandatory as well as a $150 licensing fee to get a 5 year license to vote.Don't forget the hours of training. Forget hours, it's become clear the voters and vote counters in Florida both will needs weeks of training to get it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDW Posted November 25, 2018 at 03:48 AM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 03:48 AM I have been saying for the past several years, on here and everywhere else I discuss this, that the FCCL especially is onerous in its fees and requirements in terms of how it prevents low-income, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I have actually had to "sponsor" people I have taught to shoot in getting their concealed carry license, because they literally couldn't afford the several hundred bucks minimum that getting it requires. If I didn't, and they chose to spend their own money instead, it would have made them not able to eat, or pay rent, or be late on paying utilities, or not afford necessary medication. For me, I make more than enough that I can afford to buy new "toys" (although I have a line item in the household budget for that), but a lot of the people I know, or who I train in self-protection, don't have that luxury. It's a tremendously racist, classist, and discriminatory law that pretty much ensures that mostly affluent, white, and individuals in the social "mainstream" are the majority of applicants who can get a concealed carry license.Well stated, Ronin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilguy Posted November 25, 2018 at 04:57 AM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 04:57 AM And all those socially disadvantaged folks that can’t afford an Illinois CCL ,that you speak of, probably vote democratic if they vote at all. Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’t, that’s why we tend to lose ground in the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 25, 2018 at 05:39 AM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 05:39 AM And all those socially disadvantaged folks that can’t afford an Illinois CCL ,that you speak of, probably vote democratic if they vote at all.Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’t, that’s why we tend to lose ground in the fight. That's unfortunately true, and you are also correct about the voting tendencies of the people I mentioned. There have been some rude awakenings and cognitive dissonance when they butt up against the realities of how the current legislation in this state makes it highly problematic for them to get a firearm to defend themselves. Even more problematic is when the disqualifying factors for having a CCL come into play, and some of these folks, who are at extreme risk due to their social standing, professions, or identities, are objected to by law enforcement for their CCL application, and then have to face the daunting prospect of engaging in the legal necessities (and often very high cost) required to get the objection overturned. It's yet another example of how the FCCL law prejudicially denies the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to self-defense to those segments of the population that need it the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 25, 2018 at 07:36 PM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 07:36 PM And all those socially disadvantaged folks that can’t afford an Illinois CCL ,that you speak of, probably vote democratic if they vote at all. Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’t, that’s why we tend to lose ground in the fight. That's unfortunately true, and you are also correct about the voting tendencies of the people I mentioned. There have been some rude awakenings and cognitive dissonance when they butt up against the realities of how the current legislation in this state makes it highly problematic for them to get a firearm to defend themselves. Even more problematic is when the disqualifying factors for having a CCL come into play, and some of these folks, who are at extreme risk due to their social standing, professions, or identities, are objected to by law enforcement for their CCL application, and then have to face the daunting prospect of engaging in the legal necessities (and often very high cost) required to get the objection overturned. It's yet another example of how the FCCL law prejudicially denies the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to self-defense to those segments of the population that need it the most. The requirements and fees, as well as the restricted areas specified in the FCCA are an exhaustive exercise in "we don't want those kind of people to have/carry guns". It reads like a bad Jim Crow law from a reconstruction state. But it's guns so the media and politicians think any and all restrictions are completely reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScopeEye Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:37 PM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:37 PM Constitutional RightsThere's only one that requires a permit...Guess which one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:38 PM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:38 PM And all those socially disadvantaged folks that can’t afford an Illinois CCL ,that you speak of, probably vote democratic if they vote at all.Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’t, that’s why we tend to lose ground in the fight. That's unfortunately true, and you are also correct about the voting tendencies of the people I mentioned. There have been some rude awakenings and cognitive dissonance when they butt up against the realities of how the current legislation in this state makes it highly problematic for them to get a firearm to defend themselves. Even more problematic is when the disqualifying factors for having a CCL come into play, and some of these folks, who are at extreme risk due to their social standing, professions, or identities, are objected to by law enforcement for their CCL application, and then have to face the daunting prospect of engaging in the legal necessities (and often very high cost) required to get the objection overturned. It's yet another example of how the FCCL law prejudicially denies the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights to self-defense to those segments of the population that need it the most. The requirements and fees, as well as the restricted areas specified in the FCCA are an exhaustive exercise in "we don't want those kind of people to have/carry guns". It reads like a bad Jim Crow law from a reconstruction state. But it's guns so the media and politicians think any and all restrictions are completely reasonable. Yep, except with these species of laws the crows are of many colored plumages, except the color of crony green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:53 PM Share Posted November 25, 2018 at 09:53 PM Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’tThe courts tend to agree with you: "If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court." - Justice Clarence Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted November 26, 2018 at 02:10 AM Share Posted November 26, 2018 at 02:10 AM Constitutional RightsThere's only one that requires a permit...Guess which one...I can think of two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted November 26, 2018 at 03:30 PM Share Posted November 26, 2018 at 03:30 PM There is a case making its way through the courts arguing the fees are excessive. So far it has failed because the plaintiffs did not prove the fee exceeds the amount needed to implement the act and issue licenses. Court ruled burden of proof is on the plaintiffs. Did anyone ask the Judge if they charge to Vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted November 29, 2018 at 06:22 PM Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 06:22 PM For some reason I could never fully understand, the very groups I was a member of were afraid to do that. In the end we gave away far too much in my opinion. The ability to legally carry in Chicago and some of the suburbs is difficult, if not impossible because of all the allowed limitations. I live in the Cook County suburbs and I carry everyday...even when I go to Chicago (which I will normally go out of my way to avoid for a number of reasons). The only "allowed limitation" I'm aware of is the "assault weapons" ban in various locations. That doesn't impact my ability to carry. Can you explain? I see the overall situation in a much better light than you do. Constitutional carry was never going to happen. This is Illinois. Let's be real. The fact is, I never thought I'd see ANY concealed carry in Illinois for as long as I live. What we got was a shall-issue law which is far better than I could have imagined even if you would've told me concealed carry was coming to Illinois in some form or another. PS- As far as I'm aware, every single AWB in Illinois is unenforced and useless and generally ignored by law enforcement and residents. I have not heard of even one person prosecuted by these laws who wasn't involved in some violent crime at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted November 29, 2018 at 07:04 PM Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 07:04 PM For some reason I could never fully understand, the very groups I was a member of were afraid to do that. In the end we gave away far too much in my opinion. The ability to legally carry in Chicago and some of the suburbs is difficult, if not impossible because of all the allowed limitations. I live in the Cook County suburbs and I carry everyday...even when I go to Chicago (which I will normally go out of my way to avoid for a number of reasons). The only "allowed limitation" I'm aware of is the "assault weapons" ban in various locations. That doesn't impact my ability to carry. Can you explain? I see the overall situation in a much better light than you do. Constitutional carry was never going to happen. This is Illinois. Let's be real. The fact is, I never thought I'd see ANY concealed carry in Illinois for as long as I live. What we got was a shall-issue law which is far better than I could have imagined even if you would've told me concealed carry was coming to Illinois in some form or another. PS- As far as I'm aware, every single AWB in Illinois is unenforced and useless and generally ignored by law enforcement and residents. I have not heard of even one person prosecuted by these laws who wasn't involved in some violent crime at the time. We haven't had a Democratic Governor in office since they were enacted either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted November 29, 2018 at 08:16 PM Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 08:16 PM Get rid of the mass transit ban and allow ALL out-of-state residents to get an Illinois permit and I won't complain about a thing........... when I move across the border into Indiana. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted November 29, 2018 at 11:29 PM Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 11:29 PM ... PS- As far as I'm aware, every single AWB in Illinois is unenforced and useless and generally ignored by law enforcement and residents. I have not heard of even one person prosecuted by these laws who wasn't involved in some violent crime at the time. A few years ago, Aurora had one case of someone who was not charged with any other violation. The judge gave the guy back his gun. That's the only case I know. I attended a presentation by Aurora PD a couple months ago in which the cop doing the presentation assured the audience that the violent crimes that occur in Aurora are all gang/drug related. There really aren't any others. (Of course, there are still plenty of them to make the papers every week.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted November 30, 2018 at 06:57 PM Share Posted November 30, 2018 at 06:57 PM We haven't had a Democratic Governor in office since they were enacted either. I'm not sure how that makes a difference. Is he going to order the state police to go door-to-door in Chicago to enforce Chicago's laws? There are probably more Chicago police officers than there are state troopers. The state troopers we do have are essentially little more than traffic enforcement (revenue) officers. There's only one state trooper on Rt. 90 between Arlington Heights and Rockford at any given time. They don't have the manpower to do anything about "assault weapons"...and probably have no desire to do anything about it. Handing out speeding tickets is a lot less dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soylentgreen Posted November 30, 2018 at 06:59 PM Share Posted November 30, 2018 at 06:59 PM A few years ago, Aurora had one case of someone who was not charged with any other violation. The judge gave the guy back his gun. That's the only case I know. I attended a presentation by Aurora PD a couple months ago in which the cop doing the presentation assured the audience that the violent crimes that occur in Aurora are all gang/drug related. There really aren't any others. (Of course, there are still plenty of them to make the papers every week.) Good information. Thank you. I would guess 99% of gun violence has some root in gang activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiliconSorcerer Posted November 30, 2018 at 09:24 PM Share Posted November 30, 2018 at 09:24 PM We haven't had a Democratic Governor in office since they were enacted either. I'm not sure how that makes a difference. Is he going to order the state police to go door-to-door in Chicago to enforce Chicago's laws? There are probably more Chicago police officers than there are state troopers. The state troopers we do have are essentially little more than traffic enforcement (revenue) officers. There's only one state trooper on Rt. 90 between Arlington Heights and Rockford at any given time. They don't have the manpower to do anything about "assault weapons"...and probably have no desire to do anything about it. Handing out speeding tickets is a lot less dangerous. EVERYTHING is political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.