Jump to content

Concealed Carry Law Challenged


chancemccall

Recommended Posts

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

Gun rights can only be a serious civil right if enough folks care about it. Many / most don’t

The 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

 

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

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

 

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

...

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...