richp

And Clarence Thomas has been saying that for a long time.

One would hope that the extreme liberal overreach we have seen in recent years will soon prompt a retreat to more moderate and sensible policies, accompanied by the election of a different type of political leader. But as I look at it, here in Illinois that hope is really faint.

Yes Tim, that helps a lawful carrier to be compliant. But dealing with a national patchwork of restricted areas such as parks, transportation, school areas, pot dispensaries, urgent care centers, and who knows what else constitutes a burden on our right that national reciprocity still doesn't resolve. And because the Supreme Court (I believe it was in Heller) left sensitive places open for regulation, anti-2A politicians are always going to be trying to clamp down that way.

This has a lot of appeal, for sure. But cold reality injects itself. There inevitably will be a patchwork of restricted areas in every jurisdiction. That fact is going to make it even harder to carry usefully -- think about the considerations that arise carrying in just one state like Illinois. So if this were to pass you can cue a battalion of lawyers that will fight out each and every restriction in non Second Amendment friendly states and cities.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't intend to fuss over this. But a common sense reading of the information posted on the IROCC site and the enabling Illinois legislation suggests you may be dancing a fine line if you don't go through the IROCC program.

Yup, and insofar as I know, in Illinois the recognized certification for retirees is issued in the form of the IROCC card, after following their process. We all know how twitchy the firearms issue is here in Illinois, particularly in Chicago. If you ever have the unfortunate occasion to be stopped by an officer and have to produce proof of your LEOSA status, they would be looking for your FOID card and IROCC card. Anything else might take you down a troublesome path; the reaction of the average street cop to a non-IROCC-compliant situation would be hard to predict. I'm not being critical of your thinking here. Maybe you're carving out new territory that provides more flexibility, in which case if you succeed, bravo!

The state requires Illinois retired LE to use the IROCC process to qualify to carry under LEOSA. They have set up a system to do that on approved ranges, with approved personnel, and with issuance of official credentials. In my experience it works reasonably well -- or at least it has for the 10 years or so I've been using it. Like a lot of other things here, we sometimes have to adjust, and put up with stuff that we don't like or agree with. My gripe comes into focus when I write that check each year for $100, and realize that retirees in virtually every other state are free from this burden.

I have qualified under the IROCC process ever since it was instituted. After qualification at one of their shoots (set up as I described earlier), the crew there sends your paperwork in to Springfield, and shortly thereafter you get a laminated card from the IROCC office indicating your status. There is an annual cost of $75 to qualify on one weapon type, and $100 for both revolver and autoloader. You have to requalify every year to maintain your status. As I understand it, few, if any states have this kind of bureaucracy attached to this law. But I will say that in my many contacts with them over the years, the IROCC folks have been friendly, responsive, and competent. If there is an alternative process involving independent instructors for individual qualification, I have never heard of it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But if it did, sitting around the range with other folks year after year waiting to be called to the line, you'd think someone would have mentioned it. FWIW.

To my knowledge, you can't go to an individual instructor for IROCC qualification. You have to pre-register with them and then they send you a list of dates and locations where a qualification shoot will be conducted. You then sign up in advance with the IROCC folks in Springfield for one that works for you.

I would assign near zero probability to that.

I hear what you are saying, but we're talking apples and oranges, folks. Its not what constitutional principle might or might not be involved. If you concede that enforcement of one law is discretionary, regardless of the reason, you provide an argument for discretionary enforcement in other areas. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully in favor of restoring the full range of constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. But in developing a strategy, you have to recognize that there could be collateral impact in the legal arena, which might not be agreeable when thinking about other aspects of governance.

The problem here is that if you approve of sanctuary for this, then you provide collateral justification for sanctuary for illegals.

There was a report this evening that one of the victims also was shot in the hand in an apparent self-defense gesture, suggesting that at least that person was alive at the time they were killed.

After the huge July donation reports, it seems they don't have a real need for JB's money.

With the new Democrat theme of youth, versus Trump as the old guy, they are not going to run Hillary again at her age.