122 replies to this topic

[snubjob]

Someone want to point out just a few things that are better about this bill than 148?  No, i haven't read all of it yet. Have not had the time yet. just got home and stumbled across this thread, but i,ve noticed one or two mentions of it being better and thought i'd ask.

[es503IL]

The Sheriff has to, in writting, submit their objections to the issuing of the LTC Permit. If some Sheriff is stupid enough to put "I don't like Joe Snuffy/Joe Snuffy donated to my opponent during my last campaign", they would be sued so fast it would set a record. Furthermore, if they came up with some halfass objection, that was not based in fact, and could not be proved, the same thing would happen.

Is it a possibility that some Sheriff's might try playing mickey mouse games at the start? Yes. It has happened in other States, regardless of whether or not it is Shall Issue or May Issue. Know what happens? They get sued, and lose.

Furthermore, ISP is not going to open themselves up to the liability of denying permits based on some halfass objection.

Written documents are great for Discovery. If ISP denies a permit, you had better believe that they are going to hold onto every single scrap of paper that supports the objection, including any objection from the Sheriff's Office. If its a baseless objection, its Game Over.

[NakPPI]

deleted

Edited by NakPPI, 13 March 2012 - 07:27 PM.

[es503IL]

Snubjob: Due to the fact that the Mods have repeatedly asked people to read the bills on their own and not post the difference for all the world (mainly the opposition) to see, I am going to repeat what I was essentially told when I posted some of the differences... Read the Bills yourself, or discuss it by PM.

[stm]

BudMan5, on 13 March 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

.

See? I exhibited a much more tolerant response and described a concise analytical discussion and answer without calling anyone a flaming dumba$$

I am so proud

I'm proud of you, too, Bud. You're setting a fine example.

ETA: I guess I spoke too soon.

Edited by stm, 13 March 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[snubjob]

es503IL, on 13 March 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

Snubjob: Due to the fact that the Mods have repeatedly asked people to read the bills on their own and not post the difference for all the world (mainly the opposition) to see, I am going to repeat what I was essentially told when I posted some of the differences... Read the Bills yourself, or discuss it by PM.

Understood. Didn't realize the opposition was illiterate. Sorry i didn't take the time to read it entirely for myself.

[es503IL]

Its not that the Mods (or Todd) thinks the opposition is illiterate, its more of "Why make it easier for them".

[NakPPI]

Last week I got to hear Marlow Colvin argue with Jack Franks. Our opposition is clearly of a lesser caliber, don't help them any.

Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

[snubjob]

es503IL, on 13 March 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

Its not that the Mods (or Todd) thinks the opposition is illiterate, its more of "Why make it easier for them".

Seriously? Does anyone think that the reps that are truly interested in the difference between the two bills are not going to read them, but instead just come to this website to find out? Do we really have elected officials that can't understand the language of a bill and need to go to internet forums to find out what they really mean? I guess we do, and that may have something to do with this state being in the shape it's in.

[es503IL]

Maybe its not just the Reps they are concerned about, but other "grass root" groups like this one. I know for a fact that several members on this board lurk on boards and email lists, such as the Brady Campaign, soley to get information from those groups. If you don't want to take the time to read through the bills (it does not take very long), just say so and I am sure people will be happy to explain the differences to you.

Otherwise, the snarky comments don't really serve a point. I was relaying to you what I had been told by the Mods the last time I posted some of the differences between these two bills. The Mods have enough to deal with, without removing the same information over, and over, and over again.

[tysonu74]

Ummm   Mr Dudley has a history of questionable fund raising tactics.  He has been called on it before and proven unable to back up his claims. Check out this thread on AR15dot com.Scam being run by the National Association for Gun Rights  I personally dont trust the man or believe a word he says.

[GarandFan]

National Association of Gun Rights?

I don't mind their existence, but I don't pay them any mind ...

[Lou]

How about this to settle this nonsense.   For you people who object to HB148 or H 5745 pledge right here and now that you will never stoop so low as to apply for a RTC permit when it passes.  

Who of you pledge to never settle for anything less than Constitutional Carry?

[GarandFan]

As regards to Lou's question ... not me.

[bob]

papa, on 13 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

bob, on 13 March 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

A lawyer acquaintance I occasionally correspond with has told me that he believes the sheriff LTC bill as written does indeed allow any sheriff to issue (or not) at his sole discretion. I don't really get the legal mumbo-jumbo and I am not going to waste a lot of time parsing something word by word that is likely not going anywhere anytime real soon.

Bob , how can it allow the sheriff to " issue or not issue " when it isn't up to the sheriff to issue. The ISP will do the issuing.

Further more , why is it that people want to get their panties in a wad over this bill when it is the same as HB 148 , only better in some ways.

my understanding is that the sheriff has to forward it to the ISP. if he does not do so it does not get issued. so yes, while technically the sheriff has no power to "issue", he would appear to have some level of power to "not issue".

I personally suspect that even if this is true, sheriffs would likely forward the applications. There might be some shenanigans from a few of them initially, but I think it would work itself out.

I am also inclined to agree it is somewhat better than HB148 in some respects based solely on a very quick read through of the bill.

I think it has a lesser chance of passing than HB148.

I would be happy to take either one.

[snubjob]

es503IL, on 13 March 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Maybe its not just the Reps they are concerned about, but other "grass root" groups like this one. I know for a fact that several members on this board lurk on boards and email lists, such as the Brady Campaign, soley to get information from those groups. If you don't want to take the time to read through the bills (it does not take very long), just say so and I am sure people will be happy to explain the differences to you.

Otherwise, the snarky comments don't really serve a point. I was relaying to you what I had been told by the Mods the last time I posted some of the differences between these two bills. The Mods have enough to deal with, without removing the same information over, and over, and over again.

I wasn't trying to be "snarky" with you sir. If you took it that way, you have my apologies. The fact is, the key votes in the house know exactly what's in these bills and what they mean. And no amount of secrecy on either side is going to change how those votes are cast.

[vezpa]

TFC, on 13 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Molly B., on 13 March 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

TFC, on 13 March 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

If it's not statutory and states specifically what are disqualifying factors at the county level, you're going to have sheriffs objecting because you backed the candidate he hates or didn't send enough for his election campaign.

No, the IL Sheriff's Assoc. wanted to avoid this very thing.  That's why objections must be state in writing and
there is an appeal process.

Why include an objection at all when you meet the legal requirements? That sounds like a way to wear you down until you give up the process.
The shine on this bill is growing more dull each time someone touches it. Yes... it looks like a backdoor "may issue" move.

I agree with TFC

If I lived in any other state than Illinois I'd believe what the bill told me.  Somehow here the Cook County Sheriff is going to ruin this for us.  I can sense abuse forthcoming.  I hope I'm wrong but living in Chicago has made me this way.  They will fight dirty and use any technicality they can to get their way.

And all the "don't spell the bill differences out here" is phooey.  Chicago politicians here vote NO to any gun bill, no matter what the contents are.  They do as the master dictates. Few if any of our legislators actually read anything they vote on.

Edited by vezpa, 13 March 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[NakPPI]

I would like to see a fee shifting provision. If the sheriff objects and loses the appeal, I want the sheriff to pay for the attorneys fees.

Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

[Tvandermyde]

Every once in a while, gunnies show why our own worst enemy is fellow gunnies.



AS I remember writing this provision years ago, it was lifted from Kentucky’s carry law at the time. Remember, the term is MAY submit an objection. And MAY be considered by the State police for:

“in writing, includes specific reasons  for the objection” They have to have a real reason. Not we don’t -- like this guy, not we think he’s got a temper. No they have to provide evidence. As an example, we have been called out to Mr. Smith’s home for 12 domestic calls, of which reports are attached……”

But it seems they forgot to include this little part:



“(f) During an administrative or judicial review of a denial based on subsection (d) or (e) of this Section, the Department  shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing  evidence that the applicant would pose a danger to the  applicant's self, another, or public safety, or would use a  firearm unlawfully, if granted a license to carry a concealed   firearm under this Act.”



The burden of proof is on the State or Sheriff not the applicant. And again, it is the opposite of Maryland, THEY have to show cause to the state police not to issue the permit. NOT the other way around.



This was negotiated out with several members of Illinois Carry in the room when law enforcement decided to come over and support the bill. They were also warned that if this was abused, we would be back for a change. A change that only takes a simple majority in both chambers.  Mind you it was abusive sheriffs in Iowa that turned that state from complete MAY issue to a shall issue state. And if no objection is filed, then it’s a straight up shall issue.

And the idea of a Jared Laughner is exactly the type of situation this is designed for – multiple run in with the cops, they wanted to commit him but the parents didn’t want to and so forth.

I don’t mind people asking questions about what we have done and worked through. I like having people double and triple check my work. But for some half baked yahoo from outside the state to suggest this is some surrender to Chicago, only confirms my opinion about these incompetent individuals who have never written much less passed a law.  



And the reason for the lateness of me getting to this thread was I spent all day trying to help pro-gun friends in tight primaries win their races, with mail, money and endorsements. I left home at 6:30 and got home after 8pm. My entire day has been consumed with the upcoming election and helping my friends get re-elected so we can continue our work.



I doubpt this dumb ass has written  a check, much less walked a precint. My guess is it is easier to hide behind a keyboard and shout wolf, than to engage on the battle field of campaigns. Because we all know emailed press alerts win elections that allow pro-gun candidates to vote once they are sworn into office.

[es503IL]

Something I just caught from rereading the NGR.org email "warning"... I did not realise that Rep. Phelps was a "Chicagocrat" who is working along with Rahm to pass this bill... And here I was naively thinking Phelps was a friend to RTC... /sarcasm

[Buzzard]

NakPPI, on 13 March 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

I would like to see a fee shifting provision. If the sheriff objects and loses the appeal, I want the sheriff to pay for the attorneys fees.

Sent from my tactical multicam SCH-I500.

I thought there was such a provision in HB148 - but as I read it now, I can't seem to find it. It may have been taken out.

[papa]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Lou, on 13 March 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

How about this to settle this nonsense. For you people who object to HB148 or H 5745 pledge right here and now that you will never stoop so low as to apply for a RTC permit when it passes.

Who of you pledge to never settle for anything less than Constitutional Carry?

Lou,

I honestly don't think anyone believes Constitutional Carry will fly here in Illinois now. What we do want however is "SHALL ISSUE" with no strings attached for BS cop-outs that so many others in other states have been forced to deal with.

If Todd is saying this is a good bill I will believe him and roll with it. When my local Sheriff decides I live too close to a Illinois State Park and 2 schools and decides that me carrying a gun here is a bad idea and that becomes a justification for denying me a permit, we've got problems.

NO! It isn't "we" that have a problem , it is the sheriff that will have a problem in such a situation. See the above posts.

[TFC]

Just keep in mind who we're up against. The only thing that surpasses their cunning is their greed. That one proviso may be enough to derail the whole process. Most of them are elected officials (politicians.) They do what they do for their own benefit; rarely for the electorate's. They usually use a loophole in order to hang us.

Edited by TFC, 13 March 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Tvandermyde]

vezpa, on 13 March 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

Lou, on 13 March 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

How about this to settle this nonsense.   For you people who object to HB148 or H 5745 pledge right here and now that you will never stoop so low as to apply for a RTC permit when it passes.  

Who of you pledge to never settle for anything less than Constitutional Carry?

Lou,

I honestly don't think anyone believes Constitutional Carry will fly here in Illinois now.  What we do want however is "SHALL ISSUE" with no strings attached for BS cop-outs that so many others in other states have been forced to deal with.  

If Todd is saying this is a good bill I will believe him and roll with it.  When my local Sheriff decides I live too close to a Illinois State Park and 2 schools and decides that me carrying a gun here is a bad idea and that becomes a justification for denying me a permit, we've got problems.

Vezpa -- if that happens, i will be the first one in his office to object about his standards.

And lets not forget that we have 101 out of 102 sheriffs supporting the bill.

Think about all the staff it would take to file between 100,000 and 265,000 objections (WI vs OH numbers) they don't have the staff to do it.

And Kurt, try reading the bill again. I don't think you did

[abolt243]

Nearly every CCW law from shall issue states that I've read through (and that's several) has some provision for the local law enforcement to make some kind of documented objection to be taken into consideration by the issuing agency.  You can do what I did, Google each state and read the statutes for yourself.  Here's a couple of exerpts from our neighbors, MO and IN.

Indiana -


© The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full

address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located

within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or

employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race,

sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars

and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun

and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has

ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or

revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application

is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the

applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information

contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's

recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable

fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.


Missouri -

The Sheriff shall determine that the applicant....... (Paraphrasing the lead in)

(6) Has not engaged in a pattern of behavior, documented in public records, that causes the sheriff to have a reasonable belief that the applicant presents a danger to himself or others;

Was fortunate enough a couple of weeks ago to attend reception for legislators and others in Springfield sponsored by the ISRA.  Had the opportunity to visit with the Chief Legal Counsel of the Illinois Police Benevolent and Protective Assoc.  He told Todd and I and others there that their association polled their 10,000 members across the state on RTC.  The results came back that over 85% of their membership was in favor of RTC.  That's overwhelming support people.  Sure, there will be pockets of resistance.  Missouri had the whole city of St Louis just refuse to issue or honor thier licenses when the law was first passed.   A quick trip to the courts cured that.  

Read the bills, then read them again.  You'll find new things everytime you go through them.  They are good, solid RTC bills.  Actually, they're outstanding bills, given Illinois' record of anti-gun sentiment.   And many may issue states would love to have either of them.

AB

[kurt555gs]

I will read it again.

I don't think the issue with the sheriffs will be doomsday. Actually I think it will be a non issue in reality.

My concern is to still allow a separate open carry law without a license in non home rule areas for those that choose not to go through getting a license.

I plan on being one of the first in line myself

Edited by kurt555gs, 13 March 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[frankw438]

kurt555gs, on 13 March 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I did read in HB5745 it gives the choice between open or concealed carry. For me personally it would solve the open carry question because I would get the license.  
Having open carry in the license means there would be no chance of passing an open carry law for those with only a FOID card.  



* Carthago delenda est *

The proposed bill does not allow for open carry. There is language included that is to protect you from prosecution for accidentally exposing your concealed firearm, but not open carry.

Edited by frankw438, 13 March 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[papa]

It's certainly a good thing we have been asked not to discuss things about the bills openly in the forum.

[GarandFan]

kurt555gs, on 13 March 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I did read in HB5745 it gives the choice between open or concealed carry. For me personally it would solve the open carry question because I would get the license.  
Having open carry in the license means there would be no chance of passing an open carry law for those with only a FOID card.  

Just as an aside ... I am a full supporter of the right to carry for lawful purposes, whether openly or concealed and without some special license or approval.

I've also been in many unlicensed open carry states, and have lived in one for nearly three years now.  Frankly, I almost NEVER see anyone openly carrying firearms, even where it's perfectly legal and where people (including LE) don't think it's any big deal (ie. doesn't scare the sheeple).

That said ... can I ask you why the open carry issue is important to you?  If so, how does that importance differ in an ideological versus a practical manner?

[SFC Stu]

Don't pay any attention to Dudley Brown. He is always whining about something. He is a money grabber. I can't really say that he is helping the Illinois cause. I can't say what I really want to say here. This is a family forum!