122 replies to this topic

[DHan]

Here is a E-Mail I received today from the National Gun Rights .org, very critical of HB 5745. Any Opinions?



Caution: What I am about to tell you is so outrageous that it might make your skin crawl.

Dear David:

The Chicagocrats have crafted a plan to shirk their responsibility to protect and restore your Second Amendment rights.

This plan is dedicated to legislating away your rights -- all in the name of doing the opposite.

You and I both know that Illinois is one of the nation’s last major holdouts -- the only remaining state that flat-out denies its residents the right to carry a firearm concealed for self-defense.

Rahm Emanuel and the anti-gunners in Springfield know they can’t hold back the floodgates for much longer. That is why they -- along with wayward Republicans -- have concocted a plan to pass the weakest and worst concealed carry bill in the nation!

Using the pro-gun sounding title “Concealed Carry”, they are prepared to pull the proverbial bait-and-switch over your right to self-defense by legislating some of the most anti-gun restrictions in the nation.

HB-5745 is the bill -- and it could come before the House as early as this week.

By allowing local sheriffs considerable authority on whether or not to approve license applications, the bill would subject residents to more than 102 different interpretations of the Second Amendment, all but assuring that gun owners will be treated in practice as poorly as they are in New York or California.

Here are some more reasons why this bill flat out stinks:

    Four pages of application requirements including the disclosure of nearly every personal record imaginable.
    Ten pages of training regulations including an extensive training course -- with required live fire drills and minimum marksmanship scores.
    ANY objection no matter how frivolous -- can be used as a cause to deny an application.
    Applicants must voluntarily submit a waiver authorizing the sheriff to conduct, not just a background check, but a full-fledged investigation, including personal healthcare records.
    Authority for the Department of Public Safety to promulgate its own rules for the license, which may include adding bio-metric data, and social security numbers to the license.
    Creates hundreds of new Criminal Safezones where permits will be invalid.
    A law-abiding resident would not be able to avoid an abusive sheriff by applying elsewhere.
    Appeals of an application denied by the sheriff must first be made to the sheriff himself!
    Prohibits young adults from receiving any recognition for completing a training course, and from license eligibility.
    Licenses are only available to those who already have a Firearms Owners Identification Card -- that’s now TWO required permits -- adding another application and $10.00 to the process.
    Treats applicants like criminals by creating a statewide database regardless if a license is actually issued.
    Licenses can be suspended or revoked for virtually any of reason.
    Licenses are only valid for 5 years -- then the process starts over again, with the same obstacles.

Mark my words -- this bill is nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and must be stopped.

While other states are successfully passing Constitutional Carry and doing away with mandatory permits altogether, this bill will simply entrench the worst infringements of our Second Amendment rights into law.

All this is being rushed through at the same time Emanuel is pushing his firearms tax, take, and register scheme.

In fact, Capitol insiders say that there’s a deal being cooked up to pass both this Concealed Carry abomination in exchange for passing Emanuel’s gun control scheme.

That’s the kind of underhanded backroom dealing we’ve come to expect from both the Obama Administration officials (Rahm Emanuel is one of Obama’s closest advisers) and from the institutional gun lobby and their minions.

But either way, passing the so-called “Concealed Carry” law is a horrible step in the wrong direction.

Bad laws do not go away easily.

That is why I need your help.

Call your state representative at 217-782-3944 or click here to find out who your lawmaker is. Tell them to kill HB-5745 and start over on a REAL effort to restore our self-defense rights.

Demand that no uncertain terms that you expect them to pass a bill that does not impose ANY restrictions on how a law-abiding citizen may carry a firearm.

Every day we receive phone calls from concerned gun owners in Illinois asking what they can do to help. We’ve even received calls from some of Chicago’s finest telling us how anti-gun and anti-liberty Mayor Emmanuel and his cronies are.

If you are as concerned as I am, please first call your state representative at 217-782-3944.

Then, if you can, please pitch in $15 or $20 to help us continue the fight against the anti-gunners in Springfield, Chicago, and Washington.

   For Liberty,

  signature
   Dudley Brown
   Executive Vice President

[Jeckler]

Everyone has an opinion.  Mr. Dudley Brown is certainly entitiled to his.  While we'd all love constitutional carry, it's just not going to happen here - short of a judicial decision.  As such, we must pass a bill to allow concealed carry.  No bill will be perfect. No bill will satisfy all.

I suspect the response to Mr. Brown's letter will be overwhelmingly negative.  I suspect the vast majority of Illinois Carry members are in favor of HB148 or HB5745 or nearly any bill that provides for concealed carry.

Various members of this forum have personally worked on 148 and 5745.  I know they will disagree with Dudley.

[Bud]

one GIANT exagerated lie in a pathetic attempt to get money from people which he will not use to help the fight.

Read the bill itself, and you will see how many lies he is telling

[sirflyguy]

It sounds much like the tone of many who post here that will accept nothing less than immediate constitutional carry.  As for the charge that there is gonna be a quid pro quo with the mayor's gun registration in exchange for carry, I would like someone to comment further on that who knows a lot more about "insider" issues.  Unnamed sources don't mean too much to me most of the time.

[lockman]

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Dudley_Brown

Dudley W. Brown (born 1965) is a pro-gun lobbyist, as well as the founder and executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners based in Denver, Colorado. Brown's organization bills itself as a "no-compromise" pro-gun Second Amendment group.

Obviously, he has not read the bill but some of his exaggerations have a basis in fact, others just plain conjecture.

[bersa380]

I have read the bill and it looks like the final decision rests with the sheriff.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[Buzzard]

DHan, on 13 March 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Here is a E-Mail I received today from the National Gun Rights .org, very critical of HB 5745. Any Opinions?

I'm more interested in what YOU think. I'm assuming that you have read HB5745.

[C0untZer0]

it would help us more if Dudley made some campaign contributions to people running against the anti-gunners.

But this certainly seems to me to put us at the mercy of the local Sheriff:

A sheriff may submit an objection to an application,  
  provided the objection is in writing, includes specific reasons  
  for the objection, and is submitted with the application. Upon  
  request of a municipal law enforcement department, the sheriff  
  shall notify the department of the name, address, and date of  
  birth of any person submitting an application for a license.  
  The municipal police department may submit to the sheriff  
  information deemed to be relevant to the application, and the  
  sheriff may consider that information when determining whether  
  to submit an objection. Any objection submitted by a sheriff,  
  including reports submitted to a sheriff by a municipal law  
  enforcement agency, must be disclosed to the applicant unless  
  disclosure would interfere with a criminal investigation, or as  
  determined by the Department, disclosure may threaten the  
  safety or welfare of the sheriff or local law enforcement  
  agency.
      (e) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Department may  
consider any objection or recommendation made by the sheriff  
  and may determine the applicant is ineligible based solely on  
  those objections.

[stm]

lockman, on 13 March 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Dudley_Brown

Dudley W. Brown (born 1965) is a pro-gun lobbyist, as well as the founder and executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners based in Denver, Colorado. Brown's organization bills itself as a "no-compromise" pro-gun Second Amendment group.

Obviously, he has not read the bill but some of his exaggerations have a basis in fact, others just plain conjecture.

I looked at his website. It seemed full of hype and over-the-top rhetoric. Just about every other paragraph was a plea for donations.

[vezpa]

How is putting us at the mercy of our local Sheriff any different than any other "May Issue" state?

It would be somewhat OK if Cook County residents were able to seek a permit with other Sheriffs from other "Carry Friendly" counties.

If this passed everyone in Cook County would not be able to carry, but those from downstate could carry while in Cook County?

I guess the rest of the state is basically bailing on us Cook County residents so they get something?

I thought we were settling for nothing short of "shall issue"?


Todd, where are you?

Edited by vezpa, 13 March 2012 - 04:54 PM.

[stm]

HB5745 is a SHALL ISSUE bill, just like hb148 was. It allows local sheriff and police to submit an objection if they have a valid reason. ISP issues the permits and takes these objections into consideration when determining if you meet the requirements of the statute.

[papa]

stm, on 13 March 2012 - 04:54 PM, said:

HB5745 is a SHALL ISSUE bill, just like hb148 was. It allows local sheriff and police to submit an objection if they have a valid reason. ISP issues the permits and takes these objections into consideration when determining if you meet the requirements of the statute.

The sheriffs have to have JUST cause for an objection also. Just because the sheriff doesn't like the idea of a LTC isn't good enough.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

I have read the bill and it sounds to me that while the Sheriff has SOME authority but not all that much. It would appear that the main purpose of the objection clause is to allow the Sheriff to make sure that "bad" guys who are under an ongoing criminal investigation cannot get CC permits. Though I have yet to see many criminals who are not Felons out there getting CC permits.

Quote

(d) A sheriff may submit an objection to an application,provided the objection is in writing, includes specific reasons
for the objection, and is submitted with the application

First of all I do not see where the "objection" means automatic denial.

Second; they must list an objection in writing making lawsuits much easier. I do not think the "he doesn't look like a good guy/gal" line is going to hold up in the courts if Tom Dart applies it to every single cook county CC application.

Third; The way the bill is written I do not see how a permit could be denied by a reasonable person unless that recommendation implied that the applicant did not "really" meet the requirements under section 25 or is under some kind of "secret" criminal investigation.


I imagine you are going to see some lawsuits but really the bill is written much better than I would have expected being as this is Illinois. I am waiting for this or HB148 to pass, hopefully this year.

I will be first in line to sue Tom Dart if he pulls any tricks, the one thing the bill lacks if any teeth to punish Law Enforcement Agencies or localities who violate the law, much like what Florida is trying to do. But we can fight that fight next.

Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 13 March 2012 - 05:06 PM.

[lockman]

Really, what objection can an LEO agency have other than a statutory disqualification. Anything other than that the permit gets issued or ISP breaks the law, nothing new here.

Even of the Sheriff provided evidence you murdered 50 people without an arrest or indictment the permit process must go on. If the Sheriff is not willing to make an arrest then obviously he does not think he has enough evidence. This is the system of justice we live under. The permit can always be revoked upon arrest or indictment.

[Buzzard]

Here we go. Somebody posts an alarming email from a half baked, money sucking, "gun rights" organization and all HELL breaks loose.

[TFC]

This just went to "may issue."

[milq]

Buzzard, on 13 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Here we go. Somebody posts an alarming email from a half baked, money sucking, "gun rights" organization and all HELL breaks loose.

my thoughts exactly, let's all take a deep breath...the other sides takes much glee in this kind of paranoid reaction.

[Bud]

HB 5745 actually lessens the requirements that were negotiated in HB 148.

Go read both Bills and you will see the obvious differences. of the two, HB 5745 is the better bill for us..

Representative Phelps deserves a group hug from all of us.

[stm]

lockman, on 13 March 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Really, what objection can an LEO agency have other than a statutory disqualification. Anything other than that the permit gets issued or ISP breaks the law, nothing new here.

I was thinking of a Jared Loughner type situation when I read that part of the bill.

[TFC]

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.

[Molly B.]

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.

[TFC]

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.

[papa]

Sheesh , we have been found out. We don't really want to have anyone carrying a firearm and this is just a front.

[bersa380]

It looks like after enough appeals you would eventually get it.  But I don't like the way this reads

Any objection submitted by a sheriff,
20 including reports submitted to a sheriff by a municipal law
21 enforcement agency, must be disclosed to the applicant unless
22 disclosure would interfere with a criminal investigation, or as
23 determined by the Department, disclosure may threaten the
24 safety or welfare of the sheriff or local law enforcement
25 agency.

The way that sounds to me is we have to tell you why we object unless we don't want to tell you.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[NakPPI]

Everyone calm down and read the REST OF THE BILL---

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


If Tom Dart starts denying applications, he'll get sued, and then he'll have to deal with section (f). This only "looks" like a may issue provision. If a sheriff starts treating it that way, they are going to get sued left right and center.  

Edited by NakPPI, 13 March 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Bud]

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

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.

It is not a may issue.

It is a chance for the Sheriff of the County (who by Statue, is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the County) to report some of the gray area people that could result in a tragedy.

Doing a criminal back ground check will not reveal that a police officer was called to a house where someone had attempted a suicide. No arrest but the person was transported for mental health observatiuon and/or medical care. Maybe it was a person who exhibited bizzare behavior that didn't result in an arrest. But a police officer was called to the scene to protect the EMS folks who restrained and transported someone to an ER for a legal meds overdose or underdose of a prescription that was meant to prevent pyschotic behavior such as a manifestation of bipolar, schizoaffective disorder or manic deprressive disorder. Didn't result in an entry that would turn up on a police criminal history check but the police are aware of it.

If you think for a moment that oinly people who have a felony conviction should be prevented from having access to guns, you're wrong. The shooter at NIU three years ago had police contacts but no arrests. He shot 17 people at the school. A cconstititional carry state or shall issue freely State would have allowed him to legally carry a concealed weapon. The Tucson shooter Laughner, had no arrests but had extensive mental health contacts and his school even considered his behavior bizarre but they didn't report it to anyone. He bought a Glock and shoot a US Congressman and sevral other people.

If a Sheriff's Office had information like that and didn't report it, how would it look when the newly licensesd concealed carry permit holder went off his meds and started shooting people? What would happen to RTC then? If he does report it, and the State Police still issue the permit (and under this law, they could) then the SDheriff has an out, he reported the behavior. In other words, he did the right thing.

For the Sheriffs Association to buy off on this they needed some safe guard in place so this wouldn't come back and bite them.

In order to get this through, there has to be a series of checks and balances.

Will some Sheriff abuse this? This is Illinois, I bet one (or two or more) will. But it will come to a screaming fast stop as soon as someone files a constitutional rights violation agaiunst a Sheriff for playing gfames and some County Board has to cough up several million dollars in damage payments.

Which is another form of check and balance but it works for our side.

This is a good Bill. Good people from both sides sat down and worked it out together and came to a conmcensus. Is it perfect? Probably not but that remains to be seen.

In the meantime, RTC will pass this year.

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

Edited by BudMan5, 13 March 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[bob]

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.

[papa]

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.

[NakPPI]

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.

Your lawyer friend didn't read the bill.

[Bud]

Bob, Bob, Bob

You are one of the people of the people that I must constantly remind myself to be more tolerant.

I don't want to but I have agreed to be more tolerant and respectful online to people like yourself.

And by the way, despite your efforts, right to carry will pass in Illinois this year.  Pass it on to your fictional imaginary lawyer friend too.

If you would like some help reading and understanding the bill, post the parts you find difficult, you know, the "mumbo-jumbo" and some of us will explain it to you.