Requirement For Concealed Carry?

[45superman]

I see your point, and agree that we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves with this discussion (OK--maybe more than a bit), but I suppose it could be argued that it's worthwhile to look for concessions we would be willing to make, in order to make a concealed carry bill less unpalatable to people who are reluctant to sign on to CCW. The problem, of course, is that Illinois has so many legislators (not to mention a Governor and Chicago's mayor) who are so virulently opposed to concealed carry that no concessions would be enough.

[Ocellairs]

I see your point, and agree that we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves with this discussion (OK--maybe more than a bit), but I suppose it could be argued that it's worthwhile to look for concessions we would be willing to make, in order to make a concealed carry bill less unpalatable to people who are reluctant to sign on to CCW.  The problem, of course, is that Illinois has so many legislators (not to mention a Governor and Chicago's mayor) who are so virulently opposed to concealed carry that no concessions would be enough.

Those who draft such bills, aren't going to ask us what should be in the bills. We will get what they feel they can get passed easy and with a veto proof bill.

 

...but one must dream, for if one doesn't. One's dream can't come true.

[45superman]

I don't know--we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think we could at least potentially have some influence on the situation. I think our goal should be to become big enough that we get at least a few legislators to realize that our voice cannot be ignored with impunity.

[Ocellairs]

I don't know--we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think we could at least potentially have some influence on the situation. I think our goal should be to become big enough that we get at least a few legislators to realize that our voice cannot be ignored with impunity.

Question!

 

Did we have much say about that "gun show" bluff bill? Who drafted that?

[45superman]

That's why I said our goal should be to get big enough to have a voice--I realize we don't have much of one yet.

[Ocellairs]

That's why I said our goal should be to get big enough to have a voice--I realize we don't have much of one yet.

....now that is a dream....but it could happen.

[45superman]

Hey, if people only tried to attain realistic goals, Everest would never have been climbed, we'd still be a British colony, and I would never have had a date (as it is, I've been with a few girls--a few legally blind girls). Every once in a while, you have to try something that makes sensible people say "You're out of your bloody mind!" I am proud to say that people say that to me on a nearly daily basis.

[mack69]

One of my tag lines is this one....

 

If you want what you've never had....You've got to do what you've never done!!

[45superman]

That's what I'm screamin'!

 

Oc made the point that we didn't have much say in any of the pro gun bills introduced last spring. That's probably our fault more than anyone else's. We didn't tell the legislators any specifics of what we wanted, and it's not really their job to seek us out and ask us. We're still learning this political stuff as we go along--we'll figure it out.

[SmershAgent]

That's what I'm screamin'!

 

Oc made the point that we didn't have much say in any of the pro gun bills introduced last spring. That's probably our fault more than anyone else's. We didn't tell the legislators any specifics of what we wanted, and it's not really their job to seek us out and ask us. We're still learning this political stuff as we go along--we'll figure it out.

Indeed. It's all about communication. I had a thought recently.

 

I believe it would be worth our while to assess the situation after the veto session and reach a consensus amongst ourselves about what we really want to happen in the 2006 spring legislative season. We should try to arrive at 1-3 important goals (being ambitious but at the same time realistic).

 

Everyone here then makes a promise to notiy the ISRA, his or her own legislators, and the handful of strong allies we have in Springfield of our wishes. If each of these parties hears the same message 200 times over, we might actually make a little step of progress. In all likelihood nothing will actually be passed, but even forcing issues we think are important onto the radar is an accomplishment.

[45superman]

Smersh, that sounds like a very good idea. Consider me on board.

[Soybomb]

PA's permit for out of state issue seems good to me, I think that model is fine. If I had my way I'd just make the foid care a general firearms permit, including carry. You've passed the background check and waited a long time, way to go. Fingerprints I'm opposed to, and I think training classes are unnecessary althoug hI might make a concession for a few hours at most.

[Ocellairs]

PA's permit for out of state issue seems good to me, I think that model is fine. If I had my way I'd just make the foid care a general firearms permit, including carry. You've passed the background check and waited a long time, way to go. Fingerprints I'm opposed to, and I think training classes are unnecessary althoug hI might make a concession for a few hours at most.

Son, you better we think that PA stuff.

 

If you have one conviction that could have given you a 1 year sentence, even though you didn't receive that sentence, you’re PA permit will be denied.

 

 

That is even if you Jay walk and under the sentence guidelines the maximum penalty you could have received (even though you didn’t receive) was a one year plus 1 day sentence!

 

...and they go back as far as 50 + years on your record.

 

Pick a state that has less restrictive guildlines, I hate to see one get turned down for a jaywalking conviction.

[Ol'Coach]

RE: Barney's requirements for CC permit

 

2: Valid FOID card. (Owning one covers No. 1)

I object to the FOID card. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t state, …”shall not be infringed, pending a valid FOID card.” However, as others have stated, it’s probably here to stay, along with the DB of FOID card holders!

 

4: Fingerprint background check.

Why? The only reason might be that possibly some other states might require it in order to agree to reciprocity. I’ll have to research that one.

 

5: A minimum of 40 hours training. (In Illinois, Law enforcement must have 40 hours of training to carry.)

Others have already covered that one.

 

6: Extensive annual use of force training.

Not sure what you mean by this???

 

7: Mandatory annual requalifications. (As of this year Law enforcement must requalify every year.)

I'm not LEO. I take care of that without it being mandatory. Don't you?

 

8: Some way to identify to police that you have a ccw permit. Listed with DL returns.

For what purpose? Maybe to add to BB DB??

 

The thing is, I seriously doubt that law abiding citizens of Illinois who don’t already have a valid FOID card are going to rush out and apply for one in order to CC. If a person doesn’t already own a firearm for protection, it’s doubtful he/she will want to buy one to CC, should IL ever pass a CC bill. In those states that have no equivalent of a FOID card, when CC was passed they weren’t really swamped with aps for CC permits/licenses. It would be interesting to know how many of those who applied for CC were also buying their first firearm???

[anonymous too]

This is what we have to live with in IL and it's been challanged and "police power" has been upheld by the IL Supreme Court.

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

Unless a Federal Appeals court overturns the ruling, the FOID is perfectly legal in IL.

 

What I don't understand is how "police power" translates into "home rule" for a municipality(meeting population requirements for home rule) can ban handguns, etc.

[Ol'Coach]

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

I certainly am not a lawyer, and am not overly intelligent, but am I wrong in interpreting the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as stating that a state cannot deny those rights guaranteed by other amendments?

 

This gets kinda confusing when you read Section 22 of the IL Bill of Rights (See quote) It reads almost the same as the 2nd Amendment, but adds, “subject to the police power…”. It’s my understanding that “police power” refers to the legislature, not the ISP.

 

So, the “police power” in IL has legislated “home rule.” In some cases, i.e., Chicago, this “home rule” denies law abiding citizens that which the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States guarantee. Seems to me that the 14th Amendment states that “home rule” which denies the right to possess firearms is unconstitutional!

 

But, like I say, mine is not a legal mind!

 

We keep referring to the 2A, but in the case of IL, I wonder if maybe the 14th might be more important???

[45superman]

Way over my poor, thick head.

[dorvinion]

The bill of rights as it relates to the 14th amendment has to do with an idea called incorporation.

 

Somewhere along the line it was determined that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. A state without a Freedom of Speech guarantee in its own constution could impose limits on free speech for its residents.

 

Along comes the idea of incorporating the bill of rights to apply to the states. Many of the incorporations happened in the 1940s and 1950s. There were two schools of thought. Total incorporation (which would have been nice) or selective incorporation (which is what we have)

 

The 1st Amendment has been incorporated. A state whose own constitution does not have a Free Speech guarantee may not deny first amendment rights of its citizens because the SCOTUS has ruled that the 1st Amendment does apply to the states.

 

Portions of the 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments have not yet been incorporated, or have been ruled as applying only to Federal courts.

 

The 2nd and 8th Amendments have not yet been ruled on as being protected from abuses by the states.

[anonymous too]

Richard Pearson talks about home rule in his column still posted on the ISRA's webstite. I gotta go back and do some research, but the ruling I'm referring to stated something like "it was the framer's intentions". Framers of the IL constitution I'm assuming, but I don't know how they figured out what their intentions were.

 

Don't know the case number, year it happened, or anything like that. Found the case once and I'll find it again.

 

Raise some money to overturn that case and we'd have some better hope in this state!

[Ol'Coach]

45...

 

Well, I only think of this stuff when it's after 4:00 p.m. and the beer has started to flow! Otherwise, ?????????

[45superman]

45...

 

Well, I only think of this stuff when it's after 4:00 p.m. and the beer has started to flow! Otherwise, ?????????

I just opened my first--I'll see if that helps. Actually, Dorvinion and somebody helped with their posts.

[Ol'Coach]

“The bill of rights as it relates to the 14th amendment has to do with an idea called incorporation.”

 

I would think it would be, “The 14th Amendment as it relates to the Bill of Rights,” rather than the other way around.

 

Somewhere along the line it was determined that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government.

 

By whom? Supreme Court? Not trying to be argumentative, but if that's so, I would really like to know where the ruling is found. I don't want to continue to be ignorant!

 

Having said that, how can this (14th Amendment) be interpreted to mean anything other than:

No state can make a law which takes away any of the rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment"?

 

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

 

Well, in Illinois, the state hasn't taken away those rights. But by granting "home rule" in the IL Code it allows certain localities to do what the 14th Amendment says the state can't do. If a state can't why should a locality within a state be allowed to???

 

Afterthought: I wonder why the 14th doesn't read "rights or immunities" instead or "privileges or immunities"? After all, those amendments guarantee rights, not "priveleges!'

 

Bear with me! Maybe I'm trying to think too much, and not being very successful?????

[dorvinion]

You are correct, should be the other way around.

 

I don't know when it was determined, or who determined that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government. It may even be the intent of the Framers that it only apply to the Federal Government, and they may even have stated this from time to time. The first time I had ever heard of the idea that the BoR did not equally apply to the states I figured my source was full of crap.

 

Having said that, how can this (14th Amendment) be interpreted to mean anything other than:

No state can make a law which takes away any of the rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment"?

 

Correct, the problem is, what rights are guaranteed by the 14th amendment? The original intent of the person who wrote the 14th amendment was that it would bind the states to the BoR, but the SCOTUS didn't see it that way.

 

The Privileges and Immunities Clause that you highlight has almost never been cited by the SCOTUS since 1873. In fact, the SCOTUS hardly even acknowledges its existance. It has never been used to incorporate any of the original Bill of Rights as applying to the states.

 

The Due Process Clause is what the SCOTUS has been using to incorporate the BoR.

 

For further reading. (wikipedia is a fountain of information)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

--------

I had a bit more informative reply but I somehow closed the tab I was working in and couldn't remember what I wrote. Much of it was paraphrased from those links though.

[Ol'Coach]

Thank you, Dorvinion.

 

I'm in the middle of That Every Man Be Armed, by Stephen Halbrook, and coincidentally I'm just finishing the section in which he discusses the original debate on Section l of the 14th Amendment. He writes that John A. Bingham, the Republican Representative from Ohio who drafted the original 14th Amendment stated on the floor of the House:

 

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows:

 

(Reads the eight, word for word)

 

"These eight articles I hve shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment,'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union...'"

 

Halbrook then writes, "This is a most explicit statement of the incorporation thesis by the architect of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although he based the incorporation on the privileges and immunities clause and not on the due process clause, as had subsequent courts of selective incorporattion, Rep Bingham could hardly have anticipated the judicial transformation of the late nineteenth century in this respect.

 

I reckon that last sentence by Halbrook is indirectly saying what you stated, correct?

[templar223]

States like Indiana have no training requirement whatsoever, yet the streets there are remarkably safe. A good dose of common sense goes a long way when carrying a gun.

 

I teach a number of NRA Personal Protection classes each year which satisfy Florida's training requirement and then some. It's about a 15-16 hour class and after taking the class, my students are well equipped to handle themselves in all aspects of use of deadly force, ranging from general awareness, pre-attack interaction with Mr. Bad Guy, use of deadly force/interaction with bad guy, and post-deadly force interactions with witnesses, police, etc. We teach folks a whole lot more than, IMHO, is needed for folks to safely carry a gun for their personal defense.

 

From a "business" standpoint, a training requirement for an Illinois permit similar to Florida's would bring me a lot of students - but probably not the same sort of people who come now.

 

From a "public safety" standpoint, a training requirement probably isn't necessary (see Indiana).

 

Here's to hoping IL's new CCW law, passed in '07 (if Blago loses the '06 election), includes reciprocity with or recognition of FL's permit!

 

John B.

www.gunssavelife.com

[Blaster]

Welcome to IllinoisCarry John.

[Blaster]

I teach a number of NRA Personal Protection classes each year which satisfy Florida's training requirement and then some. It's about a 15-16 hour class and after taking the class, my students are well equipped to handle themselves in all aspects of use of deadly force, ranging from general awareness, pre-attack interaction with Mr. Bad Guy, use of deadly force/interaction with bad guy, and post-deadly force interactions with witnesses, police, etc. We teach folks a whole lot more than, IMHO, is needed for folks to safely carry a gun for their personal defense.

 

 

John B.

www.gunssavelife.com

Let us know when you are going to schedule a class. We have alot of people looking for training to satisfy requirements for out of state permits.