(New) Concealed-carry permits declining in Illinois

[ChicagoRonin70]

As we all know, when the FOID law was being passed, Mayor Richard J. Daley complained to LBJ about the “non-whites” going to the suburbs to buy guns, and use the actions of blacks as justification for making it difficult for them to acquire firearms, as well as doing his best to ban firearms in Chicago, so that people of color wouldn't be able to have them.

 

The CCL costs is an extension of that, with the intent to make it as difficult as possible for the poor and minorities (who are more often than whites to be of lower socioeconomic status) to carry concealed.

[C0untZer0]

You make some good points about the ways in which the FCCA was designed to work against Chicago residents/visitors. I'd add to your list the need to leave the city in order to complete range qualification, a requirement imposed on a population arguably more dependent on public transportation than anywhere else in the state.

 

 

Although not part of the FCCA, the campaign to shut down Chuck's Gun Shop is another part of their strategy. If they were ever successful in closing down Chuck's, the next closest gun dealer would quickly become the next "bad apple gun dealer" that they would campaign against, making it so that Chicagoans had to travel farther and farther to purchase firearms and train with them.

[WitchDoctor]

 

That number was from last month. I'm seeing more permits issued by the end of the year. Perhaps at par with 2015 number if not, higher. I say 56k to 58k permit issued at the end of the year.

Yes, and more. Did you see my post (#4) above using simple averaging to estimate 66,651 new CCL holders by end of 2017? More than 20% higher than 2015.

 

Are people on this thread really buying the OP's bogus article that the rate of increase for new CCL holders in Illinois is decreasing?

 

I am not buying that b.s. More parents of students have asked me about concealed carry than I would have ever imagined this year than any of the six previous. Mind you that it is a small sample based on experience, but my experience says people are carrying!

[mauserme]

 

 

That number was from last month. I'm seeing more permits issued by the end of the year. Perhaps at par with 2015 number if not, higher. I say 56k to 58k permit issued at the end of the year.

Yes, and more. Did you see my post (#4) above using simple averaging to estimate 66,651 new CCL holders by end of 2017? More than 20% higher than 2015.

 

Are people on this thread really buying the OP's bogus article that the rate of increase for new CCL holders in Illinois is decreasing?

 

I am not buying that b.s. More parents of students have asked me about concealed carry than I would have ever imagined this year than any of the six previous. Mind you that it is a small sample based on experience, but my experience says people are carrying!

 

 

Maybe a better title for the news article would have been "The rate of increase for new carry licenses is lower".

 

But I'm not sure even that would be accurate.

[kwc]

Looking at my charts over the last two years (since Summer 2015), I think it's more accurate to say we have a lot of fluctuation in the number of applications over time. We had a peak in April 2016 and are currently at a 2-year low, but I'm not sure one could draw a trend line across these data and be confident there is a real trend.

 

See the final chart (average number of applications per day, averaged by month) here:

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_id=21107

 

Full thread for the August FOIA report is here:

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=66427&hl=

 

Comparing to 2014 is ludicrous--as pointed out earlier, the pent-up demand for licenses drove high numbers throughout 2014. Pointing out that the rate of applications has slowed since 2014 (first year available) is like saying the sun comes up each day. That isn't news. It's spin.

[mikew]

Anti-gunners spin it any way that they can.

 

Does anyone remember Bill Jenkins telling us how gun ownership was in decline and how CCW would never work because the bad guy would get the drop on you?

[ragsbo]

Lower the price way down and cut the "training" required and see the numbers jump!

[IH8IL]

I bet people are put off by the long wait times. Theres no reason it should take that long. Its probably on purpose.

[Jeffrey]

Anti-gunners spin it any way that they can.

 

Does anyone remember Bill Jenkins telling us how gun ownership was in decline and how CCW would never work because the bad guy would get the drop on you?

So we have based a fact that applications are dropping, using 3 points of data. Did Rahm and special Ed write this themselves? I think we would get a better view after a few more years. Statistics is opinions.

[skinnyb82]

Speaking with people I know locally, it seems the top factor in deciding whether to get a permit is the cost and time commitment. Most people don't have two free days they can clear to attend training, nor do they have $150 (on top of the class fees) to toss to ISP..

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[bmyers]

The money seems to be the biggest issue for the ones I talk with. They have to pay for the class then an additional $150+ for the license. For many that isn't a small investment and when you include the time on top of it, they just can't overcome the hurdles.

 

If it was an 8-hour class at best and the cost was greatly reduced, you would see a larger influx of applicants.

[Glock23]

I guess I'm a skeptic, but I fail to see how most anyone can justify not getting their CCL due to to the cost and time associated with the training and the license itself.

 

16 hours and a few hundred dollars to be able to protect yourself and/or your family?

 

Unless those people are just choosing to carry illegally, in which case I know a few of those... but that's because of an ardent belief in the "shall not be infringed" language, not a time/cost issue.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

 

[Chief Illiniwek]

 

Madigan's gun control toadies did their best to create barriers to obtaining the CCL and it probably works in more instances than we can imagine.

 

Not being able to carry on the CTA means you can't carry from your home to the CTA stop (what are you going to do with the gun when you get to the CTA?) and that you can't carry from the CTA stop to work or shopping (for the same reason).

 

Picture a minimum wage woman spending $300 for lessons and fees, plus a few hundred more the gun and ammunition, for a concealed carry license that she has no significant ability to use. Add to that a misdemeanor charge with a $150 fine and possible jail time if she does carry.

 

 

Can't you FOID carry on the CTA? There have been more than a few threads talking about the nuisance of carrying, unloading and storing your EDC while on the CTA, reversing the process, stowng your EDC at your place of employment if carry is not allowed there, etc.

[bmyers]

I guess I'm a skeptic, but I fail to see how most anyone can justify not getting their CCL due to to the cost and time associated with the training and the license itself. 16 hours and a few hundred dollars to be able to protect yourself and/or your family? Unless those people are just choosing to carry illegally, in which case I know a few of those... but that's because of an ardent belief in the "shall not be infringed" language, not a time/cost issue. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

I have a few friends who live paycheck to paycheck. Their money goes towards food and needs of their kids and themselves. Having a spare $300 for one of them to take the class, yet alone $600 for both him and her to take it just isn't possible. Some have waited til tax returns have come in and taken the class then, but a few had other more pressing needs (air conditioning repair and another needed a new ice box since theirs died).

 

I think the cost is a bigger issue than the time for most.

[Jeffrey]

How many other "Rights" do we have to pay to exercise? Taking the class I can understand. 16 hours is extreme. The classroom portion could be narrowed down to 4, max. The state should be the ones to hire the teachers. Pay for the teachers should come from the admin fees they are extorting of the 150 bucks.

[kwc]

If it was an 8-hour class at best and the cost was greatly reduced, you would see a larger influx of applicants.

 

I think this is by design--they (the legislators) don't want a large influx of applicants.

 

[skinnyb82]

The one upside is once issued, "all you need to do" is take a three-hour "refresher" course. Which I think is also wholly unnecessary for the majority of CCL holders, or at least the ones who frequent this forum as we are aware of the changes in the law when they happen. No substantive changes since 2013 anyway, so...what material do instructors teach anyway? No changes in prohibited locations, no changes in the verbiage defining "concealed," nothing other than the "You can use your FOID or CCL to buy ammo and guns."

 

The $150 admin fee is chewed up before they even issue the license. That's my guess, at least, based on the P&L from FOID issuance (what is it, $2M loss last I checked?). There was setting up the entire infrastructure for issuance, a small task for most, but a massive feat for the State of Illinois. Then they discovered "Oh, crap, anyone who logs in can pull anyone's training certificates, pictures, everything submitted with their application." Now it's using that $150 (and then some) to pay the CCLRB members to overrule Dart's objections. Handsome sum of money for part time work. Here's how to get costs down: amend the FCCA to codify objectionable content in an applicant's background. Leaving it open-ended makes it ripe for abuse, like Dart using expunged arrests as basis for an objection. That and the bloated bureaucracy that is Springfield. I'm not sure what to do about that...or if anything can be done about that. We've got ISP Troopers assigned to the FSB raking in well over six figures. I'm not even gonna go into the whole "public servants should not be making more money than those who they serve." That's a problem that isn't gonna go away any time soon.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[C0untZer0]

You look at every city where free-spending politicians have driven the city into the ground, and without fail, all of these cities have cut back on police services as the city starts to go down the toilet. Probably the perfect example of this is the CTA getting rid of security contractors to clear the way for more union jobs:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/cta-security-gamble-agenc_n_3224004.html

 

The politicians obviously are not going to cut back on giving out money to their cronies and constituents since that is the system that makes them rich. Rahm Emanuel has already started cutting back on police.

 

As violence increases and hits closer to home, people will go out and get a firearm. Illinois is in a serious financial crisis and it isn't because it took so long to pass a budget, its because of decades of bad budgets that have spent more money than Illinois residents will ever be able to pony up. The Illinois politicians can kick the can down the road for now but they can't kick the can down the road forever. Granted, when the bill finally comes due, guys like Madigan and Cullerton, who are already rich, won't be in office anymore and won't care much what happens, but applications for CCLs WILL GO UP

[C0untZer0]

Oh - here is a story about Gary:

 

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/lake-council-members-question-cost-of-sheriff-s-police-patrolling/article_6ae2fa7c-4d49-530e-a42a-007a006a9b20.html

 

"To simply say the county taxpayers have to pay for Gary, I cannot support that," said Councilman Eldon Strong, R-Crown Point. "I heard the last time we did this, Gary cut back on their (police) overtime. I need to know what Gary is doing about Gary."

 

 

Here is a story about Detroit:

 

Detroit Has Fewest Cops Patrolling Streets In Nearly 100 Years

 

 

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/07/09/detroit-has-fewest-cops-patrolling-streets-in-nearly-100-years/

 

There are currently fewer officers patrolling the city than at any time since the 1920s.

 

 

 

Here's a story about Stockton:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/years-of-unraveling-then-bankruptcy-for-a-city.html?mcubz=0

 

Since 2009, the city has cut 25 percent of its police officers. After the three burglaries, Ms. Hinson and her husband, John Hinson, 68, a retired city finance director, installed an alarm system, video cameras and a locking gate at their home. But when the alarm goes off, which it has on several occasions, they say the police do not come. “They used to serve and protect, but now they can’t protect us anymore,” said Ms. Hinson, who works for a company that manages homeowner associations. “We have to protect ourselves.”

 

 

 

Here is a story about East St.Louis:

 

East St. Louis Cuts Police Force Amid 2016 Budget Troubles

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/10/30/east-st-louis-cuts-police-force-amid-2016-budget-troubles/

 

 

 

I don't see the financial crisis in Illinois getting any better and as the Illinois situation worsens, I do think that the rate at which people apply for CCLs will go up.

[Illinois Sucks]

If you can't afford around $300 for a class and fees, how are you going to afford to buy a gun or more importantly pay for training or afford the cost of enough ammo so you can practice to be safe and proficient? You can't possibly expect to be able to protect" yourself after a single CCL orientation class and then "qualifying" by successfully putting 21 out of 30 rounds within a 200 MOA (yes two HUNDRED MOA) window. You need to practice and practice and practice. That would be as ludicrous as the thought of the government subsidizing the price of getting a CCL for people who vote for a living rather than work.