54 replies to this topic

[Matt H]

Quote

I thought a dis-honorable had the same effect as a felony???......I am however uninformed on the "other than honorable"

Other that honorable, or OTH is used for a wide wide range of issues. I have seen guys that were habitually late for morning muster be discharged with an OTH.  Drug usage in the military is zero tolerance these days, if you pop positive on a random urinalysis, this can lead to an OTH also. Its basically the catch all discharge for guys that don't quite make the grade but have not committed a serious crime.

[Matt H]

Quote

(10) Any portion of an establishment that sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the
premises.

i would like to see this altered slightly to the way texas does it:

Quote

You cannot carry into a facility that derives 51% or more of its profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premise.

basically, so that there is not confusion as to whether i can carry while taking the family out to dinner at a chili's, fridays, applebees, etc, that are restaurants by nature that happen to also serve alcohol. Worded this way it would appear that if i have to walk past the bar section of a restaurant in order to get to the restroom, I am in violation.

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Quote

You cannot carry into a facility that derives 51% or more of its profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premise.

I didnt know you needed to be an accountant to figure out where you can and cant carry......either way the not carrying in bars is even part of the unincorporated open carry provision already.

[Kenny]

MARKHOLSTRUM, on Jun 19 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

Quote

You cannot carry into a facility that derives 51% or more of its profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premise.

I didnt know you needed to be an accountant to figure out where you can and cant carry......either way the not carrying in bars is even part of the unincorporated open carry provision already.

That part is already coming out for this very reason that is why there will be a BAC part no establishment clause because the thing in CO changed his mind too. Randy told me this a few weeks ago.

[SAK]

From what I see, order of importance for things that need to be changed:

1) Public availability of permit holders -- this should be non-public to protect permit-holders from criminals
2) Disqualification for ever having a DUI -- this doesn't relate to firearms at all
3) Having to notify an officer -- this will undoubtedly cause problems, particularly from anti-rights officers.  Anyone meaning harm to an officer wouldn't notify the officer first anyways.  I certainly wouldn't want to be patted-down and disarmed for a burned-out signal.
4) Discharged from military -- another thing that will disqualify perfectly good citizens
5) Name/address change should be changed to 60 days and arrest to within 30 days after release from custody

None of these would affect me either, but that isn't the matter.  I know it will affect other people who still have the right to self-defense.  Having made a mistake, or having been affected by the mistake of another DOES NOT do away with one's right to self-defense!!!!!!!

[Dracimus]

SAK, on Jun 19 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

From what I see, order of importance for things that need to be changed:

1) Public availability of permit holders -- this should be non-public to protect permit-holders from criminals
2) Disqualification for ever having a DUI -- this doesn't relate to firearms at all
3) Having to notify an officer -- this will undoubtedly cause problems, particularly from anti-rights officers.  Anyone meaning harm to an officer wouldn't notify the officer first anyways.  I certainly wouldn't want to be patted-down and disarmed for a burned-out signal.
4) Discharged from military -- another thing that will disqualify perfectly good citizens
5) Name/address change should be changed to 60 days and arrest to within 30 days after release from custody

None of these would affect me either, but that isn't the matter.  I know it will affect other people who still have the right to self-defense.  Having made a mistake, or having been affected by the mistake of another DOES NOT do away with one's right to self-defense!!!!!!!

for quote #2, I believe that should apply, a person who get drunk and drives and got DUI, that does prove that he/she has poor judgment to drive while being drunk.. Just in my own humble opinion. so therefore, it does show that the CCW holder who was DUI Record, will also pose an poor judgment handling the firearms on their hip.

I am so glad to hear that the CCW in Winnebago county is in good progress. I am hoping that state of Illinois will finally recognize and began to move on with new bill for CCW outside of Winnebago County.

just my .02 cents.

[johnyt101]

I would like to see it be changed from a concealed carry license to a license to carry a firearm. In the summer months when its hot and you have shorts and a T on, why shouldn't you be able to wear it openly on your hip for comfort. A person's demeanor doesn't change just because they carry openly or concealed. I guess a LTCF is too much to ask/wishful thinking...

[duke66]

Dracimus, on Jun 19 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

SAK, on Jun 19 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

From what I see, order of importance for things that need to be changed:

1) Public availability of permit holders -- this should be non-public to protect permit-holders from criminals
2) Disqualification for ever having a DUI -- this doesn't relate to firearms at all
3) Having to notify an officer -- this will undoubtedly cause problems, particularly from anti-rights officers.  Anyone meaning harm to an officer wouldn't notify the officer first anyways.  I certainly wouldn't want to be patted-down and disarmed for a burned-out signal.
4) Discharged from military -- another thing that will disqualify perfectly good citizens
5) Name/address change should be changed to 60 days and arrest to within 30 days after release from custody

None of these would affect me either, but that isn't the matter.  I know it will affect other people who still have the right to self-defense.  Having made a mistake, or having been affected by the mistake of another DOES NOT do away with one's right to self-defense!!!!!!!

for quote #2, I believe that should apply, a person who get drunk and drives and got DUI, that does prove that he/she has poor judgment to drive while being drunk.. Just in my own humble opinion. so therefore, it does show that the CCW holder who was DUI Record, will also pose an poor judgment handling the firearms on their hip.

I am so glad to hear that the CCW in Winnebago county is in good progress. I am hoping that state of Illinois will finally recognize and began to move on with new bill for CCW outside of Winnebago County.

just my .02 cents.

I would agree.  Don't UT and PA ask if you've been convicted of an alcohol related offense on their CCW/LTC application?  So should we.

[PPK]

I don't have a problem with the DUI part at all.  I think that relates to personal responsibility.  Even though DUI has nothing to do with flying, I could lose my pilot's license for it.  Probably not on the first offense (unless there was an accident involved) but it wouldn't take many.  My answer is pretty simple, don't drink and drive.  I know one drink with a meal at a restaraunt wouldn't hurt but I'm not willing to chance losing my pilot's license.  Same with a CCW permit.

[Slappy]

PPK, on Jun 19 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with the DUI part at all.  I think that relates to personal responsibility.  Even though DUI has nothing to do with flying, I could lose my pilot's license for it.  Probably not on the first offense (unless there was an accident involved) but it wouldn't take many.  My answer is pretty simple, don't drink and drive.  I know one drink with a meal at a restaraunt wouldn't hurt but I'm not willing to chance losing my pilot's license.  Same with a CCW permit.

Thats very true, but we must stipulate that a person has to be found guilty of a DUI first, if we go this route.

Simply being arrested for one should not invalidate your CCW...

[Mr. Runyon]

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not.

I firmly believe there should be no state-wide restrictions as to carrying on the job.
One should be allowed to defend their life and the lives of the people around them at all times, on the job or not.

All too often employees of many different establishments are denied their right to carry on the job because of some clause or act that doesn't really make sense. I know that if I was an employee of a business that had a large amount of customers every day I would want the basic human right to defend myself while on the job.

[Slappy]

Mr. Runyon, on Jun 19 2008, 05:40 PM, said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not.

I firmly believe there should be no state-wide restrictions as to carrying on the job.
One should be allowed to defend their life and the lives of the people around them at all times, on the job or not.

All too often employees of many different establishments are denied their right to carry on the job because of some clause or act that doesn't really make sense. I know that if I was an employee of a business that had a large amount of customers every day I would want the basic human right to defend myself while on the job.

Agreed, but FYI, we need to keep this thread on target in regards to editing and fixing the Winnebago documents.

I will be compiling this information for county board so lets all help to make Slappy's life a bit easier...

thanks!  

[PPK]

Slappy, on Jun 19 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

PPK, on Jun 19 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

I don't have a problem with the DUI part at all.  I think that relates to personal responsibility.  Even though DUI has nothing to do with flying, I could lose my pilot's license for it.  Probably not on the first offense (unless there was an accident involved) but it wouldn't take many.  My answer is pretty simple, don't drink and drive.  I know one drink with a meal at a restaraunt wouldn't hurt but I'm not willing to chance losing my pilot's license.  Same with a CCW permit.

Thats very true, but we must stipulate that a person has to be found guilty of a DUI first, if we go this route.

Simply being arrested for one should not invalidate your CCW...

True.  And it's been awile since I've looked through the FAR/AIM (FAA publications) but I think there's also an appeals process.

[lockman]

Comments on Winnebago Conceal & carry proposal.

A.2(a) – Records public.  This is the law in many states but most have changed to omitting names and addresses keeping the records available for statistical purposes. This would not be a problem as long as it was handled like the SOS drivers licenses. The permit holder is notified if a non law enforcement agency has obtained their data. I believe if the permit holder’s record is public so is that of the requester. There should be a road block in place to prevent the bulk release of name and address data like the Roanoke times in VA did by putting the entire database online and searchable.


N. Prohibited places

(8) - Churches etc. Section O specifically allows private property owners the choice of allowing concealed carry into their establishments. Section N.(8) removes this choice from churches.  Section N.(8)  should be stricken and let the choice allowed under section O. prevail.
(9) – Parade/Demonstration. This could ensnare persons traveling through the area that have no connection or prior knowledge of this public area event.
(10)- Places that serve alcohol.  A provision should be added prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in public while armed but should not prohibit carry by those who do not consume alcohol but merely are getting a meal.
(11) – School zones – Should be reworded school property with an exception for dropping off or picking up children while in the parking lot or drive. School zones encompass an area 1000 feet beyond the property boundary. Draw a 1000’ zone beyond the property all public, private and parochial schools and you generally have only farmland left.

In summary, “gun free zones” in this country have created victim rich environments.
Look at the Westroads mall shooting in Nebraska. In this instance the mall was posed as a “gun free zone”, every victim was in full compliance with the malls request. By the way the gun free zone sign has been taken down and the mall is no longer off limits to lawful gun carry openly or concealed.

Places off limits to permit holder should be limited to places that provide weapon screening and have armed security or police present, otherwise you are creating more useless GUN FREE ZONES. The gun free zones may make a portion of the public or their servants feel safer inside these magical areas but in reality no such security or safety exists.

[Slappy]

Just to let everyone know I am updated the structure on my website to make it easier to organize for the files I am hosting...

I have updated the locations of the documents here... if you have linked to them from anywhere, please update accordingly!

I am also leaving the current locations intact for a few days so there should be no downtime...

thanks!

[TTIN]

Slappy, on Jun 30 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

Just to let everyone know I am updated the structure on my website to make it easier to organize for the files I am hosting...

I have updated the locations of the documents here... if you have linked to them from anywhere, please update accordingly!

I am also leaving the current locations intact for a few days so there should be no downtime...

thanks!

Forgive my ignorance please,but where the heck is your website?

[Slappy]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 30 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

Forgive my ignorance please,but where the heck is your website?

The links on my first post in this thread direct you to one of my websites, windycitynetworks.com, where I am storing files... audio, video, documents, etc so I can post them here and create a repository of information...

and for 19.99 a month, you can check out nakedslappy.com and see what all the fuss is about... all major credit cards accepted...  

[TTIN]

Slappy, on Jun 30 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

thetimeisnow, on Jun 30 2008, 06:41 PM, said:

Forgive my ignorance please,but where the heck is your website?

The links on my first post in this thread direct you to one of my websites, windycitynetworks.com, where I am storing files... audio, video, documents, etc so I can post them here and create a repository of information...

and for 19.99 a month, you can check out nakedslappy.com and see what all the fuss is about... all major credit cards accepted...  

Hmmmmmm...I actually haven't heard all the fuss.For $20/month,there better be something BIG on there.

[Slappy]

thetimeisnow, on Jun 30 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

Hmmmmmm...I actually haven't heard all the fuss.For $20/month,there better be something BIG on there.

only my ego...

[Kaeghl]

11) – School zones – Should be reworded school property with an exception for dropping off or picking up children while in the parking lot or drive. School zones encompass an area 1000 feet beyond the property boundary. Draw a 1000’ zone beyond the property all public, private and parochial schools and you generally have only farmland left.

Oh, crud. Since I don't have any kids of school age, I didn't even think about that at first. But now I realize that I have a grade school just about 300 feet from my patio door. Then I look around and see that Lockman's observation would make most if not all of Machesney Park a CPZ (Criminal Protection Zone) as far as CCW goes. I couldn't even drive by my family's church on a Monday since they have a parochial school attached.

Yeah, 'tweaking' the wording to say only within school property boundaries with the exception of drop off/pick up lanes would fix that properly IMHO.

[lockman]

Kaeghl, on Jul 1 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

11) – School zones – Should be reworded school property with an exception for dropping off or picking up children while in the parking lot or drive. School zones encompass an area 1000 feet beyond the property boundary. Draw a 1000’ zone beyond the property all public, private and parochial schools and you generally have only farmland left.

Oh, crud. Since I don't have any kids of school age, I didn't even think about that at first. But now I realize that I have a grade school just about 300 feet from my patio door. Then I look around and see that Lockman's observation would make most if not all of Machesney Park a CPZ (Criminal Protection Zone) as far as CCW goes. I couldn't even drive by my family's church on a Monday since they have a parochial school attached.

Yeah, 'tweaking' the wording to say only within school property boundaries with the exception of drop off/pick up lanes would fix that properly IMHO.

I would have no problem with carry in the school, but short of that, the 1000' zone would be inapplicable under federal law as a permit holder. The prohibition should be limited  to inside the building not the parking lot.

[lockman]

DUI as a diqualification. Yes, if you are still under sentance or a reasonable period of time has elapsed since. I would treat a DUI as changing the permit from a shall issue to a may issue. I would not like a blanket disqualification but previous DUI offenders should be held to a higher standard of approval. Many police officers still carry guns after DUI convictions even while under sentance.

[Hank]

hodgie, on Jun 19 2008, 11:31 AM, said:

Quote

(10) Any portion of an establishment that sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the
premises.

i would like to see this altered slightly to the way texas does it:

Quote

You cannot carry into a facility that derives 51% or more of its profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premise.

basically, so that there is not confusion as to whether i can carry while taking the family out to dinner at a chili's, fridays, applebees, etc, that are restaurants by nature that happen to also serve alcohol. Worded this way it would appear that if i have to walk past the bar section of a restaurant in order to get to the restroom, I am in violation.

CHL holders call them 51% clubs, down here.

[RacerDave6]

Something about employers not being able to prohibit firearms in private vehicles in their parking lots may be in order also.

[Kaeghl]

RacerDave6, on Jul 1 2008, 09:30 PM, said:

Something about employers not being able to prohibit firearms in private vehicles in their parking lots may be in order also.

I dunno, that's kind of hard to qualify for some employers. For instance, "Joe's Construction" might go along with it, since "Joe" carrys and only has two or three employees that work out of their own trucks on the job site. So that would be no biggie.

But then again, I work for an international corporation with lots of rules about employee rights and restrictions all bound up in an employee handbook. Matter of fact, it specifically states in the handbook that no weapons of any kind are allowed on company property. I do believe that I'd consider that 'posting', even though my immediate supervisor and even the GM is more gun friendly than anti-gun-rights. There is no way a county law would stand up to Corp. legal teams in a court fight, so let's not even go there. The term 'Tilting at windmills' comes to mind....