Jump to content

Open Carry in Illinois

kurt555gs

By kurt555gs
in Illinois Right to Keep and Carry

Recommended Posts

Tvandermyde Member

Tvandermyde

Posted
Posted

Unlicensed open carry is a simple and clear constitutional issue. It's solution is obviously through the courts and not legislation. I think it can only have one legal outcome which is the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS. I do not see how a parallel effort for OC could have any adverse effect on concealed carry legislation. I am disappointed that OC rights have been not only forgotten by the big players, but from my point of view, deliberately ignored.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Open carry has not been forgotten. But the fact is, that when groups of people start openly carrying handguns, they get the reaction they did in California, and the likely result from states with large metro areas. You end up pushing soccar moms away from thinking about self defense, into the anti-gun camp cause they are uncomfortable about it.

 

Consitutional Open Carry is a pipe dream in a lot of ways. I will wager that while the Court will say their must be some form of carry reasonable available to people, I am under no delusions that they will say the 2A requires no permit and carry a handgun either open or concealed.

 

We have nothing. We need to grab a good statewide standard, then we can build of of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riversludge Member

riversludge

Posted
Posted

Unlicensed open carry is a simple and clear constitutional issue. It's solution is obviously through the courts and not legislation. I think it can only have one legal outcome which is the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS. I do not see how a parallel effort for OC could have any adverse effect on concealed carry legislation. I am disappointed that OC rights have been not only forgotten by the big players, but from my point of view, deliberately ignored.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Open carry has not been forgotten. But the fact is, that when groups of people start openly carrying handguns, they get the reaction they did in California, and the likely result from states with large metro areas. You end up pushing soccar moms away from thinking about self defense, into the anti-gun camp cause they are uncomfortable about it.

 

Consitutional Open Carry is a pipe dream in a lot of ways. I will wager that while the Court will say their must be some form of carry reasonable available to people, I am under no delusions that they will say the 2A requires no permit and carry a handgun either open or concealed.

 

We have nothing. We need to grab a good statewide standard, then we can build of of that.

 

I am a little confused, open carry has not been forgoten?

We need to get concealed carry then we need to get open carry?

Is that what I am reading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
Posted

Some posts have been removed from view because of a violation of the Code of Conduct concerning advocating illegal

behavior or quoting the post suggesting such. I have tried to leave the rest of the discussion about the need for open carry intact.

 

For my part, I like the way Suzanna Hupp puts it, I don't care if I have to carry it on my forehead but don't deny me my right to protect myself.

 

For tactical reasons I prefer concealed carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riversludge Member

riversludge

Posted
Posted
Getting open carry past Chicago legislators is a no-go.

 

What prevents us from open carry now?

 

And getting any carry past Chicago legislators is a no-go, I fail to see your point.

 

We have legislative votes in the Chicago suburbs which would disappear on an open carry initiative.

 

Good because we don't need an open carry initiative to get open carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted
Getting open carry past Chicago legislators is a no-go.

 

What prevents us from open carry now?

 

And getting any carry past Chicago legislators is a no-go, I fail to see your point.

 

We have legislative votes in the Chicago suburbs which would disappear on an open carry initiative.

 

Heck, we have votes in the "downstate caucus" that would disappear on an open carry initiative. The history of brainwashing and "anti-gun" rhetoric runs long and deep in this state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Molly B. Member

Molly B.

Posted
Posted

 

Fair enough, can you provide me with examples of getting Concealed Carry past a Chicago legislator?

If we were to post the names of any Chicago legislators who might be considering taking another look at Right

to Carry, do you think they would be heavily targeted by the anti-carry folks? Especially this close to the

primary elections?

 

It would be irresponsible and counterproductive to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kurt555gs Member

kurt555gs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I have great respect for Todd and understand there is much more gong on in Springfield than is posted here in regards to HB148. Molly B. She is great, and no one has worked harder than she has for concealed carry in Illinois. Don Gwinn and the ISRA bunch couldn't be more professional.

 

I just disagree about beating HB148 which I consider a dead horse. Madigan has stopped it cold. Being an election year isn't good for controversial issues, and Representative Fords commission to look at concealed carry will safely delay any action until at least the November elections and may not have the outcome we want.

 

Sometimes even the best experts are too close to something to see the problem in total. That is why I brought up open carry as what needs to be done first. It will only take 61 votes to pass it, and I think we can do that. Next some one needs to bring a court case to make it law even in cities that have their own laws. In Wisconsin they had nothing, then the States Attorney said the constitutional issues with open carry are clearly protected. Eventually the legislature passed concealed carry in part to quiet the frightened soccer mom's Todd just spoke about.

 

I do not see this as an all or nothing idea. I also see getting open carry first as the best way to get concealed carry eventually. I may be wrong, and the experts may be right, but at least I think this is something everyone should consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riversludge Member

riversludge

Posted
Posted

Fair enough, can you provide me with examples of getting Concealed Carry past a Chicago legislator?

If we were to post the names of any Chicago legislators who might be considering taking another look at Right

to Carry, do you think they would be heavily targeted by the anti-carry folks? Especially this close to the

primary elections?

 

It would be irresponsible and counterproductive to do so.

 

 

Again fair enough..

Can you answer the other questions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted

I have great respect for Todd and understand there is much more gong on in Springfield than is posted here in regards to HB148. Molly B. She is great, and no one has worked harder than she has for concealed carry in Illinois. Don Gwinn and the ISRA bunch couldn't be more professional.

 

I just disagree about beating HB148 which I consider a dead horse. Madigan has stopped it cold. Being an election year isn't good for controversial issues, and Representative Fords commission to look at concealed carry will safely delay any action until at least the November elections and may not have the outcome we want.

 

Sometimes even the best experts are too close to something to see the problem in total. That is why I brought up open carry as what needs to be done first. It will only take 61 votes to pass it, and I think we can do that. Next some one needs to bring a court case to make it law even in cities that have their own laws. In Wisconsin they had nothing, then the States Attorney said the constitutional issues with open carry are clearly protected. Eventually the legislature passed concealed carry in part to quiet the frightened soccer mom's Todd just spoke about.

 

I do not see this as an all or nothing idea. I also see getting open carry first as the best way to get concealed carry eventually. I may be wrong, and the experts may be right, but at least I think this is something everyone should consider.

 

Do you really think that OC will be allowed to be passed with only 60 votes?? What are you basing that on? The Parliamentarian will declare that it affects home rule and you're back to 71. As to a court case, what do you think that Moore and Shepard are about? And, to my knowledge, Wisconsin doesn't have the accursed "subject to police power" in their constitution. They delcared it OK based on the U.S. Constitution.

 

HB148 is not a dead horse. It can be voted on at anytime. Other carry bills are in the system and can be moved when needed. I also disagree with your assessment of Ford's commission. I think it will end up being a boon to our cause, and before Memorial Day. JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riversludge Member

riversludge

Posted
Posted
It will only take 61 votes to pass it, and I think we can do that.

 

No any carry bill will take a super Mike said so.

 

But as abolt said uuw prevents us from open carry.

 

If we repeal uuw, simple majority, we get open carry.

 

If we get open carry soccer moms freak, also as abolt said we are great at holding off new bills from the anti's, so a bill banning open carry is not likely.

 

Now what choice do they have? Voters are p***** because we can open carry, but they know a bill will not pass that would shoot it down, either a concealed carry law that we have the upper hand or the mother lode Constitutional Carry..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kurt555gs Member

kurt555gs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It will only take 61 votes to pass it, and I think we can do that.

I sure don't know where you get that. What about the 71 votes needed to override Quinn's veto?

 

You have a point there. The reason I said a simple majority would be enough is I would not challenge home rule. I would do that in the courts to avoid the super majority issue.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tvandermyde Member

Tvandermyde

Posted
Posted

I have great respect for Todd and understand there is much more gong on in Springfield than is posted here in regards to HB148. Molly B. She is great, and no one has worked harder than she has for concealed carry in Illinois. Don Gwinn and the ISRA bunch couldn't be more professional.

 

I just disagree about beating HB148 which I consider a dead horse. Madigan has stopped it cold. Being an election year isn't good for controversial issues, and Representative Fords commission to look at concealed carry will safely delay any action until at least the November elections and may not have the outcome we want.

 

Sometimes even the best experts are too close to something to see the problem in total. That is why I brought up open carry as what needs to be done first. It will only take 61 votes to pass it, and I think we can do that. Next some one needs to bring a court case to make it law even in cities that have their own laws. In Wisconsin they had nothing, then the States Attorney said the constitutional issues with open carry are clearly protected. Eventually the legislature passed concealed carry in part to quiet the frightened soccer mom's Todd just spoke about.

 

I do not see this as an all or nothing idea. I also see getting open carry first as the best way to get concealed carry eventually. I may be wrong, and the experts may be right, but at least I think this is something everyone should consider.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words.

 

148 is NOT a dead horse.

 

Representative Ford's task force will complete their work before the end of session and in time to be read by the General Assembly.

 

Open carry does not take 60 votes, unless you want to let every home rule unit ban it. Something we have been fighting for a long time.

 

I appreciate a lot of different points of view on how to get to the end. we think about all the suggestions.

 

WE also know the other side has poor intel on what the inside story is. So they come by here and lurk to try and pick up on stuff. So we have to be a bit careful about how we present information. In a way to keep people informed, but not to tip our hand to much.

 

I will give Abolt and molly my roll call before the vote. If i am wrong, I will have $100 for a night at the bar. By wrong I mean the prediction on final outcome not the actual number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kurt555gs Member

kurt555gs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I agree that state wide preemption is necessary for concealed carry but for open carry it's not as important. The point isn't to confront anti's at Starbucks on Michigan ave in Chicago, but let some one without a carry permit walk their dog in a rural area, or protect a hunter from arrest on an unseen easement with out his gun unloaded and in a case.

 

I may well be totally wrong about open carry first, but for most of Illinois I suspect it is just as important to have unlicensed open carry, a it is to have a very restrictive concealed carry law like HB148.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmefford Member

dmefford

Posted
Posted

As far a the Illinois Constitution "subject to the police power" thing, what does that really mean? I can just see some rogue police chief claiming this "power" on CNN. Even the ACLU would have to join that fight. I think its meaningless and unenforceable.

 

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

The Police Power is the power of the legislature to pass laws. It has nothing to do with the law enforcement in the context of the phrase, "subject only to the police power..."

 

Regards, Drd

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NakPPI Member

NakPPI

Posted
Posted

 

Kurt, if HB148 passes and I carry my full size Glock 21 under a thin white t-shirt on a hot summer day, that's concealed but everyone will know you are armed. Call it interim Open carry.

 

And when asked about it, your response will be, "Officer, it is mostly concealed, here are my FOID and LTC. " :thumbsup:

 

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kurt555gs Member

kurt555gs

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Kurt, if HB148 passes and I carry my full size Glock 21 under a thin white t-shirt on a hot summer day, that's concealed but everyone will know you are armed. Call it interim Open carry.

 

And when asked about it, your response will be, "Officer, it is mostly concealed, here are my FOID and LTC. " :thumbsup:

 

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

What about, My pistol is totally exposed and luckily because of Kurt, we don't need any license except my FOID card out here beyond a home rule city limit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NakPPI Member

NakPPI

Posted
Posted

I personally wouldn't open carry unless it was the only option, but more power to you. This conversation isn't about my preferences. I grew up with everyone carrying concealed and not once did we wish to carry openly. Illinoisians have been deprived of their rights for so long that they have become ravenous advocates.

 

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...