Skolnick Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:30 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:30 PM http://www.sj-r.com/news/20170812/new-concealed-carry-permit-applications-declining-in-illinois According to numbers provided by Illinois State Police ... permits issued were: 91,620 in 2014, 55,005 in 2015, 72,188 in 2016 and 38,880 so far this year ... PS: When reading the third paragraph of the actual article keep in mind that, a country of 100 people where 98 of them own 2 guns each and two of them own 100 guns each, then you have a situation where "most of the guns in this country are owned by a relatively small percentage of the population" even though everyone in the country owns more than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spec5 Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:38 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:38 PM Your thread title is deceiving. The concealed carry holders with CCL's is increasing. You meant to say that the rate of increase is declining which would be expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FieldGL Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:48 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 01:48 PM I know quite a bit of people, who would apply for their CCL, if they were allowed to carry on public transportation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:10 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:10 PM http://www.sj-r.com/news/20170812/new-concealed-carry-permit-applications-declining-in-illinois According to numbers provided by Illinois State Police ... permits issued were: 91,620 in 2014, 55,005 in 2015, 72,188 in 2016 and 38,880 so far this year ... PS: When reading the third paragraph of the actual article keep in mind that, a country of 100 people where 98 of them own 2 guns each and two of them own 100 guns each, then you have a situation where "most of the guns in this country are owned by a relatively small percentage of the population" even though everyone in the country owns more than one.So: 2014 (CCL started 01/2014) was plus 91,640 CCL holders 2015 was plus 55,005 2016 was plus 72,188 2017 is tracking for plus 66,651 (38,880 / 7 = Monthly Average. 12 x Monthly Average = 66,651) Considering: 1) 2014 reflects substantial pent-up demand from fighting more than 8 years for Illinois Concealed Carry 2) 2016 maps closely with the significant 2016 increase in guns sales due to Clinton-favored November Presidential Election In my analysis of a trend of only 3.58 years, 2017 new CCL holders tracking is more than 20% higher than 2015. Seems more like an increasing rate than a decreasing rate to me. Side note: The article referenced seems to have a highly biased agenda against concealed carry in Illinois. It's heavily based on some guy, Todd Lough's, speculation. His credentials as an ex-Chicago policeman and an associate profess at Western Illinois University doesn't carry enough weight to warrant his pure speculation regarding CCL holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbacs Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:15 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:15 PM http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=66427 Interesting factsPlus a bit about decline by "new" permits....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splash Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:16 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:16 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:45 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:45 PM I personally know people who want their CCL but they have to save up money and schedule time for the classes. I was talking to a guy at Central DuPage Hospital and he told me he needed to set aside some more money and he needed a free weekend. He said "It seems like every weekend is a birthday or a graduation or some family get-together." Plus he had to have his air conditioning replaced. And he was at CDH for knee replacement surgery... so he's got that going in addition to everything else. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:54 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:54 PM My wife had to co-workers take their class this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:59 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 02:59 PM What's really hypocritical though is that the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus was concerned that people in bad neighborhoods, who carry for self protection might be caught up in the stricter sentencing provided under SB1722 - the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. These 2 positions are irreconcilable. They acknowledge that members of their constituency are carrying firearms without having obtained a FOID or a CCL, they seem to legitimize that practice and they don't want their constituents to be punished for it, but they don't acknowledge that the cost of getting the FOID or the CCL is onerous for poor people and puts the licensing out of reach for most of them. I'd like to see someone propose a means-tested subsidy for obtaining the FOID & CCL, and a subsidy for purchasing a firearm also. I'm already paying for their electricity, water, heating, housing, and food, they might as well take out a few dollars more and have us all chip in to get them a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted August 14, 2017 at 03:15 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 03:15 PM What's really hypocritical though is that the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus was concerned that people in bad neighborhoods, who carry for self protection might be caught up in the stricter sentencing provided under SB1722 - the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. These 2 positions are irreconcilable. They acknowledge that members of their constituency are carrying firearms without having obtained a FOID or a CCL, they seem to legitimize that practice and they don't want their constituents to be punished for it, but they don't acknowledge that the cost of getting the FOID or the CCL is onerous for poor people and puts the licensing out of reach for most of them. I'd like to see someone propose a means-tested subsidy for obtaining the FOID & CCL, and a subsidy for purchasing a firearm also. I'm already paying for their electricity, water, heating, housing, and food, they might as well take out a few dollars more and have us all chip in to get them a gun. How about, instead of proposing somebody else pay we instead propose a system that allows them to do it on their own. Why must it always be somebody else needs to foot the bill? They manage to obtain the latest model smartphones, many of them more expensive than all but the higher end firearms. Hades, if you feel that strongly you wanna pay then start sponsoring free classes, or become and instructor and teach 'em for free. Get your hands outta my pocket! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cordell34 Posted August 14, 2017 at 03:56 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 03:56 PM What's really hypocritical though is that the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus was concerned that people in bad neighborhoods, who carry for self protection might be caught up in the stricter sentencing provided under SB1722 - the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. These 2 positions are irreconcilable. They acknowledge that members of their constituency are carrying firearms without having obtained a FOID or a CCL, they seem to legitimize that practice and they don't want their constituents to be punished for it, but they don't acknowledge that the cost of getting the FOID or the CCL is onerous for poor people and puts the licensing out of reach for most of them. I'd like to see someone propose a means-tested subsidy for obtaining the FOID & CCL, and a subsidy for purchasing a firearm also. I'm already paying for their electricity, water, heating, housing, and food, they might as well take out a few dollars more and have us all chip in to get them a gun.How about, instead of proposing somebody else pay we instead propose a system that allows them to do it on their own. Why must it always be somebody else needs to foot the bill?They manage to obtain the latest model smartphones, many of them more expensive than all but the higher end firearms. Hades, if you feel that strongly you wanna pay then start sponsoring free classes, or become and instructor and teach 'em for free. Get your hands outta my pocket!It's really bothering me to have to come here and hear about your personal feelings about the less fortunate among us and how your tax dollars are spent subsidizing this or that. I come here to gain knowledge on Gun rights and new and or useful information relevant to The FOID and Concealed Carry process in Illinois. There are more than a few numbers of forums to discuss your views on the people who rely on Government assistance and those of us fortunate enough to sit and complain over how our tax dollars are allocated . Can we please keep this Great forum Pure?? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:03 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:03 PM What's really hypocritical though is that the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus was concerned that people in bad neighborhoods, who carry for self protection might be caught up in the stricter sentencing provided under SB1722 - the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. These 2 positions are irreconcilable. They acknowledge that members of their constituency are carrying firearms without having obtained a FOID or a CCL, they seem to legitimize that practice and they don't want their constituents to be punished for it, but they don't acknowledge that the cost of getting the FOID or the CCL is onerous for poor people and puts the licensing out of reach for most of them. I'd like to see someone propose a means-tested subsidy for obtaining the FOID & CCL, and a subsidy for purchasing a firearm also. I'm already paying for their electricity, water, heating, housing, and food, they might as well take out a few dollars more and have us all chip in to get them a gun.Pass. Let people pay their own way. Most could afford it if they really wanted to... it's about priorities. I used to sell life insurance... everything from $100K or higher whole life policies down to a policy just big enough to cover your funeral expenses so your kids don't have to. I can't count the number of times I was told "We really want insurance... we need it, we know we do... we just can't afford it." Meanwhile both parents are 1-2 pack a day smokers and stock the fridge with a 30 pack of beer every few days. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolnick Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:04 PM Author Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:04 PM 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. The following bill is still in committee, but what do you think caused Rep John Anthony to propose this legislation that can only be directed against government bodies? http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/HB/09900HB2720.htmAmends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a municipality, including a home rule unit, may not revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a business license or otherwise interfere with a business license issued by the municipality to a business owner, including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934, because the business owner lawfully permits a concealed carry licensee to carry firearms into his or her business establishment. Effective immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:12 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:12 PM 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:35 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:35 PM What's really hypocritical though is that the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus was concerned that people in bad neighborhoods, who carry for self protection might be caught up in the stricter sentencing provided under SB1722 - the Safe Neighborhoods Reform Act. These 2 positions are irreconcilable. They acknowledge that members of their constituency are carrying firearms without having obtained a FOID or a CCL, they seem to legitimize that practice and they don't want their constituents to be punished for it, but they don't acknowledge that the cost of getting the FOID or the CCL is onerous for poor people and puts the licensing out of reach for most of them. I'd like to see someone propose a means-tested subsidy for obtaining the FOID & CCL, and a subsidy for purchasing a firearm also. I'm already paying for their electricity, water, heating, housing, and food, they might as well take out a few dollars more and have us all chip in to get them a gun. How about, instead of proposing somebody else pay we instead propose a system that allows them to do it on their own. Why must it always be somebody else needs to foot the bill? They manage to obtain the latest model smartphones, many of them more expensive than all but the higher end firearms. Hades, if you feel that strongly you wanna pay then start sponsoring free classes, or become and instructor and teach 'em for free. Get your hands outta my pocket! Agreed. Means testing for CCL or anything else personally seems socialistic to me. How about unbundling that large startup $150 payment for 5 years (barrier for CCL?) Make it $30 a year, period. More administration for the State but much easier to afford by "the people.". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic6010 Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:57 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:57 PM I personally know people who want their CCL but they have to save up money and schedule time for the classes. I was talking to a guy at Central DuPage Hospital and he told me he needed to set aside some more money and he needed a free weekend. He said "It seems like every weekend is a birthday or a graduation or some family get-together." Plus he had to have his air conditioning replaced. And he was at CDH for knee replacement surgery... so he's got that going in addition to everything else. 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.Yes I agree. The antis in the legislature really did a number on us with the requirements they put on obtaining our "right" (privlage) to carry in this state. 2 days of training and hundreds of dollars in costs is just too much for a lot of people. Not even because they don't have the money (although I'm sure there's a lot of people in that boat too) but because they just don't have the time or inclination to get it done when its that much of a pita. I know a few really pro gun people that to this day still haven't bothered. They would rather stick with permit-less carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragsbo Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:59 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 04:59 PM The numbers are miss leading to me, on purpose! The first couple of years numbers were high becuase folks who wanted one for years jump on the chance to get one. Now it is more of those who are coming of age, moving into the state (well maybe not to many in that category), or changes their mind on it. AND I agree that the costs are prohibitive to a lot. I know several who would like to get one but don't have the money for the training (and the time), the fees for the license etc. Most have the weapon already- they got it because they needed it for protection at least at home or while FOID carrying in a vehicle. When the state passed the concealed carry law they did every thing they could to make it costly and to prevent folks from getting or using it while being able to lie to the courts and say they were abiding by their ruling. We were sold a bill of goods and anyone saying it was the best deal available is lying. Right now after losing my job when the plant stopped operations, I would be hard pressed to come up with the funds for training and fees. I am wondering what I will do when it comes times to renew. I keep hoping for some relief on both counts but don't expect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:16 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:16 PM 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. The following bill is still in committee, but what do you think caused Rep John Anthony to propose this legislation that can only be directed against government bodies? http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/HB/09900HB2720.htm Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a municipality, including a home rule unit, may not revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a business license or otherwise interfere with a business license issued by the municipality to a business owner, including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934, because the business owner lawfully permits a concealed carry licensee to carry firearms into his or her business establishment. Effective immediately. Skolnick, For your information, many of us here attend anti-gun meetings regularly. Is it coincidental you are using some of the same anti-gunner's talking points? For instance: =========================================== 1) You said "PS: When reading the third paragraph of the actual article keep in mind that, a country of 100 people where 98 of them own 2 guns each and two of them own 100 guns each, then you have a situation where "most of the guns in this country are owned by a relatively small percentage of the population" even though everyone in the country owns more than one" Anti-gunners have been pitching this "few bitter clingers with many guns" crap for many years. Do you have any facts? ============================================ 2) You said "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)." Ever since the start of legal concealed carry, anti-gunners got a lot of visibility trying to get large and small businesses to put up "no gun signs." Have they been successful? They've have been quiet. Starbucks and other high profile losses? Small businesses? In my personal experience, more and more of those signs coming down. Many here have been successful educating people to reduce the number of those "gun free zones." Do you have any facts? ============================================= I could say why don't you come up with some new anti-gun talking points. But I'd rather not waste time reading them since they are fake premises. It takes a lot more time to prove a fake premise wrong than to conjure one up out of nowhere with no facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:29 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:29 PM MMMMMmmm Subsidy is not popular I'm just saying they should get their subsidy priorities straight. I don't believe you can separate the right to exist from the right to defend's one's life, and the right to keep and bear arms is inextricable from the right to self defense. Before we tap every tax payer in Illinois to pay for things like other people's daycare, shouldn't they be addressing the most basic thing like the right and the means to protect yourself from violent predators? I'm just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldMarineVet Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:34 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:34 PM MMMMMmmm Subsidy is not popular I'm just saying they should get their subsidy priorities straight. I don't believe you can separate the right to exist from the right to defend's one's life, and the right to keep and bear arms is inextricable from the right to self defense. Before we tap every tax payer in Illinois to pay for things like other people's daycare, shouldn't they be addressing the most basic thing like the right and the means to protect yourself from violent predators? I'm just sayin...C0untZer0, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement: "I don't believe you can separate the right to exist from the right to defend's one's life, and the right to keep and bear arms is inextricable from the right to self defense." But not with your solution. Two wrongs don't make a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock23 Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:35 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:35 PM MMMMMmmm Subsidy is not popular I'm just saying they should get their subsidy priorities straight. I don't believe you can separate the right to exist from the right to defend's one's life, and the right to keep and bear arms is inextricable from the right to self defense. Before we tap every tax payer in Illinois to pay for things like other people's daycare, shouldn't they be addressing the most basic thing like the right and the means to protect yourself from violent predators? I'm just sayin...I'm all for people paying their own way in all respects, whether CCL training, daycare, diapers, etc.... might finally instill a sense of responsibility and accountability for some. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:59 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 05:59 PM What Illinois does amounts to a poll tax - a tax on the Second Amendment. If Illinois wasn't making it so expensive to exercise our Second Amendment rights, and if they would stop taking so much money away from people to begin with, many more people would have their CCL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted August 14, 2017 at 06:25 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 06:25 PM What Illinois does amounts to a poll tax - a tax on the Second Amendment. If Illinois wasn't making it so expensive to exercise our Second Amendment rights, and if they would stop taking so much money away from people to begin with, many more people would have their CCL. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted August 14, 2017 at 06:41 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 06:41 PM About 15% of the people in Indiana have a carry permit. They also have a $125 lifetime permit with no training requirements and very few places that are off limits. Illinois would have a lot more people with permits if we had rules and costs like that. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C0untZer0 Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:02 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:02 PM From today's Chicago Tribune: How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-guns-permits-democrats-rich-lott-perspec-0808-jm-20170807-story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skolnick Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:26 PM Author Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:26 PM You said "PS: When reading the third paragraph of the actual article keep in mind that, a country of 100 people where 98 of them own 2 guns each and two of them own 100 guns each, then you have a situation where "most of the guns in this country are owned by a relatively small percentage of the population" even though everyone in the country owns more than one" Anti-gunners have been pitching this "few bitter clingers with many guns" crap for many years. Do you have any facts? Do I need facts to debunk the spin that "most of the guns ... are owned by a relatively small percentage of the population"? Or is a simple mathematical illustration enough to show that a "relatively small percentage of the population" is misleading in the context provided? You said "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)."Ever since the start of legal concealed carry, anti-gunners got a lot of visibility trying to get large and small businesses to put up "no gun signs." Have they been successful? They've have been quiet. Starbucks and other high profile losses? Small businesses? In my personal experience, more and more of those signs coming down. Many here have been successful educating people to reduce the number of those "gun free zones." Do you have any facts? Do I need facts to realize that the GFZ mandate of public transportation is a significant hurdle for a minimum wage employee who needs to use it to get to work and/or shopping -- even if all destinations of businesses and employers are gun friendly? In effect, by making that one venue a GFZ, they turned all venues into GFZ -- at least for those too poor to own their own transportation. I could say why don't you come up with some new anti-gun talking points. But I'd rather not waste time reading them since they are fake premises. It takes a lot more time to prove a fake premise wrong than to conjure one up out of nowhere with no facts. I was simply providing examples of C0untZer0's claim that "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." They could not openly oppose concealed carry after the judicial panel issued its order, so they created barriers -- some more effective than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazborgufen Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:40 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 07:40 PM About 15% of the people in Indiana have a carry permit. They also have a $125 lifetime permit with no training requirements and very few places that are off limits. Illinois would have a lot more people with permits if we had rules and costs like that. Jim. And that's exactly why we don't have rules and costs like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tip Posted August 14, 2017 at 08:28 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 08:28 PM What Illinois does amounts to a poll tax - a tax on the Second Amendment. If Illinois wasn't making it so expensive to exercise our Second Amendment rights, and if they would stop taking so much money away from people to begin with, many more people would have their CCL. Agreed! So the solution should be to eliminate the poll tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 14, 2017 at 08:30 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 08:30 PM 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. The following bill is still in committee, but what do you think caused Rep John Anthony to propose this legislation that can only be directed against government bodies? http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/99/HB/09900HB2720.htmAmends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a municipality, including a home rule unit, may not revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a business license or otherwise interfere with a business license issued by the municipality to a business owner, including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934, because the business owner lawfully permits a concealed carry licensee to carry firearms into his or her business establishment. Effective immediately. 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. The bill you linked to was from last session. Unfortunately Mr. Anthony is no longer a member of the legislature but there is an equivalent bill filed in the current General Assembly. It hasn't seen much progress, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted August 14, 2017 at 09:55 PM Share Posted August 14, 2017 at 09:55 PM 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? No, it's just wishful thinking on the part of the author of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.