122 replies to this topic

[Buzzard]

frankw438, on 13 March 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 13 March 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

I did read in HB5745 it gives the choice between open or concealed carry. For me personally it would solve the open carry question because I would get the license.
Having open carry in the license means there would be no chance of passing an open carry law for those with only a FOID card.



* Carthago delenda est *

Quote

"Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun
carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed
from view of the public, or carried in a vehicle in such a way
as it is concealed from view of the public.

That does not allow for open carry. That is to protect you from prosecution for accidentally exposing your concealed firearm.

HB5745 does allow open carry.

=======================================

From the 5745 Bill Status page:

Bill Status of HB5745 97th General Assembly

Synopsis As Introduced

Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Provides that the Department of State Police shall issue a license to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun to an applicant that meets specified qualifications, has provided the application and specified documentation, and has submitted the requisite fees. Provides that a license to carry a handgun entitles a licensee to carry a loaded handgun, either concealed or openly, on or about his or her person or in a vehicle, except in certain prohibited locations. Provides that the license shall be issued by the Department of State Police within 45 days of receipt from a sheriff and shall be valid throughout the State for a period of 5 years from the date of issuance. Provides for renewal of licenses. Establishes qualifications for licensees, certified firearms instructors, and instructor trainers. Provides for home rule preemption. Provides that the provisions of the Act are severable. Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Prohibits from inspection and copying information about applications for licenses to carry a handgun and about license holders contained in the database created by the Family and Personal Protection Act, except as authorized by that Act. Amends the State Finance Act and the Criminal Code of 1961 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.

[abolt243]

bob, on 13 March 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

papa, on 13 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

bob, on 13 March 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

A lawyer acquaintance I occasionally correspond with has told me that he believes the sheriff LTC bill as written does indeed allow any sheriff to issue (or not) at his sole discretion. I don't really get the legal mumbo-jumbo and I am not going to waste a lot of time parsing something word by word that is likely not going anywhere anytime real soon.

Bob , how can it allow the sheriff to " issue or not issue " when it isn't up to the sheriff to issue. The ISP will do the issuing.

Further more , why is it that people want to get their panties in a wad over this bill when it is the same as HB 148 , only better in some ways.

my understanding is that the sheriff has to forward it to the ISP. if he does not do so it does not get issued. so yes, while technically the sheriff has no power to "issue", he would appear to have some level of power to "not issue".

I personally suspect that even if this is true, sheriffs would likely forward the applications. There might be some shenanigans from a few of them initially, but I think it would work itself out.

I am also inclined to agree it is somewhat better than HB148 in some respects based solely on a very quick read through of the bill.

I think it has a lesser chance of passing than HB148.

I would be happy to take either one.

Bob, to allevaite your fears about the Sheriffs, please read the bill, specifically page 4 as it appears at ILGA, "Introduced".

[BigJim]

Is it true we have to grant full access to all our medical records plus give our SSN to some bureaucrat?

[bob]

BigJim, on 14 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Is it true we have to grant full access to all our medical records plus give our SSN to some bureaucrat?

If it does require your SSAN, it would appear to be a violation of federal law that should be readily challangable. I think some other states like PA have already been down that road with their versions of LTC.

[Xwing]

Mr. Brown is fear mongering here.  Although HB5745 is not a perfect bill, it is a fair bill.  IMO, we should all be getting fully behind it!

kurt555gs, on 13 March 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

Fine. I quit.

Kurt,
Hopefully that was in jest.  We have room here to disagree on specifics and implementation on this board, and still be on the “same team” in supporting 2nd amendment rights.  I understand what you are pushing for (unlicensed open carry which can be preempted by home rule).  I personally don’t think it is possible in Illinois’ political climate, but it is a fine goal.  But HB5745 is very much in our (any gun owner) favor, even if it doesn’t give you exactly what you want.  IMO, all pro-2a folks need to band together to get something good passed, and then work on making it better.

[lockman]

BigJim, on 14 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Is it true we have to grant full access to all our medical records plus give our SSN to some bureaucrat?

I know in VA & PA the required use of SSN by the state for license to carry has been challenged and won.

Quote

Pennsylvania’s requirement that an applicant disclose his Social Security number to purchase
a handgun or receive a license to carry a handgun is invalid under the federal Privacy Act.1 On
Michael Stollenwerk’s complaint, I will enjoin the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s statute and the
State Police from requiring a Social Security number to conduct a background check.

STOLLENWERK vs JEFFREY B. MILLER et al.

http://www.paed.usco...ns/06d0225p.pdf

[abolt243]

BigJim, on 14 March 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

Is it true we have to grant full access to all our medical records plus give our SSN to some bureaucrat?

No, read the bill to see what is required.

[miztic]

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

[abolt243]

miztic, on 14 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

I thinik his reputation precedes him.  The true anti's will NEVER support any kind of carry law, unless it's one that outlaws it completely.  Don't ever kid yourself into thinking anything else.  Their ultimate goal is to eliminate ALL FIREARMS, including law enforcement.  See the London Bobbies and their little sticks.  

AB

[es503IL]

miztic, on 14 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

I don't think it can help us. I think ABolt it right in regards to the anti's not supporting this because it is a RTC Bill. The way it could possibly (remote possibility) hurt us is if supportors, who maybe are not entirely up to speed, put pressure on elected officials to reject the Bill. However, I don't think they would undo the amount of momentum behind HB148/5745.

[kurt555gs]

miztic, on 14 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

I think this guy is taking a non issue of sheriff's objections in HB5748 and trying to convert that non issue into people sending checks to him.

[es503IL]

kurt555gs, on 14 March 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

miztic, on 14 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

I think this guy is taking a non issue of sheriff's objections in HB5748 and trying to convert that non issue into people sending checks to him.

Thats exactly what this is.

[abolt243]

kurt555gs, on 14 March 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

miztic, on 14 March 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Do you think this guns rights org guy spreading panic about HB5745 might actually help us by making the anti people feel like we think it's too restrictive, so they might support it?

I think this guy is taking a non issue of sheriff's objections in HB5748 and trying to convert that non issue into people sending checks to him.

Bingo!

[sirflyguy]

abolt243, on 13 March 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Nearly every CCW law from shall issue states that I've read through (and that's several) has some provision for the local law enforcement to make some kind of documented objection to be taken into consideration by the issuing agency.  You can do what I did, Google each state and read the statutes for yourself.  Here's a couple of exerpts from our neighbors, MO and IN.

Indiana -


© The officer to whom the application is made shall ascertain the applicant's name, full

address, length of residence in the community, whether the applicant's residence is located

within the limits of any city or town, the applicant's occupation, place of business or

employment, criminal record, if any, and convictions (minor traffic offenses excepted), age, race,

sex, nationality, date of birth, citizenship, height, weight, build, color of hair, color of eyes, scars

and marks, whether the applicant has previously held an Indiana license to carry a handgun

and, if so, the serial number of the license and year issued, whether the applicant's license has

ever been suspended or revoked, and if so, the year and reason for the suspension or

revocation, and the applicant's reason for desiring a license. The officer to whom the application

is made shall conduct an investigation into the applicant's official records and verify thereby the

applicant's character and reputation, and shall in addition verify for accuracy the information

contained in the application, and shall forward this information together with the officer's

recommendation for approval or disapproval and one (1) set of legible and classifiable

fingerprints of the applicant to the superintendent.


Missouri -

The Sheriff shall determine that the applicant....... (Paraphrasing the lead in)

(6) Has not engaged in a pattern of behavior, documented in public records, that causes the sheriff to have a reasonable belief that the applicant presents a danger to himself or others;

Was fortunate enough a couple of weeks ago to attend reception for legislators and others in Springfield sponsored by the ISRA.  Had the opportunity to visit with the Chief Legal Counsel of the Illinois Police Benevolent and Protective Assoc.  He told Todd and I and others there that their association polled their 10,000 members across the state on RTC.  The results came back that over 85% of their membership was in favor of RTC.  That's overwhelming support people.  Sure, there will be pockets of resistance.  Missouri had the whole city of St Louis just refuse to issue or honor thier licenses when the law was first passed.   A quick trip to the courts cured that.  

Read the bills, then read them again.  You'll find new things everytime you go through them.  They are good, solid RTC bills.  Actually, they're outstanding bills, given Illinois' record of anti-gun sentiment.   And many may issue states would love to have either of them.

AB

I was talking with a local LEO about HB5745 and he was hopeful for a provision that allowed the sheriff to object to certain folks getting a permit to carry.  Mind you, this guy is very pro-carry.  His point was that they know the ones around the area who have stability issues or who tend to cause trouble a lot.  I didn't see his idea as being restrictive at all, and I think that this is what the provision is about in both HB148 and HB5745.  
He did mention to me that if any LEO approached anyone without the idea that they could be potentially dangerous and carrying a firearm, knife, etc, with the intention of using it, then they were slipping in their diligence as LEOs. He was trying to point out that it would make no difference if carrying was legal or not; they should never let their guard down in dealing with incidents.

[Danielm60660]

BudMan5, on 13 March 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Bob, Bob, Bob

You are one of the people of the people that I must constantly remind myself to be more tolerant.

I don't want to but I have agreed to be more tolerant and respectful online to people like yourself.

And by the way, despite your efforts, right to carry will pass in Illinois this year.  Pass it on to your fictional imaginary lawyer friend too.

If you would like some help reading and understanding the bill, post the parts you find difficult, you know, the "mumbo-jumbo" and some of us will explain it to you.

Bud, you crack me up.

[vess1]

I think this bill is a start.  It looks worse than HB 148 but it may be something that can pass.  For the most part, it looks like at least a step in the right direction.  I don't foresee a problem with the sheriffs.  People are way too paranoid.  Give it a chance!

  I'm more worried about what happens when it gets to Quinns desk.  I don't think Quinn will ever sign anything.  They will have to pass this over his veto, guaranteed.

[abolt243]

Thanks2macdonald, on 15 March 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

I agree on training and proficiency. The CFP course is something I would have taken even if I was not required to do so. Those or similar courses should not be knocked.  I'm not saying training should be mandatory but anyone who wants a gun may not be prepared to take on the responsibility of ownership or CC. Those who CC must make sure they know what all is required physically and mentally when something happens. If you grew up with guns and know them well -  great. But there are 2-3 generations of honest law abiding people who never used guns that suddenly have the right and interest to have a handgun.

On a side note - I think it's great that CC may come because gun laws are not stopping crime anywhere in northern illinois. Maybe things will change if simply there is the perception that a person can fight back with gun.

While I agree that training ought to be the goal of many gun owners that will carry for defense, whenever I hear someone talk of training being mandatory for carry I point them just a little to the East.  (And Mcdonald, this is not aimed at you, I realize that you're not necessarily calling for mandatory training).  East as far as the fair state of Indiana.  They've had a carry law for 75+ years, since 1935.  No training has ever been required.  I've not heard of blood running in the streets of Indianapolis.  Terre Haute is still on the map.  I used to camp in a state park there nearly every weekend in my youth.  I never saw anyone get shot over a camping site.  The worst part of IN seems to be Gary.  And some would say that's the Chicago influence.

Gun safety is just good, common sense.  Don't point it at something that you're not willing to see destroyed.  Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot something.  Etc.  Our culture here in IL has had a chilling effect on our perception of guns.  Even us "gunnies" as Todd calls us, believe just a little bit that bad things just naturally happen around guns unless extraordinary measures are taken to prevent them.   Gun owners/users in other states don't have the same perception.

Training is good, everyone should strive to get as much training as you feel comfortable with.  But using your head, and a dose of good, common sense will go a long way towards a lifetime of gun safety.

JMHO

ABolt

[kurt555gs]

+1 Abolt

[GarandFan]

Kentucky has mandatory "training" (largely because it GREATLY increases the number of reciprocity states).  Quite frankly, it's no training at all.  They do not instruct on gun function or use, on loading, unloading, clearing, or on grip, stance, carry options, or anything like that.  All you do is stand on a line and fire 20 rounds at a "bowling pin" shaped target (about 2/3 the size of an IDPA target).  I can't recall the distance, but it's about 7 meters or so.  You have to get 11 of the 20 shots within the borders of the target (and I think you can get a second try if you fail the first time).  Very few people fail this "training" component.

I'll post a picture of the target, if I can find it.

At any rate, I am opposed to mandatory training in principle, and am a STRONG proponent of voluntary training.  It's just the responsible thing to do.  That said, the "mandatory training" of some states is no training at all ... and also should not be the focus of great discontent.  

As was said earlier ... there are bigger fish to fry.

[Jeffrey]

With all the bickering I've read through this thread, I'd just like to say that I'll take any damn carry law we can get passed.  We have nothing, nada, zilch right now.  Just like politicians, there is no perfect candidate.  We need to start somewhere.  Everyone needs to push this bill on to their legistlators now.

[kurt555gs]

Pennsylvania didn't require any training and it's good in about 18 states. Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

* Carthago delenda est *

[abolt243]

Jeffrey, on 15 March 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

With all the bickering I've read through this thread, I'd just like to say that I'll take any damn carry law we can get passed.  We have nothing, nada, zilch right now.  Just like politicians, there is no perfect candidate.  We need to start somewhere.  Everyone needs to push this bill on to their legistlators now.

Amen Jeffrey!!

[GarandFan]

kurt555gs, on 15 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Pennsylvania didn't require any training and it's good in about 18 states. Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

* Carthago delenda est *

KY license is good in 37 states (more than twice of a PA license).  

Again, while I don't support mandatory training, I am happy to do it for that level of reciprocity (at least until a national carry reciprocity bill is passed).

[GarandFan]

GarandFan, on 15 March 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Kentucky has mandatory "training" (largely because it GREATLY increases the number of reciprocity states).  Quite frankly, it's no training at all.  They do not instruct on gun function or use, on loading, unloading, clearing, or on grip, stance, carry options, or anything like that.  All you do is stand on a line and fire 20 rounds at a "bowling pin" shaped target (about 2/3 the size of an IDPA target).  I can't recall the distance, but it's about 7 meters or so.  You have to get 11 of the 20 shots within the borders of the target (and I think you can get a second try if you fail the first time).  Very few people fail this "training" component.

I'll post a picture of the target, if I can find it.

At any rate, I am opposed to mandatory training in principle, and am a STRONG proponent of voluntary training.  It's just the responsible thing to do.  That said, the "mandatory training" of some states is no training at all ... and also should not be the focus of great discontent.  

As was said earlier ... there are bigger fish to fry.

Here is that target ... the ruler is 24" long.  Glock 22.  First 19 rounds are center-mass, the 20th was to the head (I could not help myself).

[kurt555gs]

Did I see reciprocity with anywhere in either bill? I must have missed reading that.

* Carthago delenda est *

[es503IL]

kurt555gs, on 15 March 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Did I see reciprocity with anywhere in either bill? I must have missed reading that.

* Carthago delenda est *

HB822... Avoids the whole issue... Lets hope it passes the Senate now...

Edited by es503IL, 15 March 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[hunterdale]

Pennsylvania didn't require any training and it's good in about 18 states. Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

Currently the PA permit is good in 25 states, including all that border Illinois.

Edited by hunterdale, 15 March 2012 - 06:40 PM.

[Bud]

hunterdale, on 15 March 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Pennsylvania didn't require any training and it's good in about 18 states. Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

Currently the PA permit is good in 25 states, including all that border Illinois.

Riciprocity is negotiated between State Attorney Generals after the law is passed. The Wisconsin AG (who is pro gun) was able to match his States with I think 25 (?) other States in order to grant reciprocity.

When the Illinois law is passed (which will be this year, BTW) Lisa of the Clan Madigan ( I am Irish so it's my time of the year) will get to negotiate with all the other States. Since Illinois will have some pretty stiff issue requirements, we should have a very small reciprocation base. I am guessing less then 10. Lisa of the Clan Madigan will have to compare our requirements and see which other States required at least the same or even more stringent in order to grant receiprocity

Edited by BudMan5, 15 March 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[Xwing]

kurt555gs, on 15 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

* Carthago delenda est *

Yes!  I think that mandatory training is a very small fish to fry.  The training requirements are to be set by the ISP, and are set up that way to get the ISP's acceptance for the bill.  Fair enough.  I don't think their mandatory training course will really add any value.  ISPA and self-defense training is much more valuable.  But I don't mind spending a few hours going over gun laws and shooting at a few targets.  It's usually pretty fun anyway.  

Should there be such restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights?  Not really.  But are the restrictions proposed livable, and worth it to get that right recognized by Illinois?  Absolutely!

Edited by Xwing, 16 March 2012 - 08:59 AM.

[Vaden]

Xwing, on 16 March 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

kurt555gs, on 15 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

Training in an Illinois permit is really only there for political reasons. What ever it ends up as is fine as long as I can carry.

* Carthago delenda est *

Yes!  I think that mandatory training is a very small fish to fry.  The training requirements are to be set by the ISP, and are set up that way to get the ISP's acceptance for the bill.  Fair enough.  I don't think their mandatory training course will really add any value.  ISPA and self-defense training is much more valuable.  But I don't mind spending a few hours going over gun laws and shooting at a few targets.  It's usually pretty fun anyway.  

Should there be such restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights?  Not really.  But are the restrictions proposed livable, and worth it to get that right recognized by Illinois?  Absolutely!

I agree, and if there was NO requirement for any sort of training class, I would HOPE that anyone who applied for a CCW license would have the foresight to take a class or two anyways. I have been looking into taking a defensive pistol class or two lately, standing at a range shooting a piece of paper does not prepare you for the reality of having to use that firearm in a real life situation.