54 replies to this topic

[Slappy]

I have the new official documents for Winnebago County.

They are both currently Drafts.

I am hosting them in PDF format.

Resolution of the County Board of the County of Winnebago, Illinois

and

Countywide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions



UPDATE: As newer versions of these documents or other documents come up, I will post them in this initial first post as new lines with new dates. This way we have a centralized place to view them and find them.


Make sure to check back to this post for updates periodically.


side note: This is really happening people! I'm very excited!  

[Kenny]

Please everyone look at them & voice any opinions or concern here in this thread so I can get the concerns to the board before they get a final draft we do have some say in this. Please only serious edits only. Thanks I will be printing this thread to give to the board so no senseless chatter please.

[junglebob]

Reading over the requirements for getting the Winnebago permit and places carry is prohibited, it looks good to me.   I think a state CCW legislation that mirrored this would be great.   I noticed that NRA handgun safety or training courses, and personal protection courses fulfill the training requirement.   Also it says possession of a valid license to carry issued by a law enforcement officer means you meet the requirements.   You folks with a Pa permit should qualify as Sheriff Nau issues it.

[Lou]

Looks pretty reasonable to me.   I think the training requirements are reasonable.

One thing I'd like to see change is this sentence:

Quote

(2) The Sheriff shall issue timely and without delay the concealed handgun permit to all
qualified applicants

The current sheriff is on our side but how about down the line?  A subsequent gun-grabber sherrif could consider a 2 year wait "timely"  Specify 30-60-90 days or some other specific timeframe.

Admittedly this is a small change but could head off problems down the line.

[Don Gwinn]

The simplest way to do that is probably to ask Sheriff Meyers what he thinks a "timely" limit would be, and just use his figure.  I think we can trust him to be reasonable, but I share your concern.  It's good that Sheriff Meyers is a reasonable guy, but if possible, let's make sure the next guy has to be as reasonable as Mr. Meyers.
Otherwise I like it.  It would be great to eliminate the training requirement (for the same reasons) but not if it's a dealbreaker.

[Traken]

Hmm... I just wanted to verify this part with you guys and see if I got it right.

"A current and valid concealed handgun permit issued by another state
shall be deemed to be valid within this county."

So that means, if we have a PA permit or something like that, Winnebago county will honor it?

[Kenny]

That is the plan I believe. It may also be used to get a Winnebago county permit.

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Quote

"A current and valid concealed handgun permit issued by another state
shall be deemed to be valid within this county."

So that means, if we have a PA permit or something like that, Winnebago county will honor it?

The only thing is there is no training requirement for a PA permit....if they want to honor it great but I just want to sure its consistant.

[Board9]

May I also add that responses be posted as well to my Guestbook on my web site?  www.fredwescott.com . These comments will be used as fodder for passing the resolution.

CAP Conceal An Protect

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Also section I2 would force you to violate your 5th amendment rights if you encounter a state cop that wants to get you on the state law.

section M basically voids the permit within incorporated city limits due to the state law

section N8&9 are not as favorable but I know we have to start somewhere...section N11 is more of a national problem in CCW but is still not the best but it just solidifies section M


looks to me like a guy could really get into some trouble via the state laws by the way this is written up....I know we have to start somewhere and I know we can expect a "test case" in the early stages but I would hate to see good citizens get railroaded....Either way I think the message that is being sent to springfield and chicastro are going to be more important in the long run.

[Kaeghl]

I noticed no mention of the actual fees involved, past how they might be pro-rated. Where might these fees be directed, after the amount required for the actual acmistration details and costs of criminal history checks and materials for the actual cards/permits? Or would that come later?

Is there any way to word this with a built in preemption, so say....Loves Park can't whip up a further restriction to add to their list of anti-gun right ordinances/laws?

Was there any direction as to how a business must 'post' CPZ (Criminal Protection Zone) signs? Or would that be left up to the business owner? Where I work, it's in the employee handbook, but what would they do for other tradespeople that come on-site for contracted work? And then there's the question of what are the requirements for retail establishments? Or again, would that come later?

[Mike]

" A current and valid concealed handgun permit issued by another state shall be deemed to be valid within this county."

Does this mean that as a Winnebago County resident I can legally carry with my non-resident Florida or Utah permit even if I don't apply for a Winnebago County Permit?

[JBomb]

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't.  Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

Maybe I don't understand...does "public record" mean any person for any reason can access a database of law abiding gun owners who have CCW permits.  Doesn't that also mean a criminal could have access to these files?  I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't want criminals knowing where I live, and the fact that YES, I probably do have firearms.

I just think it's a bad idea.

What are your thoughts?

Kind Regards,

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Quote

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't. Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

I dont like it either.........

[Slappy]

JBomb, on Jun 18 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't.  Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

Maybe I don't understand...does "public record" mean any person for any reason can access a database of law abiding gun owners who have CCW permits.  Doesn't that also mean a criminal could have access to these files?  I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't want criminals knowing where I live, and the fact that YES, I probably do have firearms.

I just think it's a bad idea.

What are your thoughts?

Kind Regards,

I do recall a newspaper, I believe it was in Virginia, published online the entire list of CC license holders and also remembering all hell broke loose. I do not believe this information has to be public.

Also in regards to a "Timely manner" for the Sheriff to issue these permits, could it state something like "in a timely manner, not exceeding 60 days" in order for that to be reconciled?

[Traken]

MARKHOLSTRUM, on Jun 18 2008, 09:49 AM, said:

Quote

"A current and valid concealed handgun permit issued by another state
shall be deemed to be valid within this county."

So that means, if we have a PA permit or something like that, Winnebago county will honor it?

The only thing is there is no training requirement for a PA permit....if they want to honor it great but I just want to sure its consistant.

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at. I eventually want to get Utah or Florida, but I'm curious how the PA one will fare.

[Traken]

Oh yeah, and another thing, where it says that people can't carry in churches and whatnot, does that mean even if the church is fine with people in it's congregation carrying? It just makes me think of what happened in CO a while back and how if someone decided to come in and start shooting, it wouldn't matter if our firearms are back in the car?

(I mean, I'm not even a Winn. county resident, but I'm still curious. heh)

[Slappy]

Traken, on Jun 18 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

Oh yeah, and another thing, where it says that people can't carry in churches and whatnot, does that mean even if the church is fine with people in it's congregation carrying? It just makes me think of what happened in CO a while back and how if someone decided to come in and start shooting, it wouldn't matter if our firearms are back in the car?

(I mean, I'm not even a Winn. county resident, but I'm still curious. heh)

Good point... That should be up to the owner of the establishment, I think... If I own a business or run a church and allow people to carry in its confine's then why should that be illegal?

[junglebob]

JBomb, on Jun 18 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't.  Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

Maybe I don't understand...does "public record" mean any person for any reason can access a database of law abiding gun owners who have CCW permits.  Doesn't that also mean a criminal could have access to these files?  I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't want criminals knowing where I live, and the fact that YES, I probably do have firearms.

I just think it's a bad idea.

What are your thoughts?

Kind Regards,

That is a little confusing.  It says the info is public record, then after that is says the name of someone who has applied for or been issued a permit will only be disclosed to law enforcement.   I guess I skipped over the public record part.  That does cause concerns, I know in Ohio some newspaper got a list of CCW permit holders and published it in their paper.   A CCW permit holder was killed in a robbery at his place of business, people wonder if he was killed then his business robbed because his name was on "the list".   This might also be used in child custody and visitation cases to get some anti gun judge to deny visitation to a CCW license holder.

Wow, I missed #8 of places -  prohibited churches, synagouges, and mosques don't like that, leave it up the the individual worship place if they want to prohibit.   This doesn't even allow them to say yes we want to allow carry.   The chuch could have a volunteer security force like New Life Church in Colorado.  This relegates them to the use of pepper spray and other less than effective forms of defending their congregation.  Haven't we learned anything since that day that Jeanne Assam stopped the killer who took 4 lives in that Church.    Why does this always get into proposed CCW legislation, not every pastor is a Pfleger?

[Molly B.]

JBomb, on Jun 18 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't.  Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

Maybe I don't understand...does "public record" mean any person for any reason can access a database of law abiding gun owners who have CCW permits.  Doesn't that also mean a criminal could have access to these files?  I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't want criminals knowing where I live, and the fact that YES, I probably do have firearms.

I just think it's a bad idea.

What are your thoughts?

Kind Regards,

This could be very detrimental to someone with a carry permit for personal protection and has moved to a new address because they were a stalking victim or someone who has fled an abusive relationship - many women go into hiding in order to try escape the abuser.  They could be exposed to serious danger if their location is revealed.

[Kenny]

Quote

This could be very detrimental to someone with a carry permit for personal protection and has moved to a new address because they were a stalking victim or someone who has fled an abusive relationship - many women go into hiding in order to try escape the abuser. They could be exposed to serious danger if their location is revealed.

I see your point but if a woman has a CC permit: The stalker or abusive boyfriend deserves what he will get.
my $.02

[Buzzard]

JBomb, on Jun 18 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't.  Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

Maybe I don't understand...does "public record" mean any person for any reason can access a database of law abiding gun owners who have CCW permits.  Doesn't that also mean a criminal could have access to these files?  I don't know about everyone else, but, I don't want criminals knowing where I live, and the fact that YES, I probably do have firearms.

I just think it's a bad idea.

What are your thoughts?

Kind Regards,

The names of concealed carry permit holders should NOT be public record for the reasons mentioned above.

A the very least it would effectively "nullify" the concealment factor to anyone that would obtain a list of permit holders. A person may as well wear a sign saying "I've got a permit and am carrying."

Criminals that obtained a list of permit holders could possibly target their homes to steal firearms when the owners not home. This recently happened in Ogle county when someone coerced several teens to break into a man's home who was known to be in the hospital. One teen was fatally shot by a friend who was watching the house for the hospitalized owner.

Anyone with anti-gun sentiments could publish the information to "punish" the permit holders.

And I could also imagine perhaps the child custody and/or visitation issues possibly arrising.

It could even influence parents as to whose children they allow their children to play with.

This is a very bad idea to make the names of permit holders public record.  This should ONLY be available to law enforcement.

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Quote

This is a very bad idea to make the names of permit holders public record. This should ONLY be available to law enforcement.

I know the Sheriff's office will have to run the program but if someone is a criminal they could arm themselves no matter if they have a permit or not.....all I see happening with the "availible to law enforcement" is giving more excuses to try and search you when you get pulled over.

[burningspear]

The County concealed carry proposal should be re-written.  It should be styled after either the Pennsylvania law or the Missouri law.  It is not necessary to "reinvent the wheel."  Some aspects of the proposed Illinois Family Protection Act could be incorporated.

Also, the training requirement is more than is actually needed.  The experiences of the states with concealed/open carry laws on the books should be reviewed.  

Remember:  Classes or no classes, legally armed citizens, carrying concealed or openly, will not, have not, and never will be the cause of the large number of murders, armed robberies, and home invasions in Chicago, Maywood, Bellwood, and other cities and communities in Illinois and the nation.

[rott]

My main concern is the "public record" that has been discussed prior to my post.  That said, I wrote up these concerns earlier but was having computer issues.  I'm lazy, so I'm going to copy and paste everything here:

Paragraph A, Section 2, Subsection (a) and (:

Subsection (a) states that a permit holder’s name, address, DOB will be public record.
Subsection ( states that the information from someone who has applied for a permit or obtained a permit shall not be of public record.  

Aren’t these two subsections conflicting?

If a permit holder’s information is public, then criminals will be able to use that information to determine where to go to steal firearms.  I also believe having that information public puts permit holders in danger.  I would not want my name, address, DOB and the fact that I have a permit to be public record.  Ohio had something like this that allowed journalists to get lists of permit holders and their addresses.  Journalists (some) then printed lists of permit holders in the paper.  It took a while, but I believe Ohio has since modified the law to discontinue this.

Paragraph I, Section 3, Part (a):

If Illinois law allows people to be behind the wheel of an automobile with a BAC of .08, why would there be a different rule for a permit holder.  Alcohol and firearms do not mix, but a car traveling at 35mph has a lot more energy, and is a lot more dangerous, than a bullet.  I believe it would make a lot more sense to keep the limit the same between operating a motor vehicle and carrying a defensive tool.

[HighHeeledGoddess]

None of these would effect me, but I have some trouble with C 1, 8, and 15 -

"C. To qualify for a concealed handgun permit, a citizen shall:
(1) .........Any permittee under
this Section shall notify the department of any address or name change within thirty days
of the change........"

I'd like to see this stretched to 60. Changing your name is very involved. Additionally, what proof of name change will be expected, if any? They should give as much time as you have to change your driver's license, which I believe is 60 or 90 days.

"(8) Not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages to the extent that his
normal faculties are impaired. It shall be presumed that an applicant or permittee
chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal
faculties are impaired if the applicant has been found guilty of, or entered a plea of
guilty or operating a vehicle while intoxicated, or has been admitted, either
voluntarily or involuntarily, for treatment as an alcoholic, within the five-year
period immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted, or
at any time after the application has been submitted."

If the person is unarmed at the time and it is a first offense this should be waved. Everyone makes mistakes. I don't think it should really matter at all if you're unarmed, but I regress........


"(15) Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a
discharge characterized as "Under Other than Honorable Conditions", a "Bad Conduct
Discharge", or a "Dishonorable Discharge"."

There should be some sort of time limit on that. I mean, if someone is 18 messes up and gets kicked out that shouldn't still be haunting them at every turn 10-20 years later. I know a few people who were kicked out of the services. One of my friends got an "Under Other than Honorable" due to pregnancy.

I 2
"(2) A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any
police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified
official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow
the officer to temporarily disarm him."

Why should I have to do this at a routine traffic stop? Does this not give police the excuse to act inappropriately? I think this should only be required if you are arrested in which case they ASK you before they pat you down if you have any weapons. That should not change. No need to make cops feel all scared and edgy over a speeding ticket or burned out blinker. If someone planned to use a concealed firearm against a police officer, they certainly wont be following this law, anyway.

R1
"R.( 1) Each permittee, within fifteen days of a misdemeanor or a felony arrest, other than
a minor traffic violation, in this county, state of Illinois or any other state, shall notify the
Sheriff by certified mail."

30 days outside of jail would be more fair. If you've been charged with a crime you have a great deal going on, and sending a certified letter may be one of the last things on your mind.

I also wanted to throw in my 2 cents against public record, for reasons stated. The applicants should be known to no one but the office handling them, and release them upon subpoena only.

[Gooch]

MARKHOLSTRUM, on Jun 18 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

Quote

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is
issued shall be public record.

Does anyone else have a problem with this...I don't believe it should be anyone's business who has a permit and who doesn't. Other than law enforcement, I think this information should be private.

I dont like it either.........

Count me in on this. There is NO WAY I want this information public record. Bad, bad, bad, idea.

Gooch

[Board9]

I agree on the public record issue with too much information posted. I will state that case to the committee as well as the rest of you and there is some other issues that need tweaking. It isn't a perfect resolution as of yet but with everyones input it could be. We need to start somewhere and NOT allow this to end up like the one down state.

[Slappy]

Board9, on Jun 19 2008, 06:52 AM, said:

I agree on the public record issue with too much information posted. I will state that case to the committee as well as the rest of you and there is some other issues that need tweaking. It isn't a perfect resolution as of yet but with everyones input it could be. We need to start somewhere and NOT allow this to end up like the one down state.

Thats why we are here! We have 48 other states we can learn from...

May these documents set the tone for a new Illinois!

[MARKHOLSTRUM]

Quote

"(15) Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a
discharge characterized as "Under Other than Honorable Conditions", a "Bad Conduct
Discharge", or a "Dishonorable Discharge"."

There should be some sort of time limit on that. I mean, if someone is 18 messes up and gets kicked out that shouldn't still be haunting them at every turn 10-20 years later. I know a few people who were kicked out of the services. One of my friends got an "Under Other than Honorable" due to pregnancy.

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