Jump to content


Photo

Requirement For Concealed Carry?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
56 replies to this topic

#1 barny750

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 05

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:05 PM

Hello, I am new to this forum and I'm happy to see it. I have been in favor of concealed carry in Illinois for a long time. This topic may already have been discussed here but I didnt see it.

I would like to know what you believe the requirements should be to carry concealed in Illinois should the state government ever realize the benifits of such law.

I will start with what I believe they should be. Just to give alittle of my background first, I have been in law enforcement for a very rural agency for the past 6 years. Our response time has been as long as 25 to 30 minutes. When one officer is covering approximately 800 square miles, its hard to have fast response time.

1: Of course no felony convictions or violant crime convictions.
2: Valid FOID card.
3: At least 21 years old.
4: Fingerprint background check.
5: A minimum of 40 hours training. (In Illinois, Law enforcement must have 40 hours of training to carry.)
6: Extensive annual use of force training.
7: Mandatory annual requalifications. (As of this year Law enforcement must requalify every year.)
8: Some way to identify to police that you have a ccw permit. Listed with DL returns.

Please tell me what you think.

#2 SAK

    Member

  • Banned
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 05

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:29 PM

40 hours training would be absolutely ridiculous. It is a right we have to bear arms, not a privelege that we can thankfully enjoy after dumping $100s of dollars on training and paperwork. It should be a will-issue system, with no training requirement IMHO. That is what we should shoot for. If anything, 3-5 hours MAX training.

#3 45superman

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • 9,128 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:34 PM

Welcome aboard, Barny.

The requirements you propose are somewhat more stringent than what I would have in mind. For one thing, 40 hours of training would be awfully expensive (do any shall issue states require that much?). I can understand why it might seem logical to demand the same kind of training requirements for civilians as you would for law enforcement, but it seems to me that regular citizens are in a much different situation from law enforcement officers. We won't be called on to face the same situations that many officers have to deal with on a nightly basis. Ditto with the use of force training and annual qualifications. I don't think it's realistic or logical to demand the same kind of training for people who would only use a gun (or even draw it) in the absolute last extreme to save their lives, or the life of another, as you would a professional, who carries a firearm, and is expected to deal with dangerous people as part of his job.

Please don't take my disagreement as criticsim--I don't think your question has been addressed here before, and it is definitely something we ought to think about.
My gun rights blog
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner
NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, SAF, GOA and JPFO Life Member

#4 ilphil

    Ornery Skeptic

  • Members
  • 2,718 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 05

Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:57 PM

Sorry, but I think 40 hrs and annual re-qualification is way too extreme. That is well beyond the requirements of other states, even Kalifornia.
Although, I bet that type of set-up would be acceptable to many anti's because they know it would make CCW prohibitively expensive for most people.
Holding civilians to LEO training standards doesn't make sense...unless we get the same privileges as they do, of course.

#5 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 20 September 2005 - 09:20 PM

Hello, I am new to this forum and I'm happy to see it. I have been in favor of concealed carry in Illinois for a long time. This topic may already have been discussed here but I didnt see it.

I would like to know what you believe the requirements should be to carry concealed in Illinois should the state government ever realize the benifits of such law.

I will start with what I believe they should be. Just to give alittle of my background first, I have been in law enforcement for a very rural agency for the past 6 years. Our response time has been as long as 25 to 30 minutes. When one officer is covering approximately 800 square miles, its hard to have fast response time.

1: Of course no felony convictions or violant crime convictions.
2: Valid FOID card.
3: At least 21 years old.
4: Fingerprint background check.
5: A minimum of 40 hours training. (In Illinois, Law enforcement must have 40 hours of training to carry.)
6: Extensive annual use of force training.
7: Mandatory annual requalifications. (As of this year Law enforcement must requalify every year.)
8: Some way to identify to police that you have a ccw permit. Listed with DL returns.

Please tell me what you think.

Just check out HB2567 and HB2607.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#6 Blaster

    Site Founder

  • Admin
  • 2,790 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 04

Posted 20 September 2005 - 09:23 PM

Read entire bill

Link to bill
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-Mark Twain

Sometimes ya gotta cause a little fruckus.
-Colleen Lawson

Certified NRA Pistol Instructor
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Life Member- ISRA
Member- NRA

#7 barny750

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 05

Posted 20 September 2005 - 11:53 PM

OK, I can see the point about the 40 hours being a little to extreme. But there must be much more than 3 or 4 hours of training. If you get a decent size class in the training with one or two instructors, 4 hours is not enough time to make sure all students have the proper knowledge of laws, when and when not to use the weapon, maintence, sight picture, ballistics ect... There must be enought time for the instructor to be sure that every student is capable of safely handleing his or her weapon.

I know the responsible gun owner (MOST OF US) will not misuse the weapon. I am in no way suggesting otherwise. Its the few idiots out there who I am worried about. Belive me they are out there.

I am sticking to my opinion on the annual requalification. I was happy to see the state finally require the annual requal's for police. I have known officers who havent fired their weapon in over 5 years. You must practice to stay proficient. I dont want anyone carrying a weapon (civilian or officer) who cant handle the weapon.

As for the cost of the training. Believe me I know how hard it is to come up with extra money. I believe the cost should be reasonable. Most people can budget $200 to $300 if it is a necessity. That amount should only be at the initial training. The annual requal's must be much much less, if anything.

Again, this is only my opinion, take it or leave it. I do wish the state would get with the times and pass a ccw law. But as long as Chicago is in charge, I doubt it will happen.

#8 45superman

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • 9,128 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 02:54 AM

Barny, another point to consider is that most non-LEO types who would jump through the hoops to get a permit are shooters, meaning they're probably getting a significant amount of range time anyway. Contrast that with law enforcement, which, from what I've been made to understand, can be broken down into two types--gun people, who like to talk about guns, like to buy guns, and like to shoot; and non-gun types, who shoot only enough to qualify. I can understand requiring annual requalification in law enforcement circles, just to make sure the non-gun types are up to speed, but I think it adds an unnecessary burden for non-LEO folks. Also consider the administrative costs of handling all the requalification shoots--those would undoubtedly be passed onto the "consumer" (i.e., the permit holder), in the form of higher permit fees.
Among those of us pushing for CCW, I think it will be a hard sell to require requalification more often than renewal of the permit (most likely 3, 4 or even 5 years). There might be some objection to even that. I do get your point--the idea of unqualified people carrying firearms is not exactly confidence inspiring. Still, I don't know of any "shall issue" state that requires annual requalification, and I also haven't heard of any "friendly fire" incidents with permit holders.
My gun rights blog
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner
NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, SAF, GOA and JPFO Life Member

#9 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 07:13 AM

Welcome to the forum barny750, and thank you for the input. In my opinion, some of the criteria you specified are unduly restrictive.

As the current laws are written, it stands to reason you'd have to have a FOID card to carry. I think the entire FOID concept is unconstitutional and pointless, however, so ideally I'd like to see it totally eliminated.

Why are fingerprints necessary? Does a fingerprint background check reveal things about someone that a regular background check can't? It seems like the government already knows plenty about me without adding my fingerprints to the file.

I agree with what others have said - 40 hours of training seems excessive. I'd only being drawing a weapon to stop an immediate threat to my safety. By virtue of their jobs, LEOs are more likely to use a sidearm in a variety of high stress situations, thus making comprehensive training appropriate.

I think annual requalifications are too stringent for the same reasons.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#10 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 08:12 AM

Barny says:

I am sticking to my opinion on the annual requalification. I was happy to see the state finally require the annual requal's for police. I have known officers who havent fired their weapon in over 5 years. You must practice to stay proficient. I dont want anyone carrying a weapon (civilian or officer) who cant handle the weapon.


...to be quite frank that statement sounds very much what a anti would say and "want".


Most of us here are shooters already and practice beyond what most of our wallets would allow. We go without on other items of importance (like buying the wife a new ring, or necklace...even an evening dress) just to keep our ammo stocks up.

...and most officers due go to the range and practice. I doubt probably as much as some of us, but they do. Then there are those who, like you said, haven't fired off a round in "x" amount of years.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#11 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 08:14 AM

Welcome to the forum barny750, and thank you for the input. In my opinion, some of the criteria you specified are unduly restrictive.

As the current laws are written, it stands to reason you'd have to have a FOID card to carry. I think the entire FOID concept is unconstitutional and pointless, however, so ideally I'd like to see it totally eliminated.

Why are fingerprints necessary? Does a fingerprint background check reveal things about someone that a regular background check can't? It seems like the government already knows plenty about me without adding my fingerprints to the file.

I agree with what others have said - 40 hours of training seems excessive. I'd only being drawing a weapon to stop an immediate threat to my safety. By virtue of their jobs, LEOs are more likely to use a sidearm in a variety of high stress situations, thus making comprehensive training appropriate.

I think annual requalifications are too stringent for the same reasons.

...got that right!


Note: We need a thumbs up Icon.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#12 mack69

    "The surely one"

  • Moderator
  • 4,232 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 08:38 AM

Barney welcome to IllinoisCarry....
I'm jumping on the "too stringent" bandwagon as well...I'm 50 years old and have been shooting firearms for 30+ years... some years more than others. I practice at the very least every other week for 3-4 hours at a crack and not with just one firearm.
I have friends who are currently or have been in the LE community that don't come anywhere near that amount of range time in their careers.
I believe some training is a good thing, (basic NRA pistol/rifle training) but it should not be the deciding factor on whether or not citizens can be licensed to carry. As far as formal training...40 hours would be an extreme expense and doubtful most of us would be able to afford that. Most LEO's wouldn't either if the $$$ had to come out of their own pocket instead of the departments.
The FOID act unfortunately I believe is here to stay, though it should be trashed as totally unconstitutional and paralells what many of us think is the nazi gun control/ban of years gone by.
Your comment on how long it takes for a LEO to be on site after a call is exactly why citizens need to be able to defend themselves as we can not rely on the LEO's to keep us safe. In a violent situation seconds are a lifetime....Minutes may as well be days....
Finger printing means squat, though I don't worry about it as mine have been in the system for years...but that is just another unnecessary hoop to jump through.
Two things I want to see...
Preemption and Shall/Will issue
"The defense of our liberties is first at the ballot box, then the soap box, then the jury box and finally, failing all else, the cartridge box"
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

-- George Orwell


#13 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 12:01 PM

Barney welcome to the forum. I'll have to agree with the other posts, 40 hours training is to big a requirement. I wouldn't doubt that it might be $300 plus for a course with 40 hours of training, some moderate cost one day courses are $150.
I think something along the lines of Florida or Utah's training requirement would be better. Florida has had concealed carry for quite a few years and they haven't seen a need to increase they training requirement or require annual requalification. Even some of the outspoken law enforcement leaders who warned of "blood in the streets" have admitted concealed carry hasn't caused problems.

Indiana has had concealed since 1980 with no training requirement at all, Kentucky since 1996 doesn't either . New Hampshire has had carry since 1923 and has no training requirement.

If Florida hasn't increased their training requirement after 18 years, they must think it's sufficient too.

Since you're in rural law enforcement, I'm curious what the attitude is among your fellow officers about carry in Illinois?
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#14 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 12:02 PM

Barney welcome to the forum. I'll have to agree with the other posts, 40 hours training is to big a requirement. I wouldn't doubt that it might be $300 plus for a course with 40 hours of training, some moderate cost one day courses are $150.
I think something along the lines of Florida or Utah's training requirement would be better. Florida has had concealed carry for quite a few years and they haven't seen a need to increase they training requirement or require annual requalification. Even some of the outspoken law enforcement leaders who warned of "blood in the streets" have admitted concealed carry hasn't caused problems.

Indiana has had concealed since 1980 with no training requirement at all, Kentucky since 1996 doesn't either . New Hampshire has had carry since 1923 and has no training requirement.

If Florida hasn't increased their training requirement after 18 years, they must think it's sufficient too.

Since you're in rural law enforcement, I'm curious what the attitude is among your fellow officers about carry in Illinois?
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#15 Ocellairs

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,282 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 12:21 PM

JB said:

Since you're in rural law enforcement, I'm curious what the attitude is among your fellow officers about carry in Illinois?


I would like to see an "honest" and trustworthy poll that can be verified as too the total number of Illinois LEO's of all walks of life that believe CCW is either bad or good for Illinois.

I know down around my parts (the locals High office LEO's) believe CCW would benefit Illinois...especially Cook county.

Always remember that others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
Richard M Nixon


For I dipped into the Future, far as human eye could see; saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

1842


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.


#16 Kaeghl

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,492 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 12:23 PM

Hmmm interesting subject.

About the foid...why not just bump the cost up to $15.00 for 5 years, to cover the actual cost. That can be the basis for the CCW in IL. The 'machinery' for conducting the required background checks and record keeping are already in place, so just need a tweek on the printing on the face about "This IS a permit to carry concealed".

Heck make it mandatory to have a light blue background in the photo, instead of the off-white, so it can be distinguished from a FOID, if anyone just wants that.

But requirement for CCW? Simple....Pre-emption, total for the state. Shall Issue at state police authority level within a specified time, (no good ol' boy Sherrif Bubba or Chicago City Chief of Gestap.....uhhh police holding up the paperwork), and castle doctrine to include immunity from lawsuits from surviving family members of felons sent to their reward for committing crimes. And NO insurance requirements. This is CCW, not an insurance policy sales program

Training requirements? I have had more training, even out of date at this time, than many of the deputies and scattered LEO's in this state. Perhaps just a requirement to familiarize one's self with case law, and RoE.....

I see no reason to re-qualilfy with my choice of firearm or even spend valuable $$$ on extra training than you can get from even NRA training classes.... When Mo. went CCW, the classes for that training were booked and filled immediately.
They are, or would be available.

Doesn't Texas, among other states have CCW notation tied to DL's and License plates for traffic stops? So that would be easy and no need to 'notify' the LEO if stopped.

I have my Florida CCW, so my prints are on file in FL, as well as where ever the Pentagon keeps thier old files. FBI? Prints are only used in the background check for identification of applicant, anyway.

Didn't we have a CCW law wish list up here about that a few months ago?

Just my thoughts.....

#17 Trefilov22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 01:06 PM

Well as an Ex-LEO in Southern IL (just outside St. Louis) myself, I can honestly say that those requirements are nuts. Now if we have to do something to appease, so to speak, the anti's, have people take some sort of short test to prove they know how to use a gun. something they can do when they go to the range to shoot anyways. Make it so that rangemasters can sign off after they watch someone plug 10 rounds down range and charge like $10 or something to do so. He/She signs off on it, you mail it in with your app and bam you are done. Now I know its $10 (or whatever the REASONABLE cost would be), BUT it satisfies the ANTI's that these people know how to shoot a gun, and it generates some revenue that the state most undoubtedly would want.....

As for my LEO experiences, I would rather have people on the streets who can help me when the $hit hits the fan than people who can't. When backup is 10 minutes or more away, the more help the better. Heck I would give my backup weapon to someone willing to help if the need arose....
Trefilov22

Support Concealed Carry in Illinois!
Petition in Support of CCW for Illinois!
Ruger P89T
Smith & Wesson 4006
Smith & Wesson M&P .40
Smith & Wesson M&P .40c w/Crimson Trace Laser
Remington 870 Combo
Yugoslavian SKS 59/66
Unknown .30-06
KelTec P-11

My Blog!

"I can't take a day off from work to go stand in the street and protest all day long like an illegal immigrant. But I did have time to send you this brick so that you could get started building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico."

#18 GlockShooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,160 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 01:20 PM

Well, since the training requirements issue has been thoroughly covered, I'll move on to a lesser point. ;)

I don't think I would make being a valid FOID holder a requirement for CCW. In order to get a CCW permit, you would obviously would have to meet all of the prerequisites needed to get a FOID, so it seems redundant. I would say that if you qualify for CCW, you should be able to use it in place of a FOID card. One less thing to re-apply for every 5 years!

BTW - Sorry to be rude.......welcome to the forum! It's good to know we have a few officers backing our cause! ;)

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.
abolt243


#19 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 01:32 PM

I don't think I would make being a valid FOID holder a requirement for CCW. In order to get a CCW permit, you would obviously would have to meet all of the prerequisites needed to get a FOID, so it seems redundant. I would say that if you qualify for CCW, you should be able to use it in place of a FOID card. One less thing to re-apply for every 5 years!

Given the current reality, that makes logistical sense. There's no reason to waste time and money issuing people 2 pieces of firearm-related ID. It would be simpler to just get an endorsement on your FOID stating you're also qualified to carry.

That said, I still mainain that the existence of a FOID system in any form is an eggregious breach of liberty. Having to pay the government for a piece of identification and registering with the police in order to exercise a guaranteed freedom flies in face of the concept of a Bill of Rights.

If I could have my own way, every state in the Union would be Vermont style for all aspects of gun ownership.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#20 45superman

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • 9,128 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 02:50 PM

I can think of one benefit that might come from having more stringent requirements than I would otherwise support. I would think that if (when) we get CCW here, we would want our permits to be honored in as many states as possible. However, most states will not work out that kind of reciprocity agreement with a state that has less stringent requirements than they have (because they don't want people getting around meeting their requirements by getting a permit from a state with lesser requirements).
Still, that reason is not enough for me to support really inconvenient (and/or expensive) requirements.
My gun rights blog
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner
NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, SAF, GOA and JPFO Life Member

#21 GlockShooter

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,160 posts
  • Joined: 12-March 05

Posted 21 September 2005 - 02:54 PM

Good point 460, but by the time Illinois comes around, I'm guessing a lot of the folks that want to carry will already have out-of-state permits. heck, if Illinois ends up honoring an out-of-state permit that I already have, I may just forget the Illinois permit out of spite!

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. Once they have all the guns, they'll also have complete control.
abolt243


#22 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 21 September 2005 - 02:54 PM

I can think of one benefit that might come from having more stringent requirements than I would otherwise support. I would think that if (when) we get CCW here, we would want our permits to be honored in as many states as possible. However, most states will not work out that kind of reciprocity agreement with a state that has less stringent requirements than they have (because they don't want people getting around meeting their requirements by getting a permit from a state with lesser requirements).
Still, that reason is not enough for me to support really inconvenient (and/or expensive) requirements.

I don't anticipate you having anything to worry about, my friend. I imagine we'll all be cold in the ground before other states start complaining that Illinois's firearms laws are too lenient.

Nonetheless, your point still has theoretical merit.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#23 barny750

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Joined: 20-September 05

Posted 22 September 2005 - 09:28 PM

Thanks everyone for the response. I want to make on thing clear: In no way am I anti gun owner. I really believe that CCW would be a good thing in Illinois.

Someone asked if what other officers think of CCW in Illinois. Most around this area (South Central Illinois East of St. Louis) that I have discussed this are against it. I have talked to a few around here that are for it.

I'm sorry but I really beleive there needs to be some sort of training, mabey not 40 hours but it needs to be enough time to include the legal issues, liability issues, basic maint. and range time.

As for the annual requal's, I think going to the range once a year and shooting off 25 to 50 rounds wont break the bank for too many people.

I am glad to get the conversation going. I look foward to discussing the topic again.

#24 45superman

    Member

  • Senior Member
  • 9,128 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 22 September 2005 - 10:19 PM

Barny,
I, for one, have no doubt you are on our side. As to the differences in opinion about the amount of training necessary--I think there's room for some friendly disagreement. Certainly if given the choice between no CCW at all, or CCW with the requirements you propose, I would (grumpily) choose to have CCW, with the stringent requirements (although I would work hard to get those requirements lightened).
My gun rights blog
St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner
NRA, ISRA, CCRKBA, SAF, GOA and JPFO Life Member

#25 SmershAgent

    Member

  • Admin
  • 4,376 posts
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 22 September 2005 - 11:11 PM

Someone asked if what other officers think of CCW in Illinois. Most around this area (South Central Illinois East of St. Louis) that I have discussed this are against it. I have talked to a few around here that are for it.


Have any of them explained why? If someone was going to shoot an officer, I doubt the fact that carrying is presently illegal would offer much deterrent.
My right to own a gun protects your right to tell me I can't

#26 Trefilov22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 05

Posted 23 September 2005 - 07:01 AM

Thanks everyone for the response. I want to make on thing clear: In no way am I anti gun owner. I really believe that CCW would be a good thing in Illinois.

Someone asked if what other officers think of CCW in Illinois. Most around this area (South Central Illinois East of St. Louis) that I have discussed this are against it. I have talked to a few around here that are for it.

I'm sorry but I really beleive there needs to be some sort of training, mabey not 40 hours but it needs to be enough time to include the legal issues, liability issues, basic maint. and range time.

As for the annual requal's, I think going to the range once a year and shooting off 25 to 50 rounds wont break the bank for too many people.

I am glad to get the conversation going. I look foward to discussing the topic again.

What area are you talking about east of St. Louis? I live East of St. Louis and was a LEO in that area for 4 years and every officer I know is for CCW...
Trefilov22

Support Concealed Carry in Illinois!
Petition in Support of CCW for Illinois!
Ruger P89T
Smith & Wesson 4006
Smith & Wesson M&P .40
Smith & Wesson M&P .40c w/Crimson Trace Laser
Remington 870 Combo
Yugoslavian SKS 59/66
Unknown .30-06
KelTec P-11

My Blog!

"I can't take a day off from work to go stand in the street and protest all day long like an illegal immigrant. But I did have time to send you this brick so that you could get started building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico."

#27 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,106 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 23 September 2005 - 08:41 AM

I don't like the idea of 40 hours of training, but that doesn't mean I'd oppose some training being required. 45Superman has a point about reciprocity with other states. If we want good reciprocity why not require similar training as Florida they have the most, correct? Even Florida doesn't recognize non-resident permits from other states, but they do recognize Indiana and others that require no training. West Virginia only honors permits from Kentucky and Virginia, they have a training requirement but it doesn't seem to much, NRA basic pistol seems to qualify. 12 states (plus Vermont & Alaska) allow carry on a West Virginia permit. I'm sure some of the lack of more states recognizing their permit is because they only recognize Kentucky and Virginia.

Does anyone know what state requires the most hours of training? If so how much is classroom and how much is range time? How many states have reciprocity with this state?

Ohio has only had carry less than 2 years they have 18 states (plus Vt & Ak) where you can carry with their permit. They require training, but a one day course can fullfill the requirements. I think that their attorney general is proactive in getting reciprocity with other states.

What state could we give residents the ability to carry in Illinois if we required they have a 40 hour training requirement?
Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Remember the 1991 Luby Cafeteria Massacre of the Unarmed (Kileen, Texas before Texas Concealed Carry) Do we need 23 people to die in a similar incident before we're allowed effective self defense?

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)

#28 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,922 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:24 AM

I'm about an hour sw of Chicago and I can give you a related reaction from my local police department on training. First off the police cheif and sheriff(one a republican, one a democrat) know me well and were in favor of my proposal to provide some basic handgun training to their officer's wives.

The reaction from the officers: I don't want my wife knowing anything about firearms.

I've had a couple officers tell me they don't believe it's my right to own a firearm to do anything other than hunt. The day I went in for fingerprints and the officer found out I wasn't being printed because I was a teacher, he was very curious to why I would want a Florida CCW. He first asked if I was a detective or something along those lines. My answer was because I can. He had no response. He also refused to sign the fingerprint card, but did give me his business card and it must have been acceptable because I received my permit.

I know my state's attorney and judges look favorably on firearms so I'm not that concerned what flack an officer may possibly give me. I'm in a fortunate situation to be able to go to their boss and talk to them.

As far as training goes in IL, I'm looking at it from an instructor's perspective. The last bill was going to require at least 12 hours of training. With breaks, lunch, etc., that would make for a 14 hour course plus travel time for all involved. The course would be too difficult to teach in a day. In my opinion a 6-8 hr course would be more than sufficient including a demonstration of basic marksmanship. Also, you should be exempt from training if you're already hold a CCW permit from another state. The last bill did include this.

The only thing I would gripe about the last bill was the fee structure. It was $175.00 total if I'm correct. $75.00 for the course(instuctor's kept $50.00). $100 application fee(you local sheriff or PD kept $25.00). The state would be getting $100.00 for this! The applicant is getting screwed on this and so are the instructors depending on class size.

There were also instructor requirements to receive the mandated state training to become a CCW instructor in IL which I had no problem.

#29 FST_Kent

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,922 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 23 September 2005 - 09:32 AM

I should say I did receive some favorable responses to training their wives from individual officers that know me. I actually wasn't surprised by the general response however, but my police chief wasn't expecting to hear it.

#30 44Brent

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 04

Posted 02 October 2005 - 01:35 PM

Asking questions about what should be in a concealed carry law is like asking "how will I spend the money when I win the lottery"?

You would be far better off asking questions like "how can get get a veto-proof majority on both chambers of the legislature who will support a right-to-carry bill" and "how can we elect a pro-rights governor".