Status of the RTC or LTC carry bills

[Newhunter1]

anyone know where these bills are?

[Chris]

You probably want to check the IL Politics forum as well.

 

Here's one thread

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=14751

[Molly B.]

anyone know where these bills are?

Three of the House bills passed out of the Ag committee and are posted as waiting for second reading.

 

HB2257 is still in committee.

 

SB1976 - the only Senate bill that I know of is scheduled to be heard in Senate Public Health Committee, Tues. Mar.10, by the time you read this it will be today.

[Ol'Coach]

anyone know where these bills are?

Three of the House bills passed out of the Ag committee and are posted as waiting for second reading.

 

HB2257 is still in committee.

 

SB1976 - the only Senate bill that I know of is scheduled to be heard in Senate Public Health Committee, Tues. Mar.10, by the time you read this it will be today.

 

Sen Dan Rutherford added as a sponsor.

[wazzle]

http://www.thesouthern.com/articles/2009/0...aa466368672.txt

 

Concealed weapons bill rejected by Senate panel

BY KURT ERICKSON, The Southern Illinoisan

Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:55 PM CDT

 

 

SPRINGFIELD -- On the eve of an annual gun rights rally at the Capitol, a Senate panel Tuesday rejected a proposal to give Illinoisans the right to carry concealed weapons.

 

With hundreds of gun owners expected to spend Wednesday lobbying lawmakers, the Senate action sent a strong message that Illinois will likely remain one of only two states without a concealed weapon law on the books.

 

Senate Bill 1976 would enable Illinois sheriffs to issue firearm concealed carry permits to qualified gun owners.

 

But, members of the Senate Public Health Committee, which is dominated by Chicago-area lawmakers, voted against the proposal.

 

State Sen. John Jones, a Mount Vernon Republican who sponsored the proposal, said the end result wasn’t a surprise given the make-up of the panel. Concealed carry efforts have long been supported by downstate lawmakers but opposed by Chicago-area representatives.

 

“They didn’t want it to pass. They don’t want the bill on the Senate floor,” Jones said.

 

The move doesn’t bode well for three similar bills making their way through the Illinois House. Jones said even if those proposals somehow manage to win House approval, they’d likely go nowhere in the Senate.

 

“I think they face a very stiff, uphill battle,” Jones said.

[Chiburbian]

Ok, what is our next move?

 

Did we expect this bill to pass?

[SirMatthew]

Ok, what is our next move?

 

Did we expect this bill to pass?

 

Two comments:

 

I'm still more impressed with HB2257.

 

I think our next move has already been planned, that is to show up tomorrow in full force and show them just how many people disagree with this committee.

[Chiburbian]

With hundreds of gun owners expected to spend Wednesday lobbying lawmakers, the Senate action sent a strong message that Illinois will likely remain one of only two states without a concealed weapon law on the books.

 

Hundreds? Hahahaha!

[Newhunter1]

This makes me want to cuss!!!

[Pecker]

Unfortunately this bill had no chance with the make up of this committee. Lets keep up the good fight though.

 

John

[abolt243]

There are lots of bills and lots of time in this legislative session yet. We knew that SB1976 had nearly no chance in that committee. We'll focus on the House bills and take one of them to the Senate!!

 

Hang in there, good luck at IGOLD. Family matters didn't allow me to go this year. I do plan to make it to S-field later in this session for some face to face time with some legislators.

 

AB

[Gray Peterson]

What's funny is, why did this end up in a Public Health Committee?

[Vitae Drinker]

What's funny is, why did this end up in a Public Health Committee?

 

[sarcasm mode]

Because OBVIOUSLY legally carrying a concealed firearm for self defense is matter for the public health. Lead poisoning and all that. Obviously.

[/sarcasm mode]

 

:Angry!:

[SmershAgent]

What's funny is, why did this end up in a Public Health Committee?

 

Because that committee is weighted in favor of Chicago-area legislators who will (and did) vote against the bill.

[Newhunter1]

Actions

Date Chamber Action

2/18/2009 House Filed with the Clerk by Rep. Brandon W. Phelps

2/18/2009 House First Reading

2/18/2009 House Referred to Rules Committee

2/23/2009 House Assigned to Agriculture & Conservation Committee

3/4/2009 House Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Dave Winters

3/10/2009 House Added Chief Co-Sponsor Rep. Mike Bost

3/11/2009 House House Committee Amendment No. 1 Filed with Clerk by Agriculture & Conservation Committee

3/11/2009 House House Committee Amendment No. 1 Adopted in Agriculture & Conservation Committee; by Voice Vote

3/11/2009 House Do Pass as Amended / Short Debate Agriculture & Conservation Committee; 011-002-000

 

So what exactly does the highlighted and colored mean???

[Newhunter1]

Bill Status of HB2257

[Lou]

That means that there were some corrections that had to be made to the bill. Some just technical language and some that were requested by the Illinois Sheriff's association to get their support for the bill.

 

It's a good thing that it was amended.

[abolt243]

That means that there were some corrections that had to be made to the bill. Some just technical language and some that were requested by the Illinois Sheriff's association to get their support for the bill.

 

It's a good thing that it was amended.

This is good news. The bill has cleared the Ag committee, it has begun to be amended by the committee in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if there are not more amendments made to help earn support from other agencies and groups. The main point is, it's out before the deadline of March 12th. It can now be tweaked and debated. The amendments changes the point of application to the local Sheriff's office. It also changes the word 'Permit" to "license". A citizen doesn't need "permission" in the form of a "permit" to excercise an inalienable right. It's bad enough that they want to license that right and charge a fee! (Sorry, slipped into rant mode there).

 

Do Pass as Amended / Short Debate simply means that the committee recommends that the bill be passed in it's amended form. That's the formal language used to move it on to the full House.

Go here to begin your introduction to HB2257. Look at the "as introduced" version, then read through the "House Committee Amendment No 1" to see all the changes made to the bill. A little further down the page shows all the actions taken on the bill. It may get quite interesting before May 30th!!!

 

Welcome to the world of a gun bill junkie!!!!!

 

AB

[Newhunter1]

It's a good thing that it was amended.

 

good to hear

[SirMatthew]

It's a good thing that it was amended.

 

good to hear

 

Fingerprint requirement added?!

 

1

AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 2257

 

2 AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 2257 as follows:

 

3 on page 2, line 21 by replacing "Department" with "Sheriff's

4 office of the county in which the applicant resides"; and

 

5 on page 3, line 15, immediately after the period, by adding the

6 following:

7 "The applicant must submit his or her application to the

8 sheriff's office of the county in which he or she resides and

9 must be fingerprinted at that time. A fee of not more than $25

10 may be collected from the sheriff's department for the

11 fingerprinting. The sheriff's office will then submit the

12 application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department

13 within 48 hours of receipt.

[abolt243]

Fingerprint requirement added?!

 

1

AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 2257

 

2 AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 2257 as follows:

 

3 on page 2, line 21 by replacing "Department" with "Sheriff's

4 office of the county in which the applicant resides"; and

 

5 on page 3, line 15, immediately after the period, by adding the

6 following:

7 "The applicant must submit his or her application to the

8 sheriff's office of the county in which he or she resides and

9 must be fingerprinted at that time. A fee of not more than $25

10 may be collected from the sheriff's department for the

11 fingerprinting. The sheriff's office will then submit the

12 application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department

13 within 48 hours of receipt.

 

Good Eye SirM!

[Ol'Coach]

Fingerprint requirement added?!

 

1

AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 2257

 

2 AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 2257 as follows:

 

3 on page 2, line 21 by replacing "Department" with "Sheriff's

4 office of the county in which the applicant resides"; and

 

5 on page 3, line 15, immediately after the period, by adding the

6 following:

7 "The applicant must submit his or her application to the

8 sheriff's office of the county in which he or she resides and

9 must be fingerprinted at that time. A fee of not more than $25

10 may be collected from the sheriff's department for the

11 fingerprinting. The sheriff's office will then submit the

12 application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department

13 within 48 hours of receipt.

 

Good Eye SirM!

 

T'aint dead yet!

[Lou]

It's a good thing that it was amended.

 

good to hear

 

Fingerprint requirement added?!

 

1

AMENDMENT TO HOUSE BILL 2257

 

2 AMENDMENT NO. ______. Amend House Bill 2257 as follows:

 

3 on page 2, line 21 by replacing "Department" with "Sheriff's

4 office of the county in which the applicant resides"; and

 

5 on page 3, line 15, immediately after the period, by adding the

6 following:

7 "The applicant must submit his or her application to the

8 sheriff's office of the county in which he or she resides and

9 must be fingerprinted at that time. A fee of not more than $25

10 may be collected from the sheriff's department for the

11 fingerprinting. The sheriff's office will then submit the

12 application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department

13 within 48 hours of receipt.

 

 

Sir M

 

Some of the changes were made at the request of the Illinois Sherriffs Association.

Having their endorsement lays to rest the mantra "Law inforcement is against LTC"

[SirMatthew]

Some of the changes were made at the request of the Illinois Sherriffs Association.

Having their endorsement lays to rest the mantra "Law inforcement is against LTC"

 

I know, and you're right about that. Just a bitter pill to swallow as I've spent my whole life keeping my prints out of their databases by being law-abiding, but must voluntarily submit them in order to continue being law-abiding. It's just a personal thing with me to be fingerprinted like a criminal just to exercise a Constitutional right. I will submit to it if this bill passes and will be happy about LTC, but I won't be happy for a little while about that fingerprint requirement. I'll get over it soon enough.

[SmershAgent]

Some of the changes were made at the request of the Illinois Sherriffs Association.

Having their endorsement lays to rest the mantra "Law inforcement is against LTC"

 

I know, and you're right about that. Just a bitter pill to swallow as I've spent my whole life keeping my prints out of their databases by being law-abiding, but must voluntarily submit them in order to continue being law-abiding. It's just a personal thing with me to be fingerprinted like a criminal just to exercise a Constitutional right. I will submit to it if this bill passes and will be happy about LTC, but I won't be happy for a little while about that fingerprint requirement. I'll get over it soon enough.

 

+1,000,000

 

Fingerprinting is probably the provision I find most offensive about the process, but I realize there's no way a RTC bill will pass in Illinois without it. As you said, there's something about the presumption that "permit holders are obviously going to commit crimes, so we might as well save the effort and get their prints in advance" that I find galling.

[Ol'Coach]

addition to wording re: preemption....

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)

17 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any

18 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater

19 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and

20 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not

21 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance

22 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is

 

 

 

 

HB2257 - 17 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b

 

1 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense

2 Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State that the

3 regulation of the right to carry defensive firearms is an

4 exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit may

5 not regulate the issuance of permits to carry defensive

6 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule

7 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of

8 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

9 (Source: P.A. 76-1939.)

 

IF I interpret it correctly, it's stating that while, by preemption, a home rule unit can ban carrying concealed, it cannot prohibit its residents from obtainig a LTC permit; thus, they could carry anywhere in the state where not preempted.

 

Corrections welcome.

[SirMatthew]

addition to wording re: preemption....

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)

17 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any

18 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater

19 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and

20 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not

21 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance

22 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is

 

HB2257 - 17 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b

 

1 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense

2 Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State that the

3 regulation of the right to carry defensive firearms is an

4 exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit may

5 not regulate the issuance of permits to carry defensive

6 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule

7 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of

8 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

9 (Source: P.A. 76-1939.)

 

IF I interpret it correctly, it's stating that while, by preemption, a home rule unit can ban carrying concealed, it cannot prohibit its residents from obtainig a LTC permit; thus, they could carry anywhere in the state where not preempted.

 

Corrections welcome.

 

 

It's getting harder for me to follow with the amended content. Below is a synopsis of the amendment:

 

Amends the Citizen's Self-Defense Act. Inserts a provision that requires applicants for licenses to submit their application to the sheriff's office of the county in which they reside, to be fingerprinted at that time, and to pay a fingerprinting fee of not more than $25. Requires the sheriff's office then to submit the application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department within 48 hours. Authorizes the county sheriff to notify the Department that the applicant is subject to an investigation or pending criminal charges that would cause the applicant, if convicted, to be ineligible for a license.

Deletes the provision in the introduced bill that amended the Firearm Owners Identification Act to limit the power of units of local government to adopt firearm ordinances inconsistent with the requirements of the Citizen's Self-Defense Act.

Changes the term "permit" to the term "license" in several Sections. Makes other technical changes.

 

The part in red above is what I don't understand. It sounds to me like local units of government were previously prohibited from adopting firearm ordinances which were are inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense Act, but now they will be allowed to do so since this section has been deleted from the bill.

 

I am doubting my understanding of all this. Can someone please help clarify so I can update the spreadsheet comparison of all the HB's related to LTC?

[flagtag]

For those worried about being fingerprinted, it's no big deal, really.

Many jobs require fingerprinting: law enforcement, security, even school bus drivers (such as I am). Law enforcement understands that not all fingerprints are associated with crime.

I believe that even our military are required to be fingerprinted.

Open to corrections..............

[Ol'Coach]

addition to wording re: preemption....

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)

17 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any

18 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater

19 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and

20 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not

21 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance

22 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is

 

HB2257 - 17 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b

 

1 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense

2 Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State that the

3 regulation of the right to carry defensive firearms is an

4 exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit may

5 not regulate the issuance of permits to carry defensive

6 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule

7 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of

8 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

9 (Source: P.A. 76-1939.)

 

IF I interpret it correctly, it's stating that while, by preemption, a home rule unit can ban carrying concealed, it cannot prohibit its residents from obtainig a LTC permit; thus, they could carry anywhere in the state where not preempted.

 

Corrections welcome.

 

 

It's getting harder for me to follow with the amended content. Below is a synopsis of the amendment:

 

Amends the Citizen's Self-Defense Act. Inserts a provision that requires applicants for licenses to submit their application to the sheriff's office of the county in which they reside, to be fingerprinted at that time, and to pay a fingerprinting fee of not more than $25. Requires the sheriff's office then to submit the application, fingerprints, and licensing fee to the Department within 48 hours. Authorizes the county sheriff to notify the Department that the applicant is subject to an investigation or pending criminal charges that would cause the applicant, if convicted, to be ineligible for a license.

Deletes the provision in the introduced bill that amended the Firearm Owners Identification Act to limit the power of units of local government to adopt firearm ordinances inconsistent with the requirements of the Citizen's Self-Defense Act.

Changes the term "permit" to the term "license" in several Sections. Makes other technical changes.

 

The part in red above is what I don't understand. It sounds to me like local units of government were previously prohibited from adopting firearm ordinances which were are inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense Act, but now they will be allowed to do so since this section has been deleted from the bill.

 

I am doubting my understanding of all this. Can someone please help clarify so I can update the spreadsheet comparison of all the HB's related to LTC?

 

All I can say is, it is my understanding that, with a proposed amendment and new wording regarding certain statutes, the bill would allow preemption but would not allow localities that qualify for home rule preemption to deny its qualifying residents a license to carry. They could get LTC, but couldn't carry within that locality.

 

It's also my understanding that the amendment and changes have not been made as yet, but the bill is out of committee and will be up for 2nd reading.

 

I ask for Abolt to clarify, as he is much more knowledgeable about such matters than me. I have great respect for his knowledge of how all this works!!!

[abolt243]

Add to that list Commercial Drivers License holders that transport anything classified as Hazardous Material. I.E. CDL with Hazmat Endorsement. For those of you in rural IL, all the employess at local fertilizer retailers that pull anhydrous tanks up and down the highways have (or should have) a Hazmat endorsement.

 

Anyone with a FL CCW has been fingerprinted.

 

Coach is correct. After amendment, the bill will allow LTC to be subject to home rule in that an LTC might be made invalid within the confines of the home rule unit. However, a resident of that home rule unit can still apply for and recieve an LTC so that they might carry in the free part of the state!!!! To bring it closer to home, Cook County could disallow LTC within the county, but would still have to issue LTC to applicants that are residents of Cook and that meet the qualifications.

 

I expect that soon there will be posted a version of the bill "as amended". It will be much easier to read and understand then. We're all hard pressed to read the appropriate amended, as introduced, and as unamended (word?) and make good sense of it.

 

Don't be surprised to see this bill molded and shaped right up to the day of passage!!

 

AB