144 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

05 --

I'm not in the mood for an arguement. BVut the way your comments come off as if we're going to intentionally screw this up and unless it is consitutional carry it's not good eneough and everything below that isn't worth spit. That's the way it sounds from here.

The proposal is not a discretionary system. It is a shall issue, with the caveat that for very specific reasons, the Sheriff can object and those objections can be taken into consideration. The burden of proof in on them to find a substantial reason to say no. And if they make it up, they are on the hook for all the costs of the appeal.

I think that is a fair system, given what we just went through with AZ. those cops could have objected under the proposal and he could have been denied a permit/license. I don't think that is a bad thing. there are the town drunks who never get arrested, they just take care of the guy and get hime home. Those are the kinds, along with the AZ perp,  that I think this will work on.

With 99 or out of 102 sheriffs being for it, I don't see it being a big problem. I may not have all the faith in government that the libs do, but I've talked to enough of these guys that I feel comfortable with it.

Iowa just went shall issue and the cops abused what they had. We are starting off better than they did. and if they abuse it, we'll do the same thing and take it away.

I just get tired of people complaining or at least appearing to complain, cuase it aint' perfect or what they want. A lot of work has gone into this. were not done. There is more to do.

I have disscussed the proposal and changes with Molly, Mr. Molly Abolt, Don, Federal Farmer and I know I'm missing someone from the Board here. We have talked, debated and pondered all of this. And everyone is in agreement on how to proceed. it isn't just me making decisions on my own, but I'm responsible for some of the talks with other groups and makig it all work.

I'm sorry that not everyone can be in the room or at the table and we don't publish minutes of all the meetings. But sometimes, the camplaining and rock throwing from our own side isn't much better than the incoming.

Rant off

[sctman800]

Even though I would love a "perfect" carry bill to pass, in reality I am sure what we get will be something to be improved on.  I also realize much goes on I am not aware of and should not be put on a public forum.  I also have all faith in the people forming up the bill.  Since Maddigan has made preemption a factor the other really important part is "shall issue" and every thing I hear about the bills being written include this.  Also whatever is written it must be something that will get the necessary votes or it doesn't matter what is in it.   Jim.

[Chiburbian]

If those "caveats" are what brings us CCW in Illinois this year - so be it.  I am with you Todd.

If the sheriffs abuse it we yank their discretion.  And - as much as I hate to say this, I am willing to have a "Illinois residents have to have Illinois CCW to carry in Illinois" rule if it gets us reciprocity with other states.   I have a Utah permit but it would be nice to carry in Michigan and Florida. (Where I believe you need either a permit issued by their state or one issued by your home state)

I'm on board - lets do this.

[05FLHT]

If the Sheriff has discretionary 'power,' I guess I lack the clarity to see that a bill is "shall' issue. Either you have been convicted or you have not. Living in a republic and debating an issue is a far off thing from throwing stones to be spiteful. The evidence of Sheriffs with some sort of discretionary authority abusing their power to issue/gateway the RTC process is overwhelming across this county. My fears are not unfounded. If you, along with others, are going to work so hard for preemption, would you then leave open the possibility that Dart could subvert the legislation through tactile denials, er I mean articulable reasons? Understand I am not involved in these discussion outside of this forum and have not been privy to read any drafts of the bill. Just m $0.02.

As long as I'm doling out change, and if the Sheriff will have some sort of discretionary authority, how about allowing for the Sheriff to issue temporary emergency carry permits. If it has not already been considered already, emergency permits should be available immediately for those who may not have completed the permitting process (paperwork, training, qual's, whatever...) but have a situation of a documented threat against them or their family. This could be a situation of stalking or domestic violence, where the victim may have never even held a firearm before, but is now in fear of their life.

Speaking of the training, is there any specific reason up to 15 yards was mentioned as being required? Realistically for self defense, any requirement of proficiency should include safe handling and shooting at distances from 3-7 yards. As an example, if a person is taking head shots at 45 feet and claiming self defense because "they were in fear for their life," they probably have some serious explaining to do.

Again, I am not trying to argue with you or anybody else on this board. I am, however, a strong believer in the theory that the only bad question is the one not asked.

[05FLHT]

junglebob, on 16 January 2011 - 09:24 PM, said:

mikew, on 16 January 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial.

Is there a reason that wouldn't also be a reason for FOID revocation?

If any existing FOID holder was to meet the age & training requirements, and their money was green,
what would be a reason that could be articulated for RTC denial?

Maybe the Illinois Sheriff's Association, who would like this in the bill, is thinking about the time when there is no longer a FOID card requirement in Illinois.

The requirements for the FOID, if your going to have requirements for a carry bill , should be the maximum needed. The FOID requirements have been fine and dandy up until now, I would suffice to say they are good enough going forward. We have to remember criminals already carry without a FOID and passing a carry bill with more requirements will not change that.

[05FLHT]

Chiburbian, on 16 January 2011 - 11:42 PM, said:

If those "caveats" are what brings us CCW in Illinois this year - so be it.  I am with you Todd.

If the sheriffs abuse it we yank their discretion.  And - as much as I hate to say this, I am willing to have a "Illinois residents have to have Illinois CCW to carry in Illinois" rule if it gets us reciprocity with other states.   I have a Utah permit but it would be nice to carry in Michigan and Florida. (Where I believe you need either a permit issued by their state or one issued by your home state)

I'm on board - lets do this.

There were also a lot of people on board with passing a carry bill without preemption. I know, I was one of them. The playing field for the RKBA is moving at light speed. Laugh if you want, but it is. Things have progressed farther and faster in 3 years than than they did in the 70 proceeding Miller. 3 years from now you won't even recognize the playing field.

The longer those who oppose RTC here in Illinois wait, the less say they will end up having. That is a statement of fact, not an idle bluff. The cases have already been filed.

[mstrat]

05FLHT, on 17 January 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

If the Sheriff has discretionary 'power,' I guess I lack the clarity to see that a bill is "shall' issue. Either you have been convicted or you have not.

I see where you're coming from, but I believe that's just not the definition of shall-issue as most states see it.

May-issue: Sheriff can deny you on a whim. No documentation needed. Burden of proof is on YOU to explain why you need the license.
Shall-issue: Sheriff must document and explain why you can't have a license. Burden of proof is on him/her to explain why you can't have one.

As far as Shall-issue goes, I think the proposed HB's are pretty fair. And I'm glad to see the provisions for appeal, and reimbursement upon successful appeal.

Just my opinion.

[Hatchet]

Nothing is perfect. I'm glad to have anything on the books. Even if I'm in the group that carry right off the bat due to cook not allowing it or for what ever reason. We need the foot in the door. Yes, the courts are ruling, but that could take years still. How long did it take Heller and Mcdonald?

I will support any measure put through. It might now allow me to carry right off the bat but i know yall wont stop till we all can.

Good luck guys, your doin more for all of use then most of us can do.

[Molly B.]

05FLHT, on 17 January 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

If the Sheriff has discretionary 'power,'

The sheriff will not have discretionary power and from my conversations with the sheriffs they don't want it.  They merely want to be able to pass word along with the application if they have a Jared Loughner-type situation with an applicant.

[USArmyRet]

Molly B., on 17 January 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

05FLHT, on 17 January 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

If the Sheriff has discretionary 'power,'

The sheriff will not have discretionary power and from my conversations with the sheriffs they don't want it.  They merely want to be able to pass word along with the application if they have a Jared Loughner-type situation with an applicant.

and that is exactly why they should be included and want to be included....IMO

[Johnnybgood]

From what I am hearing here this sounds like a great start. I am all for it. If I can help out let me know. I am ready to be a marshall at this years IGOLD to start. I put in the paperwork to get the day off. As soon as the bill is filed I will call my congress critters and let them know I am all for it. We can work on making it better after the people of Illinois see that there isn't any blood running in the streets.

[mstrat]

Johnnybgood, on 17 January 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

As soon as the bill is filed I will call my congress critters and let them know I am all for it. We can work on making it better after the people of Illinois see that there isn't any blood running in the streets.

Just FYI (though you might already be aware): We have two filed currently.  HB0112 and HB0148.

They're identical in description, one filed by Phelps the other by Michael Unes (a new guy).

Not sure yet what the plans are for each though, or which (if either! or both!) we should get behind and write about.

[Johnnybgood]

Good enough. Should I contact my congress critters now or wait for one of them to come out of committee?

[Federal Farmer]

Johnnybgood, on 17 January 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

Good enough. Should I contact my congress critters now or wait for one of them to come out of committee?

We should wait as those aren't fully baked.

[vezpa]

Hatchet, on 17 January 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

We need the foot in the door. Yes, the courts are ruling, but that could take years still. How long did it take Heller and Mcdonald?

You guys keep talking about winning in the courts. WAKE UP!  We were 1 vote away from losing McDonald.  If we were to lose one of the 5 judges we would be completely ****ED as the rest don't seem to be pro-second amendment whatsoever.  That is why we can't wait years if this has to go to the Supreme Court.  The longer we wait the better the chances of a Dem President replacing another pro-2nd amendment judge who retires...passes etc....  

If that were to happen goodbye to every chance of getting CCW.

[mstrat]

vezpa, on 19 January 2011 - 02:18 PM, said:

Hatchet, on 17 January 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

We need the foot in the door. Yes, the courts are ruling, but that could take years still. How long did it take Heller and Mcdonald?

You guys keep talking about winning in the courts. WAKE UP!  We were 1 vote away from losing McDonald.  If we were to lose one of the 5 judges we would be completely ****ED as the rest don't seem to be pro-second amendment whatsoever.  That is why we can't wait years if this has to go to the Supreme Court.  The longer we wait the better the chances of a Dem President replacing another pro-2nd amendment judge who retires...passes etc....  

If that were to happen goodbye to every chance of getting CCW.

I still don't understand why we can't pressure the ISRA and SAF to press a case against IL.  Why do we have "wait for the right case" ? Why can't we just be the plaintiff?

"I want to protect myself and my loved ones from death at the hands of these gang banger thugs when I walk to the bus, but IL is stomping on the US Constitution and preventing me. The state of IL is violating my right to bear arms, and my pursuit of sustained life."  Sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

It's pretty simple, no?

[abolt243]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

I still don't understand why we can't pressure the ISRA and SAF to press a case against IL.  Why do we have "wait for the right case" ? Why can't we just be the plaintiff?

"I want to protect myself and my loved ones from death at the hands of these gang banger thugs when I walk to the bus, but IL is stomping on the US Constitution and preventing me. The state of IL is violating my right to bear arms, and my pursuit of sustained life."  Sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

It's pretty simple, no?

No, it's not simple, and I can't begin to explain it fully here, but maybe I can offer a hypothecial instance.   If you're a judge, and some white dude, mid 20's, pretty good shape, with a slight attitude comes before you and wants to carry a gun to protect himself from "gang banger thugs" on a walk to the bus, you may pay attention and sympathize or you might not.  Chances are not, especially if you, as a judge, are prone to be anti gun anyway.

But, let's say, hypothetically, that an elderly gentleman, former military with firearm training, some civilian firearm training, and maybe even licensed in several states to carry a firearm,  comes before you and tells you of being accosted by several youths as he walked his dog in a rural neighborhood where there is normally very little crime.  He spends several weeks in a hospital recovering from his wounds and has some permanent injury, trauma and stress from the experience.  He's suing for the right to carry a defensive firearm the next time he walks the dog.  

Which one is most likely to get the favorable ruling?  That's called standing.  And if the first case is tried and is not favorable to our cause, then it will set a precedent for all cases to come.  Perhaps to the point of the courts not even hearing the second case.

Does that help to explain why it's important to get the right case at the right time??

Patience, these things will happen.

AB

[USArmyRet]

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

I still don't understand why we can't pressure the ISRA and SAF to press a case against IL.  Why do we have "wait for the right case" ? Why can't we just be the plaintiff?

"I want to protect myself and my loved ones from death at the hands of these gang banger thugs when I walk to the bus, but IL is stomping on the US Constitution and preventing me. The state of IL is violating my right to bear arms, and my pursuit of sustained life."  Sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

It's pretty simple, no?

No, it's not simple, and I can't begin to explain it fully here, but maybe I can offer a hypothecial instance.   If you're a judge, and some white dude, mid 20's, pretty good shape, with a slight attitude comes before you and wants to carry a gun to protect himself from "gang banger thugs" on a walk to the bus, you may pay attention and sympathize or you might not.  Chances are not, especially if you, as a judge, are prone to be anti gun anyway.

But, let's say, hypothetically, that an elderly gentleman, former military with firearm training, some civilian firearm training, and maybe even licensed in several states to carry a firearm,  comes before you and tells you of being accosted by several youths as he walked his dog in a rural neighborhood where there is normally very little crime.  He spends several weeks in a hospital recovering from his wounds and has some permanent injury, trauma and stress from the experience.  He's suing for the right to carry a defensive firearm the next time he walks the dog.  

Which one is most likely to get the favorable ruling?  That's called standing.  And if the first case is tried and is not favorable to our cause, then it will set a precedent for all cases to come.  Perhaps to the point of the courts not even hearing the second case.

Does that help to explain why it's important to get the right case at the right time??

Patience, these things will happen.

AB

I would think there are many many such perfect cases already on the books where an legally armed victim could have defended him/herself and prevented theirself from becoming a victim.

[mstrat]

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

Does that help to explain why it's important to get the right case at the right time??

Yes, I'm definitely with you there.

My understanding was that the "wait for the right case" referred to the right defendant.  I'm not in favor of this since it will take a LONG time and possibly never happen.

If it's a question of waiting for the right plaintiff, as in the hypothetical you describe, I couldn't agree more.
But if we're still waiting, then we're not looking hard enough.  I will personally go out and recruit the gentleman or lady you describe.

[abolt243]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

Does that help to explain why it's important to get the right case at the right time??

Yes, I'm definitely with you there.

My understanding was that the "wait for the right case" referred to the right defendant.  I'm not in favor of this since it will take a LONG time and possibly never happen.

If it's a question of waiting for the right plaintiff, as in the hypothetical you describe, I couldn't agree more.
But if we're still waiting, then we're not looking hard enough.  I will personally go out and recruit the gentleman or lady you describe.

The person I describe is hypothetical.  And, yes, USAR, there may be many cases on the books that exist.  But none of them have filed a lawsuit.  Did you read the last line of my post??  

Now, as to the power of the sheriff to pass along his/her concerns or recommendations.  Let's look a a couple of proposed paragraphs:

#1 - 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.
    (d) The superintendent may make whatever further investigation the superintendent deems necessary. Whenever disapproval is recommended, the officer to whom the application is made shall provide the superintendent and the applicant with the officer's complete and specific reasons, in writing, for the recommendation of disapproval.


Not bad huh, except that it looks like you can be denied because of your "character and reputation".  Still, the disapproval must be documented.  Let's look at another one:

#2 -
6. The sheriff may refuse to approve an application for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement if he or she determines that any of the requirements specified in subsection 2 of this section have not been met, or if he or she has a substantial and demonstrable reason to believe that the applicant has rendered a false statement regarding any of the provisions of sections 571.101 to 571.121.

Holy smoke!  Now the Sheriff can deny you himself, if only he "believes" that you rendered a false statement.  


Number 1 is Indiana code , in force for 75 years and counting, still being changed.  Application can be made to sheriffs, local LEO's and others.  So lots of people can offer their take on your "character and reputation".

Number 2 is Missouri code , another shall issue state. More recently written than IN law, but lets the Sheriff REFUSE to pass your application along.  

Check out OH, better yet, look up UT regs.  In both states, officials are granted the power to refuse your license if they have demonstrable reasons.  

As you will see when the real bill is brought to light, it is patterned from many different state's successful SHALL ISSUE laws.  How do we know??  Because several of us have spent the better part of the last two years READING other states laws.  Something I would suggest doing before leveling criticism on a proposed bill.  Check out the laws in the southern states.  Some of them I'd call SIINO bills.  Shall issue in name only.  But any of you would love to have them in force in IL right now.

It's shall issue guys, and the LEOs have a vehicle for leveling concerns about individual applications.  Without that, you get no buy in from any LEO agency.  And in IL at least, you have to have those agencies on your side to get it passed.

/rant off
/class dismissed

AB

[05FLHT]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

I still don't understand why we can't pressure the ISRA and SAF to press a case against IL.  Why do we have "wait for the right case" ? Why can't we just be the plaintiff?

"I want to protect myself and my loved ones from death at the hands of these gang banger thugs when I walk to the bus, but IL is stomping on the US Constitution and preventing me. The state of IL is violating my right to bear arms, and my pursuit of sustained life."  Sounds like a pretty strong argument to me.

It's pretty simple, no?

The SAF and Gura have cases filed in circuits across the country. A favorable ruling in any other circuit, although not binding, is very persuasive precedent for our circuit. A split in any two (or more) circuits just about guarantees SCOTUS granting cert to decide the matter for themselves.

[mstrat]

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

The person I describe is hypothetical.

That was understood.   My point was the hypothetical person isn't the elusive Pegasus.  If we can't find the right plaintiff, we aren't looking hard enough.

[abolt243]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

The person I describe is hypothetical.

That was understood.   My point was the hypothetical person isn't the elusive Pegasus.  If we can't find the right plaintiff, we aren't looking hard enough.

Again, let me repeat:  "These things will happen."

AB

[05FLHT]

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

It's shall issue guys, and the LEOs have a vehicle for leveling concerns about individual applications.  Without that, you get no buy in from any LEO agency.  And in IL at least, you have to have those agencies on your side to get it passed.

Leveling concerns are one thing, discretionary authority to deny a civil right is another. I'd really like to read the 'final' version of the bill once it's introduced, as arguments based on idle speculation are just not worth the time.

[abolt243]

05FLHT, on 19 January 2011 - 04:35 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

It's shall issue guys, and the LEOs have a vehicle for leveling concerns about individual applications.  Without that, you get no buy in from any LEO agency.  And in IL at least, you have to have those agencies on your side to get it passed.

Leveling concerns are one thing, discretionary authority to deny a civil right is another. I'd really like to read the 'final' version of the bill once it's introduced, as arguments based on idle speculation are just not worth the time.

When it's introduced, it will be posted on the ILGA site.  This will not be a "pass so you can see what's in it" operation!  Again, it does NOT give discretionary authority to deny anything.

AB

[Drylok]

So long as it's shall issue, it's not administered directly and soley by the ISP and it doesn't cost $500 or something then I'm fine with it. We can amend and amend as the years go by to fix anything we don't like. Let's just get the damn thing on the books and in affect

[Jeffrey]

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

The person I describe is hypothetical.

That was understood.   My point was the hypothetical person isn't the elusive Pegasus.  If we can't find the right plaintiff, we aren't looking hard enough.

The guy that took out the Honeybee killer comes to mind.

[abolt243]

Jeffrey, on 20 January 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

mstrat, on 19 January 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 January 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

The person I describe is hypothetical.

That was understood.   My point was the hypothetical person isn't the elusive Pegasus.  If we can't find the right plaintiff, we aren't looking hard enough.

The guy that took out the Honeybee killer comes to mind.

Yes, that would be a good one.  But, there are others, better yet for a plaintiff.  

AB

[illhunter]

How about finding a "victim" that has FOID, and been arguing, lobbying, posting (etc.) for CC for years before getting beat up while walking the cat!

and thanks MikeW!!

Quote

Some of the people that I've met here on this board that are working the hardest for 2nd Amendment Rights live in Chicago. We can't leave them in the lurch.

[Gray Peterson]

Tvandermyde, on 16 January 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:

the system we are talking about would have the Sheriffs be the point of entry, with the state police being the issuing authority for a statewide permit.

The Sheriff can voice an objection for specific -- articuable reasons, that can be used for the denial. if the individual wins an appeal, the Sheriff is on the hook for costs.

Like Indiana, cool beans.

One more thing: I can't believe some folks here are seriously talking about allowing the continual disarmament of Otis McDonald and the Lawsons (Mr. and Mrs. Federal Farmer) in order to get carry for themselves.  Shameful.