Restricted Areas in HB 148 and 5745

[drdoom]

I'm just curious to know what area(s) would still be forbidden to carry weapons in, during the event Illinois passes conceal carry.

[vezpa]

I'm just curious to know what area(s) would still be forbidden to carry weapons in, during the event Illinois passes conceal carry.

 

 

And so the real truth starts. This is the part of CCW in Illinois where things will become ever so interesting. Cook County and Chicago will get everything they possibly can deemed a sensitive or restricted place. I would bet they somehow work out to get the entire Loop Downtown covered under this. If its all they have left, its what they will use against us. This and the No Gun Signs will be the new battlegroudn here in Cook./ Chicago.

 

[Bud]

Read the two bills, 148 and 5745, there are differences.

 

It really doesn't matter what areas are restricted, Once the bill becomes law, we will work on 'tweeking' it just like every single other State has or is doing. This is not a one stop process

 

and i don't even want to hear any "well, we should doi it right the first time' whining because that is not how the political process works. A lot of people contributed to and are now supporting the Bills because their concerns were met. we don't need to lose any of the siupporters because we eliminated their particular solution to their identified problem.

[abolt243]

It's all outlined in the bills. Read them. We'd rather not discuss all the nuances of the bills in full view here on the forum. Anyone that has any questions is free to PM me, and I'll try to get the answer for you.

 

Hoping the task force report is out this week. I know that there are those that are working very hard on it.

 

AB

[Drylok]

Just read the bills by going to ilga.gov website and on the left side type in HB148 or HB5745 then click on "full text"

[TFC]

Uh.... oh... ever get that "thrown under the bus" feeling?

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Seriously...A library.....Seriously....SERIOUSLY... I won't go into a ton of detail but as a whole I am against any state's CC where "no gun" signs have the force of law.

After reading both in detail each bill has somethings I like and some things I don't, as a whole I would say IMO 148 is a better bill.

[Uncle Harley]

Neither Bill will matter if we get something from the courts before they vote.

[3ddiver]

Neither Bill will matter if we get something from the courts before they vote.

I am not sure if they can or not but if it is possible I guarantee they will go into emergency session if the courts overturn the ban.

[drdoom]

In the case they do go into emergency session, we should just strike all these BS gun-free zones from the bill (if the court rules in our favor). The shoe will be on the other foot, what good will a handful of Chicago reps. be trying to pass a more restrictive carry bill against a solid pro-carry majority?

[boomersand]

I will feel so much safer knowing that there are others on the streets there to protect those that choose not to carry once this bill passes.

[Bud]

If the Courts oirder an injunction against the enforcement of UUW/AUUW then I would argue that all previously negotiated deals are off and I would actively campoaign to prevent the State from passing a concealed carry law at all.

 

No law prohibiting concealed or open carry at all should be our ultimate goal. If the Courts order it, game over

[Gunslinger]

If the Courts oirder an injunction against the enforcement of UUW/AUUW then I would argue that all previously negotiated deals are off and I would actively campoaign to prevent the State from passing a concealed carry law at all.

 

No law prohibiting concealed or open carry at all should be our ultimate goal. If the Courts order it, game over

 

Yep, when the courts rule in our favor we should explode our reps phones and make sure they vote NO on any carry bill.

[drdoom]

In any event, the legislature can damn itself by NOT voting for any of the bills. I would like the best case scenario, and have carry through the courts, but THAT might lead to some interesting things done by the likes of Chicago, which nobody would have imagined. In any event, they can either pass it next week (the easy way, IF the anti's are as smart as we believe them to be), or the hard way (no training, no retarded gun-free zones, except the obvious federal one's).

 

If and when the courts DO rule in favor, it leaves us to question if towns or local municipalities have any leeway to restrict carry. I know a handful of local ordinances where some towns (like Des Plaines) ban the carrying of weapons without a permit, others (like Skokie) ban it entirely; and some (Highland Park, I believe) actually restrict carry to calibers (like only .22). So if the Courts do rule, how do we NOT know if towns or cities (read:Chicago) can just screw us with a patchwork of even more restrictions. It makes it ever so more likely the anti's MIGHT benefit from the courts ruling in our favor, how they would, I don't know, after living in Chicagoland and knowing how the dark-powers in the north work, it would not surprise me, if the darklord of Chicago has the last laugh. I expect the best, but prepare for the worst in any event.

[drdoom]

If the Courts oirder an injunction against the enforcement of UUW/AUUW then I would argue that all previously negotiated deals are off and I would actively campoaign to prevent the State from passing a concealed carry law at all.

 

No law prohibiting concealed or open carry at all should be our ultimate goal. If the Courts order it, game over

 

I agree, why screw anymore people over that can't wait another minute, hour and day to protect themselves from the thugs? Keep in mind, if ANY of these bills pass, expect it to take 45 days to get a carry license. Most people that would benefit from these bills would be looking at a wait of 75+ days for FOID, CFP AND Illinois conceal carry license.

[bigskinny]

In any event, the legislature can damn itself by NOT voting for any of the bills. I would like the best case scenario, and have carry through the courts, but THAT might lead to some interesting things done by the likes of Chicago, which nobody would have imagined. In any event, they can either pass it next week (the easy way, IF the anti's are as smart as we believe them to be), or the hard way (no training, no retarded gun-free zones, except the obvious federal one's).

 

If and when the courts DO rule in favor, it leaves us to question if towns or local municipalities have any leeway to restrict carry. I know a handful of local ordinances where some towns (like Des Plaines) ban the carrying of weapons without a permit, others (like Skokie) ban it entirely; and some (Highland Park, I believe) actually restrict carry to calibers (like only .22). So if the Courts do rule, how do we NOT know if towns or cities (read:Chicago) can just screw us with a patchwork of even more restrictions. It makes it ever so more likely the anti's MIGHT benefit from the courts ruling in our favor, how they would, I don't know, after living in Chicagoland and knowing how the dark-powers in the north work, it would not surprise me, if the darklord of Chicago has the last laugh. I expect the best, but prepare for the worst in any event.

 

 

Am i missing something?

[Hatchet]

Typically those are really old laws before a full ban on carry was instituted. But Dr Doom does bring up a good point. If the courts over rule the ban, then would those old laws come back into current law? Seems to me it would.

[Federal Farmer]

Typically those are really old laws before a full ban on carry was instituted. But Dr Doom does bring up a good point. If the courts over rule the ban, then would those old laws come back into current law? Seems to me it would.

 

IANAL, but without preemption, those laws would indeed remain in effect, though of necessity they would not be felonies.

[Drylok]

Pre-emption is pre-emption and any municipality could inact whatever they want and they surely will but they will have no legal leg to stand on.

[xmikex]

The ONLY advantage to a permitting scheme VS constitutional carry is reciprocity with other states. If there's a training requirement similar to other states, it will be easier to get reciprocity with other states.

 

Of course it's all BS and Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land but it is what it is and we'll eventually get to where we need to go...

[bigskinny]

Typically those are really old laws before a full ban on carry was instituted. But Dr Doom does bring up a good point. If the courts over rule the ban, then would those old laws come back into current law? Seems to me it would.

 

 

 

 

Thank you,

[vezpa]

In any event, the legislature can damn itself by NOT voting for any of the bills. I would like the best case scenario, and have carry through the courts, but THAT might lead to some interesting things done by the likes of Chicago, which nobody would have imagined. .

 

So if the Courts do rule, how do we NOT know if towns or cities (read:Chicago) can just screw us with a patchwork of even more restrictions. It makes it ever so more likely the anti's MIGHT benefit from the courts ruling in our favor, how they would, I don't know, after living in Chicagoland and knowing how the dark-powers in the north work, it would not surprise me, if the darklord of Chicago has the last laugh. I expect the best, but prepare for the worst in any event.

 

 

Bingo

[junglebob]

Typically those are really old laws before a full ban on carry was instituted. But Dr Doom does bring up a good point. If the courts over rule the ban, then would those old laws come back into current law? Seems to me it would.

 

IANAL, but without preemption, those laws would indeed remain in effect, though of necessity they would not be felonies.

 

I wonder if a carry bill with preemption passes if Chicago will ignore preemption and just pass some restrictive ordinances, maybe requiring their own Chicago may issue LTC, like New York City in the state of New York. Cleveland Ohio put some ordinances in effect regarding carry even though the bill, with preemption, passed a number of years ago (8 years) prohibited it. The state supreme court has now ruled against them.

[TFC]

Typically those are really old laws before a full ban on carry was instituted. But Dr Doom does bring up a good point. If the courts over rule the ban, then would those old laws come back into current law? Seems to me it would.

 

IANAL, but without preemption, those laws would indeed remain in effect, though of necessity they would not be felonies.

 

I wonder if a carry bill with preemption passes if Chicago will ignore preemption and just pass some restrictive ordinances, maybe requiring their own Chicago may issue LTC, like New York City in the state of New York. Cleveland Ohio put some ordinances in effect regarding carry even though the bill, with preemption, passed a number of years ago (8 years) prohibited it. The state supreme court has now ruled against them.

 

They've been know to do just that with the intent of sparking decades long, multimillion dollar court fights even though they don't have a legal leg to stand on. It's not their money, it's the peoples, but they don't care since they have no personal stake in this. Unless there is an injunction to stop enforcement it will stand for however long the court fight is on. We may have to leave this one for our kids to handle the way the courts move in Illinois.