vess1 Posted May 16, 2012 at 02:44 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 02:44 PM Just wondering since Chicago can make up their own rules if other cities could do the same in the other direction? What if a city or town in IL passed concealed carry for themselves? So many cities come up with their own restrictive laws that fly in the face of state and federal law. Could it go the other way? It wouldnt help people traveling through but if you spend most of your time in your own city it might be nice. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:00 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:00 PM Both of the bills in the ILGA have preemption, meaning that a city or municipality can not make any laws stricter than what is passed by the GA. This is good as it ensures uniformity. Doing it city by city, or county by county, is not a good approach. 1) It might leave some places out. This is akin to telling Otis MacDonald that it's too bad that he lives in Chicago and that he'll have to just put up with his Constitutional rights being violated. It stinks of cronyism to me. Let's make a deal so that I can carry in my town while saying "screw you" to those in places like Chicago, Springfield, etc... 2) It would create a horrible patchwork of laws. It's already difficult enough when travelling to or through other states to understand all the nuances of their carry laws, and that's only 49 other states. Illinois has 102 counties in it. I don't have numbers on how many municiplalities there are, but there are a LOT. I don't want to have to check upwards of 500 sets of laws just to drive from my town to visit my inlaws. Also, near the major metropolitan areas (Chicago, Saint Louis, etc...) there aren't clear deliniation of where one city stops and another begins. You could be a felon by moving one block over. This is not good. I know it's tempting to go that route, as it might be a fast way to get carry to the more firearm friendly areas of the state, but the end result is not good. Let's stay the course.
abolt243 Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:00 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:00 PM Home rule municipalities can only make stricter laws, not less strict than state law. Sent from two cans and a string.
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:06 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:06 PM But not when talking about a law with pre-emption. At least, that is my understanding.
wilessiuc Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:17 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:17 PM Everytime I log onto this Forum I feel like I am going through deja vu. We discuss the same crap OVER and OVER and OVER.
Milhouse86 Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:20 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:20 PM I think they guy was just asking in general not so much for the bills currently up. Cities are allowed to have tighter restrictions than the state level just like the state can make tighter restrictions than the federal level. But they can not remove a restriction from a particular city. Example: The state says you can only have 2 passengers in the car if the driver is under the age of 18. A city can say you can only have 1 passenger if the driver is under the age of 18. But it can't be the other way around. This is at least how it was explained to me.
Jason4567 Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:25 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:25 PM Everytime I log onto this Forum I feel like I am going through deja vu. We discuss the same crap OVER and OVER and OVER. And that is how the word gets spread.
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:28 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:28 PM Millhouse, I believe this is true in general, but not when discussing laws with pre-emption. It's a glitch in the matrix wilessiuc.
Bud Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:28 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:28 PM Everytime I log onto this Forum I feel like I am going through deja vu. We discuss the same crap OVER and OVER and OVER. that's because new guys join all the time. If we are team building in order to defeat the laws, then we need to accept new members who in turn need to be brought up to speed. Besides, rote training is very effective
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:30 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:30 PM Yeah. I don't mind new guys asking questions, but I wanted to point out why this approach is bad for Illinois.
Milhouse86 Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:33 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:33 PM Millhouse, I believe this is true in general, but not when discussing laws with pre-emption. It's a glitch in the matrix wilessiuc. I understand that. Again I it does not look like he is talking about the current bills in the house just a general question. I could be wrong.
kurt555gs Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:39 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:39 PM Any concealed carry law needs to have statewide preemption. Anything else, and it just could not work.
mauserme Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:45 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:45 PM Just wondering since Chicago can make up their own rules if other cities could do the same in the other direction?... Home rule municipalities can only make stricter laws, not less strict than state law. Hey, I think I found the nutshell everyone was looking for.
Uncle Harley Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:54 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 03:54 PM Pike county tried and it was a no go Like Abolt said can be more strict, but not less strict.................. But here is where I am cornfused ( yes I spelled that right) Here in my little hillbilly town I can go to city hall and get a permit to drive a Mule ( off road utility vehichle) or golf carts on City streets, However I can not drive them on the major highways because they are state owned and they are illegial there, We can cross them though just not travel down the state route. So my question is , why can a city have less restrictive driving rules than the state, but not firearm posession rules?
Drylok Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:10 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:10 PM Because uncle Harley guns kill people, automobiles don't er.....
Buzzard Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:14 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:14 PM Everytime I log onto this Forum I feel like I am going through deja vu. We discuss the same crap OVER and OVER and OVER. It's a glitch in the matrix wilessiuc. A déjà vu happens when they change something. Did the Illinois freeways just become tollways??
abolt243 Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:15 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:15 PM Pike county tried and it was a no go Like Abolt said can be more strict, but not less strict.................. But here is where I am cornfused ( yes I spelled that right) Here in my little hillbilly town I can go to city hall and get a permit to drive a Mule ( off road utility vehichle) or golf carts on City streets, However I can not drive them on the major highways because they are state owned and they are illegial there, We can cross them though just not travel down the state route. So my question is , why can a city have less restrictive driving rules than the state, but not firearm posession rules? Because of who owns the streets?? As for crossing the state owned highways, that may be a long lost accessibility clause in state law. Or maybe they just do it.
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:33 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:33 PM Thanks for the laughs guys. It keeps me sane living in an insane world.
vess1 Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:59 PM Author Posted May 16, 2012 at 04:59 PM Its good to see all these replies so quickly. Glad this forum is staying active. Yeah it was just a general question. Was only wondering if it was possible. I dont necessarily want a patchwork of laws either. Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:11 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:11 PM No prob bob. I asked many questions that others asked before I got here. Get informed, get involved, and get more involved and we will win. We must win!
Patriots & Tyrants Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:14 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:14 PM All things being equal places like Tampa FL amongst others try to pass and enforce local gun laws all the time, Florida has State Pre-Emption of local firearms laws. The problem is unless a state has some kind of teeth behind preemption laws and is willing to use them then you are SOL until a lawsuit comes along. Read this article here: http://www.floridaca...arms-preemptionIf you want an idea of what we might be facing here in Illinois, do you really think a Chicago-Democratic-Machine controlled house, Senate and Governers Mansion would slap the hands of Chicago? I think not. If HB148 was passed tomorrow there would still be a long road ahead.
TyGuy Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:16 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:16 PM I don't think the road will ever end. Even if we get constitutional carry and IL allows NFA fireams, etc... the antis will always work to erode 2A freedoms.
abolt243 Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:18 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:18 PM Indiana has had a form of carry law since 1935. And they still fight to improve it and to keep local ordinances from being passed.
Bud Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:55 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 05:55 PM UncleHarley The ILGA passed a law two years ago that allows towns to permit unlicensed. Vehicles to operate on incorporated town roads
Uncle Harley Posted May 16, 2012 at 06:43 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 06:43 PM UncleHarleyThe ILGA passed a law two years ago that allows towns to permit unlicensed. Vehicles to operate on incorporated town roads ok now we are getting somewhere, I figured someone would know that is why i threw it out there. Thanks!
lockman Posted May 16, 2012 at 06:52 PM Posted May 16, 2012 at 06:52 PM Pike county tried and it was a no go Like Abolt said can be more strict, but not less strict.................. But here is where I am cornfused ( yes I spelled that right) Here in my little hillbilly town I can go to city hall and get a permit to drive a Mule ( off road utility vehichle) or golf carts on City streets, However I can not drive them on the major highways because they are state owned and they are illegial there, We can cross them though just not travel down the state route. So my question is , why can a city have less restrictive driving rules than the state, but not firearm posession rules? Because of who owns the streets?? As for crossing the state owned highways, that may be a long lost accessibility clause in state law. Or maybe they just do it. Under the change brought by hb182, A town would be able to allow carry on all their property. But state highways or any other taxing bodies property would require a separate permission to do so. Thus this is totally impractical.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.