Where Things May Eventually Be Headed

[richp]

Hi,

 

As retired LE (along with Bud and many others) I qualify every year to the tune of $100, in order to get the little card I carry in my wallet.

 

Maybe Bud and others saw this, commented, and I didn't notice, but when this program started it was the, "Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry" program. However, it now is the, "Illinois Recognized Concealed Carry" program. This change has occurred in the last year or two, IIRC.

 

So it sort of flashed through my mind this morning that someone in State government may be positioning this little compoinent agency to be the vehicle for issuing CC lisences in the future. I don't have any hard evidence beyond the name change, but it clearly takes this agency a small step away from a LE-only context.

 

Anyone have further thoughs on this?

 

Rich Phillips

[Jeffrey]

Until they actually recognize CC, for the sake of all the virgin ears here, I'll reserve further comment.

[JackTripper]

I also doubt it means a thing.

[kurt555gs]

If the Chicago ruling elite can't stop carry, they will impose as many restrictions as possible to limit the number of people that can get one. Expense, "Training" trade for an "assault weapons ban" to divide and conquer. They will play us against each other.

 

richp may be right. Now as a contingency, later as the framework for very limited carry.

[richp]

Hi,

 

It occurs to me that the fact this change happened after Heller (and maybe McDonald) might not be a coincidence. Someone in Springfield actually might be thinking strategically. (I know, that's highly unlikely in any instance that doesn't involve fleecing us, in which case they are masterful.)

 

Some readers here will recall my previous posts about the LE carry program, and my belief that the civilian carry program likely will not be any less burdensome or costly. LE retirees -- folks who presumably been trained more extensively than most civilians -- are required to qualify annually and pay either $75 (one type weapon) or $100 (revolver and autoloader) to carry a CC card. It's hard to visualize a more relaxed program for non-LE, particularly since a classroom/range training requirement almost surely will be included.

 

However, I hope I'm wrong on all this, and that Todd and others will be able to craft a more practical, minimally burdensome way to put this program in place.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[TyGuy]

First let me say that I am pro LEO but....

 

LE retirees -- folks who presumably been trained more extensively than most ...

 

except the NYPD that shot 9 bystanders when trying to stop one criminal. I have read that the police injure bystanders at roughly 10 times the rate that civilians do. I'll try to find a source on that.

[JackTripper]

I think their mistake was to engage him on the street, when there was no present danger.

That being said, they shot until he dropped, which is what any sane person would have done (once committed to the confrontation.)

[LYU370]

No offense to any LEO's, but, from the IROCC website: "for those who served and earned the privilege"

 

Didn't know that my constitutional right was considered a privilege.

[richp]

Hi,

 

Ty, Jack, and LYU, very one of those points is valid, but that's not what I'm trying to point out.

 

If the bureaucrats of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board and the Illinois State Police have anything to say about it, you can expect to jump through far more intricate and costly hoops than citizens in most other states.

 

I've got a lot of faith and trust in Todd, Valinda and others -- that they will do everything they can to see that I'm wrong. And just to be clear, I'm involved in this so that my wife and daughter can freely exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[Gary]

Hi,

 

As retired LE (along with Bud and many others) I qualify every year to the tune of $100, in order to get the little card I carry in my wallet.

 

Maybe Bud and others saw this, commented, and I didn't notice, but when this program started it was the, "Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry" program. However, it now is the, "Illinois Recognized Concealed Carry" program. This change has occurred in the last year or two, IIRC.

 

So it sort of flashed through my mind this morning that someone in State government may be positioning this little compoinent agency to be the vehicle for issuing CC lisences in the future. I don't have any hard evidence beyond the name change, but it clearly takes this agency a small step away from a LE-only context.

 

Anyone have further thoughs on this?

 

Rich Phillips

Just a thought. Our legal position is that Illinois is the only state that does NOT allow CC. They may be trying to show that they DO allow CC but only with restrictions (for retired leo's only) which makes the state in compliance with the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

[Gunslinger]

This could all be avoided by simply repealing UUW.... Let's see how long it takes to get this post removed

[vezpa]

No offense to any LEO's, but, from the IROCC website: "for those who served and earned the privilege"

 

It says that across the whole front bottom of the card. My dad is retired LEO.

 

A family friend is a retired state trooper in Georgia and they pay $10/year to qualify/permit, and his permit # is his old badge #

[Howard Roark]

Hi,

 

Ty, Jack, and LYU, very one of those points is valid, but that's not what I'm trying to point out.

 

If the bureaucrats of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board and the Illinois State Police have anything to say about it, you can expect to jump through far more intricate and costly hoops than citizens in most other states.

 

I've got a lot of faith and trust in Todd, Valinda and others -- that they will do everything they can to see that I'm wrong. And just to be clear, I'm involved in this so that my wife and daughter can freely exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

Positive thinking about changes such as "Retired Officers" to "Recognized Conceal Carry" is good and encouraged ! Lord knows we have enough glass-half-empty types (well, not a lot, but certainly a few). By the way, $100.00 per year for retired officers or average Joe/Jane is too much money and too often to "qualify". I know you'd prefer $0.00 per lifetime, lol, me too.

[richp]

Hi,

 

In 1971, I got my first CC permit for what was (then) a $5 lifetime fee in Lewisburg, PA. A bunch of us new guys at the penitentiary all went down to the Sheriff's office and got ours as a group. That 40-year old permit is still pinned on my bulletin board as a reminder of past, much simpler days.

 

This cost thing is a legitimate concern. Over 27 years, various moves around the country took me to my final duty station in Colorado, where it cost me (IIRC) $50 for a ten year permit. My whole adult life, I didn't spend as much to retain my licensing as I have in just two years here.

 

I know Todd has our back on this. I just return to this topic every now and then to remind folks that there already is a foundation in place for the licensing scheme (IROCC). It's quite costly relative to other states. It's burdensome in its annual renewal requirment compared to other states. And it's entirely possible they'll try to use that as a template for the civilian program.

 

Could be wrong. Hope I am.

 

Rich Phillips

[TTIN]

Well,if it cost $100/yr. to be able to defend my family,I'd do it......bitchin' about it all the way to the training site.

[Gunslinger]

Sounds like a good thread topic: what is the most would you pay for a CCW permit in Illinois?

[abolt243]

This could all be avoided by simply repealing UUW.... Let's see how long it takes to get this post removed

 

Which is exactly what the Moore/Shepard case asks for, an injunction against enforcement of the UUW/AgUUW laws of the state.

 

Why would your post be removed?

[Gunslinger]

They always seem to disappear when I talk about simply getting rid of the law instead of writing a new one

[abolt243]

I don't think you'll find any argument from folks here that Constitutional Carry or FOID Carry in the case of IL, would be the ultimate, with eventual repeal of the FOID act. However, you may have heard the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum". Meaning that if you create a void in nature, something will move in to take it's place. Same with the Illinois legislature. Nanny state that we are, the lawmakers can't stand to have an activity that isn't regulated somehow (and appropriate fees collected!). If the court would happen to declare UUW/AgUUW unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the enforcement of it against otherwise law abiding citizens, qualified to own firearms, you would hear great wailing and gnashing of teeth among the upper echelons of law enforcement agencies. Legislative leaders would be called together along with the usual suspects that they consider experts on gun laws, i.e. Brady bunch, ICPHV, etc., you get the idea. A carry law would be written very quickly. And our worst fears would be realized.

 

I'd prefer that we (gun rights activists) have as big a role in writing legislation regulating carry in Illinois as possible while minimizing the input from the antis. In order to get an acceptable law passed, we may have to start with a couple of things that we don't really care for, and work in the future to make the law better. I like to use the case of our neighbor, Indiana. They passed their first LTCH in 1935, and have continued to improve it every year since.

 

So, yes, the simple answer is to repeal the offending laws. Were we in South Dakota or Montana, that would work. In our state, we need to be proactive in writing a law we can live with temporarily, and then work to make better. Trust me, there are several versions of a carry law written. Some would do Arizona proud, some are so restrictive that Bloomberg would sign on as co-sponsor. Our goal is to start in the middle ground somewhere and work our way to an Arizona type law.

[vezpa]

I don't think you'll find any argument from folks here that Constitutional Carry or FOID Carry in the case of IL, would be the ultimate, with eventual repeal of the FOID act. However, you may have heard the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum". Meaning that if you create a void in nature, something will move in to take it's place. Same with the Illinois legislature. Nanny state that we are, the lawmakers can't stand to have an activity that isn't regulated somehow (and appropriate fees collected!). If the court would happen to declare UUW/AgUUW unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the enforcement of it against otherwise law abiding citizens, qualified to own firearms, you would hear great wailing and gnashing of teeth among the upper echelons of law enforcement agencies. Legislative leaders would be called together along with the usual suspects that they consider experts on gun laws, i.e. Brady bunch, ICPHV, etc., you get the idea. A carry law would be written very quickly. And our worst fears would be realized.

 

I'd prefer that we (gun rights activists) have as big a role in writing legislation regulating carry in Illinois as possible while minimizing the input from the antis. In order to get an acceptable law passed, we may have to start with a couple of things that we don't really care for, and work in the future to make the law better. I like to use the case of our neighbor, Indiana. They passed their first LTCH in 1935, and have continued to improve it every year since.

 

So, yes, the simple answer is to repeal the offending laws. Were we in South Dakota or Montana, that would work. In our state, we need to be proactive in writing a law we can live with temporarily, and then work to make better. Trust me, there are several versions of a carry law written. Some would do Arizona proud, some are so restrictive that Bloomberg would sign on as co-sponsor. Our goal is to start in the middle ground somewhere and work our way to an Arizona type law.

 

There is not enough anti CCW legislatures to pass "their" version of CCW when its time. We have the majority, just not the Super-Majority.

 

If everyone that voted yes sticks together we will call the shots, if we stick together and don't settle for scraps. I like 148 with duty to inform stricken. I'm good with that.

[Howard Roark]

Well,if it cost $100/yr. to be able to defend my family,I'd do it......bitchin' about it all the way to the training site.

 

Me too. And we would fight it (maybe reason with our good friends across the isle lol), until the poll tax to exercise our constitutional & natural rights are exactly zero.

[JackTripper]

My answer is tied to the training requirements.

8 hours = $100

4 hours = $200

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[junglebob]

I don't think you'll find any argument from folks here that Constitutional Carry or FOID Carry in the case of IL, would be the ultimate, with eventual repeal of the FOID act. However, you may have heard the saying "Nature abhors a vacuum". Meaning that if you create a void in nature, something will move in to take it's place. Same with the Illinois legislature. Nanny state that we are, the lawmakers can't stand to have an activity that isn't regulated somehow (and appropriate fees collected!). If the court would happen to declare UUW/AgUUW unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the enforcement of it against otherwise law abiding citizens, qualified to own firearms, you would hear great wailing and gnashing of teeth among the upper echelons of law enforcement agencies. Legislative leaders would be called together along with the usual suspects that they consider experts on gun laws, i.e. Brady bunch, ICPHV, etc., you get the idea. A carry law would be written very quickly. And our worst fears would be realized.

 

I'd prefer that we (gun rights activists) have as big a role in writing legislation regulating carry in Illinois as possible while minimizing the input from the antis. In order to get an acceptable law passed, we may have to start with a couple of things that we don't really care for, and work in the future to make the law better. I like to use the case of our neighbor, Indiana. They passed their first LTCH in 1935, and have continued to improve it every year since.

 

So, yes, the simple answer is to repeal the offending laws. Were we in South Dakota or Montana, that would work. In our state, we need to be proactive in writing a law we can live with temporarily, and then work to make better. Trust me, there are several versions of a carry law written. Some would do Arizona proud, some are so restrictive that Bloomberg would sign on as co-sponsor. Our goal is to start in the middle ground somewhere and work our way to an Arizona type law.

 

There is not enough anti CCW legislatures to pass "their" version of CCW when its time. We have the majority, just not the Super-Majority.

 

If everyone that voted yes sticks together we will call the shots, if we stick together and don't settle for scraps. I like 148 with duty to inform stricken. I'm good with that.

 

I hope their aren't enough legislators to pass "their version" of a LTC bill. It occured to me that to pass their version only 50% plus one are needed. They won't care if home rule communities add something more restrictive they'll welcome it. And I'm sure that Madigan won't require a super majority for it. I guess the key is to make sure those legislators who support LTC know that we don't want them to vote for a watered down may issue bill.

[abolt243]

Vezpa, Yes, if we hold the votes. Junglebob's hit it on the head. Different requirements may come into play if a hostile bill came up. Also, remember that there are a lot of plates in the air right now politically in Illinois. Prison Closures, Pension reform, casinos, Chicago crime, lots of other local issues that can be used to gin up support for a poor bill. I don't think that they can get 60 votes for a bad bill either, but this is Illinois. Anything can happen. We must be proactive and play offense with a carry bill to shut out any hostile takeover action by the antis.

 

If we get a good opinion from the courts, 148 would need to undergo a drastic rewrite to be acceptable. JackTripper, I'm not sure how to take your $100/$200 comment, but the training component should be tied to the amount necessary to properly train a new gun owner in the safe, legal ownership and use of the firearm. The fee should be tied to the cost to the state to issue the license. That would include computer upgrades, personnel requirements, etc. The fee for 148 was $100, the fiscal notes filed with the bill indicated that the state would profit more than $28 million. That's after paying expenses of less than $3 milliion and is for the first year ONLY. The ISP notes that this is a conservative estimate based on the FOID apps and firearm transfers over the last four years.

 

I think we can afford to drop the fee to at least $50 if not lower. The folks that need it most will be those least likely to be able to afford an exhorbitant fee.

[JackTripper]

@Abolt243 - Just trying to answer the question posed. While I know that it is irrelevant to how the fees will be determined, I find myself in the position of having more money than time.

If someone were to tell me, "Jack, you need to get mandatory training. Do you want 8 hours for $100, or 4 hours for $200," I would choose the latter.

That is all :-)

[Indigo]

Doesn't somebody have a suit against NYC for excessive fees for gun permits? I think that will be the next "poll tax" issue, and that case may start a trend.

[abolt243]

@Abolt243 - Just trying to answer the question posed. While I know that it is irrelevant to how the fees will be determined, I find myself in the position of having more money than time.

If someone were to tell me, "Jack, you need to get mandatory training. Do you want 8 hours for $100, or 4 hours for $200," I would choose the latter.

That is all :-)

 

Now I understand your comment. However, understand that a great many of us are not so well blessed.

 

AB

[richp]

Hi AB,

 

Well put. Whatever form this finally takes, the licensing scheme -- both the training and administrative costs -- needs to be reasonable and within the easy reach of ordinary citizens.

 

That's one of the (many) big problems with the Chicago setup. Costs documented here on this forum clearly show that the city has made legal ownership -- not carry, just ownership -- expensive beyond what many can afford. It would be a shame if the same burdens were inherent in any state licensing program.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[vess1]

At this point I think any fee should be just enough to cover expenses and not a penny more. The time to accept some exhorbitant fee was 20 years ago to get something done. If ever. Peoples right to self defense shouldnt hinge on how big of a cash cow the state can turn this into once theyre forced to pass a bill.

 

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

[THE KING]

Alright, I know someone will jump on this, but here it goes anyway.

 

I don't believe I should have to pay a dime to exercise my constitutional right. Now, for my disclaimer

 

Do I believe in training ?? YES

 

Do I believe in government mandated training ?? NO

 

What I do believe in and what I would like to see, is CONSTITUTINAL CARRY !!