52 replies to this topic

[Kaeghl]

This does not sound good at all. I'd prefer HB 997 be rammed down
throats. That, or go over the cliff with all the multi million dollar lawsuits.

[jandy2640]

The ones that need it the most won't be able to affordt it. And isn't the what really matters?

[karim18]

Negotiations start at where this bill is now. If this were a FINAL bill, sure. But its not.

[Bitter]

TFC, on 22 May 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Livewire18, on 22 May 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

TFC, on 22 May 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

The second you are stopped, (that turn signal that they said you didn't use for example,) you are no longer traveling.
That's their out.

No because that would be entrapment.

I live in Chicago, not Mayberry.... not Mt. Pilot.
"Entrapment" happens 6 times a day here and at least twice on Sundays.
Who's word will the judge take? A Cook County Machine judge? Take a guess..... go ahead, it's free.

No way this interpretation of traveling survives state appellate review.  Zero chance.

Agree with OP.  7th cir is too big a risk with may issue.  What if we pull a bad panel? There is about 50/50 chance of that.  Are you willing to stake the only chance we are going to have for shall issue preemption on pulling a good panel? I'm not.  Losing means no carry for you - ever.

Also, the restaurant alcohol restriction is not so bad.  Other states have that,to wit Mo.

[lieut89]

I will continue to oppose 183 vehemently. If 2193 is the only "realistic" option to counter, I will not get in the way of what I call a "first step". Rome wasn't built in a day, and the Colosseum wasn't built from the top down.

I may not be filing witness slips in favor of 2193, but I certainly won't be filing in opposition.

As few others here have pointed out, there isn't going to be a cliff. There isn't going to be FOID carry. A bill will pass, and it will be either 183 where you can continue to carry while you are out mowing your lawn, or 2193 where you can actually cross the street to check the mail while strapping.

For those who would prefer to take your chances with 183 and drag this into the 22nd century via the judicial system, by all means have at it. That is a decision that only you can make.

I don't like 2193, but I do see shall issue and preemption, and that for now is good enough.

Should a may issue law pass here, you will not see a shall issue bill anytime in the distant future.

[RobR369]

Yeah, its not the best case scenario. but I think is better than the alternative. Its a start, not going to hit a homerun first time up to the plate. Baby steps. Other states didnt start with the carry laws they have now, after either the politicians see its not going to be, like they claim THE WILD WEST, or they are voted out and replaced, then changes can be made for the better

[cberan]

The fee needs to be much lower.  That will never be fixed.  Think about it, when has the state ever lowered a fee???  Never, it will only go up in the future and we need to plan for that.

If they would lower the fee and also the trainning requirments I would support this bill, but I know for a fact that the training and the fee's will never be lowered.

[8x57]

You guys keep saying it will take 71 votes to change it later.  As it is, we had what, about 68 for our bill originally?  That's 8 more than we need to pass an improvement, and only 3 fewer than what is required to override a veto.  Most importantly, one thing I've noticed is that the legislature doesn't take very kindly to the Governor vetoing something that passed both houses with a majority.  I think those 68 votes to pass an improvement could easily turn into at least 71 if the governor vetoes it.  Also, once the legislature realizes CCW is somewhere between no big deal and a very good thing for society, I think we'll see even more support for it.  This has proven true in other states.

Again, we absolutely must take this deal because TV and others in know are all saying it's this or 183, no cliff.  Besides, even if there was a cliff to go over, we'd be rolling the dice with the courts again (which don't forget move at the speed of molasses).  This bill provides an extremely strong foundation on which to start building.  We'd be really foolish not to take it.

Edited by 8x57, Today, 08:13 PM.

[Uncle Harley]

This will screw me out of my non res permit too  which is only valid since ill doesn't currently have a permit when I go to renew ill have to send a copy of my Il permit which I won t be able to afford so if this passes guys like me really lose!

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2

[patriot1776]

No like Mel Gibson said Scraps from Longshanks table .  This will knock out many people. I have not read the cost, is it yearly ?  If it is i said long ago look at what retired Law Enforcement officers pay because it will be the same fees and live fire requirements.

[skinnyb82]

All of this squabbling.  Do you guys know how powerful Madigan is?  He went over to the Senate and torpedoed 183.  Anyone who can do that can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and you cannot do a damn thing about it.  So really, if you want Kwame's bill, that's what you'll get if you don't back this Madigan isn't screwing around.  There will be no cliff.  No FOID carry.  As much as it disgusts me, I'm a realist who realizes that he owns this state.  Squabble, complain, do whatever you want but at the end of the day, it's this or Raoul's bill and a couple more years of fighting in the courts.  Take your pick.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

[howie]

I don't like it.  Too many restrictions, too expensive, training requirement is excessive.  If I can get a 10 yr FOID for $10 then I think a reasonable fee for a 5 yr CCW would be $50.  No mention of NRA training being acceptable.

All I see here is Madigan making a last ditch effort to make it as hard as possible to get a CCW, even for someone who is squeaky clean, especially if they have a modest, at best, income.

Will wait to see what Todd says, but for now, I say no.

[TFC]

I'm so furious about this that I'll say that I'm done posting about this for the night.
I'm glad that I don't drink. I'd be hammered by now.

[chevsuz12]

I agree with most, that we could have better, but this isnt that bad! I am currently in Los Angeles and was discussing this with some of the folks here, and they would love to have this bill!  Do what nearly all other states have done, take what we can then work to make it better!

I am ok with the overall bill......but have some concerns.  My biggest being training.
I am confused by the wording on p.32 that states the training requirements for instructors.  It states the various requirements for law enforcement instructors, then for the 6th requirement it states the word "and".
I think this is a mistake, if it stated "or" then I would think his would allow NRA Certified Instructors.

Any thoughts?

[Joeyl]

TFC, on 22 May 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Livewire18, on 22 May 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

TFC, on 22 May 2013 - 06:15 PM, said:

The second you are stopped, (that turn signal that they said you didn't use for example,) you are no longer traveling.
That's their out.

No because that would be entrapment.

I live in Chicago, not Mayberry.... not Mt. Pilot.
"Entrapment" happens 6 times a day here and at least twice on Sundays.
Who's word will the judge take? A Cook County Machine judge? Take a guess..... go ahead, it's free.

LSD is not a park district road nor is it Chicago Park District land, in fact most of it is US 41. Roads travelling though the crook county forest preserves are not part of the forest preserve. Lets not make things seem worse than they will be.

[woldy2]

chevsuz12, on 22 May 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree with most, that we could have better, but this isnt that bad! I am currently in Los Angeles and was discussing this with some of the folks here, and they would love to have this bill!  Do what nearly all other states have done, take what we can then work to make it better!

I am ok with the overall bill......but have some concerns.  My biggest being training.
I am confused by the wording on p.32 that states the training requirements for instructors.  It states the various requirements for law enforcement instructors, then for the 6th requirement it states the word "and".
I think this is a mistake, if it stated "or" then I would think his would allow NRA Certified Instructors.

Any thoughts?

It allows for NRA handgun instructors

[Jfl0]

I don't take "deals" on rights recognized by the Constitution.

Quote

Do you guys know how powerful Madigan is?  He went over to the Senate and torpedoed 183.  Anyone who can do that can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and you cannot do a damn thing about it.

I've dealt with bullies all of my life, and I most certainly will not be bossed around by someone toying with my fundamental birth rights. I don't care if he's king of the world or king of chicago. I will not submit to that man or any government employee telling me I cannot exercise my right.

Edited by Jfl0, Today, 08:50 PM.

[TyGuy]

patriot1776, on 22 May 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

No like Mel Gibson said Scraps from Longshanks table .  This will knock out many people. I have not read the cost, is it yearly ?  If it is i said long ago look at what retired Law Enforcement officers pay because it will be the same fees and live fire requirements.

I was trying to find this video earlier.  As a Scotsman, with kilts, and a Veteran I can't stand this "take what the government allows us" mentality.  We're all just sheep I guess.

[Velocigoose]

This bill is trash and anyone that supports it should feel bad.  It saddens me to see Phelps roll over... and yes, thats exactly what he done. He rolled over after all this time of saying how he had Chicago by the short and curlys and he wasn't going to compromise and we'll just go to FOID carry. In the end, he rolled over and took it from Madigan.

Seriously? a review board appointed by the Governor?
gtfo.

I don't care who endorses this, it's gone far beyond "the best deal we can get".... they need to draw a line in the sand.
clean 997 or FOID...

[C0untZer0]

I don't like the bill and I am angry.

[TimGiblin]

Anyone thinking they can change this easily down the road is a fool. Anyone wanting to vote for it is as well. From Michigan its taken us a decade to get a few things changed. Legally we can carry in libraries and we are ina  4 year fight right now to prevent second tier levels of government from banning guns. (they attempted to make a loophole to get around pre-emption) and you want to GIVE them a good legal starting point to fight us? That is nonsense. They are petrified of June 9th. Wait till June 11th and start negotiating then, from a position of strength of they are in the red, they have to cave not us. Let us go off the cliff for just a few days, and they will slowly but surely offer us more and more until enough people are willing to settle. That's way better than just going "OOh I got rid of the Chicago registration but my sister got raped and killed in the park, were better than we were" Despicable that you guys are looking at stuff when you have the upper hand, and still bowing down. Vote NO. I want to be marching from a position of legal strength on June 9th not being totally screwed into never being able to pragmatically carry. I live 20 yards from a park if I go right I'm screwed out of my front door. I haven't read the whole thing, I read enough to know its crap and shouldn't be voted for.

[TimGiblin]

jandy2640, on 22 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

The ones that need it the most won't be able to affordt it. And isn't the what really matters?

Apparently from this thread no. If I can afford it I'm good, let the rape victims, the mob deaths continue it doesn't affect me. Despicable. Seriously hope you guys don't claim to be constitutionalists that said vote for this garbage. Let the poor the unlike die. I have money I'm good. Embarassing after spending my time in the sandbox to be seeing this.

[MrMonarch]

chevsuz12, on 22 May 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

I agree with most, that we could have better, but this isnt that bad! I am currently in Los Angeles and was discussing this with some of the folks here, and they would love to have this bill!  Do what nearly all other states have done, take what we can then work to make it better!

I am ok with the overall bill......but have some concerns.  My biggest being training.
I am confused by the wording on p.32 that states the training requirements for instructors.  It states the various requirements for law enforcement instructors, then for the 6th requirement it states the word "and".
I think this is a mistake, if it stated "or" then I would think his would allow NRA Certified Instructors.

Any thoughts?

LA doesn't have a public trans system like Chicago does, and the ban there will dramatically affect a major part of the urban population.

Side note: LA's public transit system was bought out by General Motors through front companies.