I EMAILED MY SENATOR

Grey Beret · May 24, 2013 at 11:33 PM

Dear Senator A few days ago I sent you an email asking you to vote "NO" on SB2193. I have spent the last four hours reading this bill and it is a long way from perfect, but it is not as bad as I had first thought.

The really big problem that I have with it is the penalty for wandering into a prohibited place. The bill calls for a misdemeanor charge but I think that it should be available as a charge ONLY IF the permit holder refuses to leave the prohibited place.

I have carried a firearm often in Missouri on a Florida permit and I have found myself in a prohibited place twice. Luckily for me, no one noticed the violation except me. If my violation had been observed though, the law over there only calls for the violator to remove himself and the firearm from the premises. If he refuses then he can be charged with trespass. Permit holders will not blatantly violate the law, I don't think. Inadvertent mistakes should not be reason for arrest and lawyer fees. We are the good guys as a rule.

With that said, please feel free to vote your conscience. I have known of you for a long time and I have trust in your judgment.

Thank you,

blazzinbird · May 25, 2013 at 12:31 AM

Glad to see you changed your views Gary.

Grey Beret · May 25, 2013 at 02:23 AM

Glad to see you changed your views Gary.

You talked me into it. lol Watch your email. One is coming your way.

riverrat61265 · May 25, 2013 at 02:39 AM

its an outrage. everyone thinks there the smartest person in the room on this, what if this bill gets adopted by the senate and signed into law? you realize they (chi dems) still get what they want. they know the $150 fee is a drop in the bucket to the total cost, add the fact that whoever reviews this in the state police could have a hair up there rear and void your application and probubly be no refunds for the cost of training or the fee. Factor in how many low income people can afford or find ammo for 3 hours of range time? we could be looking at $500, $600 or more only to risk it being rejected by a pencil pusher. they dont want concealed carry and limiting it to those who can afford it works much better than you think. factor in there ability to reject it out of hand and you can see nobody gets one. whats the difference from that to before this all started? why is it even remotely likely the senate will reject this because we have been played for the patsy and led by the nose while giving them what they wanted all along, the right to refuse cc to anyone they want to.

chris79ta · May 25, 2013 at 02:48 AM

its an outrage. everyone thinks there the smartest person in the room on this, what if this bill gets adopted by the senate and signed into law? you realize they (chi dems) still get what they want. they know the $150 fee is a drop in the bucket to the total cost, add the fact that whoever reviews this in the state police could have a hair up there rear and void your application and probubly be no refunds for the cost of training or the fee. Factor in how many low income people can afford or find ammo for 3 hours of range time? we could be looking at $500, $600 or more only to risk it being rejected by a pencil pusher. they dont want concealed carry and limiting it to those who can afford it works much better than you think. factor in there ability to reject it out of hand and you can see nobody gets one. whats the difference from that to before this all started? why is it even remotely likely the senate will reject this because we have been played for the patsy and led by the nose while giving them what they wanted all along, the right to refuse cc to anyone they want to.

Have you not been reading? Bud at Buffalo range in Ottawa is offering this class to meet the standards for $100 to insure that most anyone can have the opportunity to carry. Why the negativity? should we have just stayed as we have been? People have worked hard to get us to where we are today, show some respect

papa · May 25, 2013 at 06:40 AM

Please point out to me where it says you have to shoot for 3 hours . What page and section ?

You have a lot of misinformation you are putting out there and causing worry not only for yourself but also maybe others who might read this trying to get true info. Have you even read the bill or are you just going off of what your buddy Bubba's neighbor told you?

edited to add : Racerdave posted a NRA basic pistol class for $85.00 at Waterman. This should cover the shooting portion .

AlphaKoncepts aka CGS · May 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM

heck, I wouldn't mind shooting for 3 hours. I don't get to shoot nearly as often as I like and I am always looking for an excuse.

powderhead · May 25, 2013 at 12:26 PM

I don't see anywhere in the law that one must use their CC handgun for the three hours of training. I intend (if we ever get to this point) to use one of my .22 cal. for the training. I certainly have no intention of shooting a .45 for three hours at today's ammo prices.

One of the biggest objections I am reading of this law is the cost of fees and the training hours. I said this in another post, and I think it bears repeating. I know people that want to CC, and I don't think 40 hours is enough training for them. I think a good 6 - 8 hours could be spent just on the use of deadly force law in Illinois. The last thing we want is for one of our cowboys to shoot someone and think it was justified use of deadly force. Again, I know there are people out there that NEED 16 hours of training. If you are a regular on this forum, you are probably already a "gun person", but most people are not, and 16 hours of training is not unreasonable for that type of new gun owner. Please keep that in mind. As far as the fees go, they are high, and we don't know what that figure will rise to either, but stand in the checkout line at a walmart for awhile and see what people blow their money on. It's appalling what poor people spend their money on.

I really don't know whether I support this law. I think it the ambiguities that I find unsettling. I think there may be surprises in this law that may not become known until later.

billzfx4 · May 25, 2013 at 01:32 PM

One of the biggest objections I am reading of this law is the cost of fees and the training hours. I said this in another post, and I think it bears repeating. I know people that want to CC, and I don't think 40 hours is enough training for them. I think a good 6 - 8 hours could be spent just on the use of deadly force law in Illinois. The last thing we want is for one of our cowboys to shoot someone and think it was justified use of deadly force. Again, I know there are people out there that NEED 16 hours of training. If you are a regular on this forum, you are probably already a "gun person", but most people are not, and 16 hours of training is not unreasonable for that type of new gun owner. Please keep that in mind. As far as the fees go, they are high, and we don't know what that figure will rise to either, but stand in the checkout line at a walmart for awhile and see what people blow their money on. It's appalling what poor people spend their money on.

+1

I'm not thrilled about sitting through 12 more hours of instruction (currently have Utah), but there will be some people applying for a license that have ZERO firearm experience. For some of these people 16 hours will not even be enough to cover everything.

I know it's apples and oranges, but, when your child turns 16 do you just toss them the keys to your car and tell them "Here you go, Have at it"?? Even if driving required no license or training at all, you would want them to have all the training and instruction that they could get.

We are getting up to 8 hours credit for past training, so a lot of people can get by with just an 8 hour course. Isn't that what the training requirement in 997 was??? Again I'm not thrilled, but I fail to see why people are turning this mole hill into a mountain.

mostholycerebus · May 25, 2013 at 03:33 PM

we could be looking at $500, $600 or more only to risk it being rejected by a pencil pusher.

In legal parlance they call that 'damages' so they better be able to back their play in court.

Grey Beret · May 25, 2013 at 04:14 PM

Please point out to me where it says you have to shoot for 3 hours . What page and section ?

You have a lot of misinformation you are putting out there and causing worry not only for yourself but also maybe others who might read this trying to get true info. Have you even read the bill or are you just going off of what your buddy Bubba's neighbor told you?

edited to add : Racerdave posted a NRA basic pistol class for $85.00 at Waterman. This should cover the shooting portion .

As you know Papa, it does not say that. In fact, there will probably be very little time spent actually at the range because a lot of weapon handling can be learned in class room settings. There is a three hours training for renewal, but it says nothing about range time in the renewal portions or firing range scores for renewal that I could find. It seems that renewal could all be classroom at this point but I think I say somewhere that the ISP would be issuing some sort of guidelines for training and trainers.

Grey Beret · May 25, 2013 at 04:20 PM

I don't see anywhere in the law that one must use their CC handgun for the three hours of training. I intend (if we ever get to this point) to use one of my .22 cal. for the training. I certainly have no intention of shooting a .45 for three hours at today's ammo prices.

One of the biggest objections I am reading of this law is the cost of fees and the training hours. I said this in another post, and I think it bears repeating. I know people that want to CC, and I don't think 40 hours is enough training for them. I think a good 6 - 8 hours could be spent just on the use of deadly force law in Illinois. The last thing we want is for one of our cowboys to shoot someone and think it was justified use of deadly force. Again, I know there are people out there that NEED 16 hours of training. If you are a regular on this forum, you are probably already a "gun person", but most people are not, and 16 hours of training is not unreasonable for that type of new gun owner. Please keep that in mind. As far as the fees go, they are high, and we don't know what that figure will rise to either, but stand in the checkout line at a walmart for awhile and see what people blow their money on. It's appalling what poor people spend their money on.

I really don't know whether I support this law. I think it the ambiguities that I find unsettling. I think there may be surprises in this law that may not become known until later.

It is a long way from what I would have liked to see but it is not terrible. I went through it for myself yesterday. It takes a long time but current law is left in place for non permit holders it seems and then there are other prohibitions and requirements for those who have a permit. The penalties are too high, there are too many prohibited places, some things are ambiguous and will have to be settled in court if someone thinks that you broke the law when you went to your trunk to secure the firearm in a prohibited parking lot. But it is O.K. Something we can live with. But if the gods bring us back here next year, I will want a whole new ball game. No mister nice guy from our side. All or nothing. I don't think that will happen . I hope that will not happen.

Buzzard · May 25, 2013 at 04:58 PM

its an outrage. everyone thinks there the smartest person in the room on this, what if this bill gets adopted by the senate and signed into law? you realize they (chi dems) still get what they want. they know the $150 fee is a drop in the bucket to the total cost, add the fact that whoever reviews this in the state police could have a hair up there rear and void your application and probubly be no refunds for the cost of training or the fee. Factor in how many low income people can afford or find ammo for 3 hours of range time? we could be looking at $500, $600 or more only to risk it being rejected by a pencil pusher. they dont want concealed carry and limiting it to those who can afford it works much better than you think. factor in there ability to reject it out of hand and you can see nobody gets one. whats the difference from that to before this all started? why is it even remotely likely the senate will reject this because we have been played for the patsy and led by the nose while giving them what they wanted all along, the right to refuse cc to anyone they want to.

Have you not been reading? Bud at Buffalo range in Ottawa is offering this class to meet the standards for $100 to insure that most anyone can have the opportunity to carry. Why the negativity? should we have just stayed as we have been? People have worked hard to get us to where we are today, show some respect

Giving him the benefit of the doubt - I didn't see that offer, either. ( Can you direct us to it with a link?) I think the training is the biggest pill to swallow of this bill. Secondly is the prohibited places. But it is a starting point and as Abolt pointed out - is better than many states started with and had to endure for years!

markthesignguy · May 25, 2013 at 05:17 PM

The first renewals are 5 years out. A LOT will happen in 5 years of time. Period.

Grey Beret · May 25, 2013 at 05:30 PM

The first renewals are 5 years out. A LOT will happen in 5 years of time. Period.

At least six years out but your point is well taken and is exactly right.

Zia Son · May 25, 2013 at 05:43 PM

I think a lot of people are missing the long-term impact this means for us and the citizens of Chicago. For CC, yes the training, fees, transportation, etc will limit how many low income will receive their license. However, everyone can now legally own any firearm (AR, etc) in their home with no additional fees, registration, or fear of being arrested for lack thereof. This opens the flood gates to a tremendous amount of new shooters (who will become supporters) to enter the ranks. We knew the Chicago Firearm Permit system is flawed, it is now dead. We have shall-issue. This is a tremendous win for us.

WCD · May 25, 2013 at 10:00 PM

I think a lot of people are missing the long-term impact this means for us and the citizens of Chicago. For CC, yes the training, fees, transportation, etc will limit how many low income will receive their license. However, everyone can now legally own any firearm (AR, etc) in their home with no additional fees, registration, or fear of being arrested for lack thereof. This opens the flood gates to a tremendous amount of new shooters (who will become supporters) to enter the ranks. We knew the Chicago Firearm Permit system is flawed, it is now dead. We have shall-issue. This is a tremendous win for us.

+1

Keep in mind (and I admit I'D never thought about it before, either), it's not just those of us who want to carry concealed...a LOT of people couldn't even easily keep guns in their own HOMES for protection without jumping through big hoops held high (CFP and registration, for instance). This bill helps out a lot of those people. For instance, many women might not want to go through the troubleoof figuring out how to conceal on their persons, but I'd bet a lot of those same women would want to have some protection in the home for themselves and their children. Even if it's something small and relatively inexpensive like a Bersa Thunder, which is currently disallowed by Chicago. This way they won't have to worry about $300 for the gun and THEN $100-150 for a CFP class outside of the city, another $100 for a CFP, $15 for registration, and the inconvenience of getting to the class and 35/Michigan just to legally have the thing to protect their families.

It's a bigger picture than just concealed carry. That is, if it passes, of course.

Sharz96 · May 26, 2013 at 04:05 AM

I just want to say that I actually think the 16 hours is overall a good thing. I think it would be much better and fairer if more things were allowed to qualify for the 8-hour waiver for experienced shooters--such as the hunting requirements count; official training even in boyscouts. Certainly ANYONE who was EVER in the military or law enforcement in any capacity that involved firearm training. But for newbies or anyone who has NEVER had any officially recognized training by a qualified instructor? I think 16 hours for them is a GOOD thing. That's EXACTLY what my husband and I are. Brand new gun owners, never touched one prior to this year. We have already gone through 27 hours of classes (four of it range time) including an Intro to Handguns, a 4-hour Utah CCW class, 7 hours on law of self defense, 8 hours NRA Basic Pistol and 8 hours PPITH. And I'm only NOW starting feel like I'm about "there" in being prepared to carry. Still going to do PPOTH in Sept.

Elderberry · May 26, 2013 at 04:54 AM

Here is Bud's training offer. And if you already have 8 hours of training and only need 8 more it is $50. http://illinoiscarry...topic=38097&hl=

The costs of getting a permit under this bill are being pessimistically overestimated by a lot of folks....

Edit: I agree Sharz... It would have been nice if the combat mos vets got at least 8 hours credit too. And probably a range waiver...

skinnyb82 · May 26, 2013 at 06:55 AM

Not to crap on anyone's prior service (especially this weekend) but I do have a practical point. Speaking from experience here. I've shot with quite a few vets and with an AR style rifle these dudes could drill a mouse at 100 yds with iron sights. Hand them a pistol and, well not so great. Not bad by any means but could be a lot better. I have spoken to one of my good friends who served two tours in the sandbox and he told me he's not entirely confident with a pistol and stated that those he served with who had never shot a pistol or didn't on a regular basis and hadn't qualified with the M9 couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol but are downright lethal with their rifles at several hundred yards with unmagnified optics or iron sights.

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

TyGuy · May 26, 2013 at 01:08 PM

Yeah, I never shot a pistol as part of my military service.

C0untZer0 · May 26, 2013 at 02:12 PM

Unless you you were an officer or in an MOS & MTOE that called for you to be issued a pistol, most soldiers would never fire a pistol.

I wouldn't expect everyone in the military to know how to drive an APC or a tank either...

Grey Beret · May 26, 2013 at 03:28 PM

It's not just military. I grew up with a rifle in my hands and I was lethal. Even a squirrel on the run had every reason to run if I had my rifle. Yeah, a squirrel on the run would take more than one shot but he was as good as fried. It was not until I was a middle aged adult that I got my first pistol and gentlemen, it was not a pretty picture. The safest place to be was directly in front of the target. I am proud to say that I have corrected that situation. I am still not a "marksman" but I can pretty much hit what I am aiming at 25 yards. I was pretty good at "point and shoot" with my rifle too. I am not nearly so good at that with a pistol but I would like to be so I will keep working on it. Anyway, the point is well taken about rifle vs pistol. I guess that is why that gubmit doesn't want you to put a stock on your pistol. Yep.

pdpsc · May 26, 2013 at 03:47 PM

Yeah, I never shot a pistol as part of my military service.

I did and you didn't miss anything. At the time, early 90s, the training was terrible and the ancient 1911s were about as accurate as a slingshot. Everyone had to adjust point of aim either high and right or high and left to hit what they intended to hit.

When we got Berettas, it wasn't much better. They were more accurate only because they were not worn out, but the trigger on those make accurate first shots tough and we didn't train enough on fundamentals to ever get that first DA shot on target.

In that period, they treated pistols as a last resort weapon with a "use it until you can get yourself to a real weapon only" mentality. I've heard that the pistol training improved significantly after 9/11 and that they focus more on fundamentals and some units even dabbled in rifle to pistol transitions.

TTIN · May 26, 2013 at 03:51 PM

To everyone who doesn't like this bill. DON'T GET A PERMIT!! You are not required to get one.

Danielm60660 · May 26, 2013 at 04:06 PM

I think a lot of people are missing the long-term impact this means for us and the citizens of Chicago. For CC, yes the training, fees, transportation, etc will limit how many low income will receive their license. However, everyone can now legally own any firearm (AR, etc) in their home with no additional fees, registration, or fear of being arrested for lack thereof. This opens the flood gates to a tremendous amount of new shooters (who will become supporters) to enter the ranks. We knew the Chicago Firearm Permit system is flawed, it is now dead. We have shall-issue. This is a tremendous win for us.

I agree, but it's not passed and signed into law yet. (Just pointing this out in case we have a newbie here who doesn't understand that you are talking a little bit about the future.)

I feel like this is almost complete capitulation by Madigan to offer this. Either A: He has FINALLY heard We The People or B: He's planning to try to screw us ALL next year. If we do get the preemption, however, I think that will unite the entire state even more to not accept any new screw job bills.

C0untZer0 · May 26, 2013 at 04:47 PM

I feel like this is almost complete capitulation by Madigan to offer this

I wouldn't put it past him to have plans within plans within plans, but I don't think it's capitulation by Madigan, Madigan knows that Phelps made so many concessions that he nearly lost the support of gun owners. Well to be accurate the ISRA isn't supporting the bill - they are neutral. We've seen on this forum that many gun owners do not support the bill - people on this forum are split about 60/40.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=37971

I don't think more compromises can be made without losing support for the bill altogether, and the NRA and ISRA will go from being neutral to actively opposing it.

I don't think that Cullerton is so dense that he can't figure that out... I think he believes that threatening to go over the cliff enough senators will chicken out and vote for a bad bill rather than have the state slip into constitutional (court) carry.

Danielm60660 · May 27, 2013 at 02:54 AM

COunt,

I tend to agree with you. What is this guy (Madigan) really planning next? Is he really willing to fight for statewide preemption of ALL firearms laws? I would like to see that happen, but maybe he's just dangling the carrot and plant to change the length of the stick.

DM

Elderberry · May 27, 2013 at 03:15 AM

We are all better rifle shots than pistol shots. I support the training -- training is always a good thing -- but I also like to point out that the 2nd amendment does not say "those who are great marksmen can keep and bear arms"....

Only time will tell who is correct in all these scenarios we are coming up with, but we keep ignoring one of them --- it is entirely possible that the man meant precisely what he so publicly said. It is entirely possible that he realized that if the President of the United States, bringing all the power of his office to bear and exerting all his political capital still got his hat handed to him, well, don't you think the wiliest critter in Illinois might not pay attention to that...??

Sharz96 · May 27, 2013 at 05:01 PM

Unless you you were an officer or in an MOS & MTOE that called for you to be issued a pistol, most soldiers would never fire a pistol....

Really? Huh. I thought pistol was part of initial training across all the military.

Sign In

I EMAILED MY SENATOR

Recommended Posts

Grey Beret

blazzinbird

Grey Beret

riverrat61265

chris79ta

papa

AlphaKoncepts aka CGS

powderhead

billzfx4

mostholycerebus

Grey Beret

Grey Beret

Buzzard

markthesignguy

Grey Beret

Zia Son

WCD

Sharz96

Elderberry

skinnyb82

TyGuy

C0untZer0

Grey Beret

pdpsc

TTIN

Danielm60660

C0untZer0

Danielm60660

Elderberry

Sharz96

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams

Store

Support