PPK Posted January 31, 2009 at 06:25 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 06:25 PM John Bradleys bill: Synopsis As IntroducedCreates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Establishes statewide uniform standards for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms in this State. Vests in the Department of State Police the authority to issue concealed firearms permits to qualified applicants. Requires an applicant to complete a training course in handgun use, safety, and marksmanship. Also requires instruction in the law relating to firearm use. Creates the Citizen Safety and Self-Defense Trust Fund administered by the Department. The moneys in the Fund shall be used to administer the Act. Establishes restrictions on carrying concealed firearms. Establishes standards for the training course and for certifying instructors. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Family and Personal Protection Act supersedes an ordinance of a unit of local government inconsistent with that Act. Prohibits a home rule unit from regulating the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Exempts, from an unlawful use of weapons and aggravated unlawful use of weapons violation, persons who carry or possess firearms in accordance with the Family and Personal Protection Act. Effective immediately. The first ammendment offered: (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑13.1) Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act. (Source: P. A. 76‑1939.) Without preemption, Chicago will still be left out in the cold. I tried to put a link to the information source but couldn't get it to work. Do a Google search for "Illinois HB0245" and that will take you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:07 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:07 PM http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...ID=76&GA=96 I see no such amendment. But just to play the devil's advocate ... it seems that Chicago and much of Cook county does not want the right of the people to bear arms. So ... what if allowing them to be excluded would be enough to sway a majority to pass such a bill? That way, at least those outside of Cook county (such as those in Johnson), would be able carry in accordance with state law and the US constitution. Isn't freedom for some better than freedom for none? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewellnitz Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:22 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:22 PM http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...ID=76&GA=96 I see no such amendment. But just to play the devil's advocate ... it seems that Chicago and much of Cook county does not want the right of the people to bear arms. So ... what if allowing them to be excluded would be enough to sway a majority to pass such a bill? That way, at least those outside of Cook county (such as those in Johnson), would be able carry in accordance with state law and the US constitution. Isn't freedom for some better than freedom for none?I think that would be opening up a whole can of worms that we don't want to get into. All it would take is to accidentally cross into a municipality that prohibits LTC and you're done. Preemption is the only way LTC can be of any meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:36 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:36 PM Preemption is the only way LTC can be of any meaning. Without full preemption LTC would be about as meaningful as rural open carry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:39 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:39 PM The way I interpret it, it would only still hinder acquisition being in chicago. The LTC would be state wide, and Chicago would have to "deal" with all the non-residents being allowed to carry on their state license??? (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑13.1)Sec. 13.1.The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any municipality which requires registration or imposes greater restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not invalidated or affected by this Act.(Source: P. A. 76‑1939.)&& Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that the Family and Personal Protection Act supersedes an ordinance of a unit of local government inconsistent with that Act. Prohibits a home rule unit from regulating the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:43 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:43 PM So if I am reading and interpreting it correctly, a Chicago resident would still not be allowed to own/possess a handgun in their home. But if a good ole' DuPage Co., Kane Co., or other Co. resident had to venture into the city limits, they could do so while 'packing' with their valid IL LTC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kipp Jones Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:45 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:45 PM http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus...ID=76&GA=96 I see no such amendment. But just to play the devil's advocate ... it seems that Chicago and much of Cook county does not want the right of the people to bear arms. So ... what if allowing them to be excluded would be enough to sway a majority to pass such a bill? That way, at least those outside of Cook county (such as those in Johnson), would be able carry in accordance with state law and the US constitution. Isn't freedom for some better than freedom for none? Agreed, and when they see the rest of the state with lower crime rates, they may change their minds and get on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPK Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:55 PM Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 07:55 PM I guess it depends on interpretation. I read it that Chicago residents would be able to get an LTC that would be recognized by the rest of the state but, like the rest of us, they wouldn't be able to carry in Daley's kingdom. It would still suck if you spent most of your time in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted January 31, 2009 at 08:12 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 08:12 PM PPK ... I believe I have determined where you found this "amendment" regarding home rule. The actual bill offered by Bradley has NOT been amendmend to allow for municipal home rule. The section you quoted was from the IL state statutes that exist now, and that the bill, if passed, would amend. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fullt...=043000650K13.1 So Bradley's bill as it stands now, preempts the laws of municipalities. Here is the relevant text of the bill (changed text in italics): (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1) 9 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any 10 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater 11 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and 12 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not 13 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance 14 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is 15 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Family and Personal 16 Protection Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State 17 that the regulation of the right to carry concealed firearms is 18 an exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit 19 may not regulate the issuance of permits to carry concealed 20 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule 21 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of 22 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. 23 (Source: P.A. 76-1939.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:05 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:05 PM Preemption is the only way LTC can be of any meaning. Without full preemption LTC would be about as meaningful as rural open carry! Without preemption, other municipalities could adopt Chicago's laws and create a dangerous patchwork of legal pitfalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:14 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:14 PM Preemption is the only way LTC can be of any meaning. Without full preemption LTC would be about as meaningful as rural open carry! Without preemption, other municipalities could adopt Chicago's laws and create a dangerous patchwork of legal pitfalls. If the preemption were only for entities with 1,000,000 or more it would make more sense?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:37 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:37 PM PPK ... I believe I have determined where you found this "amendment" regarding home rule. The actual bill offered by Bradley has NOT been amendmend to allow for municipal home rule. The section you quoted was from the IL state statutes that exist now, and that the bill, if passed, would amend. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fullt...=043000650K13.1 So Bradley's bill as it stands now, preempts the laws of municipalities. Here is the relevant text of the bill (changed text in italics): (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1) 9 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any 10 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater 11 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and 12 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not 13 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance 14 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is 15 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Family and Personal 16 Protection Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State 17 that the regulation of the right to carry concealed firearms is 18 an exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit 19 may not regulate the issuance of permits to carry concealed 20 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule 21 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of 22 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. 23 (Source: P.A. 76-1939.) Exactly right GF. When bills are filed, any statutes that would be affected by the passage of that bill must be identified. That is part of what is done by the LRB (Legislative Research Bureau). What PPK has pointed out is that listing of statutes that are affected (amended) by this bill. The second reference is to Chapter 720 of the criminal code which lists the persons not affected by the section of the code (720/24.1.......) that defines UUW. I.E. the passage of HB245 will add another classification of people to that list, persons possessing a valid license issued pursuant to the Family and Personal Protection Act will not be guilty of UUW. The list tells us that passage of this bill will amend the Home Rule and the UUW sections of existing statutes. As to passing a bill without pre-emption, IMHO, that will be the only way to get LTC started in IL. Notice that I did not say that would be the only way to get it, just the way to start. We have to start somewhere, and with the resistance we encounter from certain areas of the state, we must take it in baby steps. Ohio and most recently Nebraska have done that very thing. Ohio was a very short time in getting their law improved to state wide pre-emption and Nebraska is in the middle of that process now. You gotta start someplace people. We've tried for over ten years to get a pre-emptive bill passed. It hasn't worked regardless of the party in power at the state house or governor's desk. Let's back up and begin crawling on our way to a full fledged sprint to the ultimate goal of state-wide preemption, or, do I dare suggest Vermont style RTC??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPK Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:45 PM Author Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 09:45 PM I'm really glad you cleared that up for me. I couldn't figure out how there were already 2 ammendments to a bill that hasn't even made it out of the rules commitee, yet. I saw it when I was looking for John Bradley's website to thank him for the work so far on this bill and to see if he had any idea of Pat Quinn's stance on LTC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:16 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:16 PM Now, assuming full preemption as introduced, will the democratic leadership impose the 2/3 rule for overriding home rule? If I can remember they have always invoked this rule for legislation they opposed but overlooked the rule for the laws they supported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM I read the bill. Much good. A lot of stuff that needs to be less confusing. They also need to address the public places issue, which is not specifically addressed. Maybe some of us should take a stab at cleaning it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:43 PM Share Posted January 31, 2009 at 11:43 PM Now, assuming full preemption as introduced, will the democratic leadership impose the 2/3 rule for overriding home rule? If I can remember they have always invoked this rule for legislation they opposed but overlooked the rule for the laws they supported. Good point Lockman. I was under the impression that anything that preempts home rule needs 3/5ths (60%), same as overriding a gov's veto, I'll try to check on that. But you're right, that is part of the reason that we've never gotten a bill to a vote is the need for more yea votes. A non preemptive bill would only require a simple majority, 60 votes in the House, 30 in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherryriver Posted February 1, 2009 at 01:36 AM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 01:36 AM I'd venture that there are few things Rich Daley would fight to the death for more than home rule. Guns or not, home rule is the autonomy he needs to be insulated from the rest of the (Illinois) world.He's not the only one enamored of that little treasure, either. Anything that disconnects laws from politicians is beloved by politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted February 1, 2009 at 01:44 AM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 01:44 AM Without full preemption LTC would be about as meaningful as rural open carry! Inconvenient yes, and correct me if I'm wrong but aren't several of the 48 good states ones that lack preemption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:20 AM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:20 AM Back when we had the LTC informational meeting in Benton,before the 14 counties voted on whether we should have LTC in Il.,there was rumors that a LTC bill that left Chicago out of it might be tried.I don't know if this is it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctman800 Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:35 AM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:35 AM The initial LTC bill that passes in Illinois will not be perfect! Wisconsin is the only other state that has no provision for legal carry, but they have come close a couple times. The last time it failed there was a lot of discussion on The High Road about what was going on. There were two factions, one wanted something passed even though it wouldn't be a great bill. The other wanted nothing less than Vermont style carry or nothing. Wisconsin still has nothing. In recent years Ohio and Missouri both passed LTC and had it signed into law. I don't remember how close Ohio was but Missouri came down to one vote on an override of the Governors veto. Both these states had some really stupid provisions in their bills but once again they took the best bill that COULD BE PASSED at that time and made the best of it. Since that time after these states didn't turn into the "wild west" more bills have been passed that have given both states some good carry laws. We need to be serious and practical, right now is our best chance to get something passed, it won't be perfect but something to build on. The other option is to settle for nothing less than perfect, state wide or nothing. Then we can sit around and complain because we have nothing. Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 1, 2009 at 03:49 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 03:49 PM Back when we had the LTC informational meeting in Benton,before the 14 counties voted on whether we should have LTC in Il.,there was rumors that a LTC bill that left Chicago out of it might be tried.I don't know if this is it or not. TTIN, This is not that bill. This bill is a pre-emptory bill that overrides all local law. Please read posts #9 and 12 for the explanation of the statute being quoted. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:19 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:19 PM Back when we had the LTC informational meeting in Benton,before the 14 counties voted on whether we should have LTC in Il.,there was rumors that a LTC bill that left Chicago out of it might be tried.I don't know if this is it or not. TTIN, This is not that bill. This bill is a pre-emptory bill that overrides all local law. Please read posts #9 and 12 for the explanation of the statute being quoted. Tim Yes I understand that.I was just posting a rumor I heard at that stated meeting.I guess I confused the issue with my last sentence.Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:33 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:33 PM Back when we had the LTC informational meeting in Benton,before the 14 counties voted on whether we should have LTC in Il.,there was rumors that a LTC bill that left Chicago out of it might be tried.I don't know if this is it or not. TTIN, This is not that bill. This bill is a pre-emptory bill that overrides all local law. Please read posts #9 and 12 for the explanation of the statute being quoted. Tim Yes I understand that.I was just posting a rumor I heard at that stated meeting.I guess I confused the issue with my last sentence.Sorry about that. No problem, I thought that you had missed the explanation. I too have heard reports of a "non-preemtive" bill. Several legislators have commented in the past that they though such a bill would fly. Now that the Blago circus has left town, I'd guess that introduction of bills in both the Senate and the House will kick into high gear this week. I'll be watching.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:42 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 04:42 PM The initial LTC bill that passes in Illinois will not be perfect! Wisconsin is the only other state that has no provision for legal carry, but they have come close a couple times. The last time it failed there was a lot of discussion on The High Road about what was going on. There were two factions, one wanted something passed even though it wouldn't be a great bill. The other wanted nothing less than Vermont style carry or nothing. Wisconsin still has nothing. In recent years Ohio and Missouri both passed LTC and had it signed into law. I don't remember how close Ohio was but Missouri came down to one vote on an override of the Governors veto. Both these states had some really stupid provisions in their bills but once again they took the best bill that COULD BE PASSED at that time and made the best of it. Since that time after these states didn't turn into the "wild west" more bills have been passed that have given both states some good carry laws. We need to be serious and practical, right now is our best chance to get something passed, it won't be perfect but something to build on. The other option is to settle for nothing less than perfect, state wide or nothing. Then we can sit around and complain because we have nothing. Jim.If this is how it must be, then so be it. Bring this bill on, so we can start gathering support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:03 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:03 PM Back when we had the LTC informational meeting in Benton,before the 14 counties voted on whether we should have LTC in Il.,there was rumors that a LTC bill that left Chicago out of it might be tried.I don't know if this is it or not. TTIN, This is not that bill. This bill is a pre-emptory bill that overrides all local law. Please read posts #9 and 12 for the explanation of the statute being quoted. Tim Yes I understand that.I was just posting a rumor I heard at that stated meeting.I guess I confused the issue with my last sentence.Sorry about that. No problem, I thought that you had missed the explanation. I too have heard reports of a "non-preemtive" bill. Several legislators have commented in the past that they though such a bill would fly. Now that the Blago circus has left town, I'd guess that introduction of bills in both the Senate and the House will kick into high gear this week. I'll be watching.Tim Yeah,it seems to me that most LTC bills formulate in the House...and I hear of next to none coming from the Senate.Whatz up wit that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Guardian Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:10 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 05:10 PM Yeah,it seems to me that most LTC bills formulate in the House...and I hear of next to none coming from the Senate.Whatz up wit that? House is reelected more often, more swayed by the will of the people. If they get a lot of calls, they start moving their butts so they can keep their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:01 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:01 PM Yeah,it seems to me that most LTC bills formulate in the House...and I hear of next to none coming from the Senate.Whatz up wit that? While SG's observation may have some merit, I think you'll find that most bills are mirrored in the other house as well. Last session HB4544 was the same as SB348(?), HB 1304 was mirrored in the Senate (don't remember the number). Even already this year, HB0182 by Bradley is intro'ed in the Senate by Haines as SB072. If you'll check some of the anti bills listed in the sticky at the top of Illinois Politics forum when Super gets them posted, you'll see that they do the same thing. Just a way of covering the bases and see which house can generate more support. AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:33 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 06:33 PM Without full preemption LTC would be about as meaningful as rural open carry! Inconvenient yes, and correct me if I'm wrong but aren't several of the 48 good states ones that lack preemption? Doing a quick search between opencarry.org, wiki and NRA sites there are only three states with no preemption at all affecting permit holders, they are. HI, IL & NE. But NE & HI local ordinance does not override a state issued LTC on public right-a-ways or private property. Several states are listed as having preemption by court ruling not statute. So as far as LTC holders go preemption is pretty much universal. Cities like Denver and Philadelphia still must honor an LTC. One exception is New York City, a NY state issued permit is not good in the big apple but a NYC license is good anywhere in the state! So Mr. DiNero and Keitel are good packing anywhere in the state. I may have criticisms of any legislation about LTC but will accept anything that moves forward. It would be a lot easier to make incremental changes in existing LTC law, than get RTC, preemption and full reciprocity in one swoop. We must never give up ground on a compromise or sacrifice any segment of the firearm owning community for the betterment of the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:49 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 08:49 PM Imagine if you will that a deadly disease is sweeping the state of Illinois - people are dying everywhere. A proven vaccine is available but Mayor Daley does not believe the vaccine is the answer to the problem and refuses to allow the vaccine to be distributed within the city . . . a few other mayors agree with Daley. Do we deny the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of the state - do we sentence them to possible death because Mayor Daley and a few like him are too dense to recognize a proven solution? No, we get the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of state and then continue to fight like Hades to get it to the good folks of Chicago too. Ohio and Nebraska were two of the most recent states to pass a LTC law - they had been struggling for as long as we have - and could not get the votes necessary. By allowing some municipalities to "opt out" they were able to get the votes needed to pass the bill - now that LTC has been proven to work in those states they now have and are improving their LTC law and are eliminating the "opt out" provision. If Chicago politicians will not even recognize the right to own a handgun in your home, they certainly are not going to recognize the right o carry one for self-defense. If we can pass a LTC law in the rest of the state we should follow the Ohio and Nebraska example and get it done. That would not be the end game - just the first down! Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTIN Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM Share Posted February 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM Imagine if you will that a deadly disease is sweeping the state of Illinois - people are dying everywhere. A proven vaccine is available but Mayor Daley does not believe the vaccine is the answer to the problem and refuses to allow the vaccine to be distributed within the city . . . a few other mayors agree with Daley. Do we deny the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of the state - do we sentence them to possible death because Mayor Daley and a few like him are too dense to recognize a proven solution? No, we get the vaccine to the citizens in the rest of state and then continue to fight like Hades to get it to the good folks of Chicago too. Ohio and Nebraska were two of the most recent states to pass a LTC law - they had been struggling for as long as we have - and could not get the votes necessary. By allowing some municipalities to "opt out" they were able to get the votes needed to pass the bill - now that LTC has been proven to work in those states they now have and are improving their LTC law and are eliminating the "opt out" provision. If Chicago politicians will not even recognize the right to own a handgun in your home, they certainly are not going to recognize the right o carry one for self-defense. If we can pass a LTC law in the rest of the state we should follow the Ohio and Nebraska example and get it done. That would not be the end game - just the first down! Molly B. +1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.