NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill

[mikew]

However, it is important for gun owners to maintain a united front in order to be effective.

 

I firmly believe what Chris Cox has said above, and find the current kerfluffle unpleasant,

as a member of ISRA, NRA, and IllinoisCarry.com. I understand the NRA's position and

IllinoisCarry's position.

 

I'm glad to have Todd Vandermyde's wit and skill at the vanguard here in Illinois.

I'm proud of the good working relationship between him and the ISRA lobbyists and wish for it to continue.

[Ol'Coach]

Geez, Mike...just realized I let my ISRA membership expire!

 

Sorry 'bout that, wasn't intentional.

 

I'll take care of it!

[2nd amendment forever]

So my posted question won't be answered unless I join???

 

WOW

 

Guess the question "Is the ISRA beholden to the NRA?" won't be answered either????

 

Which question? edit: You have asked a lot of questions, I think that most of them are answered.

 

As to this one:

"Is the ISRA beholden to the NRA?"

 

I will paraphrase and add to Todd's answer:

The NRA and the ISRA have a good working relationship, as a team, and yet do not always agree.

I am not going to focus on any disagreement for you, as I believe that maintaining unity is very important,

a key to survival in a hostile environment like Illinois.

 

Spoken like a true politician......

[Federal Farmer]

It seems some people's sole purpose is to sow dissent. Those people we don't need.

[sctman800]

I am dissapointed about the NRA's position on 2257, but that is only one thing. My wife and I don't agree on everything but we have a great relationship. I wouldn't trade her for anything and it would certainly take one heck of a lot more than this for me to leave the NRA.

I also belong to ISRA and CCRA (GUNS SAVE LIFE). A few years ago I had a problem with a couple things the ISRA had done; so instead of complaning from outside I joined. I am sure it wasn't just my membership that changed the ISRA but somewhere in that time frame it seemed their direction changed. Either that or I started to better understand what they were doing and why. Either way it works and I am happy to be a member.

 

 

QUOTE (GarandFan @ May 16 2009, 07:21 PM)

I am a bit surprised when I learn that gun owners serious about their rights aren't members of the national association, and their state association.

 

In some ways, it's hardly fair to engage in discussions of what they do or don't do if one isn't even a member.

 

My Grandfather, years ago, joked that voting gave him the right to gripe about politics. I know it's not technically so, but he did have a point.

 

 

Well said GF, I have always agreed with what your Grandfather said, and with your words of wisdom. No matter if you are talking about the NRA, ISRA, CCRA, ABATE of Illinois or the UAW their responsibility is to their members. If you want a voice you must be a member, that's the way it is and that's how it should be. Jim.

[Buzzard]

]However, it is important for gun owners to maintain a united front in order to be effective.

 

I firmly believe what Chris Cox has said above, and find the current kerfluffle unpleasant,

as a member of ISRA, NRA, and IllinoisCarry.com. I understand the NRA's position and

IllinoisCarry's position.

 

I'm glad to have Todd Vandermyde's wit and skill at the vanguard here in Illinois.

I'm proud of the good working relationship between him and the ISRA lobbyists and wish for it to continue.

 

I agree.

[SirMatthew]

Ok, I'm still irritated but others have made good points that we need to channel this anger into something constructive. I've been thinking all day about it and it's difficult (that anger emotion can be really stubborn!), but I'm thinking it comes down to two things we absolutely must accept.

 

1) Many gun owners want an STHR bill in order to have a way to get LTC with 60 votes. There is no way around this unless we abandon the idea completely, go with the NRA strategy which will require 71 votes, and wait years for that to happen. It's possible we'll need 71 to override a veto, but we want to try this route anyway. We want to pursue a STHR bill, period.

 

2) The NRA's reply seemed aimed at HB2257 specifically rather than the STHR concept in general. Personally, I believe they just might support STHR if it wasn't so problematic for their other strategies. We need to come up with a STHR bill that the NRA will support and shouldn't count on their help in composing it. We came up with one version and I'm sure we can come up with many more. For example, how about a bill that let's county boards decide if they want LTC within their county? Rather than hundreds of patchy municipality areas we'll have narrowed it down to only 102 with each having clearly defined borders to minimize confusion. Based on the Pro2A map we could also probably expect 90 of them to approve this kind of STHR bill. Could we word this into a STHR bill which needed only 60 votes? With some good brainstorming sessions, could we come up with several different ways of getting a STHR LTC bill? I don't care if we come up with 50 different versions of a STHR bill, just so long as we are working hard to get LTC using as many strategies as we can.

 

As it stands, we need the NRA for a lot of reasons and HB2257 may have little chance this session. As angry as I am, I have to accept this fact and be willing to work with them. If we can rework all this we just might be able to get the NRA to support another STHR bill by the next session. If we could pull this together quickly we just might be able to get it into a shell bill this session. Comments?

[bob]

I have spent some time thinking about this, and I would like to say.

 

IF the NRA had said to us:

"We didn't think that STHR would bring LTC to the entire state much sooner than non-STHR would be possible, and by supporting it we would risk putting our members in a situation where they could be arrested and forced to defend themselves in costly legal battles that could have been averted if we had gone about bring LTC to Illinois a different way (that would take slightly longer). We are working on it, we believe we will be making progress soon, and we apologize if it appears that we are doing things contrary to your efforts."

 

I wouldn't have been that upset.

 

But they didn't, and I am. This whole thing unraveled poorly and it could have been avoided.

+1

[bob]

Why didn't pearson inform us of what the NRA was doing????

I got the impression from the guy that called me that they felt that telling Molly what they were up to and why was all they needed to do. I think they did not realize she was not telling a whole lot of people what was going on, and it came to a big surprise to most of us when she made her big announcement.

 

The whole thing was mishandled by a lot of people. The NRA is used to working in the shadows and having our side go along with what they decide. I think they did not perceive there would be much of an outcry on their position.

 

I will point out I have heard from a number of Illinois gun owner who are supporting adamantly the NRA's position on this, as adamantly as some here are advocating the STHR approach.

[2nd amendment forever]

Why didn't pearson inform us of what the NRA was doing????

I got the impression from the guy that called me that they felt that telling Molly what they were up to and why was all they needed to do. I think they did not realize she was not telling a whole lot of people what was going on, and it came to a big surprise to most of us when she made her big announcement.

 

The whole thing was mishandled by a lot of people. The NRA is used to working in the shadows and having our side go along with what they decide. I think they did not perceive there would be much of an outcry on their position.

 

I will point out I have heard from a number of Illinois gun owner who are supporting adamantly the NRA's position on this, as adamantly as some here are advocating the STHR approach.

 

Thanks for your input bob....

 

That being said, someone (anyone) in the know feel free to correct me if I'm misstating here......

 

1. It is my understanding that several attempts over the course of several weeks to the NRA were made to "clarify" their objections to 2257, and it was only after receiving no answer and complete silence from the NRA that this "situation" was made known to everyone.....

 

2. After this info was posted for the entire world to see, and only after the NRA was inundated with calls, faxes and emails regarding this did they feel a response was needed.

 

3. Because I choose to not "accept" the spin the NRA, and later in the thread, the spin the ISRA is putting on this, (which is my 1st Amendment right), there are members here who post "It seems some people's sole purpose is to sow dissent. Those people we don't need.", and last, but certainly not least, the 1st Vice President of the ISRA goes on record to me stating in so many words, that because I'm not a member of ISRA, they don't have to "answer" to me....

 

4. My opinion, since this situation presented itself has been:

 

A bill, even if it is not perfect, is better than no bill at all, which is what we have right now. It enables us to get that proverbial "foot in the door", and amendments to it can always be made.

[Lou]

2. Why is tvm listed right there on the left side of the homepage for ISRA, but nowhere is there anything about any ISRA lobbyists?

 

C'mon man, take a breath and READ the page. The left side of the homepage for the ISRA very plainly says:

 

Capitol Commentary (the title of an article)

NRA LOBBYIST

Todd Vandermyde

 

It's a link to the article.

 

 

I'll ask the question again, Are you an ISRA member?? Are you an NRA member? With a handle like Second Amendment Forever how can you not be? Or is that just a cool handle??

 

Tim

 

I'll answer the question (again)

 

No

 

No

 

I'll support Illinois Carry, as I stated earlier, and as I've stated earlier, (somewhere), I don't support any "national" orgs, for the very simple reason that I prefer to keep my hard earned money "in house", as in "in Illinois", where it will be used for our benefit.

 

I'm pretty upset with the NRA for the way this entire matter was handled but I'm not about to cut up my card and send it to VA. with a nasty note. It's kind of like voting. If you don't vote you have no voice and should not complain when things go against your wishes. I will remain an NRA member because a letter from a non-member will carry about as much weight as one from the Brady Bunch. I member's voice holds more weight.

[Buzzard]

I'm getting some serious deja-vu here.

 

This all sounds strangely familiar.

 

Almost as if....for the very same reasons....some people left a certain large political party,

 

because on some simple point - they disagreed on something.

 

 

Which is why they now belong to the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater party -

 

And they voted for the OOFPPE candidate - Peter Pumpernickle - in the last election.

 

And NOW they're upset by the price of ammunition!

[bob]

Why didn't pearson inform us of what the NRA was doing????

I got the impression from the guy that called me that they felt that telling Molly what they were up to and why was all they needed to do. I think they did not realize she was not telling a whole lot of people what was going on, and it came to a big surprise to most of us when she made her big announcement.

 

The whole thing was mishandled by a lot of people. The NRA is used to working in the shadows and having our side go along with what they decide. I think they did not perceive there would be much of an outcry on their position.

 

I will point out I have heard from a number of Illinois gun owner who are supporting adamantly the NRA's position on this, as adamantly as some here are advocating the STHR approach.

 

Thanks for your input bob....

 

That being said, someone (anyone) in the know feel free to correct me if I'm misstating here......

 

1. It is my understanding that several attempts over the course of several weeks to the NRA were made to "clarify" their objections to 2257, and it was only after receiving no answer and complete silence from the NRA that this "situation" was made known to everyone.....

What I was told by the NRA leads me to believe the NRA told Molly and some others what their position was in no small detail quite some time before the dust up. I don't know who made these attempts at clarification you refer to, how they were made, or to whom.

 

2. After this info was posted for the entire world to see, and only after the NRA was inundated with calls, faxes and emails regarding this did they feel a response was needed.

Big surprise. You really think the NRA does not a get few dozen calls and letters a day complaining about something they are doing? It is easy to ignore a few cranks, because no matter what you do you get them. I wouldn't be surprised if they get a regular stream of calls and letters complaining that the NRA should not support any LTC bill because it is a "compromise" and enshrines an infringement into law. Incidentally, I agree with that position, but I also recognize the reality of politics and the legal system requires these things be done in baby steps or it won't happen at all.

 

3. Because I choose to not "accept" the spin the NRA, and later in the thread, the spin the ISRA is putting on this, (which is my 1st Amendment right), there are members here who post "It seems some people's sole purpose is to sow dissent. Those people we don't need.", and last, but certainly not least, the 1st Vice President of the ISRA goes on record to me stating in so many words, that because I'm not a member of ISRA, they don't have to "answer" to me....

Why would any membership organization feel any obligation at all to answer to someone who is no a member?

4. My opinion, since this situation presented itself has been:

 

A bill, even if it is not perfect, is better than no bill at all, which is what we have right now. It enables us to get that proverbial "foot in the door", and amendments to it can always be made.

I think the fear is that over time the situation will get worse rather than better. Despite our best efforts, that is almost certainly what will happen. Some home rule units probably already have ordinances that criminalize CC, and others would add such ordinances. We would have to watch every HR unit and fight the battle in every one of those places.

 

I doubt we could even keep track of what those 300+ entities are up to, must less have an up to date and accurate chart of where you can carry and where you can't.

 

Those are not trivial issues, despite the way they are laid aside as such by some. I am not saying it should be a deal breaker, but it is a serious concern and if we got a STHR bill passed, we would need to deal with the problem in some way, and not just put our heads in the sand.

 

You guys may remember that in the past I have advocated quite strongly that because a LTC bill was not going anywhere that we should be putting most of our efforts into a firearms preemption bill like most states have. I never thought LTC had much chance of passing, and I still don't think Quinn would sign it, so the chances of a veto seem even slimmer. I would like to see the patchwork of laws regarding firearms be reduced to a single set that every Illinois citizen and visitor can at least easily find. Instead now, you have state laws that are fairly easy to find, coupled with potentially hundreds of sets of HR unit laws that are not so easy to find.

[2nd amendment forever]

I'm pretty upset with the NRA for the way this entire matter was handled but I'm not about to cut up my card and send it to VA. with a nasty note. It's kind of like voting. If you don't vote you have no voice and should not complain when things go against your wishes. I will remain an NRA member because a letter from a non-member will carry about as much weight as one from the Brady Bunch. I member's voice holds more weight.

 

Morning Lou....

 

When Molly first posted this thread, I read it a little before 4 in the afternoon.....

 

I called the NRA up, (thinking I wouldn't even connect because of the 1 hour time difference in Virginia), and lo and behold, a lady answered the phone....

 

I politely informed her I was a member of IllinoisCarry, and I politely informed her of my disdain over the NRA position, and at no time did she ever ask me if I was a member of the NRA, and I never informed her that I wasn't.

 

She asked if I would email her the info....which I was more than happy to do....

 

On May 15, 2009 6:40:59 PM CDT, I received a forwarded email from Scott Christman that he had sent to Valinda regarding this situation.

 

The only reason that they had my email was because I had sent the links of the posting via email from Molly to the NRA....

 

I can only assume, (and I do hate doing that), that I was important enough, member or not, to warrant the email that Chris sent....

[Buzzard]

I doubt we could even keep track of what those 300+ entities are up to, must less have an up to date and accurate chart of where you can carry and where you can't.

 

Those are not trivial issues, despite the way they are laid aside as such by some. I am not saying it should be a deal breaker, but it is a serious concern and if we got a STHR bill passed, we would need to deal with the problem in some way, and not just put our heads in the sand.

 

You guys may remember that in the past I have advocated quite strongly that because a LTC bill was not going anywhere that we should be putting most of our efforts into a firearms preemption bill like most states have. I never thought LTC had much chance of passing, and I still don't think Quinn would sign it, so the chances of a veto seem even slimmer. I would like to see the patchwork of laws regarding firearms be reduced to a single set that every Illinois citizen and visitor can at least easily find. Instead now, you have state laws that are fairly easy to find, coupled with potentially hundreds of sets of HR unit laws that are not so easy to find.

 

C'mon guys!! READ THE FULL TEXT of HB2257 before posting things like this!!

 

Section 95.

 

Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days

after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General

Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance

prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm

within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State

Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that

prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The

Department of State Police shall compile a list of these

municipalities and publish them in a form available to the

public free of charge and shall periodically update this

compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State Police.

Now what's so hard about that? If HB2257 had become law,

on Feb. 1, 2010 you would contact the ISP and ask for a list

of municipalities that prohibit the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders.

 

And the list would be periodically updated.

 

...hundreds HR laws that are not easy to find?

 

They'll be complied on a list. That's not that hard to find.

[mikew]

and last, but certainly not least, the 1st Vice President of the ISRA goes on record to me stating in so many words, that because I'm not a member of ISRA, they don't have to "answer" to me....

no where did I say that we wouldn't answer his question, and even asked for a clarification on which question.

 

Now, again, which question?

[Ashdump]

Anybody here wanna see our 2nd Amendment rights recognized in Illinois?

 

Anybody here think any one organization can accomplish it alone?

 

Let's quit tryin' to find a scapegoat and get with it!!

 

I'm going to point the blame at one more thing, Coach. Me! IL is a screwed up place because a lot of good folks did nothing over the years. I'm one of 'em. Only about the last 5 of my 37 years on this planet have I actually made an effort to see what those who claim to be representing me were up to. You've heard the old saying, "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". You've heard the other old saying, "when you point the finger at anyone, you've got 3 fingers pointing back at you".

 

No doubt that the internet has made getting involved a helluvalot easier than it used to be, but still, where were we decades ago when all these usurpations started? Evidentally there was not much opposition to any of it. Well, here we are! How do you get the smoke back into the chimney? That's the task we are faced with now. We have got to undo more than 40 years of wrongs. We at one time had the right to actually bear arms as well as keep them. We let it go.

[GarandFan]

I am always deeply impressed when those active in the cause of justice and liberty actually take it upon themselves to consider that apathy (and past apathy) has been part of the problem. I take my hat off to you, Ashdump. It is people like you who give me hope, motivation, and resolve.

 

Ironically, it was Illinois restrictive firearms laws, as well as the people pushing for more, that got me interested and active in the second amendment movement. I moved here from Texas, where I could more easily take my rights for granted. But moving here ... and particularly, facing the semiauto ban in Cook county, pushed me into awareness, activism, and scholarship. The Parker and Heller cases just pulled me in all the more deeply.

 

I cannot help but think that my experiences are not unique. I also cannot help but think that (also ironically, in parallel to my case), the gun control movement is now and will in the future foster more gun rights activism and more restoration of second amendment rights. More than if they had just left the issue alone.

[bob]

Section 95.

 

Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days

after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General

Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance

prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm

within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State

Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that

prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The

Department of State Police shall compile a list of these

municipalities and publish them in a form available to the

public free of charge and shall periodically update this

compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State Police.

Now what's so hard about that? If HB2257 had become law,

on Feb. 1, 2010 you would contact the ISP and ask for a list

of municipalities that prohibit the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders.

 

And the list would be periodically updated.

 

...hundreds HR laws that are not easy to find?

 

They'll be complied on a list. That's not that hard to find.

The list of existing ordinances is both incomplete and outdated, and that is mandated by law to be updated. Among others, Carbondales revised ordinance is not there. The one that is there completely forbids transporting your gun at all. That ordinance has since been revised to allow transport via the same three exceptions as is in the UUW act, but the version shown on the ISP web site doies not show that.

[papa]

Ashdump ,

 

I couldn't have said it any better! I also am in the boat with you. And so are many more that still haven't awakened.

 

On another note , as I watch this thread and read the posts , I have to wonder how many times some people are going to walk around the dead horse and kick it in the XXX ( butt ) thinking that will make it get up and run again .

 

I understand the anger ( have some of my own ) but I see no reason to keep hashing over the same thing . What is done is done and it is time to move on . We grip and complain about the NRA killing one bill ( yes one we wanted very badly ) but how many times did they get thanked for stoping all the very bad bills we didn't want ??? How many people on this board Said thanks to Todd ?? How many bad bills would we have on the books if it weren't for Todd standing and fighting for us??? Oh by the way , Who is it Todd works for ? Yeah .. the NRA!!!

 

So the NRA kills many bad bills we don't want and we say nothing yet when they kill one bill we do want , some want nothing at all to do with them ever again. Does that really make any sense ??

 

The gun grabbers got where they are today by sticking together . They know what they want and they don't fight about who did what . They banded together and were able to move forward . On the other hand , we gun owners constantly fight among ourselves ... We can't decide on what guns should be allowed , how many rounds a gun should be allowed to hold , or even how many we should be allowed to buy . So how would we win these fights without the NRA ???

 

To Todd I say >> THANKS for fighting against the gun grabbers on my behalf and please continue .

[Buzzard]

I doubt we could even keep track of what those 300+ entities are up to, must less have an up to date and accurate chart of where you can carry and where you can't.

 

*edit*

 

coupled with potentially hundreds of sets of HR unit laws that are not so easy to find.

Section 95.

 

Municipal ordinance submission.

see post #349

 

They'll be complied on a list. That's not that hard to find.

The list of existing ordinances is both incomplete and outdated, and that is mandated by law to be updated. Among others, Carbondales revised ordinance is not there. The one that is there completely forbids transporting your gun at all. That ordinance has since been revised to allow transport via the same three exceptions as is in the UUW act, but the version shown on the ISP web site doies not show that.

Thank you for pointing this out, Bob. But - if that is the case and I am taking it on your word, then call the ISP and the representative and senators in that district. Tell them that the municipal ordinance list is outdated. This only gives MORE credibility to the fact that the ISP is not keeping up with the business end they are charged with. As HB2257 states, there is a window for municipalities to submit their ordinances. These cities must comply with the new ordinance.

 

If ISP lists aren't up to date, report it.

 

I blame the ISP and Blagojevich with skimming funds.

 

DON'T blame a bill that never became LAW.

[junglebob]

Bob mentioned the Carbondale ordinance on firearm transport not being updated, how about those cities in the Chicago area (most of them anyway) that have ordinances and never bothered to have them posted in the first place. I seem to recall there were maybe 6. They used to be listed as having ordinances but none were listed, or did they recind them? I doubt it.

[wazzle]

post deleted

[Rich]

I also got the same e-letter to Valinda ( I am assuming that would be Molly B, but how would I really know that??? and why am I getting *her* mail???), personal details blacked out, in a copy on 15 May. That is the response I get from NRA for my letter of concern, in which I had asked different questions and offered up my opinion...and I get a copy of a letter to someone else.?? How intelligent is this? (Personal note: when managing a conflict of this proportion, don't be a dork).

 

That said (I am irritated, really) the NRA still has my vote. I will join ISRA and I didn't know that this ILCC had "dues" (in fact, this web site is so awful that it is a chore to come visit and figure out what the heck is really going on)...BUT we're all working for the same thing, well "we" as in those members of NRA, ISRA and ILCC anyhow.

 

There's been lots of good input on this post! Thank you.

[Buzzard]

Sorry Rich, I misread the tone of your letter.

 

My apologies.

[bob]

Thank you for pointing this out, Bob. But - if that is the case and I am taking it on your word, then call the ISP and the representative and senators in that district. Tell them that the municipal ordinance list is outdated. This only gives MORE credibility to the fact that the ISP is not keeping up with the business end they are charged with. As HB2257 states, there is a window for municipalities to submit their ordinances. These cities must comply with the new ordinance.

 

If ISP lists aren't up to date, report it.

 

I blame the ISP and Blagojevich with skimming funds.

 

DON'T blame a bill that never became LAW.

I am only pointing out that relying on what amounts to voluntary submissions from HR units is not going to get you a complete list. There is no penalty for noncompliance by the municipality.

 

here is the law on firearms ordinances.

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.3)

Sec. 13.3. Municipal ordinance submission. Within 6 months after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly, every municipality must submit to the Department of State Police a copy of every ordinance adopted by the municipality that regulates the acquisition, possession, sale, or transfer of firearms within the municipality and must submit, 30 days after adoption, every such ordinance adopted after its initial submission of ordinances under this Section. The Department of State Police shall compile these ordinances and publish them in a form available to the public free of charge and shall periodically update this compilation of ordinances in a manner prescribed by the Director of State Police.

 

No penalty for failure to comply, and no requirement that the ISP verify anything.

 

Note that they choose for some reason not to even include other HR units in this law that might have firearms related ordinances.

 

You might be willing to trust your freedom to the good will of the HR units that pass antigun legislation, and that the ISP wonj't lose the submissions, but I think history has shown that is a terrible bet.

 

Just out of curiousity who would I report the incomplete and outdated list to? The law does not provide that anyone is responsible for seeing it is kept up to date.

[Buzzard]

I believe section 95 of HB2257 would have superceded (430 ILCS 65/13.3) had it became law.

 

I'll post it again.

 

Section 95. (HB2257)

 

Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days

after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General

Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance

prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm

within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State

Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that

prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The

Department of State Police shall compile a list of these

municipalities and publish them in a form available to the

public free of charge and shall periodically update this

compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State Police.

 

You also asked,

 

Who would I report the incomplete and outdated list to?

The law does not provide that anyone is responsible for seeing it is kept up to date.

 

Section 95 states that the ISP is responsible for compiling the list and updating it. The rest of your concerns are based on "what if's?" What if a HR unit fails to comply? What if the ISP loses their submission? Are such situations really that common? If a HR unit was not in compliance with the law, would a ticket stick? I really doubt it.

[bob]

I believe section 95 of HB2257 would have superceded (430 ILCS 65/13.3) had it became law.

 

I'll post it again.

 

Section 95. (HB2257)

 

Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days

after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General

Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance

prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm

within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State

Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that

prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The

Department of State Police shall compile a list of these

municipalities and publish them in a form available to the

public free of charge and shall periodically update this

compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State Police.

 

You also asked,

 

Who would I report the incomplete and outdated list to?

The law does not provide that anyone is responsible for seeing it is kept up to date.

 

Section 95 states that the ISP is responsible for compiling the list and updating it. The rest of your concerns are based on "what if's?" What if a HR unit fails to comply? What if the ISP loses their submission? Are such situations really that common? If a HR unit was not in compliance with the law, would a ticket stick? I really doubt it.

First off it is not a ticket. You don't typically go to jail for tickets. Don't make 6 months in jail a joke, because it is not a joke. Ignorance of the law does not negate a law.

 

Secondly, the ISP gets to update the thing as they see fit. thats what the law says. read it. Don't read it and put things in there that are not there. The law clearly says the municipalities shall send their ordinances to the ISP. Thats how they get collected. No provision for the ISP to check on them at all. No provision for any penalty if they don't bother to send them in. No provision that the local ordinance is invalid if for some reason it is not on the list (that would BTW require some level of preemption).

 

BTW, why does this section only cover municipalities? Other units of government have gun laws that they enforce. Why are they not covered here?

[Don Gwinn]

Because only municipalities are home-rule entities, and only home-rule entities would have the legal power to enact such ordinances under 2257. It wouldn't be necessary to require other entities to report ordinances they don't have the power to enact in the first place.

 

If you'd like to amend the section to provide for a specific penalty to be assessed when a home-rule unit fails to submit their ordinance within 30 days, or for the ISP if they fail to update the list, I don't think anyone here would object to that. The bill was not killed over that detail. What we're talking about here is the concept of STHR license to carry, not just this bill.

I think everyone here would agree that it would be great to amend the bill so that any municipal ordinance not published to the official list within 30 days of enactment is void (it could be stated, perhaps, that the failure of the municipality or the ISP to update the list on time creates an affirmative defense, or maybe there's a way to stop it at the charging level. Ask the lawyers.)

[bob]

Because only municipalities are home-rule entities, and only home-rule entities would have the legal power to enact such ordinances under 2257. It wouldn't be necessary to require other entities to report ordinances they don't have the power to enact in the first place.

Counties can also be HR entities.

 

Take a look at section 6, para (a) of the IL constitution.

 

2257 does not give a HR unit any powers at all. They already have the power to nullify 2257.

 

Note what was/is in the original version of 2257.

 

(430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)

17 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any

18 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater

19 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and

20 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not

21 invalidated or affected by this Act, except that an ordinance

22 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is

1 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense

2 Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State that the

3 regulation of the right to carry defensive firearms is an

4 exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit may

5 not regulate the issuance of permits to carry defensive

6 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule

7 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of

8 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

 

This is horribly written. No HR unit could invalidate a state law to issue LTCs in the first place, so that would be a moot point.

 

however, one might argue that a HR unit would not have the power to invalidate the defensive carry of firearms under this bill.

 

take a look at what the IL constitution actually says.

 

(g) The General Assembly by a law approved by the vote

of three-fifths of the members elected to each house may deny

or limit the power to tax and any other power or function of

a home rule unit not exercised or performed by the State

other than a power or function specified in subsection (l) of

this section.

In general it takes a super majority to overrule a HR unit.

 

(h) The General Assembly may provide specifically by law

for the exclusive exercise by the State of any power or

function of a home rule unit other than a taxing power or a

power or function specified in subsection (l) of this

Section.

It does not say a super majority is required for the state to exercise exclusive jurisdiction.

 

(i) Home rule units may exercise and perform

concurrently with the State any power or function of a home

rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does

not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or

specifically declare the State's exercise to be exclusive.

If the state exercises exclusive jurisdiction, the HR unit can't.

 

The question would seem to be whether a 3/5 vote is required for the state to exercise exclusive jurisdiction. Does (g) apply to (h)? It would appear to, but it seems sort of vague. Anyone know if there are any cases on point?

 

My non-lawyer thinking is that (g) is a requirement in addition to (h). That would seem to imply this bill would require a super majority in any case making the whole argument we have been having of late an academic one since we have no chance of getting a super majority, even if we could get a majority.

 

It would seem to me the bills main redeeming feature was it got around home rule. It seems as it is written that it does not.

 

<added>

Todd

Since the bill as written appears to satisfy the qualms of the NRA about the patchwork of local laws, just why were they really opposed to it?

 

<added again>

someone has pointed out to me that an amendment stripped out the HR stuff.