Jump to content

Winnebago County weighs legality of gun resolution


speedracer815

Recommended Posts

I love my county board!!!

 

Winnebago County weighs legality of gun resolution

advertisement

By Chris Green

RRSTAR.COM

Posted May 06, 2008 @ 08:55 PM

Last update May 07, 2008 @ 06:27 AM

ROCKFORD —

 

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the country that do not allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.

 

At least two Winnebago County Board members would like to see that changed in Illinois, starting in Winnebago County.

 

Randy Olson, R-1, and Doug Aurand, D-3, plan to present a resolution to the County Board this month authorizing concealed carry within the boundaries of the county.

 

“I put it together a couple years ago,” Olson said of the resolution. “I had a few members ask me if I would revive it, and I just tweaked it.”

 

The resolution is a 10-page document that outlines applicant guidelines and procedures before the sheriff issues a permit such as: being at least 21 years of age, a resident of the county for at least six months, passing a criminal-background check, completing a firearm safety training course and not having a history of mental illness or violent behavior.

 

Rockford, the largest municipality in the county, annually ranks at the top with highest crime rate in the state.

 

“States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates compared to states without right-to-carry laws,” the resolution states. Citing 1996 crime data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the resolution went on to say that in states that allow concealed carry, the total crime rate is 13 percent lower, homicides were down 3 percent, robberies were down 26 percent and aggravated assaults were down 7 percent.

 

“I did a lot of research on it,” Olson said. “A lot of counties have tried to do gun bans, but I don’t know if anyone has done countywide concealed carry.”

 

Aurand said he presented the resolution to the Democratic Caucus on Monday.

 

“I just asked them all to read it over, and hopefully, this will come to the board floor,” he said. “I’ve been a long believer to allow concealed carry. It’s a proven fact that crime has gone down in any state that has provided concealed weapons.”

 

Olson and Aurand said Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers already possesses the authority to issue permits to citizens.

 

“This is just giving him direction,” Olson said.

 

Gary Kovanda, Winnebago County first deputy state’s attorney, learned of the resolution today and questioned that authority.

 

“I’d like to find out what authority they base that on,” he said. “To my knowledge, the county has no authority to supersede state law. The state has not passed (concealed carry) such a law.”

 

Concealed carry exemptions are restricted to sworn law enforcement, “private security guards, state’s attorney investigators and things like that,” Kovanda said. According to state statute 720 ILCS 5/24‑1, citizens can be charged with unlawful use of weapons if they are found to be carrying or possessing a weapon on or about his person on a public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town.

 

Meyers also recently learned of the resolution, and he, too, questions its legality.

 

“Can you pass that legislation at a county level? How does this stack up against the state law? Would it be enacted in the unincorporated area only or in all the municipalities?”

 

If the County Board is allowed to enact a resolution, Meyers said he would like to see training guidelines standardized throughout the state.

 

“You have 102 different counties, 102 different sheriffs, and there will be 102 different ways to do this,” he said. “If you are going to do something, do it statewide.”

 

Staff writer Chris Green can be reached at 815-987-1241 or cgreen@rrstar.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love my county board!!!

 

Winnebago County weighs legality of gun resolution

advertisement

By Chris Green

RRSTAR.COM

Posted May 06, 2008 @ 08:55 PM

Last update May 07, 2008 @ 06:27 AM

ROCKFORD —

 

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the country that do not allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.

 

At least two Winnebago County Board members would like to see that changed in Illinois, starting in Winnebago County.

 

Randy Olson, R-1, and Doug Aurand, D-3, plan to present a resolution to the County Board this month authorizing concealed carry within the boundaries of the county.

 

“I put it together a couple years ago,” Olson said of the resolution. “I had a few members ask me if I would revive it, and I just tweaked it.”

 

The resolution is a 10-page document that outlines applicant guidelines and procedures before the sheriff issues a permit such as: being at least 21 years of age, a resident of the county for at least six months, passing a criminal-background check, completing a firearm safety training course and not having a history of mental illness or violent behavior.

 

Rockford, the largest municipality in the county, annually ranks at the top with highest crime rate in the state.

 

“States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates compared to states without right-to-carry laws,” the resolution states. Citing 1996 crime data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the resolution went on to say that in states that allow concealed carry, the total crime rate is 13 percent lower, homicides were down 3 percent, robberies were down 26 percent and aggravated assaults were down 7 percent.

 

“I did a lot of research on it,” Olson said. “A lot of counties have tried to do gun bans, but I don’t know if anyone has done countywide concealed carry.”

 

Aurand said he presented the resolution to the Democratic Caucus on Monday.

 

“I just asked them all to read it over, and hopefully, this will come to the board floor,” he said. “I’ve been a long believer to allow concealed carry. It’s a proven fact that crime has gone down in any state that has provided concealed weapons.”

 

Olson and Aurand said Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers already possesses the authority to issue permits to citizens.

 

“This is just giving him direction,” Olson said.

 

Gary Kovanda, Winnebago County first deputy state’s attorney, learned of the resolution today and questioned that authority.

 

“I’d like to find out what authority they base that on,” he said. “To my knowledge, the county has no authority to supersede state law. The state has not passed (concealed carry) such a law.”

 

Concealed carry exemptions are restricted to sworn law enforcement, “private security guards, state’s attorney investigators and things like that,” Kovanda said. According to state statute 720 ILCS 5/24‑1, citizens can be charged with unlawful use of weapons if they are found to be carrying or possessing a weapon on or about his person on a public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town.

 

Meyers also recently learned of the resolution, and he, too, questions its legality.

 

“Can you pass that legislation at a county level? How does this stack up against the state law? Would it be enacted in the unincorporated area only or in all the municipalities?”

 

If the County Board is allowed to enact a resolution, Meyers said he would like to see training guidelines standardized throughout the state.

 

“You have 102 different counties, 102 different sheriffs, and there will be 102 different ways to do this,” he said. “If you are going to do something, do it statewide.”

 

Staff writer Chris Green can be reached at 815-987-1241 or cgreen@rrstar.com.

 

I don't know the law all that well, but it seems to me the Illinois version of the 2A (subject only to police power) and other Illinois laws are in contradiction to each other. The "police power" has been against the exercise of it all these years and, therefore, there was no conflict (in their mind) with other restrictive Illinois laws.

 

If "police power" was to suddenly start issuing these permits their actions might contradict other Illinois laws relating to concealed-carry, transportation of firearms, etc., but aren't sheriffs (the police power) still abiding by the Illinois version of the 2A when issuing permits? In Illinois, the right is subject to "their power" and some sheriffs would use their position of authority (rightfully so) to allow the exercise of the right rather than deny it. The problem is not all counties would go this route and the right would be "patchy" throughout the state. The issue would have to be revisited by the state at some point in time to clarify the matter for all counties.

 

Here's what I could see happening: a county citizen would get a permit to carry in their home county only and would not fear having a gun on their person when pulled over by a county police officer (e.g. traffic violation). However, if an ISP officer pulled him over I think he would be arrested, even if he was still in that same home county. Each officer has different jurisdictions and would be enforcing a different set of laws which the courts would have to settle as the "suspect" defended himself against criminal charges.

 

The courts would have to decide which trumps the other: county resolutions versus state law versus the Illinois Constitution versus the U.S. Constitution? Interpreting the legalities of all this sounds like a game of leap-frog to me, but I would like to see someone put this county resolution into practice, permits would be issued, someone would end up getting arrested and end up in court to defend themselves under the new county ruling. With a fair amount of luck and a good lawyer I think we would then see some of Illinois anti-gun laws be challenged and ruled unconstitutional. Wishful thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the country that do not allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.

 

At least two Winnebago County Board members would like to see that changed in Illinois, starting in Winnebago County.

 

Randy Olson, R-1, and Doug Aurand, D-3, plan to present a resolution to the County Board this month authorizing concealed carry within the boundaries of the county.

 

Olson and Aurand said Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers already possesses the authority to issue permits to citizens.

 

“This is just giving him direction,” Olson said.

 

Gary Kovanda, Winnebago County first deputy state’s attorney, learned of the resolution today and questioned that authority.

 

“I’d like to find out what authority they base that on,” he said. “To my knowledge, the county has no authority to supersede state law. The state has not passed (concealed carry) such a law.”

 

Meyers also recently learned of the resolution, and he, too, questions its legality.

 

“Can you pass that legislation at a county level? How does this stack up against the state law? Would it be enacted in the unincorporated area only or in all the municipalities?”

 

You know, they may just have something here.....

 

"subject only to police power..."

 

Perhaps when that was added to Illinois constitution, it was intended only to possibility restrict or deny a persons right, but now that it's law...who's to say other than a court of law?

 

And if a county board decided to push it, and the sheriff agreed, who knows where it could lead?

Gary Kovanda, Winnebago County first deputy state’s attorney, learned of the resolution today and questioned that authority.

 

“I’d like to find out what authority they base that on,” he said. “To my knowledge, the county has no authority to supersede state law. The state has not passed (concealed carry) such a law.”

A local states attorney could question it, as Mr. Kovanda is doing, but the sheriff is the top law efforcement officer at the county level.

 

"subject only to police power..."

I don't know where this is going....but it's going to be very interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't have home rule. It got voted out many years ago, in part because the mayor wanted a gun ban.

 

I wasn't aware of anything like this in Lake county, do you have details. Note this not the Pro2a resolution, that passed the Winnebago county board unanimously a while back.

 

Maybe if counties start passing carry laws it will force the state's hand eventually. It's better than nothing.

 

There are already many people living in Winnebago county and commuting to the Chicago burbs or even the heart of Chicago. Maybe there will be more. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could they pass the resolution under home rule??

Wouldn't the ISP have to honor local laws as well as state, if it were passed?

 

Good points and questions, I'm not sure how all this would work but you're probably right. Even so, if I were an ISP having to decide for myself if a concealed-carrying person is legal under one law or arrestable under another law, I'd arrest and let the courts decide. It's bound to happen as some would err on the side of caution, even if the arrest is truly a mistake.

 

I would really like to see a copy of the resolution. If it works in this county I'd want to see if it would work in others too. Just think of revisiting all the Pro 2A Resolution counties all over again with this resolution! :-) I doubt it would be as successful as the Pro 2A Resolution, but it would be interesting to see what other counties did with it. I'm going to contact Randy Olson and see if he would mind keeping me updated as this progresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are already many people living in Winnebago county and commuting to the Chicago burbs or even the heart of Chicago. Maybe there will be more.
“You have 102 different counties, 102 different sheriffs, and there will be 102 different ways to do this,” [sheriff Meyers] said. “If you are going to do something, do it statewide.”

At the very least, we're seeing it seriously debated at the county level. And a very populous county, with a major city, very close to Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speedracer,

 

Do you have a link to this story? I have tried a couple searches at rrstar.com and cannot turn anthing up. Do they allow comments to this story. We should certainly watch this closely and show support for this resolution. And we certainly don't want a comments column filled up with antis predicting blood in the streets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people commute to chicago from Winnebago? thats half way across the top of the state!!!

It's a straight shot down I-90, and there isn't much traffic until you get near the burbs. It's a long commute, but probably doesn't take any longer than commuting to the city from northern Lake Co.

 

I found it: http://www.rrstar.com/homepage/x1820414068...cealed-firearms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people commute to chicago from Winnebago? thats half way across the top of the state!!!

 

Winnabago County is a popular place to build/own homes, because of the high taxes here.

 

You read that right. Home prices and building plot prices for homes around Rockford are kept artificially low, by the highest property taxes in IL, and if you compare it by ratio of value to rate or some such, one of the highest property tax rates in the country. Sooooo to sell a house, the owner has to offer it up at a much lower price.

 

A five bedroom, three bath, full finished basement house with a three car garage on an acre of wooded land in a nice quiet quality neighborhood is about $450,000 LESS than the same house in the suburbs of Chicago. A high quality condo with 3 bedrooms and two bath, with a two car garage and LOW condo fees is $130,000 LESS than similar condos in the suburbs, if I recall the prices I'd seen a while ago in the papers.

 

For instance, my cousin and her husband built a three bedroom, two bath brick ranch on her acre sized lot in the old family neighborhood on the south edge of Rockford, when he was still in the Navy and teaching/instructing at Great Lakes Training Center. After his retirement, he kept his job there as a civilian instructor. He made that trip five days a week, every week of the year. AND has a nice house, at a much lower cost, overall.

 

Lots of people in Rockton, Roscoe, Machesney Park were originally Chicago-ites that built out here to save money in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just find it insane that you have to go that far from the city to get a decent price...

 

Prices tend to rise sharply as you head east on I-90. Increasing gas prices are really putting a hurt on the commuters though. There's a Chicago Metra line that ends in Harvard. They have talked for years about bringing one to Rockford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine this link is one we'll want to keep an eye on.

 

Even if it passes, and if it survives the inevitable legal challenges (and I'm not at all sure it will), it doesn't seem that Sheriff Meyers (the proposed issuing authority) is very enthusiastic about the idea.

 

Still, it's great to see something like this even considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOLEEEEEEY COW, Speedracer! What a conversation starter this is!

 

I love the spin on "subject to police powers" - if counties started doing this I would think the state would have to follow in order to have a uniform code throughout the state.

 

What pleases me the most is that I have never seen the current level of discussion about Right to Carry that is occurring now among the citizens of Illinois. I honestly believe things are beginning to shift to our favor . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOLEEEEEEY COW, Speedracer! What a conversation starter this is!

 

I love the spin on "subject to police powers" - if counties started doing this I would think the state would have to follow in order to have a uniform code throughout the state.

 

What pleases me the most is that I have never seen the current level of discussion about Right to Carry that is occurring now among the citizens of Illinois. I honestly believe things are beginning to shift to our favor . . .

 

 

With the advent of all of these unfortunate shootings, I think people are realizing that the old gun control methods are a joke and its time we start sticking up for ourselves!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Police power" is used in a strictly legalistic sense in the Constitution--it doesn't actually refer to the Sheriff or law enforcement officers. It referred to the power of a government to enact and enforce laws, so it includes acts of the legislature and the Constitional offices.

 

This is a pretty novel theory that seems, at first glance, like it wouldn't survive ten seconds in front of any judge (the state has the power under its own Constitution to exercise its "police power" with regard to weapons, and the county doesn't seem to have any authority to exempt itself.)

 

HOWEVER, you can't help but applaud the sentiment! People are waking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been busy. I called my own county board member reps, talked with one and let him know that I for one, am very pleased with this resolution, and would be most appreciative if it were given his support. The other one I could only get to the voice-mail, and left a similiar message.

 

Then I called Board Member Aurand's voicemail, and thanked him for putting this up with Board Member Olson.

 

I just got off the phone with County Board member Olson, and he gave me some ideas on how this might come about. I told him about this place and he got online right then and wandered over here. He said he'd put this into his 'favorites' list, so no trashtalking about political types now...LOL. I mentioned that I have a Penn CCW, and it's issued not by the Penn. State Police, but by the local county sheriff's office, so there is a precedent of sorts to mention in discussion later on over this, sorta.

 

About sheriff Meyers.....the good sheriff was just being cautious about comments until this is 'officially' in the stream. Notice that his comments were not anti-gun rights, but more of the 'let's have this done right if we're gonna do it.'

 

And I just got a copy of the basic resolution e-mailed to me. I have permission from Council Member Olson to post it here. It's been given to one of the local radio stations to discuss, so it's public now anyway.

 

This will be on a seperate post in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About sheriff Meyers.....the good sheriff was just being cautious about comments until this is 'officially' in the stream. Notice that his comments were not anti-gun rights, but more of the 'let's have this done right if we're gonna do it.'

 

And I just got a copy of the basic resolution e-mailed to me. I have permission from Council Member Olson to post it here. It's been given to one of the local radio stations to discuss, so it's public now anyway.

 

This will be on a seperate post in this thread.

 

If only we could get this done state-wide, it's just not going to happen with certain people in power. Really hoping this county-level pursuit can work out somehow.

 

Does anyone here know of any county SA's that might be able to share their legal insights about this CC resolution at the county level?

 

Can't wait to read it for myself, thanks for getting a copy of it on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the e-mail I recieved from CBM Olson, reprinted here with his permission. I ony inserted paragraph breaks to make it easier to read.

 

Overall, I like it. My only concern is that you can't carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. There goes my favorite steak place. But CherryVale Mall, look out!! LOL

 

----------Copy and Paste follows------

 

Countywide permits for concealed handguns; application procedures; definitions

 

A. (1) notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Sheriff of Winnebago County shall issue a concealed handgun permit to any citizen who qualifies for a permit under the provisions of this Section. The permit shall contain a permit number, expiration date, photograph, and the name, address, and date of birth of the permittee.

 

(2)(a) The name, address, and birth date of each person to whom a permit is issued shall be public record. (B) The fact that a person has applied for a permit or has obtained a permit pursuant to this Section, and any information submitted in any application for a concealed handgun permit, shall not be a public record. However, nothing contained herein shall limit or impede the free flow of information between law enforcement agencies, prohibit the department from releasing information necessary to perform the background investigation, or provide statistical information which does not identify individual applicants or permittees.

 

A concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall grant authority to a citizen to carry a concealed handgun on his person.

To qualify for a concealed handgun permit, a citizen shall:

Make sworn application to the Winnebago County Sheriff. The providing of false or misleading information on the application or any documents submitted with the application shall be grounds for the denial or revocation of a concealed handgun permit. The application shall reflect training in pistols, revolvers, or both.

 

Any permittee under this Section shall notify the department of any address or name change within thirty days of the change. Failure to timely notify the department of a name or address change may result in suspension of the permit for up to thirty days.

 

Agree in writing to hold harmless and indemnify the department, the state, or any peace officer for any and all liability arising out of the issuance or use of the concealed handgun permit.

 

Be a resident of the county and have been a resident for six months or longer immediately preceding the filing of the application.

 

Be twenty-one years of age or older.

 

Not suffer from a mental or physical infirmity due to disease, illness, or retardation which prevents the safe handling of a handgun.

 

Not be ineligible to possess a firearm by virtue of having been convicted of a felony.

 

Not have been committed, either voluntarily or involuntarily, for the abuse of a controlled dangerous substance, or been found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor under the laws of this state or similar laws of any other state relating to a controlled dangerous substance within a five year period immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted, or be presently charged under indictment or a bill of information for such an offense.

 

Not chronically and habitually use alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired. It shall be presumed that an applicant or permittee chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that his normal faculties are impaired if the applicant has been found guilty of, or entered a plea of guilty or operating a vehicle while intoxicated, or has been admitted, either voluntarily or involuntarily, for treatment as an alcoholic, within the five-year period immediately preceding the date on which the application is submitted, or at any time after the application has been submitted.

 

Not have entered a plea of guilty or been found guilty of a crime of violence, at the misdemeanor level, unless five years have elapsed since completion of sentence or any other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled, or unless the conviction was set aside and the prosecution dismissed, prior to the date on which the application is submitted.

 

Not have been convicted of, have entered a plea of guilty or not be charged under indictment or a bill of information for any crime of violence or any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of one year or greater. A conviction, plea of guilty, under this Paragraph shall include a dismissal and conviction set aside under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 893.

 

Not be a fugitive from justice.

 

Not be an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, or narcotic drugs.

 

Not have been adjudicated to be mentally deficient or been committed to a mental institution.

 

Not be an illegal alien in the United States.

 

Not have been discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States with a discharge characterized as "Under Other than Honorable Conditions", a "Bad Conduct Discharge", or a "Dishonorable Discharge". In the case of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers of the United States Armed Forces, the punishment of "Dismissal" rendered subject to a verdict of "guilty" at a trial by military court-martial is deemed to be disqualifying under this Paragraph. For the purposes of this Paragraph, the United States Coast Guard is considered an armed force.

 

Not have a history of engaging in violent behavior. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that an applicant has a history of engaging in violent behavior upon proof that, within a ten-year period immediately preceding the date of the application, the applicant has been arrested or charged on three or more occasions for any crime of violence or has been arrested or charged on two or more occasions for any crime of violence that may be punished by death.

 

Not be ineligible to possess a firearm under 18 USC 922(g).

D. (1) In addition to the requirements of Subsection C of this Section, an applicant shall demonstrate competence with a handgun by any one of the following:

(a) Completion of any National Rifle Association handguns safety or training course conducted by a National Rifle Association certified instructor.

(B) Completion of any Department of Public Safety and Corrections approved firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law enforcement agency, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school.

© Completion of any law enforcement firearms safety or training course or class approved offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement.

(d) Possession of a current valid license to carry a concealed weapon issued by a law enforcement officer.

(e) Completion of any firearms training or safety course or class approved by the Winnebago County Sheriff.

(f) Completion of a law enforcement training academy program.

(g) Completion of small arms training while serving with the Armed Forces of the United States of America as evidenced by any of the following:

 

For personnel released or retired from active duty, possession of an "Honorable Discharge" or "General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions" as evidenced by a Department of Defense Form 214 (DD-214).

 

For personnel on active duty or serving in one of the National Guard or reserve components of the Armed Forces, possession of certification of completion of basic training with service record evidence of having successfully completed small arms training and qualification.

(h) The National Rifle Association's personal protection course.

(2) Instructors for any class, training, or course of instruction authorized by this Subsection, except for small arms training in military service as provided in

Subparagraph (1) (g) of this Subsection, shall be certified as an instructor by the National Rifle Association as an instructor for civilians or law enforcement or by the Council on Peace Officer Standards and Training as a firearms instructor. Any safety or training course or class as described in this Subsection, except for basic handgun training in military service provided in Subparagraph (1)(g) of this Subsection, shall include instruction in child access prevention.

E. (1) A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes, or an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught said course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant, or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or confirms participation in firearms competition or honorable discharge shall constitute evidence of qualification pursuant to Subsection D of this Section.

 

(2) It shall be illegal to intentionally present false, fraudulent, altered, or counterfeit documents to prove training in handguns in order to obtain a concealed handgun permit. Whoever intentionally presents false, fraudulent, altered, or counterfeit documents to prove training in handguns in order to obtain a concealed handgun permit shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. In addition, no person convicted of a violation of this Subsection shall be eligible to obtain a permit.

 

F.(1) The Sheriff shall revoke the permit if at any time during the permit period the permittee fails to satisfy any one of the qualification requirements provided for in Subsection C of this Section.

 

G. Neither the county nor the Sheriff shall be liable for acts committed by the permittee, unless the Sheriff or applicable permitting process employee had actual knowledge at the time the permit was issued that the permittee was disqualified by law from carrying a concealed handgun.

 

H.(1) The Sheriff shall, within two working days of the initial application, notify the chief of police of the municipality and the chief law enforcement officer of the village in which the applicant is domiciled of such application. Those officers shall have ten days to forward to the Sheriff any information relating to the applicant's legal qualification to receive a permit.

(2) The Sheriff shall issue timely and without delay the concealed handgun permit to all qualified applicants, which permit shall be and which shall be valid in all township countywide. The division shall promulgate rules for the purpose of providing for permits and fees for fewer than four years to the applicants requesting a shorter time period. Fees shall be reduced proportionately for terms of fewer than four years. The permit shall be retained by the permittee who shall immediately produce it upon the request of any law enforcement officer.

(3.) Anyone who violates the provisions of this Subsection shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars.

I. (1) No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry and conceal such handgun while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance. While a permittee is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, an otherwise lawful permit is considered automatically suspended and is not valid. A permittee shall be considered under the influence as evidenced by a blood alcohol reading of .05 percent or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood, or when a blood test or urine test shows any confirmed presence of a controlled dangerous substance.

 

A permittee armed with a handgun in accordance with this Section shall notify any police officer who approaches the permittee in an official manner or with an identified official purpose that he has a weapon on his person, submit to a pat down, and allow the officer to temporarily disarm him. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is carrying a concealed handgun and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is under the influence of either alcohol or a controlled dangerous substance, the law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the handgun and request submission of the individual to a department certified chemical test for determination of the chemical status of the individual. Whenever a law enforcement officer is made aware that an individual is behaving in a criminally negligent manner as defined under the provisions of this Section, or is negligent in the carrying of a concealed handgun, the law enforcement officer may seize the handgun, until adjudication by a judge, if the individual is issued a summons or is arrested.

 

The permit to carry a concealed weapon shall be revoked by the Sheriff when the permittee is carrying and concealing a handgun under any of the following circumstances:

The blood alcohol reading of a permittee is .05 percent or greater by weight of alcohol in the blood.

 

A permittee's blood test or urine test shows the confirmed presence of a controlled dangerous substance.

 

A permittee refuses to submit to a department-certified chemical test when requested to do so by a law enforcement officer pursuant to Paragraph (2) of this Subsection.

 

An individual is found guilty of negligent carrying of a concealed handgun.

 

The person tested may have a physician or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person of his own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer, and he shall be given the opportunity to telephone and request the qualified person to administer such test.

Whenever a peace officer determines that grounds under this Subsection exist for the revocation of a concealed handgun permit, he shall prepare an affidavit, on a form provided by the Sheriff's Department indicating the reasons for the revocation and all other information regarding the revocation available to the officer. A copy of the peace officer's report relating to the incident shall be attached to the affidavit when submitted to the department.

J. For the purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed herein:

 

"Handgun" means a type of firearm commonly referred to as a pistol or revolver originally designed to be fired by the use of a single hand and which is designed to fire or is capable of firing fixed cartridge ammunition. The term "handgun" shall not include shotguns or rifles that have been altered by having their stocks or barrels cut or shortened.

 

"Criminal negligence" means there exists such disregard of the interest of others that the license holder's conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man under like circumstances.

 

"Resident" means a person who maintains a dwelling in this county and is physically present in this county at least fifty-one percent of each calendar year. However, a person who maintains a dwelling in this county but is not physically present in this state at least fifty-one percent of each calendar year is still considered to be a resident for purposes of this Section if he is on U.S. military duty in another state or is attending school in another state.

 

K. The Sheriff shall execute a thorough background investigation, including a criminal history check, of every applicant for the purpose of verifying the qualifications of the applicant pursuant to the requirements of this Section. For purposes of this Subsection, a background check shall be defined as a computer check of available on-line state records, and, if warranted, the fingerprints may be forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a national criminal history record check.

 

L. Anyone who carries and conceals a handgun in violation of any provision of this Section, unless authorized to do so

by another provision of the law, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.

 

M. No concealed handgun permit shall be valid or entitle any permittee to carry a concealed weapon in any facility, building, location, zone, or area in which firearms are banned by state or federal law.

 

N. No concealed handgun may be carried into and no concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall authorize or entitle a permittee to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:

A law enforcement office, station, or building.

A detention facility, prison, or jail.

A courthouse or courtroom provided that a judge may carry such a weapon in his own courtroom.

A polling place.

A meeting place of the governing authority of a political subdivision.

The state capitol building.

 

(7) Any portion of an airport facility where the carrying of firearms is prohibited under federal law, except that no person shall be prohibited from

carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, if the firearm is encased for shipment, for the purpose of checking such firearm as lawful baggage.

 

(8) Any church, synagogue, mosque, or other similar place of worship.

 

(9) A parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a governmental entity.

 

(10) Any portion of an establishment that sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.

 

(11) Any school "firearm-free zone".

 

O. The provisions of Subsection N of this Section shall not limit the right of a property owner, lessee, or other lawful custodian to prohibit or restrict access of those persons possessing a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued under this Section. No individual to whom a concealed handgun permit is issued may carry such concealed handgun into the private residence of another without first receiving the consent of that person.

 

P. Within three months of June, 30 2008 the Sheriff shall promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure to provide an appeal process in the event that an applicant is denied issuance of a permit. The Sheriff may also promulgate educational requirements for renewal of concealed handgun permits.

 

Q. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to sworn law enforcement officers.

 

R.( 1) Each permittee, within fifteen days of a misdemeanor or a felony arrest, other than a minor traffic violation, in this county, state of Illinois or any other state, shall notify the Sheriff by certified mail. The Sheriff may suspend, for up to ninety days, the permit of any permittee who fails to meet the notification requirements of this Section.

 

(2) The Sheriff shall submit a report by March thirty-first of each year to the Winnebago County Board. The report shall include information on the number of licenses issued, denied, revoked, or suspended and the reasons for such denial, revocation, or suspension to be categorized by age, sex, race, and zip code of the applicant or licensee. The report shall include data concerning any known accidents or deaths involving permittees.

 

S. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the Sheriff may develop, print, and distribute an informational newsletter relative to concealed handgun permittees, safety training, and related matters.

 

T.(1) Possession of a current and valid concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this Section shall constitute sufficient evidence of the background check required pursuant to 18 USC 922(t). A current and valid concealed handgun permit issued by another state shall be deemed to be valid within this county. An out-of-state permit holder carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to this Paragraph is bound by the laws of this county regarding carrying a concealed handgun pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with this Section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Illinois constitution.

SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS

(a) A County which has a chief executive officer elected

by the electors of the county and any municipality which has

a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. Other

municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule

units. Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit

may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to

its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the

power to regulate for the protection of the public health,

safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur

debt.

 

I think a very good argument can be made that a home rule unit could allow CC within its borders. Whether it would stand up in court is something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about this? Do the county sheriffs have the same power in illinois? I read this same thing about illinois counties along time ago, and i can't seem to find it.

 

Link:

 

County Sheriff Can Bust Big Bro

Friday, 16 February 2007

 

The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.

 

This is settled law that most people are not aware of.

 

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

 

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

 

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

 

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

 

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote.

 

The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

 

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

 

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

 

Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.

 

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." [Amen].

 

However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens."

 

If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those "states’ rights" debates with Alexander Hamilton.

 

This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."

 

Winston Churchill observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the e-mail I recieved from CBM Olson, reprinted here with his permission. I ony inserted paragraph breaks to make it easier to read.

 

Overall, I like it. My only concern is that you can't carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. There goes my favorite steak place. But CherryVale Mall, look out!! LOL

 

----------Copy and Paste follows------

 

M. No concealed handgun permit shall be valid or entitle any permittee to carry a concealed weapon in any facility, building, location, zone, or area in which firearms are banned by state or federal law.

 

Even if all 79 Pro 2A Counties passed this resolution too, the CC permits would be invalidated later if Blago countered the effort by passing a state-wide total ban on handguns. Crazy, but he would probably try it rather than see Illinois honor CC permits.

 

Still, it's worth pursuing. Maybe he'll be impeached, jailed, or otherwise out of office by then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, it would be legal under home rule powers for a county to establish concealed carry. The guys quoted in the article (Winnebago County Sheriff Dick Meyers and Winnebago County first deputy state’s attorney Gary Kovanda) are simply uninformed regarding the state constitution, as many local officials tend to be. No offense to them when I say that. To clarify, I've posted the relevant portion of the Il constitution below.

 

However, there are two complications, one immediate and one potential.

 

First, if it's true what speedracer said, in that Winnebago has elected NOT to be a home rule government (see b. below) then the county does not have the authority to enact this law. The county could re-elect to become a home rule county, I suppose.

 

Second, the General Assembly of Illinois has the power to step in and pass a law saying no....home rule powers do not include concealed carry licensing (or to a large extent, whatever else they choose to make state-exclusive). I do not believe that the state currently and specifically has passed a law barring home rule governments from licensing to carry. See h. and l. below.

 

 

 

From the Illinois constitution:

 

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS

(a.) A County which has a chief executive officer elected

by the electors of the county and any municipality which has

a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. Other

municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule

units. Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit

may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to

its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the

power to regulate for the protection of the public health,

safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur

debt.

(b.) A home rule unit by referendum may elect not to be a

home rule unit.

(c.) If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an

ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall

prevail within its jurisdiction.

(d.) A home rule unit does not have the power (1) to

incur debt payable from ad valorem property tax receipts

maturing more than 40 years from the time it is incurred or

(2) to define and provide for the punishment of a felony.

(e.) A home rule unit shall have only the power that the

General Assembly may provide by law (1) to punish by

imprisonment for more than six months or (2) to license for

revenue or impose taxes upon or measured by income or

earnings or upon occupations.

(f.) A home rule unit shall have the power subject to

approval by referendum to adopt, alter or repeal a form of

government provided by law, except that the form of

government of Cook County shall be subject to the provisions

of Section 3 of this Article. A home rule municipality shall

have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of

selection and terms of office only as approved by referendum

or as otherwise authorized by law. A home rule county shall

have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of

selection and terms of office in the manner set forth in

Section 4 of this Article.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(j.) The General Assembly may limit by law the amount of

debt which home rule counties may incur and may limit by law

approved by three-fifths of the members elected to each house

the amount of debt, other than debt payable from ad valorem

property tax receipts, which home rule municipalities may

incur.

(k.) The General Assembly may limit by law the amount and

require referendum approval of debt to be incurred by home

rule municipalities, payable from ad valorem property tax

receipts, only in excess of the following percentages of the

assessed value of its taxable property: (1) if its population

is 500,000 or more, an aggregate of three percent; (2) if its

population is more than 25,000 and less than 500,000, an

aggregate of one percent; and (3) if its population is 25,000

or less, an aggregate of one-half percent. Indebtedness which

is outstanding on the effective date of this Constitution or

which is thereafter approved by referendum or assumed from

another unit of local government shall not be included in the

foregoing percentage amounts.

(l.) The General Assembly may not deny or limit the power

of home rule units (1) to make local improvements by special

assessment and to exercise this power jointly with other

counties and municipalities, and other classes of units of

local government having that power on the effective date of

this Constitution unless that power is subsequently denied by

law to any such other units of local government or (2) to

levy or impose additional taxes upon areas within their

boundaries in the manner provided by law for the provision of

special services to those areas and for the payment of debt

incurred in order to provide those special services.

(m.) Powers and functions of home rule units shall be

construed liberally.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...