eric2281 Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:09 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:09 PM I'm guessing this is not the "real good one" You've been telling us to watch for.
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:29 PM Author Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:29 PM I'm guessing this is not the "real good one" You've been telling us to watch for. Don't know that I've ever qualified what we were waiting on as "Real Good One". I did think that it would be vastly different than what we've seen in the past. A "Real Good One" would be: "Anyone that is qualified to own a firearm under Federal Law, may carry a firearm in any manner that they so desire". So-called Vermont style law. From the synopsis 2257 appears to offer several changes from the status quo of bills we've seen recently. Let's look at the full text version when it's available and see how it stacks up. There may also be more bills to come. AB
Buzzard Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:30 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:30 PM I see several things in the synopsis that I like. One is the DNR as the issuing agency. Another is it mentions reciprocity. But particularly, I like the monies going to the "Citizen Safety and Self-Defense Trust Fund" as a special fund in the State treasury. As a trust fund it will be more difficult for governors to "skim" money from the fund as Blagojevich did with the FOID card funds. It seems to me that Rep. Brandon W. Phelps has a bill that is certainly worth considering. Does anyone notice that the phrase license to carry "LTC" is also being used in the synopsis?
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:36 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:36 PM I think they just added the full text: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.a...s=&Session= $50 for 5 years, $35 for 5 year renewal
Buzzard Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:50 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:50 PM I have to leave and won't be able to read the full text right now. I leave that up to you others for now. What I did see by quickly scanning it, I liked what I saw.
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:51 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:51 PM Help me understand this part: © A violation of the Citizen's Self-Defense Act is a8 Class C misdemeanor if the person does not possess a currently9 valid LTC but is otherwise eligible to obtain one under this10 Act. Does this mean that I...being eligible for an LTC but never bothered to apply for it...could carry without an LTC at the risk of being charged with a Class C misdemeanor if caught? After conviction of a misdemeanor I could still apply for the LTC, right?
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:54 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:54 PM Does the following mean Cook county as a whole could opt out? 22 Section 95. Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days23 after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General24 Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance HB2257 - 16 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b 1 prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm2 within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State3 Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that4 prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The5 Department of State Police shall compile a list of these6 municipalities and publish them in a form available to the7 public free of charge and shall periodically update this8 compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State9 Police.
Buzzard Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:55 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 07:55 PM I'm guessing this is not the "real good one" You've been telling us to watch for. Don't know that I've ever qualified what we were waiting on as "Real Good One". I did think that it would be vastly different than what we've seen in the past. A "Real Good One" would be: "Anyone that is qualified to own a firearm under Federal Law, may carry a firearm in any manner that they so desire". So-called Vermont style law. From the synopsis 2257 appears to offer several changes from the status quo of bills we've seen recently. Let's look at the full text version when it's available and see how it stacks up. There may also be more bills to come. AB AGAIN...PATIENCE people. Let's not storm the Capital yet. We're scheduled to do that March 11th!
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:10 PM Author Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:10 PM SirMatthew, re: your previous question about carrying without LTC, as I read the bill, yes. But you have to be eligible for the LTC in the first place. So, it still doesn't qualify a felon to carry a firearm at risk only of a misdemeanor. A felon is not eligible for an LTC under this act. Re: Your other question, good question. Looks like there may be a misprint someplace. I'm sure it will be checked by the sponsor and his staff to make changes that need to be made before it goes to Rules Committee. AB
Lou Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:29 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:29 PM I just printed the PDF file and am getting my fine tooth comb out.
lockman Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:43 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:43 PM Actually it is not that bad at all. The fees are $50, training is waived for NRA instructors or equivalent, current LTC permit holders and anyone having received the current state firearms training required for police or security guards. Bad: No preemption on carry in home rule units. Only a prohibition on home rule units requiring or issuing there own permits. Violations would be a class C misdemeanor.I can not find any “specific” places off limits other than a sign posting requirement. But no limitations on cities, towns, parks or whatever from posting.
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:46 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:46 PM I'm just full of questions today, sorry. Consulting more experienced people here... I can't find a list of what locations are prohibited by federal law. I found one for Kansas, but that includes their state laws as well. I would assume the federal laws prohibit LTC in federal buildings, courthouses, etc. Does it include schools and churches? What about college university campus grounds and dormitories?
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:52 PM Author Posted February 18, 2009 at 08:52 PM I'm just full of questions today, sorry. Consulting more experienced people here... I can't find a list of what locations are prohibited by federal law. I found one for Kansas, but that includes their state laws as well. I would assume the federal laws prohibit LTC in federal buildings, courthouses, etc. Does it include schools and churches? What about college university campus grounds and dormitories? Here's the link to the entire Fed law. I can't cite the specific sections as they're spread out through the law. Look at "Unlawful Acts" and "Possession of Firearms ....in Federal Facilities". In a nutshell, Any Federal building, including post offices, schools where the term schools means --The term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.... so Federal law does not prohibit firearms on a college campus. There may be others, but these are the biggies as I remember them. AB
Air Commando Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:08 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:08 PM it looks good to me, as long as you get something passed you can work on changes to it later.
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:34 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:34 PM Overall, I like it, but I do have mixed feelings on one large section of the bill. There is a chance I'm misreading it so please feel free to correct any mistakes I make here. It appears a jurisdiction may not pass an ordinance which is inconsistent with this act. I interpret this act to set forth the means of identifying qualified people and to license them for LTC. Where they may carry is another story and the details are clearly outlined. What is not quite so clear are the sections I've noted below. 22 Section 95. Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days23 after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General24 Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance HB2257 - 16 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b 1 prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm2 within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State3 Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that4 prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The5 Department of State Police shall compile a list of these6 municipalities and publish them in a form available to the7 public free of charge and shall periodically update this8 compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State9 Police.10 Section 100. The State Finance Act is amended by adding11 Section 5.719 as follows:12 (30 ILCS 105/5.719 new)13 Sec. 5.719. The Citizen Safety and Self-Defense Trust Fund.14 Section 905. The Firearm Owners Identification Card Act is15 amended by changing Section 13.1 as follows:16 (430 ILCS 65/13.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83-13.1)17 Sec. 13.1. The provisions of any ordinance enacted by any18 municipality which requires registration or imposes greater19 restrictions or limitations on the acquisition, possession and20 transfer of firearms than are imposed by this Act, are not21 invalidated or affected by this Act,except that an ordinance22 of a unit of local government, including a home rule unit, is HB2257 - 17 - LRB096 06199 JDS 16281 b 1 invalid if it is inconsistent with the Citizen's Self-Defense2 Act. It is declared to be the policy of this State that the3 regulation of the right to carry defensive firearms is an4 exclusive power and function of the State. A home rule unit may5 not regulate the issuance of permits to carry defensive6 firearms. This Section is a denial and limitation of home rule7 powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section 6 of8 Article VII of the Illinois Constitution. It's kind of a "take it or leave it" proposition and no jurisdiction would be allowed to impose additional rules upon LTC permit holders in order to carry a firearm in their town. If they allow firearms to be carried in their town then nothing more than an LTC permit is necessary. If a town wanted to allow the carrying of firearms only for those above age 25, they could not pass such an ordinance because the act specifies 21 is the minimum age. Do I have a firm grasp on this part? However, the town could require firearms be registered by their citizens. This has nothing to do with the action of legally carrying them. Could they pass or maintain an ordinance which forbids possession of handguns entirely (e.g. Chicago)? The inability to possess defaults to an inability to carry, so would this ordinance be inconsistent with the act? Is there a chance this act might cause Chicago's handgun ban and bogus registration scheme to become illegal instantly? Lastly, I'm conflicted about the "opt out" part, if I may be honest. It sounds like they could forbid LTC entirely and it has been said this might be a mistake on part of the sponsor of the bill which may later be corrected. If it is not a mistake, I'm torn. One side of me thinks it would be a bad thing for, let's say, Champaign/Urbana (either at the county or city level) to pass an ordinance which prevented Ol' Coach from LTC in his home city. Being a campus town I could see some officials doing this to "protect the students" and knowing how politics works there it would not be easy to replace those elected officials. As a result, Ol' Coach could end up fighting for years to overturn the ordinance. On the other hand, this bill probably has a chance of passing if certain large jurisdictions can opt out of it. Once the state had LTC the fight would no longer be "us" against certain lawmakers from all over the state, but "us" against the officials of that particular jurisdiction who chose to opt out. Our fight for LTC would basically continue, but our battle grounds would have become smaller and we could be more focused on winning smaller target areas. We could attend one meeting and see all of the opposition face-to-face. The bottom line is LTC should be for all qualified applicants irregardless of home town ordinances. Having a patchwork of LTC areas and non-LTC areas would just be confusing. Yet, having the ability to "opt out" could help this thing (or any LTC bill) get passed. Any comments?
SirMatthew Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:35 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:35 PM I'm just full of questions today, sorry. Consulting more experienced people here... I can't find a list of what locations are prohibited by federal law. I found one for Kansas, but that includes their state laws as well. I would assume the federal laws prohibit LTC in federal buildings, courthouses, etc. Does it include schools and churches? What about college university campus grounds and dormitories? Here's the link to the entire Fed law. I can't cite the specific sections as they're spread out through the law. Look at "Unlawful Acts" and "Possession of Firearms ....in Federal Facilities". In a nutshell, Any Federal building, including post offices, schools where the term schools means --The term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.... so Federal law does not prohibit firearms on a college campus. There may be others, but these are the biggies as I remember them. AB Thank you, I will save that link. I was interested in the college campus information especially as that will certainly be an issue to come up. Thanks again.
GNHNTN Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:49 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:49 PM The bottom line is LTC should be for all qualified applicants irregardless of home town ordinances. Having a patchwork of LTC areas and non-LTC areas would just be confusing. Yet, having the ability to "opt out" could help this thing (or any LTC bill) passed. Any comments? Many States have passed the first phase of their respective LTC bills with "Home Rule" or a "patchwork" of LTC areas and then returned to "fix" the bills later. Something like this may have to be done here to get a law on the books even though we hope not.
Federal Farmer Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:56 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 09:56 PM I think this bill must have been designed to draft the worst bill we could possibly still live with. Opposition to it could be hard to defend by some folks who claim to be for "reasonable" gun laws. As a citizen of a home rule unit that will certainly opt out, I am still in favor of allowing some folks to defend themselves. That said, since DNR issues, not County Sheriff, I can still get an LTC for use outside jurisdictions that opt out even though I live in one. Once the rest of the state doesn't turn into the OK corral just like what we have seen in 48 other states, it will be hard to defend opposing removal of home rule in future legislation.
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:01 PM Author Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:01 PM SirMat Check your PM's.
Buzzard Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:30 PM I think this bill must have been designed to draft the worst bill we could possibly still live with. Opposition to it could be hard to defend by some folks who claim to be for "reasonable" gun laws. As a citizen of a home rule unit that will certainly opt out, I am still in favor of allowing some folks to defend themselves. That said, since DNR issues, not County Sheriff, I can still get an LTC for use outside jurisdictions that opt out even though I live in one. Once the rest of the state doesn't turn into the OK corral just like what we have seen in 48 other states, it will be hard to defend opposing removal of home rule in future legislation.I think the "opt out" provision is our best shot at LTC, for the reasons previously mentioned. Some may oppose screaming and kicking, but it's not like you didn't know you were living in a liberal hotspot before. And I think other parts of the bill are very carefully thought out. Especially the trust fund.
Lou Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:37 PM On the other hand, this bill probably has a chance of passing if certain large jurisdictions can opt out of it. Once the state had LTC the fight would no longer be "us" against certain lawmakers from all over the state, but "us" against the officials of that particular jurisdiction who chose to opt out. Our fight for LTC would basically continue, but our battle grounds would have become smaller and we could be more focused on winning smaller target areas. We could attend one meeting and see all of the opposition face-to-face. The bottom line is LTC should be for all qualified applicants irregardless of home town ordinances. Having a patchwork of LTC areas and non-LTC areas would just be confusing. Yet, having the ability to "opt out" could help this thing (or any LTC bill) get passed. Any comments? SirM, I think you and Federal Farmer have hit the nail on the head. This is by no means a perfect bill but a perfect bill would have about as much a chance of passing as in the past years. Other states have passed lesser bills and then came back and made them better when all the Chicken Littles with their "blood running in the steets" hysteria proves to be false for the 49th time. Ohio and Missouri are two that I can think of off the top of my head. There are some really good things in the bill - someone learned from past failures. The DNR being the issuing agency rather than the ISP or county sherrif. The temporary LTC if you have an order of protection should be a rallying cry for women. Even the fact that its a LTC rather han a CCW shows we've learned. Remember, even if you live in an entity that opts out you can still get a LTC, just not carry in that city. For all those that have FL or Utah or PA. permits you're good for a year. Although this isn't perfect there is a lot to like.
Dr. G Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:41 PM I would b e opposed to any bill that would allow "home rule units" like Chicago to opt out. Chicago, right now is the most dangerous city in the country. You cannot convince me that someone in Racoon County stands a greated chance of being a crime victim than someone living on the south or west side of Chicago!
PPK Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:44 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:44 PM I would b e opposed to any bill that would allow "home rule units" like Chicago to opt out. Chicago, right now is the most dangerous city in the country. You cannot convince me that someone in Racoon County stands a greated chance of being a crime victim than someone living on the south or west side of Chicago! Maybe Chicago takes their parking spaces a lot more serious than the rest of the state. That's where the shootouts will happen.
Drylok Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM I would b e opposed to any bill that would allow "home rule units" like Chicago to opt out. Chicago, right now is the most dangerous city in the country. You cannot convince me that someone in Racoon County stands a greated chance of being a crime victim than someone living on the south or west side of Chicago!Do you live in Chicago?
PPK Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 10:53 PM $50.00 for 5 years. And License to Carry sounds like open carry may be permitted, too. I like this one! As far as the signs for business opting out, instead of "No firearms permitted in this facility" their sign should read "This business safe to rob"
Drylok Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:05 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:05 PM $50.00 for 5 years. And License to Carry sounds like open carry may be permitted, too. I like this one! As far as the signs for business opting out, instead of "No firearms permitted in this facility" their sign should read "This business safe to rob"
GNHNTN Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM I would b e opposed to any bill that would allow "home rule units" like Chicago to opt out. Chicago, right now is the most dangerous city in the country. You cannot convince me that someone in Racoon County stands a greated chance of being a crime victim than someone living on the south or west side of Chicago! I don't know about that, I live in Shelby County in south central IL which just happens to be next to Christian County both just happen to be two of the counties known for their very high number of meth labs. I also just happen to live thirty miles south of Decatur, where we go to do quite a bit of shopping, of which I have been told by Police, that if you don't have a very good reason to be there after dark it is in your best interest to not be there. Just because Chicago has the highest crime rate in the country doesn't mean that it's the only place with crime, but I guess if you don't want me to be able to protect my 7 year old daughter just because you can't, and you can sleep with that, then that is your right. I am pretty sure I can speak for all on this board when I say that we will not stop our fight if just some of us hicks down here in "Raccoon County" get LTC and you don't. Once again if you don't first build a foundation, it's pretty hard to finish the house! Hang in there the fight is just gettin' good.
abolt243 Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:37 PM Author Posted February 18, 2009 at 11:37 PM I would b e opposed to any bill that would allow "home rule units" like Chicago to opt out. Chicago, right now is the most dangerous city in the country. You cannot convince me that someone in Racoon County stands a greated chance of being a crime victim than someone living on the south or west side of Chicago! Dr. G, I sympathize and agree with you. Someone on the west or south side of Chicago probably does stand a better chance of being a crime victim that someone living in Shelby County (there is no Raccoon County in IL, but you knew that!). However, many states, MO, NE, OH, IA and others have gained LTC in stages and steps. AK went from rights restricted to full unrestriced carry in less than 10 years. The good people of MO actually worked to vote down a bad bill, then came back to pass "CCW", then had to take the city of St. Louis to court to get them to allow it. If we wait for the NorthEast corner of the state to allow a state wide pre-emption bill, we might never get LTC. However, if the rest of the state were to have LTC, perhaps the example of legal carry as well as the concentration of pressure on local "home rule units" would bring LTC sooner rather than later. I don't know where you live, but I find it very upsetting that the voters of Chicago keep me from being able to defend myself when out and about here in Central Illinois. Oh, and we do have crime here. My wife has been in a mall with shots fired. Not a real settling experience. We're all working for full pre-emption so that all can exercise our rights. It just may have to come in stages. AB
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.