Mr. Fife Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:42 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:42 PM Capitolfax stating today that Phelps is modifying the bill to give Chicago some local control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kermit315 Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:43 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:43 PM I hope not....no carve outs, no bad bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45 whit Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:45 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:45 PM Any idea what that would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:45 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:45 PM I hope not either. As much as I dislike Chicago, there are some very good people that live there. Their second amendment rights are no different than anyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:46 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:46 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:48 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:48 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. Well, that may not be too bad. Any more control given to them than what you stated, then I would say heck NO !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:48 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:48 PM · Hidden by Molly B., April 18, 2013 at 08:27 PM - No reason given Hidden by Molly B., April 18, 2013 at 08:27 PM - No reason given Capitolfax stating today that Phelps is modifying the bill to give Chicago some local control. Are you ******* kidding me? . Link to comment
SAXD9 Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:49 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:49 PM Also, as long as a state permit is still good in Chicago and not have a separate licensing system like was in 831. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:50 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:50 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. That actually makes sense to me. Why not the CPD object like a sheriffs dept? They would have to document WHY in each case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad kruse Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:50 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:50 PM i feel the only way to have the amendments fail is to have the carve out. its not what i want either but it seems to me IMHO that this is the only way that 997 will pass with out the bad amendments adopted to the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:51 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:51 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. That actually makes sense to me. Why not the CPD object like a sheriffs dept? They would have to document WHY in each case. We already have a Sheriff in Chicago/Cook. Will every other town in Illinois get to object? .... NO ... then Chicago shouldn't either !!! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:52 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:52 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. That actually makes sense to me. Why not the CPD object like a sheriffs dept? They would have to document WHY in each case. I agree that this would not be bad. Let's see the details before we freak out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:53 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:53 PM I hope we aren't letting them catch their breath when we have them on the ropes. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:55 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:55 PM Capitulation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDaveFactor Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:55 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:55 PM I would hope that they aren't going to let the CPD make Chicago a "May Issue" area, while the rest of us get the "Shall Issue" that is deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM I hope we aren't letting them catch their breath when we have them on the ropes. . I understand where you are coming from on this, BUT sometimes you may get what you really want by giving something as miniscule as this which may not be as harmful as some may think. Just sayin !! As MattB said, let's see the details first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:57 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. That actually makes sense to me. Why not the CPD object like a sheriffs dept? They would have to document WHY in each case. I agree I would say the CPD will have a better handle on whos is under investigation (Dont laugh) than Tom Dart. I still have a feeling you will have huge delays from both of them and you will hear a lot of complaining in springfield around this time next year or so about how they arn't being given enough time to bring up concerns about CC applicants. If the ENTIRE extent is they let the CPD chime in like they do the Local Sheriff's they i wouldn't object. Anything else I would pretty much have to personally reject though. There is NOTHING special about Chicago that wouldn't/shouldn't apply to places like Rockford, Waukeegan, Champaign, Peoria or Springfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:58 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:58 PM Who would have the ultimate say? So the CPD could "contest" an application. What happens then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:59 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:59 PM I think he's going to allow the CPD to object like it already allows the Sheriff. I assume the same rules apply. Looks like we'll have some more fun in Chi-town. That actually makes sense to me. Why not the CPD object like a sheriffs dept? They would have to document WHY in each case. I agree I would say the CPD will have a better handle on whos i under investigation (Dont laugh) than Tom Dart.If the ENTIRE extent is they let the CPD chime in like they do the Local Sheriff's they i wouldn't object. Anything else I would pretty much have to personally reject though. There is NOTHING special about Chicago that wouldn't/shouldn't apply to places like Rockford, Waukeegan, Champaign, Peoria or Springfield. Sorry, pretty much everbody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAXD9 Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:59 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 03:59 PM CapitolFax is also reporting that the training is being raised to 10 hours. It appears that they may be quite a bit of compromise to get the final 3-4 votes. We will just have to look at the amendment once it is filed to see what's in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebie Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:00 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:00 PM I would hope that they aren't going to let the CPD make Chicago a "May Issue" area, while the rest of us get the "Shall Issue" that is deserved. Ehh, I mean think about it like this. You already have to have CFP and a FOID card to have a gun in Chicago, so why should this be may issue on top of both of those? I don't live in the city, but I think it's silly that they would want may issue. Like what, are they worried that gang bangers are going to apply for CCW permits? lol right. Cold day in heck when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:02 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:02 PM The sad part is that raising the training requirement from 4 to 10 hours has absolutely nothing to do with safety or anything else worthwhile. The only things it does it make it more of a pain, and more expensive to get a permit. And anything that does that, the Chicago folks will be in favor of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xd9subcompact Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:04 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:04 PM This is similar to a proposal from a couple of years ago, where they were going to describe it as a city with a population over xxx,000 would have the ability to go may (won't) issue. There was only one city that met that number. If this is true, it means that there are a few votes that could be peeled away from the other side, putting us over the top. In some of the hearings, I remember someone suggesting using I-80 as a demarcation line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbrown1311 Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM Constitutional carry is better in the long term than a compromise, we will win subsequent court battles when municipalities make their own ordinances, but a carve out will be a much tougher legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad O. Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:05 PM I hate cook county and purposefully NEVER go there. Even though I would gladly and selfishly eliminate Chicago in order to further the freedoms in the rest of the state it doesn't negate the fact that we all deserve and are guaranteed the same rights no matter our zip code. Same here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:06 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:06 PM The text from Capitol Fax, if anyone is interested. Explains what they're reporting that Phelps is doing: Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharz96 Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:07 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:07 PM I don't live in the city, but I think it's silly that they would want may issue. ...Surely, you jest. If it's "may issue" they can deny for no reason at all, and turn it into a whole new pay to play. OF COURSE that's what they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highspeed Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:07 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:07 PM Yes and the permit fee looks like it might be 100.00. People ask to provide a link to Capitol Fax, which is hard cause alot of it is in the subscribers only section and you can`t copy and send or risk getting booted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:10 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:10 PM CapitolFax is also reporting that the training is being raised to 10 hours. It appears that they may be quite a bit of compromise to get the final 3-4 votes. We will just have to look at the amendment once it is filed to see what's in it. 10 hours matches Texas CCW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebie Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:11 PM Share Posted April 18, 2013 at 04:11 PM Constitutional carry is better in the long term than a compromise, we will win subsequent court battles when municipalities make their own ordinances, but a carve out will be a much tougher legal battle.I disagree. I don't live in the city, but I think it's silly that they would want may issue. ...Surely, you jest. If it's "may issue" they can deny for no reason at all, and turn it into a whole new pay to play. OF COURSE that's what they want. I just mean, what do they think it will change. Like, the crooks who want to carry, will just do it. They won't EVER stop that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.