e.
(720 ILCS 5/24-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 24-1)
Sec. 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons.
(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons when he knowingly:
(1) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or
carries any bludgeon, black-jack, slung-shot, sand-club, sand-bag, metal knuckles or other knuckle weapon regardless of its composition, throwing star, or any knife, commonly referred to as a switchblade knife, which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in the handle of the knife, or a ballistic knife, which is a device that propels a knifelike blade as a projectile by means of a coil spring, elastic material or compressed gas; or
(2) Carries or possesses with intent to use the same
unlawfully against another, a dagger, dirk, billy, dangerous knife, razor, stiletto, broken bottle or other piece of glass, stun gun or taser or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument of like character; or
(3) Carries on or about his person or in any vehicle,
a tear gas gun projector or bomb or any object containing noxious liquid gas or substance, other than an object containing a non-lethal noxious liquid gas or substance designed solely for personal defense carried by a person 18 years of age or older; or
(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed
on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or (5) Sets a spring gun; or
(6) Possesses any device or attachment of any kind
designed, used or intended for use in silencing the report of any firearm; or
(7) Sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses or
carries:
(i) a machine gun, which shall be defined for the
purposes of this subsection as any weapon, which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manually reloading by a single function of the trigger, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon, or sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, or carries any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting any weapon into a machine gun, or any combination or parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
(ii) any rifle having one or more barrels less
than 16 inches in length or a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or any weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such a weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches; or
(iii) any bomb, bomb-shell, grenade, bottle or
other container containing an explosive substance of over one-quarter ounce for like purposes, such as, but not limited to, black powder bombs and Molotov cocktails or artillery projectiles; or
(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or
taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted.
This subsection (a)(8) does not apply to any auction
or raffle of a firearm held pursuant to a license or permit issued by a governmental body, nor does it apply to persons engaged in firearm safety training courses; or
(9) Carries or possesses in a vehicle or on or about
his person any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or firearm or ballistic knife, when he is hooded, robed or masked in such manner as to conceal his identity; or
(10) Carries or possesses on or about his person,
upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (10) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:
(i) are broken down in a non-functioning state; or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.
A "stun gun or taser", as used in this paragraph (a)
means (i) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as, batteries, and which fires one or several barbs attached to a length of wire and which, upon hitting a human, can send out a current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning or (ii) any device which is powered by electrical charging units, such as batteries, and which, upon contact with a human or clothing worn by a human, can send out current capable of disrupting the person's nervous system in such a manner as to render him incapable of normal functioning; or
(11) Sells, manufactures or purchases any explosive
bullet. For purposes of this paragraph (a) "explosive bullet" means the projectile portion of an ammunition cartridge which contains or carries an explosive charge which will explode upon contact with the flesh of a human or an animal. "Cartridge" means a tubular metal case having a projectile affixed at the front thereof and a cap or primer at the rear end thereof, with the propellant contained in such tube between the projectile and the cap; or
(12) (Blank); or
(13) Carries or possesses on or about his or her
person while in a building occupied by a unit of government, a billy club, other weapon of like character, or other instrument of like character intended for use as a weapon. For the purposes of this Section, "billy club" means a short stick or club commonly carried by police officers which is either telescopic or constructed of a solid piece of wood or other man-made material.
(b) Sentence. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(1) through (5), subsection 24-1(a)(10), subsection 24-1(a)(11), or subsection 24-1(a)(13) commits a Class A misdemeanor. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(8) or 24-1(a)(9) commits a Class 4 felony; a person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(6) or 24-1(a)(7)(ii) or (iii) commits a Class 3 felony. A person convicted of a violation of subsection 24-1(a)(7)(i) commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years, unless the weapon is possessed in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle as defined in Section 1-146 of the Illinois Vehicle Code, or on the person, while the weapon is loaded, in which case it shall be a Class X felony. A person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of subsection 24-1(a)(4), 24-1(a)(8), 24-1(a)(9), or 24-1(a)(10) commits a Class 3 felony. The possession of each weapon in violation of this Section constitutes a single and separate violation.
(c) Violations in specific places.
(1) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(6) or
24-1(a)(7) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 2 felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years and not more than 7 years.
(1.5) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(4),
24-1(a)(9), or 24-1(a)(10) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 3 felony.
(2) A person who violates subsection 24-1(a)(1),
24-1(a)(2), or 24-1(a)(3) in any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, in residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, in a public park, in a courthouse, on the real property comprising any school, regardless of the time of day or the time of year, on residential property owned, operated or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development, on the real property comprising any public park, on the real property comprising any courthouse, in any conveyance owned, leased or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school related activity, in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a public transportation agency, or on any public way within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising any school, public park, courthouse, public transportation facility, or residential property owned, operated, or managed by a public housing agency or leased by a public housing agency as part of a scattered site or mixed-income development commits a Class 4 felony. "Courthouse" means any building that is used by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court of this State for the conduct of official business.
(3) Paragraphs (1), (1.5), and (2) of this subsection
(c) shall not apply to law enforcement officers or security officers of such school, college, or university or to students carrying or possessing firearms for use in training courses, parades, hunting, target shooting on school ranges, or otherwise with the consent of school authorities and which firearms are transported unloaded enclosed in a suitable case, box, or transportation package.
(4) For the purposes of this subsection (c), "school"
means any public or private elementary or secondary school, community college, college, or university.
(5) For the purposes of this subsection (c),
"public transportation agency" means a public or private agency that provides for the transportation or conveyance of persons by means available to the general public, except for transportation by automobiles not used for conveyance of the general public as passengers; and "public transportation facility" means a terminal or other place where one may obtain public transportation.
(d) The presence in an automobile other than a public omnibus of any weapon, instrument or substance referred to in subsection (a)(7) is prima facie evidence that it is in the possession of, and is being carried by, all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or substance is found, except under the following circumstances: (i) if such weapon, instrument or instrumentality is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein; or (ii) if such weapon, instrument or substance is found in an automobile operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver.
(e) Exemptions. Crossbows, Common or Compound bows and Underwater Spearguns are exempted from the definition of ballistic knife as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Section.
(Source: P.A. 95-331, eff. 8-21-07; 95-809, eff. 1-1-09; 95-885, eff. 1-1-09; 96-41, eff. 1-1-10; 96-328, eff. 8-11-09; 96-742, eff. 8-25-09; 96-1000, eff. 7-2-10.)
From what I'm reading it won't be a free for all. There's no state premption and every jurisdiction can put in place its own time place and manner restrictions. The dreaded patchwork of laws.
To my chagrin, Peoria has a concealed carry ban since '07, but no ordinance on open carry.
BTW, these city ordinances are capped as misdemeanors as the maximum offense per State constitution.
What is a "goofy panel"?
It actually reads like most of the first wave of "shall-issue" laws passed in the early '90s. Signage, high fees, lots of restricted places, etc. But those have fallen in a matter of years in most states, session by session.
The big two gripes are the review panel, which I think won't be as bad as it is being presented by folks (like me) who thought a clean bill would be passed; and the ban on carry on public transportation. The latter can probably be challenged on equal rights grounds using poor gun owners as front men, likewise the high permit fees.
The thing to keep in mind is that even though this law is a couple decades behind the current shall-issue status quo, IL is starting better than NY/NJ/MD or Cali and there is push-back even in those states about the anti-Dems trying to tighten their laws. The momentum is with the pro-carry side in IL.
It actually reads like most of the first wave of "shall-issue" laws passed in the early '90s. Signage, high fees, lots of restricted places, etc. But those have fallen in a matter of years in most states, session by session.
The big two gripes are the review panel, which I think won't be as bad as it is being presented by folks (like me) who thought a clean bill would be passed; and the ban on carry on public transportation. The latter can probably be challenged on equal rights grounds using poor gun owners as front men, likewise the high permit fees.
The thing to keep in mind is that even though this law is a couple decades behind the current shall-issue status quo, IL is starting better than NY/NJ/MD or Cali and there is push-back even in those states about the anti-Dems trying to tighten their laws. The momentum is with the pro-carry side in IL.
This is a bad, bad bill. HB997 or let's go over the cliff.
And we get screwed again.
Make my words, this will be used to prevent carry and it won't get "better". This is Illinois, not other states.
Well once the issue the injunction,we'll have a few months of court carry, until they get this system setup and then deny permits to everyone.
Go ahead and read it. The "Special Board" will ensure that no one gets a permit. Even if the ISP ever gets around to certifying any instructors.
We got played and then screwed.
How will the Special Board -do- that, exactly? Law Enforcement has to justify the initial denial and criteria are given as to what constitutes that. The denied gets a copy of that justification, it isn't a "star chamber." The appeal process to the Special Board isn't open to public records but the denied gets copies of all the paperwork. The lack of "public record" is meaningless if the people denied get handed their evidence. The first hint of arbitrary denials and you have a raft of lawsuits and Posner (and the Legislature) jumping back in.
LE will have to set up classes post-haste or, as above, Posner steps back in. There's no room for foot dragging in a state where Chicago has already been slapped for merely requiring people to drive 30 minutes to go to a range.
None of this is somehow fixed in time forever.
Look at the actual history of shall-issue nationwide at the beginning of the wave in the early '90s, none of these requirements, except the public transportation thing which is vulnerable to a "what about the poor their "progressives" shame campaign, are anything new. It took a few years but most of those 40(+1 now) states gradually got rid of them to get where we are now.
Classes will be a couple hundred bucks at the start, then go down as more trainers get licensed (assuming the various organizations don't start subsidizing them to boost permit numbers early). The state has already as I recall reading been given a 90 day window to create a joint FOID/Carry card so issuance can start immediately.
The training requirement has a silver lining as states that don't demand quid pro quo will likely honor IL's license. Reciprocity is something that gets added next session.
Feet will have to be held to the fire and it will take a few years (like everywhere else) but for goodness sake quit with the preemptive cynicism and gloom and doom. IL has an out-dated law right now compared to the status quo, but they got a late start.
You absolutely right. I mean I've only lived in this state since 1983. I have no idea as to what goes on with the politics in this state and how things really work. My apologies.
Both bills, however, will be vetoed by Our Beloved Governor, Pat "Three County"* Quinn.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdx.dexigner.com%2Fnews%2Fxw%2F21247.jpg&hash=c6c05c478925dcf40f1982cd79dacbde492bae62)
If the timer makes it to Zero Hour, then it's Constitutional Carry for Illinois?
For the uninformed, pretty close.
For those that pay attention...No, it becomes Fed Court ordered FOID carry, with local cities making up any rules they want (max of misdemeanor).
Yep, Not ConCarry, CourtCarry.
However, the first folks that get arrested/fined for violating some home rule ordinance will find themselves explaining to a Federal Judge whyblacks have to take a literacy test to vote, they are infringing on peoples 2A rights. (See: Heller, MacDonald, Ezell, Shepard and Moore)
My understanding is that Chicago has been making noises behind the scenes that they find going over the cliff preferable to losing home-rule on guns overall.
Seriously, does anyone really think that a local ban on carrying firearms will survive in court when the statewide ban was struck down by the 7thCA as unconstitutional?
I do so hope that there are some home rule places out there that are dumb enough to try. The bitchslapping by the federal judge will be epic !!!
I guess you can't blame Chicago for not wanting anything to jeopardize their stellar record on violent crime.One set of criminals looking out for the interests of another set of criminals.
One set of criminals looking out for the interests of another set of criminals.
You aren't looking big picture I think.
Time, place, and manner restrictions were not addressed in the ruling; Posner just said they had to "allow public carry" and it couldn't be "may-issue". Nothing was said about defining public transportation as off limits, or public parks, or within "x" distance of a school, or in public buildings, or having signage have force of law as opposed to simply allowing for a trespass if the carrier ignores it, is caught, and then refuses to leave. Nothing was said about barring carry on private property without the owner's express (written) permission. Nothing was said about holsters being required to be level 2 or higher. Nothing was said about barring OC, or criminalizing even brief accidental exposure. Nothing was said about allowing employers to bar "parking lot carry". Nothing was said about barring carry in public stadiums, or college campuses, or state fairs, or county fairgrounds. Nothing was said about ammunition type restrictions like NJ, or capacity limits like most of the "may-issue" states.
Nothing in the ruling forbid training requirements, or high-ish fees, or regular requals, or "safety inspections" like Pennsylvania. In Alaska in our initial carry law we had to qualify by action type and caliber. If you wanted to carry a revolver, you had to qual with a revolver, if you wanted to carry a semi-auto, you had to qualify with one: and you could only carry a caliber (not power level, bullet nominal diameter) in each action type that you qual'ed with or smaller; Posner's ruling is mute on that subject.
This is where the rest of us, with our experience of how shall-issue laws have evolved over the past 30 years, are coming from. You appear to be looking at the House bill like it is horrible because it doesn't match "Shall-issue" laws as they are currently in most states, when it is merely a typical early '90s law that many of us lived through improving over time and view pragmatically because of that.
And you appear to be looking at court carry like it can only be positive without considering all the crap that can be added as restrictions without violating the Posner order and which have been upheld thus far in the other circuits.
It is not internally consistent to take a "worst-case" view of the House bill and a Pollyanna view of court carry, especially given how bad you know IL politics can be. The House bill had limits on how bad it could get, and had the plusses of preemption and removal of home rule. Court carry has no effective restrictions as long as you can carry on your own land without a permit. Everything else is up for restriction and the anti's have a laundry list of past and existing restrictions, many already supported as Constitutional at the Circuit level, they can pile on.
All I hear is that "otherwise we'd get Kwame's bill". Really?!?!? That's enough of the 68 that voted for HB997 would flip? Then what's fuckign point of having elections? If what Mike Madigan wants is what Mike Madigan gets, then the ILGA is just a big *expletive deleted* joke and state .gov is a big farce.
Yet, we'll be able to "fix" this later-on.
Well which is it boys and girls. Mike Madigan rules with an iron fist or we can improve this later? 'Cause it sure can't be both.
Moreover, this is a preenforcement challenge to the Ordinance.The plaintiffs contend that the City’s ban on firing ranges is wholly incompatible with the Second Amendment. It is well established that “preenforcement challenges . . . are within Article III.” Brandt v.Vill. of Winnetka,Ill. ,612F.3d647,649(7thCir.2010). Theplaintiffs need not violate the Ordinance and risk prosecution in order to challenge it. Schirmer v. Nagode, 621F.3d581,586(7thCir. 2010)(“A person need not riskarrest before bringing a pre enforcement challenge . . . .”). The very “existence of a statute implies a threat to prosecute, so pre enforcement challenges are proper, because a probability of future injury counts as ‘injury’ for the purpose of standing.” Bauer,620 F.3dat708
One set of criminals looking out for the interests of another set of criminals.
A "compromise" is said to have been made. Of the no-pre-emption kind.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=7776
4 Section 15. Objections by law enforcement agencies.
5 (a) Any law enforcement agency may submit an objection to a
6 license applicant based upon a reasonable suspicion that the
7 applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a
8 threat to public safety. The objection shall be made by the
9 chief law enforcement officer of the law enforcement agency, or
10 his or her designee, and must include any information relevant
11 to the objection. If a law enforcement agency submits an
12 objection within 30 days after the entry of an applicant into
13 the database, the Department shall submit the objection and all
14 information related to the application to the Board within 10
15 days of completing all necessary background checks.
(a) There is hereby created a Concealed Carry Licensing
17 Review Board to consider any objection to an applicant's
18 eligibility to obtain a license under this Act submitted by a
19 law enforcement agency or the Department under Section 15 of
20 this Act. The Board shall consist of 7 commissioners to be
21 appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the
22 Senate, with 3 commissioners residing within the First Judicial
23 District and one commissioner residing within each of the 4
24 remaining Judicial Districts. No more than 4 commissioners
25 shall be members of the same political party.
Anybody want to guess how many Cook County/Chicago residents will get permits?
I hope y'all go off the cliff. Far more freedom that way.
No law always trumps new law.
Guess it's official.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=7806
"No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money" and "Arms and the Law" are probably the two best legal blogs on guns right now.
Thank you. No Lawyers etc. had the information I wanted. I didn't have time to try to keep track of the storm of things going on, and hadn't heard what actually passed.
House Bill 183, Ammendment 5 (http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=0183&GAID=12&LegID=69231&SpecSess=&Session=) with a couple tweaks in 6 and 7, looks to be it.
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals seeking a 30-day delay of a mandate for the state to enact a concealed gun carry law.
In a statement Monday, Madigan says she filed the motion in order to give Gov. Pat Quinn time to review the legislation passed last week.
blah blah blah
Nor was the Governor a mere bystander to the process of
responding to this Court’s decision. The Governor has been an active
participant in the process leading to passage of the remedial bill.
Defendants argue that the Governor needs more time to consider the
remedial legislation, but they ignore that the Governor closely followed
the legislative process—and took positions on various bills and
amendments within hours of their proposal. Indeed, the Governor 2
wasted no time tweeting his views as the legislation emerged. See, e.g.
https://twitter.com/GovernorQuinn/status/338000476404580353
(last visited June 4, 2013)Quote(“SB2139 is wrong for #IL. We need strong gun
laws that protect the people of our state & this bill puts public safety at
risk”)
https://twitter.com/GovernorQuinn/status/33800068438 3350788
(last visited June 4, 2013)Quote(“I will not support this SB2193 and I will
work with members of the #IL Senate to stop it in its tracks”)
https://twitter.com/GovernorQuinn/status/339478339855187969
(last visited June 4, 2013)Quote(“Sen. @KwameRaoul’s HB183 provides a reasonable
framework that would protect critical gun safety ordinances across
#IL”)
His views—and strategy—are likely quite well-formed.
The "Machine" will not be trifled with.
In the end we will have to pay big bucks and jump through many hoops to maybe get the right to carry insomevery few places.
This is the current state of affairs for Right to Carry in IL as we understand it:
The GA has sent the bill to the Governor's desk.
The Gov. has 60 days from today to sign/veto/or let it sit on his desk - that would give him a deadline of Aug. 5th.
IL Att. Gen. Lisa has until June 23 to appeal to SCOTUS.
Through all of this, on Tuesday of this week, the 7th circuit court of appeals granted a 30 day extension to the Att. General on the original June 9th deadline when the court has said it will lift the stay on granting our injunction against the current ban.
That extension moves the deadline to a July 9th
6/6/2013
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
As you know last Friday, after years of work the Illinois House and Senate had passed HB0183 with an overwhelming vote. It is the first concealed carry bill to ever pass the Illinois General Assembly. The votes in both Houses surpassed the Super Majority requirement by a wide margin. Even though the bill had passed both houses the June 8th date still existed. Tuesday, Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed and received a 30 day extension on the June 8th date. Now we are at a July 8th date.
The Governor received HB0183 today. There are four things that can happen.
1. The Governor can sign the bill.
2. The Governor can take no action and in 60 days the bill becomes law but that would push us passed the July 8th day. It is conceivable the court could grant another extension.
3. The Governor could veto the bill.
4. The Governor could use an Amendatory Veto (AV). Number 3 and 4 would mean it would be October 22nd before an override of the Governor's veto could happen.
There are a variety of things that can happen in the coming days and months. What ever happens I assure you the ISRA will do all it can on your behalf. I'm sure we will have many alerts before this is all over so please keep checking your emails.
I told everyone we are going to have our resolve tested and tested again. We will never quit fighting and we will never give up. The Second Amendment is here to stay in Illinois.
Thanks for being a member.
Richard Pearson
ISRA Executive Director
I'm going to put this here. Even though it's Virginia, it's only the tip of the iceberg of what we can expect in Illinois. (90+ day FOID cards anyone? The says issue or denied within 30 days.)
It also keeps her out of the debate, of course.
(SixSeven or eight (http://http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38973) county SAs (so far) announce that they will not prosecute.)
I'm not eager to test this out, but I wonder how that would work out for a Missourian who crosses over into Madison County while strapped.
They gonna further subdivide it into school districts, or voting precincts?
Those are tiny counties. A person might be able to hold his breath and drive across one and not pass out, in some of their cases.
In today's travel standards, the notion of the State having any bearing on a person's legality when engaged in victimless non-crime is laughable, let alone the county.
Not that d*** tiny. It may not be up to texican scale, but this isn't one of those east cost glorified parking lots. The state's 400 miles end to end.
Well, yeah.
Not that d*** tiny. It may not be up to texican scale, but this isn't one of those east cost glorified parking lots. The state's 400 miles end to end.
I'm not eager to test this out, but I wonder how that would work out for a Missourian who crosses over into Madison County while strapped.
Why is this so hard to understand??
I have no sympathy for bored Alaskans who've got nothing better to do than bone up on Illinois carry law. :P
You can fit ours on a fortune cookie, I have to read something. =D
You should read illinois self defense rules. We've had "stand your ground" since the sixties.
Details here Illinoiscarry.com Justifiable Use of Force - IL Statute (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19429). I don't think we have the "anywhere we have a right to be" language, though.
In the absence of a duty to retreat I think that means it effectively exists, unless there is case law to the contrary.
Drew , SYG without RTC is... some other acronym. ;)
I'd keep it quiet lest the legislature decide something must be done for the children. =/
http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/02/2680028/quinn-uses-veto-power-to-restrict.html
What in Sam Hill? That's not a veto. That is a drastic rewrite! I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Illinois' governor possesses such a dictatorial power that ties down, gags and rapes the principle of separation of powers.
Read scout's link.
Last page says: With these changes, House Bill 183 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.
He vetoed it, but that doesn't mean what he writes in the sides of the bill becomes law (coughcoughPOTUSsigningstatementscoughcough). He's put proposals to the legislature suggesting what he would approve.
I still thing IL is better off with no legislation on this issue.
Princess Lisa of MadiganistanOur esteemed Atty. General still has her thing up in the air, too.
A shoulder thing? :lol:
What's her "thing" in the air?
Yep, he has amendatory veto power. So it's now a dog's breakfast as far as what can happen during the override. Which is pretty much anything. If they fail to override it, IIRC, then what Quinn wrote becomes law. They could also override just part(s) of his changes.
But I would not be surprised if it did not get overwritten. Madigan had to twist quite a few arms to get this, and there are lots of Anti-gun Democrats in the legislature that may just accept Quinn's changes.
So here's hoping that it fails and we get FOID/Court carry.
That | (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejrexperiment.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Fdog-licking-balls.jpg&hash=63b18e5f554e432c917e1fa6a0fcac380065440f) |
We should have never gone through the charade of passing a bill. Should have stood our ground for everything we wanted.
Will the govs amendments pass muster with the courts?
Planned to delay it until the very last second. Yes to resist it to the bitter end.
Also expect the state police to use the full allotted days before issuing the fist license. Again, drag it out and resist in every passive aggressive planned way possible.
I actually have licenses for my fists. Gotta have 'em licensed, since they're deadly weapons. :cool:
In the absence of a duty to retreat I think that means it effectively doesn't exist, unless there is case law to the contrary.
Drew , SYG without RTC is... some other acronym. ;)
I'd keep it quiet lest the legislature decide something must be done for the children. =/
On a vote of 77/31/0, HB183 is declared passed not withstanding the Governor's recommendations.
The veto is overridden in the House.
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39520&#entry523907 (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39520&#entry523907)
And the Illinois house over rode the idiot governors amendatory veto this morning.
The applicant must: •Be at least 21 years of age
•Have a valid FOID card
•Have not been convicted or found guilty in this State or any other state of: ◦A misdemeanor involving the use or threat of physical force or violence to any person within the last 5 years.
◦2 or more violations related to driving while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or compounds, or any combination thereof, within the last 5 years.
•Not be the subject of a pending arrest warrant, prosecution, or proceeding for an offense or action that could lead to disqualification.
•Not have been in a residential or court-ordered treatment for alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, or drug treatment within the last 5 years.
•Submit a completed Concealed Carry License Application.
•Successfully complete 16 hours of firearms training, including classroom and range instruction.
Senate overrides. HB183 is now Law.
yay. so after lots of training and expense and waiting at least 9 months to actually have a permit in my hand,
I will be able to legally carry in a few places. I won't be able to carry in a whole bunch of other places without risking felony arrest.
This law sucks.
I feel like shooting holes in my ISRA membership card.
I wouldn't be so hasty there. Let's see how this plays out.
The first applications won't be available for 180 days. Then the ISP has to develop a course of instruction. (??? how long that will take) Then they have to certify/approve/bless "Illinois CCW" trainers (again, ??? how long that will take, if they even bother to certify any trainers. The ISP being a political animal is VERY anti-gun). Then you have to take the 16 hour class, send in your application, and ANY police agency (like, oh, I don't know like either the ISP or CPD, maybe?) has 30 days to reject your application. Should you however, be one with someone clouting for you, you will get your CCW permit 90 days later (And not one second before.)
I'm willing to bet it take at least a year before the first permit is issued. (If ever.)
Oh while the ISRA didn't write this bill, they should have lobbied against it.
Are the streets running with blood yet?
Are the streets running with blood yet?
Senate overrides. HB183 is now Law.Not perfect, but a step in the right direction - now there's going to be a way to legally carry a concealed handgun in Illinois WITHOUT being a Chicago alderman! =D
Not perfect, but a step in the right direction - now there's going to be a way to legally carry a concealed handgun in Illinois WITHOUT being a Chicago alderman! =D
I'll go $20 that it doesn't go over the year.
In balance, I'm not sure what will happen. It could go either way. If we don't have the power to get improvements by simple majority later, then we were never even close to getting what we wanted by super majority, the "cliff" was a myth.
The optimistic argument for future improvement:
We had near super majority of votes plus extra in House for our proposed CC law. The full force of the Party leaders cut that super majority to a few votes shy. Now all we need for improvements is a majority vote, not super majority. Counting votes, we should have a strong hand to push through what we want after a year or so. The opposition to Illinois gun owners has been absolutely zero, while supporters show up to the middle of nowhere capital by the thousands.
In balance, I'm not sure what will happen. It could go either way. If we don't have the power to get improvements by simple majority later, then we were never even close to getting what we wanted by super majority, the "cliff" was a myth.
Illinois Carry filed motions to prevent the ISP from delaying. In essence they are saying that since the anti-carry statutes remain in force (they weren't repealed, the permits provide a defense), until permits are physically -issued- the state has not complied with the Court's ruling and the unConstitutional infringements remain. Thus FOID carry should be in effect until they get the permit process up and running.
Scout's example states are mostly may issue with few permit holders per capita and a difficult process to add more. You can't build momentum if it is hard to get numbers. IL is shall issue, there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of motivated voters angling for more expansions the first and every following year. And the recent vote even with the defections is far more than the simple majority needed for improvements.
Thus, your optimist point is key. Pro-gun voters mobilize and vote, anti-gun voters do not. Once the "OMG people can carry!" dam is broken the anti leadership will have trouble framing the soundbite. "OMG people will be able to carry off the sidewalk!" Is not a rallying cry with any power.
Definitions:
...
"Law Enforcement Agency" means any federal, state or local law enforcement agency, including offices of the State's Attorneys and the Office of the Attorney General"
Section 15. Objections by law enforcement agencies.
(a) Any law enforcement agency may submit an objection to a
license applicant based upon a reasonable suspicion that the
applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a
threat to public safety.
http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-13fc5603-92613-fc59-b4c8c0aba767ee8c.html?hl=true (http://directives.chicagopolice.org/directives/data/a7a57bf0-13fc5603-92613-fc59-b4c8c0aba767ee8c.html?hl=true)
Have at least one of the following valid firearms instructor certifications:from the ISP website. That really narrows it down doesn't it.
Certification from a law enforcement agency.
Certification from a firearm instructor course offered by a state or federal governmental agency.
Certification from a firearm instructor qualification course offered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board.
Certification from an entity approved by the Illinois State Police that offers firearm instructor education and training in the use and safety of firearms.
No, simply realistic.
We didn't get CCW because we had an overwhelming majority of pro-CCW folks in legislature. We got it because a federal court put a gun to their heads.
The Dems redrew the all the election district maps after the last census. They have Super-Majorities in both houses. If Cullerton and Madigan agree on something, that's the way it will be. Period. End. Full Stop. This bill was written in the "proverbial smoke filled room" with only Madigan, Phelps, Cullerton and few other legislators in attendance. No NRA or ISRA or any other lobbyists.
The ISP has 180 days to come up with an Application form (Seriously, you need 6 months to add a line for the instructor to sign saying you've completed 16 hours of training?) Then they have to develop a "Course of CCW Instruction". No real time limit on that. Then they have to certify instructors. But first they have to have:from the ISP website. That really narrows it down doesn't it.
I'll guess you have get 110 out 100 questions right to pass. Plus I bet their might be a shooting component where the instructors have shoot nothing but X-ring or fail.
Then there's the two day class figure at least $300-400. Plus $150 for the license.
We have a Oligarchy, disguised by the trappings of democracy. Anyone who believes we have any say is an idiot or a fool.