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.
From the law:
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.
S/he wants to carry a gun. That makes him a danger to others. I bet little Lisa, CPD Superintendent McCarthy, and State Police Director Grau already have their big red "DENIED" stamps warmed up. Plus that looks like "May Issue", but let's read on, there may be a way out yet.
So what do we have then.
1) A review board appointed by our Extremely Anti-Gun Governor. (I doubt he'll appoint any Tea Party types.)
2) Consists of three commissioners from Cook County/Chicago. (They'll be pro-gun.
)
3) And since they need a majority, throw in another (D) who happens to be an MD and you've got a majority to uphold any denial.
4) Toss in Anti-RINO or three, and no one will get a permit. (Unless you have someone to clout for you.)
Look at what happened in Chicago after
McDonald, they wrote an ordinance making it damn near impossible to get a permit, banned gun ranges and anything else they could think of doing to deny issuing any permits. We had to win
Ezell to at least get the onerous provisions repealed and the ordinance re-written.
And all these people on in Springfield (Quinn, Madigan; both of them, Cullerton, Grau, et al.) are from Chicago and have that mold/mindset. They are very anti-gun. People think we won this like the other states did. Building a coalition over time and winning legislators hearts and minds. That's a false image. We had fewer votes for the original "Good" LTC/CCW bill then we did last year (69 "Yea" votes last year, 66 "Yea" votes this year). If and when we go back for "improvements" Madigan's going to pat Rep. Phelps on the head and say "You got your Concealed Carry, now if you ever what to be re-elected your going to need campaign money and if you don't vote how I tell you, you won't see a dime of it."
And should Madigan and Cullerton both screw-up and let an "Improvement" bill pass, Quinn will veto it like he did this one, and there's no way we'd get a 3/5 majority in either house. If he does an amendatory veto, TPTB might let it stand if it makes things worse for gun owners.
The anti's in Illinois did not admit defeat, they just changed it enough so they can show that there's a CCW law on the books to comply with the court, but written in such a way that no (well, maybe a few well connected) permits will be issued.
We'll have to back to the courts again.
