Legal carrying of firearms in Illinois is getting closer. It's time people's constitutional rights there were restored after decades of infringement. In the immortal words of Rafiki, "It is time." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olLxrojmvMg) Illinois is the only state in our nation that does not allow lawful carrying of firearms. And its host to the murder capitol of our country, Chicago.
I agree with the article's author. Enough with making deals. It's time to press the advantage and re-take the rights without making it so burdensome that those otherwise inclined to exercise them won't or won't be able to.
http://news.rtba.co/illinois-gun-laws/
===
May 2, 2013
But the fight even in Illinois is far from over. Gun control advocates there including the Governor, Attorney General and others are doing everything possible to keep firearms carrying as illegal or as restrictive as possible.
In addition to this article, I just watched a video segment on Hannity showing an outraged Republican representative yelling at the gun control Democrats for dirty politics in trying to slip in undebated gun control into a piece of legislation. The vote for it failed but it was only after significant political fireworks.
http://www.examiner.com/article/illinois-ag-madigan-wants-more-time-to-decide-how-to-keep-citizens-defenseless
===
May 16, 2013
The Illinois legislature continues its antics in every desperate way they can think of to continue trampling on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens.
Here, among other things, they're trying to allow concealed carry in the majority of the state but exclude Chicago and its parent Cook County which includes 40% of state residents. We all know Chicago is the murder capital of our country with over 500 murders in 2012. Apparently Illinois lawmakers think it's okay for the criminals to maintain their reign of terror there and feel so strongly about it that they're enabling murderers by ensuring they're the only ones carrying guns and, in many cases, the only ones that even possess guns since the imposed fees and processes for firearms licensing and registration are, by design, overly burdensome, expensive, restrictive and slow.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/5/illinois-senate-skirts-right-to-carry-mandate-by-contemplating-vote-on-severely-flawed-bills-this-week.aspx
Can you imagine how the collective heads of the gun control crowd would explode if concealed carry were finally granted in Chicago and there was a directly correlated reduction in violent crime? They couldn't avoid the correlation but I'm sure they'd never acknowledge it as cause and effect - they'd insist it was due to other factors like some nonsensical crackdown on criminals or something. They just can't see that if criminals are shot, or especially if they're killed, in the process of committing their crimes that that 'prevents' all the future crimes they would have committed. It's almost criminal that they can't see the logic in that, or that they're trying to protect the lives of criminals, when they try to use a similar line of argument in thinking that if they can reduce the number of guns in circulation that the related crime will dissipate. The flaw, of course, is that the gun supply they'd affect is from law abiding people, not criminals, and the innocent would remain at risk of victimization up to and including loss of life.
===
May 17, 2013
Gun control advocating lawmakers in Illinois have put together a VERY restrictive piece of legislation that would allow (sort of) concealed carry in the state. It has a minimum of two sets of rules and costs - one for Chicago and one for the rest of the state - but there's a provision for other municipalities to made amendments to where firearms cannot be carried within their borders. The current list of prohibited areas includes "a wide array of places, including trains, buses, bars, hospitals, schools, casinos and private businesses that choose to prohibit weapons. The bill also would provide larger cities with a six-month window of opportunity to designate additional locations where guns would be banned." There's also mention that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants prohibitions in Chicago to include "public transit or at Wrigley Field, concerts and places like the proposed new stadium near McCormick Place for DePaul University's basketball team".
There are other restrictions too. It's clear this is an attempt by the gun control crowd to comply with the 7th US Circuit Court order to the minimum degree and make it as restrictive as they can - a clear "infringement" on 2nd Amendment rights.
Illinois has 2 weeks remaining in their legislative session and 3 weeks before they violate the 7th US Circuit Court's order. The bill may pass in the Senate soon but will have significant resistance in the House. State Attorney General Lisa Madigan hasn't yet decided whether to appeal the 7th US Circuit Court's decision. Time is very short.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-concealed-carry-0517-20130517,0,1062260,full.story
===
May 25, 2013
Another step forward for Illinois citizens' 2nd Amendment rights but still with some troubling provisions. This Illinois Assembly plan is better than the Senate plan in a couple key ways but still has some significant restrictions in it that should be opposed by any person truly supportive of 2nd Amendment rights. Of course the gun control supporting politicians hate it.
"But its obliteration of all local gun laws, including Chicago's ban on assault-style weapons, drew immediate resistance from Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat like Madigan. Quinn said the proposal endangers the public by pre-empting local gun laws, which have nothing to do with concealed carry, the only subject covered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decree.
"We need strong gun-safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk," Quinn said in a prepared statement.
Apparently Governor Quinn is much more satisfied and comfortable with local laws that support his anti-gun stance and put law abiding citizens of his state in jeopardy of criminal conviction simply by moving from place to place within the state. Do you think he and others with the idea that state preemption of guns laws is "offensive" believe the same about other laws? Should individual communities in Illinois be free to make up their own laws that run counter to other state laws? Or is it only okay in the case of laws restricting the constitutionally provided right to "keep and BEAR arms"? Hypocrisy at its best!
"In fact, with 220 so-called "home-rule" communities — generally larger cities such as Chicago, Peoria, Bloomington and Springfield which are free from state oversight on many local policy decisions — Madigan said there could be just as many different gun standards if there's no statewide standard.
"As people attempted to move about the state, they would contemplate the possibility that there would be a change in the rules up to 220 times," Madigan said."
Imagine if traffic laws changed 220 times within the same state. How could anyone navigate them safely - without risk of being ticketed, fined, arrested, convicted or jailed? We're not talking about the speed limit here - we're talking about fundamental differences that could result in felony conviction, imprisonment and a life-long label as a criminal. Preposterous! Local restrictions MUST GO!
Likewise, some of these restrictions must go for the same reason.
"it significantly broadens the places that would be off-limits to guns, including all of the places Chicago officials requested, such as mass-transit buses and trains, parks and street festivals."
Really? Then how does a daily commuter in Chicago and elsewhere in the state exercise their right to "bear arms" if they cannot travel on mass-transit? How does a parent protect their children from criminals as they play in the local park, or a woman protect herself from rape? Have you seen the news about the recent shootings in New Orleans and, of course, the Boston Marathon Bombing? Parades and festivals are precisely where some criminals target innocent, vulnerable victims. But gun control advocates continue to ignore the obvious, the facts and the reality of what's happening in our society. They continue to insist on making citizens be victims of violence. And they insist on putting law abiding citizens in jeopardy of becoming convicted criminals for the 'crime' of wanting to exercise their constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" and to protect themselves, their families, their property and others. It's much easier to do that and show how tough they are on 'crime' rather than go after the real criminals and real crime. These restrictions will NOT prevent any criminal or intended criminal from carrying a firearm or any weapon of their choice any place they choose! Anyone arguing to the contrary is either a liar or, at best, naive.
Some good parts of the bill include:
"The Phelps bill would wipe out local regulations such as Chicago's assault-weapons ban, gun-purchase taxes and required reporting of lost and stolen guns. Rep. Christian Mitchell called it a "massive dismantling of local administration of gun safety."
"It is the opposite of small government," Mitchell said. "This bill is massive overreach, it is dangerous, it is right in time for summer" when crime heats up."
That first paragraph is all good. As for the "opposite of small government" and "massive overreach" parts, those are laughable. Rarely do you hear a Democrat screaming about either - it's how they conduct their regular business. Again, the hypocrisy is only funny until you really think about it and then it turns sickening. "Dangerous"? What's dangerous is gun control advocates making victims of law abiding citizens! Crime heats up in summer? Is it a surprise that criminals, being human, are more active in warmer weather - just like everyone else. You know who else is more active in the summer? Victims and potential victims!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/illinois-lawmakers-approve-gun-plan-opposed-by-governor/
Don't think that violent crime can't happen to you. How do you think this woman felt when she did what she was supposed to do - she called 911 - and was told 'sorry, we can't help you'.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2013/05/23/911-dispatcher-tells-woman-about-to-be-sexually-assaulted-there-are-no-cops-to-help-her-due-to-budget-cuts/
So much for Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement about the police being able to protect people. What a ridiculous and outrageous thing for anyone to say! What a lying thing to say! No, this didn't occur in New York City but does it matter? This is a reflection of what's happening all across our country. Police forces are being reduced as often as they're being increased. If police could adequately protect people then we wouldn't be having any of these discussions. There wouldn't be a murder capital or a violent crime problem to talk about.
===
June 1, 2013
2nd Amendment victory in Illinois? Yes! Finally! Could it be better? Yes! Maybe some day!
This short article from the Second Amendment Foundation speaks of "adoption by Illinois lawmakers of the state Firearm Concealed Carry Act" but it doesn't mention the governor's signature, so it may still be one step away.
A "“good step” toward bringing the Prairie State in line with the rest of the nation." Yes!
"It is a shame that this had to go right down to the wire." Yes!
"but the important thing is that Illinois citizens will now have a law that makes it possible for them to exercise their right to bear arms outside the home for personal protection" Yes!
"Under the new law, both residents and non-residents may apply for Illinois carry licenses. The new license will be valid for a period of five years...The new law has a 16-hour training requirement for new license applications, and a three-hour refresher for license renewals." Um, I may have to go download and complete an application after this post, or at least look at the 16-hour training requirement to see if I already meet it or not.
"This Act will give Illinois citizens a great opportunity to demonstrate to reluctant lawmakers that concealed carry can work as it has been working in other states,” Gottlieb observed. “A bright new day is dawning for the good people of Illinois who have waited patiently for years to see this happen." Yes and yes.
http://www.thegunmag.com/saf-lauds-illinois-lawmakers-on-ccw-bill-forced-by-landmark-lawsuit/
As long as Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy doesn't start executing lawful carrying citizens in the streets. Remember this quote? "I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms. People who are not highly trained … putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire, and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front." That's straight from Shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later-McCarthy.
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/03/more-moronic-statements-from-chicago.html
===
June 20, 2013
As mentioned in my previous post on this topic, the concealed carry bill is still lacking Illinois Governor Quinn's signature to make it law. In a typical anti-gun move, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan requested and was granted a second 30-day extension to 'decide' whether to appeal the federal court's 2012 ruling that's forcing Illinois to enact a concealed carry law. She's had several months to make this decision already. The excuse for this latest delay is that the Illinois legislature passed the proposed bill very late and didn't allow the attorney general's office time to review it and make their decision. But it's not like the AG didn't know there was something coming. It was making headlines for a long time! Just another excuse to delay and deny Illinois citizens their 2nd Amendment rights.
Governor Quinn is on a separate clock to decide to sign the bill. If he does then the appeal decision becomes moot. If he takes no action then it becomes law but they may still decide to appeal. If he vetoes the bill it'll go back to the legislature where the votes were enough to pass the bill into law anyway but it'd delay implementation that much more. An appeal will undoubtedly also cause a delay of more months. Illinois citizens have waited long enough to be able to exercise their constitutional rights!
What do you think will happen with this appeal and bill?
http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x871007557/U-S-Supreme-Court-grants-Madigan-more-time-on-guns#axzz2WekvpNXV
===
June 29, 2013
Illinois gun control zealots just won't give up. The legislature there passed a very limiting bill through both houses that would allow some lawful concealed carry in Illinois, the only state in the nation that currently doesn't allow it. But according to this article, it's not yet restrictive enough, expensive enough, or difficult enough to jump through the hoops for those who would choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
The Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, says she expects Governor Pat Quinn to veto the legislation. It's important to note that the bill passed through the legislature with enough votes to override a veto. Quinn may have a more restrictive counter proposal though. It'll be interesting to see how the legislature responds. Regardless of that, this is yet another way to delay, delay, delay (translate that to deprive) citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/breaking-illinois-governor-quinn-likely-to-veto-conceal-carry-bill/
===
July 2, 2013
It's being reported that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a well known anti-gun, gun control advocate, intends to use (abuse) his "amendatory veto authority" to add additional restrictions to the lawful concealed carry bill "including limiting the places where someone may carry, the number of cartridges someone can have in a defensive firearm and the level of concealment one must exercise, all in excess of the legislation passed by the State Legislature last month". That will send the bill back for another vote where it already received enough votes to override a veto.
Quinn clearly won't be happy with any lawful concealed carry in the state and is doing everything in his power to make it as restrictive as he possible can - effectively making it an empty law that will result in otherwise lawfully abiding citizens being arrested because of the tyrannical restrictions on their right to "bear arms".
http://www.thegunmag.com/il-gov-quinn-plays-emperor-with-citizens-civil-rights-says-ccrkba/
The Illinois chapter of the 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, Illinois 2nd Amendment Moms, posted this on their Facebook page urging people to call their Illinois state legislators and get involved in demanding Illinois reject the additional measures and pass a lawful concealed carry bill, as ruled the federal circuit court has ruled must be provided.
Illinois 2nd Amendment Moms/ IL Chapter of 1mmagc ·
This article has a few more of the details of Quinn's amendment veto. It's even worse than I realized! Almost unbelieveable!
http://www.examiner.com/article/ill-governor-quinn-sets-stage-for-ccw-confrontation
===
July 13, 2013
July 2013 was monumental for 2nd Amendment rights of Illinois citizens. Governor Pat Quinn did as expected and provided an "amendatory veto" of the already restrictive lawful concealed carry bill passed by the Illinois Assembly, attempting to make it even more restrictive and more effectively impossible to lawfully carry in the course of a normal person's day by adding bans in restaurants to those already in place for public transportation, parks, bars, etc. The Assembly, however, overrode the governor's amendments and veto and passed the law.
This is a big day for Illlinois and for the country as state citizens finally get to carry lawfully within the state, after undergoing an expensive and burdensome process, and the last state in the nation now has a lawful concealed carry option. That Chicago machine and muscle has been persistent in its opposition to citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, as guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well they finally didn't get it quite their way as the rest of the more conservative state has gotten something pushed through with the aid of the federal circuit court's 2012 decision. There are lots of articles covering the event. Here are excerpts and links to a few.
"Quinn's proposed restrictions include a one-gun limit, not allowing guns in places that serve alcohol and not allowing guns in businesses unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed. As sent to the governor, the bill prohibits guns in businesses where alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts, and in places where the owner posts a sign prohibiting guns."
Quinn's proposal would have affected restaurants that serve alcohol, which is obviously inclusive of many, instead of being restricted to bars (alcohol sales account for more than half of the receipts) and his "unless the owner posts a sign saying guns are allowed" is exactly opposite how laws work elsewhere where lawful concealed carry is allowed unless owners post restrictions. Quinn knows that human nature would make those postings slow in coming or they wouldn't come at all because they'd require effort and money to implement. I'm thankful more conservative legislators saw through Quinn's scams.
http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/09/2687798/house-overrides-quinns-concealed.html
"The Second Amendment Foundation today congratulated Illinois lawmakers for “courageously overriding Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto” of concealed carry legislation, complying with a federal appeals court mandate that resulted from SAF’s successful civil rights lawsuit against the state’s prohibition on bearing arms for personal protection."
"When the exercise of a civil right is denied to a segment of the population, everyone suffers because a right that appears only on paper is not a right at all...While the new statute is not perfect, it is a huge step forward to comply with the Seventh Circuit Court’s ruling in Moore v. Madigan."
"The Second Amendment, affirmed as protective of an individual right by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not limited to the confines of one’s home or business,” Gottlieb observed. “There is not only a right to keep arms, but to bear them, and that most assuredly applies beyond someone’s doorstep.
"It is time for Illinois residents to join citizens in every other state,” "...They tried to transpose the Second Amendment from a fundamental civil right to a heavily-regulated privilege, and that is not what the court ruling allowed him to do.
http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=450
Although now law, actually carrying of firearms still won't be allowed because "The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year." That gives those estimated 300,000 people time to get through the as-yet-fully-determined process that will include "Firearm Owner's Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours -- longest of any state -- to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/09/illinois-becomes-last-state-in-nation-to-allow-concealed-carry/
Gun control advocating politicians are still towing the party line - that restrictive gun control laws will reduce gun violence, but not a single one can explain how adding more laws and more restrictive laws is going to affect people who are already criminals or who are intending criminal behavior. Were any of those shootings over the weekend done by people lawfully carrying firearms? No, because there wasn't any lawful carrying allowed by non-law enforcement, and yet they happened anyway. Does anyone really believe those shootings wouldn't have occurred if there were more restrictive laws? It's a ridiculous assertion that borders on ignorance or worse.
"The Illinois governor had tried to lobby for the passage of his significantly more restrictive version of the bill—citing a weekend of extreme gun violence in the city of Chicago where over 70 people were shot over the holiday weekend."
"If the full General Assembly overrides Quinn’s rewrite, gun owners will not be able to carry a concealed firearm without a valid concealed carry license issued by the Illinois State Police — a process that state police would have 180 days to develop. Possessing a valid Firearms Owner Identification Card, or FOID card, is not sufficient on its own to carry a concealed firearm, state police say.
The cost for the new concealed carry license would be $150 for five years for Illinois residents, under the legislation. Applicants also would have to complete 16 hours of firearms training, including classroom and range instruction, to qualify. The legislation gives the state police 60 days to license firearm instructors and training courses, which the agency said it will place on its website, www.isp.state.il.us."
"The bill isn’t perfect, admittedly. There are numerous issues such as expensive and time consuming training requirements, off limits locations, and a stripped down version of state preemption which was present in earlier versions of the bill. But at least it’s a start for Illinois citizens who cannot carry outside their homes and will finally be able to when Governor Quinn’s amendment falters."
http://bearingarms.com/breaking-illinois-general-assembly-votes-to-override-governors-veto-of-concealed-carry-bill/
"Quinn had issued a blanket criticism of lawmakers — including gun control allies who supported the bill — as "genuflecting" to the National Rifle Association. Following the vote, he defended his efforts to work with lawmakers but said the General Assembly had "surrendered" to the NRA."
Right, it's all about the big, bad NRA. It's not like it has anything to do with the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the Federal 7th Circuit Court, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), or the desires of millions of people to exercise their rights. Again, ridiculous! Outrageous.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry,0,4356935.story
In an interesting turn of events, Tazewell County, Illinois decided in June, ahead of the final law being decided for the state, to allow concealed carry within the county. This 6:10 video is an interview with State's Attorney Stewart Umholtz. Umholtz will not prosecute what he believes to be an unconstitutional law per the Supreme Court's position on citizens' rights to "bear arms".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MurD_aKdonk
Here's another detailed article about Governor Quinn's proposed amendments that includes one or two details not covered in the other articles. One of them is the provision for out of state concealed carry licenses. They will be allowed - for double the price - $300 for 5 years.
http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry-for-chicago/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/04/illinois-lawful-carry-of-firearms-gets.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
No comments:
Post a Comment