Conceal Carry in Illinois a done deal? Not so fast says Quinn

[dan_bgblue]

Quinn, in announcing his decision to impose last-minute changes, claimed the bill had "serious flaws" that jeopardize public safety.

"Therefore I've used my power under the constitution of our state to make important changes, common sense changes, to protect the safety of our people," he said.

Linkage
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/02/quinn-changes-illinois-concealed-carry-legislation/?test=latestnews)

[CitizenBBN]

Even his own party is mad at him. The stuff he changed isn't all that major relatively speaking, he did it at this late hour just to show some bluster for his base and to start a peeing for distance contest to prove he could. Illinois elects some serious losers as Governors.

He changed it to restrict carry to 1 gun and no more than 10 rounds of ammo, when the vast majority only carry one and as if that makes a difference to safety. As if that limit will prevent someone from going on a rampage or something, as if someone who gets a permit would go one one.

He also restricted carry so you can't carry in any place that serves alcohol. That sounds like a good idea, but in fact it's not. Let's say I want to take my wife out for dinner and I want to carry. If I go to Applebee's (yuck) I can't take my gun in b/c they serve alcohol even if I'm sitting at a table and don't drink. I have to leave it in my car where I don't have access to it if something happens before I get back to my car, and that presumes I drove to dinner. If I live in urban Chicago I may have walked or taken public transportation (they were going to ban carry on it too, not sure if that stayed in), which means I can't carry at all outside the home b/c I have no place to leave it when I get to the restaurant.

Nearly every restaurant serves alcohol, so what this really is is about keeping people from carrying at all even to and from a restaurant, thus not carrying anywhere on the journey. If it was about alcohol consumption while armed you'd do like some states and say you can't drink and carry, or like Kentucky where i could sit at that table but can't sit at the bar, something to allow for the person to carry to and from a destination as may be needed.

It sounds good, which is why he did it b/c who can be "for" people drinking and carrying a gun? but in fact the whole point of a carry permit process is to say "this person has shown he/she is trustworthy and responsible enough to be able to carry a firearm in public and make sound decisions." If they can't do that then no law about alcohol or carrying in sporting events etc. will stop them from doing something stupid, and if they can be trusted we don't need those restrictions b/c they won't get drunk and shoot someone for no reason.

Like the restriction about carrying on public transportation, this is about doing everything to limit where people can carry so it becomes difficult if not impossible to carry at any given point in time. If you can't carry on the bus you take to and from work every day then you can't carry at all that day. If you can't carry at the place you're going to eat and you don't have a car where you can ditch your firearm then you can't carry at all.

Sadly, what this kind of restriction is more than anything is racist, or at least classist. If you're a suburbanite up in Evanston and you drive places you're fine, but if you live down in Joliet and you walk or take the bus to go out to dinner you're screwed. Chicago's gun laws are a study in economic (and by effect racial) prejudice.

[CitizenBBN]

Wanted to check, it does prohibit carry on buses and I assume other public transport like the trains.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/chicago-concealed-carry_n_3518811.html

Article is from Huff Po. If you think I'm exaggerating about their reasons for such restrictions, here's a quote from the story:

Most significantly for gun control advocates, the legislation does prohibit guns in places like schools, buses, trains, bars and government buildings.

"If you think about all the prohibited places there are ... I don't think you will see an overwhelming number of people actually (carrying weapons) because it becomes such a headache," said state Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago lawmaker and lead negotiator on the bill who represents President Barack Obama's former state senate district.

Exactly. Make it as tough as possible to carry in Chicago. That's how you end up with a "shall issue" carry law that requires the state to issue a permit to anyone who qualifies (16 hours of class! plus background check and $150 fee) but restricts carry in places in such a way as to make it very hard for many in Chicago to carry.

There are some other pretty entertaining leaps in logic in that story, like the Chicago Superintendent saying 16 hours is inadequate and comparing it to the time police undergo training. I had no idea the average carry person needed the level of expertise of a police officer to know if someone is trying to mug them.

My most favorite is this the Cook Co. Sheriff afraid that with the possible large numbers of applicants some gang bangers might slip through and get approved for a permit. As if they won't carry if they don't get one, and giving them one somehow makes them more dangerous? The thousands wounded every year in the Chicago gang wars would suggest they aren't waiting for those carry permits to carry and use a gun on each other. It's a colossal lack of thinking. One gets through, so what? Now he pulls the triggers, when without one he wouldn't have? Absurd, contradicting his very point that these are gang members fighting an Al Capone level war for distribution rights.

PS -- I'm assuming the class has a range qualification, but ranges are illegal in Chicago, so to get a permit to carry you have to have the $150 bucks, the 2 days of time plus the ability to get out of the city to take the range test. Then once you get one you can't carry on the bus, train, etc. or in anyplace with a liquor license. You think they REALLY don't want people in urban Chicago to carry?

[suncat05]

Sounds to me like Illinois is working really hard to become even more oppressive than their bretheren in Commiefornia!

[CitizenBBN]

Sounds to me like Illinois is working really hard to become even more oppressive than their bretheren in Commiefornia!

I'ts not well known, I didn't know till I got more full time into the gun business, but Illinois in many ways is far worse than any other state. Well Chicago is worse, and b/c it dominates state politics it has drug the rest of the state with it on many issues.

Prior to the MacDonald decision and this ruling by the 7th Circuit on concealed carry, Illinois had an outright ban on any carry. California and others are "may issue" states where few are ever issued, but at least there was an option of some kind. In Illinois you couldn't get a carry permit period. In Chicago you couldn't own a handgun, even just keeping it in your home. 100% illegal. Even San Francisco doesn't have laws that draconian.

I seriously doubt Illinois will have reciprocity with anyone, but even transporting a gun in that state is absurdly difficult. It's supposed to be locked up inaccessible and unloaded with the ammo otherwise inaccessible as well. So the gun goes locked up in the trunk in a box and the ammo in the glove box I suppose. In Kentucky you can keep a loaded one on on the seat. lol

[badrose]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/09/Illinois-House-Votes-to-Override-Quinn-s-Conceal-and-Carry-Veto?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[CitizenBBN]

Thanks for the link badrose. Looks like the overrides will happen. The Governor I guess could still refuse to sign it, but the result would be no law against concealed carry at all theoretically.

Though I've read elsewhere that Quinn has told the State Police to continue to enforce the existing law that was struck down in the event there isn't a new one, this being some time ago, so maybe he'll not sign it and tell the 7th Circuit to pound sand. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

Googled around, the senate overrode it this afternoon by big margin, so I guess it's the law. Saw that the law gives ISP 6 months to hammer out the details, so it's still into next year when anyone will finally be able to carry there.

I'm also sure there won't be any reciprocity, which flat sucks.

[dan_bgblue]

Assault weapons regs in Illinois (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/chicago-unanimously-votes-to-beef-up-assault-weapons-ban/?test=latestnews)


The changes also deal with school safety, which has been a hot issue in Chicago since Emanuel began pushing for the closure of 50 schools and programs. Parents have raised concerns about children crossing gang lines, among other things.

The measures define "student safety zones," and outlines stiffer penalties for gun crimes committed there. The zones are 1,000 feet from school grounds between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. when school is in session and what are being called safe passage routes. Those routes, which will be patrolled by UNARMED safety advocates, have been outlined for children to get to school safely if there are closures.

Is a safety advocate like a community organizer?

[CitizenBBN]

Assault weapons regs in Illinois (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/17/chicago-unanimously-votes-to-beef-up-assault-weapons-ban/?test=latestnews)


The changes also deal with school safety, which has been a hot issue in Chicago since Emanuel began pushing for the closure of 50 schools and programs. Parents have raised concerns about children crossing gang lines, among other things.

The measures define "student safety zones," and outlines stiffer penalties for gun crimes committed there. The zones are 1,000 feet from school grounds between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. when school is in session and what are being called safe passage routes. Those routes, which will be patrolled by UNARMED safety advocates, have been outlined for children to get to school safely if there are closures.

Is a safety advocate like a community organizer?

Down south we call them "sitting ducks". The guys on Deadliest Catch will be ticked b/c crab fisherman just became the 2nd most dangerous job in America.

The media refuses to show just how dangerous and de-evolved these areas of Chicago have become thanks to these policies, since these are the national policies re "retreat" and gun ownership they think are so smart. it's not IF someone is shot or stabbed or run over in the drug wars there on a given day, it's just how many. It's usually 4-8 PER DAY wounded and killed.

The city is basically negotiating with the cartels and gangs (same thing) to let kids pass across their territory. That's their answer, to set up demilitarized zones and hope the gangs observe them. Of course they toughened up the gun laws to ban more guns that are never used in any of these crimes, that ought to help. They cede governance of their own streets and citizens to gang lords and then pass a law to further restrict those citizens.

"Safety advocate". Man, what a great name.