PDA

View Full Version : IL Bill HB148 (IL CCW) vs CA (First version 12/12/12)


Librarian
12-13-2012, 1:14 PM
Got a Rosanne Rosannadanna smily? :o

This one is not current - I misread, mea culpa.





The bill as initially proposed is at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB0148ham002&SessionID=84&GA=97&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=0148&print=true

It's shall-issue. 5 year term (CA is 2). Renewable.

It pre-empts all lower jurisdictions.

It requires reasonable things - minimum 21 years old, an app, a fee ($100), a photo, reasonable (minimal) training. FOID if an IL resident. Usual clean record, but also (g) does not chronically and habitually use alcoholic
beverages as evidenced by the applicant having 2 or more
convictions for violating Section 11-501 of the Illinois
Vehicle Code or similar provision of a local ordinance
within 5 years preceding the date of the applicationthat is, DUI is a prohibiting factor, and (e) has not been a patient in a mental institution
within the past 5 years, has not been adjudicated as a
mental defective, and is not mentally retarded;One presumes there are definitions in IL code for 'defective' and 'retarded'.

Non-resident applications accepted.

Much more restrictive on places you can go than CA - no schools or universities, no state buildings, court houses, local government meetings; no place serving alcohol "if less than 50% of its annual gross income comes from the sale of food."; libraries, police stations, day cares, other places...

Allows private businesses to prohibit, with standardized signage.

Must inform LE if stopped.

Things to gripe about, but a good first cut.

Tripper
12-13-2012, 1:18 PM
Did you see this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/13/concealed-carry-illinois-_0_n_2292585.html

They are vowing to fight

"they are willing to write a new city ordinance even if it triggers a lengthy and expensive court fight"

Amazing the taxpayers have to foot the bill

kcbrown
12-13-2012, 1:55 PM
(e) has not been a patient in a mental institution
within the past 5 years, has not been adjudicated as a
mental defective, and is not mentally retarded;

The bolded is a big, big problem. Denial of the right without due process? Seriously?

randian
12-13-2012, 1:55 PM
Looks like a pretty lousy first cut to me. When you have the leverage the pro-gun legislators in IL now have, you ask for the moon. A list of prohibited places more like California's, no signs, no LE notification. You sure don't start with the premise that Chicago must be mollified.

Chicago is smoking dope. Either the legislature preempts them or the appeals court slaps them down with a restraining order. No way their proposed law gets anywhere.

kauaibuilt
12-13-2012, 1:56 PM
Did you see this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/13/concealed-carry-illinois-_0_n_2292585.html

They are vowing to fight

"they are willing to write a new city ordinance even if it triggers a lengthy and expensive court fight"

Amazing the taxpayers have to foot the bill

What I thought was one of the dumber quotes:
"Alderman Roberto Maldonado said that while a concealed carry law would not allow gang members with criminal backgrounds to carry guns, the gang members could prey on law abiding citizens and steal their guns."

At least they admit that previously convicted gang members would not qualify for an ltc.

Window_Seat
12-13-2012, 2:01 PM
(e) has not been a patient in a mental institution
within the past 5 years, has not been adjudicated as a
mental defective, and is not mentally retarded;The bolded is a big, big problem. Denial of the right without due process? Seriously?

(e) has not been a patient in a mental institution
within the past 5 years, has not been adjudicated as a
mental defective, and is not mentally retarded;

So this means that Richard Daley would not qualify... :laugh::smilielol5::rofl2::rofl:

Erik.

randian
12-13-2012, 2:01 PM
"Alderman Roberto Maldonado said that while a concealed carry law would not allow gang members with criminal backgrounds to carry guns, the gang members could prey on law abiding citizens and steal their guns."

How are concealed carry guns (which by definition can't be seen) supposed to get stolen? Are gangs going to randomly attack citizens in the hopes they're concealed carrying a gun which they can (a) steal, and (b) not get shot with?

Librarian
12-13-2012, 2:07 PM
This bill does not come out of Chicago.

Arguing details of a bill not yet finalized is like wrestling with a big marshmallow.

Chicago, however, is likely to have a big problem overcoming this part - Section 95. Preemption. It is declared to be the policy of
this State that it is an exclusive power and function of the
State to regulate the possession and transportation of handguns
and the issuance of licenses to carry handguns. Except as
provided in subsection (b) of Section 70, a home rule unit
shall not regulate the possession or transportation of
handguns. A home rule unit shall not regulate the number of
handguns or require registration of handguns possessed by a
person licensed under this Act. This Section is a denial of
home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section
6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

ccmc
12-13-2012, 2:08 PM
The bill as initially proposed is at http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB0148ham002&SessionID=84&GA=97&DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=0148&print=true

It's shall-issue. 5 year term (CA is 2). Renewable.

It pre-empts all lower jurisdictions.

It requires reasonable things - minimum 21 years old, an app, a fee ($100), a photo, reasonable (minimal) training. FOID if an IL resident. Usual clean record, but also that is, DUI is a prohibiting factor, and One presumes there are definitions in IL code for 'defective' and 'retarded'.

Non-resident applications accepted.

Much more restrictive on places you can go than CA - no schools or universities, no state buildings, court houses, local government meetings; no place serving alcohol "if less than 50% of its annual gross income comes from the sale of food."; libraries, police stations, day cares, other places...

Allows private businesses to prohibit, with standardized signage.

Must inform LE if stopped.

Things to gripe about, but a good first cut.

Glad they would let nonresdents apply, although the notarized document part seems superfluous if you have to attach a copy of your home state CWFL. Wonder if nonresidents will ever have a chance to legally carry in California, at least in my lifetime, although I have fewer reasons to visit California these days.

nicki
12-13-2012, 2:09 PM
Like it or not, we need Chicago. The truth is we need arrogant opponents in one of the Federal court districts where the judges are actually still on planet earth.

It is going to be a race between us and Illinois in getting rid of stupid gun laws.

Love comment about has Chicago has attorneys experienced in defending gun laws, didn't they lose at the Supreme court.

Perhaps they thought that they were winners in MacDonald because the 7th circuit decided to force the SCOTUS to pull the trigger on incorporation with MacDonald.

If our opponents are in denial on this, then they are going to have a string of loses at the 7th circuit.

The only bad thing I see is we may not be able to appeal to the Supreme court on 7th circuit cases.:mad:

Of course we have solace that our opponents egos are so large that they probably would.;)

I wonder how former Chicago Mayor Richard Daly is taking the news, we wouldn't want him to have a stroke, heart attack or both right now, would we.;)

Nicki

speedrrracer
12-13-2012, 2:09 PM
Did you see this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/12/13/concealed-carry-illinois-_0_n_2292585.html

They are vowing to fight

"they are willing to write a new city ordinance even if it triggers a lengthy and expensive court fight"

Amazing the taxpayers have to foot the bill

He's a hysterical idiot, totally out of touch with reality:

"Cellphones will now be banned in court, but guns? Open up the floodgates, let them in," he said.

Carrying in courtrooms is specifically prohibited in the proposal under Section 70:
"...(iii) Any courthouse or building occupied in whole or
2 in part by the Circuit, Appellate, or Supreme Court or a
3 room designated as a courtroom for court proceedings by any
4 of these courts.
"

Gray Peterson
12-13-2012, 2:10 PM
This bill is not under consideration anymore according to ISRA & NRA ILA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.