Land of Lincoln proposal.. SHALL ISSUE! (ILLINOIS)

[Howard Roark]

Hello from IllinoisCarry.com
Stop by and say hello if you're in the neighborhood.
This is a good shall issue bill for the most part. The race is on between whether we get RTC in Illinois or whether that is put on ice for a while due to legal process resulting from the circuit split with NY/Kachalsky. We shall see.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=34015

[Sakiri]

It is of consequence to CA due to the effect it has on furure rulings. The split has already has cert filed. It may go to SCOTUS. I trust Gura. If it does, and SCOTUS rules in favor of our side, it will essentially state a right to carry outside the home. That could, and likely would, affect our "may issue" status in CA. This proposal itself may not affect us, but the ramifications it will have in cases in progress and future cases will. If IL thought they could get away with a "may issue" statute that could be as restrictive as ours in CA, they would have. The fact they opted for " shall issue" is telling.

[Gray Peterson]

A few things, folks.

First, just like in regards to "helping the anti-gunners write better bills", we have a similar but opposite problem. California anti-gunners talk to Illinois anti-gunners. Remember that.

Second, there is no possibility that a may-issue and non-preemptive law will pass in Illinois. Todd Vandermyde, the NRA/ISRA contract lobbyist, knows the Legislature well. Gura gave the victory in court, but it's up to Todd to put it through fruition now that the political branch is involved.

[rootuser]

It is of consequence to CA due to the effect it has on furure rulings. The split has already has cert filed. It may go to SCOTUS. I trust Gura. If it does, and SCOTUS rules in favor of our side, it will essentially state a right to carry outside the home. That could, and likely would, affect our "may issue" status in CA. This proposal itself may not affect us, but the ramifications it will have in cases in progress and future cases will. If IL thought they could get away with a "may issue" statute that could be as restrictive as ours in CA, they would have. The fact they opted for " shall issue" is telling.

If I understand this correctly (please enlighten me here): IF Ill. goes back and complies with the court ruling and does not appeal further, than the "split" would not hold water any further because it requires Ill. to appeal further for this case in particular to go any further. If there is a different path here, please do tell.

[rootuser]

A few things, folks.

First, just like in regards to "helping the anti-gunners write better bills", we have a similar but opposite problem. California anti-gunners talk to Illinois anti-gunners. Remember that.

Second, there is no possibility that a may-issue and non-preemptive law will pass in Illinois. Todd Vandermyde, the NRA/ISRA contract lobbyist, knows the Legislature well. Gura gave the victory in court, but it's up to Todd to put it through fruition now that the political branch is involved.

That was my understanding exactly. It goes to the legistlature who can put in "reasonable restrictions". I keep feeling like the reply from Gene and Sakiri mean there is more than that to it, but I am missing it. I don't see the appeal court split being moved to the supreme court without a case to ride on *YET*.

[Gray Peterson]

If I understand this correctly (please enlighten me here): IF Ill. goes back and complies with the court ruling and does not appeal further, than the "split" would not hold water any further because it requires Ill. to appeal further for this case in particular to go any further. If there is a different path here, please do tell.

That was my understanding exactly. It goes to the legistlature who can put in "reasonable restrictions". I keep feeling like the reply from Gene and Sakiri mean there is more than that to it, but I am missing it. I don't see the appeal court split being moved to the supreme court without a case to ride on *YET*.

The case still generates a split, and remember that when McDonald was taken up by SCOTUS, Nordyke's 3 judge panel decision which applied 2A to the states in the 9th Circuit was vacated 3 months before.

A New York-style may-issue law would not have satisfied the 7th Circuit's ruling.

[Sakiri]

A few things, folks.

First, just like in regards to "helping the anti-gunners write better bills", we have a similar but opposite problem. California anti-gunners talk to Illinois anti-gunners. Remember that.

Second, there is no possibility that a may-issue and non-preemptive law will pass in Illinois. Todd Vandermyde, the NRA/ISRA contract lobbyist, knows the Legislature well. Gura gave the victory in court, but it's up to Todd to put it through fruition now that the political branch is involved.

Aye. I still dont like where some of it could go. If someone has never given reason to believe theyre a danger to themselves or others, they should never be denied based on medical history. It stinks to me of discrimination. It also comes across to me like denying someone a drivers lisence because theyre missing an eye. Just because theyre being treated for something means theyre going to do something. Unlike others, there are many law abiding people that do follow doctor guidelines and are produvtive members of society.

Discrimination thats unjustified like that really grinds my gears. If youd like to discuss it Grey pm me an email address or something.

[rootuser]

The case still generates a split, and remember that when McDonald was taken up by SCOTUS, Nordyke's 3 judge panel decision which applied 2A to the states in the 9th Circuit was vacated 3 months before.

A New York-style may-issue law would not have satisfied the 7th Circuit's ruling.

Agreed that the split is there, but in particular, Nordyke v King is the type of situation that worries me. It seems that Alamdea County said "sure have gun shows" but what they did is figure out how to restrict them without the court being able to stand in the way. Now the restrictions aren't totally overbearing (cable locks, unloaded guns, ammunition sold seperately blah blah) but if Illinois follows a similar suit, then they will just restrict the right to carry to the point is does not exist, but present the court with prima facie evidence that it does, and there is a path to be able to legally carry. I won't go in to how they could accomplish this, but it is definately possible, just look around.

I still don't see how the split is resolved, if Illinois follows the Nordyke model.

IMHO the devil is in the legislative details. The divide is not so deep if suddenly Illinois comes up with some licensing scheme that is "just enough" to satisfy the court. Then perhaps there are granular arguements to be had about issuance, but that is far as it goes. The split we are hoping for does not bear fruit.

[gobler]

WOW What a shoe to drop. I can get behind a bill like this except for the medical/psychological records.

Let's say you have a medical condition where you are on heart meds. Also due to chronic pain you are prescribed Vicodin on an as needed bases (knee/back injury). Would/should this exclude you from getting a permit? I say no. But the State may use this as a way to deny. Just a thought.

[Sakiri]

WOW What a shoe to drop. I can get behind a bill like this except for the medical/psychological records.

Let's say you have a medical condition where you are on heart meds. Also due to chronic pain you are prescribed Vicodin on an as needed bases (knee/back injury). Would/should this exclude you from getting a permit? I say no. But the State may use this as a way to deny. Just a thought.

Yup. My fear too.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Not of consiquence in California.

Not completely true. As Gene & Sakiri point out, this will have a positive effect on the court fights here. But in addition, there's a political effect here to think about.

"Outside the home" & "Shall Issue" can be presented as Federal Court sanctioned/required. Yes, many in the PRK legislature will just ignore that. But, just as Heller shut a lot of mouths about in the "militia vs. individual rights" discussion, we can use this as an example of what the Federal Courts will require (if not now, soon enough) when it comes to the "and bear" part of the discussion.

Given the medical aspects brought up here, this isn't entirely good. But, the bill isn't complete yet either.


The Raisuli

[Curtis]

I remember reading about this with the original case. It is exciting to see the time line closing in.

I am worried about the medical records portion. I had an issue with a casual statement I made - "it feels like a panic attack" - that was noted in my medical record that came back and caused an issue ten years later when I was buying private disability insurance. It took a great deal of effort to correct the issue.

[Sakiri]

I remember reading about this with the original case. It is exciting to see the time line closing in.

I am worried about the medical records portion. I had an issue with a casual statement I made - "it feels like a panic attack" - that was noted in my medical record that came back and caused an issue ten years later when I was buying private disability insurance. It took a great deal of effort to correct the issue.

As I said, people will just stop telling their doctors stuff that might bite them in the butt later.

Remember, we want people to go to the doctor when they need help. Not avoid the doctor because of rights infringement for stupid reasons.

[Wrangler John]

The flaw I read in the law is the requirement that an applicant release medical records to the state. From all my experience as a labor negotiator one can not voluntarily relinquish a right in law as a qualifier to employment. The example would be to voluntarily relinquish any protection under the worker's compensation law, say in the case of an individual with numerous previous injuries, prior to employment. Even asking such questions on employment forms or in interviews is prohibited.

It is also true that to require a mandatory relinquishing of other enumerated rights, those requiring due process and the prohibition against self-incrimination, as well as the right to privacy, to exercise another, the right to keep and bear arms, would not pass judicial muster.

Medical records only apply to treatment of defect, disease and trauma, with many procedures and treatments sometimes applicable to mental defect also being used to treat unrelated disease. Off label use of medications or medication with a wide range of indications do not substantiate, of themselves, a disqualifying diagnosis of mental defect. Use of these medications, or treatments for certain neuroses such as PTSD, or depression, certainly do not constitute due process sufficient to arbitrarily declare the individual a danger to self and others, in order to deny the individual's Second Amendment right. I believe that this section of the law is unconstitutional.

I also believe that charging any fee, for whatever reason, to apply for, and maintain, a permit to exercise an enumerated right is unconstitutional. This is no different than charging a fee to register to vote or cast a ballot. In these instances the interest of the state in "reasonably" regulating an enumerated right is entirely at the state's discretion, they choose to do so, with the alternative being Constitutional Carry free from encumbrances of the state, as in Vermont and Arizona. Inasmuch as this regulation is being imposed by the state, as a deliberate controlling burden to the citizen, all costs must be born by the state, and constitute a mandated expenditure not subject to discretionary funding limits. It is repugnant to the Constitution that any right be licensed, or subject to prior proof of qualification to exercise, so that all costs of regulatory administration ought to be born by the state and/or subdivisions of the state. This is especially true in the case of the Second Amendment, where the right exists specifically to allow the people to defend against criminal attack and for the purposes of providing a check and balance against governmental excess.

There are other areas that leave the door open to trickery and noncompliance, but I am most concerned about substituting bureaucratic discretion for judicial due process in declaring medical records evidence of mental defect and legal insanity.

[Sakiri]

The flaw I read in the law is the requirement that an applicant release medical records to the state. From all my experience as a labor negotiator one can not voluntarily relinquish a right in law as a qualifier to employment. The example would be to voluntarily relinquish any protection under the worker's compensation law, say in the case of an individual with numerous previous injuries, prior to employment. Even asking such questions on employment forms or in interviews is prohibited.

It is also true that to require a mandatory relinquishing of other enumerated rights, those requiring due process and the prohibition against self-incrimination, as well as the right to privacy, to exercise another, the right to keep and bear arms, would not pass judicial muster.

Medical records only apply to treatment of defect, disease and trauma, with many procedures and treatments sometimes applicable to mental defect also being used to treat unrelated disease. Off label use of medications or medication with a wide range of indications do not substantiate, of themselves, a disqualifying diagnosis of mental defect. Use of these medications, or treatments for certain neuroses such as PTSD, or depression, certainly do not constitute due process sufficient to arbitrarily declare the individual a danger to self and others, in order to deny the individual's Second Amendment right. I believe that this section of the law is unconstitutional.

I also believe that charging any fee, for whatever reason, to apply for, and maintain, a permit to exercise an enumerated right is unconstitutional. This is no different than charging a fee to register to vote or cast a ballot. In these instances the interest of the state in "reasonably" regulating an enumerated right is entirely at the state's discretion, they choose to do so, with the alternative being Constitutional Carry free from encumbrances of the state, as in Vermont and Arizona. Inasmuch as this regulation is being imposed by the state, as a deliberate controlling burden to the citizen, all costs must be born by the state, and constitute a mandated expenditure not subject to discretionary funding limits. It is repugnant to the Constitution that any right be licensed, or subject to prior proof of qualification to exercise, so that all costs of regulatory administration ought to be born by the state and/or subdivisions of the state. This is especially true in the case of the Second Amendment, where the right exists specifically to allow the people to defend against criminal attack and for the purposes of providing a check and balance against governmental excess.

There are other areas that leave the door open to trickery and noncompliance, but I am most concerned about substituting bureaucratic discretion for judicial due process in declaring medical records evidence of mental defect and legal insanity.

They're basically asking you to give them the okay to ignore HIPAA.

I don't mind a fee, personally, to cover time spent and overhead with paperwork. So long as it's reasonable. 25 bucks seems to be standard in most free states that I've looked at.

CA's fees(I'm looking at almost 200 here in Humboldt) is NOT reasonable. And I don't believe that covers fingerprinting. Training is another 62.. ish.