Welcome to Magazine Premium

You can change this text in the options panel in the admin

There are tons of ways to configure Magazine Premium... The possibilities are endless!

Member Login
Lost your password?

FLASH: Here’s the new IL carry bill… Rahm, meet bus UPDATED

May 22, 2013

 

Update at the bottom of the page…

 

Sources at the Capitol in the Democrat caucus have been burning up my phone line tonight and here’s what I’ve got.

 

There is no June 9th cliff.

We don’t have enough votes willing to go over the cliff.  Not even close.

We do have the latest bill submitted by Brandon Phelps.

Put your drink down and take a deep breath.

Go ahead and start your deep breathing relaxation exercises.  Seriously.

In fact, you might want to pour yourself about three fingers of your favorite adult beverage and get a good start on it before reading further.

I’ll wait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You’re back.  Good.

Here’s where we’re at.

The Speaker of the House has blessed this latest submission by Brandon Phelps for the People of the State of Illinois.

HERE IT IS:  AMENDMENT TO SB 2193.

I haven’t even read it carefully yet, but from what I’ve seen it sucks.  In fact, I believe I expressed an expletive or three upon scanning it.  $150 application fee.  $300 for non-residents.  16 hours of training.  Class B misdemeanors for prohibited locations first time.  Goofy panels.  An even LONGER list of prohibited locations. 180 days to implement.

However.

It also has across the board pre-emption on all local firearm regulations and restrictions.

Chicago’s gun registration regime?  Gone.

Chicago’s ban on mags, lasers, etc.?  Buh bye.

Cook County’s black gun ban?  History.

Local “safe storage” ordinances?  Into the dustbin of history.

It also means we only need a simple majority to tweak it in coming years, not a 3/5ths majority.

Yes, we’re actually REPEALING so-called assault weapons bans and gun registration programs in post-Sandy Hook America.  Heck, we’re doing it in one of the bluest states in the nation.

 

Why am I writing like I’m trying to sell you this fecal sandwich?

Because the alternative, as one downstate Democrat described it to me, was a combination of the onerous House Bill that Chicago introduced that got a whopping 31 votes and Kwame’s draconian proposal in the Senate that hasn’t gotten any votes yet, but is may issue without any sort of pre-emption and a truckload of “strings” attached.  Either would be a total cluster fornication, to put it nicely.  Both put together?  Oh boy.

In short, the Speaker proffered this proposal that Brandon is now offering in an effort to split the baby between the two diametrically opposed sides.

On one side he had downstate Democrats saying they are getting pounded by constituents for a shall-issue right-to-carry bill.

On the other side, he’s got Rahm and the Chicago Democrats trying to be the next New York or Connecticut and ban magazines, modern self-defense guns, and plenty more…  gun control like we’ve never seen.

Madigan knows if either side gets a clean win, it’ll be a real bloodbath either in Chicago or downstate come the next election cycle.

So, he’s splitting the baby.  He’s giving some red-meat to downstate voters to salvage some downstate Democrats their jobs in part because of some very unpopular votes to come – and we’ll name topics…  gay marriage and “medical” marijuana for starters.

And he’s giving Chicago Democrats some of what they wanted in terms of no guns in parks, public transportation and a host of other prohibited locations, more licensing fee money, delayed implementation and a whole bunch more.

Making lemonade out of these lemons, which as gun owners is something we’re akin to doing regularly, it means Madigan is throwing Rahm and Preckwinkle under the bus.  All their local gun control goes “buh-bye!” in this bill.

 

“What if we decline?” I asked one source.

He didn’t laugh.  He was dead serious.

If we decline his offer, the Speaker is going to stuff a Kwame-endorsed may issue law up our rear ends, without any lube, and move on.   Madigan’s done “playing around” on the issue and will let the chips fall where they may as there are bigger issues among the low-information voters in Illinois.  No, not pensions.  Instead, gay marriage, gambling, legalizing marijuana, to name a few.

So, folks, there’s where we’re at.

There’s no cliff.  Too many politicians have gone squishy and don’t want to run over the cliff.

It’s this or it’s another ten years of legal wrangling to undo what we can do here and now.

And the bright spot is we will only need 60 votes to tweak this in the future if the governor’s copacetic to the changes.

 

Didn’t we get screwed once before?

Yes, we did.  Again, the Speaker (not sure why I’m capitalizing that as he doesn’t deserve the respect) has blessed this “compromise” and told the Democratic caucus that he plans on moving it forward and expects to pass it.  Best guess is it ends up with 75 votes or more, easy.

He also expects the Governor will veto the bill and he’s planning on over-riding that veto and he “expects” to have the votes to over-ride.  And when the “real” godfather of Illinois politics says he “expects” something, his minions toe the line or they feel the pain later.

There you go.

This is what we’re going to get.

It’s just lovely.  Plain lovely.

 

P.S.  Ashrak:  Stick a sock in it or I’ll dust off the ban hammer.

 

 

UPDATE

 

Our “friends” at ICHV have gone condition brown at this proposal.  (That would be big potty.)

It’s going before committee tomorrow morning at 9:30ish and expected to be voted on by the full house by afternoon.

Isn’t it amazing how fast stuff happens when Michael Madigan says he wants things to happen.

Anyway, our friends had this to say in an email blast:

 

On Thursday, proponents of concealed carry will try to pass Senate Bill 2193 Amendment #1, sponsored by Representative Brandon Phelps.  This bill, while being put forth as a “compromise” bill, is in fact bad public policy!  We need you to call your State Representative and tell them to vote NO on SB 2193 Amendment #1!

This is not a “May” issue bill and there is no local control over who gets a permit.  SB 2193 Amendment #1 not only is a “shall” issue bill, but it would overturn every gun regulation that home rule communities already have in statute, including Cook County’s Assault Weapons Ban, Calumet Park, Chicago, Cicero and Highland Parks reporting of lost or stolen ordinances and the Chicago responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. Your community would have NO input on who can carry in public!

Common Sense provisions like reporting of lost or stolen firearms, universal background checks on all gun purchases, and titling guns like cars are not included-and there is no guarantee they will be addressed in additional legislation!

We have to act NOW!  The bill is scheduled for the House Judiciary Committee at 9:30 AM.  To see a list of committee members click here.

The full House could vote as early as Thursday afternoon!  Please call your State Representative and tell them this legislation is bad for Illinois and they need to vote NO on SB 2193 Amendment #1

To find your Representative click here.

Once you call, please share this with friends, family and your networks-we must stop this bad bill!

Thank you and we will continue to update as things move forward.

In Peace

Colleen Daley

 

“We” have to act now?

Who is this “we”, Colleen?  Do you have a mouse in your pocket or something?

 

 

63 comments on “FLASH: Here’s the new IL carry bill… Rahm, meet bus UPDATED

  1. Tim Lewis on said:

    #1. Is this a “shall issue” bill and will your application be going thru the ISP ?
    #2. I have 8 hrs and a diploma from an NRA Basic Pistol course, what else will I need?
    If you cant answer the questions I understand and if this is the best we can do we’ll just have to live with it.
    Thanks for letting us know.
    Tim Lewis
    P.S. I joined at the April meeting, am I supposed to get anything in the mail? A card or literature or anything?

    • Trevis on said:

      The language on the bill says shall issue. This is a junk bill, prohibitively expensive, and the fees will be you expensive for those in poorer areas of Chicago. This kind of thing was mentioned in the decision in the 7th Circuit decision. This cannot stand. It’s time for Chicago’s claws to be clipped.

  2. Capt'n Ron on said:

    I am waiting to find out what is in this SB1294 that will be significantly better than what we have now. I guess being able to have your firearm actually loaded while you are in your car is something. I guess!!!! Since missing a sign or not recognizing a prohibited place could put a permit holder in jail upon conviction of a class B misdemeanor would make me very nervous to venture out very far from home with my loaded firearm. Oh, well. Have to wait and see, I guess.
    And how much worse is the Kwame bill?

    • rboatright on said:

      Much worse. May issue. City by city rules. No premption.local police can block issue.

      Much worse.

  3. Jim Brown on said:

    Six or eight years ago most of us would have considered this a blessing, but after the CA7 decision in December gave us a lot of hope for much better. I guess now is the reality of this is the hand we have been dealt, play it or go home. You are correct John, it is a piece of crap but it has good things in it that can be fixed. I didn’t want to leave out chicago even though I never plan to go there in the rest of my life and we didn’t. I wanted shall issue and it is there also. The fee and training requirement will add up to a pretty good amount so not crazy about that. Still a hell of a lot better than what we have had.

  4. Rick Pere on said:

    No way Jose. This abortion will only serve to make it difficult to obtain a CCW fornour citizens in Illinois. I am totally against this one folks!

  5. Capt'n Ron on said:

    I am waiting to find out what is in this SB1293 that will be significantly better than what we have now. I guess being able to have your firearm actually loaded while you are in your car is something. I guess!!!! Since missing a sign or not recognizing a prohibited place could put a permit holder in jail upon conviction of a class B misdemeanor would make me very nervous to venture out very far from home with my loaded firearm. Oh, well. Have to wait and see, I guess.
    And how much worse is the Kwame bill?

    • rboatright on said:

      Signifigantly better than now…

      1 premption
      2 shall issue

      Removing prohibited places is comparativly easy.

  6. David W Lawson on said:

    Yes Rick, difficult, but possible. Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

  7. Tim Lewis on said:

    Its either this or the Kwame endorsed bill, I’ll take this one.

  8. Tim Lewis on said:

    Here is the bill,
    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/09800SB2193ham001.htm

  9. jnaese on said:

    I just skimmed the bill. Spent about 20 minutes doing that.

    Boy, that hurt. Now I know why I didn’t become a lawyer.

    I did see something that I need to read again (after my head quits hurting) or maybe someone else can read it and explain it to me. In one part of the bill, parking lots of any prohibited location appear to be prohibited also; but later in the bill there seems to be an exception that you can leave your gun in your locked car, and transport it through the parking lot for only the limited purpose of locking it in the trunk if you want. It also says that glove compartments and consoles specifically count for storing the gun.
    ?????????

  10. Paddy Bauler on said:

    After the 7th victory I was a happy camper, then the reality of Illinois politics set in. McDonald was won. Three years later it’s still frigin sucks just owning a gun legally in Chicago. Ezell was “won”, still no ranges in Chicago. These guys wipe their ass on a daily basis with our Founding Document. A good carry bill like 997 just is not going to happen. One bright side, watching tiny dancer and guys like kotodumbski bust a blood vessel will be epic.

  11. John on said:

    Since I am already offended that a I should be required to ask permission to exercise any of my Rights, so offended that I don’t know if I can bring myself to fill out the permission slip, it is beyond question that I will ask my legislators to vote against this bill. It is classist and racist. Well fed sheep are still in pens. Yes, I know that ‘perfect’ is the enemy of ‘good enough,’ and ‘better than nothing,’but, while I am a believer in compromise, an Unalienable Right endowed by my Creator is not a place where I can do that.

    • There is still FOID Cards??
      What is the Board??

      • Jakebob on said:

        FOID still exists, the Board is only to review applications where law enforcement has registered an objection to the granting of a permit. (my guess is that most of those will come from Cook County). The surprising thing about the Board is that the last member is supposed to be representing the NRA. (did Todd get himself a side gig?) :)

      • Ohhh, the new Board they will set up. Missed that, sorry

  12. John on said:

    If they are going to give the police an exemption, well then they should take a look at the veterans, they had to train and qualify with weapons. I spent 11 years in the Army and am a RSO for the NRA wich means I am qualified to run any range that is affiliated with the NRA, like the police ranges, private and military ranges. Now if that is not qualification for training I do not know what is.

  13. PavePusher on said:

    Heck, just hold out for the Constitutional carry option default when the time limit to pass a law runs out.

    By the way, “gay marriage” and the ability to ingest mind-altering substances other than alcohol are just as much components of Freedom and Liberty as the right and ability to be armed at the individual’s discretion.

    • Josh on said:

      The problem is that what we know is that a good portion of the votes we had before, do not have the stomach to allow things to go past the June 9th deadline. The word is that if we don’t pass this one, we’ll get Kwame’s bill, which is completely deplorable, there will be a majority to vote for it just to have something in place to meet the deadline. So take your medicine and like it.

  14. Josh on said:

    Good analysis from a member on Illinois Carry identifying themselves as an attorney…

    “Guys,

    OK here we go and yes I am an attorney and yes I did read the proposed bill. There are allot of misconceptions. I also read up to about page 17 of the comments and I gave up because no pun intended some of you guys are jumping the gun.

    Have a cocktail and read the bill.

    I personally like this bill. I have a tiny weeny problem with the fact that in reality law enforcement can object to every single application, but they must have a reasonable basis for the objection. I also have a slight problem that the test for that objection in order for an applicant to receive damages is “willful and wanton,” but believe me if any Police Department starts denying licenses randomly without a “reasonable” cause they will soon be found willful and wanton. Take a look at who the members of the board will be. Personally, I work with DOJ quite a bit and there are few attorneys there that will put up with political BS and Federal Judges certainly will not, consider that the vast majority of the 7th Circuit were appointed by Republican Presidents. So any problems with that will soon disappear.

    I also suggest you specifically read the part about what you can do and how you can manage parking lots. I think it’s workable. Also please get real about bars, schools, etc. It’s a big no-no in most states and that includes public transportation.

    Finally three things: 1). There will be rule making and that means that stakeholders will have a chance on improving and on interpreting and that is huge and 2) Preemption is beyond belief and preemption means preemption. 3) The fact that the bill includes a task force to look at the joining of the FOID system and the CC system means great stuff for the future

    Look at the history of gun laws in Illinois, this bill is in reality beyond belief for Illinois and just preemption is amazing. I am very happy here.

    Sorry I know I may not have the time here that others do or the investment but I think I do know what I am talking about. Sorry!”

    • jboch on said:

      THanks Josh.

    • Jack R. Holland on said:

      Section 65. Prohibited areas.
      12 (a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a
      13 firearm into

      20 (19) Any building, real property, or parking area under
      21 the control of an airport.
      Airport Carry Map

      44 States allow lawful carry of firearms in the common terminal and baggage claim areas of airports. There are federal laws that restrict firearms, knives, and other weapons in the “sterile area” beyond the security checkpoint but the unsecured areas of the terminal are subject to state law.

      Florida, and only five other states, make the entire airport terminal off limits even to carry license holders while armed. The US Supreme Court made it clear in DC v. Heller (2008) that Americans have the right to “carry weapons in case of confrontation,” but this right can be restricted “in sensitive places”.

      The Federal government has determined that the “sterile area” is the “sensitive place” at an airport but Florida has gone much farther and banned even licensed carry inside the entire terminal, on this topic Florida is one of the most restrictive places in the country.

      This has lead to confusion in the past even outside the terminal. In one case a lawful concealed carry licensee had his firearm become accidentally exposed while helping to unload luggage for someone who he was dropping off at the airport. Airport police overreacted and he ended up cuffed on the sidewalk outside until the officers realized their mistake.

      These incidents don’t happen in the states where the limit on carry is clearly defined as in the “sterile area”.
      Going to need a definition of “airport”
      They haven’t thought that out very well. I have read other “laws” that say (basically) past the controlled area of TSA.

      So….what’s an airport? Commercial? Private? RLA? Silly to some? Airports do have designations and “Airport” covers them all. I own one (more than 20 years) and know of what I speak. As written, I can’t sit here (where I am now) in my office and carry. I can’t be in “my” parking lot and carry.
      Guess I’ll be calling Bill Brady today.

  15. Jim Jordan on said:

    I don’t like the bill but I guess it is all we will get. I would much rather see them unable to pass anything. My vote over the next several elections will depend on those wanting my vote working to improve the law that results from this. I am sure the cost of obtaining a permit will not go down.

  16. dave in texas on said:

    Grab it.

  17. Jakebob on said:

    It has the two most important things in it… Preemption and Shall Issue. It’s a bad bill like John says, but it’s better than a huge mess of a patchwork of local bans and restrictions… Beats that “may issue” crap by a long shot.
    The 16 hour training piece is annoying though.

    Next step is to make sure we get a Republican governor elected so it can be modified without the Chicago crooks. Anyone know Dan Rutherford’s 2A stance?

  18. jboch on said:

    For the record, I’m not going to pee on anyone and tell them it’s raining, but given the two choices we have (not what should be or what could be, but instead reality), I think supporting this proposal is easily the smart decision.

    Unfortunately IL is far from a perfect world.

    Anyone got a job for me in Indy?

  19. steve on said:

    Just read the bill, I don’t like it, but we are really screwed if we don’t take it. My only hope is that the COURT will say no to parts of it. Then the SCOTUS will refuse to hear any appeal. My biggest fear that I will address to Madigans office as a citizen will be that the criminal element will know exactly where they are safe to make mayhem with their guns. But then again Madigan could care less.

  20. LarryL on said:

    I saw no mention of repreprocity with other states or the recognition of other states permits in Illinois.
    No mention of NRA courses, instructors, etc.

    • jboch on said:

      No reciprocity. Boo.

      There’s a roundabout mention of “other instructors”.

      J

    • Gary R on said:

      I had the same question, sorry I can not wade through all this legal mumbo jumbo as I do not have the time or patience, can someone let us know what the deal on out of state permits will be?

  21. Ashrak on said:

    You need no hammer homie. Ill never put a sick in it but I will take my leave.

    Live it though. Shush the First – just like encouraging the stomaching of selling out the second. Not surprising true colors are showing. Just like I said they would all along.

    Adios amigo.

    • DLMG40SL on said:

      Please, please, please, let this be the last we hear from assrok!! His arrogance and same ol’ BS ass-idity of posting at near every article is disgustingly absurd like he thinks his “opinion” is actually wanted.
      Buh-by assrok, (your) riddance will be celebrated! Please go back to mommy in Cheese-land where you and mommy can play with your gun.

      • Jakebob on said:

        he is correct, in that we shouldn’t need to have permits for a constitutional right… he just doesn’t seem to understand that in a deep blue state like Illinois, it just isn’t going to happen unless Cook county falls into a huge sinkhole.

        I don’t mind seeing his little reminders once in awhile.. he’s like the reflectors in the road at night making sure we’re at least staying on the right side of the road. :)

        • DLMG40SL on said:

          It isn’t assrok’s views that I disagree with, it is his incessant posting and arrogance is what is trite, like he thinks his opinions are all that matter and he must include his opinion on darn near every article. Good riddance to him! Many of us have similar opinions but don’t post them sooooo often.
          This is the “National Socialist” state of Ill-annoy, we have to fight for all constitutional issues we should be allowed without opposition, that makes our fight that much more important for future generations.

  22. Corey on said:

    I hated this bill last night. This morning, I realize it’s the best bill of the two that wen are going to see. Colleen Daley is flipping out over it, and that makes my heart happy. We were never going to have Constitutional Carry or get an AZ law overnight. The preemption language alone is more than I would have ever thought possible in IL. It’s far from perfect, but we can work with this. My one big bugaboo, is that I couldn’t legally carry to the GSL meeting in Pontiac.

  23. jboch on said:

    If you are looking for someone to affix blame to in all of this, look to the politicians who have gotten weak-kneed.

    That includes the Republican leaders in the Senate AND some downstate Dems.

    Folks, we need to put the hurt on these folks the next couple of election cycles and let them see that there are consequences.

    John

    • Yep. And Matt Murphy? Make sure he gets smoked in the primary should he put his name in for Gov. Sell-out POS!

  24. Josh on said:

    Here’s an update from Valinda Rowe, this outlines why this will be the best we will get this time around and we should be very happy for it.

    “Last week when the senate started to move a carry bill, it put a series of events into motion. While we were trying to find out how many votes our side had, the Senate President was trying to twist arms because he really wanted Raoul’s bill to pass. Let me tell you, going up against a leader in his own chamber is difficult if not impossible when it is a bill they really want passed.

    We had a couple of down state Senators flipping on us and it looked like we would lose the vote. At the same time the Speaker was working on his bill. He did not want Sen. Cullerton’s bill passing over to the House, because it would complicate matters for his own bill. So he reached over to the Senate and pulled a couple of votes off the bill, ensuring the Senate bill would not pass.

    Just think about that, the Speaker of the House reached over and killed the Senate President’s very own carry bill in his own chamber. That is the kind of power we are up against.

    Over the next few days a group of legislators worked on a carry bill. We saw the language late Tuesday. We were not thrilled with several components of the bill, to say the least, but the political reality that became very evident is that with the power of the Speaker to kill bills outside his own chamber, there would be no cliff. The Speaker would pass/defeat whichever carry bill he wanted.

    He has the votes to pass the Cullerton bill through the Senate. It only needs 30 votes and will only require 60 in the House. That bill would allow any home rule unit to adopt extra restrictions like no carrying within 1000 feet of a school. You can use your imagination for what their dream list of restrictions would be. The Governor supports that bill so we know he would sign it. It is may issue and has a host of other problems.

    We have already seen some downstate senate dems fold. We hear of pending retirements in the House and we know Speaker Madigan stripped the votes we needed to pass 997 off the bill. He is not going to let our carry bill pass no matter what. That is clear.
    The current bill in the House is statewide, shall issue with preemption. The carrot in all of this is the preemption is not just for carrying. It wipes out all municipal regulations on firearms. Read that again, there will be no more municipal regulations on guns period. The Chicago ordinance – gone. Cook county semi-auto ban gone. No more CFPs or seizing a vehicle because you transported a gun unloaded and enclosed in a case.

    No more local mag bans, registration or anything. In essence, we cut the heart out of the gun control movement in Illinois. Their jewel of local ordinances and Chicago disappear. Want to own an AR -15 and live in the city, have at it. Want a one in Oak Park or Aurora? Enjoy.

    It also means that we will not have to be chasing after local city councils over every silly ordinance. So we change the playing field to one where we are largely successful.

    But it is not without a cost. As the details of the bill come out, some are not going to be happy about the demands of the Speaker. We didn’t agree to them but we find ourselves in a position of being able to get something closer to where we would like to be instead of spending the next 20 years trying to undo a truly bad law like the Cullerton proposal.

    The bill is statewide, shall issue, no carve outs for Chicago or Cook (the lone exception is Cook county forest preserves).
    Training will be 16 hours. They will recognize or grandfather in up to 8 hours of other training. The 16 includes range time. So if you have other training under your belt, you will need to do the range portion and make up, the additional hours. It does not have to be a single course, you can patch them together. So if you have taken a Florida or Utah course, or even the CFP course, it will count.
    On the prohibited places we will lose out on public gatherings; municipal parks, playgrounds and mass transit, but you can “fanny pack” transport through any of these. If they want people unloading in public before getting on the CTA, that’s crazy but then so be it.

    We did prevail on restaurant carry, and parking lots, with a “safe harbor” provision for your car anywhere you go. So if you are in your car, it is essentially like being in your home.

    Looking through the bill it is pretty much the proverbial “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. Not a total win for everybody but not a total loss by any measure either.”

    • Tim C. on said:

      If I read the bill correctly, 180 days to get your permit after all the checks and $150.00? Really?

      • Jakebob on said:

        I didn’t see 180 days.. I thought it was 90 days (120 days if you don’t submit fingerprints with your application)

      • Josh on said:

        180 days is to implement the law, a one time period from passage for the ISP to get the system in place.

    • Hey Josh I suggest you read the amendment and not follow Valinda Rowe’s advice. Nowhere does it say anything about what courses are accepted for the 16 hours, that is to be determined after the bill is passed and must be determined within 180 days. The other misinformation you better read is Section 65 (a) ” A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm into:” and goes on to list all the restricted no carry areas. The stupid “fanny pack” carry idea will get you locked up for sure.
      This bill is nothing but a sellout that is why the NRA and ILRA are “neutral” on it . What does that mean? Maybe I’ll be neutral next time they want some money.

  25. Three things:

    1. We need to name names. Pols in Chicage and downstate. I need to know who to support with $ in the next round of primaries. Those pols who betrayed us need to be defeated in the next election cycle. They won’t take us seriously if they don’t fear us.

    2. Someone mentioned this bill could be changed with 60 votes in the future. Can the other side use that against us – say to implement a state-wide magazine ban?

    3. This seems very sudden and unexpected -I assume based on a reality check from Todd. How could we get caught off balance like this? I think the strategy for Illinois need to be rethought.

  26. John, you summed it up nicely. And no John, that isn’t rainwater we’re feeling. What happened to all the statements we’ve been hearing for months that we have enough votes to stop any bad bill? All those phone calls and emails were for naught? My pedestrian interpretation: This sucks and we were screwed again.

    Any carry law that excludes public transportation is not a carry law, it’s a prohibition for a goodly portion of our population (unload to fanny-pack in public before getting on the bus… we’ll surely see some arrests for that). No reciprocity. Rotten prohibited area definitions that will prevent many of us from ever carrying.

    Yes, we get some kind of shall-issue carry without Chicago being able to override it for the moment. But how long before they simply change the law? Bet Madigan’s already got the replacement bills ready to file next session as soon as they regroup.

    I appreciate all the work our lobby groups have done for us, but after all the months of happytalk, I’m simply disgusted. I think it’s time to leave this state. Abandon it to the Chicago machine, it looks like they own it anyway. The free states of Indiana and Missouri are just across the line. And unlike Illinois, they even have financial ratings better than Mexico and Greece.

    If during the next primary and general elections those of us that decide to stay in this state don’t un-elect every one of those pols that turned on us, I have no doubt that you’ll see this “compromise” law walked back to something that is more akin to MA, NY, CN, and CA. They can ram through a change at any time when we aren’t looking. We were working from a position of “power” this time… never again will that happen.

    Yep, disgusted is the word.

    • Jakebob on said:

      Newtown sucked a lot of backbone out of pols from both parties. The amount of disinformation being spread by “That Man in the White House” and his cronies is working on the low information voters.

      As has been mentioned in a few other places on this thread, a lot of the votes we thought we were able to count on have gone “squishy” and are likely to bend and vote for one of the May Issue bills, which are far worse than this one.

      The preemption is a big plus… We don’t have to worry about Champaign or Urbana implementing some kind of really stupid restrictions, which I’m sure at least Urbana would have in the event we went off the “cliff” on June 9th.

  27. SamJS on said:

    Costs are prohibitively high that will deny the Second Amendment Rights to low income and elderly on fixed income. 16 hours of training is ridiculous and will be cost prohibitive if compared to class costs for 6 hour classes of $150 to $200 could mean training costs of $600 or more. Denying people their Second Amendment RIGHT based on financial status is ridiculous. Either EVERYONE is allowed to practice their “RIGHT” or nobody gets it.

  28. Capt'n Ron on said:

    We need to start naming names. A couple of our people voted to pass a mag ban out of committee. It would have gotten out of committee without their votes so what’s the deal on that. Our minority leader has some ‘splainin’ to do. I am her “friend” on facebook and have never seen a pro 2nd Amendment entry from her. Who are the turncoats? Who do we need to defeat? (I mean besides Christine and Matt)
    To show how messed up Illinois is, it seems that a representative from the house can actually add an amendment to a senate bill. How does that work? It seems to me that an amendment to a senate bill would have to come from a senator. Wouldn’t Gary Forby carry this bill to the senate. I know he already has he name on SB1284 but at least he is a senator.

  29. Capt'n Ron on said:

    If I have to be shot, I don’t want to be shot with “friendly” fire. I will have no choice but to deal with whatever mess makes it to the compiled statutes, but I don’t have to give it directions.

  30. DLMG40SL on said:

    $150 for 5 years, will the renual be the same ($150)? $300 for out of state seems excessive, what kind of reciprocity with other states, will other states recognize IL carry permits? Seems pretty draconian, but if we can get a firearm friendly governor in office maybe we can get some of the BS changed. With the windfall that Wisconsin experienced with their permit system, imagine what IL will reap, where will the money be alloca

    • DLMG40SL on said:

      …where will the money be allocated? I’m sure the politicians have it spent already, will we get local firing ranges for training and practice? We need to go after the local politicians to get benefits from our fees and not let them waste it on their “pet” projects.

      • Jack R. Holland on said:

        You didn’t really think we would get any of this money back did you?

        These A holes already have it spent and will siphon it off from there…..as always!

        17 Section 60. Fees.
        18 (a) All fees collected under this Act shall be deposited as
        19 provided in this Section. Application fees shall be
        20 non-refundable.
        21 (b) An applicant for a new license or a renewal shall
        22 submit $150 with the application, of which $120 shall be
        23 apportioned to the State Police Firearm Services Fund, $20
        24 shall be apportioned to the Mental Health Reporting Fund, and
        25 $10 shall be apportioned to the State Crime Laboratory Fund.

        09800SB2193ham001 - 20 - LRB098 10174 MRW 46317 a

        1 (c) A non-resident applicant for a new license or renewal
        2 shall submit $300 with the application, of which $250 shall be
        3 apportioned to the State Police Firearm Services Fund, $40
        4 shall be apportioned to the Mental Health Reporting Fund, and
        5 $10 shall be apportioned to the State Crime Laboratory Fund.
        6 (d) A licensee requesting a new license in accordance with
        7 Section 55 shall submit $75, of which $60 shall be apportioned
        8 to the State Police Firearm Services Fund, $5 shall be
        9 apportioned to the Mental Health Reporting Fund, and $10 shall
        10 be apportioned to the State Crime Laboratory Fund.

  31. LarryL on said:

    I monitored the committee hearing this morning. The smartest thing said was by Rep Jill Tracy, ” the most dangerous thing about this bill is the gun free zones”.

  32. JSharp on said:

    Maybe I’m mistaken but the removal of the 3/5 majority needed to tweak this bill in the future comes with a huge risk. Does it not also allow the other side the ability in the future to shove through a magazine ban, or an AWB also with a simple majority? That would certainly explain why Madigan is wiling to sacrifice Chicago. Because it’s only temporary. He’ll soon have the ability to implement those things not just in Chicago but statewide. And what he’s offered us in return is a bill that allows us to pay roughly $150 and train another 2 days so we can carry in our yards.

  33. BobG on said:

    JSharp younare a wise man. As soon as we start to trust Madigan we are in for a big load of pain. Sorry but this guy already has a plan I am sure. This will go bad in a hurry. There is no way in hell Madigan would in any way screw Obama or Emmanuel . The end game is yet to come.

  34. James on said:

    Why no reciprocity? We’re being gamed. Reminds me of the Mad Max movie where the offer of free passage is taken seriously by some. I say, let the bad Chicago version pass and go back to the courts. Are we still discussing what is a constitutional right? How can we trust Madigan and his Chicago cronies on anything?

  35. After reading all the places where carrying is prohibited, it seems that it would be much shorter, and easier, to list where they are allowed.
    Pay $150 to “carry” with all of these prohibited places? Makes me want to say “why bother?”

  36. J.K. on said:

    I agree KK. I could get a lifetime carry license in Indiana for that. There is no way in hell I would make a $150 dollar donation to the ISP when my mother and my boss have both been waiting over 6 months for Foid cards.