ILLINOIS CARRY BILL INTRODUCED…

1. That time frame sure sounds optimistic. But, put me down for the first training class!

   Great job!

2. More hogwash. Apply for a license to exercise a right? Why? How about constitutional carry like Vermont. No license, no fees, no restrictions on law-abiding individuals. This will happen if NO law is enacted.

   1. Yeah.

      So will your risk of felony arrest for carrying it on state supported property, stores that sell liquor and in places like Chicago…

      You may call it hogwash, but the votes aren’t there for Constitutional carry. You can operate under that reality and influence what happens in the meantime or you can marginalize yourself and have zero influence on how things are going to be while we work towards a Constitutional-carry status.

3. just read through it, it looks like a good bill. I’ll be shocked if Quinn signs it though (if it makes it to his desk).

   1. Quinn and company are mortified that “unrestricted” carry will happen, so it’s a real motivator for them to come to the table.

      It’s like a stubborn child who doesn’t like vegetables much, and particularly not carrots. They know the stick is waiting for them if they don’t take a big bite out of the carrot.

4. I like it a lot but what’s up with the recertification requirement within 6 months of a renewal? (Section 45-b.) You will have to compete in a competition or take another training class.
   I hope it’s just barter bait for when those on the fence really want something else changed…like the Home Rule Preemption (cough..Chicago!..cough)
   Maybe GSL should have a quarterly “Beat The System” 3-3-3 competition event. Attendees must hit a target (8.5×11 sheet of paper) at 3 yards 3 times in 3 seconds…pass that and gets a competition certificate. 🙂

5. WOW, 62 pages.
   I was going to print a copy but will have to get more paper.

6. I have read the bill, looks good. My question is that I have Florida CCW and waiting for my AZ in the mail. Going to work on Utah CCW next. So with my NRA training for Florida, does that satisfy requirements for Illinois CCW. Reading the bill, it seems so.

   1. Out of state licenses are only good for 180 days if you are an IL resident. See section (h) on page 7.
      Reciprocity is usually decided after the law comes into effect. It all depends on if minimum training requirements are similar, how the background checks are done (NICS/state), etc.

7. Just read through the entire bill. Sounds like a well thought out and comprehensive bill. And I personally like the re-qualification aspect. It can be done Quickly and you don’t have to re-take the whole class. It shouldn’t be that hard to get an instructor to set up a session in the evening or week-end mourning a month.

   Steve

8. I quickly read the House Bill. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see any provision for interstate reciprocity. Did I miss it? If we don’t have an allowance for reciprocity, most of the other states will not honor our permits when we are traveling. Correct?

   1. There is mention of reciprocity for states whose requirements are similar to Illinois and for states who recognize Illinois permits. (Florida & Utah I assume would be two of those at least) The issue will be with states with Constitutional Carry. (Vermont, Arizona, Alaska I think)

   2. Thanks. My mistake. I mistakenly read a 1/14/13 version and not Rep. Phelp’s version. I will review that latter.

9. There is a lot to like, to be sure but I am disappointed that there is no provision for long guns. Can it be that having a long gun could still be a vehicle for becoming a felon? And then, I don’t see why less than lethal things like stun guns, knives, and blunt objects would still be illegal considering that the permit will allow for the exercise of deadly force. Do you think that positive changes will be possible after the law is passed when we no longer have a court finding acting as leverage?

10. James on January 31, 2013 at 11:06 pm said:

    Looking at the full text of HB0997 (1/29/2013 Phelps), under Section 24-1. Unlawful Use of Weapons, (a)(4) appears to require transported weapons to be broken down, not immediately accessible, or unloaded and enclosed. Shouldn’t this language and other similar be revised to reflect lawful concealed carry?

Comments are closed.