A lot of folks are upset that a deal has been reached over the CCW issue in Illinois. It would seem neither side likes the deal. But the leadership of the Illinois Legislature has essentially signaled this is as far as they’ll go, and if we walk away, they’ll shove a may-issue bill with gun bans down our throats. Note the GSL source:
There is no June 9th cliff.
We donâ€™t have enough votes willing to go over the cliff.Â 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.Â 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.
Read the whole thing. A lot of people didn’t understand why there was even negotiation over a shall-issue bill, believing constitutional carry was in the cards if Illinois defied the court. That was always a pipe dream. If they had passed a may-issue bill, a lot of the issues would have had to be re-litigated, and Madigan would have been in a more comfortable position. I also think the deal sets us up for long-term success. Also from GSL:
It also has across the board pre-emption on all local firearm regulations and restrictions.
Chicagoâ€™s gun registration regime?Â Gone.
Chicagoâ€™s ban on mags, lasers, etc.?Â Buh bye.
Cook Countyâ€™s black gun ban?Â History.
Local â€œsafe storageâ€ ordinances?Â 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, weâ€™re actually REPEALING so-called assault weapons bans and gun registration programs in post-Sandy Hook America.Â Â Heck, weâ€™re doing it in one of the bluest states in the nation.
Getting rid of the supermajority requirement will be a big deal, because that’s been the primary obstacle to getting shall-issue in Illinois. My only concern would be, as I understand it, whether a supermajority is required is really at the discretion of the leadership. What’s to prevent them from imposing it anyway? I can’t find anything in the rather lengthy bill stipulating that for future amendments.
My feeling is that it’s a shall-issue bill, with preemption. It’s the final offer from the leadership. I’d take the deal and then work to improve the bill through legislation, and I’d re-litigate over the steep fees and argue that many of the places you’re prohibited from carrying are not “sensitive places” per the Heller decision. I’m also guessing this will mean that the Moore/Shepherd case will not be appealed to the Supreme Court, which begs the question, will the Court take a carry case? Maybe not.
22 thoughts on “The Final Offer”
The bill is not a Shall Issue. It is a May Issue disguised and Shall Issue as the board can have the choice of not issuing a permit on what they call “fail to act on an application.” They only they do not have a penalty for not acting on an application, but gave themselves immunity from lawsuits & any legal problems.
The law is full of little legal mines as to paralyze the issuance of permits before they start.
They are betting that once this law is approved, they can improve later. That will happen only if somebody drops a tactical nuke over Cook County.
It’ll be abused, for sure. Pennsylvania is technically not quite shall-issue, and we originally passed a shall-issue bill that did not apply to Philadelphia, and then later made it apply to Philadelphia. But note the alternative here:
I’m not saying it’s a great bill, but I’d feel better starting from here than with Kwame’s bill.
Another thing to consider is that even if nothing passes municipalities are open pass their own carry laws. And said carry laws can be full on NYC issue.
A big question is the mines in this bill, and what would get passes if this one does not. The alternative bills are openly May Issue and even more restrictive.
Is it really Shall issue? The discussion on the GSL comments from the legal-talkers is interesting.
This bill is shall issue. Phelps, the sponsor (although this comes from Madigan), replied specifically to this question in the Committee hearing that it is shall issue. The seven member board we are hearing about is a REVIEW board for applications that are initially rejected.
A super-majority is needed to pass this bill because it pre-empts home-rule communities. These places are allowed to pass their own more restrictive bills (ex: Aurora has an AWB and a mag limit. So does Cook County. With this bill: GONE).
After this bill is passed, improvements will need only a simple majority.
There is a lot to hate in this bill. There is a lot to like. There are four things to love. For anyone to think that a perfect bill was going to make first time out was insanity.
If this prevents a cert petition in Moore, then the Supreme Court will have Woollard in Maryland to consider for the coming term. There may be others on the way, but right now that is the only may-issue challenge that is teed up and ready for petition.
I don’t think the denial of Kachalsky is damning on Woollard. The cases are similar but the MD version is more pure in some senses. Also, with three possible cases to choose from this coming term, I agree that the IL case is probably the one the court would have been more inclined to hear because it overturned a state statute and because it challenged a complete denial. Taking Kachalsky means they would have maybe scuttled the chance to hear Moore. If Moore goes away, that leaves may-issue cases like Woollard. It’s not like the Palmer challenge in DC is going anywhere.
Assuming Woollard petitions, we will probably not hear its certiori fate until the summer is over.
I am hoping… but two certs denied on this issue makes me more pessimistic. What if Carry isn’t where the Court wants to go next? Rank speculation on my part, I admit, but I’d like the Court to take up a narrowly defined and well crafted case before the kitchen sink of issues related to the late gun control push starts getting appealed.
The cost of this bill is the favorable state court action in Wilson v. Cook County.
Now I’m going to have to read about getting a permit from out of state…
Hate the no public transportation
Dislike the long (expensive) training
Love preemption and being able o have “fun guns” in Cook County.
I suspect madigan and company got a lot of pressure from ny cali, etc to work something out.
That’s a good point. Those two states represent the bulk of the political/media/monetary clout of May Issue.
It would be in their interest to throw Ill to the “proles” in order to keep their firewall up.
The consitution requires super-majorities for preemption and bonding authority. Any other bill would only require simple majorities per the consitution because there would be no changing of the preemption section.
Looks like a good outcome to me.
A knife in the back!
What a horrific piece of work. Just look at the section on the review board–it is exempt from Open Meeting and FOIA requests.
Downstate is about to be broken down like a shotgun. Get your feet set, Illinois, the raping will be hard and fast but at least it will be done by your own side.
This bill is FAR BETTER than what we have in New York. I completely expected Illinois to come up with some proper cause/good reason requirement like the one upheld in Kachalsky, meaning that rural residents could get permits to carry in their counties, but that carry in Chicago and the burbs would be restricted to the politically connected. Although it’s not perfect, I would take this kind of law in NY any day.
I still think Madigan will appeal, though. The governor will veto this bill, which means he hates it, which means the AG will keep fighting the 7th Circuit’s decision.
And as was said above, even if Madigan doesn’t appeal, we still have Woollard, as well as other cases pending in other circuits (i.e., Drake v. Filko in the 3rd Circuit).
From a judge’s perspective, Moore would have been the best case to hear, since it deals with a total ban, and we have a favorable decision by the 7th Circuit (one by Judge Posner, no less, the most respected judge not on the SCOTUS).
But Woollard is still strong, since the favorable district court decision at least gives the pro-gun justices in SCOTUS something to work with. A split between the district and circuit court decisions makes SCOTUS more likely to take up the case. In Kachalsky, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the SDNY’s opinion. So SCOTUS would’ve had to overturn two lower courts.
Bills are improvable in a very short time.
Alaska went from no carry in ’93 to a preemption but unwieldy shall-issue (signage had weight of law) in ’94 then steady improvements (signage went away, restaurant carry) to Con Carry in ’04.
I had thought there was enough to get the super-majority, but from my reading preemption is the key win in this bill. The rest can be corrected bit by bit.
Any word on reciprocity? Or are we getting the shaft there too? Wait it’s Illinois, I don’t need to ask.
They are offering non-res licenses for $300. Your own permit or equivalent stands in for the FOID.
HATE, HATE, HATE this damn bill. With the complex training requirements that the state police has to develop and approve, and approve trainers, it’ll be next year at the earliest that a permit is issued. Not to mention the cost of 16 hours of training! I’ve got a NRA Basic Pistol certificate that I got many years ago. I’m sure that will be determined to be obsolete. Yeah, like basic pistol mechanics, terminology and safety rules have changed in the last 20 years.
16 hours of training is what New Mexico has, and NM has only a 4 year (up from 2 year original) license. I left IL largely because of the gun issue and haven’t been back. This isn’t ideal, but it is so much better than what exists that you’d be crazy to not go for it. I might even pay the $300 just so I can visit again.
The AK permit for reciprocity purposes is still 12 hours, 8 classroom (NRA pers protection and state laws) and 4 range, with 10 shots each on a B-27 at 7 and 10 yards. 10 and 7 in the black respectively as I recall to pass. $125 plus photos and fingerprints.
In terms of reciprocity, any state that looks at “similar requirements” will likely honor IL. Unless they require equal reciprocity. That’s the upside to a training requirement, the less evolved states like to see it for reciprocity.
Pre-emption is the critical point (Clauswitzian Center of gravity) in this phase of the offensive.
Hitting preemption is like a SEAD mission or counter-force strike, allowing followup strikes the ability to succeed at much lower cost and higher probabilities of victory.
Keep your eye on the ball — eliminating the Chicago Veto for guns is more important than any particular restrictive issue or carry wording.
I would be one who would carry in IL, so this is not a detached view from afar. I don’t like a lot of things in this bill, but the simple truth is that it goes further than anyone thought possible in a place devoid of gun rights for a long, long time.
The other side has a long view and likes to incrementally change things to meet their end goals. We note how successful they have been and say we should be doing the same in places like Illinois. Then we do…and bitch about it.
If it helps, don’t think of this as a carry bill. Think of it as the, “Chicago Gun Law Preemption Act”. Rahm has lost everything on this one.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. We got to 1994 (about the apex of the gun banning politically speaking) after 60 years of incrementalism federally, and longer at the states (when was the Sullivan Act again?). It’ll take some time to back those out.
Comments are closed.