Illinois Approaching Deadline

Eugene Kontorovich over at The Volokh Conspiracy notes that the deadline is looming, and also discusses some of the Constitutional issues with Quinn’s amendatory veto:

Turning past the text – the purpose of the Second Amendment is self-defense. Limiting people to one gun fundamentally jeopardizes self-defense in the event the gun malfunctions, is dropped, etc. The best way to evaluate the seriousness of such concerns is to look to whether police and military personell carry multiple weapons, i.e., whether this is a done thing in contexts where regulation is not an obstacle. This of course is also the leading way of thinking about what kind of weapons can be banned. This is partially an empirical question; I don’t know the answer. The non-empirical part what the threshold must be – how many cops have to carry weapons to make this normal.

Some very good questions. I’ve long advocated that the courts need to evaluate police use to determine the scope of the constitutional protections, the police being situated similar to non-police citizens. That can become difficult. Are machine guns in common police use? Increasingly this is so. I think a reasonable standard would be that citizens can have anything the police can have, subject to the same or similar restrictions to police. This would also tend to serve as a check on the militarization of police forces, since they’d have to accept that issuing “special equipment” to cops means Joe Citizen has a right to access to the same. But we can always imagine far better constitutional regimes than the courts would ever be willing to implement.

UPDATE: More here.

7 thoughts on “Illinois Approaching Deadline”

  1. The courts are just going to give them another extension. I mean they already got two(?) so what another 50-100 more? Expect for the same exact reasons. And when THAT deadline looms they will do it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again perpetually and perhaps literally forever so they can avoid it using a judge that hates gun rights and thinks the only good gun owner is a dead gun owner killed by the government. At least until they get the may/no carry they (Quinn) wants or a higher court smacks them for this crap they are pulling.

  2. I hope this gets struck down in Ill. That will make it more likely to be struck here in Alabama. I think Alabama has this law on the books about just one gun, however they may use Al. law to make their law. (HA-HA)

    1. Granted I’ve only been living here about 7 years, I’ve never heard of such a restriction in AL…

  3. Good, over the cliff.

    Honestly, FOID carry is better for the residents of downstate than even the “semi-clean” Phelps bill. It is certainly better for non-residents, as Illinois will not deign to honor any reciprocity from anywhere. I’ll need to be careful about what county I go into, but in theory parts of Illinois may honor my out of state permit under FOID carry.

    If the Phelps bill passes, the Chicago PD will execute concealed carry holders in the streets — at least, that’s what their chief of police said. The Phelps bill gutted pre-emption as well with regards to many non-carry issues so Chicago’s bullshit will stand in place. So I really don’t understand how the Phelps bill helps anything at this point.

    Phelps’ bill was marginal. I certainly am not willing to fight for it. Quinn’s amendatory veto is an insult. So if the whole package just dies at this point, so be it. We’ll see Chicago in court, and people in the downstate will be able to carry to protect themselves and their families.

    1. To be devil’s advocate. One thing Phelp’s bill did was establish preemption on local carry laws. So if they do go over the cliff (and they migth not with infinite stays…) then any locality can pass their own no/may issue laws.

      So Chicago would still be seen in the courts either way.

      1. Chicago will still be no/may issue.

        As I understand it, under Phelp’s bill, you take a 16 hr class (longest in the nation) then pay $150 (most in the nation) to apply. Once you apply, the local LE can raise an objection. I imagine CHicago will object to every permit application that isn’t from a well heeled Democrat. In that case, it goes to a statewide review board.

        The proceedings of that board may or may not be public record; even if exempt from FOIA they likely will be leaked to the media at some point (its the Chicago way!) so the personal information of permit applicants WILL get out there.

        Here’s more about the board:

        Concealed Carry Licensing Board
        7 members, appointed by the Governor and coinciding with his/her term;
        No more than 4 members from same political party;
        Geographic diversity: 3 commissioners from 1st Supreme Court District (Cook County); 1 commissioner from each of the other 4 Districts;
        Majority vote required to find applicant eligible or ineligible, or to request additional information from the applicant or law enforcement;
        Considers applications only when:
        (1) Law enforcement has objected to the applicant; OR
        (2) Where the applicant has 5 or more arrests for any reason, that have been entered into the Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) system, within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license, or has 3 or more arrests within the 7 years preceding the date of application for a license for any combination of “gang-related offenses” (defined in the bill with reference to specific Criminal Code offenses);
        If the Board determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant poses a danger to himself or herself, others, or a threat to public safety, the Board shall find the applicant ineligible for a license; if not, the applicant is eligible.

        So, four of the seven members will be Democrats, and likely anti-gun Democrats. Three of the seven will be from Cook County (Chicago), who will be guaranteed to vote against issuing a permit almost every time. All are appointed by the Governor, who is rabidly anti-gun. The standard to deny a permit is “preponderence of the evidence” and only four of the seven (so the Chicago Three plus one more) need to say “nay.”

        Even under Phelps bill, it will still be “no issue” or “may issue” for subjects of Chicago, or any other locality where LE routinely “objects” to a permit being issued.

        FOID carry seems preferable to that heap of BS.

Comments are closed.