Go here to see something you won’t see very often: folks pissed at NRA for not compromising on a bill, namely, NRA wants a full concealed carry bill, with preemption, and state activists are pushing for a weaker bill subject to home rule. I would encourage each side to understand where the other is coming from. There’s no evil intent here, it’s an honest disagreement about how to move the ball forward. That inevitable in any issue.
From NRA’s point of view, I can see why they don’t want a weaker bill. Not all home rule charters are created equal. See here for instance. Illinois has one of the more liberal home rule provisions in the country. Nebraska’s, by contrast, is considerably more limited. Someone getting caught carrying violating a local carry ordinance in Omaha, for instance, has more legal options under Nebraska law than someone caught in Peoria does under Illinois law. Ohio has a fairly strong home rule provision, but Ohio home rule does not permit home rule entities to restrict something which is explicitly authorized by state law. The preemption law in Ohio was meant to address cities who banned semi-automatic firearms, which because not explicitly allowed under state law, could be restricted by Ohio home rule entities under the law.
Illinois home rule charter essentially allows “exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs.†which is remarkably broad. There are limits though. Home rule entities may not define felonies, and may not incur certain debts. But Illinois home rule entities enjoy considerably more leeway than they do in other states. That’s one thing for activists there to consider. Many people are not tuned in to the activist community, and will not plugged in to which communities have which restrictions. When those people get in trouble, they will look to groups like NRA, SAF, etc to get them out of trouble. And it should be considered that NRA needs to serve all its members, including the ones who could potentially get in trouble by a hazardous concealed carry law.
But I do understand, from the point of view of people living in Illinois, the desire to get something passed. It’s unlikely that concealed carry with full preemption is going to get the 3/5th majority needed to override home rule. It could be possible to get preemption through the courts, but the courts are always a risky venture, and there may be concerns in regards to complicating the court cases that are currently making their way in the 7th Circuit. We’re still a long way from having bearing of arms having any kind of constitutional protection.
I am sympathetic to the argument that passing something is better than nothing, but I’m also concerned with making sure something is the right thing. Pennsylvania originally got concealed carry law in 1988 by initially exempting Philadelphia from the requirement to issue licenses. They still had to recognize licenses from outside the city, but did not have to issue them to residents. In 1996, the state forced the City of Philadelphia to begin issuing licenses on a shall-issue basis. Philadelphia, as it always had, claimed home rule, but Pennsylvania’s home rule provision is weak, and it did not prevail with this argument. A lot of states have passed weaker laws, then strengthened them. It’s not a bad idea, per se. But understand that there’s risks associated with doing so. Just because the legislature makes a mess with a weaker law, doesn’t mean they will have any special interest in cleaning up the mess, especially when it’s gun owners who are the ones who have to live in the filth.