IMPORTANT Illinois CCW Notice!

Discussion in 'Illinois Gun Forum' started by Shade, Feb 23, 2013.

  1. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Mike Madigan, stooge for the ****cago machine will be introducing his own
    CCW bill please read the follow and please call your state representatives
    and state senators.

     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2013
  2. ChanceMcCall

    ChanceMcCall New Member

    31
    0
    0
    I am a bit confused over the rush to pass a bill allowing concealed carry by those on the gunowners’ side. Because of the two court rulings, those that believe the “right to keep and bear arms” by individuals is both important and sacrosanct, now have the upper hand over the Chicago Democrats who have ignored both the rights and the will of those who have sought concealed carry for years.

    If legislators do nothing other than oppose bills regarding concealed carry and keep them from passing we will have concealed carry by default in less than 3 months. That is truly a powerful tool to get exactly what is reasonable without any compromise with those who would steal our rights, and frankly, I have no pity for them. They have opposed every reasonable effort in the past to put citizens of the State of Illinois on a parity with citizens of other states and have made many legislators spend hours in turmoil trying to find a compromise they would accept, while dealing with your angry and frustrated constituents. They deserve what they might get.

    On the other hand, I also understand why some legislators are uneasy with allowing gun owners the same rights that the citizens of Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming already have in constitutional carry and that Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin have legislation pending on. Illinois citizens are evidently inferior in some way to citizens in those other states, at least in the eyes of our elected officials.

    In looking at H.B. 0997, I am puzzled by some things. The constitution, and the court ruling, refer to bearing arms and not just handguns, yet the bill limits concealed carry of weapons to handguns rather than arms. My question is, “Why”? If I am considered qualified to carry a handgun with a very strong potential of lethality, then why am I not qualified to carry a collapsible baton, or a blackjack for the same reasons that police officers carry them – as a less lethal option than drawing and firing a handgun. The same could be said of stun guns and Tasers, which many (especially women) would like to have as an option. Personally, I would much prefer the option of stunning someone with a baton or blackjack to shooting them, yet apparently, if this bill passes, a handgun will be my only option if I feel myself in potentially mortal danger.

    Much of what is contained in H.B. 0997 was from an earlier compromise bill attempt. We no longer need to compromise. Before this bill moves too far ahead, please consider the fact that we do not need to please Chicago Democrats to achieve what we want. If they are to get anything, they need to please you and the gun owners of this state. Why are we squandering what the Courts have handed us?
     

  3. mybigguns

    mybigguns New Member

    87
    0
    0
    I agree with chance ^^^^ to some degree, but if no law is crafted, wont that give the libtards an opportunity to pass an even more restrictive law?
    They would use the old "OMG we're letting any old whacko carry a gun?" argument.
     
  4. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    Don't expect to ever get CCW freedoms if you do not understand the Bill Of Rights regarding the 2nd. A. The 2nd A. was not intended to protect the rights of the people to carry "Clubs". The 2nd is there to allow the citizens to stand and deliver in the face of armed forces.:)
     
  5. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    No because the arguement can be made that the FOID Act is a failure if
    wackos are owning guns anyway. Here in Illinois you have to have a
    FOID to own a gun. If we get constitutional CC here you still have to
    have a FOID. So if no law is passed and we get Constitution Carry, and they
    use
    That means
    wackos own guns now anyway?!?
     
  6. nitestalker

    nitestalker New Member

    6,489
    0
    0
    The very fact that Illinois is getting a chance at having a CCW is a very positive move for all American gun owners. This says Hey! Obama we do have rights.
    The antigun propaganda gets lots of press but this ruling does not. The courts rule for gun owners and it is ignored. Biden tells his wife to blast the back yard with a shotgun and its news. WTF?:eek:
     
  7. aandabooks

    aandabooks New Member

    1,598
    0
    0
    You don't have to have a FOID card to own a gun. The FOID is to buy a gun, ammo or transport a gun. If the gun never leaves your house and you never need to buy ammo, you don't have to have a FOID card.
     
  8. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    You would be wrong, you have to have a FOID to own a gun.
     
  9. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/foidinfo.cfm

    First Paragraph, second sentence.
     
  10. aandabooks

    aandabooks New Member

    1,598
    0
    0
    I stand corrected. I guess I was in violation of the law a few years ago when I accidentally let my FOID card expire for a few months. Didn't mean to but at the time I wasn't into guns like I am now.
     
  11. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Also lets say you have a gun or two that are not locked up. And you are out
    and for some reason. The Police pay a visit and either ask to enter your
    home, and are allowed in, or have warrant. And no one there has a FOID
    card. Most likely you will have your guns confiscated. Even if that person
    is your wife.

    For example, you are on a trip, your wife is home and your hand gun is out
    on the kitchen table, because someone tried breaking into you home. Your
    wife was scared, screamed, they guy ran off, but she called the police
    anyway and set the gun you keep next to your bed on the table. Police
    come in and see the gun, she says it is yours. They ask to see her FOID
    she does not have one. *Poof* the gun is confiscated.

    My wife and I have FOID's that expire on different years, that was planned.
    I also have FOIDs and passports for both of my children.
     
  12. PSYCHOFREAK3

    PSYCHOFREAK3 New Member

    299
    0
    0
    Illinois is a very interesting place right about now. As far as concerns with 997 go, there are definetly some things that aren't great in the bill and it is fairly restrictive given the situation that Illinois is in, however everything that is in the bill has been years of deliberation between different groups. In order for our bill to pass we need a veto proof vote (supermajority) if the anti's want to pass a bill they just need a basic majority.

    So yes, 997 has it's drawbacks, however it is the best bill that we can hope for while still trying to acheive the supermajority so Quinn can't veto it as soon as it hits his desk (as he stated he would do for any ccw bill.) While the courts are definetly on our side for the time being, it's still a very thin line between our bill and one of their bills getting passed.
     
  13. purehavoc

    purehavoc New Member

    4,799
    2
    0
    Being as I live in IL " down state of course" the 997 bill is not fabulous but its better than nothing at all . The price of $25 for 5 yrs is more than acceptable . CCW should be limited to hand guns . WHY you ask ? #1 it is called concealed carry for a reason , and then you have the smart ***'s that throw a AR 15 over their shoulder and go to the mall and walk around #1 its not a CCW , #2 it just looks irresponsible / scary in the publics eyes ,#3 it give the Anti's a rant that really isnt necessary .
    The HB997 is the best I have seen out there so far of anything trying to get passed here in IL. I just wish they could get a handle on whats going to really be necessary training for the IL CCW so people could get the ball rolling and not get every class tied up for the next 12 months
     
  14. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Standby for heavy rolls while the bill is destroyed by the anti's!!!

    8 amendments today not one of the good. I plan on reading them all tomorrow. I will post when I get a chance.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bil...D=71413&SessionID=85&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=98
     
  15. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Here is HB0997 and amendments.

    I will dig up HB1155 tomorrow.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. mybigguns

    mybigguns New Member

    87
    0
    0
    so we basically wont be able to carry anywhere..

    I'm hoping for nothing getting done and constitutional carry
     
  17. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    That is what they are trying to do and if you screw up then it is a felony...
     
  18. fickenmeimirish

    fickenmeimirish New Member

    215
    0
    0
    Did anyone else notice this would require a total of 40 hours training administered by the state police to qualify, and 10 hours to renew? Not to mention it just states a minimum of 30 rounds fired during live fire training (20 hours) more realistically it would probablu amount to hundreds, maybe even a thousand or more rounds, that you have to supply!
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  19. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Yes that was in one of the amendments. Each Amendment has to get voted
    on individually, and that vote is not coming up soon. The House Majority is
    trying to castrate any CCW with HB1155. We must first defeat HB 1155,
    albeite Amendment 27 (Phelps) essentially guts 1155. It is going to be a
    mess in Springfield.

    IGOLD is so very very important this year. High turn out will be very much
    noticed by our elected offiiicials. Get everyone you can to go, I am taking a
    vacation day to do so. Bring some comfy walking shoes.
     
  20. ChanceMcCall

    ChanceMcCall New Member

    31
    0
    0
    Actually, it was. At the time the 2nd Amendment was being debated (see Federalist Papers) the discussion included such things as hatchets, swords, any maces. A arm is anything that allows one to defend or assault.

    My concern is related to having the option for less lethal means with which to defend. Women and old guys like me are not usually going to win a fist fight with an 18 year old perp, unless age and treachery can overcome the expected speed and strength of youth. I don't want my 5'2" 105LB wife to have no choice but to shoot someone to protect herself if the potential to nail the agressor with an expandable baton seems more reasonable to her. Personally, I learn the proper way to use a black jack 50 years ago, and I know that most situations that would now give me the right to shoot someone I could cure with a black jack, but in Illinois I have been long denied that right.

    I have used a black jack and I have used a gun. While granting there are circumstances where a gun is the right choice, I would also like the option (just as LEOs have) of having other, less lethal choices.