Home » Blogs » Illinois Concealed Carry Bill Revealed: No Chicago Carve-Out

Illinois Concealed Carry Bill Revealed: No Chicago Carve-Out

Robert Farago - comments No comments

(courtesy news.yahoo.com)

HB0977, Illinois’ long-awaited concealed carry bill, has dropped. Click here to read it. The executive summary: HB0977 puts the Illinois State Police in charge of the permitting process and turns The Land of Lincoln into a “shall issue” state. To wit: “The Department shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant would pose a danger to the applicant’s self, another, or public safety, or would use a firearm unlawfully, if granted a license to carry a concealed firearm under this Act.” Did Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel just throw up in his mouth a little? There’s no carve-out or exemption from the State permitting process for Cook County or Chicago . . .

It is declared to be the policy of this State that it is an exclusive power and function of the State to regulate the possession, carrying, and transportation of handguns and the issuance of licenses to carry a concealed firearm.

Except as provided in subsection (b) of Section 70, a home rule unit shall not regulate the possession, carrying, or transportation of handguns.

A home rule unit shall not regulate the number of handguns or require registration of handguns possessed by a person licensed under this Act. This Section is a denial of home rule powers and functions under subsection (i) of Section 6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution.

Get this: if Chicago messes with the State government on this they get whacked with a $10k per violation per day fee.

Applicants for Illinois’ concealed carry license must sign a waiver giving the po-po access to their legal and medical records. An Illinois permit is good for five years; there’s a mandatory four-hour training and basic marksmanship requirement (see: below) and a re-qualification requirement after five years. Reciprocity is definitely on the cards.

License holders can’t carry in the General Assembly, court houses, town meetings (and suchlike), bars, child care facilities, casinos, amusement parks, stadia, mental health facilities, libraries, cop shops and . . . wait for it . . . schools and colleges. Unless school/college authorities authorities grant the license holders their consent.

All prohibited places must post a standard sign stating that firearms are not welcome. If a license holder breaks the rules he or she faces ejection and a $100 fine. Do it again and it’s a 30-day time out. Three or more violations and the Staties can pull your paper. Permanently.

The shooting test consists of a minimum of 30 rounds: 20 rounds from a distance of seven yards and 10 rounds from a distance of 15 yards at a B-21 silhouette or equivalent target as approved by the State Police Department. To qualify, applicants must hit the silhouette portion of the target with 70 percent of the 30 rounds fired.

License holders have a duty to inform police if they’re carrying when stopped. And we have the duty to inform you that Americans in all 50 states will soon be able to carry a concealed weapon.

Only not really, as many states have a de facto ban (try getting a concealed carry permit in New Jersey). The battle to defend and extend Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms continues . . .

Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Illinois Concealed Carry Bill Revealed: No Chicago Carve-Out”

  1. Anyone who doubts Mayor Tiny Dancer or Tom Dart will use ” home rule ” to exempt the county of Cook or the Chi-Coms …. would be a fool.

    Reply
  2. I just read most of it, and I’d be reasonably happy, if I was an Illinoisian. Illiniosite. Illinoiser.

    A few notes:
    1. The restriction on public libraries was interesting and unusual to me.
    2. The restriction on colleges and universities was disappointing, but expected.
    3. No gun signs carry the weight of law, which is unfortunate, because it means you have to walk carefully. (But at least the penalties are not draconian.)
    4. Must inform law enforcement upon contact.
    5. Looked like state level preemption, so that’s good. If I read that right, municipalities can’t pass their own little stupid laws. However, see #3, businesses still can.
    6. Reciprocity. I’m gonna get a non-resident Illinois permit, even though I’ll likely never set foot in that state. Just because I can.
    7. Illinois rules for carry in and around airports are less restrictive than Florida’s. We have a stupid rule. We have really good gun laws here by most standards, and then that one just makes it all wonky.

    All in all, as I said, I’d be relatively happy.

    Reply
      • Page 21:

        (e) If a law enforcement officer initiates an investigative stop, including but not limited to a traffic stop, of a licensee who is carrying a concealed firearm, the licensee shall disclose as soon as reasonably possible to the officer that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm under this Act. Disclosure may be accomplished by oral notification or by providing or displaying the license to carry a concealed firearm to the officer.

        Reply
        • @tdiinva Not true. VA does not require you to inform LE upon contact. VA does require you to present your permit & photo ID upon request by a LEO, but you are not required to inform them you have a permit or are carrying.

          Check the VA State Police website on firearms and concealed carry http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm scroll all the way to the bottom, it’s the last question of the FAQ.

          That said, it’s generally a good idea to inform an officer upon contact, but it’s not a requirement in VA

          Reply
    • So I assume that Chicago could just pass an ordinance requiring that all licensed businesses post a no concealed carry sign, or lose their business license?

      Reply
  3. “It is true that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century whenever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many.”
    ─ Justice Hugo Black

    Here’s a question if a drug dealer gets arrested should you be punished for his crime?

    If you believe this is what should happen then take yourself to jail.

    Why then should taxes be made higher on ammunition or further restrictions be placed on those who legally own firearms for legal reasons hunting, competitions, or self-defense, mind you LEGAL, for the act of a disturbed individual.

    Reply
  4. Listening to that S L O W T A L K I N G english pri*k is like having my back waxed! I just can’t do it! The whole interview is painful. His Lordship should have to live like one of the peasants in the rough area of Chicago or DC for a weekend… They’d take him apart.

    Reply
  5. For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

    The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following:

    … (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

    Reply
  6. This is awesome. Can you imagine Rahm when he gets told he cant fvck with this? I would pay money to see his face when that happens.

    Reply
  7. the constitution address universal evils that grow from the abusive use of power.
    It is as relevant today as it was the day it was written , maybe more so.

    Reply
  8. Another benefit appears to be the no registration requirement. Definitely conflcits with the chicago rule on mere ownership. :-). Looks like Ballerina Boy does not get to know who has what. For a control freak, that’s huge.

    Reply
    • Dirk, just our luck here in MO, Ill-noise probably won’t allow MO reciprocity being we’re neighbors. I was happy when WI finally got CC, I figured another state to add to reciprocity. But then found out, even though we honor theirs, they don’t honor ours. Something to do with our background check policy (according to the MO. AG’s office).

      Reply
  9. The question, I believe, comes from pre-calculus textbook written by Blitzer. Not to exhonerate the professor, but the question was probably just copied word for word from the text rather than something that the professor made up. I do the same thing in my math courses but with NICS checks versus violent crime rate to illustrate regression analysis and correlation.

    Reply
  10. For the times, they are a changin’. And then there were none.

    It’s been a very rough few weeks for Team 2A. We’d been on a pretty good roll for a number of years and is all too typical and predictable we had gotten mushy and complacent. I’m pretty sure that most folks that have been following the 2A scene knew that it was only a matter of time before we’d have our very own and uniquely American Dunblane. Our opponents have been patiently waiting for the right crisis to drop into their laps. All of this flurry of legislation has been sitting in filing cabinets just waiting for the launch command. It should come as no surprise that they’re waging a scorched earth campaign. The good news is that we’re still on a roll and we’re making good head way even if now we’re running into a strong head wind. Illinois is a good example. There are many other important cases in the works that will likely go our way. Take heart, stay focused, keep working.

    Like I’ve said many times before, if gun owners had voted with their wallets by organizing and funding legal challenges to many of the most egregious gun laws across the country, we wouldn’t be in near the predicament we find ourselves in today. Imagine if SAF and Alan Gura had a full time staff composed of David Hardy, David Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Stephen Halbrook, and a hand full of other hot shot 2A lawyers, along with a staff of sharp, young legal eagles, researchers, clerks and assistants. Now imagine that Gura’s staff has a $400 million war-chest (4 million plus NRA members @ $100/member) with which to rain down death and destruction on our opponents in the courts. What do you think that might do to alter the current 2A landscape?

    Imagine if every post Sandy Hook freaked out panic buyer had sent a small fraction of what they’ve spent in the last month to SAF how different our position and options might be.

    We all know that our opponents are in this for the long haul, that they are relentless and that they are well funded. We have to be smarter, even more relentless, more tenacious and better funded. They must be crushed and swept from the field. Hoarding all of your over priced goodies in your bunker isn’t the smart play. Pony up, lend a hand, speak out.

    Reply
  11. Holy crap, this is exciting, but what are the odds that it will pass? Are there any opposing, more restrictive bills being introduced, ones that might be more palatable (relatively speaking) to the goons in Chicago?

    Reply
  12. I would like to see this happen and have reciprocity with Virginia so I can avoid doing the lockup at the Indiana and Iowa borders but unless Governor Quinn has grown a pair in the New Year he is going to veto any CCW legislation. The only way that this bill can get signed is if there is some sort of carve out for Chicago. Sorry to piss in the punch bowl.

    Reply
    • Let’s not forget that IL is under court order to pass legislation meeting certain standards, and they’re on a deadline. The rules are a little different when you’ve lost the court case and have been ordered to comply with the Constitution within 180 days.

      Reply
      • The case has been appealed and will be heard by the entire Appellate Court. Then it will be on to the Supreme Court for side that loses Just don’t get your hopes up. If it happens CCW could be several years away.

        Reply
    • Read the Court’s decision, there won’t be any carve out. If Quinn vetoes the legislation, Illinois will go shall issue whether they like it or not, per the Court’s order.

      Reply
  13. Holy cow, I swear I did a double take when I saw this lol. I guess if you’re going to put your picture up I might as well put mine up.

    Reply
  14. Another benefit of legalization is quality of the drugs will improve w competition. Instead of OD’ing on crap, users could have the very best. The govt could tax it and that industry could pay for its related costs (treatment) vis-a-vis the tax.

    Reply
  15. Well, the way she sees it, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms–but doesn’t say anything about ammunition!
    What’s worse is that this is not the only bill being proposed concerning ammo. One proposes an i.d. system requiring a permit to purchase. One is a rewrite of a previously invalidated handgun ammo law (that now applies to all kinds of ammo), requiring a thumbprint, photo ID and reporting tot he State. It is an all out press this year–maybe they think this is the last best chance and are running scared? (Fingers crossed.)

    Reply
  16. This is bullshit propaganda that has no place in a reasonable educational institution. In addition, the math is bullshit.
    The units for x are the absolute number of firearms and the unit of murders is per 100,000 people. So a super small state can be drowning in guns per capita and barely be affected, and a large state can have enough guns that murder the entire population each year. According to the formula, 115 million full auto firearms and the murder rate can be expected to be 100%.
    I give the professor an A for bullshit propaganda and an F for math.
    What subject is being taught again?

    Reply
  17. How much is the fee going to be for the DOJ reporting? Currently a CA FFL collects a $25 fee for the DROS (dealers record of sale) with every firearm transfer. Is there going to be a $10 or $15 DOJ fee to buy ammo? I sure wouldnt want to buy 1 box of 9mm if the fee doubled the price. I’d buy 20 boxes to spread the impact of the fee, but buying 1,000 rounds would surely lead to a knock on my door and circling black helicopters. This law is only intended to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and will have no effect on criminals.

    Reply
  18. IMHO the good professor is nuking futz! Can you imagine where we’d end up if we cut the politicians loose to change the Constitution? The United States of Exxon! Lifetime terms in Congress! The Constitution daily proves to me the genius of those who wrote it 2 centuries ago. In other words “dance with who brung ya!”

    Reply
  19. That was my thought too. Maybe make it where if they choose not to post no gun signs they have to purchase some additional insurance of some sort

    Reply
  20. Yeah, it is radical. And you’re a radical loon.
    Yeah, so whatever fuzzy feel good loony shit feels good at the moment, let’s do it.

    Reply
  21. Paying money just to pull the trigger on a trophy just doesn’t seem like it would be very rewarding. I’m sure there is some effort involved but, having a guide do all the work and walk you out to where the animal is, well it’s sorta like taking credit for someone else’s homework.

    Not that I’d never pay for a vacation/hunt. I just don’t think I’d pay for a trophy hunt.

    Reply
  22. if you view the Constitution as “just a piece of paper” then you may as well surrender your guns now. the Bill of Rights acknowledges and protects our most basic human rights, without that a government can do pretty much whatever it wants, including sending you and your family to a death camp for any reason or none whatsoever. without the Constitution we cease to have a government and fall into chaos, with local warlords vying for control of resources. or, worse yet, a centralized dictatorship with absolute power, which is what our Forefathers fought against to begin with.

    following the Constitution makes us a nation of laws, not men. men pass gun control legislation in the heat of the moment; men break treaties that are supposed to last “as long as the grass grows and the rivers run”; men send Japanese-Americans to internment camps; men wipe out entire tribes and villages of native-Americans; men legalize the mass slaughter of unborn children.

    our founding document was very carefully thought out, and yes, they DID think ahead. take the second amendment for example; they could’ve put “the right to keep and bear muskets, bayonets, swords, and cannons shall not be infringed”, but no, they said “arms”, meaning ANY weapons. and don’t try to argue that the only “arms” they had back then were muzzle-loaders; ever hear of the Ferguson rifle? how about a swivel gun? firearms technology was constantly on the advance even then.

    think long and hard before you go trying to get rid of a document that has been instrumental in making us one of the greatest nations in history, and consider that it has been disobedience against that document that has gotten us in the rut we’re currently in.

    Reply
  23. The rest of the quote, in context:

    Amerson, a Democrat like the president, said he told the president that average folks aren’t buying the idea that Obama’s not trying to take away people’s guns.

    “The president said to us he wasn’t there to take any firearms from an average person who needs them for self-protection or sporting purposes,” Amerson said.

    “If you ask the average guy on the street, he won’t agree,” Amerson said.

    Reply
  24. I’m confused as to why anyone pays heed to a subject bred in a nation that was ruled by a monarchy for nearly millenium and now exists as a socialist state about individual liberties.

    The guy’s a moron who can’t make a point without talking over everyone else to interrupt their arguments. I’m glad the sheriff basically walked all over him.

    I do wish he’d just said ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question about background checks, though. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and I can see good arguments for both views on the subject.

    Reply
  25. As an American citizen who happens to be “white,” I found it particularly reprehensible when Piers seemed to be mocking Clarke’s tone of voice in the ads. In no way was it “Hollywood style” or exciting in any way. Personally I thought Clarke’s delivery sounded too scripted and emotionless but that did not take away from the message. I appreciated when Clarke calmy explained that “this is how I talk…” Do people not expect a black man to be soft spoken and properly enunciate his words?

    Piers, please go away.

    Reply
  26. Nicely written, Mr. Barrett. I would point out that the purpose of the bill of rights is to specifically restrain government. At the same time it doesn’t constrain other unenumerated rights. I would also argue that the laboratory of the states is not appropriate for natural rights, especially those in the bill of rights. While the courts have a legitimate say, I believe they have shifted too far in their interpretations, until recently. I would hope that further rulings move us back to a more permissive state. I also believe that the more legitimate way to address the second amendment is through the constitutional amendment process, not various local and national laws.

    Reply
  27. Well, if he and his cronies would quit saying stuff like “confiscation, turn ’em in, Mr. and Mrs. America,” maybe I’d be more inclined to listen.
    But then I’d still have to ignore all the stuff he’s said about closing Gitmo, not expanding the roles of military contractors, ending the war in Iraq, improving transparency in government, and making responsible health care reforms.
    Barry, I don’t want to dislike you, but I don’t feel like you’ve left me a lot of options.

    Reply
  28. If this does not pass, then anyone with a FOID will be able to carry concealed as a result of a recent 7th circuit decision. Unless the en banc appeal is granted, or SCOTUS grants cert. in which case the 7th Circuit order will be stayed.

    Something MUST BE DONE by the legislature to setup a method to allow carry in public, or the court order takes effect, and there will by no other requirement than “not prohibited to possess”.

    Reply
  29. This is the best, most well-reasoned argument I’ve seen in a long, long time. All pro-2A folks should notice how they use logical, well reasoned arguments in a civic-toned letter. Notice how they don’t attack or libel their opponents, or shooting victims who are advocating well meaning, but ineffective, counter productive policies.
    I don’t know if I agree with the video game element.. but its supported by some studies…

    Reply
  30. No home rule means no super majority needed so Quinn and the Cullerton gang have no room for negotiation in June Illinois will become a carry state. Reject all the bills we will carry in June.

    Reply

Leave a Comment