SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Illinois would become the last state in the nation to allow the public possession of concealed firearms with a bill approved Friday by the state Legislature.
A 89-28 vote by the Illinois House on Friday —the last day before lawmakers adjourn their spring session— sealed a hard-fought compromise worked out after a federal appeals court ordered in December that Illinois drop its ban by June 9.
The legislation now goes to Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat who has not indicated whether he'll sign it.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that Illinois' ban on the public possession of concealed weapons is unconstitutional. All 49 other states allow concealed carry, though some have stricter regulations than others.
Illinois' compromise measure reflected the division between gun rights advocates across the state and gun control supporters in Chicago, which is battling a surge in gang violence and murders since last year.
An early proposal to allow for concealed carry sought to eliminate all local gun ordinances, including Chicago's ban on assault weapons. But that provision was opposed by Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other Chicago Democrats.
The negotiated settlement approving concealed carry would allow local governments to retain their own rules. But it would block them from creating new rules for transporting guns and assault weapons restrictions.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, a Chicago Democrat and supporter of tighter restrictions, conceded ground on carrying guns in establishments that serve alcohol. Residents would be allowed to carry guns into restaurants and other business that serve alcohol if liquor comprises no more than 50 percent of their sales.
Chicago Democrats would have gotten all of what they requested in terms of specific gun-free zones, including mass transit buses and trains, schools, other government buildings, parks, hospitals and street festivals.
But Rep. Brandon Phelps, a southern Illinois Democrat who sponsored the House proposal, was able to keep in a provision making automobiles a "safe harbor" — meaning a secured gun could be kept in a car, even if it's parked in a prohibited place.
___
The bill is HB183
Online: http://www.ilga.gov

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't some police chief in Chicago say your off better armed to defend yourself then wait for police to show up?

 d-usa wrote:
What's the possibility that they will honor out-of-state licenses? Would love to be able to visit my family there without having to lock up my guns.

 d-usa wrote:
What's the possibility that they will honor out-of-state licenses? Would love to be able to visit my family there without having to lock up my guns.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What's the possibility that they will honor out-of-state licenses? Would love to be able to visit my family there without having to lock up my guns.

I would say somewhere between slim and none.

 d-usa wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What's the possibility that they will honor out-of-state licenses? Would love to be able to visit my family there without having to lock up my guns.

I would say somewhere between slim and none.

That's what I am expecting...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How can one publicly possess concealed weapons? It is a contradiction in terms.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How can one publicly possess concealed weapons? It is a contradiction in terms.

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Ouze's post - as an outsider, I have been wondering about one thing for quite some time...what is the actual benefit of having a CCW license compared to simply carrying your weapon openly? It sounds like it's more work and probably more fees, and as a result you get...what kind of benefit exactly? Or is it frowned upon in some areas to openly carry weapons and it's more of a social thing? Genuinely curious here.

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Ouze's post - as an outsider, I have been wondering about one thing for quite some time...what is the actual benefit of having a CCW license compared to simply carrying your weapon openly? It sounds like it's more work and probably more fees, and as a result you get...what kind of benefit exactly? Or is it frowned upon in some areas to openly carry weapons and it's more of a social thing? Genuinely curious here.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Ouze's post - as an outsider, I have been wondering about one thing for quite some time...what is the actual benefit of having a CCW license compared to simply carrying your weapon openly? It sounds like it's more work and probably more fees, and as a result you get...what kind of benefit exactly? Or is it frowned upon in some areas to openly carry weapons and it's more of a social thing? Genuinely curious here.

Some people freak out at the sight of a gun, or just don't like being around them. I can legally open carry all around town if I wished, but I don't, because people get freaked out about it. Unless you look like a cop or soldier off duty, it brings a lot of headaches. Plus, depending on where you live, cops who dont know the law might harass you over it, or arrest you for "disturbing the peace" or some other random offense. In other words, its a lot of headaches that I'd rather just avoid with conceal carry.

I'm just glad my state has it so that if I'm hiking I can just wear a holster, or so that if my shirt ever lifted up, I'm not getting charged with brandishing.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Thanks for the further explanation. You see, I probably have a skewed view on this topic, I've been to America for a year, but mainly up in Milwaukee studying all the time. I kinda thought that since guns are such a common item in the US, with so many gun owners, people wouldn't be freaked out if other people carried them openly - but, as you stated, I guess that's not really the case, and I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be completely relaxed next to a group of strangers with pistols on their hips either, I guess.

 Vulcan wrote:
For that matter, a criminal who INTENDS to use a gun is going to conceal it for the shock value of revealing it to the intended victim. That shock is usually good for a couple second's inaction, which allows the criminal to accomplish his goals with no effective resistance from the victim.

An openly-carried gun isn't a threat. It's a statement that I WILL defend myself if attacked.

 djones520 wrote:
I read something like a 16 hour course will be required.

 Hordini wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I read something like a 16 hour course will be required.

It looks like a 16 hour course will be required to get the first license, which is for 5 years, and a 3 hour course will be required to renew. Does any state have a training requirement longer than that? Ohio requires 12 hours, and I think some other states require 8 or 10. And of course a few states don't require a course at all.

 djones520 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I read something like a 16 hour course will be required.

It looks like a 16 hour course will be required to get the first license, which is for 5 years, and a 3 hour course will be required to renew. Does any state have a training requirement longer than that? Ohio requires 12 hours, and I think some other states require 8 or 10. And of course a few states don't require a course at all.

No, this is the longest. Which isn't surprising.

 d-usa wrote:
16 hours is really not that crazy. 2 weekend days or 4 weeknight. A bit of a pain, but nothing that should keep anybody from getting one.

 d-usa wrote:
That's a separate issue of course, I was just talking about the requirement in general.

 d-usa wrote:
16 hours is really not that crazy. 2 weekend days or 4 weeknight. A bit of a pain, but nothing that should keep anybody from getting one.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's a separate issue of course, I was just talking about the requirement in general.

Well they could take the round about issue of only certifying a hand full of people in the state to conduct the course, thereby limiting the amount of people who can get it. But yeah, requirement wise it's not horribly burdensome.

 djones520 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Thanks for the further explanation. You see, I probably have a skewed view on this topic, I've been to America for a year, but mainly up in Milwaukee studying all the time. I kinda thought that since guns are such a common item in the US, with so many gun owners, people wouldn't be freaked out if other people carried them openly - but, as you stated, I guess that's not really the case, and I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be completely relaxed next to a group of strangers with pistols on their hips either, I guess.

Just keep in mind that if you do see something like that, just keep relaxed. Most people with evil intent aren't going to be calmly eating at a diner with some pistols strapped to their waists. As a general rule of thumb criminals are going to try to not bring attention to themselves, unless their actually in the process of committing a crime.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Thanks for the further explanation. You see, I probably have a skewed view on this topic, I've been to America for a year, but mainly up in Milwaukee studying all the time. I kinda thought that since guns are such a common item in the US, with so many gun owners, people wouldn't be freaked out if other people carried them openly - but, as you stated, I guess that's not really the case, and I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be completely relaxed next to a group of strangers with pistols on their hips either, I guess.

Just keep in mind that if you do see something like that, just keep relaxed. Most people with evil intent aren't going to be calmly eating at a diner with some pistols strapped to their waists. As a general rule of thumb criminals are going to try to not bring attention to themselves, unless their actually in the process of committing a crime.

Okay, that makes sense. As a follow-up question, are there (and if, many?) places or businesses where CCW holders would have to openly state that they are either carrying a gun and/or remove their gun because of a restriction concerning CCWs in that place/business? I heard that some cinemas now have a no-gun policy, but I was wondering how concealed weapons are "controlled" in general.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

 dogma wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

It depends on the state. For example, in Minnesota if a given establishment (public or private) posts a sign indicating that "X bans guns on these premises*" then any person found to be carrying one may be asked to leave and, if they do not, then they are guilty of a petty misdemeanor (25 USD fine).


*Where X is a term indicating the establishment.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

 Hordini wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

Yes, most definitely. I don't think it's really a huge problem, because after spending all the time and money it takes to get a CCW, most people aren't going to do something stupid like carry their CCW into a government building or a police station. People who are serious about CCW generally don't want to do anything that would risk their license or make the CCW community look bad.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

 dogma wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

No, there are special exemptions for certain state facilities. In Minnesota they are correctional facilities, public schools, court complexes, any federal facility, and the Capitol area.

Any violation in those cases entails either a gross misdemeanor, or a felony.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

Yes, most definitely. I don't think it's really a huge problem, because after spending all the time and money it takes to get a CCW, most people aren't going to do something stupid like carry their CCW into a government building or a police station. People who are serious about CCW generally don't want to do anything that would risk their license or make the CCW community look bad.

Aye, that's understandable. I take it you live in Ohio, then? Anyhow, it's hard to get a picture of the actual situation out of the dakka gun threads sometimes...I was wondering how many people in Ohio (or the state you live in if I'm mistaken) carry openly and how many carry concealed? Can you give a rough estimate on that one, percent-wise? I'm just asking because dakka itself is probably not a representative sample of all US citizens.

 Witzkatz wrote:
We don't have a felony/misdemeanor - system over here as far as I can see it...wikipedia says a felony is traditionally classified as something worthy of a punishment of more than one year in prison.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Convicted felons can't own X or drive X or carry X or something?

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Hordini: Well, now I just look stupid. I just looked up Vergehen and Verbrechen, and it seems that German law uses them quite comparably to misdemeanors and felonies. It's apparently even one of the big definitions in the German Criminal Code. You learn something new every day!

 Witzkatz wrote:

About the rest: See, that's interesting - everybody could theoretically carry openly, but nobody does. The pro-gun side in gun threads on dakka sometimes make it look to outsiders as if every second citizen has a 1911 on his/her hip when walking the streets, if you know what I mean. Your observation in Ohio seems very reasonable, though, with rural populations owning and using more firearms for pest control, hunting and sports and the urban areas not that much affected by gun culture. Thanks!

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Hordini: You had to translate police reports into other languages? Forgive my curiosity, but sounds like you got a kinda interesting job, what do you do?

 Witzkatz wrote:

Rest: It definitely sounds more sensible like you explained it. I couldn't really imagine places where everyone was walkin around openly armed, it sounded a bit too much like...I don't know, the medieval ages or some African warlord state. I can see why people would want to carry concealed. This is getting a bit into the technical side of it now: That Ohioan booklet said CCW holders must make sure their weapon can't be easily reached by someone else I think...? I can't find the page right now. Does that mean that holsters need some kind of safety feature, some strap or button, so other can't reach for the gun? I'd expect something like that at least for open carry, I'm just wondering about concealed carry.

Ah, as a quick addendum for those interested: It seems if you're convicted of a Verbrechen/felony here in Germany, you lose public offices and can't be placed in a public office for five years. In addition, your right to vote can be revoked for 2 to 5 years at the court's discretion. So there seem to be quite a few comparable aspects in our law system there.

 Hordini wrote:

For the weapon not being easily reached, as far as I understand it that just means the weapon needs to be under your control, on your body (or in a purse or bag that you're carrying). I've just recently started researching CCW stuff, but there are a ton of different options for holsters and carry methods. You don't have to have a retention strap or button on your holster, but there are holsters that have those things. They make holsters that you can carry in your pocket, inside your waistband (IWB), outside your waistband (OWB) which requires a long shirt, jacket, or other cover garment, shoulder holsters which would also require a jacket, ankle holsters, and so on. The main thing is that you have to maintain control of your own weapon. For example, if you were in a car with passengers, you wouldn't just set the gun on a seat where anyone could grab it.


Edit: As for the legal bit, yeah, it's interesting that there are parts of the German legal system that are pretty similar to the US system. I thought it was pretty interesting that Germany has CCW licenses, even though it's a lot harder to get one. I read the other day that state level politicians can get them, and celebrities, and people like that.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
If you've lived in the USA for a good period of time, odds are you've met at least a couple people conceal carrying. Unless you lived in Chicago your whole life or something every other state has a license for concealed carry. Some states have far more, some have less.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The only places I know of where the cashier is armed all have pistols under the register. Never seen one use a shotgun, but I wouldn't swear that none of them do. Most establishments that I know of, even in neighboring states with more relaxed gun control laws, don't allow their employees to be armed at work, and don't arm their employees. Most places would rather get robbed than risk being held financially liable for injuries to the perpetrator, the employee, or bystanders. The only places I'm aware of where the person is armed are privately owned places, and in all but one case are only staffed by immediate family members.

Hope that helps.

(I'm also talking about So-Ill, and it occurs to me that you were probably only interested in your area. My bad.)

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The only places I know of where the cashier is armed all have pistols under the register. Never seen one use a shotgun, but I wouldn't swear that none of them do. Most establishments that I know of, even in neighboring states with more relaxed gun control laws, don't allow their employees to be armed at work, and don't arm their employees. Most places would rather get robbed than risk being held financially liable for injuries to the perpetrator, the employee, or bystanders. The only places I'm aware of where the person is armed are privately owned places, and in all but one case are only staffed by immediate family members.

Hope that helps.

(I'm also talking about So-Ill, and it occurs to me that you were probably only interested in your area. My bad.)

Thanks for the quick answer! That helps.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Some people freak out at the sight of a gun, or just don't like being around them. I can legally open carry all around town if I wished, but I don't, because people get freaked out about it. Unless you look like a cop or soldier off duty, it brings a lot of headaches. Plus, depending on where you live, cops who dont know the law might harass you over it, or arrest you for "disturbing the peace" or some other random offense. In other words, its a lot of headaches that I'd rather just avoid with conceal carry.

 Ouze wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Some people freak out at the sight of a gun, or just don't like being around them. I can legally open carry all around town if I wished, but I don't, because people get freaked out about it. Unless you look like a cop or soldier off duty, it brings a lot of headaches. Plus, depending on where you live, cops who dont know the law might harass you over it, or arrest you for "disturbing the peace" or some other random offense. In other words, its a lot of headaches that I'd rather just avoid with conceal carry.

Indeed. I have no problem with open carry being lawful, but I simultaneously find it to be, for lack of a better word, distasteful.

 whitedragon wrote:
Why do you find it distasteful to open carry vs concealed?

 CptJake wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:
Why do you find it distasteful to open carry vs concealed?

It is easier to be offended by what you see than what may or may not be there but is hidden from sight.

I wonder if cops with guns on their hips is also distasteful.

 whitedragon wrote:
Why do you find it distasteful to open carry vs concealed?

 Jihadin wrote:
Didn't some police chief in Chicago say your off better armed to defend yourself then wait for police to show up? Then the Mayor "flamed" the police chief...and we find out later the Mayor got his arse beat on the street?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 whitedragon wrote:
Why do you find it distasteful to open carry vs concealed?

For me personally, I have a couple reasons.

The first one is that of the few people I've met who open carried, most went about it in a horrible fashion. They drew a lot of attention to it, walked around with hand near their hip, acted like they were a big shot, etc.. They looked like an idiot and made the entire gun community look bad. I've met others who have open carried without making a big deal though, although that's normally when I was outdoors somewhere.

The other one that kind of links into the first point is that I'm not stupid, I realize there are people who are strongly against guns no matter where you go. People who will get offended or upset just at the sight of one. Even though open carrying is perfectly legal, drawing attention to myself and disturbing other people when it could easily be avoided just seems irresponsible and rude. Not to mention the fact that you WILL get the cops called on you eventually if you open carry in public and all the headaches that can bring.

As far as I'm concerned, open carry exists for 3 reasons in Kentucky.

1. If my conceal carry piece is seen, I'm perfectly fine.

2. For hiking or working outdoors, where an open carry holster is far more comfortable.

3. For a guy between 18 to 21 years of age to have an option for protection since he's not old enough to get a concealed carry license yet.

I'm sure other people have different reasons though.

 CptJake wrote:
I wonder if cops with guns on their hips is also distasteful.

 CptJake wrote:

That just sounds silly to me. Almost any open carry holster I can think of is more comfortable than most conceal carry holsters.

 CptJake wrote:

A few of you have mentioned open carry is good because when you screw up and display your gun unintentionally it prevents you from being busted for brandishing. When you see this happen on someone else do you find the guy unintentionally displaying his piece distasteful? It shows a lack of caution and lack of attention to detail that should seem as worrisome as a guy with a hip holster, no?

 Ahtman wrote:
Not having CC is nothing, in my state it is still illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays.

Ahtman wrote:Not having CC is nothing, in my state it is still illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays.

Lordhat wrote:
Before AZ passed concealed carry without a permit I always carried open. It never once caused me any problems, other than the occasional person from out of state (usually California) asking me if I was a police officer, and did I have a permit? They would usually freak out more over the the fact that the answer to both questions was no, than the fact that I was actually carrying a pistol. It usually took quite a bit of convincingbefore they would believe that I didn't need a permit just to own a firearm, much les carry it in public.

Now, I'm not saying it's common here to carry openly, but it's certainly not rare; thesight of a gun doesn't make any but the most Nervous Nelly blink twice.

Now that I carry concealed I simply ignore the anti-gun sign on private establishments; if I'm concealing correctly then they'll never know, and I never have to compromise my personal safety to satisfy somebody else's insurance company (or insecurities about 'those dangerous gun freaks').

 whembly wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Not having CC is nothing, in my state it is still illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays.

HERESY!

St. Louis was like that years ago... and, we were home to Anheuser Busch!

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who drinks seriously on Sunday anyway. That's what Friday and Saturday is for. Sunday is hangover time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Who drinks seriously on Sunday anyway. That's what Friday and Saturday is for. Sunday is hangover time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, but wouldn't you have bought the beer on Saturday and had it chilling overnight like you're supposed to?

 d-usa wrote:
My church doesn't allow Open Carry #firstworldproblems...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, but wouldn't you have bought the beer on Saturday and had it chilling overnight like you're supposed to?

And if you run out, or have friends call over and need more?

 mega_bassist wrote:
Wow, only a 16 hour course? I'm surprised it's not longer! But I'm happy to finally be able to CC in my state...Plus, give me a reason to purchase another pistol

To be honest, I'm completely fine with a 16 hour course. Personally, I think that most states should have longer CCW training, and have it more frequently.

 mega_bassist wrote:
Wow, only a 16 hour course? I'm surprised it's not longer! But I'm happy to finally be able to CC in my state...Plus, give me a reason to purchase another pistol

To be honest, I'm completely fine with a 16 hour course. Personally, I think that most states should have longer CCW training, and have it more frequently.

 djones520 wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Wow, only a 16 hour course? I'm surprised it's not longer! But I'm happy to finally be able to CC in my state...Plus, give me a reason to purchase another pistol

To be honest, I'm completely fine with a 16 hour course. Personally, I think that most states should have longer CCW training, and have it more frequently.

Longer? it's already the longest in the nation.

 Jihadin wrote:
Impression I'm getting is he better sign this one or get the one that bypasses him which is much "looser" on restriction?

 Jimsolo wrote:
In Illinois, if the governor does nothing, the bill becomes law after sixty days, I believe.

I checked and found that confirmed here. (Page 4)

This article here seems to indicate that if Quinn vetoes the bill, then one of the higher courts may force the enactment of concealed carry with even less restrictions than the ones already being proposed.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Not having CC is nothing, in my state it is still illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays.

My local Walmart still does that. Never really got the point of it, practically speaking. If I want beer, I'd have bought it the day before. I mean, I know why it's there, just seems like there's no point anymore.

Lordhat wrote:
Before AZ passed concealed carry without a permit I always carried open. It never once caused me any problems, other than the occasional person from out of state (usually California) asking me if I was a police officer, and did I have a permit? They would usually freak out more over the the fact that the answer to both questions was no, than the fact that I was actually carrying a pistol. It usually took quite a bit of convincingbefore they would believe that I didn't need a permit just to own a firearm, much les carry it in public.

Now, I'm not saying it's common here to carry openly, but it's certainly not rare; thesight of a gun doesn't make any but the most Nervous Nelly blink twice.

Now that I carry concealed I simply ignore the anti-gun sign on private establishments; if I'm concealing correctly then they'll never know, and I never have to compromise my personal safety to satisfy somebody else's insurance company (or insecurities about 'those dangerous gun freaks').

Did you carry mostly in smaller towns or in the "big cities"? From what I've seen around here, carrying in small towns is no big deal, but trying to open carry in Lexington would be a much bigger headache.

 Jihadin wrote:
I bet he take three days going over it. Suggest some minor changes with one major change and then he signs it. Reasonable request of the changes

 Jimsolo wrote:
Some people had asked for more information as this progressed, so I thought I would add this link, which someone sent to me today. I've got no particular investment in this one way or the other, just thought I would try to be helpful.

http://www.wsiltv.com/home/top-story/Lawmakers-Prepare-to-Override-Quinns-Concealed-Carry-Bill--214066381.html?llsms=320261&c=y

This is the first I've heard of people being disappointed in the situation, though. Every other source I've seen mention this has treated it like Quinn is just trying to mollify his own constituents while still upholding the decision that the courts handed to him last year. No one is getting exactly what they want, but everyone's getting a little of what they want. In other words, a compromise. This article seems to make it seem more like Quinn is just flying off the handle and writing his own bill.

Again, haven't been following this that closely, but other folks feel pretty strongly about this issue here on Dakka.

WSIL -- Area lawmakers say they're disappointed with the Governor's amendatory veto on concealed carry but aren't surprised.

Bill sponsor, Brandon Phelps, has already filed a motion to override the governor's veto. He will try to make that happen the day of the deadline July 9th.

The Governor failed to sign the bi-partisan bill which would have legalized concealed carry. He chooseinstead to use his amendatory veto powers and write his own.
A major disappointment says bill sponsor Brandon Phelps.

"Now he is making it harder for Illinoisans and law abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their families and shame on him," said Phelps. "I think he is absolutely wrong."

Quinn wants guns out of places that serve alcohol and is seeking to limit gun owners to carry one firearm. The governor says it's a public safety issue but Phelps disagrees.

"He is pandering to Chicago and disregarding the rest of the state,"

Representative John Bradley criticizes the governor for failing to participate in the original drafting of the bill, which Bradley voted in favor of and passed with overwhelming support.

"He doesn't understand the second amendment the way that those of us in southern Illinois do," said Bradley "The fight is over and he needs to accept that. We passed this a bi-partisan manner and we did so working with all the interested parties."

Phelps has already filed a motion to override Quinn's veto but needs a super majority vote in both the House and the Senate for the bill to pass.That must happen before the July 9th deadline set by a federal appeals court. If not, Phelps says it's the gun owners that will pay the price.

"The law abiding gun owner traveling through this state is not going to know what is expected of them and so what you are doing is making law abiding gun owners criminals," said Phelps

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think he would like to have it include all places that serve alcohol, but will settle for bars.

As I understand it, the ammendatory veto is kind of like a request for a change. He could have just vetoed it, but he didn't. Which wouldn't have helped him, since the bill has a large enough support to override a veto. It could be a delay tactic, but that's unlikely, since the courts have mandated that some manner of concealed carry law be put into place.

I'm okay with Quinn trying to make some reasonable adjustments, as long as the bill passes in some recognizable form.

Again, keep in mind that this news source is a local news outlet in Southern Illinois, so it's not the most impartial source of information when it comes to our governor.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Illinois was poised to become the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court's deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature were convening to try to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued it was better to approve something rather than risk the courts allowing virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate planned to take up the measure Tuesday afternoon after the House voted 77-31 to override the Democratic governor's amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

Quinn predicted a "showdown in Springfield" after a week of Chicago appearances to drum up support for the changes he made in the amendatory veto. The Chicago Democrat faces a tough re-election fight next year and has already drawn a primary challenge from former White House chief of state Bill Daley, who has criticized the governor's handling of the debate over guns and other issues.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from southern Illinois, predicted a history-making day in which lawmakers would dismiss Quinn's changes as politically motivated.

"He's trying to cater to, pander to Cook County," Phelps said, referring to the nation's second most-populous county, which encompasses Chicago. "And I don't blame him ... because that's where his votes are."

The law as approved by the Legislature permits anyone with a Firearm Owner's Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours — longest of any state — to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150.

If approved, the Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that it's unconstitutional for Illinois to ban concealed carry. The court gave state officials until June 9 to rectify the shortfall, and later extended that by a month.

Opinions varied about what would have happened had a law not taken effect. Gun supporters said it would have meant with no law governing gun possession, any type of firearm could be carried anywhere, at any time. Those supporting stricter gun control said local communities would have been able to set up tough restrictions.

With the negotiated law, gun-rights advocates got the permissive law they wanted, instead of a New York-style plan that gives law enforcement authorities wide discretion over who gets permits. In exchange, Chicago Democrats repulsed by gun violence got a long list of places deemed off limits to guns, including schools, libraries, parks and mass transit buses and trains.

But one part of the compromise had to do with establishments that serve alcohol. The law will allow diners to carry weapons into restaurants and other establishments where liquor comprises no more than 50 percent of gross sales. One of the main provisions of Quinn's amendatory veto was to nix guns in businesses that serve any alcohol.

He also wants to limit citizens to carrying one gun at a time, a gun that is completely concealed, not "mostly concealed" as the initiative decrees. He prefers banning guns from private property unless an owner puts up a sign allowing guns — the reverse of what's in the proposal — and would give employers more power to prohibit guns at work.

Senate President John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat, gave a nod to Quinn's wishes by putting before his caucus new legislation that incorporated the changes Quinn prefers. But Democrats had not said by early Tuesday whether they would vote on the bill. Phelps said he didn't know whether the House would consider it, although House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, kept the chamber in session in case a new bill arrived from the Senate.

Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno of Lemont said it's clear the issue would be addressed again in the future but the Senate should focus Tuesday on meeting the court deadline.

"For today, we should stick with the agreement that was in place," Radogno said. "It's important to follow through."

 Hordini wrote:
Is there any word on reciprocity? Would it be too pessimistic to guess that Illinois CCW licenses won't be reciprocal with licenses from any other state?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That doesn't work that way. Other states recognize a state's CCW based on reciprocity agreements in most cases. "You say our stuff's valid there, we say your stuff's valid here"

Are out-of-state concealed carry permit holders granted reciprocity in Illinois?

No. Out of state residents must obtain an Illinois Concealed Carry License to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in Illinois. In order for out of state residents to be eligible for an Illinois license, their state’s concealed carry license laws must be substantially similar to those of Illinois. The Illinois State Police will establish rules to identify the elements necessary to meet the substantially similar requirement.