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.