Concealed-carry moves closer to passage in state House

SPRINGFIELD -- State representatives Tuesday approved a number of amendments to a concealed-carry law (HB 1155) that would allow Illinoisans to carry weapons in public, although they would have to meet certain requirements and many locations would be off-limits.

The bill remains on second reading on the House floor. More amendments could be considered.

The historic 67-48 vote came after more than nine hours of debate on legislation that became a necessity after a federal appeals court ordered Illinois to pass a concealed-carry law by early June.

All area representatives voted for the bill except Rep.Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana.

Illinois is the only state that currently does not allow some form of concealed-carry. Past attempts to approve a concealed-carry law in Illinois were defeated mainly by Chicago area Democrats.

Under the legislation, Illinois would be a "shall-issue" state, meaning that larger numbers of citizens would be able to acquire permits. Permit holders also would have to go through eight hours of training including live fire training, and would have to undergo a criminal history background check. They would have to pay an $80 fee for a 5-year permit.

As written, there would be no limitation on the number of weapons a permit-holder could carry, said Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, whose amendment became, in large part, the final bill. Still, he said the bill "is more restrictive than we ever wanted it to be."

Weapons could not be carried in schools and child care facilities, libraries, local government buildings, stadiums, places of worship, casinos and on mass transit.

Phelps' amendment also would allow colleges and universities to prohibit the carrying of a firearm on campus.

An earlier amendment giving college and universities the power to regulate weapons on their campuses -- a measure sponsored by state Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana -- was the first one to be rejected Tuesday. It failed by a 50-56 margin, with five lawmakers voting present.

Another Jakobsson amendment, restricting firearms in hospitals and in mental health facilities, was approved by the House.

That amendment was approved 64-45, but her amendment addressing guns on university and college campuses was a different story.

Members of her own party attacked it for being confusing and for allegedly violating an agreement between Phelps and representatives of colleges and universities.

Rep. Monique Davis, D-Chicago, said allowing each institution to write its own regulations would be confusing to gun owners.

"I think it's expecting too much for someone to have to look up each location in Illinois and see if it's safe to carry a gun there," said Davis.

Phelps asked Jakobsson to pull the amendment from the record because the language was different from what had been agreed to and included in his legislation.

"We had a deal," said Phelps. "A deal is a deal, especially in the General Assembly."

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 10:02 pm

He got that right; "A deal is a deal, especially in the General Assembly".  They sure have a lot of experience in deals.

Citizen1 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 8:02 am

Lisa Madigan and that fruitcake friend of hers who wants the General Assembly to ignore the court ruling and federal law have it right.  We can all just ignore the law!!!!   Those who want to carry may do so regardless of the law.  Criminals do it.  So can we.   What a concept.

mattd149 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 8:02 am

80$ for 5 years. It might as well be free. Everyone and their brother will have one at that cost. No limit on guns either so you can carry as many as you want. Why would they need more than one?

Rock586 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

You think crimminals are going to pay the $80.00 for 5 years?  What have you been smoking?  Not as many people as you think want to be responsible for carrying a firearm all the time.

Joe American wrote on February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Excellent point.

Criminals don't even bother with FOID cards, and rest assured they won't qualify for a c/c permit without one.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm

I know, right? And murderers will still murder, so why have laws against that? They won't solve anything!!!!

Perfect reasoning. Yep. No one could find a flaw in that logic, huh?

jdmac44 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

The context of that quote had to do with a suggestion from a Chicago representative (I was listening most of the day yesterday) that a concealed carry card holder be only licensed for one firearm that they have specifically trained with, so that they are less likely to make mistakes.  For people who own guns and train with them regularly, you know that there are some differences between modern firearms, but honestly, it's not so drastic that you're going to make a mistake that's harmful to someone else.  At the worst they could wind up not have the gun go bang when they want it to and they wind up in danger from their attacker, but anyone who cares to have a carry license and goes  through the training will understand that you need to be familiar with your firearm, any firearm that you want to carry.  Some people, including police officers, want to have a back up gun on their ankle, but you can only really use one gun at a time effectively, so this talk about people carrying multiple guns as though it's something scary is just uninformed paranoia.

Joe American wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Apparently this is all new to you.  That's ok, we've all been naive at once, too.

Should the legislature impose an unreasonable burden on 2nd Amendment rights - and precedence shows that excessive costs have been deemed unreasonable - it would be overturned at the drop of a hat.  In other words, you can't price someone out of a constitutional right, my friend, or else we'd still have poll taxes.

mattd149 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

if you think there arent many people wanting these permits you have been under a rock.  they are lining up for these permits and at 80$ there will be hundreds of thousands of them.  80$ and back ground check and class will not keep the unresponsible from getting these permits. It also should not be a five year permit as peoples lives and mental stability change in a few months time.  Yearly renewal is what it should be.

jdmac44 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

The ISP can't handle the load for processing background checks for 1.5 million FOID cards every ten years.  There were "psychos" before there was concealed carry, they're not all suddenly going to go on shooting sprees because carry will become legal, if they wanted to do it before, they did it.  This just arms people who want a chance to stop them from doing more harm than they already intend to.  I have a carry license for other states, when I carry, I'm more polite, more civil, because I don't want to get into a situation that will be amplified by me being armed, I don't want conflict, I want to avoid it, but I also want to be able to have a chance to stop it if it won't leave me alone and threatens my life.

Joe American wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

"....and at 80$ there will be hundreds of thousands of them."

So? 

vcponsardin wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am
Profile Picture

Excellent.  Now criminals, who almost always carry their weapons in a concealed manner, will be completely indistinguishable from the so-called "licensed" concealed gun owners.  You see someone with a gun in his coat pocket--are you going to ask him to show you his concealed weapons license?  Smart thinking there, legislature.  Real smart...

jdmac44 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 9:02 am

Please, I implore you, get the statistics on how often someone is stopped and arrested simply because someone saw them with a gun.  When it happens, there are usually other reasons they were stopped that bring charges.  Those people will usually have a record and can't get a carry permit, especially since you have to be 21 to apply for a license, by then most thugs have already had run ins that would disqualify them.  Ask the Champaign Police Department how many gang bangers they arrest who have a FOID Card, I bet it's next to zero.  You need a FOID just to own a gun, but they don't bother.

LISTEN, IT'S BEEN LEGAL IN 39 STATES AS SHALL ISSUE, SOME FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS!  IT HASN'T BEEN A DISASTER!  YOU PEOPLE ARE ALL A BUNCH OF CHICKEN LITTLE'S!  LOOK AROUND!  I mean really, it's like you all say the world is flat and if you sail too far you'll fall off, when the rest of the world has been sailing around the globe for decades!  Get real!

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 am

They have had concealed carry in Texas forever. Texas had 699 gun murders in 2011 according to FBI statistics, so I'm not undertsanding how the good guy with a concealed gun is supposed to be a panacea for stopping a bad guy with a gun. We don't need more George Zimmerman types doing their self deputized armed escalation of neighborhood watch. If you recall we do have the police and we don't get to cut them out of the equation just because we will have concealed carry.

If people feel the need to arm themselves just to leave the house then we are not living in a free society we have fought so hard to have.

Let's not turn our society into a better dressed Taliban.

 

yates wrote on February 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm

"Better dressed Taliban"...are you referring to law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, or the guy sitting in the White House who wants to take those rights away? Sure looks like the latter by most accounts.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Your anemic grasp of other cultures as metaphor stuns me. Isn't letting law enforcement do their job part of being law abiding or is it you just want to be Judge, Jury and executioner like the Taliban or George Zimmerman. I'm thinking the latter by most accounts, as you would say.

Put down the ammo and open a text book once in a while. It's more constructive to your society than guns.

“No longer at the mercy of the reptile brain, we can change ourselves. Think of the possibilities.” ~ Carl Sagan

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 27, 2013 at 5:02 pm

If reptile brains are changed, then only the reptiles will have reptile brains.

Think about it.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

LOL Mark Taylor rules!

yates wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

Typical liberal response "mojo" You can't beat em' call them names or say they are stupid... speaking of reptile brains you havn't quite evolved there yet.

Zim wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

699 for the whole state of Texas? Chicago had over 500 last year and they have strict gun control and no concealed carry. Gun control doesn't work.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Apparently neither does having concealed carry, at least for sure not in Texas where most of these talking heads who claim it does, come from. Maybe that is the problem with people who LOOOOVE their guns, they are actually different from the law abiding citizens they claim to be part of and that is to say that other people don't have a real existence to them. They just want to embrace their guns and shout drunken patriotism talking points at the rational.

It's unfortunate that people like the parents of the Newtown kids on this very day have to bring pictures of their slain children to congressional hearings just so they can prove to the rabid gun lobby that their decisions affect real people.

stannjudy wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 am

Why don't you mention the Columbine victim who is NOT anti-carry? http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politics-and-government/2013-02-26/conc... See, there is always multiple sides to each issue (multifaceted if you prefer) and to resort to name calling, organization-bashing (wether or not you were an actual member once - which, by the tone of your posts I find VERY hard to believe), culture-baiting, or personal putdowns does little (in my humble opinion) to prove you points. For every opinion from the Blaze or Washington Post, many others from opposite OPINION-based sites can be found. Let try to keep it to facts....IL is the ONLY state without some sort of carry law...The courts declared it to be wrong, Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws and one of the highest murder rate....Just the facts, ma'am!

 

Joe American wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

....and the last time you saw someone with a gun in his coat pocket was???

Yeah, didn't think so.

vcponsardin wrote on February 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Profile Picture

Precisely the point.  The law is useless.  Criminals will still carry concealed.  And there will now be nothing to distinguish someone illegally carrying a gun from someone with a concealed weapon permit.  When was the last time you had to use a gun to protect yourself here in Champaign-Urbana?  Yeah... thought not...  Use your brain instead of your trigger finger for once.

UIUCHoopFan wrote on February 27, 2013 at 11:02 am

An NRA life member lives at our house.  Every month when the NRA magazine arrives I read one page....."The Armed Citizen".  The reports included are but a fraction of the cases involving the thwarting of crime by people legally owning/possessing/using firearms.  You can read the accounts online as well: http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Conceal and Carry in Illinois is inevitable.  There is no way the state of Illinois can convince the Supreme Court that the other 49 states are wrong.  The time has come to level the playing field between the honest, hard working citizen and the criminal thug.

Many people against conceal and carry might think differently if they ever found themselves in the shoes of the victim.  Not everyone mind you, but many.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 11:02 am

What else would they have in an NRA magazine, scalloped potato recipes? It's scare tactics to increase their membership revenue. The NRA doesn't want criminals to not have guns because it fuels the fear that keeps them in the business of pretending to protect the existence of the second amendment.  I'm sure if you read a pesticide industry magazine it would be full of stories and pictures of horrible insect infestations and the article would be written to declare that bug infestation is the number one issue of our time.

The NRA is a deranged Alumni Association that is just about collecting money from members and the gun industry which is part of the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us about in the 50's

I used to be a member of the NRA and I cut up my card and sent it back after LaPierre's indifferent and callouse remarks on Newtown and yet the 2nd amendment is still there. Go figure.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

I will once again state the following: being armed is inherently more dangerous for you AND everyone around you than not being armed. If you want to claim it as a Constitutional right, that's one thing, but you simply CANNOT claim that it makes statistical or policy sense. It is inherently MORE dangerous.

So pick a side and argue it. If you are claiming that it's actually better, reduces crime, or safer, then you are simply wrong. If you're claiming you have a constitutional right to carry, well, that's at least a reasonable viewpoint - many (including the Supreme Court) would agree with you. I personally don't, but whatever.

thelowedown wrote on February 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm
Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

Thank you for posting that link!! It's the first time I've seen that. It really puts this CC nonsense into a proper light that CC is definately not a panacea for preventing gun crime. People applying for a CC permit should have to pay for and pass a class in the study of those incidents. Pass with straight A's

Lance Dixon wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Only a complete idiot would think more guns will make our communities safer. Concealed guns will make angry people more agressive. Why would someone back down from a conflict if they have a gun in their coat?

More rage in the community - that's wonderful! More accidental shootings - awesome! More vigilantes looking for criminals to punish - I feel safer already!

How can Americans cry when children are shot and then demand more guns and more gun rights? No where else in the world would this be logical. Frankly, I am ashamed that we let John Wayne wannabes control our public policies.

Please please please do not let this stupid law pass. We must pressure our representatives to stop this before it's too late - if they'll listen to constituents over the NRA.

Anyone who votes for this bill should be removed from office next election. We don't have the NRA's money (they get their money from the manufacturers of guns and ammo clips), so we need to vote them out. That's the only way. Any candidate backed by the NRA must go!

recshooter wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Guess where our next shooting is going to be.  Yes, at one of these so called "prohibited areas' which are nothing more than a gun free zone where the wacked out criminal knows he can go an inflict as much carnegie as possible, because no one will be there to stop him.  How long before the Police arrive, probably 20+ dead.

 

All it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun in one good guy with a gun, and often with out a shot being fired.

 

Lets leave it to the administrators of each building to allow with permission some individuals to carry.  This way the criminal won't know for sure if there are armed citizens or not.

 

The only premises that should be allowed to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons would be those that are already protected by armed personal like the Court House which is staffed with Sherriff's Deputies.

 

I am looking foreyard to as many concealed carry permits as possible.  It is my belief that this will be the most effective deterrent possible.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

and when a law abiding gun owner goes off the rails and decides he is longer going to be law abiding and is going to make someone pay for his delusional sense of entitlement thwarted? What then?

The first question on the concealed carry application should be How do you spell "carnage"? (Cheap shot I know but it's a shot anyone can survive because it's just language not a bullet)

Zim wrote on February 27, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Conceal and open carry have been around for years. The law abiding citizen is not the problem. It is the criminal who is creating the carnage. The criminal doesn't care about laws and they would rather the law abiding citizen not have a gun, it makes their job alot safer. 

thelowedown wrote on February 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Actually, the "law abiding citizen" can be the problem and is the problem sometimes.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/fr...

 

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccwprivatecitizens.pdf

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Looks like it will pass with some logical exceptions.  Now, everyone will have to decide whether they want to be the only one on their block not packing.  If there is no age restriction, I am giving it some thought.  I could carry two guns with bandoliers criscrossing my chest, and my jeans tucked into my boots.  I would have to buy some sort of hat to go with the outfit.  I could strut on the street daring someone to make fun of me.  I could "stand my ground", and declare self-defense since everyone would be armed anyway.

I could do that, or I could do what I have always done.  I can continue to believe that there are more sane people than those insane.  I can continue to believe that law enforcement personnel are the best people to handle crime.  I can continue to value human life; and not fantasize about violence.

I do wish they would pass a "good guy" requirement for conceal and carry permits.  Some sort of mental evaluation, character references, bank statements, credit history, criminal history, and community approval type of test.  Maybe, a publically visable badge requirement also.  The older I get; the harder it is for me to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".  Maybe, white hats with a plastic badge...........

Lance Dixon wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

The problem is that some people think they CAN tell the good guys (white hats) from the bad guys (grey hoodies) just by looking at them. And those people who think they know a bad guy when he sees one would like to carry guns.

Thing is, if you are harrassed by a gun toting criminal (and how many people in central illinois actually have had a gun pointed at them PLLLEASE!), the best way to get shot is to pull out a gun yourself. Cops in Chicago can tell you this from experience. If you don't have a gun, you're safer (and I'm safer too).

And yes, I do come from a family of Chicago cops.

Joe American wrote on February 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Then I highly recommend that you are not one to obtain a c/c permit.

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

I think that you just made Lance Dixon's point.

Zim wrote on February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

So are these the same Chicago cops who can carry a gun off duty? Also if it is safer not to have a gun the police should disarm now! Crime has went down in states with the right to carry you can't say that about Chicago. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm

That's not really a fair or reasonable analysis. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapo...

Danvillain wrote on March 01, 2013 at 8:03 am

COOL!! Lets disarm the Chicago PD, on and off duty!! That's the logic I'm reading anyway!

foosball112 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 3:02 pm

I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment and also a supporter of concealed carry.  Instead of focusing on taking away the rights of people, I wish there could be an idiot clause included: 

"Don't pull out your weapon in front of your child's friends."

"Don't get drunk while carrying your weapon."

"It's not neat to let other people hold it."

"If you suffer from road rage, leave it unloaded while driving."

"Don't brag about how you're carrying a piece."

Etc., Etc., Etc.

But, I guess I wish there was an idiot clause for just about everything.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm

This is exactly why, though I am a hesitant supporter of 2nd amendment rights (I don't think it should be as broadly read as many do), I do not support concealed carry. People are idiots. I'm honestly more concerned by idiots carrying firearms than by criminals carrying firearms. I think that idiots carrying endangers me and everyone I love more than criminals do. Maybe I just am inherently distrustful of people, but everytime I read about someone shot while "cleaning their firearm," I cringe.

vcponsardin wrote on February 27, 2013 at 4:02 pm
Profile Picture

Precisely correct.  I'm much more concerned about the drunken "good guy" with a gun living next door than I am about gang bangers attacking me.  People, especially in this area (central Illinois) who feel the need to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves have a horribly inflated sense of danger, typically brought on by the inability to distinguish fact from fantasy as a result of watching and believing too many Hollywood movies.  The idiots with legal guns far out numbers the criminals and gang members.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 27, 2013 at 6:02 pm

It could be a substitute masculine inadequacy symbol also.  How many of the new conceal and carry crowd are going to "inadvertingly" expose their guns?  Not many are going to pack derringers.  The Glock .45 caliber will be seen as they open their jackets wide. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

Exactly I think I will be avoiding the movies for awhile

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 28, 2013 at 8:02 am

Concealed carrier "shocked" that he was arrested after "marking" suspect for cops by letting loose "at least" 5 rounds in a crowded parking lot and hitting several nearby parked cars:

A gun owner in Florida was arrested on Wednesday after he opened fire at a suspected Walmart shoplifter because he said he felt threatened and wanted to “mark” the man’s car for police.

As unarmed 42-year-old Eddie McKee allegedly ran from an Orange City Walmart with stolen merchandise, 35-year-old Jose Martinez pulled out his gun and fired at least five bullets, according to WKMG.

[snip]

Martinez told WKMG that he was shocked that police arrested him because he thought no one other than the shoplifter was in danger. He said he just wanted to mark the man’s car for police.

bluegrass wrote on February 27, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Some kind of moron, unresponsible, Taliban, Judge, Jury, Executioner, George Zimmerman, open a text book, drunken patriotism, rabid, use your brain, deranged, idiot, more rage, vigilantes, John Wayne wannabes, delusional, slain children, idiots carrying firearms, drunken good guy, horribly inflated sense of danger, inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, idiots with legal guns, masculine inadequacy.

 

Incredibly insightful and thoughtful comments and imagery on the matter of the day.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

I liked the use of "imagery" in your comment.  What's your opinion about "proximities" in the soon to be law? 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

That's a pretty good conjunction free summation. Thanks for bottling the essence.

bluegrass wrote on February 28, 2013 at 9:02 am

Oh, well, thanks!  Maybe there's a future for me in conjunction free essence bottling, if this whole anonymous posting thing doesn't work out.  

But really, it would be unfair of me to take credit for these turns of phrase.  I only stole them from all the completely rational and level headed comments on a bill that hasn't even passed yet.  But I'm glad you enjoyed your work.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 10:02 pm

Make no mistake, my label of 'idiots' applies to all of society, not just gun owners.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 01, 2013 at 7:03 am

You forgot loony toons paranoid macho macho napolean complex sooper dooper macho more manly than the other guys who don't feel the need to pack a metal piece in their waistband.

And weird. Don't forget weird...

Ya gotta include weird if you wanna be accurate.

virtualAnonymity wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 am

I think there is something sobering about society when folks will pay the state to prove they are responsible and in good standing in order to protect themselves and family. For something that is expressly stated is an uninfringable right. It's sobering as well to read that 'righteous' timid folks advocate any weak reason is good enough to justify bans on magazine size, cosmetic features and further inquisitions to one's sanity. It's further sobering that the population is voting with their pocketbooks in buying weapons and ammo in record numbers. Even as prices are rising to the demand. Continuing, the fed is overstocking on ammo and militarizing numerous depts. Inner cities are more frequently reporting mob violence. There seems to be a reckoning looming.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 28, 2013 at 8:02 am

Well Virtual, What's sobering is your Alex Jones like indifference by calling the reaction to the Newtown massacre as a "Weak Reason" for tighter gun regulation. So yes you are one of the people who had better be able to prove through the law to the rest of us that you are responsible and in good standing.

We infringe the second amendment all the time, no minors, no felons, no mentally deficient etc. Read the FOID application and the purchase forms. They are full of infringment. The majority of Americans have had it with the loopholes you people walk around through. We're closing them.

Yeah guns are flying off the shelves and so did twinkies when morons thought they could never get one again so you have no point.

bluegrass wrote on February 28, 2013 at 10:02 am

Well, in Virtual's defense, I don't think one can buy Twinkies anymore except on Ebay.   I'm not positive because I haven't ever actually purchased a Twinkie.  I'm a Zingers guy myself, but back to the point.  I guess if you think someone is a moron simply for buying a Twinkie, I understand.  But if you're calling them morons for buying Twinkies because they were going to be unavailable in the stores, technically that doesn't make them a moron.  Maybe they are just people.  People who like Twinkies.  I mean, I think we need to get to the root of your anger.  Just like I was there for Sid, I'm here for you too.  Let this anger out, Bulldomojo.  It's eating you up inside.

Oh, and I think this is worthwhile to share, because the FOID application is so ridiculously stupid, and many people likely have never filled one out.  There is no question that includes the term "mentally deficient" on the form that I could find.  However, one is required to answer TRUTHFULLY in a yes or no fashion to the following questions, just like that note you got in 4th grade that begged the question, "Do you like me?  Yes or No?  Pick One."

Are you addicted to narctotics?  Yes or No, Pick One.....

Have you ever been convicted of a felony?  (Don't forget, answer truthully now!)

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective?  (How is that for a technical term?  If someone recorded you calling a kid that in school, you'd be a bully and end up viral on You Tube, but apparently the State uses as a classification)

Are you an alien who is unlawfully in the United States?  (Come on!! I mean, if you're an E.T. alien, that's okay, but if you're a Mars Attack alien, that's a different story.  We need more wiggle room on that one.  Oh, you can't have a gun but step over to lane 2 for a driver's license and a Medicaid card)

And finally, my favorite:

Are you intellectually disabled?  This one is my favorite, because by the time you get to this question, you've already filled out your name, address, county, date of birth, and also already read and answered questions 1-4.  AND, if you are intellectually disabled, but you know if you check "yes" in the box you won't get the card so you check "no" instead, does that mean you are not intellectually disabled and therefore qualify for the card?

What's the point of all this?  It's a joke, that's the point.  You can put in all the rules you want to put in to make yourselves feel better.  You can call people morons, berate them, throw stones from your high horses, ask them if they are mentally defective or deficient, but that doesn't change the fact that allocating resources to regulating the citizen who plays by the rules will not cut down on gun violence in the same way it could, if it were used in other areas that I've mentioned before.  Recidivism programs, drug treatment programs, gang intervention, and charter school programs are all areas that can make real differences in the lives of people. 

Citizen1 wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

Let me see here.  Uncle Joe Biden thinks I should protect myself by loading up the double barrel.  If a gang attacks me, I'm dead.  So I need multiple guns.  To equal a 30 round clip, I need 15 guns.  If I'm reading this right, the State of Illinois will charge me $80 for each gun.  Gee, that is $1,200 just to protect myself.  Maybe all those flaming liberals, oops state employees would get behind concealed carry if they were told all the money would go to public pensions.  Someone, please tell me how to conceal carry a double barrel.  All I ever wanted to do is get the coyotes from my car on the way to work.  A double barrel is not exactly the right gun for the job.  There goes another $80.

We could do like Lisa Madigan's buddy says  -- ignore the courts, ignore the law because it doesn't apply to Illinois.

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

Citizen1;  In a previous comment on the topic of gun control; you said that you needed your gun to shoot a pesky coyote.  In a later comment, you mentioned that the coyote was now dead.  Really, when are you ever going to be attacked by a gang of 30 criminals?  How fast will these 30 criminals be that you cannot swap magazines.  Uhm...... you would have to swap two magazines of ten rounds each.  It really does not make a difference anyway with 30 criminals banzai rushing your house.  Your really reaching deep to find something to complain about.  What's next 40 rabid coyotes chewing up your doors to get in?

Citizen1 wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I had a pair of coyotes.  One is dead.  A pair is two.  Two take away one leaves one.  The real problem now is the beavers in the ditch.  All of this rain is going nowhere.  The more it rains the higher the beavers make their dam.

I not worried so much about 30 criminals surrounding my house as public employees trying to seize my farm so they get their pensions.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Yeah, sleep with one eye open.  The local chapter of AFSCME 31 Retirees may sneak up on you like a band of wild Apaches.

I don't have any advice on how to get your beaver out of a ditch.  Good luck on that.

Zim wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

The police do a background check when you apply for a FOID card. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

Once again you engage in pointless diatribe to cover up the absurdity of your irrational motivations to prepare for an apocalypse that will never come and arm yourselves to potentially become a one man apocalypse. You pay homage to those who would have you justify raining death upon children to protect a loosely written philosophical point created by the rich slave owning "founding fathers" to enable the poor to be sent to their deaths to protect the property of those very "founding fathers". You embrace the second amendment like a suicide pact and the fears you entertain over lost "rights" exist in the same part of your psyche as "invisible man in the sky will get you" and we better get the last sequined encrusted toilet plungers because it's a blue light special and we will never have this chance again and yes OMG you run out and get Twinkies because we will never have this chance again although you probably haven't eaten one in twenty years.

Why didn't all those AR-15 buyers get them before if they thought it was so important? Why didn't they already have one or two or six? Answer: Because they are gullible rubes who have bought the marketing put forth by the gun lobby. In high fashion irony, the uber gun rights people tout the gun company stock prices climbing as their sign from above that they are with the righteous set forth to protect the last of humanity from the great apocalypse when it is actually a barometer of just how gullible they really are.

As far as background checks go I'm sure when it is really implemented there will be many people who claim they are law abiding who will be found to have lied on those applications and will be revealed for the perjurers they really are. Meanwhile some victims will have to find out the hard way that they were people who shouldn't have weapons in the first place much less concealed carry. I suspect that is the real source of the panic over national background checks.

bluegrass wrote on February 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Once again you engage in pointless diatribe to cover up the absurdity of your irrational motivations to prepare for an apocalypse that will never come..

Said the man who just a few days ago posted that he wished prison guards had the right to  strike, would use it, and leave their posts.

 

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Yes as a challenge to the people who think state jobs can be done by anyone and who would certainly not be able to do the job. Have some context if you are going to quote me. I didn't say I would leave the prisons unguarded. How many times am I going to have to spoon feed you the meanings of my postings? Other people get them so they must be in the range of comprehensible.

If you can't make an actual counterpoint at least don't be boring.

bluegrass wrote on February 28, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Please don't feel you need to spoon feed to me the meanings of your postings.  I agree with you that your musings are well within the range of comprehensible.  So, congratulations on that, and thanks but I think I have it covered.  And, I truly am sorry you find my last post boring.  Although in my defense, most of it was just quoting you.  Maybe you would prefer that I called people names, instead?  That seems to be the way your group intends to win the argument anyway.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

bluegrass;  Yeah... your there for people.  

Your point about the recidivism programs, drug treatment programs, gang intervention, and charter school programs may work for those who have the potential to committ a violent act. So will reasonable gun regulations.  Your referring to the "application"; not a "comprehensive background check".  The question answers are checked through the background check.

"Citizens who play by the rules" is just another wording of the "good guys" versus "bad guys scenario.  You know the "criminals will always get guns" routine.  At least, your not falling back to the sacred Second Amendment excuse.

bluegrass wrote on February 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm

At least, your not falling back to the sacred Second Amendment excuse

Say this next part like a Valley Girl, it's much more fun.  

Totally.  Whenever someone brings up the 2nd Amendment I'm like, "Oh great, not that STUPID constitution argument, AGAIN."  PSHHH.  That's so last week, or like 1800's or something or just, like, whatever.  Kind of like when people always bring up that sacred IL consititution argument about pensions.  As if..

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 2:02 pm

It's your interpretation of the Second Amendment that bothers me.  Amendments are clarified over time based on the changes in society.  They are modified to meet contemporary social change.  You regard them like the Ten Commandments.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 9:03 am

Scalia himself sees it as a living constitution, despite any claims to the contrary. (P.S. Scalia is a hypocrite).

LocalTownie wrote on February 28, 2013 at 9:02 am

First of all, are criminals going to take this eight hour gun safety class or pay an $80 fee? Umm NO.


In my opinion the state is looking at this as an opportunity to shake more money out of our pockets, $80 is steep! Illinois is being forced to allow conceal carry so our corrupt politicians are trying to find a way to benefit from doing something they don't want to do. I don't like being told I have to pay for a right that the constitution gives me. America is no longer a free country.

Zim wrote on February 28, 2013 at 11:02 am

The same kind of fear mongering has happened in the other 49 states. Drunk rednecks shooting people, the wild west etc,etc, etc. But it just didn't happen. Those of you who don't want to carry a gun, don't. The law abiding citizens who do will have to pass a background check and get 8 hours of specialized training to carry. 

 

 

 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Zim;  I am opposed to conceal and carry.  However since it will be allowed; I agree with you based on the background check, and the 8 hours of specialized training to carry.  I will feel better when the background check is a part of a national background check.  I still have concerns about where a hidden gun can be packed.  As of this minute, the legislators are arguing over conceal and carry on public transportation.  If public transportation is defined as the MTD, I have no problem with it.  If public transportation is defined as a train, I do have a problem with it.  We can't always get what we want; but sometimes, we can get what we need.  It's compromise.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Who did murder those 699 people with guns in Texas in 2011 that concealed carry couldn't and didn't prevent? Was it the pot smoking librarians? They are a wicked lot.

virtualAnonymity wrote on February 28, 2013 at 12:02 pm

With the risk of becoming a constant and annoying contributor, those that seek to limit civil freedom on the notion of what bad may result, is beyond pessimism. Its just immature to think laws/words can stop all bad from occurring. Juxtaposing one's view of a fewer control laws with somehow condoning a child massacre is just a poor debating tactic. The two are not related. Its a poor attempt to shame them as guilty by association. Solving the problem of bad actors by punishing the good actors is letting the bad guys win. Same with securing anything. The one on defense pays the bill. Either in protection against the bad guy or in harm being imposed upon them by a bad guy. I imagine if I had to judge guilt for an otherwise lawful person disobeying a gun registration law, I would acquit. I further imagine that most prosecutors would not even try the case. Further any person compelled to defend themselves or family, I would grant quite a lot of latitude in the act. Regardless of that persons prior history. Mob violence is escalating with ethnic vs ethnic assualts being more widely reported. This isn't an apopalytic event, it happens even in C/U with the polar bear hunting in one of parks. Milwaukee, beaches of Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, St Louis. You can blindly assume you are immune to such activity by relying on the statistics that its rare. But some folks are not so niave to the world. This state is the last in giving you any respect that you can be responsible in protecting yourself. That seems to be ending soon as Springfield is determing your new privileges. But now instead of giving you full respect, they are just retreating to typical worn out assumptions in order to justify their political worth. This is just my opinion. You may share some or object to them. Thanks for theforum and contributing view points.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Thank you for finally bringing out the Future Race War conspiracy theory.  You talk about "naive" people?  Yet, you buy your guns, and stock up your ammo for a coming race war.  So what are you going to do?  Are you going to patrol Green Street waiting for a "polar bear hunting" mob to jump you?  At least, you were honest in bringing out the Race subject regarding gun regulation.  Your White fear was noted. 

virtualAnonymity wrote on February 28, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Are only white people buying guns and ammo? Is there an exclusion in the law that says only whites can be armed. Two very prominent court cases for removing guns bans were non white plaintiffs. Heller & the guy from C/U. I only spoke of the mob violence as an example of what can go bad in today's world. You are projecting too much into my replies. Perhaps you wish to box in any counter argument as a racist tinged diatribe and thusly dismissed. The good officers of C/U can patrol the streets. I don't visit the parks. I do wish to inform anyone I can that the media in liberal cities is not reporting violence accurately-I am guilty of that. Chicago seems a prime example of under reporting in order to keep the tourists coming. Our fine little town is growing up and it isn't Mayberry.

I fear I post too much.  See you next month.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Your the guy fear mongering about "polar bear hunting" in one of the local parks.  The "mob violence" stuff, and "liberal cities" seem to show your hand, and mindset also.  Every time I see a story on gun sales; there are white guys buying, or commenting.  I don't see minorities buying up the stock in the stores.  I don't believe that I am "projecting" toward your words.

Don't "fear" posting too much.  At least, your bringing it out into the open.  What you are expressing especially in your previous comment is what is being said in the non-public conversations.  When I bought my last vehicle, the finance guy at the dealership showed me his stacks of ammo boxes.  All 9 mm., and .223 cal. because according to him it would be the most compatible with existing guns when the hordes came out of the metropolitan areas to rampage for food, guns, money, and women.  He said that he had so much ammo that he had to keep it at work because his house was already full of it.  The guy was obviously looney tunes; but he wore a tie, and had a good job.  No, please keep commenting. This thing needs to be addressed.

serf wrote on February 28, 2013 at 9:02 pm

Right on, Sid.  

 

I see these people too.  

Donwayne wrote on February 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Conceal carry... About time, and for you sick pacifast post a sign showing you to be a gun free zone in your front yard or are you just going to complain and make it hard for what could be your hero, to come save you. The police are way undermanned, and overworked. They cant be everywhere so gun up or shut up and take your beat down from the bad guys. You want to put some effort into something why not help the kids that are being hurt in this area by sick pieces of slime, then put back on the streets.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Duwanye;  Did you make that up as a joke?  Please tell me that you were attempting humor.

Donwayne wrote on March 01, 2013 at 1:03 pm

No joke just bitter about the whole thing, guess loosing a step daughter to a low life worm who stabbed and raiped her to death and taking her from us has made me that way. Wish somebody with a gun would have been there for her but to many laws against law abiding citizens so as usual nobody wants to get involved. Belive me law or no law I will cause grave harm on anyone I see hurting a child or woman.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Sorry if you lost a family member to violence. If you are that emotionally overwrought maybe its best if you leave the crime fighting to the professionals instead of arming yourself with a gun and a revenge motive. Get some counseling instead of letting rage run your decision making potentially putting innocent people at risk yourself.

Donwayne wrote on March 01, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Been armed since i was old enough to hunt, revenge?? if that were the case allready been making a scene but I am not that stupid, and going on four years guess been leaving it to the professionals, as far as counseling no thanks leave pot smoking to you guys. I am armed have no reason to just go shoot people and have tons of shooting time, some with family who were police officers, and yes I am a very good shot so no need to worry I hit what I aim at.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 01, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Yeah. You sound stable alright.

highspeed wrote on March 01, 2013 at 8:03 am

All i know is i had an encounter with someone at our local carwash. I was vacuumming and minding my own business and i saw this guy walking towards me. As i saw him i walked to the passenger side of my van and got my pistol out of the storage compartment under the seat. I laid the pistol on the seat, and when the guy walked up to the drivers side i pointed to the seat. He saw the pistol and turned and walked away. There were no words spoken, or contact. Now was he there for a handout or to rob me i dont know!!! i do know by having my pistol i avoide a confrontation altogether. Now do any of you who don`t belive in conceal carry offer a better way for me to handle it??? And don`t say i should have just got in my van and left because i had every right to be there.

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 9:03 am

Your response to a random person walking in your direction is to brandish a firearm??? You really shouldn't be allowed to have firearm.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on March 01, 2013 at 9:03 am

I truly believe you when you say that is about the sum of "all [you] know."

But you saved the day. You're a DING DANG AMERICAN HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But why did you wimp out and not shoot him full of holes?

HOW DARE HE WALK NEAR YOU IN A PUBLIC SPACE AND LOOK IN YOUR DIRECTION??????222?????/

You would have been perfectly justified in KILLING HIM RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT. He was obviously PROVOKING YOU!!!!!!!

Yep. You concealed carriers are TOTALLY TOTALLY normal people who are not afraid of mouse flatulence and baby burps. Completely normal. Not loony toons paranoid raging sociopaths who brandish their guns at random strangers because they felt threatened by people walking in a public place.

Yep. Concealed carry will make EVERYTHING BETTER. The next time some thug like the guy you should have killed cuts me off in traffic I'm gonna MAKE HIM REGRET IT!!!!!!!!!!

Please, tell us more stories about how your metal manhood substitute saved the day again and again...

Sid Saltfork wrote on March 01, 2013 at 9:03 am

Forget about Midwest hospitality.  Now, it is dangerous to talk to strangers.  Maybe, it is time to start marketing "Good Guy" white T-shirts.  Make sure you raise BOTH hands before you ask a question of a stranger. 

SaintClarence27 wrote on March 01, 2013 at 10:03 am

I like how he thinks posting a story displaying his paranoia and dangerous lunacy is evidence that concealed carry SHOULD be allowed. Maybe it should, but only to protect people from people like this loon.

Zim wrote on March 01, 2013 at 10:03 am

People who choose not to carry a gun should wear a shirt/ a button or something saying like, "NOT ARMED. ROB OR RAPE ME". Also put a sign in front of your house. GUN FREE ZONE

You want to make it safe for the criminal.