Jakobsson provisions would allow colleges, hospitals to regulate firearms

Jakobsson provisions would allow colleges, hospitals to regulate firearms

SPRINGFIELD — Two of the 27 amendments to a statewide concealed carry bill (HB 1155) that will be considered in the Illinois House this week are sponsored by state Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana.

One allows public and private colleges and universities and community colleges to prohibit, restrict and regulate firearms "on or in close proximity to their campuses, grounds and other property, including but not limited to sidewalks, commons and highways."

The other amendment bans carrying a firearm "into an hospital or mental health facility, or onto any adjacent property or parking lot area under the control of or owned by a hospital or mental health facility."

Jakobsson said Monday that she doesn't know if her amendments will prove contentious among legislators who are promoting concealed carry in Illinois.

"I really can't see why universities and colleges wouldn't be able to set their own rules, and that's what this allows them to do," said Jakobsson, a longtime gun control advocate. "And each university and college, they wouldn't have to match the rules of other colleges and universities. They have the ability to create what works for their campuses."

She said she had talked to Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, the chief proponent of concealed carry in the state.

"I know that his legislation did not include the close proximity to campuses, grounds and other property language that is in the amendment that I have," she said.

Asked what might be included in her "close proximity to campus" amendment, Jakobsson was uncertain.

"I think we're going to have to wait and see what kind of rules they write," she said, referring to the Legislature's Joint Commission on Administrative Rules.

Her second amendment should be noncontroversial, Jakobsson asserted.

"I've always said that if I could write my own bill, this is one I said, that hospitals and mental health facilities should be included in places where firearms would be prohibited," she said.

Phelps' own concealed carry bill (HB 997) 12) barred carrying a concealed firearm at a "residential mental health facility" but did not mention hospitals.


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

jdmac44 wrote on February 26, 2013 at 8:02 am

She believes that they should be banned everywhere, so why argue with her?

Rock586 wrote on February 26, 2013 at 8:02 am

I agree she wants firearms banned everywhere.  The term close proximity is to broad of a term.  Imagine driving through the campus area on your way somewhere else.  Naomi how about getting criminals off the streets?  Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes with a weapon.

cmstites wrote on February 26, 2013 at 10:02 am

More of Jakobsson trying to take away the second amendment rights of the people in the state of illinois.She even lacks the tenacity to reply back to emails and calls sent to her office by anyone that supports the second amendment.She has her own personal agenda she wants to get through no matter if thats what the people she represents want or not!!!

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

Based on the three previous comments; I see the need to require full background checks including mental health background checks.

You guys are for allowing conceal and carry for visitors at a mental health facility?  Why not complain about not allowing conceal and carry for prison visitors?  According to the logic expressed; citizens should be able to carry a hidden gun until they harm someone with it.

cmstites wrote on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 am

The area around the "proximity"  is the issue not the mental health facility. if you go look at hb997  which is supported by many many different groups of illinois citizens you will see that mental hospitals are taken care of as a place where carry is not allowed. the wording naomi uses in her  amendment is where the issue lies. and as far as mental health checks i had plenty of them in the military have you?


Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I only had an intelligence test.  You win with "plenty of them" mental health checks.

Please list the facilities where conceal and carry is banned.  Can you carry a hidden gun into a school, church, shopping mall, or government offices?

Gun rights as defined by many toters calls for the elimination of FOID cards, the right to pack a hidden gun anywhere, and no tracking of guns by owners selling privately.  Where is the compromise on the issue?

cmstites wrote on February 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm

schools,mental health facilities,state agencies, courthouses, casinos, sporting events,amusement parks are all on the list of places concealed carry will not be allowed.


Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm

or their "proximatey" like parking lots adjacent to the facilities; right? 

Thank you for listing the banned areas.  I assume a business owner would have the right to ban guns in their establishment also.  I can see grocery stores, shopping malls, and restaurants doing that.  Maybe; signs in the windows like "guns banned", or "gun friendly".  The consumer would have the choice to either enter, or go elsewhere.

GeneralLeePeeved wrote on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm

"Proximity" does become somewhat problematic.  If, for example, you have a permit and are out running errands one day and decide to go visit a sick friend in the hospital.......and the amendment prohibits having your gun in parking lot of the hospital, you would either have to go home first and drop off your weapon, find a parking place on the street near the hospital (if that existed) or violate the law by pulling into the parking lot.   I think this could create a lot of inadvertent law breakers.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 1:02 pm

You either find a parking place on the street, or go home.  Visiting a sick friend with your gun parked outside of the front door does not cut it.  Your looking for convience rather than the safety of others.  Oh.. I know you would never committ a crime.  Only the criminals do that.

shurstrike wrote on February 26, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Sid, I don't always agree with your posts, but I can tell you usally think your answers through.  Unfortunately, you're way off on that one.  

They're right, "close proximity" is intentionally vague so that she can ram through her personal agenda.  Is campus town in "close proximity" to campus?  1st & Green?  Champaign Public Library?  Rantoul?

Besides, who's going to know if someone's carrying on the quad anyway?  Hence the term "concealed".

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 5:02 pm

How about "property"?  If the parking lot is owned by, or a part of the facility, guns would be banned.  A hospital parking lot.  A university parking lot.  A store parking lot.  Would that make it clearer? 

Yes, carrying a hidden gun on the quad would be a crime.  It would be university property.  Goodness..... the Unofficial would really be something with hidden guns in the crowd.  The point is that someone cannot simply carry a hidden gun anywhere they please contrary to the concerns, and safety of others.  The "good citizen versus the criminals" logic is baloney.  I don't know that many "good citizens" that I want packing a hidden gun in my grandkids school.

asparagus wrote on February 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm


illinidaffodil wrote on February 26, 2013 at 11:02 am

I'm with you, Sid

sweet caroline wrote on February 26, 2013 at 12:02 pm

What a scary photo of her on the front page of the online version! 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Makes you wonder why Lincoln had his picture taken so often.  All politicians should be required to be attractive.  Why did Paul Ryan have those pictures taken of him pumping iron?

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

Could be a character on "How The Grinch Stole Christmas."

teresai wrote on February 26, 2013 at 2:02 pm

could someone please direct this woman to the nearest salon for a much needed makeover!

K.D. wrote on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 pm

"I've always said that if I could write my own bill, this is one I said, that hospitals and mental health facilities should be included in places where firearms would be prohibited."   Ummmm, ok.......write your own bill. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 26, 2013 at 3:02 pm

Yeah; is it ability, or reluctance that is preventing her from writing her own bill.  Maybe, it's Madigan's permission?

Do we really need to argue about conceal and carry in hospitals, and mental health facilities? Isn't that a no-brainer?  The same applies to their adjacent parking lots.  Have we arrived at a place where common sense, and compromise are disregarded?

K.D. wrote on February 26, 2013 at 6:02 pm

The Colleges/Universities amendment failed.   She's so inept she couldn't draft an amendment that allowed a college to promulgate rules.  I now know why she doesn't write her own bill. 

dane wrote on February 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/new_nypd_tactics_slash_murder_rate_IL640p1mv8gCwgRry71HSKNew York City is attcking the criminals, reducing gun deaths. illinois (small i intended...) wants to attack everyone but the criminals. All kinds of laws to control legal gun owners, nothing about the criminals. Hey judges and prosecutors, charge and incarcerate people for gun crimes. They are the ones we need to worry about; when they are off of the streets they aren't a threat, and gun crimes will go down. The people they are trying to control with these laws are not the ones committing the crimes.

lcoil79 wrote on February 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Someone at the News-Gazette needs to re-read their headline here.  While yes she is looking to allow colleges the ability to decide for themselves, she is looking to outright ban them at hospitals, not give them a choice. 

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

Do you really want people packing hidden guns into a hospital?  What hospital wants vistors with hidden guns coming in?  Now, asparagus doesn't have an opinion.  He just laughs out loud.  Face it, you guys want to be able to carry your hidden gun anywhere you please,  A killer doesn't have to be a criminal before he becomes one.  None of the good guys ever became a criminal? 

Now is where you tell me that more people are killed by automobiles, baseball bats, and falling objects than guns.  Oh, don't forget the rants about militias, and the Second Amendment being sacred.

lcoil79 wrote on February 27, 2013 at 5:02 am

Actually, I'm just pointing out an incongruity between the story and the headline.  Headline says hospitals will have a choice, story says they'll be outright banned.

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

My apology to you for missing the drift of your comment.

Bulldogmojo wrote on March 04, 2013 at 12:03 pm

Scalia; http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/07-290/

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

Sounds like infringment. Rightfully so.