Area lawmakers propose concealed carry legislation
CLINTON — Illinois counties would be allowed to issue concealed carry permits to qualified individuals under a bill sponsored by three area state representatives.
"We're the last state in the country that doesn't have some form of concealed carry," said state Rep. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet. "I can't walk into a coffee shop in the area I represent without somebody, in the first one or two questions, asking when we're going to have concealed carry."
Earlier this week, lawmakers in Wisconsin moved to make it the 49th state to allow qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. Gov. Scott Walker has indicated he will sign the bill.
But Illinois remains a holdout, and Gov. Pat Quinn said Thursday he hopes the state continues to do so.
"Unfortunately, in too many places in Illinois, there's a violence epidemic and I believe that we need to address that," Quinn told reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe that a law that would allow private individuals to carry loaded concealed weapons on their person in public places is the best way to deal with it."
Rose condemned Quinn for his stance.
"The governor says he's going to veto it. That's easy for him to say. He's got a state taxpayer-funded bodyguard," Rose said. "There are certain counties in my district where on a Saturday night there is only one deputy sheriff for the whole county. This is about a fundamental right to protect yourself and protect your family from an attacker, an assailant."
Last month, the Illinois House fell six votes short of passing a bill (HB 148) that would have allowed county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits.
New legislation (HB 3794) introduced by Reps. Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth; Adam Brown, R-Decatur; and Rose would allow sheriffs to issue the permits once an individual county board authorizes it.
"Our preference is that we get concealed carry throughout the state of Illinois, no ifs, ands or buts," Mitchell said. "House Bill 148 or a version thereof is the ultimate goal."
But, added Rose, "we need to do something that takes care of the folks downstate."
In last month's vote, most downstate lawmakers voted for concealed carry. State Rep. Naomi Jakobsson, D-Urbana, did not, however.
And she said Thursday she would not vote for the newer bill.
"If you look at my record, you probably know the answer to that," she said. "But because I try to represent my constituents, I had a poll done and about 66 percent disagreed with Illinois citizens being allowed to carry."
The poll was done in May, she said.
"I was already telling people that I'd vote no," she said, "and then I thought I'd better make sure I know what people are thinking."
Curt Wooters, a former police chief in Findlay, appeared with the three Republican lawmakers at a press conference at the DeWitt County Courthouse. He said law-abiding citizens need to be able to protect themselves from people who don't follow the law, especially when police in rural areas are too far away.
"If someone is committing a crime on (Lake Shelbyville), it could take 15 minutes for me to get there," he said. "By that time bad things can happen."
Champaign County Sheriff Dan Walsh said he believes "citizens should have that concealed carry right. I've said that for years."
But he'd prefer the law be statewide, instead of left to short-staffed sheriff's departments.
"My concern is actually two things," Walsh said. "One is simply the workload. We have to register sex offenders, and all sorts of other burdens are put on police agencies, especially sheriff's offices. It just takes staff time to do more and more, and there's no extra staff.
"Beyond the workload, the other issue that jumps to my mind — and this is the old lawyer in me — is liability. If it falls on the sheriff to issue, sooner or later something's going to go wrong because it always does. And the sheriffs will be getting sued for not issuing the permit when somebody thinks it should be or when somebody does something wrong."
Rose said the legislation could be revised to take care of the concerns of sheriffs.
The bill likely will not be considered until next spring's legislative session, Mitchell said.
As written, the bill would authorize sheriffs to issue concealed carry licenses — once the county board OKs it — to citizens who meet age requirements, complete training courses and pass criminal background tests. Once licensed, a person could carry a concealed handgun in any county that adopts the local option.
Concealed guns could not be carried in schools, courthouses, government buildings, churches, libraries, bars, stadiums and in gambling venues. Business owners would be able to prohibit concealed carry on their property as well.
MoreLet's watch and see what these hypocrites pass. I have yet to see a legislator support true concealed carry. They always prohibit me from carrying guns into the capitol or to one of their appearances. They are feigning interest for popularity. They don't really want anyone carrying arms or they would allow us to bring them into state offices, into their town hall meetings. The only exceptions should be children, persons while on probation after serving time for violent felonies, illegal aliens, and persons declared legally insane. As a teacher I would feel a lot safer if I could carry a gun to class. Of course giving guns to twelve year olds is something only wingnuts might support, but sane adults should be allowed, and they should be able to take them anywhere. Legislators seem to want to create a zone of safety around themselves, making us pass thru metal detectors to go talk to them. What hypocrites. What's good for us is good for them. They also shouldn't be getting raises when nobody else does, or making those incredible salaries for jobs that are "part time," etc.
I actually think that these exemptions to concealed carry (schools, churches, gambling casinos, government buildings, bars, businesses that don't allow it, etc) make a lot of sense, and actually make the law more palatable to the average citizen. No, I'm not saying that exemptions in the law are going to stop mass shooters and anyone else who intends to do harm. But it is going to prevent a lot of spur-of-the-moment shootings that would happen if everyone who gets shoved in a bar or loses money in the casino is within arm's reach of a handgun.
Deb; While I feel your frustration I would grant our elected some leeway in the privacy and security. They have a difficult job in that they cannot please everyone. While they might represent an please the majority of their constituents there will always remain those you will not satisfy. Some may wish harm, though I've not seen a great many examples of this. Criminals seek the easy targets. That's us unfortunately.
"The only exceptions should be children, persons while on probation after serving time for violent felonies, illegal aliens and persons declared legally insane"??? What about wife beaters? Bar brawlers? Neighbors that get mad over every little thing? should I go on?
Oh for godsakes, every other industrialized nation is going exactly the other way -- taking the guns away -- and all it does is reduce crime and death rates. But the US can't seem to take the hint.
Like anyone wants to break into your house and steal your tupperware and chard.
Wingnuts come in all shapes and sizes -- and political persuasions.
Yes. Public shoot outs. That will make everyone safer. Better make sure that guy with the gun is the bad guy, not another guy like you who is aiming at the real bad guy around the corner.
What about a business owner's rights? Shouldn't, say, the owner of a bank or a jewelry store be able to say "No guns in my establishment"? Will they now need metal detectors?
Or maybe we will go back to the old west, where you hand your six gun over to the bartender when you walk in the saloon. Or the town sheriff has to stand at the city limits with a posse to take the guns from troublesome out of towners.
The way people talk about this issue, it seems to me that's what they really want. To play cowboy. I'm sure you are all such fantastic shots that you'll never, ever miss, or shoot through someone, or through a wall -- and hit someone I care about who is a -- what do they call them -- oh, yeah "innocent bystander".
Or one could rephrase your question: Why hasn't Illinois become a bastion of transcendental peace by only allowing murderers, robbers, and criminals to be able to have concealed carry? One would think the other 49 states would be about empty by now as the masses fled the wild west. Oh, wait.
So every business owner is going to have to have metal detectors or frisk their customers, then, eh? And I would also ask where the perpetual peace of mutual armament exists in these states as well. The crime rates in many of these states are higher than that in Illinois.
Do business owners all have metal detectors now? No, now that I remember, there were just two armed robberies of a men walking down the street. Right now criminals carry guns and don't have metal detectors. Why would they need to start when law-abiding citizens can carry guns? They could start now but don't, but you think they all would when it is legal but not when it is illegal. I see.
The entire nation is at risk. The bodies are piling up on our state borders and refugees are attempting to cross into Illannoy where it is safe. Note the Arab spring and those nations that are unarmed, Syria, Yemen, comes to mind. Firearms are outlawed in Mexico as well.
Residents of Illinois are required to be cleared by the State Police prior to obtaining an FOID,
or Firearms Owners Identification Card. Without that card you cannot legally own a firearm or ammunition in this state. Despite this requirement the un-lawful remain in possession of firearms. The un-lawful continue to operate within the state, and the nation. A concealed carry law comes with requirements and restrictions. Not every person in the state would be eligible, only those who present some form of responsibility.
Please look up what happened when Britain and Australia, our two best comparisons (sorry, but comparing the US to theocracies and dictatorships with no effective legal system is a straw man) ditched their guns. Both nations saw both the number of murders AND the crime rates drop. The notion that "everyone is packing" somehow makes us safer is completely and statistically unfounded.
Britain and Australia are reasons why we need concealed carry. The notion that only criminals packing makes law-abiding citizens safer is completely and statistically unfounded. For example, Britain's rate of home invasions has skyrocketed. The murder and crime rate has not dropped. The latest statistics out of Britain are scary!
"Keep trying." Why don't you move to Great Britain if it is so much safer? Heck, you suggested this to someone else instead of looking at one other thing he stated. Or better yet, those that don't want to protect themselves don't have to but those that do want to protect themselves can. That would be fair! The keep trying argument comes about when one is devoid of reason, thought, or fact. For example, and this is just one critique of the BCS (which you've undoubtedly did not read or even understand when spouting the out and out lie that crime is falling in Britain): "but “stranger” violence and muggings—the kind of violent crime that really terrifies people—remain at their extraordinarily high mid-nineties levels." Other crimes are also extraordinarily high in Great Britain. Source: Claire Berlinski article. Is this definitive? Hardly, but it is a much better start than keep trying.
The argument that we will be the wild west or have shootings by good Samaritans is much less plausible than reports like the other day of the armed robberies in Champaign. Right now, only police and criminals carry guns. All the other states have not fallen into lawlessness. Those that keep making this argument (or the ridiculous notion that Britain has become a bastion of orderliness) keep trying without facts from the past thirty years. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan stated: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." But hey, keep trying.
How many names you going to post under, Mendys?
Sorry, but I'm not falling for "data" from a rightwing gun-nut like Claire Berlinski.
Now, if we look at homicide rates by region, the areas where folks are legally packing are the highest by far, and those where guns are illegal are the lowest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
The UK's crime rate has fallen every year since it banned guns. And there are plenty of places you can find a side by side comparison of violent crimes by nation. Armed countries = more violence.
Sorry Mendys.
First. I'm not Mendys. My name is Kyle.
Second, your using Wikipedia as a solid source of information? You do realize that ANYONE can edit and change the facts on those pages without them being verified?
Here is a document direct from the House of Commons showing a rise in homicide rates for Britain.
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-056.pdf
Now I'm not advocating that everyone should be granted the right to carry a concealed weapon. I do, however, think that most who complete a course in proper safety and handling of a fire arm as well as some type of mental evaluation should be given the choice to carry. There are parts of Illinois that are down right scary to walk through (many of them in downtown Chicago).
I implore you to do more research on your own. You may be surprised by the results.
Do people really live in fear enough to need a gun by their side at any time? I think people seriously need to spend their time helping to build our community instead of worrying about how they are going to defend themselves from it.
I suggest reading the following web site if you really think having more guns in Illinois would reduce gun injury and death: Gun Safety for Kids and Youth, University of Michigan.
I live in Florida and have concealed carry. I also work in security and carry a weapon during my working hours. We see people being killed in drive by shootings, holdups, and gang related activities on a daily basis. However, I have only seen 1 or 2 cases where a person was even shot by a properly licensed person. Not once a shooting where the shooter was procecuted. Again, everyday numerous individuals get strong-armed because they are defenseless. You do not have to live in a “bad area” to be at risk. Some of the worst offenses happen in the best parts of your community. You can be well assured that 99% of the thugs creating these incidents do not have a permit to carry a weapon. It is my right as well as your right to defend ourselves. The old saying goes " Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." Amen brother! Do you think someone who knows I have or may a weapon would rather confront me or someone they know does not have one. Also, many think that a concealed weapon has to be a gun. Incorrect Bucko, it includes mace, a baton, knife as well a other defensive items. If you are afraid to carry a gun, carry something else, but carry something to defend yourself.
I would rather see the bill requiring the gun to be displayed in public rather than concealed. Yeah, you would get some fools wanting to carry a .45 in a shoulder holster; but it would be visible. I can decide for myself whether to exit an establishment, or stay. The last thing I want is a bunch of want-to-be Rambos walking around with concealed weapons. If you carry a gun, let the world see it. It might lessen crime. It would, also, allow people to know who they are associating with.
Putting more guns and itchy trigger fingers in the street is not going to help things. How would we be safer with armed yahoos with hero complexes out in public looking for opportunities to draw down on someone they think is a criminal? I've met cops I don't think should be armed, let alone wingers with fear issues who have to compensate by packing heat.
Some people who advocate taking up the mythology of the wild west like to repeat the phrase 'an armed society is a polite society.' What they're saying is that if you do anything to anger them, they just might shoot you. And even if they stumble upon an armed robbery, how is turning the robbery into a multiple shooter public gun fight going to help anyone?
If this law is passed, it's inevitable that some yahoo will pull out a piece and kill an innocent bystander. What will happen then? Murder 1 charges against the shooter? Reckless homicide? Or is that just the price we're willing to pay for living in a 'polite' society?
Please show me where this lawlessness is in the other 48 states that do have conceal carry. Please explain why, if Chicago banned all guns, the crime and murder rate is almost top of the nation.
I never see these random shootouts and itchy trigger finger wacko's on the news. I've not read about any type of mass gun play that the libs are so fond of saying will happen if conceal carry is passed.
Please. Examples. News stories.
How about Everyone Is Required to carry a weapon in public view? I don't want the bad guys carrying concealed weapons; and I do not want the good guys carrying concealed weapons. I do not know the difference between the good guys, and the bad guys anymore. I just want to go somewhere else when anyone that I do not know is carrying a weapon. If you are afraid, get a gun; but wear it in public. Don't be offended if your the only one at some functions. People have the right to choose whether to be around weapons, or not.
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.