I'm a bit fearful of that also. But, I've read in several places (forums and a couple articles, so take it for what it's worth) that Illinois legislators as a whole are more gun-friendly than you'd think, so I'm holding on to hope that this is pretty close to the final draft. I'm disappointed with the list of "gun-free" zones, but I haven't read through the bill thoroughly yet. I'm hoping, like in other states, that a business designated as "gun-free" has to actually post a sign stating they are.
This is definitely a step in the right direction for Illinois. I'm afraid you will see some tight restrictions but atleast you will have an option to protect yourselves in places you can legally carry. I hope it passes.
Anti-gun legislators seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, though. If a bill isn't passed by the 6 month deadline, isn't "Constitutional carry" instated? If so, seems like liberals will have to concede to just about whatever is put in front of them unless they are willing to deal with any joe schmo with a gun walking around armed. I'm not a politician or lawyer, however, so I may be way off base.
Living in Wisconsin it's hard to go anyplace East or South East without passing thru Illinois. Great news and I first wonder how they will explain their pending reduction in the murder rate after this bill becomes law. Probably by crediting better law enforcement efforts (me thinks)
At a glance, that looks substantially the same as the bill entered last session, which was a good bill.
Hopefully it will make it into law without major watering down by the antis. Given the court ruling, the governor won't really have much choice in signing or not, unless he wants to spend more of the peoples' money on court costs.
As much as I want to believe, I have been around this State too long to think Chicago is going to allow this to happen. The rest of the State really doesn't have any say in the matter. I see a may issue New Jersey/New York/California type bill coming out of the legislature. Hope I am wrong.
It is going to be hard to keep Chicago from carving anything out of the bill with the way preemption laws are in that state. They need to get rid of that but the only way that happens is to have all antis in Chicago onboard and hard to see that happening.
I finally got around to reading the bill all the way through and came across the below portion:
"(i) Persons with the following training or certifications
are exempt from the requirements of subsection (a) of this
Section:
(1) An NRA certified instructor.
(2) An individual who has qualified to carry a firearm
as a retired law enforcement officer.
(3) Any active, retired, or honorably discharged member of the armed forces who held a combat
related military occupation specialty (MOS)."
(Subsection (a) refers to the training requirements.)
I was honorably discharged from the Air Force where I served in the Security Forces (Military Police), but did not spend any time in an actual combat zone. Anyone know if SF would qualify as a combat related MOS or would I have needed to actually serve in a combat environment? Any SF folks in other states get out of the training requirement due to their service? In all likelihood I would still do the training because it's been a few years since I discharged and could use the refresher. But, was curious.
The bill says that Illinois would recognize the license of any State that recognizes its license. So, assuming this bill passes and Missouri accepts Illinois' CCW then you'll be golden! (I know, some big "ifs"!)
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!