CCW in Illinois, 2013.

[FaceThePain]

Rejoice fellow Illinois residents, we will now have CCW in IL!!!!!

[bodybybalco86]

Rejoice fellow Illinois residents, we will now have CCW in IL!!!!!

Probably not. It's going to be a state like Cali or NY which is may issue.

[LAWLER89]

Enjoy being denied. It'll be on par with NJ, NY, CA, and HI "may-issue" states.

[Farley1324]

Probably not. It's going to be a state like Cali or NY which is may issue.

Enjoy being denied. It'll be on par with NJ, NY, CA, and HI "may-issue" states.

That's my guess

[Magnumtripod]

source? I want CCW

[Farley1324]

source? I want CCW

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story

[Magnumtripod]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7034171.story

thank bro!

[kass617]

Highly unlikely unless you're a "someone"...like in NY.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

Probably not. It's going to be a state like Cali or NY which is may issue.

Enjoy being denied. It'll be on par with NJ, NY, CA, and HI "may-issue" states.

That's my guess

Highly unlikely unless you're a "someone"...like in NY.

I predict you will all be found wrong. The ruling today gave the legislature 6 months to pass a reasonable ccw law. The nuances in today's ruling also highly suggest that may issue is not reasonable. Yes there could be an appeal to SCOTUS but that's a huge risk because if it were struck down to the dumpster it would destroy the may issue in the other commie states that currently have it. Which of course would be great for them and actually quite entertaining to watch! If nothing is done we will simply have anyone who wants to with a FOID exercising constitutional carry by next June!

[Farley1324]

I predict you will all be found wrong. The ruling today gave the legislature 6 months to pass a reasonable ccw law. The nuances in today's ruling also highly suggest that may issue is not reasonable. Yes there could be an appeal to SCOTUS but that's a huge risk because if it were struck down to the dumpster it would destroy the may issue in the other commie states that currently have it. Which of course would be great for them and actually quite entertaining to watch! If nothing is done we will simply have anyone who wants to with a FOID exercising constitutional carry by next June!

How do you figure? I see the opposite:


"Recently the Second Circuit upheld a New York state
law that requires an applicant for a permit to carry
a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate
"proper cause" to obtain a license. Kachalsky v. County
of Westchester, supra. This is the inverse of laws
that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns;
New York places the burden on the applicant to show
that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons.
As the court explained, 2012 WL 5907502, at *13, New
York "decided not to ban handgun possession, but to
limit it to those individuals who have an actual
reason ('proper cause') to carry the weapon. In this
vein, licensing is oriented to the Second
Amendment's protections... . [I]nstead of
forbidding anyone from carrying a handgun in
public, New York took a more moderate approach
to fulfilling its important objective and reasonably concluded that only individuals having a bona fide reason to possess handguns should be allowed to introduce
them into the public sphere."

[Magnumtripod]

How do you figure? I see the opposite:


"Recently the Second Circuit upheld a New York state
law that requires an applicant for a permit to carry
a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate
"proper cause" to obtain a license. Kachalsky v. County
of Westchester, supra. This is the inverse of laws
that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns;
New York places the burden on the applicant to show
that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons.
As the court explained, 2012 WL 5907502, at *13, New
York "decided not to ban handgun possession, but to
limit it to those individuals who have an actual
reason ('proper cause') to carry the weapon. In this
vein, licensing is oriented to the Second
Amendment's protections... . [I]nstead of
forbidding anyone from carrying a handgun in
public, New York took a more moderate approach
to fulfilling its important objective and reasonably concluded that only individuals having a bona fide reason to possess handguns should be allowed to introduce
them into the public sphere."

but they say in most cases "self defense" is not a bona fide reason to be granted a ccw permit, when of course it's THE reason why anyone would want one in the first place. Are they looking for applicants to elaborate on their definition of self defense, or do they have to whip up some kind of cockamamie story as to why they would want one?

If I told them I work in certain questionable neighborhoods from time to time and would to carry, is that a good enough reason to be issued a permit?

[An Inconvenient Bro]

nothing in the wording I have read from the ruling suggested anything less than all law abiding citizens. The 6 month period is a must for them to pass the law, it's a must that it must be consistent with today's ruling and it's also a must that it be with the support of the representatives. Those same representatives that were all set to easily pass H148 before and Madigan knew it was inevitable so he didn't call the bill up for a vote and thought that would kill the issue. Again they could appeal but I think it would backfire (much like not voting it in before because the new law will very likely be much less restrictive - the irony of this is absolutely amazing) and end the shall issue nonsense nationwide if that happens

[Farley1324]

nothing in the wording I have read from the ruling suggested anything less than all law abiding citizens.

Did you read what I posted?

New York is may issue, and certainly does not give all law abiding citizens access to a permit, and that that is what they are quoting. Am I missing something?

[An Inconvenient Bro]

Did you read what I posted?

New York is may issue, and certainly does not give all law abiding citizens access to a permit, and that that is what they are quoting. Am I missing something?

yes of course, it's a blurb from the middle pages of the document which was intermixed with a bunch of opinions and some so called studies. It's disturbing yes but really holds little meaning in all of this IMO. Shall issue is just as unconstitutional as no carry and they know it. The important thing is we have legislature support, we already just came close to a super majority the last time - and now it's no longer up to hoping a bill passes it completely backfired on the criminal enterprise and now they are ordered to pass a bill with the alternative being essentially a carte blanche in 6 months

[Farley1324]

yes of course, it's a blurb from the middle pages of the document which was intermixed with a bunch of opinions and some so called studies. It's disturbing yes but really holds little meaning in all of this IMO. Shall issue is just as unconstitutional as no carry and they know it. The important thing is we have legislature support, we already just came close to a super majority the last time - and now it's no longer up to hoping a bill passes it completely backfired on the criminal enterprise and now they are ordered to pass a bill with the alternative being essentially a carte blanche in 6 months

From a legal standpoint I understand why you say that.

From a PRACTICAL standpoint, however...obviously not. At all.

It will be really interesting to see how this all shakes out...but it being Chicago/Illinois, I wouldn't be want to be too optimistic.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

From a legal standpoint I understand why you say that.

From a PRACTICAL standpoint, however...obviously not. At all.

It will be really interesting to see how this all shakes out...but it being Chicago/Illinois, I wouldn't be want to be too optimistic.

I actually typo'd there in my late night tiredness but I know you know what I meant

The whole may issue thing is a joke, they all know it's unconstitutional and that the right to self defense doesn't end with the rich/famous/well connected. If this were to make it to SCOTUS it would be a disaster for NY and CA

The thing about this situation in IL that's so unique is that they have been found guilty of stripping our fundamental right for so long and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their case except we like it this way (essentially the judge's wording) The 180 day order is a huge problem for them because of the speed they work at and if they present something considered unreasonable it's not going to fly. Ive heard the original H148 which was fairly restrictive is now off the table and it will be much better which being the ultimate backfire that it turned into which brings me great delight

The other dilemna is if they do nothing and we have a carte blanche situation in 180 days. I don't think words can express how much this scares the living **** out of tptb in IL. You absolutely will have people open carrying slung M4's I guarantee it. Not to mention it opens up a monumental catastrophe for the state of the potential for overturning any and all past UUW convictions

[Farley1324]

I actually typo'd there in my late night tiredness but I know you know what I meant

The whole may issue thing is a joke, they all know it's unconstitutional and that the right to self defense doesn't end with the rich/famous/well connected. If this were to make it to SCOTUS it would be a disaster for NY and CA

The thing about this situation in IL that's so unique is that they have been found guilty of stripping our fundamental right for so long and with absolutely nothing to substantiate their case except we like it this way (essentially the judge's wording) The 180 day order is a huge problem for them because of the speed they work at and if they present something considered unreasonable it's not going to fly. Ive heard the original H148 which was fairly restrictive is now off the table and it will be much better which being the ultimate backfire that it turned into which brings me great delight

The other dilemna is if they do nothing and we have a carte blanche situation in 180 days. I don't think words can express how much this scares the living **** out of tptb in IL. You absolutely will have people open carrying slung M4's I guarantee it. Not to mention it opens up a monumental catastrophe for the state of the potential for overturning any and all past UUW convictions

You meant to say May Issue is unconstitutional? Oh, you bet your ass it is unconstitutional. IMO it's worse than shall issue or no issue. (provided that no issue really is NO ISSUE)

I didn't find it unreasonable to believe you were saying shall issue is unconstitutional. I know plenty of people who believe that and they make excellent points that I cannot disagree with.

As for carrying slung M4s...that is legal in a LOT of states right now and rarely happens.

[An Inconvenient Bro]

You meant to say May Issue is unconstitutional? Oh, you bet your ass it is unconstitutional. IMO it's worse than shall issue or no issue. (provided that no issue really is NO ISSUE)

I didn't find it unreasonable to believe you were saying shall issue is unconstitutional. I know plenty of people who believe that and they make excellent points that I cannot disagree with.

exactly. I actually hope it does play out in a way that demolishes the criminality in NY and CA for all us regular folk

As for carrying slung M4s...that is legal in a LOT of states right now and rarely happens.

You would have it here to make a point, especially given that we were the last to be "given" our right back

[LAWLER89]

If I told them I work in certain questionable neighborhoods from time to time and would to carry, is that a good enough reason to be issued a permit?

Nope. Now, if you own a high-yield shop of some sort and can convince them that at any moment, crazies might come in and steal your diamond-encrusted dinosaur eggs/$5,000 boutique scarfs/abstract fine art, they'll probably grant you one.

But if you have to do shipping and your only stops are on 145th and 7th, Bedstuy, and South Jamaica, call a cop if something goes wrong.

[goodluck12]

seems legit...

[An Inconvenient Bro]

seems legit...

yes

[OBrien33]

It seems most of you are talking about NYC. Out in western NY it is a lot easier. Unless you have a criminal background or your references screw things up, it usually good to go.

NYS has to issue your permit or a certified letter stating why you were denied or delated with in 6 months of the date you applied. This was a big deal in Monroe County as it was taking well over 9 months. They I believe were sued or threatened as it is state law no longer than 6 months and it has been taking a lot less time lately.

[rangerkid2187]

still waiting on final verdict for IL.....hoping those 180 days fly by.

[storm1507]

Some of you all may be interested in reading this.

http://m.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/0..._switcher=true

[KyleMQuinn]

Some of you all may be interested in reading this.

http://m.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/0..._switcher=true

This man has always been an idiot. I'm surprised he still has his job to be honest.

[rangerkid2187]

its just to draw attention away from the fact there are murders and shootings all the time in chicago that there is nothing they can do to stop. They should focus more on shooting gangbangers than licensed concealed carriers.

I would predict perhaps there may be a few more shooting where citizens shoot intruders and criminals trying to hurt them. Then its back to gangs shooting other gangs (then missing) and shooting innocent people in their own neighborhood and perhaps criminals would think twice before committing a crime knowing the other person may be armed.