Illinois New Conceal Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I cannot help but feel like a mouse staring at peanut butter in a mousetrap. I would like to conceal carry, but I am worried about pitfalls.

Allowing concealed carry on a trail/bike path but not in the park is like a freeway with no exits.

Hotel stays will require me to check the hotel's venue to ask the event planner for the caters' information to cross check with local special licenses. If a wedding reception decides a last minute change to the venue, I am looking at mandatory jail time.

The next time I want to go bowling, I will need to check with the general manager to ensure that shoe rental sales exceeds 50% of gross receipts. Heaven forbid I go to Elephant & Castle to enjoy some classic British cuisine on a Friday.

Oh, well. At least I will be able to walk down the street - just not on the sidewalk.
 
Originally Posted By: andrewg
The 16 hours of training are a bit extreme....but the part I would find idiotic are the prohibited areas of carry. Might as well say you can't carry a concealed weapon anyplace. Take your kids to any type park....you can't carry. Need to ride a bus (buses where I live have a high percentage of assaults), you can't defend yourself. Any public event requiring a government permit? Seems like a joke that this even got this far.


I think that 16 hours of training is a bit light...

Take a person who has never carried/never owned a gun/never been trained - 16 hours in which to teach safe weapon handling, weapon retention, drawing, marksmanship, rules on the use of force...but I suppose 16 hours is better than no training...which really worries me...

The restrictions? Well...
 
Last edited:
The "training," in every state that has it, is simply to make it harder to get the permit or as a payoff to the NRA. If you don't have a clue what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you. If you know what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you.
 
Last edited:
Anyway you hash it the bill is laughable. Better off staying off of their radar and arming yourself as you see fit.
 
Originally Posted By: hatt
The "training," in every state that has it, is simply to make it harder to get the permit or as a payoff to the NRA. If you don't have a clue what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you. If you know what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you.


Is it really?

Or is it like driver's training: an effort to ensure a minimum level competency before permitting?

I am not anti-permit. I have one in VA.

I am anti-incompetence (or pro competence, if you like)...and the idea of permitting folks to carry in public (again, without regard to the silliness in the IL law) who can't demonstrate basic safe handling, basic marksmanship, basic understanding on the UOF deeply concerns me....it's analogous to giving a teenager the car keys without ensuring that they are, at least at a basic level, competent to drive on a public road.
 
Last edited:
NC has a lot of restrictions too. Any place that charges admission, doctors office, banks, and the usual gov, bar, school, etc. Also any business can exclude your cc with a sticker. No provision for non ccw for car carry in nc was the main reason I got my ccw. It was very feasible that I could have been pulled for a tail light on the way to the range and end up have a couple of thousand in handguns confiscated. With a station wagon, I had no "trunk" and would have been required to build a lockable box of sufficient secureness to keep Barney Fife from questioning it. I might win in court, but in the meantime, four or five of the wife's and my guns would be in the 'care' of the state.

I was surprised when moved to Va a few years ago that things were quite different. I thought NC was fairly pro-gun with shall issue, but Va is much better. Only thing I miss is taking a by on background checks for long gun purchases with a current cc. Open carry legal, check. Car carry, Much less hassle.

I think the 16 hours are a bit much. NRA pistol safety and 8ish hours of ccw class should be about right. Also the public transport exclusion is a bit of a raw deal in my book too. It does seem discriminatory as previously stated.
 
Last edited:
I believe Ohio has a similar training requirement. I don't see what the big deal is.
Also, Ohio has increased the places we can carry. Give it time, things will improve.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: hatt
The "training," in every state that has it, is simply to make it harder to get the permit or as a payoff to the NRA. If you don't have a clue what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you. If you know what you're doing, 16 hours listening to Elmer Fudd isn't going to help you.


Is it really?

Or is it like driver's training: an effort to ensure a minimum level competency before permitting?

I am not anti-permit. I have one in VA.

I am anti-incompetence (or pro competence, if you like)...and the idea of permitting folks to carry in public (again, without regard to the silliness in the IL law) who can't demonstrate basic safe handling, basic marksmanship, basic understanding on the UOF deeply concerns me....it's analogous to giving a teenager the car keys without ensuring that they are, at least at a basic level, competent to drive on a public road.
So you'd be fine having a quick 5 minute test option to see whether the applicant had the necessary basic skills and skip the classes?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt
So you'd be fine having a quick 5 minute test option to see whether the applicant had the necessary basic skills and skip the classes?


I didn't say that...but yes, I would be OK with a demonstrated proficiency test, which, at a minimum would include a written understanding of the safety rules, the law regarding UOF and a marksmanship test.

But I think that it would take closer to 2 hours to be a reasonable test (including range time, grading the written, etc.).

I've been through several training programs that related to firearms. None were short or cursory. All exceeded the 16 hours that is being proposed...but I've got experience. Lots of folks are now arming themselves. I've seen them in the shops and I've seen the news reports...they're brand new to firearms and to the employment of lethal force.

To take a completely inexperienced person (and that's who we have to write the requirement for) and get them to the point that they can safely carry, operate and judge when to shoot takes a significant amount of time. The 4 hours VA course as an example, is, in my opinion, far too short.
 
Quote:
But I think that it would take closer to 2 hours to be a reasonable test (including range time, grading the written, etc.).


Well yeah it'll take 2 hours when the government gets involved. An expert in the field can see immediately if someone is proficient in firearm handing. A written exam on laws is laughable. Courts, judges and lawyers can barely figure out the laws sitting around the clubhouse; never mind someone under extreme stress that's been to the courthouse twice, for jury duty.

Quote:
To take a completely inexperienced person (and that's who we have to write the requirement for) and get them to the point that they can safely carry, operate and judge when to shoot takes a significant amount of time. The 4 hours VA course as an example, is, in my opinion, far too short.

And so is 40 hours. You didn't even read my first post. All this .gov required "training" is nonsense and has nothing to do with training. Just skip it and hand people their permit.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: hatt

And so is 40 hours. You didn't even read my first post. All this .gov required "training" is nonsense and has nothing to do with training. Just skip it and hand people their permit.


I did read your posts, all of them, including the first one about "in your house, with the curtains drawn."

But because you and I don't share precisely the same opinion, you assume that's due to some deficiency in my reading comprehension? That's presumptuous, don't you think? Isn't it possible, that after 27 years of experience in the military, 8 years of carrying a firearm at work, and 4 decades of firearms familiarity, that I have a well-considered, valid opinion?

Let's take a different area of government oversight: airline pilot. Would you be OK with skipping the written, oral and flight tests? OK with skipping the required training to fly before entrusting an airplane with passengers to someone? I can tell in 5 minutes if a pilot can fly...you OK with that level of oversight and validation as you board the plane and I walk away telling you that "he's OK"?

Of course not. The only way to know that a person meets a minimum set of standards for any practical skill is to test them. I think that it's reasonable to test/check for concealed carry.

You're free to do whatever you like in your home. No training required (however foolish that might be, it's your right.)

But before you can hunt, you have to take a hunter's safety course. Before you can drive, you have to take a driver's test. Both of those activities take place in a public venue...where the public is at risk from poor execution of that responsibility...and the public is also at risk from poor execution of the responsibilities that come with concealed carry of a firearm.

So, I think CC permit holders should be trained and tested. It's that simple.
 
One other point: I am actually encouraged by these provisions:

Statewide shall-issue licensing standard;

● Strictly preempts authority of local governments to regulate firearms and ammunition;

● No special "endorsement" or permit required for licensee to carry in Chicago or Cook County;

● Grants licensee broad right to carry in a vehicle, including within a vehicle in the parking lot of a prohibited area;

Turning one of the most restrictive states in the union into a "shall issue" state is a big change for the better for gun rights. Further, it pre-empts the draconian firearms regulations in Cook County (Chicago)...also a huge change for the better...

So, while there are a lot of restrictions built into this...in general, it's a change for the better...
 
Quote:
Isn't it possible, that after 27 years of experience in the military, 8 years of carrying a firearm at work, and 4 decades of firearms familiarity, that I have a well-considered, valid opinion?
It's possible your opinion is clouded by governmental elitism.
 
When I took my 8 hour class a year ago there were people there with no clue. Even though I too feel it is a constitutional right I think it prudent to have some basic safety training.
Our class was divided for the range between experienced shooters and novice. We finished our requirements much faster than the novice class.
 
I agree that people need some form of training.....just because you CAN purchase a firearm and just because you think you CAN handle it, doesn't mean you really can.

I see so much unsafe handing in LGS's that it is appaling to think some of these people can get permits.

IMO, the "training" associated with obtaining a permit should focus on the laws and regulations and deal with the safe handling of firearms, NOT teach someone to use their firearm. Two hours, four hours, sixteen hours is not enough to teach someone how to properly and safely use a firearm.

As an example; Astro 14 - how long does the military take to teach someone the proper way to use a firearm? Days, weeks? No matter what anyone else in here may say, you have been properly trained and have the experience to carry a firearm....IMHO.
 
It's hard to say exactly how many hours...because it really depends on your "MOS" or occupational specialty...

But a sailor doing security work with small arms (9mm, M-4, shotgun), for example, gets on the order of 40 hours on the things that I outlined above. If he is qualified on a crew-served weapon (M2 .50 cal, M240, etc.) then there is more training.

A Marine or Army infantryman will get hundreds of hours of training with the firearm that he will be carrying.

I am not suggesting that a CCW permit holder needs that level of training or proficiency, but 16 hours of training for a real noob, that hasn't had any prior experience, is pretty close to what I think it would take to learn (and demonstrate understanding of) UOF and legal framework as well as basic marksmanship.

Certainly, it takes much more than that to develop expert marksmanship, but you shouldn't need to be an expert marksman to Carry Concealed, just reasonably proficient, reasonably able to hit a target under pressure...enough so that you're not a hazard to the rest of the public...
 
While there are a ton of restrictions in this bill...it changes IL to a "shall issue" state for CCW, and removes the Chicago restrictions...those are big changes for the better.

It's not Vermont (perfect), or Virginia (good) in terms of CCW rights...but it's a big step in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dnewton3
carry insurance - rates of coverage and denials obscured
Replies
4
Views
679
jhellwig
P
Permitless carry for non-residents in TX
Replies
4
Views
834
ZeeOSix
Owen Lucas
Any Auto Appraisers here? Pivoting to new career, looking for advice.
Replies
14
Views
746
Owen Lucas
S
Get up to a $40 Digital Gift Card When You Buy Shell Rotella
Replies
8
Views
922
cptbarkey
S
Subaru SOA635071 OEM Coolant System Conditioner - USE or DON'T USE?
Replies
6
Views
2K
dkryan
Back
Top