Concealed Carry in IL

[Matt Collins]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/09/3...ission-to-pack

[Dr.3D]

We shouldn't even need permission to carry a pistol. One never needs permission for what is a right.

[brushfire]

We shouldn't even need permission to carry a pistol. One never needs permission for what is a right.

Agreed


Please move to IL, and bring all of your like minded friends and family
If possible, seek residence in the 22nd IL House district.

Until we get a majority over here, this is about the best start we can expect.

[Keith and stuff]

and complete 16 hours of training

Is there any other state that requires 16 hours? I know some states like Tennessee have insane 8 hour requirements but 16 hours? That's like they are joining the military or something.

[Keith and stuff]

I found another insanely backwards state. Not only do you have to be 21 in NM, but there is a 15 hour training requirement. I guess NM wants everyone with a gun to be very trained with it. It reminds me of the slavery program in Switzerland, but its sorta voluntary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...oncealed_carry

[brushfire]

IL is last in a lot of things, carry is no exception. The law, however, is the best that tyranny can offer. With all the corruption and leverage, its shocking to me that carry has penetrated as far as it has.

Also, the 16 hours will grandfather almost any training taken prior, up to 8 hours. That doesnt help ease the burden for those who've never taken training, and its clear to me that the requirement is more about burdening the citizen than making them safer. I always encourage training, but I think its wrong to "permit" a right. There is ZERO evidence suggesting that state mandated training has had any kind of measurable effect on the public safety. Especially considering 16 hours over 4 hours.

[Keith and stuff]

IL is last in a lot of things, carry is no exception. The law, however, is the best that tyranny can offer. With all the corruption and leverage, its shocking to me that carry has penetrated as far as it has.

Also, the 16 hours will grandfather almost any training taken prior, up to 8 hours. That doesnt help ease the burden for those who've never taken training, and its clear to me that the requirement is more about burdening the citizen than making them safer. I always encourage training, but I think its wrong to "permit" a right. There is ZERO evidence suggesting that state mandated training has had any kind of measurable effect on the public safety. Especially considering 16 hours over 4 hours.

Required official training has at least 3 unintended consequences. It means that a woman may have to quit her job in order to find the time to make a training event. That might lead to her going on welfare. So if someone supports mandatory training, they are very likely to be a huge statist that thinks the government the always the solution to every problem. It also creates 2 additional taxes or fees on the person just trying to exercise her right, thus proving the ability to defend your life isn't a even a right in state with required training. 1 of the taxes is the requirement to register for training and attend it (including the transportation and perhaps even car rental and hotel costs). The other tax is the cost of the ammo. I don't know how much it costs but I wouldn't be surprised if it's over $100 in some cases.

So, even if a lady doesn't have to quit her job to be able to defend herself in IL, she still might have to spend upwards of $500, and that doesn't even include the price of the handgun.

[brushfire]

Required official training has at least 3 unintended consequences. It means that a woman may have to quit her job in order to find the time to make a training event. That might lead to her going on welfare. So if someone supports mandatory training, they are very likely to be a huge statist that thinks the government the always the solution to every problem. It also creates 2 additional taxes or fees on the person just trying to exercise her right, thus proving the ability to defend your life isn't a even a right in state with required training. 1 of the taxes is the requirement to register for training and attend it (including the transportation and perhaps even car rental and hotel costs). The other tax is the cost of the ammo. I don't know how much it costs but I wouldn't be surprised if it's over $100 in some cases.

So, even if a lady doesn't have to quit her job to be able to defend herself in IL, she still might have to spend upwards of $500, and that doesn't even include the price of the handgun.

This is all very true - the law by design is intended to do just that.

Truth also be told - even a member of the so called "Black Caucus" in the IL House had said something to the effect of, Could you imagine a brutha with a gun? We dont want that.
Language like that is what formed the overall bill, and for the many positive aspects of the bill (both present and future) great lengths had to be taken by carry advocates. There are other key points though, going forward, which makes the bill a wonderful thing. IMO, this law offers moves 1, and 2 of the infamous 4 move checkmate....

All that said, keeping things in perspective, one can only hope for snow in hell -right? While still, most gun owners dont even realize how beneficial IL's failed draconian laws, and arrogant/foolish politicians, with their inept councils, have actually helped gun owners abroad. IL stands as the failed testbed for many laws... This is why the likes of bloomberg are pumping their money into IL political races. Is their last bastion of complete tyranny.