Concealed-carry compromise headed to Quinn

By Jamey Dunn 

After months of back and forth on the issue, the Illinois General Assembly approved a bill to regulate the carry of concealed weapons in the state.

“This is an historic day for law-abiding gun owners in this state because they’re going to get to exercise their Second Amendment right,” said Harrisburg Democrat Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored House Bill 183.

In December, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms in public, which is the last of its kind in the nation, is unconstitutional. The court gave the General Assembly 180 days to pass a law to regulate carry. The court’s opinion said the state could set reasonable restrictions on carry, such as training requirements for licenses and banning guns in certain places. The deadline set by the court falls on June 9.

When a Senate committee voted down the House’s bill early this week, it seemed that the deadline could come and go without legislation. But lawmakers from both chambers reached a last-minute deal, and both the House and the Senate approved HB183 on the last day of the regular legislative session. Under HB 183, concealed-carry license applicants would have to complete 16 hours of training and pay a $150 fee. The license would be good for five years and permit them to carry in all areas of the state.

Along with the carry bill, lawmakers also sent a gun control measure to Gov. Pat Quinn. Under HB 1189, a resident who sell guns in private sale would have to confirm with the Illinois State Police that the buyer’s Firearm Owner's Identification Card is valid. The seller would call the police and provide the buyer's FOID number for verification. The bill also gives sellers the option of paying a federally licensed firearms dealer to run a background check on the buyer. Gun owners would be required to report lost or stolen firearms to local police within 72 hours.

The degree to which local governments could regulate carry was the biggest point of contention throughout concealed-carry negotiations. The plan preferred by many Senate Democrats would have given the Chicago police commissioner veto power over licenses for carrying in the city. The bill the House approved would have eliminated all local gun ordinances. Opponents of the original Senate proposal said it would give a bureaucrat the power to arbitrarily reject applications. Those who objected to the House plan said that it was a broad overreach, and even it’s own sponsor called it “absolute atomic preemption” of home rule powers.

“The city [of Chicago] said that was unacceptable. We listened to the city yesterday,” said Phelps. In a rare move, the city shared the same stance on the bill as the National Rifle Association. Both were neutral on the bill. “This bill strikes a better balance between the rights of gun owners and the unique public safety needs of Chicago and other municipalities than previous proposals,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in a prepared statement. “This legislation will allow Chicago to set its own policies on assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines, reporting of lost and stolen guns, and the location of gun shops. It also prohibits carrying loaded guns on public transportation, in our parks and schools, in bars and in government buildings.”

House Bill 183 would leave most local ordinances in place. Chicago’s assault weapons ban would remain. But any local governments that might want to ban assault weapons in the future should act fast. The bill takes that power away from home rule units 10 days after it goes into effect. The measure would waive some local restrictions for carry permit holders. For example, if a home rule government has a high-capacity magazine ban, someone with a carry permit could still carry a gun with a magazine that falls below the ban. The legislation also allows any FOID card owner to transport any gun that is not banned at the state or federal level through any part of the state, regardless of local law. The gun would have to be unloaded and properly stored in a vehicle.

Opponents said that these exemptions go to far. “It’s a reach beyond concealed carry,” said Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford. “Our village ordinances matter, and we need them to stay intact.” The measure bans guns from several places, including parks, schools and public gatherings such as street fairs. Some who voted against the bill in the House said that more places should have been added to the list. “Do you really need a gun at the beach? And where are you going to conceal it at the beach?” asked Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy. She called on lawmakers to spend more time working on a bill. “It’s not soup. It’s close. It’s brothy, but it’s not soup.”

Democratic Sen. Gary Forby of Benton, who also sponsors the bill, acknowledged there are provisions that those on both sides of the issue do not like. But, he said, that is the nature of compromise. “I think that we got a bill everyone can live with.”

HB1189 had some components of the carry proposal that was originally pitched in Senate, and gun control advocates in both chambers said it made them feel a bit more comfortable with the prospect of concealed carry in the state. “It certainly makes me feel a lot better and others a lot better about what we did with concealed carry,” said Rep. Christian Mitchell, a Democrat from Chicago.

Mahomet Republican Sen. Chapin Rose raised doubts about the state police's ability to handle the volume of calls from buyers checking FOID cards. A recent audit of the FOID division of the state police found it was month behind on processing applications. “Somehow, I’m going to trust that we’re going to call this number and all is well?” he asked. “I don’t trust the state police to get this right.”

But sponsor Rep. Michael Zalewski, a Chicago Democrat, said he is confident that the state police can handle the calls. “This is a common sense reform that state police are equipped to do,” he said. “This is something that makes sense for a lot of reasons within the realm of public safety.” Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno said that instead of rejecting the bill, lawmakers should work to make sure the problems with the FOID application system are worked out. “If we have a lack of faith in the state police system, then let’s fix it,” she said. “I don’t think we should be quibbling over details that can and should be solved.”

A ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines failed in the Senate today. House Bill 1346 would have banned the sale of magazines that hold 10 or more bullets. The measure would not have required residents who currently own such magazines to give them up. Sponsor Sen. Dan Kotowski, a Democrat from Park Ridge, said his goal was to regulate gun manufacturers, not impede on the rights of individual gun owners. “The gun industry has essentially been able to dictate policy to the American people for too long, for much too long,” he said. “And no one has said to them by law that you need to be held more accountable for what you create. ... We have to figure out a way to limit the damage these weapons can cause.”

 A Senate committee approved the measure after the parents of victims of the Sandy Hook School shooting in Newton, Conn., gave testimony in favor of the plan. Opponents said the bill would not make the state safer. “If I were to make a list of everything that is effective and not effective ... this would be at the bottom of the list of things that are not effective,” said Dixon Republican Sen. Tim Bivins.

Quinn’s office said he plans to review the carry bill. But the governor did release a statement on the failure of the magazine ban. “I met with the families of Newtown, Conn., as did many lawmakers, and we have seen the devastation that high-capacity ammunition magazines have done to families across our nation. “Today, lawmakers had the opportunity to minimize the chance of this unthinkable violence happening in Illinois. “I am very disappointed that members did not pass commonsense legislation that would have no impact on hunting,” Quinn said in a prepared statement. Quinn called for a high-capacity magazine ban and a ban on assault weapons in his State of the State address. “I will continue to fight for limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines in our state.”

 Last year, Quinn used his amendatory veto power to tack an assault weapons ban onto an unrelated bill regarding ammunition. It is possible he would make a similar move with either of the bills that passed today. The concealed carry legislation passed with enough votes to override a veto.

NRA silence 'speaks volumes' to opponents of new concealed-carry bill

By Jamey Dunn

Concealed-carry legislation is expected to pass in the Illinois House on Friday without the support of the National Rifle Association, but opponents say there is a lot in the bill for pro-gun groups to like.

A House committee approved Senate Bill 2193 on a vote of 13 in favor and three opposed. Under the proposal, residents who are eligible to own a gun and are age 21 or older could apply for a carry license. The license would cost $150, and applicants would have to complete 18 hours of training, including live-fire range training. Law enforcement officials at any level could object to applications based on “reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety.” A panel appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate would rule on the objections. House Speaker Michael Madigan predicted that the bill would pass in the House. A vote is expected tomorrow.

The proposal would wipe out local gun laws, including requirements to report lost or stolen guns and Chicago’s ban on assault weapons. That provision makes gun control advocates bristle. They have been pushing to add a component addressing lost or stolen guns, but the sponsor, Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, and others have said that they did not want to address issues other than concealed carry with the bill. Colleen Daley, executive director Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said that the city’s assault weapons ban would not interfere with the carry law. “If it’s just carry, then make it just carry.”

But Phelps said that the same gun law should apply everywhere in the state. “We just think [it will make] law-abiding gun owners criminals if you don’t have one uniform law. That way, everybody understands what to expect. Having 220 home rule municipalities -- and 109 of them already have some form of firearm ordinances -- we just think that’s ridiculous.” Those with reservations about the bill say that even though the NRA is neutral, they can see the group’s influence in the proposal. They note that the group rarely, if ever, sits quietly and allows legislation it does not favor to pass. No one representing the NRA or the Illinois Rifle Association testified during the committee hearing today. Before the hearing, the usually talkative NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde declined to comment on the bill.

“That speaks volumes to me,” Daley said. Ronald Homes, spokesperson for Senate President John Cullerton, also noted the association’s silence. “This is still the template that the NRA wanted to get done. ... The NRA is often loud about bills that they don’t like.” SB 2193 would not allow Chicago or Cook County to add any additional restrictions to concealed carry, something Cullerton and many in his caucus support. “The Senate president has been a strong advocate for tough gun laws in the past, and this bill kind of is the opposite of things that he advocated for,” Holmes said.

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul presented a more restrictive carry bill in the Senate that would require approval from the superintendent of Chicago police for residents seeking to carry in Chicago. But Raoul was not able to find the support needed to pass the bill in the Senate. Holmes said that this new version of concealed carry also could be met with opposition. “I think the bill has a couple things in it that will make it less appealing to members in our caucus.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and other prominent Chicago-area officials have not weighed in on SB 2193. Holmes said that Cullerton and Emanuel planned to discuss the bill during a scheduled phone call today.

Phelps acknowledged that the lack of NRA support could help put more votes on the bill. But he says he never talked to any NRA representatives about taking a stance for political reasons. “You saw what happened today The NRA is just not going to support this bill. ... So if it was their fingerprints, I think that they’d be happy because they have a lot of members that are involved in this.”

Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said there are things that his group does not like about the bill. “We feel that the fees are too high and the training is too long.” The steep license fee and cost of training could make the constitutional right of carry inaccessible for some.  But he says there are components of the proposal that he supports. “It also has some good things in the bill. It’s got [home rule powers] preemption in the bill, which is very very important.”

Daley said she sees some positives in the legislation, too. “We do see the value of some of the pieces in the bill.” She said that all predictions point to the House approving SB 2193 on Friday. But she says that her organizations and other gun control advocates are continuing to push for a bill that recognizes Chicago’s differences and allows for more restrictions there. “We’ve activated our network to get them to call their legislators.”

Pearson said his group is not trying to sway House members. “We’re not saying it’s OK to vote for the bill; we’re not saying it’s not OK. We’re saying we’re neutral.” He added, “I’m sure the representatives will be more than able to make up their minds.”

New carry bill expected to pass the House without NRA support

By Jamey Dunn

The sponsor of a new bill to regulate the concealed carry of firearms in the state says he is confident that the measure will pass in the House.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, introduced Senate Bill 2193 this afternoon.  After polling other lawmakers, he said he thinks the bill could receive as many as 80 votes in favor. The legislation would require 71 votes to pass because it will supersede the powers of home rule governments, such as Chicago and Springfield. House Speaker Michael Madigan publicly backed the bill today and predicted its passage in the House.

A federal court gave Illinois until early June to craft concealed carry legislation. Phelps and others believe that if there is no law after that deadline, Illinois will be a carry free-for-all. Phelps described such a scenario as “mayhem.” “I don’t want to go off the cliff. A lot of people that are pro-gun around this state, they think it would be best to go off the cliff. I just don’t because there’s too much uncertainty.” He said making sure that those with carry permits are qualified is in the best interest of carry supporters because one bad actor could spoil things for everyone. “It just takes that one person to go out and shoot themselves or shoot somebody accidentally and just lock this down for years to come,” he said. “Let’s get some certainty with a bill we can pass.”

Local officials throughout the state are considering passing restrictions if the General Assembly fails to approve a bill by the deadline, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to challenge all local ordinances in court.

Under the bill, applicants for a concealed carry license would have to be 21 or older and eligible for a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID). They would have to complete 18 hours of training, including passing a live fire range test and pay $150 licensing fee. The amount of training has doubled since Phelps’s previous bill, which failed in the House last month. Most of the fee would go toward implementing the new licensing system. However, $20 would go toward fixing the state’s seriously flawed mental health records reporting system, and $10 would go to state crime labs. A recent audit of the FOID system, which is administered by the Illinois State Police, found that the FOID division was not getting the mental health records from counties that it needed for screening FOID applicants and cardholders. Under SB 2193, the state police would also administer carry permits.

Any law enforcement official could object to applications for carry licenses. Objections and the documentation to back them up would come before a board that would be appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. The requirements for serving on that board would be high. The bill calls for a federal judge, department of justice attorneys, federal law enforcement agents, doctors and clinical psychologists as members. Applicants would also be able to submit information to the board, which would make the final ruling on the permit. The proposal would ban guns in many places, including schools, colleges, government buildings, health care facilities, parks and bars. It would also ban them from public events that require a permit from local government, such as street festivals. The legislation bans the carry of guns on public transit. But Phelps said he intends to make a change that would allow for carry on transit, as long is the weapon is stowed in a bag and unloaded.

Phelps, who has worked with the NRA on all the carry bills he has presented to date, says he does not have the organization's support on this one. He said he thinks the association will take no position on the bill. An NRA spokesperson could not be reached for comment. “I don’t know if anybody is happy right now, to be honest with you. My main thing is to get something done,” Phelps said. “Do you get everything you want in this process when it’s two weeks to go? No. But you know what? I think this is a good concealed carry bill.”

Phelps conceded that the lack of NRA approval might help the plan’s chance for passage in the Senate, where many Democrats support a much more restrictive bill. Phelps' legislation appears to try to skate a thin line of avoiding excessively angering the NRA, thus pushing them to lobby against the bill, while also not giving them a reason to jump for joy, which might scare Senate votes off the plan. But the proposal does not allow Chicago or Cook County to be any more restrictive on licensing than the rest of the state, which some in the Senate may find tough to swallow.

Testimony from Newtown parents puts high-capacity magazine ban in the General Assembly's spotlight

By Jamey Dunn 

Illinois Senate President John Cullerton said that a visit today from parents of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could help push a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines toward passage in the Senate.

“I just told them 'that but for their presence here, this is the type of bill that we probably would fall short on. And if we pass it, it will be because of them,’” Cullerton said after the parents testified in a committee hearing on Senate Bill 1002. The committee approved the bill on a bipartisan vote. Cullerton said he does not know when the measure will be called for a floor vote. He said he plans to count votes to see if there is enough support for it to pass. “This is going to be a close vote. I was very encouraged by the support of the two Republicans. That gives me some encouragement to think that maybe we can get a majority vote.”

The legislation bans the sale or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. If the bill becomes law, residents who currently own such magazines would be allowed to keep them, but retailers would be barred from selling more of them in the state. Owners would not be allowed to give away or sell their magazines, but they could transfer them to heirs. The proposal also increases penalties form offenders who commit certain crimes using weapons with high-capacity magazines.

Parents from Newtown, Conn., who lost their children in the shooting last December said today that shooter Adam Lanza’s attack was all the more deadly because he had high-capacity magazines that allowed him the fire dozens of bullets before having to reload. “That morning, Daniel [Barton], 19 of his first-grade contemporaries and six educators were murdered at Sandy Hook elementary school,” Michael Barton, Daniel’s father, told the committee. “All those lives were taken in less than four minutes by a single gunman armed with an assault weapon and 10 30-round high-capacity magazines. We know from the investigation the shooter left — he made a conscious decision — to leave the smaller magazines at home. He knew that by bringing the high-capacity magazines, he could kill a lot more people, and he did.” He said that when Lanza did have to reload, several students were able to escape. “Limiting the availability of these devices won’t stop gun violence or end mass shootings. We know that. But that shouldn’t be the test. The important thing is that this bill will save lives in these horrific mass shootings. We know that forcing the person to reload can provide a window to escape or to overtake the perpetrator.”

Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan Hockley was killed at Sandy Hook, said of SB 1002, “This is a common sense solution, and it does not infringe on anyone’s constitutional rights.” She said that high-capacity magazines “only exist to spray as many bullets as possible in the shortest time frame without reloading.”

But opponents argued that guns with high-capacity magazines have become the norm and are protected by the Second Amendment. NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said that magazines that hold more than 10 rounds “are the standard magazines for most of the semiautomatic pistols today, and they are certainly the standard mag for the most common rifles used in competitive shooting, hunting and self defense today.” He said the bill was drafted “poorly and broadly.” Vandermyde argued that U.S. Supreme Court rulings protect firearms that are in “common use,” and that many of the guns that are most commonly used have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. “I do not believe that this legislation is going to pass constitutional muster.”

Democratic Sen. Dan Kotowski, sponsor of SB 1002, said the gun industry has pushed higher capacity magazines and more militaristic weapons through production and marketing. “The standard is always changing because they’re the ones that set the standard. The industry does.” He said gun producers and sellers are always trying to “figure out a way to make guns more appealing and to make them more efficient.” Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said that is why his legislation is targeted at the gun industry and not at current owners of high-capacity magazines. “When it comes to the industry and production, there isn’t oversight.

Jay Keller, lobbying on behalf of the Illinois Firearms Manufacturers Association, said gun manufacturers would leave the state if the measure is approved and signed into law. “Illinois is currently home to nearly 65 firearms manufacturers employing 8,500 employees who call Illinois home,” he said. He argued that lawmakers should instead look to issues such as mental health care, drug crimes and violence in film and video games. “This isn’t a bill to address or fix the issues. This isn’t a bill to deal with the mental health aspect of the issue. This bill does not address anything. It’s a feel-good piece of legislation.” Supporters of the legislation said that Illinois manufacturers would not have to stop making high-capacity magazines and could continue to sell them to retailers in other states. Keller said manufacturers see legislation like SB 1002 “a direct attack.” He said the bill “eliminates any incentive to stay within this state.”

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno and Palatine Republican Sen. Matt Murphy voted in favor of the measure. Murphy said that hearing from the parents had an emotional affect, but he is trying to keep a level head on the issue. “We do need to try to legislate in a way that is reasoned. You don’t want to be devoid of emotion, but you don’t want it to control you either,” he said. “This is not a be all end all solution to these circumstances, but the opportunity that a smaller capacity provides for lives to be saved, while maybe unlikely, I think exists. I think there is a chance that this bill could save lives, and I think it’s worth taking that chance.”

In April, Kotowski told Illinois issues he was not sure a high-capacity magazine ban was politically possible in the short term. “Yes. I think we have to pick what’s feasible to get passed right now. As you know, I’ve advocated for the limitations of high capacity ammunition magazines in the past,” he said. Kotowski sponsored a ban that passed in the Senate in 2007, but the bill languished in the House. “I think those are more long- term,” he said of the magazine ban and assault weapons ban. SB 1002 does not have a sponsor in the House.

Cullerton said he invited the Newtown parents to Springfield to “make people feel uncomfortable, and that’s what they did.” He said they might also have changed some minds. “They’ve met with a number of other senators, who we’ve asked them to talk to who might not of otherwise have been for the bill. And I think that they made those people think about voting for this.”