Concealed carry licenses in the mail

By Jamey Dunn 

Approved Illinois residents will soon be able to start carrying guns in public.

The Illinois State Police announced today that 5,000 concealed carry licenses have been approved. They have begun printing and mailing licenses as of today. The state police say residents could begin receiving licenses as soon as Monday.

Applicants are required to pass background checks and complete a 16-hour safety course, including a live-fire exercise. Licenses cost $150 and are good for five years. After five years, licensees must reapply and take a three-hour training course. So far, the state police have received more than 50,000 applications since they began taking them in early January. Supporters of the law say they are happy to see that the police are issuing licenses even earlier than expected. “The state police have done a fantastic job. ... We thought we’d be three months before we’d get a permit out. So they’re going to get these permits out a little early,” said Benton Democratic Sen. Gary Forby, who was a sponsor of the concealed carry legislation.

Law enforcement officials can object to applications, and so far the state police have objected to about 800. So far, none of those objections have been appealed. The state police plan to deny about 300 applications after they go through one final review process to ensure that the applicants are indeed ineligible.

Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who also sponsored the law, urged gun control advocates and gun rights advocates to hold off on pushing for changes to the concealed carry law until it has been effect long enough to evaluate. “Let’s take a deep breath. Let’s try not to beat up this bill,” he said. “Let’s see how it works.”

State launches outreach on big issues

By Jamey Dunn

The state of Illinois is trying to compete with the glittery distraction of the holiday season to inform residents about  the impending implementation of concealed carry, a medical marijuana pilot program and insurance coverage.

The state will not begin accepting concealed carry permit applications until January 5, but the Illinois State Police launched a website this week that is meant to allow applicants to get a jump start on the process. The website gives applicants a checklist of what they will need to apply and directs them to a page where they can get an Illinois Digital ID, which is required for online application. It also provides information on how to obtain electronic fingerprints, which the state police say would expedite the process for applicants.

But not everyone is happy with the state’s high-tech approach to the process. A spokeswoman for the state police said the agency plans to only offer online applications for the “initial phase” of implementing concealed carry. She said that the online system would allow the state to meet the deadlines that are set out in the law. “We are also sensitive the needs of those applicants who may not have the ability to apply online, and we will need to further explore those options as the process moves forward,” Monique Bond, a spokeswoman for the state police, said in an email. Among supporters of the new law there is concern about access for those seeking licenses and skepticism that the site will be able to handle a potentially large number of applicants. They point to issues with the online setup — for instance, the page used to issue digital IDs does not work with some popular Internet browsers. (When I tried to access it using Google Chrome, I received an error message that directed me to use Microsoft’s Internet Explorer.)

Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored the new law that will allow for the carry of concealed firearms in the state, said an online only permitting process was never his intent. Phelps said that he has been encouraging people to apply online because he believes that the process will be faster than paper applications. “You’re taking a chance by filing on paper [that] it may take you longer.” But he said that a paper option needs to exist, too. “There are people in this state that do not have access and the resources to do everything electronically.” Phelps said he hopes that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules will resolve the issue at their meeting, which is scheduled for next week. He wants people to have the option to mail in applications when the state begins accepting them on January 5.

The state also launched a website to inform Illinoisans about the new medical marijuana pilot program. The new law goes into effect on January 1, but the Illinois Department of Public Health has not yet released a date on which it will begin issuing permits to patients. The homepage of the site says: “Members of the public should be aware that full implementation of MCPP will take time. The State of Illinois is warning that it will not be legal for anyone to grow, offer to provide, or to possess, medical cannabis until licenses have been issued and the program is up and running.” In the meantime, visitors to the website can find information about the program and sign up for email alerts.

In addition to both of those efforts, Illinois is kicking off its television advertising campaign to encourage residents to visit the state’s online insurance exchange and purchase coverage. “Now that the federal website has improved, we are shifting from educating consumers to the next phase of encouraging enrollment. We are urging thousands of uninsured residents in Illinois to get covered in this new state of health care that we are entering in 2014,” Jennifer Koehler, Executive Director of Get Covered Illinois, said in a prepared statement. “If you visited GetCoveredIllinois.gov before but didn’t select a plan, come back and try again. With the upgrades to the federal website that were recently put in place, the enrollment system is working much more smoothly. Now is the time to select a plan and get covered.”

The federal online exchange has come under fire for serious glitches. Illinois’ exchange is tied to the federal website, so it has experienced issues as well.

A news release issued by the state’s online marketplace described the advertising campaign: “The nearly $1-million TV ad buy includes the eight major-media markets in Illinois, and is targeted to reach Illinois’ uninsured population. The campaign features one 30-second ad that highlights the all-inclusive nature of the new state of health care across Illinois; and two 15-second spots: one that highlights the fact that insurers can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and one that features a mom-to-be.” The campaign, along with 300 events planned statewide, is meant to encourage people to sign up for insurance before the December 23 deadline. People who sign up by that date and pay a premium by December 31 will see their coverage start on January 1. Open enrollment on the exchange will continue through March 31.

Veto session is over, or is it?

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois lawmakers approved the spending to set up the state’s concealed carry of firearms permit today, but other issues such as pension reform, tax breaks for corporations and enhanced penalties for gun offenders will have to wait.

The House adjourned abruptly this morning after a procedural move blocked a bill to increase mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Senate Bill 1342 would increase the mandatory minimum sentence for felons or gang members caught carrying a gun without a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card to four years. The proposal would require those convicted of the crime to serve 85 percent of their sentence.

Sponsor Mike Zalewski, a Riverside Democrat, removed a provision that would have applied to first-time offenders and in doing so was able to get the support of the National Rifle Association. But members of the black legislative caucus opposed his bill. Chicago Democratic Rep. Kenneth Dunkin used a House rule to block the bill from being called for a vote because the budgetary impact of the measure was not made available to lawmakers through a formal process known as a note. “I filed the note on behalf of the Illinois legislative black caucus for those of us in the House and the Senate,” Dunkin said. We have expressed time and time again that we have some basic problems with this mandatory minimum — that it’s too all encompassing, it takes in way too many people unnecessarily. The collateral damage is going to be overwhelming, and it’s going to wrap up too many innocent citizens. All we simply wanted to do was to make sure that the bill went after the bad guys.”

After the notes were filed and the information was not immediately available, House Speaker Michael Madigan quickly adjourned the fall session. Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored the state’s new concealed carry law, has been working on the bill with Zalewski. He said he was not exactly surprised that the bill did not move forward today because he said many Democrats told him they had reservations about it. “The speaker said that we’re not doing it today, more or less. ... We spent so many hours working on this and we had a deal. Now we’re not doing it today at all. So we’ve got to come back in December, hopefully we’ll call it then.” Several House members mentioned as they exited the chamber that they expect they might return in December to take up public pension legislation.

Zalewski, who has partnered with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to push for the proposal, blamed the Illinois Department of Corrections for not providing details of how the measure would affect its budget and prison population. The IDOC opposed the bill because officials said the department did not have the money or capacity to house the population in crease it would cause. “The Department of Corrections knows how much the bill costs. It’s their basis for their opposition of the bill. Yet they couldn’t walk down to the House clerk’s office and file it in time,” Zalewski said.

A spokesman for the department said the changes to the bill yesterday made it difficult for them to recalculate the impact quickly enough. “This is a very complex piece of legislation, and every time the sponsors file amendments changing provisions of the bill, there is substantial work and analysis that must be done to determine the impact of the changes,” Tom Shaer with IDOC said in an email. “Amendment 5 was just added to this bill yesterday afternoon. IDOC has had staff analyzing the impact of this amendment since that time. We have tremendous respect for everyone in this process and are obligated to furnish them with accurate information and thorough, well-researched projections.”

Members of the black caucus say they want to address the violence in a more holistic way that includes investments in education and rehabilitation programs. “There is a way to do both of these things. To make sure that the people that need to go into prison go into prison but that we also deal with the 40 percent of people who are there for nonviolent offenses, who need to be in cheaper alternative programs that give them a better chance and a shot at life. While also making sure that the folks who need to be there, and that’s felons and gang bangers, actually end up in prison — in a prison that has room for them to be there,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Christian Mitchell. “I think that the mayor and Rep. Zalewski are trying to do the right thing, but the how really matters.” Some caucus members added that they were concerned that some of the previous felonies that would make offenders eligible for the mandatory minimum sentence were nonviolent offenses, such as shoplifting. They also said they would like to see a time limit, so that a crime that occurred a decade ago would not make someone eligible for a mandatory minimum sentence.

Zalewski said he has been working to negotiate the bill and that some who are opposed will never support the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. “I’ve negotiated on this bill for six weeks. ‘No’ is always going to be the answer for some people. You saw it today. You saw an unwillingness to have a debate about public policy and public safety. And [opponents] resorted to tricks because the votes were there. That’s what happens in this building sometimes.” But members of the black caucus disagree that the bill would have passed if called for a vote.

Meanwhile the Illinois Senate approved a supplemental spending bill worth about $50 million. The largest chunk of that, almost $34 million, is for implementation of the concealed carry licensing system. Only about $500,000 of the spending in the bill comes out of the General Revenue Fund. House Bill 209 does not include the $112 million that would be needed to give state workers back pay. In 2011, lawmakers did not appropriate the money for contractual raises for state employees, but a judge ordered the state to pay the increases with interest. House Speaker Michael Madigan has said that state agencies should work within their current budgets to find the money for the pay. Sen. Mike Jacobs, a Democrat from East Moline, voted in favor of the bill, which received broad bipartisan support. But he said that lawmakers would eventually need to approve the money for workers. “I just think it’s important that the Senate knows that we owe this money and at some point in our career, in our lives, we ought to pay it.”

With the House adjourning after less than an hour spent in session today, many issues were left without resolution. Supporters of tax break plans for Archer Daniels Midland Co. and the newly formed Office Max Inc. saw no urgency to call those measures for a vote in the Senate when it became clear that the House would not vote on them today. ADM is looking to move its headquarters from Decatur and is considering Chicago, among other options. Office Depot Inc., the product of a merger between Office Depot and Office Max, is choosing between Naperville, Office Max’s current headquarters, and Boca Raton, Fla., where Office Depot is based.

The House also did not take up a bill that passed in the Senate yesterday to restore Medicaid dental benefits to adults. Chicago Democratic Rep. Monique Davis said that she thinks that the House will likely approve that bill early next year. “I think it’s going to pass. I think it’s going to get a lot of support. We’ll get it when we first come back in January. We’ll be able to do that because that will be one of the first few days we can do that.” If lawmakers wait until January on some issues, they will need fewer votes to achieve an immediate effective date on legislation. “Don’t think because we’re not on that House floor that people aren’t working. People are working,” Davis said. Some issues may not have to wait until January. House Speaker Michael Madigan has said that he hopes lawmakers will hold a session to vote on changes to the state’s public pension systems. Legislative leaders met on the issue last week and say they feel progress was made. They sent components of a plan to the pension systems to get cost savings estimates. Those projections usually take about 10 days to produce.

Having another potential shot at a legislative session soon may give those who could not get their bills passed during veto session another bite at the apple. However, knowing that they could be back at the Statehouse in the near future, lawmakers may have deflated some issues by taking urgency out of the situation. Why take the controversial vote today that can be pushed off for another month? Still, with the historic passage of same-sex marriage, approval of a supplemental appropriation bill, and both chambers passing changes to the pension system for Chicago Park District employees, this veto session was more eventful than many in recent memory.

Quinn strikes out on concealed carry and pensions

By Jamey Dunn

Illinois became the 50th state to legalize carrying concealed firearms after lawmakers voted to override Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of legislation today.

Things got off to a quick start this morning as the House voted 77 to 31 to override the veto with no debate. But the Senate took its time, considering a bill that contained some of the provisions Quinn added to House Bill 183 with his veto pen. Quinn called for several changes to the bill, including banning guns in any establishment that serves alcohol, eliminating a provision that prevents home rule governments from setting future gun laws and limiting licensees to carrying one gun.

The Senate approved a bill with some of the less controversial aspects of Quinn’s veto. HB1453 would have allowed schools and other places that are listed in the bill as no-carry zones the option to forgo posting signs letting the public know that guns are not allowed. It also would have required that concealed carry licensees immediately notify police officers if they are carrying a weapon during a traffic stop or other interaction and streamlined reporting of some mental health records. Supporters called the changes reasonable. Senate President John Cullerton said that as the sponsor of the bill, he chose suggestions from Quinn that could find broad support in order to reach the three-fifths vote threshold they would need to go into effect immediately. “I wanted to see if we could make these corrections today ... and hope that we can continue to have dialogue,” he said.

However, the House rejected that bill. The sticking point seemed to be the provision that would relax the posting requirements for areas where guns are banned. Opponents argued that licensees might forget when they enter an off limits area that guns are banned there. They said a reminder in the form of a sign would help keep them from inadvertently breaking the law. “I think we’re setting up our constituents to fail” if signs are not posted, said Mundelein Republican Rep. Ed Sullivan.

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on carry negotiations and pushed for many of the changes Quinn proposed in his veto, backed the override today. “ I support the elements offered by the governor’s amendatory veto,” he said. But he said as negotiations over the bill went on, those ideas were rejected. And he said because a federal appellate court set a deadline for lawmakers to pass a carry law, he had to accept that. “The 7th Circuit [Court] has made clear that there is no more time. We are here on July 9th [the day of the court’s deadline], and if the members of this chamber have the interest of public safety at their heart[s], they would vote to override. Because if we do not override today, at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow, July 10th, there are no restrictions upon people who want to carry handguns in the public way.” Raoul laid out one of the most extreme possible scenarios if a law were not in place. “Somebody could walk into a school tomorrow, if we don’t override, at three [or] four times the intoxication level that we bar people from driving with a handgun with a 20 bullet-magazine in it and it will not be in violation of the law.”

Other proponents of an override urged lawmakers to stick to the deal that was struck on the compromise bill they approved during the spring legislative session. “It’s a very very difficult issue; people genuinely disagree on how this should be handled. I think the bill that passed respects Second Amendment rights, but it also has very reasonable restrictions in it,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno.

Lawmakers who support stricter gun laws said that allowing people to carry guns in places that serve alcohol is in appropriate and dangerous. “We train and we test people when they get a driver’s license and we expect them to be exemplary drivers,” said Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat. “But let’s look at the statistics of how many DUIs there are, and how many people are killed because of DUI. I don’t think that was their intent when they went and got educated and trained to get that license. But it happened because alcohol and driving don’t mix.”

Others raised concerns that licensees will be able to carry as many guns and ammunition magazines as they want. “I think it’s unnecessary for an individual to have four, five six, seven unlimited weapons on them at any time,’ said Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat.

Those in the pro-carry camp were in a celebratory mood today. “It's just a huge victory for Illinois gun owners and law-abiding gun owners,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored HB 183. “It’s been a long time coming. ... This is just a good day for the law abiding gun owners being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

But Illinois gun owners cannot celebrate by carrying their firearms in public tomorrow. The Illinois State Police have 180 days to put a system in place and begin accepting carry applications. The standard application process is set at 90 days. A five-year license will cost $150, and licensees will be required to pass a background check and undergo 16 hours of instruction, including live-fire training at a gun range. Licensees will have to take a two- to three-hour refresher training course when they renew their licenses. Law enforcement officials have the option to object to concealed-carry applications. If in application is contested, it will go before a review board.

Phelps said today that he wants to remind everyone in the state that they must go through the legal process to carry. Despite the law, he said that people are likely already carrying weapons in Illinois. State’s attorneys in several counties across Illinois have said that they will not prosecute people with valid Firearm Owner Identification cards, who carry guns in public. “There are going to be people in Illinois ... in some of those counties that the state’s attorneys said they aren’t going to prosecute, that will be carrying — that will be carrying as of probably right now. I’ve had phone calls already [and they] said, ‘Guess what? I’m carrying.’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s illegal. You’ve got to have a license.’ But they’re actually doing it.” Phelps said that the state police need the time to get the carry licensing system going, especially since the FOID card system has experienced long wait times in recent years.

While it was a good day for gun rights advocates, as Phelps put it, “It’s not a good day for the governor.” Quinn issued his veto last week and pushed for it at several high-profile events since. He has been bashing lawmakers for producing a bill that he says put politics above public safety and claiming that the public is on his side when it comes to gun control. He was clearly frustrated at a news conference after both chambers adjourned today. “Well, today was a bad day for public safety in Illinois,” he said. He said of HB 182: “It’s very, very important that we protect the people. I think the legislation ... does not do that. It has shortcomings that will lead to tragedy. That’s why I acted on the amendatory veto.” Quinn said he plans to continue to push for the changes that he put forth as separate follow-up bills.

Phelps, who does not support any of the governor’s proposals, said Quinn may have had more luck if he would have tried to pass follow-up legislation in the first place instead of issuing a veto that drastically changed a bill, which was the product of months of negotiations. “The governor grandstanded on this. He went around the whole last week trying to grandstand politically on this issue. He was wrong. He should have signed it. I think he’s probably embarrassed right now because he looks weak and he looks irrelevant.”

Quinn took another hit today as lawmakers completely ignored the deadline he had set to change public employee pension systems. Quinn gave a conference committee three weeks to work out a compromise bill, which he wanted lawmakers to vote on today. The committee did not produce a bill. Members said they needed more time to get cost savings projections from actuaries working with the state’s public employee pension systems. Quinn has been making public threats that lawmakers would face “consequences” if they did not do something “comprehensive” on pensions today. “When you don’t have your work done on time, that’s a situation where there are consequences, and there will be,” Quinn said in Chicago over the weekend. Even after both legislative chambers adjourned and members hit the road today without passing pension legislation, Quinn would not divulge what those consequences might be. “We’ll give them until midnight. I think it’s important that they have the full amount of time.”

Cullerton, who appointed three members of the committee, said today that he does not know when the group will produce legislation. “It’s going to take awhile. You have actuarial studies that you have to get back on any proposed change to a bill. And they take weeks to get, and the governor knows that. So as soon as we get an agreement, we’ll come back in, and we’ll try to pass a bill.” Rumors have been circulating around the Statehouse for days that Quinn might use his veto pen to cut money for legislative salaries out of a budget bill he has yet to sign. Quinn has approved all the other budget bills for the new fiscal year, which began on July 1. His representatives refuse to comment on the rumor, saying only that the bill is “under review.” Raoul, who is chair of the committee, dismissed Quinn’s threats today. “If he’s going to do that, he ought to look at the line item that pays his salary, as well, because he didn’t come to the conference committee meeting to participate.” Raoul invited Quinn to a committee hearing yesterday, but the governor sent a member of his staff in his place. “I think that’s a childish game of tit for tat, particularly when you know that the deadline you set is impractical.”

Lawmakers to take up Quinn's concealed carry veto on day of court deadline

By Jamey Dunn

Gov. Pat Quinn had harsh words for lawmakers today as he revealed his proposed changes to a compromise concealed-carry bill lawmakers approved in May.

 “I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. “Fortunately our Constitution — adopted by the people in a referendum — gives the governor an opportunity to propose important changes that protect the public safety.”

A federal court overturned the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave lawmakers until early June to pass a bill regulating carry in the state. Both legislative chambers approved House Bill 183 on the last day of the spring session. Attorney General Lisa Madigan sought an extension of the deadline to give Quinn time to review the bill. Illinois now has until July 9 to put a carry law in place.

House sponsor of the bill Rep. Brandon Phelps has moved to override Quinn’s changes, and the House plans to begin session at 11 a.m. on July 9 to consider the veto. “He just put one more hurdle in there before the July 9 deadline that we’re going to have to overcome,” Phelps said. Supporters of the original House Bill 183 will need the support of three-fifths of the members of both chambers to reject Quinn’s changes. If all those who voted in favor of the bill the first time around also vote to reject the veto, then HB 183 will become law without Quinn's changes.

“There are serious flaws in this bill that jeopardize public safety of the people of Illinois.” Quinn said today after he used his amendatory veto power to make multiple changes to HB 183.  Quinn's administration also launched a website that describes his tweaks to the bill.  He proposed removing a provision that would bar home rule governments from setting future restrictions on guns, such as assault weapons bans. “Home rule is a very important part of life in Illinois. It allows local communities to adopt laws and ordinances that benefit their community, and that principle ought to be upheld.” Quinn said the provision is unrelated to concealed carry. “This provision was inspired by the National Rifle Association; it has nothing to do with concealed carry. It’s part of their agenda, no doubt about it, but we don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in the state of Illinois and our local communities.”

Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the prohibition on future ordinances is meant to keep local laws from springing up after carry goes into effect. He said that if that occurs, gun owners would likely not know what each locality had passed and might inadvertently break laws as the travel in Illinois. “We do not believe in a patchwork of laws when you are traveling from town to town in the state. The average, law-abiding gun owner is not going to know when driving through those towns what’s expected of him or her.”

Home rule units that do not have bans on assault weapons would have 10 days after the bill becomes law to enact such a ban. “Those home rule municipalities have had forever to pass some form of assault weapons ban,” Phelps said. He took issue with the governor characterizing the bill as a product of the policy desires of the NRA. Phelps has worked closely with the NRA on previous versions of concealed carry, even sponsoring legislation drafted by the organization in the past. But he says HB 183 is a compromise bill that was worked out by lawmakers without interest groups at the table. “The NRA was never in the meeting. They don’t necessarily like the bill. There’s some things they like in there, and there’s some things they don’t like. There’s some things the city of Chicago likes and some things they don’t like. That’s how you get a compromise.” The NRA was neutral on the legislation and avoided making public comments. However gun control advocates noted that the group is rarely mum on any legislation concerning firearms, let alone one of the most important gun-related measures in recent history.

Quinn’s changes would limit those with a carry license to carrying one gun and one ammunition clip that holds no more than 10 rounds. The bill as written would allow licensees to carry as many guns and rounds as they wanted. Under HB 183, business owners who do not wish to allow guns on their property would be required to post a sign. Quinn wants the law to be the other way around. “The presumption ought to be that no guns are allowed in these places, and if the [property] owner wants to have guns, then they should have to have a sign that says, ‘Guns are welcome here.’ It shouldn’t be a burden on private property owners to put a sign otherwise.” Quinn was critical of wording in the bill that allows for carrying guns that are “mostly” concealed. “This isn’t concealed at all,” he said. He proposed changing the wording to clarify that weapons must be fully hidden from view.

The governor also wants to strike a provision that would allow gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars if their employers do not allow guns on site. Quinn said that employers should be allowed to ban guns anywhere on their property to reduce the potential for workplace violence. Quinn’s rewrite would also ban the carry of guns in any establishment that serves alcohol. HB 183 only bans weapons in establishments where alcohol makes up half of the gross sales. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix, and I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” he said.

Both of the last two issues were provisions that gun control advocates vocally opposed in HB 183. They applauded Quinn’s move today. Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her organization accepted the court ruling and tried to work with lawmakers to get “comprehensive” carry regulation. But she said that the process did not result in a satisfactory bill. “A flawed bill was passed. Thankfully, our state’s top elected official, Gov. Quinn has our back.” She said that SB 183 “goes too far,” but Quinn’s proposed changes would alleviate most of her group’s concerns with the bill.

Phelps has already filed the paperwork to override Quinn’s veto, which he dismissed as a political move. “This is 100 percent political pandering to one area of this state, Cook County and Chicago. That’s all he’s doing. He’s totally disregarding the General Assembly.” He said the governor has refused to take his calls since the bill passed. “That just shows you how much he thinks of the General Assembly,” Phelps said. “I thought maybe out of respect of each of the bill’s sponsors [he would] to try to work something out.” Phelps said Quinn should have signed the bill and then presented his own legislation with any changes he thinks are needed.

Both Phelps, and Sen. Gary Forby, the Senate sponsor of the bill, are confident that lawmakers will vote to override Quinn’s veto next week. Quinn has also threatened to call lawmakers back for a special session to take up pension reform, so there may be more than one session day next week. “This doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. We knew this governor was going to make this political. If he had concerns about the bill, maybe he should have been more involved when lawmakers spent months working on it. Instead, he makes major changes to the bill after it passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Just doesn’t seem very democratic to me,” said Forby, a Benton Democrat.

 Quinn today reiterated his opposition to allowing concealed carry in the state at all. “I felt that [court] ruling was wrong then; I still feel it’s wrong. It’s not been appealed.”

Attorney General Lisa Madigan still has the option to appeal the ruling, but a statement from her office today said that she plans to wait to see what lawmakers do with the veto. “That's the last step in the legislative process after the governor amendatorily vetoes a bill. Our office will continue to monitor the progress on the legislative front before making a final decision about the state’s legal options.”

Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on the negotiations surrounding concealed carry, said he supports many of the changes that Quinn proposed. However he said they were not politically possible. Raoul in particular supported a ban on guns in all places where alcohol is served, but during negotiations, he acknowledged that he might not be able to get all the components he wanted passed. “I wanted the provision that the governor is suggesting to add through amendatory veto, but it was a deal breaker with regards to negotiations.” He said he has not yet decided how he will vote if the veto override is called in the Senate. He voted "present" on HB 183.

“The governor has within his powers the ability to weigh in. I share some of the sentiment of the governor with regards to some of these public safety issues,” Raoul said. But he said that the end product approved by the legislature had some strong protections, especially when coupled with other gun safety legislation sponsored by Raoul. When lawmakers passed the carry bill, they also approved legislation that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons and gun sellers to confirm that purchasers in private sales can legally own firearms. “I don’t fault him, but we have to realize the reality of the circumstance of what a legislature is and how you negotiate within it,” Raoul said.

Quinn said today in response to critics who have accused him of swooping in with demands at the 11th hour after lawmakers spent months negotiating the bill: “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety.”

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.

Senate committee rejects House concealed-carry bill

By Jamey Dunn

An Illinois Senate committee killed the concealed-carry bill supported by House Speaker Michael Madigan and approved another plan that faces push back from the National Rifle Association. 

The Senate Executive Committee voted down Senate Bill 2193, which the House approved last week. Under the bill, residents who are eligible to own a gun and are 21 or older could apply for a concealed-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.

But the proposal would wipe out local gun laws, including those not directly related to concealed carry, such as requirements to report lost or stolen guns and Chicago’s ban on assault weapons. Senate Democrats on the committee say that is where the bill goes too far. “To preempt every local government from enacting any law or ordinance related to firearms is a remarkable ask,” said Sen. Don Harmon, who voted against the measure. But proponents say the preemption of home rule powers on gun laws is needed because gun owners who are carrying concealed firearms throughout the state might accidentally break the law while travelling because they do not know about local ordinances. “We don’t think it’s fair for law-abiding gun owners to travel through this state not knowing from one town to the next what’s expected of them. If we have one law, everybody knows, and you’re not making that law-abiding gun owner a criminal,” Rep. Brandon Phelps, the House sponsor of the bill, told the Senate Committee today.

HB 183, which the committee approved today, would preempt home rule, but only on issues related to concealed carry. Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsors the bill, said the measure would allow residents to transport their weapons under a uniform carry law throughout the state. But some Republicans on the panel voiced concerns that the ability to transport guns under the bill is not clear. Raoul said he is open to spelling out that residents with carry licenses can carry their weapons, loaded or unloaded, in their vehicles while they drive through the state. “Perhaps we could be more explicit,” he said. Other than the preemption issue, the two bills are relatively similar.

A lobbyist for the National Rifle Association said the group is neutral on SB 2193 but prefers it to Raoul’s bill, which he said he has been lobbying against. “There’s a lot of junk in this bill that we would not normally accept. ...We’re not for it; we’re not against it. But given some of the other things that are out there, there’s enough bread on this sandwich to make it choke down,” said Todd Vandermyde. He said he has asked senators to consider it as an alternative to Raoul's legislation, which he described as “a sandwich that just isn’t right to swallow.”

Benton Democratic Sen. Gary Forby that if he were allowed to bring the measure he sponsors with Phelps to a floor vote, he thinks it would pass. “I counted the votes last week. I think I’ve got enough votes ... and I think a bill like this should be voted on,” Forby said. Raoul said that he thinks that the broad preemption under Forby’s bill is the reason that the NRA is not opposing it. He said he has not yet counted votes on his bill and that he is still open to making compromises or addressing opponents' concerns. A federal court gave lawmakers until early June to pass legislation regulating carry in the state.

Senate looks to tweak concealed-carry bill approved by House

By Jamey Dunn

State Sen. Kwame Raoul says he plans to craft a “compromise” bill similar to the concealed-carry legislation approved by the House today.

The Illinois House passed Senate Bill 2193 on a vote of 85 in favor and 30 opposed. Under the proposal, Illinois residents would be able to carry loaded handguns in public if they meet the licensing requirements prescribed by the bill, complete 18 hours of training and pay a fee of $150. The Illinois State Police would issue concealed-carry licenses, which would be good for five years.

A federal court ordered Illinois lawmakers to approve legislation regulating concealed carry by early June. House Speaker Michael Madigan said that ruling was a driving force behind today’s vote, but he said so were changing attitudes about concealed carry. He noted that a bill backed by gun control advocates received only 31 of the 60 “yes” votes it would have needed to pass in the House last month. A bill supported by gun rights activists was only defeated after Madigan lobbied against it. “That language, which required 71 votes, got 64. It got 64 after I had worked against the bill and where the proponent of the language felt that at a high water point, they had 75 votes,” he said on the House floor today. “Those vote counts are very telling. They tell the reason why I stand before you today changing a position which I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy.” He said that as public sentiment changes, so do lawmakers’ votes. “In a democracy, it’s not only OK to do that, it’s expected that there would be changes in thinking by people in legislatures consistent with how the people of the country feel.”

The measure approved today would wipe out all existing local gun laws, including requirements to report lost or stolen guns and Chicago’s ban on assault weapons. Senate President John Cullerton called this preemption of the powers of home rule units of government an “overreach” by the National Rifle Association. The NRA has not taken a position on the bill. However, Raoul, who sponsored a more restrictive plan in the Senate, says he doesn’t buy that. “You’ve never known the NRA to be quiet on a gun bill. I think that’s reflective of the NRA being in favor of this bill. There’s not question the NRA is in favor of this bill. I don’t think anybody is fooled by that.” A representative of the Illinois State Rifle Association told Illinois Issues yesterday that the group opposes the fee and the number of training hours required, but it remains neutral on the overall bill.

Supporters of SB 2193 say they want uniform laws throughout the state so that gun owners do not commit crimes just because they are unaware of a local ordinance. “I’m a home rule guy. I live in a home rule county. I live in a home rule municipality. I represent home rule municipalities,” said Rep. David Harris, a Republican from Arlington Heights. But Harris told a story about his wife getting a ticket for talking on her cell phone while driving in a city that bans it because she did not know it was illegal there. He said that if that happened under a carry law, she would potentially face criminal charges. “It’s rare that I stand up and support preemption. However, I think this is one time where preemption makes sense.”

 Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored the bill, said, “No matter where you live, no matter what ZIP code you come from, you should have equal rights.” Raoul said that his compromise bill would preempt local government on the issue of concealed carry, so that the law is uniform across the state. But he said there is no reason to roll back local gun regulations that are not related to carry. “The 7th circuit [court] didn’t say pass a law that preempts home rule to do anything with regards to guns,” he said. “Any of the ordinances that exist right now, except for those that have to deal with concealed carry, we’d leave those in place.”

Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said many components of Phelps’ plan would make it into his own legislation. Under SB 2193, 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 federal judges, department of justice attorneys, federal law enforcement agents, doctors and clinical psychologists as potential candidates for saving on the panel. Applicants for carry licenses who were flagged by a law enforcement objection would also be able to submit information to the board, which would make the final ruling on the permit. Raoul’s previous bill would have given Chicago’s police commission veto power over applications from people who want to carry in the city, but he said he is comfortable with including Phelps’ review board instead of his Chicago-specific idea. Raoul said he also plans to call for banning concealed carry anywhere alcohol is served. Phelps’ bill only bans guns in establishments where alcohol sales make up half of the take.

Gov. Pat Quinn issued a scathing statement after the House vote today. “This legislation is wrong for Illinois. It was wrong yesterday in committee, it’s wrong today and it’s wrong for the future of public safety in our state. The principle of home rule is an important one. As written, this legislation is a massive overreach that would repeal critical gun safety ordinances in Chicago, Cook County, and across Illinois. We need strong gun safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk. I will not support this bill, and I will work with members of the Illinois Senate to stop it in its tracks," he said. The city of Chicago also opposes the bill.

But Phelps said he is concerned that if the state misses the deadline set by the courts, then carry would be allowed without statewide restrictions, and the result would be chaotic. “We have a court ruling to deal with, so I would find it appalling [if] the governor and the powers that be want to go off the cliff because there’s way too much uncertainty in that. So why would you want to put the people in the state of Illinois in jeopardy by going off the cliff?” He asked during floor debate of his bill.

Cullerton said he might call Phelps’ legislation for a vote. However, he said that decision would be made after Senate Democrats caucus on the issue when they return to Springfield for session on Monday. “Maybe our caucus doesn’t want to go forward with it. Maybe we’ll have a caucus, and we’ll see that there’s no support and go a head with an alternative,” Cullerton said.

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.

Gun control advocates zero in on priorities

By Jamey Dunn

As the debate over concealed carry continues in Illinois, gun control advocates are setting their priorities.

Last week, the Illinois House rejected two concealed carry proposals — one restrictive plan favored by some gun control advocates and one more permissive proposal backed by the National Rifle Association. The Senate is still working to reach a bipartisan agreement, but negotiations have reportedly hit some snags. A federal court gave lawmakers until early June to pass legislation regulating the carry of firearms in the state.

Those lobbying for gun control hope to see a more restrictive carry law. “We call on lawmakers to use this opportunity to pass the strongest possible gun laws in this country. A law that limits guns in paces like schools and stadiums and government buildings and public transportation for heaven’s sake — a law that mandates strong training requirements and for permit holders to have an awfully good cause for being issued one,” said Bishop Christopher Epting of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago. “We must balance the Second Amendment with the rights we have to live in peace and free from fear of another life lost to gun violence.”

But many also see the court’s order as an opportunity to put in place some restrictions that they call “common sense” safety measures, which they say would make it easier for law enforcement to track guns and could help to quell the rampant violence in Chicago. The city had more than 500 murders last year, and 87 percent of the victims died from gunshot wounds. “Every time I talk to a legislator, the number one question I get is Chicago. How is this going to stop what’s happening in the city of Chicago?” said Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “That’s the reason we’ve put together an anti-trafficking proposal looking at things like universal background checks, reporting of lost or stolen firearms, dealer licensing and titling guns like cars or some point of sale reporting, so we actually know where that gun is supposed to be.”

Oak Park Democratic Sen. Don Harmon said the focus of gun control advocates must be on measures they believe will do the most to make neighborhoods safe. “We’re not ready to back down. We have a long list of things that we want, and I’m going to ask you to remember just one thing: Let’s always focus on our ultimate objective. We want our neighborhood to be safer; we want our kids and our families to be safe. Anything we do has to make sure we make progress on that front. We might not get everything we want, but we’re going to get safer neighborhoods. We’re going to get safer communities. Our families will be safe; our children will be safe,” Harmon said as he addressed a crowd that had come to Springfield to lobby lawmakers.

Sen. Dan Kotowski, former executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said he is focused on three provisions he thinks can find broad support. He said that this spring, he is most interested in passing legislation that would require background checks for all gun sales — currently they are not required for private sales — and would require gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms. He also said he wants to work to fix systemic problems with the reporting of mental health records to the Illinois State Police, which licenses gun owners. “If we were to move forward on those three basic initiatives, I think that would be a positive step forward,” he said. “If we’re making the determination to allow people to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public places, when the vast majority of the public is clamoring for reasonable measures which prevent people from getting access to guns who are criminals, who are mentally ill or who are threats to the community, we need to have a proper balance.”

Gov. Pat Quinn supports all three of those measures. The governor has also been vocal about his desire for bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines since a mass shooting in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last summer. “The legislature needs to get significant reforms adopted into bill form that come to my desk beyond just concealed carry. That’s not enough,” Quinn said. During a recent gun control rally, which drew family and friends of victims of Chicago gun violence to the Statehouse, Quinn recalled several high-profile shootings. “We're here to save lives. We don’t want people being shot down in a movie theater or a church or a political rally in Tucson, Arizona, or going to first grade in Newtown, Connecticut. Or, or even in our own state. In DeKalb, Illinois, on Valentine's Day five years ago, a gunman [came] into a classroom and killed five students. Five good men and women. I went to each of their funerals. We’re tired of going to funerals.”

Quinn failed to mention the violence in the city, but Daley said that was all right. “We talk about mass shootings all the time and pointing to Connecticut and pointing to Colorado because we have that actually happening in the city on a weekend,” she said. “So paralleling the two of them actually makes a lot of sense in trying to explain it.”

Kotowski, a Park Ridge Democrat, said he appreciates Quinn’s relentless public support for gun control, even if some of the things the governor wants are not at the top of his list this year. “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. “But right now, what can we do immediately?”

Mary Kay Mace, mother of Northern Illinois University shooting victim Ryanne Mace, said she hopes that the debate on concealed carry sheds light on the problems with safety measures that are already in place. “What I hope happens is that people become aware of how shoddy our background check system is,” she says. “I think that people just assume that the laws that we have already on the books are working well, and they are not.”

Some lawmakers who advocate for gun owners’ rights also support a few of Kotowoski’s priorities. Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsors the NRA-backed concealed carry proposal, called the mental health records reporting system a “travesty” that he says he wants to help fix. He said increasing the fees for concealed carry permits in his bill to $100 could help address the problems. He also supports universal background checks for all gun sales. However, Phelps does not favor requiring gun owners to report firearms that are lost or stolen. He also does not think that gun control measures should be tacked onto concealed carry legislation. “Now’s not the time to reinvent the wheel,” he said.

Daley said that as advocates focus on their priorities, they should remember that no single change will stop the violence. “One thing we like to make clear is that we don’t [work] under the notion that all of these laws are suddenly going to stop all the violence. Gun violence is a very complex issue, and there are a lot of factors that go into it  — economy, where people live, all of that — but what we can do is, we can enact laws that are going to help law enforcement and that are going to cut back on crime that’s taking place — gun violence that is taking place.”

Mace said that she is hopeful about the potential for compromise. “I think that we have more common ground than a lot of people realize. I think that the extremists are loudest on both sides.”

Another concealed carry plan fails in the House

By Jamey Dunn

For the second time in two days, the Illinois House voted down a concealed carry bill.

A federal court struck down the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave the state a June 9 deadline to pass legislation to regulate carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.

House Bill 997 (Amendment 9) needed 71 votes to pass because it would supersede the control of local home rule governments. It received only 64 “yes” votes.

The measure is a “shall-issue” bill that would require the Illinois State Police to issue concealed carry licenses to all qualified applicants. However, the legislation would allow local law enforcement to contest an application if they can demonstrate that applicants are a danger to themselves or others.

“A lot of people probably don’t want to hear this, but this is probably the strictest shall-issue bill in the country,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsors the legislation. Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said he tried to compromise with those who are concerned about concealed carry by increasing the amount of time that permit applicants would have to spend in training and upping the fees of the permits. Under his proposal, $30 out of every $100 permit fee would be dedicated to fix the state’s troubled Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) system, which does not receive most mental health records from county officials. Phelps called the current system a “travesty.” The measure also would increase penalties for violating the restrictions in the legislation.

But those tweaks could not bridge the deep divides on gun issues, which many lawmakers acknowledge are driven by regional differences.

“Clearly, we do simply come at this from different perspectives,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy. On Wednesday, the House soundly rejected Cassidy’s more restrictive “may issue” bill, which would have required applicants for permits to demonstrate a need to carry a firearm. It also would have let sheriffs, who would issue the permits under her proposal, use their discretion when deciding who could and could not carry. Opponents of such a model say it allows for unequal treatment and could let some counties essential opt out of concealed carry by denying the bulk of applications received.

Cassidy said she respects the desires of people in more rural communities who view guns as tools for hunting and protection. But she said lawmakers must also consider gun violence in some parts of Chicago, where young people are shooting each other in the streets. “The only hunting that’s happen in my neighborhood is of young men. More guns are not the answer to our gun problem in Chicago. Please. Let’s get to the table. Let’s get a solution that respects the differences between our communities. There is a solution, and there is time. This isn’t soup yet.”

Proponents of Phelps' bill said concealed carry could help protect residents of high crime areas, where criminals already have guns. “Wouldn’t it be nice for them to wonder if everybody had a gun? That’s the real deterrent,” said Rep. David Reis. He said of criminals who already illegally use guns: “You’re never going to control them. You control them by having an armed society.” Reis, a Willow Hill Republican, said people in other parts of the state need to carry guns to ensure their safety when the police cannot come quickly enough. “For us in rural areas, [it is] 20 or 30 minutes before a sheriff can get to our house or to our fields where we’re working.”

When the bill failed Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted against it, called out a similar sentiment to Cassidy’s remarks. “It’s not soup yet; not yet,” he said, and was met by calls of “it’s close” from supporters.

But Phelps was not so optimistic. “It might be the last chance. I don’t know what else we can give on.” His bill would preempt local control, which would bar local governments from putting their own carry laws in place. He said he does not plan to compromise on that issue. “There should be one uniform law that everybody knows about,” he said. Phelps said it would be too much to ask traveling gun owners to keep track of different laws across counties and cities throughout the state. “We think that you could make law abiding gun owners criminals.”

Phelps said lawmakers need to wake up to the reality of the court ordered deadline. “It better get real here soon because that's June 9th,” he said. If he and others on his side decide to leave the negotiations, he said, there would not be enough votes to pass legislation in the House. “If we walk, there’s not going to be a bill.

Concealed-carry supporters hope for vote on Thursday

By Jamey Dunn

Supporters of concealed carry of firearms hope to pass a bill on Thursday after the House today rejected a proposal similar to a more restrictive system used in New York state.

The chamber voted 31 to 76 today against adopting an amendment to House Bill 831 that would give local law enforcement officials discretion when issuing licenses to carry firearms in public. Supporters of concealed carry in Illinois are pushing for a “shall issue” licensing system that would require the state to give permits to applicants who meet the requirements set out in the law. But earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to New York’s “may issue” law. That statute allows law enforcement officials to deny applicants who may be qualified on paper for a license if they think the applicant presents a danger. Those who would like a stricter law took the court’s action as a sign that Illinois should go for a “may issue” model. But today’s vote encouraged gun rights advocates. “Now more than ever, the ‘may issue’ should be completely off the table because it was really evident that they are a long way from passing a ‘may issue,’” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat.

He said he plans to call legislation for a floor vote tomorrow that is similar to House Bill 997, a concealed carry bill he introduced earlier this legislative session. “We’ve got to have something done,” he said, citing the June deadline a federal court gave lawmakers to pass concealed carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.

The New York law also requires applicants to provide a reason for their need to carry in public. Such a provision was in the proposal voted down in the Illinois House today. “Our communities are different. Since you’re establishing danger distinct from other members of your community, it would be unique to your community,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the sponsor of HB831. Under the legislation, sheriffs would determine whether an applicant made the case for needing to carry a firearm. “In each community, the sheriff is going the have the best understanding of the questions of personal safety in the community.” After a sheriff signed off on an application, it would then go the Illinois State Police for another round of scrutiny.

Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat, said the bill was an effort to balance constitutional rights with public safety and recognize that geographic areas of the state have different issues with guns. Supporters agreed. “The court said that it was legitimate for us to impose a balancing act to set the rights of people to be safe from guns that are out of control against the rights of people to be able to protect themselves,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie. She said the measure that the House considered today “does exactly that.” Currie said during floor debate, “If you want Illinois to be the wild West, I invite you to vote against” the amendment.

But opponents say the proposal would be a way to effectively exempt Chicago from concealed carry. “Downstate will probably be more liberal with their concealed carry permit, versus Chicago and Cook County,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “I believe this is just really an end (run) around what the 7th Circuit [Court of Appeals] has stated we should do.”

Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”

Phelps said supporters of his plan believe it is a “last chance” to get a compromise before the deadline runs out. “I don’t know if there’s another chance to pass anything. I think that there’s a lot of people who are going to say, ‘Look, we tried. Let’s just go off the cliff. Let’s do constitutional carry.’” He said a lot of House members who have never voted in favor of a concealed-carry bill are afraid of that happening. “I’ve got a lot of people who are interested in voting for this that never have before because they don’t want constitutional carry.”

But gun control advocates cautioned not to read too much into today’s vote. They said they knew the support wasn’t there yet, but they think they can find backing for a bill that allows Chicago some local control. While lawmakers must get something done, they say, it isn’t crunch time yet.

“I don’t think we should just rush to do something because we’ve got a deadline,” said Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “We need to make sure that whatever we’re going to do will respect people’s 2nd Amendment rights, while also keeping people safe.” She said gun control groups have not had “true negotiations” in the House but are working with lawmakers in the Senate on a proposal. “I do think there’s promise that we’ll find something that will end up working,” she says. “We’ve been willing to negotiate from day one.”

Phelps said he would spend the evening lobbying House members. He thinks he is very close to having the 71 votes he needs to pass his bill tomorrow. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”

Supreme Court inaction on concealed-carry limits could affect Illinois legislation

By Jamey Dunn

Top Illinois Democrats say lawmakers should look to New York’s strict concealed carry law as a model when working on the issue in Illinois.

The U.S. Supreme Court today opted not to hear a challenge to New York’s law, which gives law enforcement officials broad discretion when issuing concealed carry licenses and requires applicants for licenses to provide a reason for their need to carry in public. The New York law says the state “may issue” a license to qualified applicants.

Supporters of concealed carry in Illinois are pushing for a “shall issue” licensing system that would require the state to give permits to applicants who meet the requirements set out in the law. But those in Illinois who support a more restrictive approach say lawmakers should take note of the court’s decision today.

 “The New York law dealing with concealed carry is, I think, a model for other states like ours, and that’s something I think that the legislature should take to heart as they go through his process right now of dealing with this issue,” said Gov. Pat Quinn.

A federal appeals court ruled the state’s ban on the carry of firearms in public unconstitutional and gave lawmakers until early June to pass concealed carry legislation. Quinn is calling for bill that would allow for very limited carry. “I think that we need to have very tight restrictions on any kind of concealed carry law in our state. Concealed carry is having a loaded weapon concealed on your person in a public place, and obviously that can be very dangerous. And so, we have to make sure that we have the proper restrictions and limits similar to what New York or some other states like Massachusetts and California have enacted.” He again urged Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling on concealed carry.

Madigan said she is still considering an appeal, but that lawmakers should note that the clock is ticking on the court-ordered deadline. “It will obviously influence our continued review of the situation here in Illinois, but everybody who is in the legislature, as well as the governor, should recognize that they’re still under the 180-day deadline imposed by the court, and they need to continue to work on this. If they can come to a compromise on some sort of bill, they should because otherwise, you have this situation where we really don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Madigan said that no matter when she were to file an appeal, there would not be enough time for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. But she said legislators should pay attention to what the Supreme Court did today. “The legislature now can look up and say a ‘may issue status’ is something that at this point is constitutional, and so that should have an impact on the discussions and debates that are going on under the dome,” Madigan said. “What we have now are at least some parameters of what that might be. So we know it can be a ‘may issue.' We’re obviously hopeful that the legislature listens to the court.”

Lawmakers who support fewer restrictions on carry disagree. “It has no bearing on us,” Harrisburg Democrat Rep. Brandon Phelps said of the Supreme Court opting not to hear the New York case. He said he is two or three votes away from the support he needs to pass a bill with a “shall issue” permit requirement,and expects a vote on such a bill in the next few weeks. Phelps, who has sponsored concealed carry bills in recent years, said he is still negotiating some components of the plan, such as how many hours of training would be required for a carry license. “I just don’t think that they have the votes for ‘may issue.’ A lot of people in Chicago, the anti-gun groups, would like to have a ‘may issue’ because it’s more restrictive. But I don’t think a lot people want a bureaucrat or the governor or somebody like that to dictate who gets permits or not.”

Fracking opponents call for ban

By Jamey Dunn

A coalition of Illinois groups opposed to horizontal hydraulic fracturing is pushing for a ban on the practice in the state.

Hydraulic fracturing, which is commonly referred to as fracking, is achieved by pumping water mixed with sand and chemicals through a well into rock that holds a carbon fuel, such as oil or natural gas. The water creates pressure, which fractures the rock or opens up pre-existing cracks. The sand holds the cracks open so the gas and/or oil can be extracted. It has been done since the 1930s. But recently, fracking has been coupled with horizontal drilling, which allows gas and oil companies to drill down into the Earth and then permeate rock along a horizontal line, which is sometimes miles long. The marrying of the two technologies has allowed for projects that are much larger in scale. (For more on fracking, see Illinois Issues May 2012.)

Lawmakers, regulators and many environmentalists agree that it is coming to Illinois. Oil and gas companies and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars leasing mineral rights in southern Illinois. House Bill 2615 seeks to regulate the practice and has a broad group of supporters.

“There’s kind of a gold rush mentality surrounding all of this isn’t there? But what happened after the gold rush? Ghost towns,” said Rich Whitney, who is on the legal committee for Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE). A group of anti-fracking activists that rallied at the Capitol today say they reject the prevailing belief that fracking in Illinois is inevitable, and they are calling for a two-year moratorium on the practice. “Fracking is not inevitable, and it is offensive to suggest that is inevitable without hearing from the people first and hearing what their concerns are. They’re very legitimate concerns,” said Whitney. Senate Bill 1418 and HB 3086 both call for a two-year ban on fracking and the creation of a task force to study the issue.

Whitley, who ran as the Green Party candidate for governor in 2006 and 2010, took Gov. Pat Quinn to task for highlighting fracking in his budget address. "Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, is coming to Illinois, with the strongest environmental regulations in the nation,” Quinn said. “This legislation has the potential to create thousands of jobs in downstate Illinois. It will also ensure that our natural resources are protected for future generations.” Quinn encouraged lawmakers to approve HB 2615 this year.

“Gov. Quinn is wrong when he said. ...that this bill will be the strictest regulations in the country. No. New York has a moratorium. That’s the strictest regulation in the country. And what’s good enough for New York, we think is good enough for Illinois. We think that they had the wisdom. We need the wisdom,” Whitley said. Fracking opponents said that the process for appealing drilling permits in HB2615 would be overly burdensome on residents. They argue the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, which has seen deep cuts in recent years, is not prepared to properly regulate fracking. “Nobody listened to the people of southern Illinois” before HB2615 was introduced said Annette McMichael, a SAFE spokesperson. “I assure you southern Illinois was not represented in the closed door sessions [to negotiate the bill]. We are going to continue to educate our legislators that southern Illinois is not a playground for the oil and gas industry.”

Several environmental groups support HB 2615. However, the say they would also be open to a moratorium. Jack Darin, director of the Illinois chapter of the Sierra Club, said most groups just want to make sure that if fracking comes to Illinois, there is a regulatory plan in place. “In the environmental community, we have a lot of concerns about what fracking is going to bring to Illinois, and when we look at some of the controversies that have happened in other parts of the country, there’s a real need for us to prepare for that,” Darin said.

 However, Environment Illinois, which describes itself as a citizen-based environmental advocacy organization, has joined the call for a moratorium. Bruce Ratain, state policy associate for Environment Illinois, called fracking a “rolling environmental disaster” across the country. Ratain pointed to incidents that occurred in the last two months. A fracking well operator in Ohio was accused of illegally dumping thousands of gallons of chemical-laced wastewater and contaminating the Mahoning River. A broken well-head near the northern Colorado town of Windsor spilled an estimated 84,000 gallons of contaminated water. In a rural northeastern area of West Virginia, a worker was killed by an explosion on a drilling site. 

Lawmakers in support of HB 2615 say that potential environmental dangers are part of the reason they believe the bill is needed. “It does concern me — there’s no doubt about it — but now with these rules and regulations in this legislation,I think it’s going to help things. ... Some rules and regulations are better than none,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat. He said he does not think groups like the Sierra Club would support the bill if they thought it would be bad for his region of the state. “I just can’t for the life of me not vote for this knowing that there are companies that want to come to Illinois and spend millions of dollars, and in my area especially, where unemployment is high because we’ve had some layoffs in coal mines and things shut down, like the prisons. This is going to be a huge economic boon in my area.”

House takes test votes on assault weapons ban

By Jamey Dunn

The Illinois House took several votes on assault weapons bans today but did not approve a bill to send to the Senate.

The votes were held as part of a "Weekly Order of Business" on gun safety. Steven Brown, spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, described the process last week, after the House took similar votes on pension reform: “The strategy is to test the gambit of ideas. ... Test every idea that’s out there. You’ve heard people complain over the years about not being able to vote. Well, here’s a chance to vote.”

The House approved four amendments today that call for the ban of the sales of several types of so-called assault weapons, including guns used in recent mass shootings in Connecticut and Arizona. Another amendment that passed would ban the possession or sale of high-capacity magazines, which hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Opponents called the measures extreme, saying that they would severely limit residents’ access to guns. “What we have here today is just a full out attempt to ban every gun in this state,” said Harrisburg Republican Rep. Brandon Phelps. “This bans every rifle in this state.” They accused supporters of playing politics and trying to back them into controversial votes. “At the end of the day this is no about public safety this is all about politics,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “This is nothing but a political exercise to have that gotcha moment.”

But those in favor said that the weapons the amendments would ban are dangerous and should not be available to the general public. “This is not a game. We’re talking about human lives, innocent lives, and this need to be addressed first and foremost. Keep our communities safe,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Luis Arroyo.