I grew up in Illinois from 1946 to about 1972 when I left to attend school in Tulsa, OK. Illinois was very “gun friendly” except for Cook County. Open carry was legal and crime was low. When the FOID card requirement was passed, my boss, owner of the best gun store in Springfield approved of the FOID. That was because it allowed him the ability to not show or sell guns to people he thought were not honest and whom he did not know personally.
With the FOID, anybody who asked to see a gun in the case was met with the question, “May I see your FOID?”
If they did not have one he could tell them he was sorry, but the law did not allow him to do so. The FOID protected the seller from a discrimination lawsuit. It wasn’t a racial thing, it was just a way to comply with long standing laws against selling guns to criminals.
But then the State adopted waiting periods despite the fact that the FOID was a 30 day background check. The FOID is required by Illinois law to buy or possess guns or ammunition.
But like cancer, gun laws grow.
The Illinois Crime Commission Chairman proposed a law, HR 610 if I remember the number that would ban ALL handguns in Illinois except for “target pistols” which were defined as handguns with barrels LONGER THAN 12 INCHES. In teh 1970s there were no handguns with barrels that long. Even the Colt SAA Buntline barrel actually only measured 11-3/4 inches. The bill failed to get out of committee because over 1,000 people came from all over the state to protest. Even State Troopers in uniform objected as private citizens against the bill authored by Charles Ciragussa [sp?]
Then a funny thing happened. Armed robberies in Springfield went from two or three a month to 5 per day. The police caught many of these robbers red handed. They were all from Chicago or St. Louis and their ticket to Springfield was paid for by unknown persons. Somebody wanted that gun ban, was it the communist party, the Cook County Democrat Machine, the MAFIA?
But Illinois changed carrying a concealed weapon from a $10 misdemeanor to a 2 year felony, long waiting periods were added.
Even the new Illinois Constitution only passed because it included Article 22, the right to kep and bear arms. But they lied about the first six words, “Subject only to the police power” which we told was just so cities could ban shooting out street lights and stop signs. But those six words let the Illinois State Supreme Court allow gun bans in Cook County/Chicago/Morton Grove just because they did not ban all guns, just handguns.
The stupid politicians failed to notice that crime in Chicago became much worse after the bans.
Now that Illinois was forced by the Federal Court of Appeals 7th Circuit to pass a Constitutional law, Illinois has concealed carry with licenses available for residents and non-residents. But applying for a license is almost as complex as it is in NYC, except Illinois is SHALL ISSUE.
But Illinois won’t even accept a non-resident application from citizens from all but about six states.
At least my Kansas CCHL is seen as an FOID in Illinois when I have to visit.
Kansas now issues a concealed carry license, recognizes all other state licenses, new residents with a CCH/CCW from another state to continue to carry while Kansas issues their KS CCHL. Kansas allows machine guns, noise suppression and short barrel rifles and shotguns as long as Federal restrictions in 1934 NFA are followed.
Kansas now has Constitutional Carry, any adult 21 or over, legally allowed [no criminal record] to carry openly or concealed without a license. In this Kansas joined with Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona and Vermont.
If you’re a freedom loving patriot, and don’t want to bring the corrupt service NYC & State offer, Go West and live in freedom. Or retake your State from teh gun bannrs, VOTE FREEDOM FIRST.
I have a dilemma related to the issue of concealed carry (or ANY carry for that matter) in private businesses that choose to ban it. It is particularly relevant now, as Pennsylvania is considering legislation making licensed carriers a “special protected class of persons” in that state.
This dilemma itself revolves around the issue of private property rights vs the inherent/unalienable right to self-defense (specifically with a gun).
1) Does a privately owned business that offers products or services to the public (we are not talking about private property like homes here) have a right to deny their services to a class of citizens (as opposed to say, an individual who may be drunk and disorderly)?
2) If so, does that right take priority over the right of a citizen (or non-citizen for that matter) to self-defense with a gun? That is, can a business ban carrying a gun on its premises based on the fact that it is private property?
3) If so, does that not permit the business to deny services to a class of people such as minorities like Black or Gay people? If not, why not?
Currently, the argument is made that this distinction is legal, because gun carriers are not (yet) a “special protected class of persons” such as various minorities, who are protected by specific laws designating them a “special protected class.” However, our country is founded on, among others, the principle that “all men are created equal,” and that “all are equal under the law.” If that is the case, then are not all laws creating especially privileged classes, or “protected classes of persons,” null and void from their outset? I personally believe so, and thus, can see no compelling rationale for allowing private businesses to treat concealed carriers differently from any other minority group within the general public.
Thus, I have to deal with the dilemma I stated above: In a nutshell – does a private business offering services to the public, have the right to deny services to some class of persons in the public at their whim, or can they legally be compelled to treat all classes of public equally?
Just joined, but listen to you all on LocknLoad all the Time. I have taken your advice and consistently “Harass” my Reps in my State of WV.
Happy to say they are ONBOARD with National Conceal Carry Reciprocity under H.R.38. But Y Senator is on S. 446. So have you looked at S446 to see if it is worthy of pursuing passage?
And YES AMERICANS should be allowed to actually OPEN CARRY in my Opinion, though there are TOO MANY NUT CASES OUT THERE, but Conceal Carry is a Start.
Thanks for all you do I have learned allot and it has made more Politically Vocal and active…even though I work in Saudi Arabia. I email as much as possible.
You must be logged in to post a comment.