Posted on 07/11/2014 6:51:40 AM PDT by rellimpank
The creation and implementation of Illinois' law permitting licensed owners to carry concealed firearms has not been a graceful process. It was forced on the state, the last to forbid conceal carry, by a federal appeals court in 2012. The General Assembly dawdled before finally reaching a compromise that left no one particularly pleased.
Now comes the next tricky part: making the system work in such a way as to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners without creating new dangers to public safety.
Most states have "shall-issue" laws, which spell out the conditions for getting a concealed carry permit and require the state to approve anyone who meets those conditions. Typically, they require applicants to undergo training, pay a fee and pass a background check. Those with a record of felonies or certain serious misdemeanors, mental illness, substance abuse or less-than-honorable discharge from the armed forces are barred.
Illinois, by contrast, adopted a more cautious system. It sets the usual certain requirements and disqualifications but lets local police and sheriffs object to a permit "based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety." The final decision lies with the state Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, made up of members with law enforcement backgrounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
You know things are bad in your city when Detroit gun laws are better than yours...
There is not enough money for me to move to a sh|thole city like Chicago...
“reasonable suspicion?”
Only states that give the local chief LEO the ability to deny a carry permit to the people should have publicly accessible lists. That way the people can see if political cronies and campaign contributors are given preferential treatment over ordinary citizens.
“Not only are we insane - we’re recruiting!” - Chicago Tribune
FWIW, I was told by a CCDW instructor 5 years ago that the feds have been agitating for years to get the list of CCDW holders here in KY.
Have they? Don’t know. But with a RAT governor like Breshear and henchmen like Grimes, one can not automatically assume we are protected by the law.
Should names and addresses of women getting abortions be
published in your newspaper? Why not? Privacy isn’t a
priority based on the article.
So public taxpayers can be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion and that someone can keep it secret from the public...but a public taxpayer can fund their own gun and permit with their own money and that’s supposed to be known to anyone who wants to know?
The guy that my estranged wife ran off with called me at work (I work on a Navy base, for the Navy) and threatened to shoot me. My co-workers heard it. So I contacted law enforcement, went downtown and swore out a warrant.
The Commonwealth's attorney charged him with “Profanity on the Public Airwaves” a class 1 misdemeanor instead of “Communicating a Threat” a class 6 felony. That was the CA didn't have to be in court to prosecute. The sentences for both are the same.
I made the mistake.....I contacted the local police instead of NCIS. Communicating a threat to a government facility is a Federal offense.
But in another venue, the same news media will scold opponents of abortion that it is a mother’s private decision. Indeed, one of the points in Roe v Wade was decided exactly on that of privacy.
It is not that leftists want to have it both ways, it is that they expect to have it whichever way suits their agenda at the moment, hypocrisy or inconsistency be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.