The National Right to Carry Act, a piece of legislation that would enable those with concealed carry permit in any state to carry in every other state that issues concealed carry permits, has passed the House of Representatives with flying colors. The final vote was almost 2:1 in favor of the bill, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor of passage. Heck, even one of the representatives from Illinois rose in support of the bill, stating that he wanted the passage of the bill to send a message to the governor of his state that concealed carry needs to be enacted in that state, just like it has been in the other 49 states in the Union. The debate was fascinating to watch — Republicans were calm, cool and collected in their support of the bill while Democrats came off as rambling old coots who didn’t really understand the issues involved. It was like the Nixon / JFK debate all over again. But there was one belle of the ball…

Read more at

Are you in favor of concealed carry in Illinois? Why are we the only state without it?

On Wednesday, November 16, 2011, the House is scheduled consider H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, under a rule. The rule provides for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Additionally, the rule makes in order ten amendments, each debatable for ten minutes each, and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The bill was introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) on February 18, 2011, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On October 25, 2011, a mark-up was held and the bill was reported by a vote of 19 to 11.

The bill would allow individuals with valid state-issued concealed firearm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also issues concealed firearm permits or licenses, or in any other state that does not generally prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

H.R. 822 would require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to conduct an audit of the laws and regulations of each state that authorizes the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a nonresident to possess or carry a concealed firearm. The audit would include a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than the residents of that state. The audit would also include the number of valid permits and licenses issued or denied (and the basis for the denial) by each state, and the effectiveness of state laws and regulations in protecting public safety.

According to the House Committee on the Judiciary, this legislation would not create a national licensing scheme, but rather would require states that currently permit people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other states’ valid concealed carry permits. H.R. 822 would not affect a state’s ability to set eligibility requirements for its own residents. Instead, the bill would make clear that a person cannot use this federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state’s permit license, unless their own state’s laws permit this.

H.R. 822 would not impact state laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various states. All state, federal, and local laws regarding the possession and carrying of a concealed handgun that would apply to a resident of a state will also apply in equal force to a non-resident.

H.R. 822 would address concerns regarding law enforcement’s ability to confirm the validity of an out-of-state concealed carry permit by requiring that a person show both a valid government-issued identification document, such as a license or passport, and a valid concealed carry license or permit. States are currently able to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed permits. The Nlets [En-Lets] system, formerly the National Law Enforcement Teletype System, permits federal, state, and local law enforcement to query handgun permit information for 12 states that have elected to participate in the program. Law enforcement can also use Nlets to send inquiries regarding concealed carry permits directly to out-of-state agencies that issue permits but do not participate in the Nlets concealed carry program.

Forty states currently grant some form of reciprocity for out-of-state concealed carry permits and all of the states are subject to the Firearms Owners Protection Act’s Safe Passage Provision, which provides a process by which non-residents can transport lawful firearms through states where they could not otherwise carry the firearm. Accordingly, law enforcement is already very familiar with handling and verifying firearms carried by non-residents.

Based on the costs of similar GAO activities, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that implementing H.R. 822 would have no significant cost to the federal government. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

H.R. 822 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by preempting some state laws that limit the ability of nonresidents to carry concealed weapons. Laws allowing individuals to carry concealed weapons vary from state to state and range from allowing anyone to carry such weapons without a permit to prohibiting nonresidents from carrying concealed weapons and requiring residents to complete training and meet other conditions before obtaining a permit. Some states recognize permits issued by other states and some do not. If enacted, the bill would require states that currently do not recognize permits to carry concealed weapons issued by other states to recognize those permits for nonresidents. The costs for states to comply with that mandate would include the cost to change protocols and train law enforcement officers.

The bill also could result in the loss of revenue for some states. Currently, some states issue permits to nonresidents and charge fees ranging from $20 to $140 for those permits. If this bill is enacted and individuals have a permit to carry concealed weapons from their resident state, they would no longer need to purchase nonresident permits in other states they visit. There is no data on how many individuals this may affect, but the loss to states that issue nonresident permits could total a few million dollars annually. CBO estimates that the total costs for states to comply with the preemption, including the training costs for law enforcement and the lost revenue from the nonresident permit fees, would be small and would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($71 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Amendment No. 10—Rep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.

The “Taurus Judge®” is so named because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection. Capable of chambering both .410 2-1/2″ shotshell and .45 Colt Ammunition, this amazing combo gun is ideal for short distances – where most altercations occur, or longer distances with the .45 Colt ammo. We have finely tuned the rifling to spread the shot pattern at close quarters or to guide the .45 cal. bullet to the target. Fully customized with fixed rear sights, fiber optic front sights and Taurus Ribber Grips®, the “Taurus Judge” is one decision-maker that lays down the law.

You can learn more about the Taurus .410 revolvers www.taurususa.com

Here’s the skinny: Jesus Duenas, a FOID card holder, purchases a handgun after the ban is lifted. He does not immediately obtain a Chicago Firearms Permit. In an unrelated incident, neighbors call police to complain about noise and the police use this opportunity to shake him down. They confiscate the handgun after entering the home without a warrant and charge him with having an unregistered firearm.

The judge dismisses the gun charge because the city of Chicago does not have a gun range and this is why Duenas was unable to comply with the ordinance.

Although the fact that there are CFP holders in Chicago this bit of information seems to be lost on the Fox news anchors. It’s at least good for a laugh.

In all seriousness I hope to get some more details on this case and hopefully from a better journalistic source.

The Denial by the Chicago Police Department of David Lawson’s registration of the subject four SKS Rifles is REVERSED. The subject rifles are not prohibited under the Municipal Code of Chicago, 8-20-170, and therefore, registration certification shall issue accordingly. Pursuant to Section 2-14-102 of the Chicago Municipal Code, this decision is final and subject to review under the Illinois Administrative Review Act.

The chain of events began with David Lawson attempting to register five rifles and a shotgun. Four of the rifles are fixed-magazine SKS rifles. On November 2nd he was mailed a denial for registration.

The denial was based on the premise that the rifles could be modified to accept illegal magazines and did therefor did not meet Municipal Code of Chicago 8-20-170(d).

http://chicagohandgun.org/2011/03/lawson-v-chicago-initial-denial/
http://chicagohandgun.org/2011/08/lawson-v-chicago-mayhem-denied/
http://chicagohandgun.org/2011/08/lawson-v-chicago-victory/

Congratulations to Mr. Lawson and his supports for this victory for law-abiding firearms owners in Chicago.

Joining SAF in the original lawsuit were Action Target, Inc., the Illinois State Rifle Association and three Chicago residents, Rhonda Ezell, William Hespen and Joseph Brown. Their attempts to obtain a temporary restraining order against the gun range ban were twice rejected by the district court. The Appeals Court ruling is severely critical of the lower court’s ruling.

“This is a significant victory that could have strong implications well beyond the Chicago city limits,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court is making it clear that cities cannot adopt firearms ordinances that are so deliberately restrictive that they make it impossible for citizens to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.”

Immediately after last year’s landmark SAF victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the city adopted a handgun ordinance that required special permits and mandated range training, but banned gun ranges inside city limits. The city argued that citizens could fulfill their training requirement by visiting a suburban range. In today’s ruling, written by Judge Diane S. Sykes, the Appeals Court observed, “It’s hard to imagine anyone suggesting that Chicago may prohibit the exercise of a free-speech or religious-liberty right within its borders on the rationale that those rights may be freely enjoyed in the suburbs. That sort of argument should be no less unimaginable in the Second Amendment context.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Ilana Diamond Rovner noted, “…the city may not condition gun ownership for self-defense in the home on a prerequisite that the City renders impossible to fulfill within the city limits.”

“What the city tried to do, as the court ruling noted, was ‘thumb its municipal nose at the Supreme Court’,” Gottlieb stated. “City governments, no matter how much they abhor the fundamental right of citizens to keep and bear arms, cannot use clever legal devices to prevent the exercise of that right. As Judge Rovner noted, ‘the city must come to terms with that reality’.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

BELLEVUE, WA – Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state’s prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.

The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.

Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year’s landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday’s appeals court win – forcing a temporary injunction against the city’s ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced – that “Even Chicago politicians must respect the people’s fundamental civil rights…Gun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city’s intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.”

“Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois’ law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction,” said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs.

“Yesterday’s win was a wake-up call to Chicago,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Today’s motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state’s total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday’s ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago’s gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today’s motion are key components of SAF’s overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

It was actually quite interesting. The focus of the class is almost exclusively laws that govern firearms in Illinois and Chicago. There was basically nothing for a beginner shooter, but there are other classes for that.

I took it at Illinois Gun Works on Friday from 1pm to 6. Four hours in the class, and “one hour” on the range. The instructor apparently was one of the guys who actually wrote the new ordinance, and designed it knowing that concealed carry will be coming in the next couple of years. He is a former Marine Force Recon, and then spent 25 years as a Chicago homicide, and has that wonderful lack of political correctness you’d expect from a retired Chicago police.

See the full story here.

Do you want the list of all Illinois Firearms Owners Identification cards holders be published? Let us know what you think.