State police prepping for concealed carry law

2013-05-11T06:00:00Z State police prepping for concealed carry lawBY KURT ERICKSON THE SOUTHERN SPRINGFIELD BUREAU The Southern

SPRINGFIELD — Even though lawmakers have been unable to agree on a plan allowing Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons, the Quinn administration has launched the process of building a computer system designed to handle future gun permits.

State purchasing documents show the Illinois State Police is spending $175,000 to begin automating the process used to identify people who will be prohibited from getting permits.

The contract, which is a part of a long-sought overhaul of the state’s beleaguered Firearm Owner’s Identification card program, represents just one piece of the additional manpower and computer upgrades state police officials say they’ll need to bring Illinois in compliance with a federal court order allowing citi-zens to carry concealed firearms.

The state police awarded the no-bid contract this week on an emergency basis, saying without it, the state will not be ready to issue permits by the June 8 deadline dictated by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jessica Trame, bureau chief for the state police’s firearm services division, said the agency is trying to be ready for the day when Illinois joins the rest of the nation with a law le-galizing concealed carry.

In addition to upgrading computers and adding new software, the agency must hire people to process applications once they begin flowing in.

“We’re writing job de-scriptions,” Trame said.

The work behind the scenes comes as state lawmakers have been unable to reach an agreement over how to comply with the federal order.

The National Rifle Association wants as few guidelines as possible, while gun control supporters say local sheriffs should have the ability to nix applications if they believe a person isn’t qualified to carry a loaded gun.

State Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, said he plans to ask his colleagues to vote on legislation next week that would legalize concealed carry through-out the state with one exception.

Under his plan, anyone who wants to carry a loaded gun in Chicago would have to get an endorsement from the police chief — a provision that is opposed by the NRA.

Raoul said many voters are concerned about an increase in the number of guns being carried in the heavily populated urban area of the state’s largest city.

“We’re making an effort to take in some of those concerns,” Raoul said.

kurt.erickson@lee.net

217-782-4043

Copyright 2015 The Southern. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(38) Comments

  1. Jeeper
    Report Abuse
    Jeeper - May 16, 2013 5:44 pm
    It does. They got that way by having "safe" districts.
  2. Jeeper
    Report Abuse
    Jeeper - May 16, 2013 5:43 pm
    What "rules in Springfield" are politicians sent from the northeast corner of the state. If we could get the voters in 1 county (mostly) to vote on the basis of something OTHER than party endorsements, we would have better government.
  3. Jeeper
    Report Abuse
    Jeeper - May 16, 2013 5:28 pm
    Are you serious with this? Do you think EJ Dionne is?

    How will "background checks" - performed during lawful transactions - prevent ANY murder? Adam Lanza failed a background check when he tried to BUY a gun, so, he murdered his mother and took hers. I would argue that - in this case - a background check CAUSED A MURDER.

    How does a magazine capacity limit prevent murder? Does a magazine change really take long enough for a person to intervene? Possibly; Jared Loughner was subdued while changing magazines. However, I have seen magazine changes done in about 1 second;.Loughner was bad at it;

    "Lack of coherence" is the virtue of the gun control crowd, of which you Dionne are members.

    "Cease Fire Sabbath" will only reach the church-going members of the community adn they are hardly the target audience. The guys he wants to reach are the ones at home sleeping off a hard night of drinking while the sermon is being preached. Do something more practical: campaign to have murders executed in a timely and public fashion.

    OK; "gun groups" spent $800,000 in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race; Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" spent en estimated $1,200,000 in the Il 3rd Congressional District PRIMARY to get the candidate he wanted. You tell me: Which of the "support groups" is radical? (Besides, Bloomberg & MAIG seems to campaign against LEGAL guns; go figure.)

    The gun buyer with 20 police calls to his residence should have been in jail rather than out looking for a gun. His late wife and her friends would have been better served with a pocket pistol (or more) rather than attempting to shelter behind a restraining order. Targets are proof that paper is not bullet-proof.

    While 'Radcliffe Haughton “may well have found another way to get a gun"' it was his late wife's LACK of one that gave him the upper hand. While anyone can be taken unawares, having a plan and the necessary implements at hand makes switching from Plan A (I will encounter no difficulty) to Plan B (HOLY CR*P! WHERE DID THAT COME FROM???) much easier to deal with.

    What the heck is a "slow-motion mass murder"? I have no idea. Do you know? If not, perhaps you should have edited the newspaper editorial before you posted it as your comment...

    Do you REALLY want to take advice - political, moral or ANY other kind - from William Jefferson Blythe Clinton? Even so, he stole his analogy from Samuel Clemens... We have seen how "obsolete" the political lessons of the 1993 "Crime Bill" have become; your side keeps losing...

    "As of May 8, according to Slate magazine, there had been at least 3,947 gun deaths since Newtown." Are the fatalities caused by violence involving guns too many? Yes; they are. How many of those "gun deaths" (sloppy use of language, that) were killings OF gang members BY gang members? How many of those killings were in furtherance of some other related criminal enterprise? How many deaths due to natural causes happened during those 6 months? Nobody on your side ever comes with those answers though they should.

    The sentiment of the editorial you copied as a comment sounds good until you examine it a bit.
  4. Jeeper
    Report Abuse
    Jeeper - May 16, 2013 4:45 pm
    So do cities; so what? The problem is one of coverage: is there a [choose one - police officer/security guard] on hand when someone is offered violence? No; the perpetrator will do everything possible to be certain the intended victim is available but any visible 'security' persons are absent.

    IIRC, at Columbine, the SRO was fired upon during a parking lot round and driven away from the school entrance which was then barred against his re-entry.

    I have not seen a "Mall Cop" with a gun that I can recall. Even if they do, the coverage problem comes up.

    Your argument fails.
  5. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 15, 2013 11:28 pm
    Malls often have armed security and so did Columbine.
  6. bbinthesticks
    Report Abuse
    bbinthesticks - May 14, 2013 9:56 pm
    Id like to add to my comment also that most of the mass shootings are in areas where the person or persons shooting is aware that no one else is armed, it has been said/theorized that if the person or persons who do these hideous acts knew that at at any moment others would be firing back from concealed weapons then the rate would go down on such senseless crimes of course law abiding citizens do not bring their guns into restaurants or the malls or any public places because they are obeying the law, criminals know this....
  7. bbinthesticks
    Report Abuse
    bbinthesticks - May 14, 2013 9:44 pm
    Geez Im wondering how many gun carrying citizens who wouldn't use a gun accept to protect themselves are going to end up in prison for owning a gun? Its not guns that kill people its people that use guns to kill people, adding more and more laws is only going to create more and more guns that are hidden anyways, Seems redundant, Criminals don't obey the laws folks! Remember our constitution, it says clearly that without our rights to bear arms even our own Government could take over, Protect our right to bear arms and don't be fooled by the ploys of our Government
  8. ThoreauHD
    Report Abuse
    ThoreauHD - May 13, 2013 10:44 pm
    Just ban all guns, as Dear Leader wants you to. You can be like Chicago! Sure, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Mexican Drug Cartels get his guns without a background check- but they are his people.

    Why don't you just submit to the will of Dear Leader? Be good lemmings, and aim for the cliff. That way, the armored tanks and drones at your local police station can move freely. And that makes you safe. What's not to love?

    Forget concealed carry. Give your guns to the government. Be a kind and caring liberal. Submit to the One.
  9. James Lane
    Report Abuse
    James Lane - May 13, 2013 10:03 pm
    The difference here is that this is a restriction on a constitutional right. If a right is going to be restricted, the least that should be asked is if the restriction is actually effective. In this case, it's not.
  10. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 13, 2013 3:08 pm
    We'll bail you out Joe!
  11. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 13, 2013 8:04 am
    Ish, someone should tell Bill Clinton cats is not humans. Cats may not jump on a hot stove twice? But humans will. Humans will go back to prison over an over again.
  12. Ishmael
    Report Abuse
    Ishmael - May 13, 2013 7:33 am
    An op-ed from EJ Dionne

    "MILWAUKEE — Public officials are very selective about when violence and death matter.

    Massacres and terrorist incidents cannot be ignored, but the day-to-day toll from gun violence is often swept aside. Politicians who tout themselves as advocates of law and order don’t want to be unmasked as caring even more about their ratings from gun lobbyists.

    And opponents of the most moderate gun reforms engage in a shameless game of bait-and-switch. Because measures such as background checks would not stop every murder, they’re declared useless even though they’d still save lives. Then the gun lobby turns around and opposes other measures, such as a ban on high-capacity magazines, which could prevent some of the killings that background checks might not.

    The lack of coherence doesn’t bother those who are willing to tolerate all manner of violence to keep the gun business free of inconvenient restraints. Their goal is to exhaust supporters of sane gun laws and get them to give up until the next big tragedy strikes.

    Mayor Tom Barrett of Milwaukee has never given up and never given in. One of the earliest members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group spearheaded by New York City’s Michael Bloomberg and Boston’s Tom Menino, he has made curbing urban bloodshed a personal cause.

    Every year between Mother’s Day and Memorial Day, he organizes a “Cease-Fire Sabbath” that enlists clergy around the city to preach against violence. “The ministers and other clergy can reach people that I can’t,” Barrett said in an interview in his office last week. Here’s a faith-based initiative that everyone can believe in.

    Barrett has paid a price for his steadfastness on guns. In his rematch last year against Republican Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin’s recall election (he lost to Walker in 2010), gun groups spent more than $800,000 to defeat him. Such sums are designed to have a chilling effect on other politicians who might take on the gun lobby. “It hasn’t chilled me,” Barrett says with a smile, “but obviously I’m not the governor.”

    Since late last year, Barrett has made the case for extending background checks to online and private purchases as well as gun show sales by pulling out a large cardboard blow-up of a request sent through an online gun market on Oct. 20, 2011.

    It reads in part: “Looking for a handgun that is $300 obo [or best offer]. … Looking to buy asap. … Prefer full size. Prefer .45, .40. … I constantly check my emails. … Also I’m hoping it has a high mag capacity. … I’m a serious buyer so please email me asap. Have cash now and looking to buy now. I am mobile.”

    As The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported, the ad was posted by Radcliffe Haughton days after his wife Zina Haughton “was granted a four-year restraining order against her husband because she said she feared for her life.”

    “The couple had a volatile relationship,” the paper explained. “Police had been to their Brown Deer [WI.] home on 20 different occasions. These red flags should not have been ignored, but they were.”

    The day after the ad went up, Radcliffe Haughton gunned down Zina and two other women at the Azana Salon & Spa in Brookfield, WI.

    The Journal-Sentinel noted (and Barrett also makes this point) that Radcliffe Haughton “may well have found another way to get a gun. But that doesn’t mean that such legislation would not keep guns out of the hands of others who buy them every year without undergoing a background check.”

    The slaughter in Newtown decisively shifted the nation’s discussion on guns, and Barrett says he’s still hopeful that a background check bill will eventually pass. The law is needed, he said, not just because of gruesomely spectacular killings but also to stop “what my police chief calls slow-motion mass murders in the cities around our country.”

    But can the politics be overcome? At a recent talk at Georgetown University, former president Bill Clinton spoke of how politicians draw warnings from past political fights even when those lessons have become obsolete. He used the analogy of the cat that gets burned on a hot stove, and will never jump on the stove again, even after the stove has cooled.

    As of May 8, according to Slate magazine, there had been at least 3,947 gun deaths since Newtown. The political heat is now coming from those who have lost patience with slow-motion mass murders. Will Congress notice the temperature change?"
  13. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 11:04 pm
    Correlations are tricky. One study showed that crime dropped in part because of legalized abortions lowered the number of unwanted children. The study was disputed on various grounds [1]. But it shows how careful one has to be. The increase in guns was correlated with lower crime rates, but was not likely the cause. For one thing the number of households with gun has declined. There are more guns because a few people are buying serval. The need for research is of paramount importance [2].

    The difference between the Atlanta Journal story and your video is the former was factual and the latter was make believe. There are probably no real examples of a civilian needing to fire more than seven shots in self defence. If we all lived out in the middle of nowhere guns, and indeed crime, would not be much of an issue. But we are an urban/suburban country [3].

    [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect#Donohue_and_Levitt_study

    [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns

    [3] http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html
  14. Diogenes
    Report Abuse
    Diogenes - May 12, 2013 9:49 pm
    MMike, I'm sorry the video bothered you so much. I realize it was a dramatization and a bit cheesy at that, but the idea behind it was not necessarily wrong. As far as the cheese factor is concerned, i think it was about on par with the Atlanta Journal article.

    None of us want people, particularly children to die by gunfire or other violent acts. There is something sick in our society and in humanity as a whole that causes us to destroy each other. Joe was right to point out our incarceration rate earlier, we have problems that go beyond our gun culture. Of course, being me, I see a connection with our lack of respect for the unborn. It would be oversimplifying to say that was the center of gravity, but I am convinced that it is a factor.

    As far as guns are concerned MMike, it is as if you and I were born on different planets. I grew up around guns, hunting, target shooting, and collecting. I at least presume that you came from a different background. The gun craze in my world troubles even me to a point, but as gun ownership has risen in this country, violent crime has not, though we have hideous incidents like Sandy Hook and Columbine. Our system of laws, whether it is designed to prevent violence (which it doesn't) or merely set a framework for prosecution is never going to be perfect. I know there are a lot of those on your side of the chasm and no small number on mine that are frustrated at our inability to pass anything that might make us feel like we are stemming the tide of violence. I hate to be negative, but I am not surprised.

    Well, I'm rambling again. MMike, we may not agree on this or on a lot of things, but I appreciate your thoughtful approach on most issues. I sat on my hands a while back as you did a masterful job of Christian apologetics(sp) because when you got done there was little else to say but amen. We are going to butt heads on lots of things here, and I will try not to be too much of a butthead in the process.
  15. hammerheadfl
    Report Abuse
    hammerheadfl - May 12, 2013 9:31 pm
    If you have any questions regarding the CWP law or training contact www.e2c.us or 1-866-371-6111 and the Instructors at Equip 2 Conceal will be happy to help you.
  16. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 6:33 pm
    And the sad stories here are real, unlike the video you posted elsewhere. Don't real people, even gang members and suicides, count more than unrealistic fictional youtube videos?

    Gun deaths include homicide, suicide and accidental deaths.
  17. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 6:22 pm
    Sometimes one has to look in the back of the book: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/georgia

    However this is all ages. I'm sure you can find the age breakdown if you really want to. But quibbling over trivialities is not a justification keep the killing going.

    Let's just keep our heads in the sand and hope it all goes away.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-slow-firearm-death-without-banning-all-guns
  18. Diogenes
    Report Abuse
    Diogenes - May 12, 2013 5:19 pm
    Read the article MMike, heartbreaking anecdotes but something kept gnawing at me. This snippet comes across like one of Gary Larsen's "Word Problems from Hell"

    "From 1999 to 2010, 602 children died from gunshot wounds in Georgia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 50 every year, one every seven days.

    Homicides accounted for more than twice as many deaths as suicides. The rest resulted from accidental shootings."

    I can picture math students with their mouths open trying to make something out of that. Either someone is trying to be deceptive or is just sloppy here, (I vote for sloppy) but I defy anyone to solve for X if X is the number of accidental shootings.

    Seems like anytime juvenile gun fatalities are mentioned, intentional shootings (gang related?) are thrown in as filler and this time they threw in suicides. Vague and confusing numbers are interspersed with heartbreaking images.

    The Atlanta Journal and Constitution comes across about as bad as the SI does at times.
  19. Diogenes
    Report Abuse
    Diogenes - May 12, 2013 2:58 pm
    Last I heard MMike, it is still illegal to own hand grenades, bazookas, H-bombs, and the like, as well as switchblades, much less carry them around with you.

    Again, I was just being supportive. ;^) To be absolutely truthful I believe that a lot of laws ARE intended to prevent people from doing things whether or not the intention is accomplished. (Quite often it isn't)

    As far as cc goes, I probably won't carry even if it is legal. I won't lay awake nights worrying about it either way. As 49 other states have shown it doesn't seem to have turned anyplace into a frontier version of Dodge City.

    Good post from Gillsburgher regarding the nature of laws.
  20. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 2:42 pm
    Let's sprinkle some facts on this discussion.

    Week after week, Georgia child gun deaths mount

    http://www.myajc.com/news/news/week-after-week-georgia-child-gun-deaths-mount/nX
    kr4/

    http://tinyurl.com/carn6rm
  21. Gillsburgher
    Report Abuse
    Gillsburgher - May 12, 2013 12:09 pm
    There are several types of 'crimes': Natural crimes, thought crimes, paperwork crimes, crimes of morality, environmental crimes, and crimes of negligence.

    Murder, rape, fraud, theft are all natural crimes. Someone intends harm to another against the victim's will. At one time, these were the only crimes that existed, and in my opinion, should be the only felonies. I would eliminate crimes of morality and thought crimes entirely.

    Illegally possessing a gun and possession of narcotics are paperwork crimes (use of narcotics is a crime of negligence, as are DUI and speeding). It is only illegal because one does not have the right papers. People who have the right papers are not violating the laws. For someone intentionally violating a serious natural crime, a paperwork law is useless, which is why gun-free zones are pointless without a mechanism to physically enforce it.

    You are wrong. Laws ARE intended to prevent people from doing things. That is why you do not go driving down the highway at 100mph, even when traffic, conditions, and the vehicle could safely do it. That is why we honestly fill out our tax returns. The only reason I pay taxes is because the punishment for not is unacceptable.

    To be effective, a punishment must serve as a deterrent, act to correct behavior, or simply remove the criminal from society. For the deterrent effect, the punishment is considered with the chance of getting caught. A criminal can be deterred if the punishment is harsh enough and he thinks there is a good chance to get caught. Different people have different thresholds on punishment and risk vs. motive. Some of us would never rape a person, others are only prevented by the chance of getting caught and punished. Look at the New Orleans example. When law enforcement failed, the risk of getting caught dropped, and melee erupted. In Joplin, a different group of people, there was little to any looting, with neighbors helping neighbors. There is an element of society that are only constrained against crime by the risk of getting caught. When risk of arrest is gone, only the risk of the intended victim defending himself remains.

    A law against possessing a 30 round magazine has no effect on someone intent on murdering someone. It would deter a person who would commit no natural crime from having one, and thereby put him at a disadvantage against the person who would kill him.

    You are also wrong about a law being required for a natural crime to be a crime. Punishments for natural crimes existed in places before they had written laws. With certain limitations, extrajudicial punishments still exist. If someone is in the process of breaking into my house, the immediate punishment is death by firearm. There is no arrest and no trial. Due process is a constraint on government power, not on the natural right to self defense.
  22. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 11:53 am
    "I'll add to this: the murder rate in Chicago will not be affected because gang bangers do not obey the law anyway!"

    So you are saying that cc won't reduce crimes as its advocates claim?

    "But, how are the politicians going to handle the peoples right to bear arms without some big tax/fee increase to waste?"

    Taxes are the price of freedom.
  23. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 11:46 am
    Dio: No, we could appeal the court order to pass a new law. Any cc law has to have provisions for who can carry. In the lack on any law open carry of any weapon would be allowed: hand grenades, bazookas, etc. Some things are illegal to own (switch blades in some states, H-bombs) or are regulated (cars, swimming pools, restaurants) for reasons of public safety.
  24. singlemalt
    Report Abuse
    singlemalt - May 12, 2013 11:15 am
    Old Joe, you bring way too much logic to this discussion; it would prove confusing to those in Springfield who would rather be fools.
  25. Diogenes
    Report Abuse
    Diogenes - May 12, 2013 10:09 am
    As I understand it if no new laws are passed concealed carry will be legal in a few weeks anyway without any new legislation.

    Hey, I was just agreeing with Ishmael for once (sort of).

  26. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 12, 2013 9:46 am
    Dio: "Passing new laws when the behaviors that we want to eliminate are already illegal is indeed silly."

    So you are against having a concealed carry law? I thought the point was to come up with a workable new cc law?
  27. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 12, 2013 7:03 am
    Diogenes. The untied states is one of the smallest populated countries in the world, with the largest prison population in the world. Our prison population even exceeds China's prison population. That tells me our judicial system is not working.
  28. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 12, 2013 6:52 am
    Mainman. That is what I was saying, so whats the big deal in Illinois about concealed n carry? All the laws needed for conceal n carry is already in place and has been for years.

    Parents going to the hunters safety course with their children born after 1984 is closing the age gap between 30, and older.

    Personally I only have a tiny dog in this gun fight. My new FOID card just came in the mail two weeks ago, my last FOID card expired in 1991. I like guns, but they are not a big deal in my life. The only reason I renewed my FOID card is because my son is wanting to get into hunting and fishing. I'm big on parent/kids interaction.

    The only true legacy I will leave in this world is my DNA. I feel as long as my DNA lives on I will never die. I want that legacy to be good. The first step to ensuring a good legacy, in to be their for my kids. Even if I have to step out of my lazy comfort zone.
  29. Diogenes
    Report Abuse
    Diogenes - May 12, 2013 6:40 am
    Ismael is right, laws are not to prevent people from committing crime, they are for prosecuting the crime after the fact.

    So, since we already have books full of laws against murder, rape, robbery, jaywalking, etc. We really don't need any more. We can just go after those who have already broken our existing laws and prosecute them accordingly.

    Passing new laws when the behaviors that we want to eliminate are already illegal is indeed silly.
  30. mainman
    Report Abuse
    mainman - May 12, 2013 5:50 am
    Joe....my son and I went to the Hunter Safety class right after we moved here in 2004. I'm glad we went; it was a good reminder course for me and great for my son !

    If a person has a clean record and accomplished some training.....give it to them !!

    It is really no big deal !!!
  31. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 11, 2013 11:43 pm
    MMike great example. That's the point. if someone wants to bad enough, most likely it's going to happen legal or not. Nothing is fool proof.
  32. MMike
    Report Abuse
    MMike - May 11, 2013 11:01 pm
    Did Ish propose a war on guns? Should we stop regulating prescription drugs because they are abused?
  33. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 11, 2013 10:06 pm
    Ish, So just how has the war on drugs worked? The speed limits? And I guess the prisons is empty lol.
  34. Ishmael
    Report Abuse
    Ishmael - May 11, 2013 5:17 pm
    "I'll add to this: the murder rate in Chicago will not be affected because gang bangers do not obey the law anyway!" - KaijaJean

    Considering no criminals respect ANY law this is a silly argument. Shall we also get rid of rape laws? Rapists are going to rape anyway. Shall we get rid robbery laws? Thieves are going to steal anyway. Shall we get rid of speed limits? People are going to speed anyway. Shall we get rid of drug laws? People are going to smoke dope anyway.

    See how silly that is?

    Laws are not intended to prevent people from doing something. The Constitution requires due process. If there were no law against certain things society could not legally say a person did something wrong when they killed, raped, stole, sped, etc, etc.
  35. KaijaJean
    Report Abuse
    KaijaJean - May 11, 2013 2:40 pm
    Right on Old Joe!

    I'll add to this: the murder rate in Chicago will not be affected because gang bangers do not obey the law anyway!
    But, how are the politicians going to handle the peoples right to bear arms without some big tax/fee increase to waste?
  36. nonpartisan
    Report Abuse
    nonpartisan - May 11, 2013 9:32 am
    Good thinking, Old Joe.
    But reason and thought is not what rules in Springfield.
  37. OLD JOE
    Report Abuse
    OLD JOE - May 11, 2013 8:21 am
    Here in Illinois I don't see the big deal. the back ground checks is already done to get a FOID card. Your FOID card and hunting license should double an a conceal n carry permit.

    Here in Illinois ANYONE born after 1984 has to have a hunters safety course before that can get a hunting license. The hunters safety course is basically the same thing as a gun safety course. I realize right now it would only affect people under 30 to be required to have a hunters safety course to conceal an carry, but it time it would all balance out.

    Certain people will never will never respect the law, not much we can do about that until they get caught, then it's usually to late. The damage in done, that is why they got caught,

    I'm 58 not mandated by law to have a hunters safety course to get a hunting license, my baby boy is 18. Just for father son interaction I went through the hunters safety course with my son. I can see many older parents doing the same.
  38. singlemalt
    Report Abuse
    singlemalt - May 11, 2013 8:18 am
    This situation reflects the "work product" of an inept and recalcitrant state legislature.
Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Follow the Southern Illinoisan

Pinboard