Illinois governor does something about new gun law
I don't have the foggiest idea what an amendatory veto is, but he appears to have used it. From the article, the legislature has to concur before it becomes law. Major changes are to limit a CCW permit to one firearm, with a magazine capacity not over ten rounds (unclear if that means with a magazine of that size, or unable to accept a magazine over that size), any carry gun must be completely concealed (probably meaning that if anyone sees it by accident, you can be arrested), and a few other things.
The Legislature re-convenes one day before the court's stay expires, meaning that the present laws become unenforceable.
If the state level prohibition on carrying loaded guns (no exceptions for anybody except law enforcement) expires with no statewide replacement, then there will still be the Illinois Wildlife Code which prohibits carrying a gun other than unloaded and in a case. This law was not in issue in the federal litigation that declared the gun-carry restrictions in the Criminal Code unconstitutional.
I believe the Wildlife Code offense is only a misdemeanor, at least the first time, but it is virtually certain that anti-gun LEOs would use it against anyone they found carrying a loaded gun.
In addition, there are close to 200 "home rule" cities in Illinois. If there is no statewide law on gun carry that applies to these cities (it takes a 60% vote of the legislature to make a state law applicable to home rule cities), then each one of them could decide to adopt its own restrictions on carry. Or not. So there could be anything from unrestricted carry to total prohibition, and anything in between, on a city by city basis. And no easy to determine what the law is, moment to moment, as you move about the state.
It would be, for many a traveler, as though nothing had changed. The only way to move a gun about the state without risking a criminal charge is to have it unloaded and in a case.
Posted by: wrangler5 at July 3, 2013 08:53 AM
Re: IL Home Rule. I have heard this argument time and again, however, explain to me how the 7th Circuit ruling invalidating a STATE WIDE law is NOT binding on political subdivisions of that STATE. Given Chicago vs. MacDonald, (2nd & 14th amends), would not the 7th circuit ruling invalidate any and all efforts by local units of government to replace what the state of IL cannot keep? I cannot believe a local ordinance would be constitutional when it has been ruled unconstitutional for a sovereign state. Unless, somehow, Illinois Home Rule powers under the Illinois State constitution, supersede the U.S. Constitution. I don't think so.
Posted by: LeverAction at July 9, 2013 01:23 PM