House Committee takes up NRA-backed concealed carry bill

[AlbertWesker]

[QUOTE=elowin;52934020]You're right that it was ruled by a Supreme Court that Illinois had to offer some form of concealed carry permit. Technically it did not rule that concealed carry was a guaranteed right, but whatever.
The more important thing to keep in mind is that this is the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, not The United States Supreme Court, and that other circuits have ruled in favor of May-Issue permits.[/QUOTE]

So basically something which for all intents and purposes was ruled to be a right (having the ability to even apply for a permit) isn’t really a right because the ruling made on the issue never made it to the highest court in the country and it doesn’t suit your narrative.

There are tons of rulings made on cases which never make it to the USA Supreme Court. That doesn’t stop them from setting a legal precedent.

[QUOTE=elowin;52934020]However, the much more important thing to keep in mind is that a "Shall-Issue" policy doesn't actually mean that the state must issue people a permit. There are still requirements you must fulfill to be issued a concealed carry permit, which vary immensely by state. But under this legislation, every state would have to accept a concealed carry permit from any state including ones with vastly less checks on it.

For example, Some require extensive background checks and many require basic automated background checks, while others require various degrees of firearms training to issue a conceal carry permit. Pretty basic common sense restrictions, which are rendered completely moot for anyone who has a permit from a state with lax requirements. And then there's the unrestricted states where you don't need a permit at all, under this legislation if you're from one of those states you're automatically validated for concealed carry in every state.[/QUOTE]

Because people who have permanent residency in areas with lax gun laws and almost zero gun violence are going to leave a wake of death and destruction in any cities they try to pass through when traveling out of state. This is a non-issue.

[Tyanet]

[QUOTE=Morgen;52933268]What good reason is there to allow people convicted of violent crimes to carry concealed weapons??[/QUOTE]

I would say that it's because they've been rehabilitated, but that's not how our prison system works.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;52933014]I mean, this really isn't all that unreasonable, every state has to recognize driver's licenses from other states.

The carrying in a school zone thing is a bit questionable but the major part of the legislation seems fairly reasonable.[/QUOTE]

except each state requires a drivers exam, there are states that don't require shit to carry a gun, which will make it fun for law enforcement with everybody abusing that loophole

[EmperorScorpious]

[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;52933014]

The carrying in a school zone thing is a bit questionable but the major part of the legislation seems fairly reasonable.[/QUOTE]

I don't see an issue with it at all. For one, it says (or at least implies) that the only ones allowed to do so will be off-duty cops and retired cops which out of all of society I would trust most with a firearm by a school.

Secondly, creating "gun-free zones" in schools when school shootings are becoming a common thing really is a backward way of reacting to it. If people are not able to defend themselves, you are just leaving everyone in the school defenseless and waiting on the cops to arrive in an event that every second counts.

I'm not advocating shoot outs in schools like the OK Corral but having someone there who legally owns a firearm and knows how to properly use it is helluva lot safer than just hoping mass shooters follow the "gun free zone" sign outside.