IL changes non resident elgibility

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

IL SP do annual surveys on states to see if their CCW elgibility rules are the same or "substantially similar"as IL. They used to allow 4 states' residents to apply for IL NR permit.

The IL SP have updated their list. NM, HI and SC dropped. AR, MS, TX added and Virginia retained

The old list is also attached.
.
.

2nd=Good+Substantial · Feb 3, 2017

They dropped Hawaii? So that affects like 3 people right?

redeemed.man · Feb 3, 2017

2nd=Good+Substantial said:
They dropped Hawaii? So that affects like 3 people right?

They should have added Maryland, that would have positively impacted three people to make up for Hawaii.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

3? that many?

Remember this isn't reciprocity. This is the requirement for IL issuing you a non resident permit. IL does not recognize any other state's permit. like MD.

john_bud · Feb 3, 2017

Can't let honest citizens CC in Illinois-istan, only criminals.

redeemed.man · Feb 3, 2017

swinokur said:
3? that many?

Remember this isn't reciprocity. This is the requirement for IL issuing you a non resident permit. IL does not recognize any other state's permit. like MD.

I am aware, just sarcasm on my part.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

john_bud said:
Can't let honest citizens CC in Illinois-istan, only criminals.

IL allows CC for residents and allows applications from residents of the 4 states listed to apply for NR permits.

press1280 · Feb 3, 2017

swinokur said:
IL SP do annual surveys on states to see if their CCW elgibility rules are the same or "substantially similar"as IL. They used to allow 4 states' residents to apply for IL NR permit.

The IL SP have updated their list. NM, HI and SC dropped. AK, MS, TX added and Virginia retained

The old list is also attached.
.
.

So either Hawaii didn't answer the survey or they loosened their laws?
This seems completely arbitrary.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

A lawsuit was filed asking for a PI against the policy.

denied.

243hunter · Feb 3, 2017

The thing is the NR licenses in those states that have been removed will now how their licenses revoked. And supposedly there were other states that answered the questions the same way as the allowed states and were not considered similar.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

hence the use of the word arbitrary in an earlier post

rambling_one · Feb 3, 2017

I've ignored travel in Illinois for years. No skin off my back. I spend $ where I and my firearm are welcome.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

Rod Blagojevich approves of this post

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 3, 2017

As I've said many times before, we're never going to get any reasonable relief from the courts, as they are judging gun laws based on rational basis (even if they call it intermediate scrutiny). Any relief will only come from Congress, but not as long as we have "conservatives" arguing against federal preemption and carry reciprocity based on "state's rights."

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

Well, Rep. Hudson's bill HR 38 utilizes the Commerce Clause. So what state's rights claim can be made?

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 3, 2017

swinokur said:
Well, Rep. Hudson's bill HR 38 utilizes the Commerce Clause. So what state's rights claim can be made?

I'm not referring to a Constitutional claim. I'm referring to the philosophical arguments advanced by some conservatives that "the federal government shouldn't be getting involved in permits, because it sets the precedent for them to ban them later." I argue that that precedent was set long ago, and that the left will work to do that with or without our assent or "precedent." Might as well get some benefit now.

swinokur · Feb 3, 2017

works for me.

press1280 · Feb 3, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
As I've said many times before, we're never going to get any reasonable relief from the courts, as they are judging gun laws based on rational basis (even if they call it intermediate scrutiny). Any relief will only come from Congress, but not as long as we have "conservatives" arguing against federal preemption and carry reciprocity based on "state's rights."

AND that 7th circuit opinion link is rational basis opinion all the way. Let's hope when it comes back from appeal that they actually use at least a true intermediate scrutiny.

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 3, 2017

press1280 said:
AND that 7th circuit opinion link is rational basis opinion all the way. Let's hope when it comes back from appeal that they actually use at least a true intermediate scrutiny.

I don't recall a single case judged under true intermediate. In every one, the courts entirely deferred to the legislature's determination of "fit" between the regulation and the interest.

press1280 · Feb 3, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
I don't recall a single case judged under true intermediate. In every one, the courts entirely deferred to the legislature's determination of "fit" between the regulation and the interest.

Judge Legg's opinion (now vacated) in Woollard was a true use of intermediate scrutiny. There's not many to be sure, but the CA7 opinion only used the words "reasonable", no mention of intermediate scrutiny.

IL changes non resident elgibility

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Attachments

Active Member

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

In a State of Bliss

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Banned

In a State of Bliss

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics