The veto session starts today, and Nixon’s veto of SB 656 could be overturned before sunset.
Everyone keeps saying that SB 656 contains Constitutional Carry (concarry), and they’ve been saying it ever since this thing was born in committee, but I’m not seeing it and never have seen it. Unless I’m missing something. All I read is a bunch of tweaks.
Maybe they keep falsely claiming it has concarry because they don’t want it to pass for one or more of the tweaks it does make, and claiming it has concarry is the best way to gin up opposition. But I don’t know which one(s) of these tweaks are so horrible or objectionable.
Okay, I’ve asked around, and while there is technically no concarry language in SB 656, what it does do is effectively and on the sly implement concarry by removing the line-item in the list of actions that constitute unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) offenses that refers to carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) without a permit. This blog’s very first post on September 15, 2003 was on the day of, and about, the General Assembly adopting our initial CCW provisions, and since it happened in September, you can deduce that it happened on an override of a gubernatorial veto. Part of that package was to eliminate the stand-alone criminal offense of carrying a concealed weapon, and putting carrying without a permit as one of the many items in the UUW laundry list. Now that it has been taken out, or it will be in about a month, there is no possible criminal sanction for carrying without a permit, except…
…What it does not accomplish is to allow CCW in places where carrying even with a valid permit is overtly legally prohibited, or privately prohibited by the establishment owner or agent per his latitude via state law. And it definitely doesn’t change the list of firearms-prohibited individuals per state or Federal law, meaning that firearms-prohibited individuals can’t legally carry even under SB 656 because they can’t legally possess, and they couldn’t get a permit anyway.
One thing it does is that while it removes carrying without a permit from the list of UUW violations, it adds one to it: What it does is that if you’re caught both knowingly carrying and knowingly possessing enough controlled substances that on the face of the action violate state felony PWID laws, (even before a conviction on that particular PWID action or even in the absence of any PWID conviction), that becomes a UUW line-item category. I actually remember that being shoved into SB 656 during hearings and markup, but now that I know that it goes in while CCW-sans-permit goes out, I now think it’s sort of a legal make-good. Remember, more than five years ago in this medium, I expressed my opposition to concarry in NAM-heavy states for technical reasons, and I think that this new UUW provision mostly compensates for those concerns.
The permit process is still in its same form, and that you will need to go through if you want reciprocity with other states, that is, the other states that recognizes Missouri’s permit. Illinois still isn’t one of them.
Long and short is that if you’re not a prohibited person and you don’t carry in prohibited places and you’re not in the dope dealing and transporting business, SB 656 does effectively give you concarry.