St. Charles Readies for Concealed Carry Law

If the “concealed carry” firearm bill sitting on the governor’s desk is signed into law, don’t expect major change to the city’s ordinances as a result — other than to bring the city code into compliance with the new law.

That appeared to be the broad consensus voiced among aldermen Monday night after Police Chief Jim Lamkin presented an informational report on state House Bill 183 to the City Council Government Operations Committee and a crowd of residents who packed the City Council Chambers to listen to the discussion.

The bill, which is awaiting Gov. Pat Quinn’s signature, outlines the rules governing who can carry a concealed firearm in Illinois and where they can or cannot do so — in some areas, concealed firearms still would be prohibited.

Apparently, the pending enactment of the new state law raised concerns about how it might affect St. Charles’ own fun ordinances, but Lamkin said impact would not be far-reaching.

Illinois lawmakers pushed through the bill, trying to stay ahead of a July 9 deadline under which Illinois must approve its own legislation allowing qualified residents to carry a concealed handgun, according to a June 24, 2013 story in the Springfield Journal-Register. A federal court declared that the state’s ban on concealed firearms was unconstitutional.

Some gun rights advocates believe that if the state does not have a concealed carry law in place by July 9, there would be no law in place and anyone could legally carry a concealed gun anywhere in Illinois. Others, however, believe cities and towns then would be able to craft their own ordinances, giving rise to fears that a patchwork of differing community gun laws would be impossible to navigate for gun owners, since something that is legal in one community might be banned in a nearby town.

Lamkin, in a 20-page PowerPoint presentation to aldermen and the public, reassured that the change in state law will affect the city code in only a few areas.

Generally, the law would allow any 21-year-old resident with a firearm owner’s identification card who has received a training regimen being prepared by the Illinois State Police. There are restrictions, however, barring concealed carry permits based on various types of criminal convictions, including those related to addictions.

The concealed carry license also carries a $150 fee.

Local Agency May Challenge a Permit

Generally, the law would allow the individual to carry a concealed or partially concealed firearm on his/her person or in a vehicle.

In addition, Lamkin said local police departments would be able to challenge permits for individuals who might not otherwise be barred. He described that aspect of the law as recognizing that local law enforcement might have insights into the character of local residents who might not be “in the system” because of a conviction, but who police might know should not be allowed to carry a concealed firearms due to a history of violence, for example, in which charges never resulted in a conviction.

House Bill 183 also spells out where concealed firearms could be carried and where they would be prohibited.

For example, none would be allowed in preschools, schools or child-care facilities. certain government offices, as well as correctional institutions or jails. Concealed firearms also would be barred in hospitals, mental health facilities, and liquor establishments whose gross receipts from alcohol sales in the prior three months exceeded 50 percent of their revenue.

The list contains more than a dozen other exceptions, including that a property owner does have the right to ban the weapons from a building.

State Authority Trumps Local

The law also sets itself as the exclusive authority of the state, meaning local laws, even in home rule communities, must conform with the state law or be invalid.

This is where the new law would require changes to local ordinances, Lamkin said.

The city ordinance prohibits carrying a concealed firearm with the exception of at home, on the carrier’s own land or fixed place of business.

The city ordinance also bars weapons capable of firing more than six rounds in a single function.

Two other parts of the city code that might have to be amended to comply with House Bill 183 pertain to the discharge of firearms; and to prohibited locations of weapons.

Assault Weapons Ban Dismissed

That sparked a brief discussion of whether the city should consider a ban on assault weapons — the city does not ban them now.

City Attorney John McGuirck told the aldermen the bill could be signed into law on July 9, although some believe Gov. Quinn will use his amendatory veto powers to change the bill. Once signed, McGuirck said, the city would have 10 days to enact its own ordinance related to an assault weapons ban.

But Lamkin noted the city has not had a problem related to assault weapons.

Aldermen appeared poised to protect the Second Amendment in terms of any change to local ordinances, although some, like 1st Ward Alderman Dan Stellato, said state lawmakers need to finish their work on House Bill 183, which he said was inconsistent.

While aldermen did discuss the possibility of an assault weapons ban, it became clear quickly it would not be supported.

First Ward Alderman Ron Silkaitis said he sees no reason for anyone to own an assault weapon, but he also said he would not vote in favor of a local ban.

His statement was greeted by applause and soon echoed by other aldermen.

“I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and will be a check to anyone who tries to water it down in any way,” said 4th Ward Alderman James Martin, who also chairs the Government Operations Committee.

Members of the public who addressed aldermen after their discussion seemed generally to support the direction they had indicated. Other simply wanted to know details of the state law that have not been worked out yet.

For example, a concealed carry permit applicant will be required the complete training, but that training process has been assigned to the Illinois State Police, which will have six months to craft that after the bills is signed into law.

Other expressed concerns about perceived problems with the law. Rob Anderson, for example, questioned whether the law would discriminate against the elderly. But, as Lamkin pointed out, that issue is not one over which the city has any control.

Another resident asked if the city would hold open houses to help residents understand the new law and thus avoid potential mistakes.

Lamkin acknowledged that a lot of people are going to have questions about the new law and that law enforcement agencies are going to be open to something like the open houses mentioned.