Illinois Gov Quinn's amendatorily veto of the concealed carry bill to make it more restrictive, my commentary on some points

Gov. Quinn's amendatorily veto is going nowhere.  For the additional restrictions that he is proposing requires that the state legislature approve them.  I don't believe that will happen.  Here are some quick comments on Quinn's official statement:

Alcohol: HB 183 allows people to carry guns into establishments serving alcohol, including most family restaurants and other places where large amounts of alcohol are consumed. Mixing alcohol with guns is irresponsible and dangerous. Illinois must keep guns out of any establishment where alcohol is consumed.

Is there any evidence to support Quinn's claim about permit holders representing a threat when they go into "restaurants and other places where large amounts of alcohol are consumed"?  No, indeed, most of the country allows concealed handguns to be carried in places that serve alcohol.

Signage: Under the bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children's entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As a matter of property rights, the legal presumption should always be that a person is not allowed to carry a concealed, loaded gun onto private property unless given express permission.

Again, is there any evidence that posting these signs creates problems for businesses?  More specifically, where concealed handgun permitting is allowed the vast majority of restaurants allow concealed carry.  If you want to minimize the cost on businesses, it would then seem that you would want to do the opposite of what Quinn is proposing.

Employer’s Rights: As currently drafted, this bill infringes on an employer’s ability to enact policies that ensure a safe and secure work environment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shootings are the most frequent cause of workplace fatalities. To best ensure a safe work environment, employers should have the right to enact policies that prohibit employees from carrying guns in the workplace and in the course of performing employment-related duties.

This is a very weak claim.  If one is concerned about workplace shootings, who is responsible for these shootings?  Are any of these shootings by concealed handgun permit holders?  Do you really want to count armed robberies of everything from stores to taxi cab drivers as evidence that concealed handgun permits are bad?

Number of Guns and Ammunition: The bill provides no cap on the number of guns, or on the size or number of ammunition clips that may be carried. Instead, it allows individuals to legally carry multiple guns with unlimited rounds of ammunition, which is a public safety hazard. In the interest of common sense and the common good, it should be clarified so that a license will permit an individual to carry one concealed gun and one ammunition clip that can hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

If you put a limit on magazine size, that will primarily effect law-abiding individuals.  People who carry will generally only have with them the one magazine that is in their gun. On the other hand, criminals such as the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter will carry many magazines with them.  Even ignoring how easy it is to make magazines and thus the criminals will likely be able to obtain guns, this restriction will put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage relative to criminals in terms of the number of bullets that they will have with them.

Clarification of “Concealed”: As written, the definition for "concealed firearm" includes the phrase “mostly concealed,” which would allow a licensee to walk around in public with a portion of his or her gun exposed. This is an irresponsible step towards open carry in Illinois. This insufficient provision must be clarified to ensure that when guns are carried, they are completely concealed from public view.

This just makes it more likely that people will unintentionally violate the law and face penalties.  Given at least 43 states allow open carry of handguns (if you count California as banning open carry), it seems difficult to argue that there is any benefit from this additional restriction.

Thanks to Tony Troglio for the link to Quinn's veto statement.