The evidence posted on the illinoiscarry forum does not appear to support the sensational allegation that the NRA lobbied against the bill. It does appear to be true that the NRA won't actively support the bill but I didn't find any reasonable evidence suggesting that they were actually lobbying against it.
As mentioned before, Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's Lobbyist in Illinois, told us he killed the bill. He later told me in person. Yes, he killed the bill.
I think that IL gunowners supporting this bill are dramatically underestimating the hassle of dealing with a patchwork of conflicting laws and therefore dramatically overestimating the value of passing a law that doesn't have a no pre-emption clause.
I try not to underestimate the hassle and work that will be involved in dealing with the home-rule entities after STHR license to carry passes. I absolutely do believe that it is less than the hassle involved in living in a state where there is NO legal right to bear arms in ANY town. There's a patchwork of laws across the country, too, but I don't see Indiana or Kentucky jumping to standardize on the Illinois model to make sure nobody ever gets confused.
Your fears about landing in jail because you pass through a "no-carry municipality" are real, and people would certainly need to keep them in mind. HOWEVER, right now there are almost 1,300 municipal units in Illinois and ALL of them are "no-carry" areas, along with all the land between them. Moreover, carrying your loaded weapon is a felony in every corner of Illinois at present, but under STHR LTC, you'd be charged under the home-rule entity's ordinance, NOT state law. That means you could only be charged with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
The very fact that it seems to be a lot easier to pass a law with pre-emption allowed than to pass a law with a no pre-emption feature should tell everyone a LOT. Why would the antis who won't vote for a no pre-emption law let a pre-emption law through?
Your assessment of the ease of passage relies on the idea that "antis" will be voting for this bill. They won't. The reason it's (theoretically--remember, this hasn't been tested) easier to pass LTC if it's subject to home rule is that it requires 60 votes rather than 71, and 60 is less than 71. That means we don't need to peel off anti-gunners, and it also means that some fence-sitters perceive that the bill has a chance and lean our way.
Why are IL gun owners relying on a NATIONAL organization to solve issues in the state legislature in the first place? In my state we have a state organization that is very effective at dealing with such problems. I'm not saying that we don't occasionally ask for and receive help from the NRA, just that it seems that the NRA seems to be the only major player in IL.
We knew we didn't have the NRA's active support when we began. We were not relying on them to do this for us; we were relying on them not to lobby against us and use their influence to kill our bill. The bill has the support of the Illinois State Rifle Association, GunsSaveLife (formerly the Champaign County Rifle Association) and IllinoisCarry.
At this point, they've changed the game. By killing the bill, they made their later offer of neutrality worthless--it does no good to call themselves neutral after the bell has been rung. Now we want their active support.
But make no mistake: the NRA does not organize the annual IGOLD lobbying day or the Second Amendment Freedom Rally in Chicago. The NRA doesn't put up the famous Burma-shave style signs on Illinois highways. The NRA was not part of the drive for 2nd Amendment resolutions passed by 90 IL counties or the concealed carry referenda passed by 12 of 16 counties in the last year. Those things are all done by Illinois grassroots groups working with the ISRA. Nobody is asking the NRA for a free ride, we just want to make sure we're not working against each other.
Finally, I find it amusing, in an ironic way, to see a thread accusing the NRA of not compromising enough when the typical complaint about them is that they compromise far too much. Both complaints can't be true, logic would suggest that reality is somewhere in the middle. In other words, both camps are exaggerating the situation.
Frankly, I see their position as more conservative than ours. Sending up a pre-emptive bill to die in committee has been the status quo for about 20 years at this point, with nothing really changing for either side. The NRA is OK with that because, in my opinion, they expect the courts to settle the whole thing in our favor sooner or later now that Heller has come down. They expect the legislative end to be rendered moot. Of course, if that happens, it's going to take years, but what are years between friends, right?
