This paper argues in favor of concealed carry laws in Illinois, examining constitutional, practical, and public safety dimensions of the debate. Drawing on Second Amendment interpretation, crime statistics from John Lott's research, and survey data, the author contends that permitting concealed handguns would reduce violent crime, protect law-abiding citizens in high-crime areas, and represent responsible gun policy. The paper addresses counterarguments about vigilantism and "Wild West" scenarios, emphasizing that 49 states already permit some form of carry law and that evidence does not support claims that such laws increase crime or irresponsible gun use.
The "right to bear arms" as quoted in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is controversial, to say the least. The debate is often emotional and involves intense analysis of language penned centuries ago. Many defenders of concealed carry laws believe these words to be fundamental and unchanging—and rightfully so. The words of the Second Amendment held meaning hundreds of years ago, but in today's world, these words are more important than ever.
The world has changed dramatically since the founding era. Today the world is much more violent, and people have both the right and the need to protect themselves against crime. The Second Amendment must be understood in light of modern security challenges. Illinois is one of only two states—the other being Wisconsin, which permits open carry—that does not allow concealed carrying of weapons. Chicago lawmakers have attempted to justify their opposition to concealed carry laws by misrepresenting the facts about how these laws function in practice.
The truth is that concealed carry laws allow trained, lawful adults to carry weapons responsibly. The picture that lawmakers have constructed of Hollywood-style showdowns in the street is fiction. Concealed carry laws do not create a "Wild West" on the streets of this nation. Rather, they offer citizens protection and, equally important, peace of mind. It is wiser to allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and train for a concealed carry permit than to force them to break the law because they fear for their own safety and that of their families.
In January 2011, Representative Brandon Phelps (D-Harrisburg) introduced House Bill 148 to the 97th General Assembly. HB 148 would allow adults who meet training requirements to carry a concealed handgun in Illinois. Phelps had sponsored earlier concealed carry bills—HB 462 in February 2009 and HB 5221 in February 2010—though both were defeated in the General Assembly. Chicago lawmakers have historically favored strengthening rather than relaxing gun laws in the state.
There are those who believe that passing concealed carry laws will simply lead to more violence. However, gun advocacy groups like IllinoisCarry present a different perspective. IllinoisCarry has documented reports of increased violence and growing citizen concern over the inadequacy of law enforcement protection. This concern drives increased gun purchases as citizens attempt to protect themselves and their property. This represents a compelling argument for passing concealed carry laws in Illinois.
Furthermore, Illinois residents already have options for obtaining concealed carry permits through other states such as Florida and Utah. These permits allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons in states that practice reciprocal recognition of other states' concealed carry permits. However, this reciprocal arrangement still does not allow Illinois residents to carry concealed weapons within Illinois itself. The fundamental issue remains: police cannot be everywhere, protecting everyone simultaneously. Therefore, citizens should have the right to conceal and carry a gun for their own protection.
Criminals in Illinois are already carrying concealed weapons illegally. They possess neither permits nor Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) cards. A critical question emerges from this reality: Is it better odds for a criminal to assault a law-abiding citizen knowing they are not armed, or to take a chance under concealed carry laws that the victim might be armed and able to defend themselves?
The notion that concealed carry laws lead to vigilantism has not been proven in the states where people have been permitted to conceal and carry weapons for years. There is no evidence that giving citizens the right to conceal and carry a weapon causes them to turn violent or murderous. There is also no evidence proving that concealed carry laws put more guns on the streets and into criminal hands. This disconnect between prediction and reality deserves serious consideration in the policy debate.
Today, 49 states have some form of carry law in effect, and Illinois should be no different. State regulations on concealed carry fall into four categories: (1) no-issue, which does not allow citizens to conceal and carry; (2) may-issue, which grants permits at the discretion of local law enforcement; (3) shall-issue, which requires police to issue permits if the applicant meets requirements such as age, absence of felony convictions, and no history of mental institution commitments; and (4) unrestricted carry, where no permit is required to conceal and carry a handgun.
While some opponents of concealed carry in Illinois have suggested the issue is primarily advocated by Chicago residents, surveys show otherwise. According to one survey, support for concealed carry is not geographically concentrated. More than half of survey respondents across four state Senate districts in Chicago and the suburbs said they believe law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves. The issue is individual rather than regional; concerned citizens live in both Chicago and suburban areas. People across Illinois want to defend themselves, and those who need it most are residents of neighborhoods described as war zones, where police protection has proven inadequate.
According to a 2000 study conducted by John Lott Jr. and reported in his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws, "shall-issue" concealed carry laws have reduced homicides by 8.5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and robberies by 3 percent. Lott further argues that if states that did not permit concealed guns in 1992 had permitted them in 1997, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992.
There is no denying that American culture is a gun culture. Lott reports that in 2009 approximately 124 million people lived in households that owned a total of about 270 million guns. Moreover, in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, surveys indicate that over 10 million adults were seriously considering buying a gun for the first time. People want to feel safe and protected, and they have recognized that government and local law enforcement cannot protect them at all times.
Gun culture is pervasive in movies, television, news media, and children's video games. Yet these depictions are not realistic; they are sensationalized in order to sell entertainment and, perhaps, fear. Lott documents how media narratives distort public understanding of defensive gun use:
In a highly publicized incident, a Dallas man became the first Texas resident charged with using a permitted concealed weapon in a fatal shooting. Only after the initial wave of publicity did the press report that the person had been savagely beaten and in fear for his life before firing the gun. In another case, a Japanese student was shot on his way to a Halloween party in Louisiana in 1992. It made international headlines and showed how defensive gun use can go tragically wrong. However, this incident was a rare event: in the entire United States during a year, only about 30 people are accidentally killed by private citizens who mistakenly believe the victim to be an intruder. By comparison, police accidentally kill as many as 330 innocent individuals annually. In neither the Louisiana nor the Texas case did the courts find the shooting to be criminal.
The purpose of highlighting this sensationalism is to illustrate the negative hype surrounding handgun use. While there is no denying that handguns have been involved in some horrific school shootings over the past decade, research examining individual state trends in concealed carry laws shows that such laws have lowered crime. The evidence contradicts alarmist narratives.
Returning to Illinois specifically, Lott notes that when testifying before the Illinois state House of Representatives on whether to pass a concealed handgun bill, a Black representative from Chicago who supported the bill approached him. The representative said he was not surprised by Lott's findings that areas with large minority populations gained the most from concealed carry laws. He explained that given the high rate at which young Black males are stopped by police and the fact that possessing a concealed handgun is currently a felony in Illinois, an honest, law-abiding young Black male would be "nuts" to carry a concealed handgun in the state.
It cannot be denied that people living in urban areas who must defend themselves with concealed handguns have the most to gain from passing concealed carry laws. The absence of adequate police protection is, generally speaking, more pronounced in these areas than in other less-dangerous neighborhoods—an ironic disparity. Lott cites a 1982 American Housing Survey in which 60,000 households were asked about police protection in their neighborhoods. Black urban area residents were twice as likely as whites to report inadequate protection, and six times more likely to say they had considered moving because of inadequate police presence and protection in their neighborhoods.
The debate over Illinois concealed carry laws could be argued for and against for many more years, but there is no reason why it should continue indefinitely. Concealed carry laws should be passed in Illinois not only because they represent a citizen's Second Amendment "right to bear arms," but because they train law-abiding adults to use guns responsibly and require them to possess a license. Offering licenses and permits for handguns ensures that responsible citizens will not need to break the law—as many currently do in order to protect themselves when police have proven inadequate, especially in minority areas where crime is pervasive.
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.