You were doing great up to this point. However...Yes. As rockhopper noted. However, as rockhopper also noted, Chicago hasn't only been 'dragging their feet', Emanual and his cronies have been looking for EVERY possible way NOT to issue licenses. The Palmer decision addresses this specific issue.
Further, the Illinois / Chicago baloney does NOT recognize reciprocity with, say Indiana. With non-residents, and makes no actual provision for a non-resident to carry in Illinois. The Palmer decision addresses this issue, as well.
Even further, Palmer addresses the issue of constitutional carry. Which would mean, if this were likewise applied to Illinois / Chicago, not only would lawful non-residents be able to carry in Illinois / Chicago, those non-residents wouldn't even need 'reciprocity' because they wouldn't even need a license from their home State.
So, the issue has now been addressed with the 'worst' anti-gun community, D.C. The next logical step would be to address what was the '2nd worst', but now would move up to 'the worst': Chicago.
This could also preemptively 'force' States that do not currently have reciprocity with Indiana (like Ohio) to provide reciprocity, instead of refusing reciprocity, or forcing an Indiana resident to obtain a non-resident license from somewhere like Utah or Florida.
Even further, the Palmer decision provides a framework for constitutional carry in those areas (the majority of States) that do not recognize constitutional carry.
Lastly, it should ALSO be noted that Palmer further identifies that the RKBA is not 'unlimited', something which even some INGO members falsely claim. Therefore, convicted felons, mentally deranged, and so forth can be (and should be) prohibited from carrying.
So, at least the implications of the Palmer decision are quite huge. And helps provide groundwork to address further issues (as Palmer did citing Heller and McDonald).
No matter how many times you say it, no matter how cool it would be to not be able to be stopped anywhere you chose to carry... Your RKBA does not trump property rights... You still go to those "places of public access" by your own choice.... or not. You do have a right to carry. You do not have a right to be on anyone's property in opposition to their wishes. You may swing your fist all you like, until it impacts another's nosetip by your action (that is, if they see it and move in front of it with the intent of being struck, you've not necessarily committed the violation.)Now, just push to get businesses identified as 'places of public access', and that would eliminate the silly 'can't carry in our store' signs. A business that invites the public into it's store should NOT be allowed to preempt the right of the patron to lawfully carry. If a business invites the public to patronize that business then, while not a 'public place' (like a park), it IS a 'place of public access' by their own choice (inviting in the public), and should be subject to the same requirements (allowing carry) as parks (etc.) must.
Each step forward, though maybe small, is a step forward.
Just wanted to clarify the statement. Thanks!
My question: IN recognizes all governmentally issued permission slips. How does/will this bear upon our law requiring a foreign slip of that nature prior to carry not being disallowed?
Blessings,
Bill