[Chuck43]

In Illinois it's a two part process, first need to apply for a F.O.I.D. (firearms owner Identification) card. It's a form you get from the Illinois State Police and have to answer questions about your residence, mental and criminal history. You need to include a picture of yourself and pay a $10.00 fee for them to do a criminal background check and if you pass they issue you a card that will permit you to buy ammo and firearms.

Second once you have that you will be required to have 16 hours of firearms training that will include range qualification time.

1) Firearms safety instruction, a minimum of 2 classroom hours.

2) Basic principles of marksmanship instruction, a minimum of 3 classroom and range hours.

3) Care, cleaning, loading and unloading of a concealable firearm instruction, a minimum of 3 classroom hours.

4) All applicable state and federal laws relating to the ownership, storage, carry and transportation of a firearm instruction, a minimum of 4 hours classroom hours.

5) Weapons handling, a minimum of 4 range hours.
All applicants must pass a live fire exercise with a concealable firearm consisting of:
(a) A minimum of 30 rounds
(b) 10 rounds from a distance of 5 yards, 10 rounds from a distance of 7 yards, 10 rounds from a distance of 10 yards at a B-27 silhouette target approved by the Illinois state police.

You will also need to provide a (preferably) scanned set of finger prints and a photo no older then 30 days from the date your submitting your application.

The cost of all this? The state application will be $150.00, average classroom course seems to be around $250.00, range time, finger printing and photo is included with most courses. Ammo is supplied by the applicants, those not having a holster or handgun can rent them from most instructors. My best guess is that it will cost the average guy a minimum of $400.00 for their permit.

The permit will be good for 5 years, at the time of renewal you will be required to take another 3 hours of classroom instruction and pay a $? fee.

 

[Gmountain]

Here we had to take a class- I think it's about three hours. Fingerprints. Photo. Fire one shot (although a lot of places just shoot a primer round). Pay the fee- I don't know what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's around $60. Wait a month or so for the CCW.

If you have served in the military, or have a hunting safety course, or other proof of firearms training, you don't need to take the course.

CCW is valid for 7 years. To renew, just send in a new photo and a small fee. Turnaround time is about 7 days.

Florida has reciprocity with 34 or 35 states. You do not need to be a resident of Florida to get a Florida permit.

 

[pbsdaddy]

Depending upon the instructor, the initial cost of the course, (range and classroom), runs between $100 and $300. There is no set fee and only minimum hours must be met. Currently I believe the total is 4 hours classroom and 2 hours range time. However, most instructors offer more of both. Fingerprints, done only by the state police, $69. The application, hand carried to the court, is $65. Pictures are $12 and ammo, minimum 50 rounds, $30 average. My wife just completed hers for a total of $296. My renewal, for the CCP, (concealed carry permit), is coming up. That's another $65 to the court and $12 for pictures. But the permits are good for 3 years the first time, 5 years upon each renewal. My permit under LEOSA is more expensive as it costs me $125 for the range time, (very few certified ranges), and it expires annually.
I guess Delaware is about average as far as concealed carry cost.

 

[Gmountain]

I just looked up the fees- $112, plus the cost of the class, which see at gun shows for under $50.

 

[Nellybelle]

Wow Chuck that's impressive.
One thing for sure sounds like the regulations for your permit makes sure people are well trained.
Indiana just fills out an application , fingerprints , clean record and $50 .00 I think for a life time permit.
I am a former LEO so I had more training 40 years ago. But it's up to the individual to set their own training requirements for the general public . I envy your training requirements for the permit.

 

[Gmountain]

Wow Chuck that's impressive.
One thing for sure sounds like the regulations for your permit makes sure people are well trained.
Indiana just fills out an application , fingerprints , clean record and $50 .00 I think for a life time permit.
I am a former LEO so I had more training 40 years ago. But it's up to the individual to set their own training requirements for the general public . I envy your training requirements for the permit.

My personal opinion is that such training requirements should not be required.

 

[Chuck43]

I envy your training requirements for the permit.

My personal opinion is that such training requirements should not be required.

I could easily agree with both of you, but in this day and age we have to think about the thousands of untrained people applying for permits. How many of them get their basic firearms education watching TV shows? I grew up with firearms, I had my 2 grandfathers and my father to shoot and hunt with. How many children today are growing up with opportunities like that? I think for the greater good detailed training is a necessity.

 

[pbsdaddy]

Have to agree with Chuck on this one. There are far too many people running around with little or no firearms training. Most of them are called criminals.
I find it curious that people would agree to drivers training, pilot training, computer training, swimming training etc. etc. But when it comes to firearms they see no need for training. If it is a matter of second amendment rights, I may have to re-read it. I don't recall anything about the right to keep and bear arms without training.
But, that is just my opinion.

 

[Gmountain]

Have to agree with Chuck on this one. There are far too many people running around with little or no firearms training. Most of them are called criminals.
I find it curious that people would agree to drivers training, pilot training, computer training, swimming training etc. etc. But when it comes to firearms they see no need for training. If it is a matter of second amendment rights, I may have to re-read it. I don't recall anything about the right to keep and bear arms without training.
But, that is just my opinion.

I think training is a good thing to have.

But- I think requiring training as a pre condition to exercising a right is an infringement.

 

[Chuck43]

But- I think requiring training as a pre condition to exercising a right is an infringement.

But- we're not talking about the freedom to legally buy, sell, own, hunt or target shoot with a firearm, we're talking about a permit to carry one daily in public.

 

[Nellybelle]

I have stated this before. I see people walking around with their weapons strapped on their hip like the old West days. Sometimes they are pretty unsavory looking characters. I am sure they have no or very little formal professional training. That doesn't mean they are incapable of safely handling a weapon. It just seems they want everyone to know they are armed. I want no one to know I am armed until I have my pistol about 6 inches from their head if you do something to force it to be there.

I believe the more education one has regarding carrying and using a firearm the better we all we be. One fault Indiana has in my opinion, is if you are old enough and can afford it, apply for a permit, and you can carry it.

 

[Gmountain]

But- we're not talking about the freedom to legally buy, sell, own, hunt or target shoot with a firearm, we're talking about a permit to carry one daily in public.

We are talking about the right to keep and bear arms. Hunting and target shooting are all well and good, but our rights aren't limited.

 

[pbsdaddy]

I understand your point Gmountain, but I disagree with your premise. While it can be argued that requiring training is an infringement and therefore illegal, it could also be argued that The Constitution does not provide WHERE we may keep and bear arms. One could also argue, therefore, that a law requiring one to remain on their own property while keeping and bearing arms would be legal.
The states are saying you can keep and bear arms. They are also saying we want to protect the rest of the citizens of the state by ensuring those who carry know what they are doing. When one considers that all persons have the right to feel safe in their person, it has to be upheld that an expectation of competency is valid.

 

[Chuck43]

One could also argue, therefore, that a law requiring one to remain on their own property while keeping and bearing arms would be legal.

Part of our new carry law now allows for you to carry on your property without a permit. I know Chicago was one of the communities in Illinois where it was illegal to walk out of your house with an uncased firearm, entering your yard or garage with a gun on your person loaded or not could get you arrested. I recently read that because of the new carry law pending cases of people charged with unlawful carry on their own property have been dropped.

 

[Gmountain]

I understand your point Gmountain, but I disagree with your premise. While it can be argued that requiring training is an infringement and therefore illegal, it could also be argued that The Constitution does not provide WHERE we may keep and bear arms. One could also argue, therefore, that a law requiring one to remain on their own property while keeping and bearing arms would be legal.
The states are saying you can keep and bear arms. They are also saying we want to protect the rest of the citizens of the state by ensuring those who carry know what they are doing. When one considers that all persons have the right to feel safe in their person, it has to be upheld that an expectation of competency is valid.

As you know, the Constitution is a document that limits the power of government, and sets forth some of our God given rights. It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say it's ok to limit the right, or that it only applies to elk hunting, or you can only have a gun in your barn, or that the right is dependent on the good graces of the government to exist. It is a right that all citizens have.

If a state fears law abiding citizens, then we have a big problem. We all know that criminals don't follow the law- that is what makes them criminals by definition.

States that have constitutional carry are not places in which I worry about my safety. When I'm in Vermont, I don't give firearms a second thought. The places I worry about are the places that infringe on our rights-New York, New Jersey, etc.

Who am I to tell someone they aren't allowed to exercise their right to keep and bear arms because I don't think they are good enough, or trained enough, or smart enough?

 

[pbsdaddy]

When those words were penned, it was common household practice to train every member in the proper use of firearms. This is no longer done, in many homes. Especially defensive use of a firearm. Extending that fact to the writing, it was assumed the person carrying the weapon had been trained in the proper use of it. Do you really believe the writers of our constitution meant that a well armed militia should not also be a well trained militia? Would we expect todays military to not be well trained?
Society has changed a lot since The Constitution was written. While I am not one that believes it is an old, antiquated document, or that it is a "living, breathing, changing document". I do believe if we are to truly understand the intent of the writing, we must first accept the culture at the time of the writing. Once we have done that, we can readily see how it still, very much, applies to today.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How secure would this country be without trained personnel behind those weapons used to protect it and it's people? Not just in battle, but also in the streets and homes.

 

[Gmountain]

When those words were penned, it was common household practice to train every member in the proper use of firearms. This is no longer done, in many homes. Especially defensive use of a firearm. Extending that fact to the writing, it was assumed the person carrying the weapon had been trained in the proper use of it. Do you really believe the writers of our constitution meant that a well armed militia should not also be a well trained militia? Would we expect todays military to not be well trained?
Society has changed a lot since The Constitution was written. While I am not one that believes it is an old, antiquated document, or that it is a "living, breathing, changing document". I do believe if we are to truly understand the intent of the writing, we must first accept the culture at the time of the writing. Once we have done that, we can readily see how it still, very much, applies to today.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How secure would this country be without trained personnel behind those weapons used to protect it and it's people? Not just in battle, but also in the streets and homes.

The right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on a militia, well regulated or otherwise.

 

[pbsdaddy]

No. It isn't dependent on a militia. It is because of a NEED for a militia that you have a right at all.
Your last post has taught me I am arguing with one whom I should not argue with because it will only make me look like you.
While you are being so hard line with rules, don't forget to not speed. Do not run a stop sign or light. Do not "sample the grapes at the grocery store". Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. And a hypocrite is the absolute worst of opinionated people.

 

[Gmountain]

No. It isn't dependent on a militia. It is because of a NEED for a militia that you have a right at all.
Your last post has taught me I am arguing with one whom I should not argue with because it will only make me look like you.
While you are being so hard line with rules, don't forget to not speed. Do not run a stop sign or light. Do not "sample the grapes at the grocery store". Otherwise, you are a hypocrite. And a hypocrite is the absolute worst of opinionated people.

It's not true that because of a need for a militia, I have a right ( or anyone does.) The right simply exists; it's endowed upon us by our creator. It is not granted to us by the government.

I don't see how what I am saying can be construed as a "hardline" position.

It's entirely different that driving over the speed limit, or eating grapes.

for what it's worth, though, I never sample grapes or eat anything in grocery stores.

 

[Chuck43]

The intention of this thread was to simply post the requirements for a carry permit in Illinois and ask what other states were requiring applicants to do. I never thought this thread was going to end up in a 2nd amendment discussion but at least we have people posting and even off topic posting is better then no posting.