Quinn To Use Amendatory 'Powers' To Make Changes To Concealed Carry Law


PDA






dc dalton
July 2, 2013, 12:17 AM
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn intends to take action Tuesday on legislation that would allow guns to be carried in public, and he's widely expected to insert changes to the bill to try to put in place stricter regulations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-gun-bill-0702-20130702,0,5126598.story

If you enjoyed reading about "Quinn To Use Amendatory 'Powers' To Make Changes To Concealed Carry Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Deanimator
July 2, 2013, 05:44 AM
Supporters should just kill the bill and let constitutional carry go into effect.

rugerman07
July 2, 2013, 08:18 AM
Quinn knows his amendatory veto will be overriden so why bother with it?

unicorn
July 2, 2013, 08:35 AM
A lot of the politicians that voted for it did so because a deadline was looming. This move will give them more time to play hide the salami games. Yes, July 9th also looms, but it will be argued that the legislature must be given their costitutionally allotted time to study the amended version. Nothing is ever settled once and for all in Illinois politics. We have to always remain on the offensive. We need to back in and demand full unlimited carry in order to negotiate down to something that might be useful.

Doc7
July 2, 2013, 08:52 AM
To be a devils advocate here...

If the powers that be in IL are so opposed to carry being foisted upon them, why don't they just do what NJ does? Our state "has" concealed carry, but issues a permit to nobody, and does not recognize any other state's permits. I don't understand what is happening in Illinois as it seems there are a ton of ways to prevent the people from exercising their second amendment rights and skirt the Supreme Court.

MErl
July 2, 2013, 08:56 AM
How does he even have such a power? "I don't like the law you sent me so I'll sign a different one and you can try to override the changes?" Are there limits to the allowed changes or can he change a law intended to fix sewers to require every CC holder to wear a red shirt while carrying?

Willie Sutton
July 2, 2013, 10:12 AM
If the powers that be in IL are so opposed to carry being foisted upon them, why don't they just do what NJ does? Our state "has" concealed carry, but issues a permit to nobody, and does not recognize any other state's permits


Which is now subject to a court challenge, a challenge that many feel will be won, taking the discretionary system to a shall-issue system.

Illinois would be unwise to set out a new set of circumstances that would immediately be subjected to a new challenge.


Willie


.

Scimmia
July 2, 2013, 10:19 AM
How does he even have such a power? "I don't like the law you sent me so I'll sign a different one and you can try to override the changes?" Are there limits to the allowed changes or can he change a law intended to fix sewers to require every CC holder to wear a red shirt while carrying?

The amendatory veto has been around for a long time, currently 8 states have it. The extent to which the bill can be modified varies, with Illinois allowing pretty much anything to the best of my knowledge. It's Illinois politics, what do you expect?

If the changes are significant, the pro-gun majority won't vote for it, effectively forcing the override as the option would be to kill the bill altogether. With the deadline looming, this wouldn't be seen as an option.

Trent
July 2, 2013, 10:26 AM
Pfft.

I called this back in February:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8773202&postcount=139


He'll probably do this with an amendatory veto (replacing the entire bill with an assault weapons ban, again, or some other such nonsensical grandstanding), which will require a supermajority to override. So then it goes BACK to the house and senate for an override.

Warners
July 2, 2013, 11:13 AM
It's all political grandstanding by Quinn. If it doesn't get overridden (very likely that it WILL get overriden), then his crappy replacement bill probably won't even be called for a vote by Phelps and company. This would essentially push us over the cliff, meaning we'd have "court carry" or "FOID carry", that would affect more than 200 cities in Illnois. The rest of the cities, the ones with home-rule in effect, could have wildly varying laws that nobody would understand or be able to comply with as they traveled through the state. It would be a mess that would invariably end up back in court. I honestly don't think anyone wants that to happen. My prediction? Quinn does the AV, then gets overridden. He can say that he "tried to save the children" in his flailing attempt to save his ever shrinking base of voters. Pathetic and desperate? Sure. But then this IS Illinois.

Warner

Old Fuff
July 2, 2013, 11:36 AM
Keep in mind that a Federal Court judge found the present law to be unconstitutional. But he then gave the legislature an opportunity to change or replace the law to bring it into line with his decision. Not doing so would leave the state with no law.

The governor and legislature can now pass any law they chose, but it must address the issues in the court's decision that found the original one to be unconstitutional. Otherwise it is also likely to be overturned.

They're last option is to appeal the court's decision all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if they should do that and lose, they - and every other state that has similar laws - would be left holding an empty bag, and I'm sure those others are "hopeful" that the Illinois government doesn't do anything rash.

Warners
July 2, 2013, 11:56 AM
Yeah, it's been said that if Madigan (Lisa, the daughter) thought that SCOTUS would rule in her favor, she would have already appealed to them. There is a lot of risk for the anti's is Lisa appeals to SCOTUS, not necessarily for Illinois, because they've already received their marching orders from the Federal Circuit Court, but for OTHER states that don't allow carry. A SCOTUS ruling in our favor would pretty much wipe clean the laws that New Jersey, New York, California, and other anti-2A states have in place. I would think they'd STRONGLY caution Lisa NOT to appeal to SCOTUS. We'll see. It's a case now of the whiners delaying the inevitable, I think.

Warner

Prometheus
July 2, 2013, 12:11 PM
"So why bother?"

Delay tactics to allow as many cities to pass bans prior to the non retro active preemption law to take effect.

It's all a big scam.

Personally I have no idea how a court could rule something unconstitutional then let it stand for 6 months and then grant an additional 1 month extension.

ngnrd
July 2, 2013, 12:23 PM
Personally, I don't know how these "home rule" laws would stand either.

I can't see SCOTUS saying a state law that allows slavery is struck down, while letting stand a municipal law that allows slavery.

Just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional... isn't it?

Dframe
July 2, 2013, 12:34 PM
quinn has tried this stunt before. I suspect the general assembly will simply override and pass their bill rather than let our intellect challenged governor tell them what to do. The govs' rewritten bill likely won't even get a reading. quinn will then hit the campaign trail with an 'issue" he can take to the populace. "I TRIED to protect the children but they just wouldn't let me!"

mgkdrgn
July 2, 2013, 12:35 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-quinn-gun-bill-0702-20130702,0,5126598.story
What did I tell ya about The Fat Lady ...

Trent
July 3, 2013, 12:21 PM
Quinn's hostile anti-gun stance and mindset brings this image to mind.

We should change up iGOLD banners and carry stuff like this next year (fighting this crap is going to be a long process, even if the bill is restored to it's original, pre-AV language)

http://i.imgur.com/i2LmhMO.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Quinn To Use Amendatory 'Powers' To Make Changes To Concealed Carry Law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!