Huge news in IL (CCW, removal of Chicago AWB)

[usmarine0352_2005]

.



http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-05-25/cullerton-quinn-might-hold-concealed-carry.html

.
House Speaker Michael Madigan predicted, however, that it would easily clear the Senate with enough votes to overcome any potential gubernatorial veto.

"I think if the bill is called in the Senate, I think we'll get a vote in the Senate comparable to the vote it got today, which was an overwhelming supermajority vote," Madigan said.

Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, agreed with Madigan.

"I would think you could get to 37 (votes), yeah," he said.

Cullerton, however, said he "would try to defeat the bill" in the Senate and pledged to try to persuade his 40-member Democratic caucus to oppose it.

"Maybe our caucus doesn't want to go forward with it. Maybe we'll have a caucus and we'll see that there's no support, and we'll go ahead with an alternative," Cullerton said. "Maybe we can focus our attention on concealed carry, which is what the court tasked us with doing."
.

.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Tell me this though, why don't the anti-gunners (especially in Cook County) just allow Constitutional carry which would allow home-rule and then basically make it 'may-issue' and only give permits to the elite?


If the current house bill passes, they will lose home-rule and not be allowed all of their gun prohibitions.


That way they can basically allow no concealed carry in Cook County.
.

 

[Trent]

Amendatory veto is not a threat to us. The suggestion is laughable. So he rewrites the bill and sends it back? They either laugh and override the veto or the bill dies. Madigan can bring any bill forward when he wants. He does not need amendatory veto to make something appear.

Respectfully, that is totally incorrect.

Assume for instance that Quinn puts an amendatory veto that keeps the original text of the bill, but LIMITS the pre-emption to only apply to concealed carry, and not transportation, possession, etc.

Both houses have three choices:

#1 Vote a simple majority in both houses to CONFIRM his changes
#2 Vote a SUPER majority in both houses to REJECT his changes and restore the original language
#3 Let the bill die.

Given the uproar that the Chicago pre-emption has, you think Madigan and Cullerton couldn't both scrape up a simple majority to pass the governor's changes?

With the possibility that if they do NOTHING, the bill dies and we get "the wild west" (not true, but that's what they believe), I think we'd see strong support for passing the governor's amendatory language to keep from going over the cliff.

Now, tuck in a nice tidy magazine ban.

And you see why I'm afraid.

Between A) restricting magazines or B) getting the "wild west"... which do YOU think our legislators would pick?

Like I said.

I'm nervous.

 

[VVelox]

Dude, the rest of the state won't be on board if any thing like that happens. It will kill the bill if it can't be overrode.

 

[Trent]

Dude, the rest of the state won't be on board if any thing like that happens. It will kill the bill if it can't be overrode.

And enough of the politicians might be more afraid of what THAT means (killing it), than letting it through.

The NRA lobbyist, etc have all said "there IS no cliff, period." Enough politicians are so scared of what "going over the cliff" means, after having the bejeesus scared out of them for the last 6 months at every committee hearing and floor debate, that it would pressure them to pass ANYTHING so long as we don't have this "chaos" that everyone kept referring to. (Including the NRA, who testified repeatedly that constitutional carry would be chaos in the streets).

It all comes down to what they are afraid of. Politicians seldom act on the interests of constituents, rather, they act on preservation of self. (I won't say never, because sometimes they do!).

If the bill from the Governor comes back and Madigan says "Pass this or we'll have blood in the streets of the wild, wild west"... the entire contingent north of I-80 will vote for it.

 

[Trent]

Update; Cullerton (senate leader) after meeting with Gov Quinn, just said (ON TV) he's stripping out that state-wide pre-emption, pass THAT through the senate, and send it back to the house.

Probably using HB183 as a shell bill to make it happen.

Told you .. too soon to celebrate anything. It's not over yet.

 

[Trent]

16 minute oration by Cullerton at this link:

http://www.illinoissenatedemocrats.com/

 

[Trent]

So my question now for the Chicago folks on here; if they DO strip out the part that makes the assault weapon ban, one gun a month, and other restrictions in Chicago stay put...

Would you still support the bill?

As far as I'm concerned, that pre-emption was the ONLY silver lining that made the "shall carry" (in your car) bill even remotely worthwhile.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Didn't Madigan say they had enough votes through for the House version to push it through the Senate intact?



And the Senate version already had pre-emption missing from it.
.

 

[Old Fuff]

Do keep in mind that they are under a court order to produce a law, and that ultimately whatever they come up with must pass muster by the court. This time legislators and the Chicago Gang are dealing with a constitutionally protected right, and recent case law to back it.

 

[ilbob]

Well, if it happens, all I can do is say 'I tried to warn you.'

I got banned from posting on IL carry simply for suggesting that was the end game. And my thread about it was nuked.

When the 'troops' are all celebrating with their guard down, is the best time to strike.

I have had a number of posts edited and deleted there over the years since the NRA took over. It is just the way they operate. I would not take it personally, you are dealing with control freaks there that are close to the level of control freakishness exhibited by the leadership of the GA.

I posted something that suggested some kind of amendatory veto might well gut the bill, not that it really needs gutting given how poor a LTC bill it is to begin with. That post is still there. I think it is more or less random who gets banned and what posts get deleted/edited.

One of my posts that I think is still there suggested one end game may be that Cook County applicants will all get challenged and the review board will do nothing about it, forcing applicants into the courts for relief which is tough and expensive. Thus creating a back door carveout of Cook County.

 

[ilbob]

Do keep in mind that they are under a court order to produce a law, and that ultimately whatever they come up with must pass muster by the court. This time legislators and the Chicago Gang are dealing with a constitutionally protected right, and recent case law to back it.

just plain false. the court never ordered any such thing.

 

[ilbob]

And enough of the politicians might be more afraid of what THAT means (killing it), than letting it through.

The NRA lobbyist, etc have all said "there IS no cliff, period." Enough politicians are so scared of what "going over the cliff" means, after having the bejeesus scared out of them for the last 6 months at every committee hearing and floor debate, that it would pressure them to pass ANYTHING so long as we don't have this "chaos" that everyone kept referring to. (Including the NRA, who testified repeatedly that constitutional carry would be chaos in the streets).

It all comes down to what they are afraid of. Politicians seldom act on the interests of constituents, rather, they act on preservation of self. (I won't say never, because sometimes they do!).

If the bill from the Governor comes back and Madigan says "Pass this or we'll have blood in the streets of the wild, wild west"... the entire contingent north of I-80 will vote for it.

There is no cliff and never was one. The best thing Madigan could do to kill carry in IL is to do nothing. We would then end up with no LTC and no carry just about anywhere given some provisions of law that were unchallenged and may well be unchallengeable.

I have no idea why he has allowed this to move forward given his opposition in the past.

Some have suggested it is due to pressure from downstate Democrats who are afraid they will be replaced by Republicans in the next election, yet this kind of bill seems likely to piss off the very voters who they are afraid of.

Politics is a very, very strange thing. My guess is we will never know why the back room deal was made or the extent of it. That is just the way IL politics works. It is almost a certainty that what is going on now is part of the script.

 

[Old Fuff]

just plain false. the court never ordered any such thing.

Maybe I didn't say... as well as I shoud have.

The court gave the ILL Legislature 180 days to come up with an acceptable CCW law, but didn't say exactly what it should be. However if it does not meet the requirements in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as some more recent lower-court decisions that comprise Case Law, what ever law the legislature does pass (if they do) is likely to be challanged.

The Chicago Gang got their hands slapped in the McDonald decision, which is something that doesn't happen to them very often. More recently the same thing happened (I think) in a decision concerning the right to have firearms in public housing facilities. I think it's likely they'll try for all they can get, short of having the law (whatever it turns out to be) challanged.

Much as they hate it, the fact now is that the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to be able to do so outside of a residence, is a Constitutionally Protected Right. All they have left is, Reasonable Regulation. You are about to see what they come up with, but until they do everything is speculation.

 

[ilbob]

Maybe I didn't say... as well as I shoud have.

The court gave the ILL Legislature 180 days to come up with an acceptable CCW law, but didn't say exactly what it should be. However if it does not meet the requirements in recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as some more recent lower-court decisions that comprise Case Law, what ever law the legislature does pass (if they do) is likely to be challanged.

The Chicago Gang got their hands slapped in the McDonald decision, which is something that doesn't happen to them very often. More recently the same thing happened (I think) in a decision concerning the right to have firearms in public housing facilities. I think it's likely they'll try for all they can get, short of having the law (whatever it turns out to be) challanged.

Much as they hate it, the fact now is that the right to keep and bear arms, as well as to be able to do so outside of a residence, is a Constitutionally Protected Right. All they have left is, Reasonable Regulation. You are about to see what they come up with, but until they do everything is speculation.

the decision never said that either.

you should probably actually read the decision and see what it did say.

one of the very viable options is for the state to do nothing.

 

[DCP]

the decision never said that either.

you should probably actually read the decision and see what it did say.

one of the very viable options is for the state to do nothing.

That's not what I read

Decision is at the end

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/..._state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html

 

[Comrade Mike]

So how exactly do we stand right now? Has anything passed the acid test yet?

 

[Tiberius67]

He made ISRA and NRA and the 8000 of us that marched IGOLD in Springfield look like fools.

No he didn't.....you and they extorted from him support for a statewide Shall Issue Law with Preemption as the price to save darling Lisa from the repercussions of having to appeal the 7th circuit's decision to SCOTUS. Did you listen to his closing statement in the debate? We had the votes and the antis didn't so Phelps got an offer he couldn't refuse to make this go away. If Phelps had been insane enough to refuse Kwame's Bill would have been allowed to proceed and it would have been on Quimby's desk before this week is out...and Quimby supported it so he would sign it.

For once the antis are the ones doing the compromising....I don't understand why some many don't see that. We were promised Shall Issue with Preemption, and Phelps delivered just that. Yeah, there is plenty in the Bill that sucks, but we got our core demands, the rest can be worked out later.

 

[Tiberius67]

Update; Cullerton (senate leader) after meeting with Gov Quinn, just said (ON TV) he's stripping out that state-wide pre-emption, pass THAT through the senate, and send it back to the house.

Probably using HB183 as a shell bill to make it happen.

Told you .. too soon to celebrate anything. It's not over yet.

Madigan can and has blocked HB 183 from passing in the Senate. He did not stand in the floor of the House and spend 12 minutes telling his troops why he was ordering them to vote for SB 2193 to have Cullerton interfere with his plans. Cullerton can either pass his (Madigan's) bill...and undoubtedly get something for it...or be solely responsible for taking IL over the cliff. I suspect Cullerton will have a "Come to Jesus" moment at the caucus meeting on Monday and SB 2193 will hit the Senate floor and pass, Quimby will either veto it outright or play games with an Amendatory Veto once the recess starts, then Madigan and Cullerton will call a Special Session and override whatever he does. His only other options are to sign, or be solely responsible for taking IL over the cliff. But even if Quimby signs, he loses. Darling Lisa, the true beneficiary of all this, will accept the fealty of the grateful Downstate Democrats and start shopping for the white horse she will ride to glory in the 2014 Democrat Primary.

In short, the Boss has spoken...this is a done deal.

Do keep in mind that they are under a court order to produce a law, and that ultimately whatever they come up with must pass muster by the court. This time legislators and the Chicago Gang are dealing with a constitutionally protected right, and recent case law to back it.

That is why Phelps got a deal as good as he got. Phelps had the votes to move a Bill and the antis do not. SB 2193 would easily satisfy the court....HB 183 probably would too, given that SCOTUS has effectively upheld NY's "May Issue" law.

I have no idea why he has allowed this to move forward given his opposition in the past.

His daughter wants to be Governor....maybe even President someday. If Lisa files for cert it will anger Downstate Dems, who don't need the hassle from their constituents. If she gets slapped down...or worse they hear the case and slap her down like Posner did...it will damage the national anti-gun movement and anger the money men like Bloomberg and Soros she will need if she wants to take her act national. To avoid those problems he brokered a deal where the pro-gun side got it's minimum demands, Shall Issue and Preemption, and the antis got high permit fees, training hours and some other things as salve for the massive butt-hurt they were about to receive.

His views haven't changed....it's just that with the 7th Circuit decision coming this close to the 2014 Primary season, the stars were right for us to get a far better deal than he would have liked to give.

 

[CZguy]

Originally posted by ilbob

the decision never said that either.

you should probably actually read the decision and see what it did say.

Steady......I think that I may have an inkling why some of your posts have been deleted on other forums.

 

[ilbob]

That's not what I read

Decision is at the end

http://blogs.suntimes.com/politics/..._state_ban_on_carrying_concealed_weapons.html

Then you read wrong. This is what the actual decision says.

Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will
impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public
safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

Nowhere in the decision does it actually order the legislature to do anything, something the court probably does not have the authority to do. It just gives the legislature a chance to do something on its own to fix the constitutional defects in the existing law or the court will just order the state to stop enforcing the provisions of the UUW act found to be unconstitutional.

 

[ilbob]

Originally posted by ilbob



Steady......I think that I may have an inkling why some of your posts have been deleted on other forums.

You should read the decision itself and not depend on what some yahoos on the Internet claim it says.

 

[DCP]

Then you read wrong. This is what the actual decision says.



Nowhere in the decision does it actually order the legislature to do anything, something the court probably does not have the authority to do. It just gives the legislature a chance to do something on its own to fix the constitutional defects in the existing law or the court will just order the state to stop enforcing the provisions of the UUW act found to be unconstitutional.

I will try one more time

What do you think this says or doesn't say

Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois
legislature to craft a new gun law that will
impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public
safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in
this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.

 

[Willie Sutton]

That does not order the state to do anything.

It offers then enough time to pass legislation *should they choose to do so*.

Should they not choose to do so, it's Wild West time.


Willie

.

 

[Trent]

Senate has declared they will not call the shall issue carry bill passed in the house. Instead they are submitting their own bill for a vote. They cloned the text of the house bill and are making changes (amendment 4 on HB183).

So far:

1. Edit:Removed
2. Restaurants that serve alcohol added to restricted zones. (their wording ALSO would prevent you from filling up at most Casey's gas stations as they serve beer and pizza.)
3. Statewide pre-emption changed to apply only to concealed carry of firearms. No more Chicago assault weapons ban being lifted, etc.

Still looking for other changes.