Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision

[Dframe]

I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy will introduce some form of concealed carry legislation since he has NO choice. It will be as RESTRICTIVE as possible. If he had his way there would be only a few permits issued and all would go to chicago legislators.

 

[ilbob]

I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy will introduce some form of concealed carry legislation since he has NO choice. It will be as RESTRICTIVE as possible. If he had his way there would be only a few permits issued and all would go to chicago legislators.

He has all kinds of choices. He could seriously try to get a very restricted may-issue bill passed. Probably does not have the votes for that. But he may introduce and make a show of such a bill. he is not going to waste a lot of his political capital on such a bill though IMO. It just does not matter enough to him.

He could publicly oppose the NRA bill while doing little to impede it.

Or he could screw us over big time and do nothing, and allow no bill to go forward, which he probably can do.

In the end, if any LTC bill passes, it is most likely to be by acquiescence of Madigan if not actual support.

 

[Trent]

I think they're going to let it ride.

Even if the State goes constitutional carry, that leave Chicago free to pass their own version of Home Rule CCW, which residents will have to abide by.

 

[Phatty]

The vast majority of "pro gun" legislators in Illinois are nowhere near as pro gun as the members here. They would be scared to death of constitutional carry and see it as unacceptable. That's why I think when push comes to shove at the end of the spring session, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois will back down and agree to a bad compromise instead of passing nothing.

 

[El Tejon]

As screwed up as Illinois is, I suspect a very weak bill being passed with 5 minutes before the deadline.

My hope is that ISRA uses some political Judo and allows the dysfunctional government to implement Wyoming carry by default.

If so I vow to walk down Michigan (both levels) open carrying. Maybe I'll go visit my old school on Adams.

 

[Nanook]

We have 47 co-sponsors for HB0997, but it's stuck in committee. From what Todd Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist says, there are at least 60 votes in favor of CCW which is enough to pass good amendments to the shell bill Madigan is putting out.

We would need 71 votes to get past Quinncometax's inevitable veto. The so-called super-majority.

It's possible the tactic by Madigan and his cronies may backfire on them and work to our advantage. Tuesday will tell the tale.

 

[ilbob]

The vast majority of "pro gun" legislators in Illinois are nowhere near as pro gun as the members here. They would be scared to death of constitutional carry and see it as unacceptable. That's why I think when push comes to shove at the end of the spring session, the pro-gun legislators in Illinois will back down and agree to a bad compromise instead of passing nothing.

I would suggest that since there are other provisions of IL law that would make carrying in public very problematic, just letting the decision go into effect is a real option. It would not be a UUW violation, but it would still be illegal. And the antis would not have to do anything with LTC at all.

 

[Phatty]

I would suggest that since there are other provisions of IL law that would make carrying in public very problematic, just letting the decision go into effect is a real option. It would not be a UUW violation, but it would still be illegal. And the antis would not have to do anything with LTC at all.

I'm assuming you're referring to 720 ILCS 5/21-6 that prohibits weapons in buildings or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds.

Just because the 7th Circuit opinion did not mention this specific section, does not mean that it isn't also unconstitutional. For example, the Illinois legislature could not re-pass an identical UUW statute as a new statute and argue that the 7th Circuit's ruling only applied to the old law. In sum, the 7th Circuit held that a complete ban on the carrying of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens is not allowed. Section 21-6 cited above operates as just such a flat ban, and would be equally unconstitutional. Even the idiots in Chicago know that they cannot simply pass their own total ban -- that's why they will pass a restrictive "may (not) issue" scheme and then argue that the scheme is consistent with the 2A.

Hopefully, to avoid any confusion, the plaintiffs' lawyers in these lawsuits are aware of Section 21-6 and make sure that the district court's injunction specifically references that section in addition to the UUW sections.

 

[Jeff White]

HB-1155 - Floor fight in the Illinois House of Representatives right now!


It's a floor fight going on in the Illinois House of Representatives right now on Mike Madigan's HB-1155 carry bill.

It's time a again to call your representative and urge hiim or her to only support the amendments to this bill that have been introduced by Brandon Phelps (right now that's amendment #27)

Any amendment not by Brandon Phelps is an attempt to restrict your rights and is not supported by ISRA. Urge your representative to vote NO on any such amendment.

If you do not know who your state representative is, please click the link below and you will be able to identify your representative and get their Springfield phone number.

The Illinois State Board of Elections has a new interactive search page here:
www.elections.state.il.us/DistrictLocator/DistrictOfficialSearchByAddress.aspx

If you know who your representative is, you can find their contact info here:
www.ilga.gov/house/.

I just read through all 27 proposed amendments. Looks like the plan is to make it legal to carry, but there would be very few places you were permitted to actually carry.

Some of the restrictions don't exempt peace officers. Seems they are at least as ignorant as the New York Democrats.

I freaking hate Chicago and everything that goes with it!!

 

[Phatty]

I just read through all 27 proposed amendments. Looks like the plan is to make it legal to carry, but there would be very few places you were permitted to actually carry.

Some of the restrictions don't exempt peace officers. Seems they are at least as ignorant as the New York Democrats.

I freaking hate Chicago and everything that goes with it!!

We're in trouble. Amendment 2 was adopted with a comfortable majority.

 

[Sam Cade]

I strongly suspect Mike Madigan father of Amy

Amy Madigan? The actress? Not unless he was fathering children at the age of fourteen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Madigan



Lisa Madigan is the the Illy-noise AG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Madigan

 

[rodinal220]

HB1155 is on the Illinois House floor as this is posted.Watch or listen to the floor pablum

http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp#

 

[Phatty]

Two more amendments have just been filed.

Amendment 28 requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the police.

Amendment 29 amends the FOID act to make it a Class 4 Felony (instead of a petty offense) to fail to make a record of the transfer of a firearm.

 

[Phatty]

Amendment 3 has been adopted by a 71-38-4 vote. It prohibts the carrying of firearms in a day care or in the surrounding property or parking lot.

 

[Phatty]

Amendment 4 has been adopted by a 66-41-7 vote. This is an oversimplification, but it generally prohibits firearms in all government owned or controlled buildings and surrounding property.

 

[Phatty]

Amendment 5 has been adopted by a 56-47-11 vote. It prohibits firearms in casinos and other establishments that are licensed to have video gaming (of the gambling variety). Like the other amendments, the prohibition extends to the parking lot and other surrounding buildings/property.

 

[ilbob]

I'm assuming you're referring to 720 ILCS 5/21-6 that prohibits weapons in buildings or on land supported in whole or in part with public funds.

Just because the 7th Circuit opinion did not mention this specific section, does not mean that it isn't also unconstitutional. For example, the Illinois legislature could not re-pass an identical UUW statute as a new statute and argue that the 7th Circuit's ruling only applied to the old law. In sum, the 7th Circuit held that a complete ban on the carrying of weapons in public by law-abiding citizens is not allowed. Section 21-6 cited above operates as just such a flat ban, and would be equally unconstitutional. Even the idiots in Chicago know that they cannot simply pass their own total ban -- that's why they will pass a restrictive "may (not) issue" scheme and then argue that the scheme is consistent with the 2A.

Hopefully, to avoid any confusion, the plaintiffs' lawyers in these lawsuits are aware of Section 21-6 and make sure that the district court's injunction specifically references that section in addition to the UUW sections.

maybe, maybe not, but we would have to go back and litigate it if we do not get LTC. along with dozens of existing home rule ordinances that have similar effect.

IL could claim this is their "sensitive places" list.

besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote in favor of infringements in their fund raising.

 

[Nanook]

It looks like the amendments are being voted on and since many of them conflict with each other, it will kill the bill. This bill is horse manure, and it is DOA whenever this silliness plays itself out.

And HB997 is now out of the committee which is great news.

 

[Phatty]

besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote against for fund raising.

I suspect that you are correct. But the end game is still not clear so I'm being extremely cautious at every step of this process.

 

[ilbob]

I suspect that you are correct. But the end game is still not clear so I'm being extremely cautious at every step of this process.

The end game is unknowable at this point, until we find out if the state asks and gets cert from SCOTUS.

 

[Jeff White]

besides, this is all a sham. madigan is going to let everyone that wants to get to record a vote on their favorite infringements so they can use that when they run for re-election and for fundraising purposes. some will use their vote against the infringements to raise funds, other will use their vote against for fund raising.

I disagree. Madigan controls everything in the house. He has it in his power to see that no other bill gets a vote. If Phelps or any other bill had a chance of getting a floor vote the ISRA wouldn't be trying so hard to stop all the unfavorable amendments in this one.

There will be no freedom in Illinois until the Chicago machine politicians are dead or in prison.

 

[Phatty]

The end game is unknowable at this point, until we find out if the state asks and gets cert from SCOTUS.

The State has until May 23 to file a cert petition. I think Lisa Madigan is going to take a wait and see approach, where she watches the General Assembly and gives them a chance to come up with a bill. If the powers that be in the GA cannot get an anti-gun bill passed that they approve of, they may signal to Lisa to file a cert petition.

 

[Phatty]

Amendments 6, 7 and 8 have all been adopted.

 

[Trent]

Amendments 1-9 passed.

10 and 11 lost. (University and alcohol establishment votes.)

So students who are 21 and have a CCW will be able to carry right in to the classroom.

And since they eliminated the .08 BAC content and replaced it with their language about "no establishment that dispenses alcohol" people can get blazing drunk and still CCW.

That puts a big hole in their agenda.

 

[Al Norris]

The State has until May 23 to file a cert petition. I think Lisa Madigan is going to take a wait and see approach, where she watches the General Assembly and gives them a chance to come up with a bill. If the powers that be in the GA cannot get an anti-gun bill passed that they approve of, they may signal to Lisa to file a cert petition.

True enough on the petition itself. However...

FRAP 41 comes into play. Madigan must request a Stay of Mandate by Thursday, Feb. 28, else the mandate will be issued on Friday morning. The mandate, is the ruling by the panel.