Just when I thought IL was getting better

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of Quinn's changes:

"Inverts the presumption of where a person can carry. Licensees can carry only in locations where the property owner has posted a sign indicating it's OK to carry a gun on the property. Previously, the bill said property owners had to post signs if they wanted to prohibit carrying guns on their property."

Where do they come up with this stuff??!!??
 
Quinn's AV is just typical political game, Chicago style of course.
The bill will probably get override supermajority next week and if not, then the current UUW law is off the books and we get "court carry". Either way, we aren't going to get stuck with Quinn's fantasy version.
 
Kingcreek - with over 220 home rule towns (8 here in St. Clair county alone), the patchwork of laws they would make, all of which would be MORE restrictive than "Q-balls" boondoggle would be an absolute nightmare.:what: :cuss:
 
I recommend that we look again at this on Tuesday afternoon. I think things will look different after the legislature has a chance to be is session.
 
When one considers the excess margins received above the required 3/5ths threshold to pass the current bill, and considering that the bill's sponsors must agree to have a vote on the Governor's changes, and the fact that the sponsor in the house, Mr. Phelps, has already filed to have the override vote, along with the statement of the Senate sponsor that he intends to file for the override vote as soon as the override is complete in the house, PLUS the fact that the legislature is already scheduled to be in session on July 8th, I believe it is fair to say that the Governor's AV is political theatre, nothing more. We must consider what is probable, not what is merely possible.
 
I wrote this on another forum.

Under normal circumstances a bill that passed with a huge "veto proof" vote would seem like an easy thing to override. But in this case, no one in the legislature wanted this bill. The whole thing is up to Mike Madigan. He bullied the whole legislature into voting for this thing. The antis did not want it at all, and the pro-carry legislators did not like the terms of the bill. Unless Madigan puts the screws on them again, I don't think the governor's veto can be overridden. It is a very peculiar situation.

It will be interesting to watch it play out. One has to wonder how much of his political capital Madigan can afford to use up on this issue mostly against his own Democrats, and in both houses. I suspect the so called "cliff" is probably prefered by a majority of the antis to a LTC bill, and that is the way they would let things go if they had their choice in the matter. That way they can avoid dealing with the issue and being forced to vote for something they really hate, and let the courts sort it out.
 
IMNSHO ... this is actually more about the Dem primary next year than CCW now.

Quinn won the governor's chair with only 3 counties IIRC, Cook, Peoria and East St. Louis. The big one was Cook county of course.

In the primary next year he faces Daley/Bloomberg and Lisa and will split the Cook County Dem vote 3 ways. The winner will need the rest of the state to get the nomination.

Madigan has locked up all the downstate support for Lisa with his deal on the gun bill. I really don't see him throwing that chip away and losing that support at the last minute while Quinn stumps for votes in Wrigleyville.

I'm seriously considering asking for a Dem ballot in the primary and voting for Quinn as the weakest candidate they can field.

Then voting for anybody against him in the general election.
 
Speaking as a down-stater born-and-raised: I'm so glad I moved one state west when I moved back to the midwest 10 years ago.
 
DonP, that's not a bad idea, but Quinn is such a jack A that I find it hard to do that.

Jim
 
Actually jt missouri statelaw trumps local laws on cc. Oc for now is still enforced at the local level.
 
Your friend is misinformed. Now there is the usual laundry list of prohibited places, schools, bars, courhouses, churches, public transit, etc. Furthermore, private business can choose to not allow concealed weapons, but it is perfectly legal to walk the streets of both st louis city and county with a concealed weapon.

edit: Just to state the obvious a permit which is shall issue is required.
 
RSMO 571 has all the details on Concealed Carry. It is an area controlled exclusively by the state. Localities cannot control this.
There is no area in the entire state where concealed carry is a crime. Even within the prohibited places, it is not a crime. (RSMO 571.107) Look at the last paragraph. You can be asked to leave. If you don't, the cops can come. This is a fine and possible suspension of the permit. If you do it again and again, it leads to a revocation of the permit. And it keeps getting more expensive each time as well.

Open Carry is different. Localities can ban this. Soon, after the MO legislature overrides Governor Nixon on HB 436, persons with a concealed weapon permit will be able to open carry anything that is 16 inches or less in length in the same manner as concealed carry.
 
DonP said:
I'm seriously considering asking for a Dem ballot in the primary and voting for Quinn as the weakest candidate they can field.

Here in MD, thats "Going DINO for 2014". It's the measured and rational response to a one-party state.

As a former IL resident, I think the ISRA should take some leadership on coordinating that. It's best to target primary flips for maximum effectiveness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top