rugerman07
Member
Here we go. I wonder if Constitutional Carry will take effect on June, 9th? http://www.wsiltv.com/home/top-stor...ncealed-Carry-210015531.html?llsms=273531&c=y
Cook county sheriff Dart has a CC permiting law ready to go if Illinois goes constitutional carry. Of course its "may" issue and no one will be able to get one, just like in Hawaii.I think what Quinn wants more than anything else is home rule. I've heard claims that Chicago has a plan to get home rule if constitutional carry becomes law? Has anyone else heard this?
I agree. He signs this at the last possible moment.IMNSHO ... This has more to do with Primary politics than guns....................................
.........................................I think he signs it at 11:59 on July 8th, giving the home rule cities time to pass pointless AWB laws, so they can say they "did SOMETHING" for their voters. Quinn hopes the home rule cities love him for giving them time, they won't with the big budget hit they will all take on this.
Constitutional Carry? You could be right. There is no way Quinn can keep concealed carry out of Chicago with this current bill. Brandon Phelps has stated they will not make anymore changes to it, it stands as is. Quinn and his croonies claim they have a may issue bill for Chicago ready to go if constitutional carry becomes law. I hope he doesn't sign it and constitutional carry becomes law, it's better than HB 183.In all honesty, I think Quinn will not sign, and let it become law.
Then, one city at a time, we can take them all to court, starting with the little home rule towns like Deerfield, Highland Park and Oak Park, all run by pompous jerks. The, when they have to pay big legal costs for defending their bans, the word will get around the other towns will most likely quickly drop them like they did all their handgun bans.
I personally hope some form of seriously preempted LTC is eventually enacted regardless of how restrictive and the court says "not good enough" and implements the mandate anyway.
I think it is not beyond the realm of possibility.DonP said:
Would it not be better to take on "the big guy" (Shicago), have them lose, causing the smaller towns to capitulate before they end up the same way?
ilbob said:
Nice thought but unlikely.
The problem with the mandate is the lack of pre-emption. Shicago would still get to have their AWB and many of the smaller home rule cities would probably ban them as well.
This would create a ridiculous, confusing, and contradictory morass of rules and regs.
BUT, after all, this IS Illinois! :banghead: