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
Madigan Wants More Time To Act On Concealed Carry
- Thread starter rugerman07
- Start date
- Status
I hope the court tells her that they had six months to get this done, so too bad. IMO if a few hours was enough for NY legislators to (not) read the SAFE ACT, then a week is more than enough for Quinn to veto it and then have them pass it over his veto. Looks like a lose-lose for Quinn/Madigan if there's any justice.
JohnsXDM
Member
Madigan got her stay, 30 days. The court told her it is her one and only extension. Now its July 9th.
rugerman07
Member
In issuing their decision the court also stated they would not extend the end date again, July,9th is the deadline. If no law is passed by then Constitutional Carry will become the law in Illinois.
In all honesty, I hope we get Constitutional Carry.
In all honesty, I hope we get Constitutional Carry.
Comrade Mike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2013
- Messages
- 997
It's just a plea to buy more time and drag their feet even more. The whole state is going to have to be dragged into the 21st century kicking and screaming.
And, of course, it contains zero reciprocity.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e33a3ca7-5fce-5610-9d89-953211925e56.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_e33a3ca7-5fce-5610-9d89-953211925e56.html
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,840
constitutional carry will give pro gun rights folks more leverage to bargain with the antis.
having full non restrained ccw or open carry without state authority to curtail it will cause them to give in a lot when they time comes for making it "by permit".
chicago home rule? nope, constitutional carry continues...
banned from this place or that? nope, constitutional carry continues...
high permit fees? nope, constitutional carry continues...
and so on...
having full non restrained ccw or open carry without state authority to curtail it will cause them to give in a lot when they time comes for making it "by permit".
chicago home rule? nope, constitutional carry continues...
banned from this place or that? nope, constitutional carry continues...
high permit fees? nope, constitutional carry continues...
and so on...
Kingcreek
Member
This is nothing more than delay so they can figure out as many ways to screw with us as possible. The governors people were involved in the process. It's not that this is all new to him and he doesn't need more time to analyse anything.
rugerman07
Member
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?
Neo-Luddite
Member
Little Lisa got her way~yeah Lisa!!!JohnsXDM
Member
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.
junglebob
Member
Johnsxdm, I don't think you are right when you say if Illinois goes constitutional carry Chicago will have "may issue" and no one will get a permit. Some people will the mayor, alderman, people who make big donations to the mayor's or sheriff Darts reelection campaign, folks part of the Democrat machine. There will be some.
Chicago being Chicago, I can see an anti-carry ordinance coming even after the carry law goes into effect.
Chicago being Chicago, I can see an anti-carry ordinance coming even after the carry law goes into effect.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Would Madigan allow the opposite side extra time to act if his side had prevailed?
The hypocrisy and abuse of power of Democrat machine politics .... I remember what I heard and read about Don Chafin of Logan County WV during the coal field wars. I can image what Chicago is like (my wife lived there once and shudders at the memory).
The hypocrisy and abuse of power of Democrat machine politics .... I remember what I heard and read about Don Chafin of Logan County WV during the coal field wars. I can image what Chicago is like (my wife lived there once and shudders at the memory).
Don't know if this is going to fly or not but it looks like the Lt. governor is egging on cities to get assault weapon bans into place before this gets signed.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Simon-Cities-should-consider-assault-weapons-bans-4588962.php
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Simon-Cities-should-consider-assault-weapons-bans-4588962.php
DonP
Member
Primary Politics at Play
IMNSHO ... This has more to do with Primary politics than guns.
Mike Madigan wanted the downstate Dems to owe him a big one for Lisa's primary campaign next year. He needed to separate them from Quinn and Daley who will be part of the 3 way race for the Dem nomination. Flip flopping on decades of gun control to allow shall issue was the only way he could get it for her.
By asking for the 30 day extension, she's stopped Quinn from pointing at her next year and saying something along the lines of ..."she is irresponsible and only gave me 7 days to review this very important public safety bill." Now he can't complain.
Quinn is painted into a corner now and has to decide how bad of an idiot he wants to look like.
Veto CCW outright and we get constitutional carry chaos on 7/9 with home rule cities scrambling (except for Chicago) to pass laws and implement rules that are going to be thrown out as soon as the veto is over ridden in the assembly. They will spend a lot of $$$, only to throw it all out in a month or so. Madigan will point out how much money and time he wasted in the primary and Quinn looks like a big jerk.
Same thing goes for an amendatory veto, if Quinn gets cute, guts the bill, and replaces it with a AWB. Again constitutional carry goes into effect and all the home rule cities that Quinn needs are PO'd at him for wasting their money. Madigan and Daley point out how he ignored the "obviously bipartisan and overwhelming vote of the general assembly" and Quinn looks like an even bigger jerk.
I think he signs it at 11:59 on July 8th, giving the home rule cities time to pass pointless AWB laws, so they can say they "did SOMETHING" for their voters. Quinn hopes the home rule cities love him for giving them time, they won't with the big budget hit they will all take on this.
IMNSHO ... This has more to do with Primary politics than guns.
Mike Madigan wanted the downstate Dems to owe him a big one for Lisa's primary campaign next year. He needed to separate them from Quinn and Daley who will be part of the 3 way race for the Dem nomination. Flip flopping on decades of gun control to allow shall issue was the only way he could get it for her.
By asking for the 30 day extension, she's stopped Quinn from pointing at her next year and saying something along the lines of ..."she is irresponsible and only gave me 7 days to review this very important public safety bill." Now he can't complain.
Quinn is painted into a corner now and has to decide how bad of an idiot he wants to look like.
Veto CCW outright and we get constitutional carry chaos on 7/9 with home rule cities scrambling (except for Chicago) to pass laws and implement rules that are going to be thrown out as soon as the veto is over ridden in the assembly. They will spend a lot of $$$, only to throw it all out in a month or so. Madigan will point out how much money and time he wasted in the primary and Quinn looks like a big jerk.
Same thing goes for an amendatory veto, if Quinn gets cute, guts the bill, and replaces it with a AWB. Again constitutional carry goes into effect and all the home rule cities that Quinn needs are PO'd at him for wasting their money. Madigan and Daley point out how he ignored the "obviously bipartisan and overwhelming vote of the general assembly" and Quinn looks like an even bigger jerk.
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.
JTHunter
Member
If - stress IF - Queball does pass this P.o.S. bill and some of these home rule cities have passed more restrictive ordinances, I can only hope that every last one of them gets hit with a class action lawsuit!
DonP
Member
The only bills home rule cities can pass that, will matter, are for long guns; e.g. AWBs.
The current bill, once signed or passed to over ride any Quinn veto will over ride all local handgun laws retroactively.
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.
With the Chicago handgun ban, Oak Park lucked out when Daley promised to pay all their legal fees too of they lost. Rahm is still paying Daley's bills and will be for decades. I think all those little towns are going to be on their own and Quinn and Sheila Simon will both be long gone.
The current bill, once signed or passed to over ride any Quinn veto will over ride all local handgun laws retroactively.
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.
With the Chicago handgun ban, Oak Park lucked out when Daley promised to pay all their legal fees too of they lost. Rahm is still paying Daley's bills and will be for decades. I think all those little towns are going to be on their own and Quinn and Sheila Simon will both be long gone.
Very ironic, if you think about. You won't be able to own an AR rifle in Chicago (ok, maybe if it's a straight-pull build..) but an AR pistol and mag, it'll be all good. I have to LMAO sometimes, at the genius of our dear leaders. Oh and by the way, the bill was sent on the 5th, and has yet to be signed. In all honesty, I think Quinn will not sign, and let it become law.
I agree. He signs this at the last possible moment.
rugerman07
Member
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.
The script has not been played out yet so who knows what is in store for us.
There are a bunch of things that could happen.
The governor might:
sign as is
veto
amendatory veto
If there is a veto of some sort the legislature might:
Override the veto thus putting the LTC into law
Accept the veto so no LTC law
Accept the AV
Override the AV and reinstall the original bill as law
The AG might:
Ask SCOTUS for cert.
Not ask SCOTUS for cert.
SCOTUS might:
Grant cert.
Not grant cert.
Grant a stay (likely IMO if they grant cert though).
Not grant a stay.
District court might:
Accept LTC law that eventually becomes law as dealing with the constitutional defects.
Not accept LTC law that eventually becomes law as dealing with the constitutional defects.
Implements mandate.
Does not implement mandate.
"Our" side:
Might accept the idea that a passed LTC deals with the constitutional defects. A stupid idea IMO, but it is a possibility.
Might tell the court that the LTC does not deal with the defects and that the mandate should be implemented anyway.
There are all kinds of combinations of the above that might or might not happen.
I think a lot of people are dreaming if they think they know what is actually going on. It is very fluid and a lot of people on all sides are just waiting for the next guy in line (currently Quinn) to do whatever it is he is going to end up doing so they can react to that.
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.
A lot of people are assuming this whole charade is so Lisa can safely run for governor. I am not so sure. I think Madigan needs a patsy to take the heat the next few years as he deals with the impending near bankruptcy of the state, and the last thing in the world he or Lisa wants is for Lisa to have to sign the laws that are going to be needed to bring the state back.
There are a bunch of things that could happen.
The governor might:
sign as is
veto
amendatory veto
If there is a veto of some sort the legislature might:
Override the veto thus putting the LTC into law
Accept the veto so no LTC law
Accept the AV
Override the AV and reinstall the original bill as law
The AG might:
Ask SCOTUS for cert.
Not ask SCOTUS for cert.
SCOTUS might:
Grant cert.
Not grant cert.
Grant a stay (likely IMO if they grant cert though).
Not grant a stay.
District court might:
Accept LTC law that eventually becomes law as dealing with the constitutional defects.
Not accept LTC law that eventually becomes law as dealing with the constitutional defects.
Implements mandate.
Does not implement mandate.
"Our" side:
Might accept the idea that a passed LTC deals with the constitutional defects. A stupid idea IMO, but it is a possibility.
Might tell the court that the LTC does not deal with the defects and that the mandate should be implemented anyway.
There are all kinds of combinations of the above that might or might not happen.
I think a lot of people are dreaming if they think they know what is actually going on. It is very fluid and a lot of people on all sides are just waiting for the next guy in line (currently Quinn) to do whatever it is he is going to end up doing so they can react to that.
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.
A lot of people are assuming this whole charade is so Lisa can safely run for governor. I am not so sure. I think Madigan needs a patsy to take the heat the next few years as he deals with the impending near bankruptcy of the state, and the last thing in the world he or Lisa wants is for Lisa to have to sign the laws that are going to be needed to bring the state back.
JTHunter
Member
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:
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:
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:
everyone is making a lot of assumptions about what other people are going to do and why.
there is still a lot of potential for surprises on all sides as this plays out.
the court may not be fooled into believing the LTC nowhere resolves the constitutional defects in current law. in any case, there will be no LTC issued until at least next spring. you think the court is going to accept that? they already said no more delays.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked