NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

[PCGS65]

Jeff the point is, IF the NRA would have supported this bill it might have had a glimmer of hope to pass. But no cigar thus we're back to square one, no CCW anywhere. Get it?

 

[Jeff White]

It is a bad bill, it wouldn't have passed this session anyway, and allowing home rule units to opt out would create a big hassle for people who wanted to carry. I'm happy it's dead..it's poor legislation.

Why waste the political capitol on a symbolic vote you know you will lose on a flawed piece of legislation?

 

[PCGS65]

I'd be happy to put up with the "hassle" than to not have the "priviledge" at all.
It was a hassle waiting for my FOID card this spring. A few calls and 3-1/2 months I finally had it.
It is what it is but that's just me.

 

[Phatty]

Where is that bill? Let's see the draft. Who is going to introduce it? How many co-sponsors have you lined up for phase II, and who are they?

I'm having a hard time determining if you are just being facetious with these questions. First, you cannot write a draft of the second bill until you have a final, enacted first bill. This is because the second bill merely amends the first bill by including a provision that declares that home rule units do not have the power to enact any ordinance that conflicts with the right to carry act or prohibits any properly licensed person from carrying within the borders of the home rule unit. In response to your question about sponsors of the second bill, I see no reason why the same legislators who have sponsored the CCW legislation in the current session would not also sponsor and support a subsequent bill that merely extended the act to preempt home rule units.

The text of the bill, who will sponsor it, and who will co-sponsor it, are not the relevant questions to be asked. The key question is how do we change current anti-CCW legislator's vote from no to yes. Undoubtedly, we do not currently have the votes to pass a statewide CCW bill.

I think you and I both know that the odds of [convincing the Chicago legislators to vote to take power away from the city] happening are about equal to the odds that Daley is going to turn himself into US Attorney Fitzgerald and confess to generations of corruption because he wakes up tomorrow morning and feels he needs to unburden his soul.

Do you not realize that the CCW bill you support does exactly what you say Chicago legislators will never agree to? Chicago currently has the power to regulate guns any way they'd like. Your bill strips that power from them. By your own argument, you are conceding that statewide CCW will never happen.

So what is your bright idea of accomplishing what you yourself admit will never happen? Again and again you trumpet that Chicago politicians will never agree to preemption once a non-preemptive CCW bill is passed. But never once have you explained why those same Chicago politicians would ever vote for preemption the first time around. Why will Chicago relinquish its power over gun regulation now but not in the future?

The reality is that there isn't enough votes currently from Chicago-area politicians to pass statewide CCW. All we can hope for is that (a) a sufficient number of Chicago reps have a change of heart or (b) new, more gun-friendly Chicago reps are elected in future elections.

But, if either (a) or (b) were to occur, you'd also have a sufficient number of votes to change an existing, non-statewide CCW law to include preemption.

 

[Jeff White]

I'd be happy to put up with the "hassle" than to not have the "priviledge" at all.

I hear this all the time from people who have never carried a gun. You all think that you just strap it on and go. Carrying a gun is a hassle. You may have to change the way you dress to effectively conceal it. If you aren't a peace officer you have to be aware of where you go so you don't run afoul of a posted location and face a trespass charge.

You say you'd be happy to put up with the hassle. You are telling me that you intend to stop your car outside the city limits of a home rule entity that outlaws CCW, unload your weapon, put it in a case, then continue your journey. Then you'll stop as soon as you cross the boundary again, take your weapon from it's case, reload it and continue on your journey. That's a satisfactory compromise to you?

I'm having a hard time determining if you are just being facetious with these questions. First, you cannot write a draft of the second bill until you have a final, enacted first bill.

Wait just a minute there friend. Isn't the bill we are debating the one you want to see enacted? Where is it written that you can't have a draft of the follow on legislation written and ready to go? Show me in the state constitution or the rules the legislature operates under where it says you can't do that. You can't because its not there. You are lying about this being an intermediate step. The truth is that you are so anxious to have some form of concealed carry that you are surrendering and thinking that this is as much as you will get. I am correct, there is no plan to expand this. You are and the other proponents of this sellout are looking the rest of the Illinois shooting community in the eye and lying to our faces. Why don't you just tell the truth here? Because you wouldn't get any support at all if you said "ok folks, this is the best we think we can do."

I see no reason why the same legislators who have sponsored the CCW legislation in the current session would not also sponsor and support a subsequent bill that merely extended the act to preempt home rule units.

You are so politically naive. There are all kinds of reasons why legislators who supported this compromise would want nothing to do with expanding it. You are offering this compromise as a way to get those votes and you think that they will subsequently vote to void the compromise they made? That makes no sense at all. NONE!

The text of the bill, who will sponsor it, and who will co-sponsor it, are not the relevant questions to be asked.

Oh yes, they are very relevant questions especially when one side of this argument insists that this compromise is part of a master plan. But you can't prove to me that it's any more then a sellout because you can't come up with any details on the rest of the plan. Again the assertion that this sellout is an intermediate step is what we call a lie in plain English.

The key question is how do we change current anti-CCW legislator's vote from no to yes.

You trade your support on an issue they are for such as money for the Chicago Olympics for their support on this. That's the way the game is played.

Undoubtedly, we do not currently have the votes to pass a statewide CCW bill.

And you don't have the votes to pass the sellout bill either. The goal seems to be to get this onto the floor for a vote that you know you will lose. What are it's prospects in the senate? Do you know? Done any research, floated any trial balloons?

Do you not realize that the CCW bill you support does exactly what you say Chicago legislators will never agree to?

There are ways of getting enough of them to agree. All bets are off once you sell out and let them opt out though. The only statistic you will be able to tout is that CCW didn't effect the crime rate in the rest of the state. There are no statistics to prove CCW lowers the crime rate, because it doesn't. So what incentive will they have to change things once you sell out. You build a coalition that sells it's support for something the Chicago area legislators want but need statewide support on for the Chicago legislator's vote on statewide CCW.

 

[Phatty]

Carrying a gun is a hassle. You may have to change the way you dress to effectively conceal it. If you aren't a peace officer you have to be aware of where you go so you don't run afoul of a posted location and face a trespass charge.

Yeah, it's downright shocking that anyone in any of the free states actually bothers to get a CCW permit.

You say you'd be happy to put up with the hassle. You are telling me that you intend to stop your car outside the city limits of a home rule entity that outlaws CCW, unload your weapon, put it in a case, then continue your journey.

Over and over in this thread you assume that everyone is a traveling salesman that drives 400 miles throughout the state every day. On those (rare?) occasions where somebody knows that they may have to drive through unfriendly territory, leave the gun in its case and you are no worse off than the status quo.

There are all kinds of reasons why legislators who supported this compromise would want nothing to do with expanding it.

You keep using the word "compromise," but no compromise is taking place. Imagine a beggar on a street corner who refuses to take any handouts less than $5 because to take anything less would be a compromise. Everyone would think he was ridiculous.

You trade your support on an issue they are for such as money for the Chicago Olympics for their support on this. That's the way the game is played.

So there's the master plan at last. One pretty big problem, though. They don't need any help to get what they want passed. Also, gun control is a central tenant for Chicago politicians. It's not something they trade away for something else.

And you don't have the votes to pass the sellout bill either.

As long as people within the pro-gun lobby oppose it, you are correct. Can't win a war when you have to fight both your friends and your enemies.

The only statistic you will be able to tout is that CCW didn't effect the crime rate in the rest of the state.

Just the fact that the crime rate doesn't change will be a huge win. It will counter the common anti-gun argument that CCW turns the community into the wild west with gun-toting psychos resorting to pistol duels to settle every disagreement.

There are no statistics to prove CCW lowers the crime rate, because it doesn't.

Wait, am I still on thehighroad, or did I stumble onto a Brady Bunch forum?

You build a coalition that sells it's support for something the Chicago area legislators want but need statewide support on for the Chicago legislator's vote on statewide CCW.

I genuinely hope we can accomplish this. As I said a page or so back, the statewide preemption route seems to have the most support with the pro-gun lobby so that will likely be the direction we take in the foreseeable future. Although I respectfully disagree that this is the best path to get there, we all have the same end goal.

This topic has been thoroughly debated in this thread, so it's probably time to give it a rest. Thus, this will likely be my last post on this thread for now, unless somebody presents a new idea to debate.

As an aside, Jeff, the content and tone of your posts are, in my opinion, well below the standard one would expect from a moderator on thehighroad. I respect your opinions, even though I sometimes disagree with them, and admire your enthusiasm for these important gun issues. Sometimes in debates, we can get heated, especially considering how easily it is to take one's attack on your position personally. I am often guilty of hastily reponding to a post with heightened emotions (but I'm also not an admin ).

The following, in particular, are what I humbly submit go beyond the bounds of "thehighroad" when engaging in a debate with fellow members:

Categorically dismissing the opinions of other members

I really don't care what people in other states think.

Disparaging the intelligence of other members

Really!! I'm an antigunner because I have a better understanding of how local and state government works then you do and oppose this bill because it's a worthless piece of legislation? I think you need to put up or shut up. PM me for my number I have some things to say to you that aren't for public consumption!

As for the courts awarding the people of Illinois with CCW permits, anyone who thinks that is doing too much Ambien PM.

Anyone who thinks Heller will cause a court to force the home rule municipalities to eliminate restrictions on carry should contact me, I have some prime ocean front property here in Marion county I'd like to sell....

If you think that the people in local government in Illinois are aware of all the arcane provisions of state law or feel obligated to follow them if they are aware of them, then I've got some ocean front property here in Marion County you might be interested in buying.

How long have you been following Illinois state and local politics? I'd guess not very long.

In my opinion those pushing this idea are politically naive and have had their common sense over ruled by their desire to get CCW, any CCW now.

You are so politically naive.

Engaging in sensationalist arguments more fitting to the Brady Bunch

Maybe you should explain to them, "I'm sorry that you are laying there with your lifeless eyes staring at the blood spatter on the ceiling your ripped pantyhose knotted around your neck and your legs spread in the classic rape/murder victim pose, but I sold out your right to carry a firearm for protection in order to secure my right, too bad you had to make the unfortunate choice to live or work where a home rule entity decided you didn't need to carry a gun.

Disparaging the motives of other members who make counter-arguments

No son, MY program is statewide preemption, yours is sellout the majority of the population of Illinois so you can get yours...and you have the nerve to say I don't have a dog in this fight

Your method is to get yours, because it's just too hard to cover everyone. You know darn good and well that without statewide preemption the bill is worthless, but you want to be able to legally carry a loaded firearm and you don't care how you get to do it.

You go ahead and support your bill, after all it would benefit you personally and we all know that's more important then have true shall issue CCW state wide

Denigrating the honesty of other members

I'm sorry but the truth is the truth and if you can't take it then I don't want you on my side in this argument. You would lower yourself to the level of the antis and lie?

You aren't intellectually honest to accept the truth, are you?

You are lying about this being an intermediate step.

You are and the other proponents of this sellout are looking the rest of the Illinois shooting community in the eye and lying to our faces. Why don't you just tell the truth here?

Again the assertion that this sellout is an intermediate step is what we call a lie in plain English.

One of your favorite lines of attack is "and you know it," which is another way of denigrating a poster's intellectual honesty.

No sir, it means exactly what I said it means and you know it.

Don I said no such thing and you know it.

All of the above are just from this one thread. Clearly, your "high road" is engaging in personal attacks on other members, calling other members liers and trying to sell your worthless Marion County property to everyone. And that's not even mentioning the smug, pompous and sarcastic attitude that permeates your posts.

 

[Jeff White]

So that's what you are left with attacks on me instead of my positions. Truly the mark of someone who has no rational argument left. You don't like how I post there is something called the ignore button. It's there for a purpose.

 

[Phatty]

Way to stay in character, Jeff. I wouldn't have expected anything less. I'll let others decide who has been engaging in personal attacks.

Check out the sticky thread "A THR Primer on Courtesy" where it states:

Don't insult people, but challenge arguments. Correcting factual information or discussing how your experience varies from another member's is very different from slinging personal insults.

I apologize if my expectations are that a moderator would follow the written policy on this site. When you don't, it looks bad on the gun community as a whole and damages the entire purpose of this forum.

If you disagree that any of the long list of your quotes that I copied above are consistent with the high road policy of "challenge the argument, not the arguer" I would be happy to hear you out and recant my position if warranted.

 

[Jeff White]

I have corrected the wrong information you and others have posted. I have not called anyone an anti because they disagreed with my position. You have! I have been called an anti, I have been accused of not having a dog in this fight because of HR218. It seems it's your side that can't deal with facts. Anything differing from the party line, which I consider to be a sellout is treated as traitorous.

That's the last I'm saying on this publically, if you'd care to discuss this privately, me email and PMs or open or PM me for a number and we can talk it out.

 

[Phatty]

I have not called anyone an anti because they disagreed with my position. You have!

That's a lie, and you know it! Show me where I said that! j/k

Seriously though, you're probably referring to when I said this:

Jeff: Why don't you show me some cases outside of the urban areas where CCW would have saved someone's life?

Phatty: Whatever your true intent may have been, your question here infers that CCW is not necessary outside of urban areas. This is the exact same thing an anti would argue in trying to deny a rural person the right to carry.

Notice I did not call you an anti, I said that your argument is the same thing that an anti would argue if they were trying to prevent a rural person from carrying. It's even more obvious that I wasn't calling you an anti when I prefaced this conversation with "I know what you are trying to say" and proceeded to say how antis can quote mine stuff like this and use it out of context. Don, appears to have interpreted your comments the same way, so it's not like I'm out in left field on this.

I'll admit there is a fine line between a personal attack and an attack on one's argument. For instance, "that's the most idiotic argument I've ever heard" is not the same thing as "only an idiot would make that argument" or "you're an idiot."

Anyway, even if someone goes the low road first (which I didn't), that's not an excuse to veer off the high road and go along for the ride.

Anything differing from the party line, which I consider to be a sellout is treated as traitorous.

Yep, it's becoming clear that this isn't a receptive forum to a free exchange of ideas amongst gun owners with the same goals. It's your way or the highway. Hopefully, you don't try to inflict the same punishment on me that is the standard for traitors (unfortunately, I couldn't find an icon of a head being lopped off or hanged to insert here).

 

[carebear]

As an outside observer without a dog in the fight, the tone is getting pretty strident for what is, in the end, merely a disagreement on methods of getting to statewide "shall-issue".

Questioning people's ultimate goals or motives is completely out of line in that sort of discussion. A simple,

"I do/don't think incremental will work in this instance due to X, Y and Z."

should be more than sufficient to make the point.

It doesn't have to be taken to a personal level, which objectively it has been, to make that kind of argument.

The rational, non-personal points have all been made more than once, if it were my call I'd have already locked this thread.