Perhaps the proposed law in Illinois isn't so bad - the anti's are mad!

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Well, if the anti's are upset, that's good. They could take the high fee, $150 and public transportation to court later.



I wonder if this will make Gov. Quinn press Madigan to appeal to SCOTUS, which could be good for us.





http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-illinois-gun-control-0524-20130524,0,3277888.story

.
Quinn, Emanuel lash out at Madigan gun bill
Plan would void strict local firearms laws like city's assault weapons ban, foes say

By Ray Long, Rick Pearson and Rafael Guerrero, Chicago Tribune reporters

8:35 p.m. CDT, May 23, 2013

"This legislation as written is a massive overreach that goes far beyond the conceal carry issue," said Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson. "The measure would repeal Chicago's assault weapons ban and put public safety at risk. We oppose this."

The Senate bill would require applicants to get separate endorsements — one for Chicago and one for the rest of the state — to carry a concealed weapon statewide. Those carve-outs are not in the House bill — a position the NRA has backed.
.

.

 

[0to60]

There will be unhappy people on both sides; you can't please everyone.

Regardless, we Illinoisians(?) will have more gun rights than we've ever had before. The last holdout state will have finally come to terms. Maybe NOW the panic buying will let up.

 

[bluekouki86]

May issue=Bad

The permit process will cost around $400-$500 compared with $100-$150 in neighboring Iowa. You may very well spend that $500 and be denied a permit. Glad I don't live there.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

The House bill is better, you don't have to have special exceptions like you do in the Senate bill.



Wouldn't it be better if this is just appealed to SCOTUS though? Since if we won it would affect the entire country rather than just Illinois getting CCW?
.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The experience in Tennessee has been that public safety is put at risk by criminals illegally armed, and by gun laws so overstrict that they have no street-level respect from the general citizenry, leading to tolerance of an illegal market.

Once the gun laws reach the tipping point of doing to guns what was tried and failed with alcohol, all control is lost.

You can't teach Chicago it seems, and Chicago refuses to learn. Illinois is learning, as the rest of the nation has learned.

When I look back on it, Tennessee gun laws in the 1950s and 1960s were more restrictive than they are today. Nationally in 1960 there was 60% support of banning handguns in the Gallup poll; no real academic scholarship challenging the political militia-only view of the Second Amendment; and few states regulating carry permits like drivers license shall-issue to applicants who qualified.

Tennessee has removed gun laws that have no proven impact on crime. Nationally support for banning handguns was 26% in the last Gallup poll 73% opposed and no opinion at 1% when in 1960 it was 4%; serious academic scholarship since the 1980s has found "the right of the people" as an individual right so much so that "Standard Model of the Second Amendment" is shorthand for right of the individual or citizen to arms; and the shall-issue permit model is in effect in the majority of states.

But these are my observations from paying attention to the issue for fifty years. Patience, Illinois, patience.

 

[hovercat]

Angry antis are not good criteria. Antis are generally unhappy. Even when happy, they are only happy because they are planning the next thing to be unhappy about.

 

[Reloadron]

"This legislation as written is a massive overreach that goes far beyond the conceal carry issue," said Quinn spokeswoman Brooke Anderson. "The measure would repeal Chicago's assault weapons ban and put public safety at risk. We oppose this."

We had a similar situation here in Cleveland, Ohio. For years The City of Cleveland had their own gun control laws including their own AWB. When Ohio adopted CCW and other laws Cleveland resisted. The same stupid tired arguments of public safety were dragged out and the right to home rule. Finally the issue went to the Ohio Supreme Court and now State Law trumps City Laws on gun control.

Interesting but of no surprise is that nothing changed. The public safety at risk argument proved false. Matter of fact if we look at last year, not a single gun related homicide was committed with a so called assault weapon. How stupid can people get to believe such nonsense?

Ron

 

[22-rimfire]

Change is difficult and the anti-gun feelings in IL by the entrenched government of mostly like-minded good old boys are resisting and crying the sky is falling. It hasn't fallen in any other state. So why would Chicago be any different? Regular people will be empowered to treat protection that the police can't provide as a individual issue and right.

Like NYC, Chicago politics is all about control by acceptable politicans. It is corrupt and has been for a long time if you want to make broad sweeping generalizations.

The cost seems a bit prohibitive and discriminatory. I suspect that will change. Baby steps.

This June 10th deadline is quite interesting.

 

[il.bill]

Until a new Illinois firearms bill actually becomes law and the ink is fully dried, everything is basically speculation and conjecture. Having said that, with the federal court mandated deadline looming, something must happen.

The Madigan-backed proposal that seems must likely to become reality at this point appears to be an interesting example of American government in action. Some of the provisions remain quite onerous, especially those that will work to restrict the rights of the poor (many of whom live in areas where they are most in need of personal protection) to keep and bear arms. Other provisions (to me, at least) are almost shockingly slanted towards liberty and freedom, given the state's current situation. For example, a preemption of restrictive local laws by Illinois state statutes would clearly be a step towards an implementation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment right for firearm owners in Chicago.

Representative government can certainly be messy, but there are times when the will of the governed is served, at least in part. The history of this nation is full of ugly compromises that restrict the rights of 'the people' and favor the rich and powerful. We are still, in effect, a work in progress.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

I wonder if this is just posturing by both sides for their constituents when both sides know they will not come to an agreement and in the end Madigan will appeal to SCOTUS and put a halt to any carry.



We could be just getting played.
.

 

[il.bill]

I am a southern Illinois Democrat, and I really believe that if the Madigans mis-handle this issue, it would be the main thing that will prevent Lisa's becoming governor or US senator in this state. Civil unions / gay marriage and the state's fiscal condition are certainly 'hot button' issues, among others, but if they really louse up the revised firearms law, droves of downstate hard-working Democrats will vote for anyone not named Madigan in future elections.

 

[CoRoMo]

Countdown to the day when this map shows no state in the color red...

 

[22-rimfire]

IL would still be a "may Issue" state as I understand it. A lot of power resides with the law enforcement departments involved.

 

[Al Thompson]

Already being discussed.