Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Quinn To Use Amendatory 'Powers' To Make Changes To Concealed Carry Law

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dc dalton, Jul 2, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dc dalton

    dc dalton Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    502
    Location:
    NE PA
  2. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,696
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Supporters should just kill the bill and let constitutional carry go into effect.
     
  3. rugerman07

    rugerman07 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    Quinn knows his amendatory veto will be overriden so why bother with it?
     
  4. unicorn

    unicorn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    A lot of the politicians that voted for it did so because a deadline was looming. This move will give them more time to play hide the salami games. Yes, July 9th also looms, but it will be argued that the legislature must be given their costitutionally allotted time to study the amended version. Nothing is ever settled once and for all in Illinois politics. We have to always remain on the offensive. We need to back in and demand full unlimited carry in order to negotiate down to something that might be useful.
     
  5. Doc7

    Doc7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Southern VA
    To be a devils advocate here...

    If the powers that be in IL are so opposed to carry being foisted upon them, why don't they just do what NJ does? Our state "has" concealed carry, but issues a permit to nobody, and does not recognize any other state's permits. I don't understand what is happening in Illinois as it seems there are a ton of ways to prevent the people from exercising their second amendment rights and skirt the Supreme Court.
     
  6. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    How does he even have such a power? "I don't like the law you sent me so I'll sign a different one and you can try to override the changes?" Are there limits to the allowed changes or can he change a law intended to fix sewers to require every CC holder to wear a red shirt while carrying?
     
  7. Willie Sutton

    Willie Sutton Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    2,026
    If the powers that be in IL are so opposed to carry being foisted upon them, why don't they just do what NJ does? Our state "has" concealed carry, but issues a permit to nobody, and does not recognize any other state's permits


    Which is now subject to a court challenge, a challenge that many feel will be won, taking the discretionary system to a shall-issue system.

    Illinois would be unwise to set out a new set of circumstances that would immediately be subjected to a new challenge.


    Willie


    .
     
  8. Scimmia

    Scimmia Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    585
    Location:
    Eastern IA
    The amendatory veto has been around for a long time, currently 8 states have it. The extent to which the bill can be modified varies, with Illinois allowing pretty much anything to the best of my knowledge. It's Illinois politics, what do you expect?

    If the changes are significant, the pro-gun majority won't vote for it, effectively forcing the override as the option would be to kill the bill altogether. With the deadline looming, this wouldn't be seen as an option.
     
  9. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
    Pfft.

    I called this back in February:

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8773202&postcount=139

     
  10. Warners

    Warners Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    497
    Location:
    Chicago area, IL
    It's all political grandstanding by Quinn. If it doesn't get overridden (very likely that it WILL get overriden), then his crappy replacement bill probably won't even be called for a vote by Phelps and company. This would essentially push us over the cliff, meaning we'd have "court carry" or "FOID carry", that would affect more than 200 cities in Illnois. The rest of the cities, the ones with home-rule in effect, could have wildly varying laws that nobody would understand or be able to comply with as they traveled through the state. It would be a mess that would invariably end up back in court. I honestly don't think anyone wants that to happen. My prediction? Quinn does the AV, then gets overridden. He can say that he "tried to save the children" in his flailing attempt to save his ever shrinking base of voters. Pathetic and desperate? Sure. But then this IS Illinois.

    Warner
     
  11. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    Keep in mind that a Federal Court judge found the present law to be unconstitutional. But he then gave the legislature an opportunity to change or replace the law to bring it into line with his decision. Not doing so would leave the state with no law.

    The governor and legislature can now pass any law they chose, but it must address the issues in the court's decision that found the original one to be unconstitutional. Otherwise it is also likely to be overturned.

    They're last option is to appeal the court's decision all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But if they should do that and lose, they - and every other state that has similar laws - would be left holding an empty bag, and I'm sure those others are "hopeful" that the Illinois government doesn't do anything rash.
     
  12. Warners

    Warners Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    497
    Location:
    Chicago area, IL
    Yeah, it's been said that if Madigan (Lisa, the daughter) thought that SCOTUS would rule in her favor, she would have already appealed to them. There is a lot of risk for the anti's is Lisa appeals to SCOTUS, not necessarily for Illinois, because they've already received their marching orders from the Federal Circuit Court, but for OTHER states that don't allow carry. A SCOTUS ruling in our favor would pretty much wipe clean the laws that New Jersey, New York, California, and other anti-2A states have in place. I would think they'd STRONGLY caution Lisa NOT to appeal to SCOTUS. We'll see. It's a case now of the whiners delaying the inevitable, I think.

    Warner
     
  13. Prometheus

    Prometheus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Messages:
    96
    Location:
    NW indiana
    "So why bother?"

    Delay tactics to allow as many cities to pass bans prior to the non retro active preemption law to take effect.

    It's all a big scam.

    Personally I have no idea how a court could rule something unconstitutional then let it stand for 6 months and then grant an additional 1 month extension.
     
  14. ngnrd

    ngnrd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Messages:
    984
    Location:
    South Central Alaska
    Personally, I don't know how these "home rule" laws would stand either.

    I can't see SCOTUS saying a state law that allows slavery is struck down, while letting stand a municipal law that allows slavery.

    Just doesn't make any sense to me. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional... isn't it?
     
  15. Dframe

    Dframe Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    969
    Location:
    Central Illinois
    quinn has tried this stunt before. I suspect the general assembly will simply override and pass their bill rather than let our intellect challenged governor tell them what to do. The govs' rewritten bill likely won't even get a reading. quinn will then hit the campaign trail with an 'issue" he can take to the populace. "I TRIED to protect the children but they just wouldn't let me!"
     
  16. mgkdrgn

    mgkdrgn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,914
    Location:
    Lexington, SC
  17. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,590
    Location:
    Illinois
    Quinn's hostile anti-gun stance and mindset brings this image to mind.

    We should change up iGOLD banners and carry stuff like this next year (fighting this crap is going to be a long process, even if the bill is restored to it's original, pre-AV language)

    [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page