Warners
Member
Hahahaha.....maybe he WAS!
Illinois Challenges Concealed Carry Decision
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
Warners
Member
This dude is talking sensibly....reminding these yahoos exactly what the 7th circuit court ruling MEANS......
Birdhunter1
Member
YUP. I like how very few know what it means that it passed in conflict with other amendments.
Yeah. It means the bill is unconstitutional if it's not "fixed" now.
So now that we have "defeated" Madigan's play, if they don't bend to remove the restrictions, Phelps can pull the bill and we end up with constitutional carry.
He's got them by the short hairs.
So now that we have "defeated" Madigan's play, if they don't bend to remove the restrictions, Phelps can pull the bill and we end up with constitutional carry.
He's got them by the short hairs.
Birdhunter1
Member
Trent whereabouts in Illinois are you from?
Mer2112
Member
This is good news!
Birdhunter1
Member
Or start a sticky on 'IL concealed carry legislation path'
I'm trying to formulate a "what's next" and a summary to catch people up.
If I'm wrong on anything please correct me, if I'm missing anything please add to it.
From my perception....
HB1155 is going through for second reading. HB997 also got forcefully ejected from committee by floor vote today. The anti-gun speaker sent it to an anti-gun committee where they tried to bury it, while Madigan rushed out this HB1155 nonsense.
Madigan's push failed, pro-gunners gutted HB1155 and replaced it with the text of HB997.
Meanwhile, the moment HB997 was voted OUT of the hostile committee by the floor, anti-gunners immediately filed a series of amendments that will be voted on in the coming days, pushing for far greater restrictions and "gun free zones" that would neuter the concealed carry capability. One of those (Amendment 8 ) would ALSO kill the home rule provisions allowing Chicago to continue to enforce complete ban, or their own draconian version of a "may issue" bill.
At this point, it's anyone's game.
WE found out today we don't have the 71 votes required to pre-empt home rule, THEY don't have the votes to pass anything nasty. (We're 3 votes shy, so we swayed ONE rep since it went up last time).
So we'll need to bend on SOMETHING to get those 71 votes. (Hopefully, one SMALL something).
Once we get 71 votes, it becomes veto proof (in the house) and can preempt home rule so Chicago can't screw you guys over up north. (One set of rules, statewide)
Now.. the Senate.. that's a different matter entirely. The problem with sending this through the house first, is the Senate can (and probably will) gut the damn thing and add all sorts of restrictions.
Once they do, when it comes back to the house "as amended", the house will get a vote to reject or confirm any additional restrictions or gutting done to the bill. If it's too hostile, they'll vote it down and it dies; enter Constitutional carry. If it's OK, they'll send it off.
Now, once it hits the Governors desk, he'll veto it. Absolutely, positively veto it, unless it's the Madigan-backed bill. He'll probably do this with an amendatory veto (replacing the entire bill with an assault weapons ban, again, or some other such nonsensical grandstanding), which will require a supermajority to override. So then it goes BACK to the house and senate for an override.
We'll need enough votes in BOTH houses to form a supermajority vote.
If all of that fails, and a consensus isn't reached, we get Constitutional carry. Unfortunately this means Chicago can pass any damn thing they want, since we're a home rule state. Then each of those city / county ordinances that crop up would have to be challenged separately in court to vacate them.
If I'm wrong on anything please correct me, if I'm missing anything please add to it.
From my perception....
HB1155 is going through for second reading. HB997 also got forcefully ejected from committee by floor vote today. The anti-gun speaker sent it to an anti-gun committee where they tried to bury it, while Madigan rushed out this HB1155 nonsense.
Madigan's push failed, pro-gunners gutted HB1155 and replaced it with the text of HB997.
Meanwhile, the moment HB997 was voted OUT of the hostile committee by the floor, anti-gunners immediately filed a series of amendments that will be voted on in the coming days, pushing for far greater restrictions and "gun free zones" that would neuter the concealed carry capability. One of those (Amendment 8 ) would ALSO kill the home rule provisions allowing Chicago to continue to enforce complete ban, or their own draconian version of a "may issue" bill.
At this point, it's anyone's game.
WE found out today we don't have the 71 votes required to pre-empt home rule, THEY don't have the votes to pass anything nasty. (We're 3 votes shy, so we swayed ONE rep since it went up last time).
So we'll need to bend on SOMETHING to get those 71 votes. (Hopefully, one SMALL something).
Once we get 71 votes, it becomes veto proof (in the house) and can preempt home rule so Chicago can't screw you guys over up north. (One set of rules, statewide)
Now.. the Senate.. that's a different matter entirely. The problem with sending this through the house first, is the Senate can (and probably will) gut the damn thing and add all sorts of restrictions.
Once they do, when it comes back to the house "as amended", the house will get a vote to reject or confirm any additional restrictions or gutting done to the bill. If it's too hostile, they'll vote it down and it dies; enter Constitutional carry. If it's OK, they'll send it off.
Now, once it hits the Governors desk, he'll veto it. Absolutely, positively veto it, unless it's the Madigan-backed bill. He'll probably do this with an amendatory veto (replacing the entire bill with an assault weapons ban, again, or some other such nonsensical grandstanding), which will require a supermajority to override. So then it goes BACK to the house and senate for an override.
We'll need enough votes in BOTH houses to form a supermajority vote.
If all of that fails, and a consensus isn't reached, we get Constitutional carry. Unfortunately this means Chicago can pass any damn thing they want, since we're a home rule state. Then each of those city / county ordinances that crop up would have to be challenged separately in court to vacate them.
Warners
Member
Great summary, Trent. It looks correct to me as far as I can tell. Now here's my prediction. We get constitutional carry and the people of Chicago get screwed (or stay "safe" depending on if you're pro or anti :banghead.
I don't live IN Chicago, or go there unless I have to (my wife goes to Northwestern occasionally for doctor visits). I'm NOT okay with the people of Chicago getting screwed, but that's my prediction. I just don't think that all the people who have completely opposite opinions on this can agree to something that satisfies both sides. And since WE have the upper hand here (by virtue of the 7th district court ruling), we don't have to settle for something overly restrictive that absolutely ignores the ruling from the federal district court.
What say you?
Warner
.I don't live IN Chicago, or go there unless I have to (my wife goes to Northwestern occasionally for doctor visits). I'm NOT okay with the people of Chicago getting screwed, but that's my prediction. I just don't think that all the people who have completely opposite opinions on this can agree to something that satisfies both sides. And since WE have the upper hand here (by virtue of the 7th district court ruling), we don't have to settle for something overly restrictive that absolutely ignores the ruling from the federal district court.
What say you?
Warner
I dunno. Constitutional carry is going to suck for more than just Chicago.
Think Carbondale, down state. Mayor is in the Coalition of Mayors Against The Second Amendment (or whatever it's called).
And so on.
Jeff pointed it out either here or in another thread, any city > 25,000 or county can enact their own laws, and it is YOUR duty to understand them and not violate them.
If Dekalb county passes a ban, you carry through, and you don't know about it, you could serve a year in jail and face a stiff fine.
Think Carbondale, down state. Mayor is in the Coalition of Mayors Against The Second Amendment (or whatever it's called).
And so on.
Jeff pointed it out either here or in another thread, any city > 25,000 or county can enact their own laws, and it is YOUR duty to understand them and not violate them.
If Dekalb county passes a ban, you carry through, and you don't know about it, you could serve a year in jail and face a stiff fine.
Birdhunter1
Member
I live a few miles from Carbondale and work in that town, I don't think it will be that big of a problem. The mayor role is that of a weak mayor system and the city council while not all pro-gun would probably not vote in favor of anti-2A stuff like Chicago would.
Warners
Member
Well, I hope the fear of constitutional carry is enough for the anti's to be willing to work towards something sensible and reasonable. I wish I had more confidence in that happening. I still HOPE that it does, and it did seem like some of the staunchest anti's were coming to grips with the alternative. I don't know....it's really too tough to call, but you bring up some great points about not having a state-wide law, Trent. It WOULD be a mess, no doubt about it.
Warner
Warner
fehhkk
Member
I'm starting to think that no law enacted after the 180 day clock countdown ends, is dangerous, because then any municipality can ban carry or make their own rules (Cook County and Chicago for sure will ban carry).
So, getting 71 votes is crucial. Seems to me were not in that straight-on winning situation anymore.
On a positive note, today it was shown to Madigan that he doesn't have the upper hand to completely overturn this, but I'm sure he's happy to see there's no supermajority.
So, getting 71 votes is crucial. Seems to me were not in that straight-on winning situation anymore.
On a positive note, today it was shown to Madigan that he doesn't have the upper hand to completely overturn this, but I'm sure he's happy to see there's no supermajority.
Elm Creek Smith
Member
I don't think that a failure to pass a concealed carry law will let local governments ban guns or carry. I do believe that Rahmbo and McStupid would love to do just that, but I don't think the court would go for it.
ECS
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
ECS
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
JTHunter
Member
What is the link for that live video??
JDHunter; you're about 2 hours too late my friend.
However, next time they are debating, go here:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp
You can watch daily updates posted from Springfield here, under the politics forum:
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6
(Threads to follow are usually called "Illinois General Assembly 2/26/2013", for instance; today's thread had 1900+ posts in it.....)
However, next time they are debating, go here:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/audvid.asp
You can watch daily updates posted from Springfield here, under the politics forum:
http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=6
(Threads to follow are usually called "Illinois General Assembly 2/26/2013", for instance; today's thread had 1900+ posts in it.....)
I watched from about 2:30 pm until the thing broke up. I give great thanks to Mr. Phelps and all those who spoke in support and who worked behind the scenes. I personally would have lost my cool at several points and my blood pressure would have sky-rocketed, thereby making me useless to the cause. I really want this to be over and just exercise my rights. I think this is going to end all right, just very aggravating to listen to the opposing Reps being so smug, obstinate and elitist. Again, my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Phelps and the others that are doing the heavy lifting.
I'm still steamed about the prohibition on carrying a firearm in parking lots of hospitals, clinics and medical facilities.
The Chicago dems did no research. Jakobssen just introduced the bill like she was told. She couldn't even answer questions about the amendment! What a travesty!
Considering the amount of nurses that have been raped and or killed at knifepoint over the years - that amendment should never have passed.
She probably doesn't even know who Richard Speck is !!!
Why didn't we bring up Richard Speck? A mass murderer, armed only with a knife, who targeted nurses!
Jezz this makes my blood boil !
The Chicago dems did no research. Jakobssen just introduced the bill like she was told. She couldn't even answer questions about the amendment! What a travesty!
Considering the amount of nurses that have been raped and or killed at knifepoint over the years - that amendment should never have passed.
She probably doesn't even know who Richard Speck is !!!
Why didn't we bring up Richard Speck? A mass murderer, armed only with a knife, who targeted nurses!
Jezz this makes my blood boil !
Countzero;
Oh I agree 10000% dude.
The amendment she filed was all of 48 lines long.
And she knew none of it, without staffers prompting her every word (you could hear them talk behind her, telling her what to say, like Wormtongue...)
Oh I agree 10000% dude.
The amendment she filed was all of 48 lines long.
And she knew none of it, without staffers prompting her every word (you could hear them talk behind her, telling her what to say, like Wormtongue...)
JTHunter
Member
Thanks for the links Trent!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
