Big NRA defeat in IL House
Friday, Apr 19, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
The Illinois House defeated a concealed weapons proposal favored by gun rights advocates Thursday night, a rejection that could spur negotiations toward finding common ground with lawmakers who want more restrictions.
The legislation represented a signature showdown in the critical gun debate that is in the spotlight this spring because a federal appeals court has set an early June deadline for Illinois to put in place a law allowing concealed weapons to be carried in public.
The proposal debated Thursday would have allowed guns on mass transit buses and trains but not in taverns, schools, casinos, stadiums, child care facilities, universities and government buildings, including courthouses, police stations and the Capitol.
Rep. Brandon Phelps, the legislature’s leading concealed carry advocate, challenged his colleagues to vote for what he viewed as reasonable parameters on where people could carry guns in public, who is allowed to carry, who decides whether a person is eligible and how much training should be required.
* This was a major defeat for the NRA…
Thursday’s outcome represented a setback for gun-rights advocates because the vote total in support actually was less than during two previous tries. In May 2011, an earlier version also needing 71 votes to pass the House failed by a 65-32 vote. And in February, during a test vote, another version drew a 67-48 roll call.
The vote follows Wednesday’s defeat of a concealed-carry bill drafted by gun-control advocates and sponsored by Cassidy that would have made it far more difficult for gun owners to get concealed-carry permits . Patterned after a restrictive New York concealed-carry law upheld this week by the U.S. Supreme Court, Cassidy’s legislation failed by a 31-76 vote in the House, with six voting present. [Emphasis added.]
* So, it’s either back to the bargaining table or the NRA will decide to wait things out and let the appellate court knock down Illinois’ UUW laws come June 9th. The NRA’s Todd Vandermyde spoke to reporters last night. Here’s the transcript via the Sun-Times’ Zach Buchheit…
Q: What’s the next step?
A: “I don’t know. Right now, we’re going to have to step back and see what the roll call looked like. We had more people telling us that they were inclined to vote for this version with some changes that there were. Obviously, we made movements, and I don’t know what else to say.”
Q: What else can you give?
A: “We’re going to stick to ’shall issue.’ We’re going to stick to the preemption clause. Chicago’s not going to get their own permitting system. You know, I don’t know. I guess there are enough people that think they’re not going to vote for anything and that the best thing to do is to go over the cliff.”
“A lot of us were drug kicking and screaming to some of the changes, but the object was to pass a bill. And it was to pass a good bill. And so we made an end run at it, but it seems no matter how far we negotiate and we move, it never seems to be enough for certain people. So I’m not sure if there’s much left for us to talk about. We’ve proved that we can kill a bad bill, and if the Senate offers up bad language, we’ll do the same thing we did here in the House. We’ll kill it because I don’t think it does Rep. Phelps or any other hardcore supporter to go back home saying that they got a quarter of a loaf instead of a whole loaf.”
Q: What happens on June 9?
A: “If nothing happens, the likelihood is that we’re going to have a court injunction. And if you’ve got a valid FOID card, you’re going to be able to carry a firearm in this state. The court won’t write a carry law. They have a very specific purpose, and that is to find the UUW statute in the state of Illinois unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the state’s enforcement of that law. That’s the court’s role in this. Then you might see some municipalities try to do their own thing but they are likely to face the same hurdles that the state has.”
* Most legislators love nothing more than kicking the can down the road. I’m not sure that many of the anti-gun types have yet fully come to the realization what could happen on June 9th…
Rep. Will Davis (D-Homewood) took that point a step farther, predicting the bill would worsen violent crime in the city and across the state.
“I just think this is going way too far, way too far. And I hate to say it, but I think this will actually get worse in our state before it gets better,” he said.
Nowhere has it been shown that violent crime increases after concealed carry laws are passed. I wish opponents would start arguing facts instead of emotion here. The liberals are guilty of doing precisely what they constantly accuse conservatives of doing on things like climate change.
* And I also wish the proponents would stop with the ridiculously over the top rhetoric…
“Chicago’s not an island. It’s only an island because it’s been a terrible, crime-ridden, gang-banging city for so long,” said state Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill.
* Meanwhile…
The House rejected a measure that would have required the state’s pension systems to refrain from investing in gun-manufacturing companies. The bill failed 46-69.
That’s pretty much where the gun votes are right now. Both sides have enough votes to block what the other side wants. So, either we’ll get a negotiated solution, or it’ll stalemate. It’s likely that the Democratic leaders will try to ram something through that neither side will love. We’ll see.
- Anonymous - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 9:53 am:
From a pure politics perspective I wonder why the pro-gun folks want to pass anything. Aren’t they in the strongest position by simply not passing anything and running out the clock until 6/9?
Of course, that is not a meaningful policy solution– but our legislators don’t seem to care much about that anyway (on either side of the aisle).
- benji - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 9:58 am:
Looks like Judge Posner will be writing our CCW law for us.
- RNUG - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:00 am:
Judge Posner doesn’t have to write any CCW law. All he needs to do is issue the order invalidating current IL UUW law.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:03 am:
Judge Posner is one member of the appellate court. I don’t think he writes orders on his own.
I think Todd said it best as to what happens next: “I don’t know.”
- Leave a Light on George - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:03 am:
Just wait ‘em out Todd.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:06 am:
>>>>> Aren’t they in the strongest position by simply not passing anything and running out the clock until 6/9?
Except for 200+ home rule units of government with 100+ different way of regulating carry.
- Leave a Light on George - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:07 am:
If you could take a poll right now of the citizens of Watertown, Mass wonder if they would be okay with having a firearm to defend yourself and family.
- Esquire - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:07 am:
Before declaring a moral victory and beginning a celebratory dance, it still worth noting that the gun control crowd cannot muster a bare majority, once again. In terms of infringing the rights of law abiding citizens to carry arms, the gun control legislators have delayed the inevitable by perhaps eight weeks. The court decision is an important card for the ISRA and the NRA.
Yesterday’s actions will have consequences in many representative districts outside of Chicago.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:17 am:
–If you could take a poll right now of the citizens of Watertown, Mass wonder if they would be okay with having a firearm to defend yourself and family.–
They can, as can you.
- Nieva - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:21 am:
What kind of math are you using to come up with “bare” majority Esquire”?
- Non-ISRA Member - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:21 am:
It appears that we are headed towards an injunction and FOID CC.
I’m kinda surprised at yesterday’s vote results, especially after Rep. Phelps bill was amended to include more training, an increased fee, accommodations for Cook Sheriff Tom Dart, etc. As noted, these concessions didn’t get any additional votes. Perhaps the anti-gunners felt emboldened by the USSC denial of cert of the NY case.
I can see both sides digging in their heels. Rep Phelps supporters because their concessions were dismissed, and the anti-CC legislators because of the USSC denial of cert.
Should we start a countdown of the number of days to June 9?
- benji - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:21 am:
I’m not so worried about Chicagoans not having CCW since the judge specifically mentioned Chicagoans in his decision as being the ones who would need it. I’m not so sure about people in the rest of the state though, like in the quiet suburbs.
- dupage dan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:22 am:
This really only illustrates the continuing fecklessness of the GA, and not much else. CC comes to Illinois whether these folks do something or nothing. That must stick in the craw of gun control legislators. Their rhetoric is caustic:
=== “I hope that we’re willing to stand up and give moments of silence to all the individuals that are probably going to get harmed as a result of this,” said Rep. Will Davis, a Homewood Democrat who argued against passage ===
but, in the end they can’t prevent this - they can’t kick it down the road. It must be hard to swallow. They still can wave their arms, gnash their teeth and jump up and down but it is important not to confuse activity with accomplishment.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:22 am:
>>>>>In terms of infringing the rights of law abiding citizens to carry arms, the gun control legislators have delayed the inevitable by perhaps eight weeks.
Well, no, in fact for most of Illinois they have sped it up.
On June 9, because of inaction, we get Court-Carry.
If the ILGA had passed HB997, it would get months to get all the ducks in a row to issue permits, then the gunners would have to sue to get them because Quinn won’t provide for enough staff at the ISP. And once permits are flowing, it would take a year to satisfy demand.
But a June 9th nullification of the existing ordinance means instant carry for everyone. And of course, it would be a misdemeanor in Chicago and Oak Park by then, without holding the local may-issue permit.
- downstate commissioner - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:25 am:
Antis seem determined to “allow constitutional carry”.
“It’s likely that the Democratic leaders will try to ram something through that neither side will love.” I don’t see much middle ground for the leaders to try to ram through. Without preemption or shall issue, the pro gunners (rightly) aren’t going to vote for it. As for mass transit and trains, the only time I ride trains is if I go to Chicago and that is certainly the place I want to have a gun the most (And please don’t start snickering-as a country boy, I don’t like big cities, period).
Bans on mass transit would be a defacto gun ban for those people who depend on it to go everywhere, including work, grocery shopping, medical needs, etc., and isn’t that what the court order is all about?
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:27 am:
I’m generally a believer that society is better off when negotiations are tough, I’ll be happy to see this bring everyone back to the table. We’re a unique state, I think we can find a solution that works for us.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:28 am:
===Bans on mass transit would be a defacto gun ban===
I just don’t see a way around it. Are you aware of what entity Speaker Madigan’s son-in-law lobbies for? http://www.rtachicago.com/images/stories/J_Matyas_bio.pdf
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:30 am:
Also, today’s Trib headline specifically mentions that transit was included in the defeated cc bill. The Sun-Times is up in arms about it as is the rest o the Chi media.
Polls show massively overwhelming support for the transit carry ban.
I just don’t see it being allowed.
- downstate commissioner - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:31 am:
Non-ISRA member- “Should we start a countdown of the number of days to June 9?” I don’t belong to ISRA, but its website has a count-down clock on its home page- (a second-by-second countdown).
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:34 am:
–Bans on mass transit would be a defacto gun ban for those people who depend on it to go everywhere, including work, grocery shopping, medical needs, etc., and isn’t that what the court order is all about? –
Just how many of those places do you think will be welcoming people with guns.
Have you ever ridden Chicago public transit at rush hour? The idea of introducing firearms to a packed, tense, often angry environment — with usually a crazy or two providing “atmosphere” — is just bizarre.
- elginkevin - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:36 am:
I ride Metra every day, and am a CCW advocate, but I am not convinced that allowing carry on trains is a good idea. Mostly because of the number of people packed into a train and they way they’re packed in, an accidental discharge could have enormous consequences. I haven’t managed to convince myself either way on this point.
- downstate commissioner - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:38 am:
Rich: Oops, definitely know who his daughter is, but don’t pay attention to the rest of his family. The way you see it, it may be necessary to get a bill passed, and the NRA may eventually agree, but I still think that my argument against it on constitutional grounds is still valid.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:45 am:
– but I still think that my argument against it on constitutional grounds is still valid.–
What constitutional grounds? Scalia introduced the concept of “sensitive places” and gave a laundry list of examples.
- CarrollCounty - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:46 am:
This whole thing is a fascinating train wreck, I heard the modified and moderated version got even less votes than expected, so nothing is good enough.
It looks like there was no point in Phelps trying so hard to write a middle of the road, Illinois-palatable CCW bill. He should have just brought a more extreme form and let it be amended back to where he tried to start 997 at.
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:48 am:
I think Todd’s prediction is essentially correct.
Expect Posner and the other two to simply find the current law unenforceable.
It will leave us with no law banning conceal carry.
Springfield cannot agree on one, so locals might.
Cook County will rush through a very restrictive bill. A federal judge will like stay enforcement pending hearing. The question will be the weight, if any, the District Court gives the denial of cert in NY. Will the judge look at it as S.Ct. as approval, or just as S.Ct saying “we’ve got better things to do?” It depends on the judge.
But in any case, the judge will likely stay enforcement and it will go up. From there, it depends on the panel.
Other areas might pass their own, but I doubt we will see it widespread. Outside of Cook County, I just don’t see banning any guns as a big issue.
- CarrollCounty - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:49 am:
The words “gang-banging” and “tea-bagging” should not be in the political lexicon, but people love their sexual double entendres, so it would be hard to change.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:53 am:
We’ve bent over backward. This bill had additions to add more training, more gun free zones, more penalties, additional cost of permitting, additional moneys to correct the mental health reporting in this state…
AND IT GOT 3 fewer votes than last time.
Many N votes asked for specific additions… Yet someone whispered in their in and they still vote no.
Not compromising in good faith. Why shoudl the NRA go back to the table? we were at the table modifying this bill time and time and time again only to have games played.
Yes we only got 64 votes last night, the NY style May issue got what? 31?
We’ll run out the clock. I’ll get legal defense together for FOID carry and 1983 law suits. State is broke anyway but it can give some gunner owners fat checks after they charge UUW after June 9th.
Fine by me. You can only bend so much to the chicago reps and when they screw you after you put in the additions to get the vote how can you trust them again.
Maybe a iGOLD event in downtown Chicago after the stay is lifted…. with FOID Carry.
- Fred's Mustache - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:54 am:
Could a brick have been put on the legislation to allow the AG an opportunity to appeal the 7th Circuit opinion to the USSC? By passing Phelps’ bill, would that not have made the issue moot?
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 10:56 am:
@word. I love how you assume masstransit has no guns on it now… Or how in other states there are mass transit systems that you can carry on… None of the bloodbath you and so many predicts occur.
Sorry. I ride a train downtown to visit a client or a friend on a Saturday say and cant carry? nope. Screw that. I’ll carry.
you also assume that everyplace downtown goes instant gun free zone… You may be surprised. Go up to Milwaukee, tell me how many signs you see.. maybe 5-10% of the places.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:01 am:
Dear JJJS’ Representative:
Thank you for your vote yesterday on this time sensitive matter of CCW in Illinois.
I look forward to open or concealed carry of my firearm on June 9.
Kindest Regards,
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
- the Patriot - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:11 am:
What anti gun folks don’t seem to want to listen to the fact that the Conceal and carry ban does not work. People are dying because of this failed law. The court recognized it does not work and you have no statistics to prove otherwise. If you do, please forward them to the AG because she obviously did not have them to support her case. I just don’t see why people are so afraid of trying something else when all the evidence shows the current law has failed.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:18 am:
Can the legislators get any sillier?
Or are they secret CC advocates looking for the most wide open system possible?
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:33 am:
Would excluding carry on CTA be enough to push 997 over the top?
And Word, what Ron said - have you traveled much out of IL lately? I know that I have seen exactly two “no CCW” signs up in Cheddarstan since they passed CCW, and I can count the number of posted places I’ve seen in TX and IN on two hands.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:36 am:
-Mostly because of the number of people packed into a train and they way they’re packed in, an accidental discharge could have enormous consequences-
There is no such thing as an accidental discharge - guns do not “go off” by themselves. Someone has to pull the firearm’s trigger. And how is that going to occur when the firearm is carried in a holster concealed on the person? Negligent discharges occur when the person using the firarm, not merely carrying it concealed, fails to follow basic firearm safety and handling rules.
- Rod - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:36 am:
Todd’s comments were extremely intelligent and Rich did an excellent job putting together the basics of what took place yesterday.
I would second the truth of the comments or the possibility that currently there are likely people illegally packing guns on the CTA. But given the incrediable liability problems that would be faced by an individual even if they legally discharged a a permited gun on a rapid transit train I would not recommend packing in that situation.
Honestly, somehow I am begining to think that many of the folks who want to have concealed carry weapons in urban situations have no significant assets they could lose in a litigation situation. Since the median net worth of Americans including their equity in homes is only around $77,000 they may not have a lot to lose.
- Fred's Mustache - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:39 am:
==People are dying because of this failed law.==
Patriot, are there people dying in your town as a result of this UUW statute? If not, stop pretending to know about issues troubling Chicago. I remember in your earlier posts you saying that you do not want to come to Chicago. Unless you’re here and understand day to day life here, please do not try to tell Chicagoans how to solve our own problems.
Ive said this before - the whole concealed carry debate should not be about crime. I think the statistics show that concealed carry does not increase or decrease crime. This is an issue of what kind of society we want to live in - a society where we can freely carry guns or a society where there are limitations on guns.
Based on this whole debate, ive come to the conclusion that the best solution is probably to let the locals decide what is right for them. If people who want guns do not feel comfortable coming to Chicago without guns, they can choose not to come. In the same line, if Chicagoans do not want to go to a portion of the state with guns, that is there choice as well.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:47 am:
>>>>>But given the incrediable liability problems that would be faced by an individual even if they legally discharged a a permited gun on a rapid transit train I would not recommend packing in that situation.
The liability is everywhere.
I would not recommend actually shooting in a crowded rapid transit train NOR ANYWHERE ELSE unless it was absolutely necessary. Then the liability be damned.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:49 am:
>>>> ==People are dying because of this failed law.==
Yes they are.
In my neighborhood.
In Tinley Park.
In Chicago.
- Fred's Mustache - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 11:53 am:
=== Yes they are.
In my neighborhood.
In Tinley Park.
In Chicago. ===
Ok. Show me proof.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
>>>>>> Ok. Show me proof.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-08-27/news/0808260819_1_gang-member-jury-walking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_Bryant_shooting
http://guardianlv.com/2013/01/michael-kozel-becomes-fifth-chicago-murder-of-new-year/
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8538857
If it saves just one life…
- titan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:12 pm:
@ Fred’s Mustache === This is an issue of what kind of society we want to live in - a society where we can freely carry guns or a society where there are limitations on guns.===
I don’t think you’re accurately positing the issue. We currently have a situation where criminals (and gang members perhaps not yet convicted of anything) can freely carry and law abiding citizens may not carry under any circumstances.
The issue we are faced with is how do we set up the necessary appropriate/responsible provisions on letting law abiding citizens also carry.
- John Boch - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:13 pm:
We lost yesterday. 64 votes.
We made changes to the bill in exchange for promised votes… increasing the training, limiting reciprocity, adding prohibited locations, upping the fees, etc. etc.
Those promised votes didn’t materialize.
The hard-core opponents could only muster what, 31 votes for their dream carry bill? We got 64 for a bill we weren’t at all happy with but could live with. And we got stiffed by about 8 reps.
Guess who isn’t going to be inclined to bend any further?
Nothing is good enough for some of these folks. Well, unlike dozens of times before, the clock is ticking in our favor.
Let’s see how they appreciate utterly unregulated carry come June 9th.
I’ll be carrying, but then again, I’ve got more hours of training than most cops and I paid for every bit of it. Most folks aren’t going to have all that training. But then again, folks in Indiana don’t need a lick of training to carry and they don’t seem to be appreciably smarter or more mature than Illinoisans.
I think we’ll be okay after June 9th.
But you better get used to seeing people with guns on their belts.
John
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:17 pm:
John Bosh seems bitter. He probably should put the gun down.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:19 pm:
- But you better get used to seeing people with guns on their belts. -
I can’t wait, it’s going to open up so many new opportunities for me to poke fun at the big tough guys that have to carry guns.
- PM31 - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:30 pm:
- I can’t wait, it’s going to open up so many new opportunities for me to poke fun at the big tough guys that have to carry guns. -
Seriously??
I’ll say the eulogy at your funeral…
- titan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:37 pm:
@ Small Town Liberal - a good life plan is to avoid unnecessary provocations to, or conflicts with, people weilding superior force.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:40 pm:
I’m shocked at the notion that any law abiding citizen would use their firearm against me for teasing.
I’m talking about the guys I grew up with, I’ve been ribbing them for years, they haven’t harmed me yet.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:43 pm:
The funny thing here is the lack of negotiation in good faith that no one from the other side feels like defending…
But then again its Illinois. Good faith went out the window a long time ago.
- Fred's Mustache - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
=== @ Small Town Liberal - a good life plan is to avoid unnecessary provocations to, or conflicts with, people weilding superior force. ===
I think thats a good argument against concealed carry. So what are you saying? Some “law abiding” citizen is going to use “superior force” against STL for making fun of him? Shows the true flaws of human beings. Generally good people can make mistakes every now and then. When you throw firearms into the mix those mistakes can become big mistakes.
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:47 pm:
Just a head’s up — you people claiming STL will get shot for teasing somebody are not exactly helping the cause.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:47 pm:
If I were STL, I’d be more worried about being given a megawedgie.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:48 pm:
PM31, you just made a very strong case against concealed carry.
Are you really that much of a wussy?
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:52 pm:
===There is no such thing as an accidental discharge - guns do not “go off” by themselves. Someone has to pull the firearm’s trigger. And how is that going to occur when the firearm is carried in a holster concealed on the person? Negligent discharges occur when the person using the firarm, not merely carrying it concealed, fails to follow basic firearm safety and handling rules.===
RetiredArmyMP, how do you explain this accidental shooting? At a school, no less. Do you still think it could never happen? Fortunately, only the idiot who brought the gun was injured, and not seriously. But if this happened on the CTA at rush hour…
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130417/news/704179764/?interstitial=1
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:53 pm:
By the way, PM31, you also reinforced every stereotype about the inferiority complex of men who want to carry concealed weapons. I should probably send your IP address to the state police to make sure you never get a permit.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
C’mon everyone, all meant in good fun. It’s Friday, let’s lighten up.
- Fan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:56 pm:
Fred - Remarkably enough, 49 other states allow carry, and I’m sure there has not been any noticeable decline I’m “teasers” there. Maybe some woopins though.
- Mongo - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:57 pm:
RonO, the political process here, in Texas, in Wisconsin in California, in Kansas, features the same stuff. The issue might be a tax increase, might be concealed carry, might be a roads bill, might be mandated reporter legislation…
Just because you think you are right does not mean that “the other side” acquiesces. That’s the whole point of the process. You beat me in committee, I beat you on the floor, we retreat, reconsider, and (here is that pesky word) negotiate and try again.
Have you ever run a roll call? People flip on and off through the whole process, for hundreds of reasons. Expect it, don’t be alarmed when it occurs, this is the big leagues.
Please stop picking on my state. No one is stopping you from moving to Iowa or Indiana. I assume you are here because you like it here.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:02 pm:
===Let’s see how they appreciate utterly unregulated carry come June 9th.===
It’ll never come to that. Cassidy’s bill lost. Phelps’ bill lost. Phelps’ needs 71, a bill based on Phelps with certain amendments allowing home rule to add additional restrictions only needs 60.
When push comes to shove, there will be 60 votes for a CCW law. ISRA won’t be able to hold its votes to block half a loaf. Something is going to pass before the court’s deadline.
Back to the table everybody. The sides are not that far apart, despite the rhetoric on both sides.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:05 pm:
@Mongo,
I am not talking about if I am right or not. I am flabbergasted that someone would tell a bill sponsor “I cant vote for this unless you put in X”
So you put in X and verify that is what they wanted. Then when the vote comes they vote no…
Sorry. Maybe I am not a political animal or backstabbing j**bag that politicians are, but in my world that to me means you no longer take anything that person says as truth.
Many chalk it up to “politics” and maybe it is. But maybe that is why we are so messed up.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:06 pm:
–And we got stiffed by about 8 reps.–
Eight’s a big number. Care to elaborate?
Ron, I’ve been riding Chicago public transit twice a day, five days a week, for 25 years and have seen all manner of stuff. But I’ve never seen evidence of a gun.
I’ve seen freakouts from men and women of all races and social status, though, believe me.
What’s your life experience on the matter?
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
@47th
—Back to the table everybody. The sides are not that far apart, despite the rhetoric on both sides. —
That is what we were told for two days leading up to the vote. Why we gave more and more. Then this. Word is someone was walking around talking to some key votes saying “dont vote for this, we in the senate will do a different bill”.
How can we continue to negotiate in good faith. we get nothing back (including votes) for all the capitulation on item after item.
Why go back to the table when you do nothing but give?
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
“this is the big leagues”
??? Really??? miserable unemployment, unpaid bills, imploding retirement system etc..
If these is something major about it, it is a major malfunction.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
@ word
me to… I rode from Narpeville to downtown the same way for 7 years. You dont see evidence of a gun? i have had mine a few times… did you see it?
Concealed carry is just that. you dont see it.
I travel almost every week now. Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Denver, etc, etc,etc… do I ever see a gun on their streets? no do you hear of mass shootings on public transit there? errant rounds?
No, but law abiding people still get to carry their weapon for that 30 minutes they are the train or bus then spend their day wherever it is.
Just like “shootings over traffic accidents and parking spots” and “wild west blood in the streets” predictions. Mass transit stuff is another hissy fit but has no real basis in reality just unjustified fear.
- reformer - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:16 pm:
Shame on any legislators who gave their word to support the bill if certain concessions were included, got the concessions, and they still voted NO or Present. That’s called bargaining in bad faith. At least George Ryan used to keep his word.
- titan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
@ Small Town Liberal - with your friends, sure, you’d be fine (your original comment didn’t limit it so).
To a stranger…it would offer the opportunity for things to spiral … and end badly (I had a former school chum killed in a road rage incident that began with someone being cut off merging lanes).
And I was attempting (and apparently failing) at some light ribbing up above.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:27 pm:
I think 47th has it right. They’ll jam thru a bill with 60 votes.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
-how do you explain this accidental shooting? At a school, no less. Do you still think it could never happen-
That incident, if it occurred as reported, is a negligent discharge causd by the person’s failure to follow firearm safety & handling rules. First, he should not have had it in a fanny pack, it should have been in a holster and secured with a thumb strap; second, it must have been a pretty old revolver if it discharged by being dropped on its hammer - such revolvers haven’t been manufactured for many years and the basic safety rule for those types of revolvers were to never have a round in the chamber under the hammer. So yes, I agree the person was an idiot, but the incident was not an “accident” as it was caused by his failure to follow gun safety & handling procedures - AKA negligence.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
–How can we continue to negotiate in good faith. we get nothing back (including votes) for all the capitulation on item after item.–
C’mon, man.
Todd and the Phelps clan aren’t babes-in-the-woods. They know how to count and they know who’s in for the all-day job.
Everybody likes a good bratwurst, but you don’t want to know how it got in the bun.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:48 pm:
What “compromises” have the gun control advocates offered to preclude unrestricted concealed carry base on Posner’s ruling? Certainly, the NRA came to the table to try to compromise and institute a reasonable bill, as they have for the past year, but apparently there is no compromising with the gun control advocates who just reneged on their negotiations with the NRA. Were I the NRA, I’d stand pat and let the gun control advocates come to me, soon they will fully realize the corner into which they have painted themselves.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:52 pm:
–I rode from Narpeville to downtown the same way for 7 years. You dont see evidence of a gun? i have had mine a few times… did you see it?–
Were you being a law-abiding citizen when you were doing that?
I never make the “Wild West” analogy unless it is to point out that the plots of some of the best Westerns ever made feature local controls on firearms.
All the “OK Corral” movies (John Ford’s “She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,” best, “Tombstone”; next; “Unforgiven”; “Winchester ‘73″).
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:54 pm:
At risk of sounding sarcastic, with regarding to the comments from Rich and 47 that a compromise will be reached –
When in recent history has there been real compromise on any issue in Springfield?
More particularly, as Cincinnati notes, when have the pro-control people shown any willingness to compromise?
I just don’t see it happening.
I expect Chicago Dems would rather blame the big mean judges than take action to get a reasonable bill.
There will not be a compromise. The court will lift the stay banning enforcement, Cook County will pass something on the New York model, and we will have more litigation.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:56 pm:
@ word… before it was called we were talking 72 or more votes. You tell me what happened.
They wouldnt have brought it up if they had not made the adjustments and counted the votes.
They got screwed.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:56 pm:
–unrestricted concealed carry base on Posner’s ruling?–
Where do you get “unrestricted concealed carry” in Posner’s appellate court opinion (not his “ruling”)?
Where do you find even a suggestion of it in Heller or McDonald?
- dave - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 1:57 pm:
***- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
>>>>>> Ok. Show me proof.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-08-27/news/0808260819_1_gang-member-jury-walking
…(more links)***
I’m confused — what “proof” is in any of those links proving that if IL had a conceal carry law, that those murders would not have happened?
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
Word,
The lawsuit challenged the current statute.
The 7th Circuit found the statute unconstitutional, but then stayed the ruling giving IL time to come up with a statute that could pass scrutiny.
If IL fails to do so, the easiest thing for the 7th Circuit to do would be to simply toss the statute.
Potentially they could re-write it, but I just don’t see that happening.
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
Just as a reminder — federal judges tend to like it when people do what the court tells them to do.
They tend to get a bit annoyed when people fail to do so.
So yeah, I could easily imagine the court just walking away leaving IL with no statute.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:09 pm:
–and we will have more litigation.–
You can book that.
Second Amendment litigation in federal courts has been very sleepy since the founding.
Heller and McDonald changed that, for sure.
The federal litigation is just getting started.
The states used to be able to write their own ticket on guns.
Since the NRA challenges, the genie is out of the bottle and the federal courts will call the tune from now on.
Careful what you wish for, you might get it.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:11 pm:
===They wouldnt have brought it up if they had not made the adjustments and counted the votes.===
Brandon knew hours before that he would lose that vote.
- Todd - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
Some rambling thoughts. . . .
The AG could have announced an appeal at any time. She hasn’t. by my count she has till the 23rd of May to do something. If she were to appeal, I would bet the Court would grant a stay of the 180 day deadline. Also if she intended to file and asked for an extension of time to file with a stay I would expect it would be granted.
But to date she hasn’t done or signaled either. She has to make up her mind one way or the other before the June deadline and the end of session
Some wonder why we have pushed for a bill. The answer is simple. There needs to be certainty and clarity of the law for cops, prosecutors and citizens. Without it, I don’t think it does the state well.
I would disagree with the headline writers. Was this a disappointment, sure. BIG loss no. As Rich put it in the Fax today, the Speaker weighed in. That is always hard to overcome once he takes a vested interest in passing or defeating a bill. Had his thumb not been on the scales I believe a different outcome.
We didn’t want a vote this week. And proposed working on changes through next week while the House was out. But we were told otherwise, and told their would be a vote. The best legislative products don’t always get turned out in 24 hours or less.
47 your wrong on the preemption issue. We will hold the votes. We will not have a patchwork of carry laws from town to town. So Cook passes a non-carry ordinance via impossible may issue. The people on one side of Elgin are fine. The others are not. In the DuPage side of Hinsdale you’re ok walk across the street you’re not. There are more votes for preemption.
Rich – I disagree as there will be no Machin/Toomey deal. It didn’t work for the the DC crowd and I don’t see it working here.
So what’s next, having had a bit of time to think on. . . we made many concessions in Amendment 9. WE went in and essentially negotiated against ourselves. That’s over. We will now await others to bring their proposals to us for our review and approval or disapproval. They can be the ones to figure out language, they can be the ones to that and see if it meets our muster. Some of the things we agreed to, may now be off the table, if adding fees and training hours and taking certain things on good faith like course recognition, more implementation time, more time to process permits and more prohibited areas, didn’t gain votes, but had people stripped off. OK We tried. Now it is someone else’s turn. We don’t need to pass a bill. The state does. The ramifications of not doing so will be mixed. But I can imagine the rebuke from the federal bench for the thumbing of the legislative nose at the Court.
Beyond that, I will hold down a bench in the rotunda and read Capfax blog from my Ipad.
That is what I think is next.
- RonOglesby - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
@ Rich
—Brandon knew hours before that he would lose that vote.—
You know that for a fact? would love to know how he knew as that is not what is being broadcast.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:29 pm:
===You know that for a fact?===
Well, yeah. He was asked in my presence hours before when he was calling his bill and he said why bother since it’s just gonna die anyway.
I don’t post lies, dude. And I don’t care what you read or heard elsewhere.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:42 pm:
Things we do to keep people safe: lock down an entire city for hours.
Things we won’t do: A 5 minute background check before you buy a gun.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
– I have seen exactly two “no CCW” signs up in Cheddarstan since they passed CCW, and I can count the number of posted places I’ve seen in TX and IN on two hands. –
I have no illusions that most of Wisconsin, Texas and Indiana are different from the Loop. That’s okay — vive la difference.
People go into the Loop to work and make money, not make a statement.
You think they’re going to be packing at CME? CBOE? The banks? The private equity firms? The law firms? The office buildings? The train stations?
People are too busy to deal with that distraction. Chicago ain’t Dallas or Houston, it’s more New York or London, when it comes to business environment.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:48 pm:
Furthermore, do you think you’re going to be able to go to the Fortune 500 campuses — McDonald’s, Motorola, Walgreen’s, Abbott, UL, Allstate — packing a gun?
No way. They don’t want that stuff. It’s business, nothing personal.
- Bigtwich - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:48 pm:
Letting the clock run out might not be the best strategy for the people who want concealed carry. The Seventh Circuit will not be dealing with this. That court said,
“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutional it y and permanent injunctions. Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public.”
Moore v. Madigan, page 20-21 slip opinion
It will be two different District Courts that will be left to fashion a remedy. What might that remedy be? Judge Posner in his decision did say,
“And a state may be able to require “open carry”—that is, require persons who carry a gun in public to carry it in plain view rather than concealed. See District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 626; James Bishop, Note, “Hidden or on the Hip: The Right(s) to Carry After Heller,” 97 Cornell L. Rev. 907, 920–21 (2012). Many criminals would continue to conceal the guns they carried, in order to preserve the element of surprise and avoid the price of a gun permit; so the police would have the same opportunities (limited as they are, if the concealment is effective and the concealer does not behave suspiciously) that they do today to take concealed guns off the street.”
Moore v. Madigan, page 10 slip opinion
It could well be that the remedy would be to allow open carry subject to possible restrictions by all, or at least all home rule units of government. It could also be that the Attorney General could decide if an appeal is necessary and proper after such rulings. Decision from other federal districts are suggest that Illinois may be an outlier. If so, those demanding “shall issue” or nothing, could get nothing.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
–Things we do to keep people safe: lock down an entire city for hours.
Things we won’t do: A 5 minute background check before you buy a gun.–
Well done.
Anyone down on Big Government and paying their taxes right now?
How about those “extravagant pensions” for public employees? Like the ones for those who go to work in the morning not knowing if they’ll live through the day?
I thought that when McVeigh blew up all those bad public employees, and their children, there would be some shame for that attitude.
You can’t shame the Tribbies and the Civic Committee.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:09 pm:
Accidental shooting or negligent discharge?
Tomato, tomahto.
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:12 pm:
Who is against public safety employees. There are other pieces of Big Government, and there is certainly room for debate on the proper role of Government.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
=== Tomato, tomahto. ===
Not at all. Accident precludes negligence and is extremely rare.
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
Precludes?
That’s interesting. I could probably give you 100 cases saying that negligence REQUIRES there to be an accident.
A negligent act is the opposite of an intentional act.
- titan - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:20 pm:
@ Bigtwitch ===The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutional it y and permanent injunctions.===
And those injunctions would be against enforcement of the UUW statute’s prohibition on carrying. Leaving Illinois without any enforceable prohibition on carrying.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:23 pm:
Negligence implies an act or failure to act by an individual. Accident is just that.
Lighting fuse on firecracker in an unsafe situation: negligence. Firecracker spontaneously combusts absent any action or failure to act on the part of an individual: accident.
Think of it this way: negligence = act of man. Accident = act of God.
- Skeeter - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:28 pm:
Ken,
Do you have any authority for that claim?
Because courts have found the opposite for a couple hundred years.
It goes to the basic coverage under a CGL policy. For there to be coverage, there needs to be an accident. If there is an accident, there is negligence. In contrast, you have breach of contract claims or intentional act claims.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
Enough with the semantics argument, please. Move along.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:34 pm:
Skeeter, you’re probably more correct than I am - I’m refering back to fuzzy memories of basic liability concepts. We underwriters really don’t worry about this stuff in day to day risk selection.
Rich, moving on.
- Todd - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:36 pm:
Big — I will disagree. It’s not up to the Court to write a law. It is up to them to enter and order that bars the State and its political subdivisions from enforcement of (a) (4), (a)(10) and 1.6 of the UUW/AGUUW statute. Those sections of the UUW law are unconstitutional. That’s the role of the Court.
- wordslinger - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 3:43 pm:
–Who is against public safety employees. There are other pieces of Big Government, and there is certainly room for debate on the proper role of Government.–
C’mon, man. The sad and nasty story line from the right-wing is that government employees are leaches.
Like I said, I thought that should have been retired after McVeigh and OK City.
- David W Lawson - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 4:02 pm:
Mass transit is a difficult venue to give up. Many Chicago residents without cars rely on it to get from point A to point B within the city. They need and have a right to carry at both points but how do they do that if they rely on transit?
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 4:28 pm:
What you call, “Right-wing” people understand and support the role of first responders, intelligence, federal law enforcement, and the military.
- Josh in Champaign - Friday, Apr 19, 13 @ 4:31 pm:
Big loss huh? Bigger than Anti-NRA forces? With 31 Yea votes for HB831? Let’s look at all the pieces on the table, shall we? 64 Yea votes for HB997, vs 31 for HB831. Last and only court case that counts going in favor of carry with an opinion written specifically to allow shall issue, preempting home rule. Nothing else is guaranteed at this point. You have the possibility of the AG filing cert. Hasn’t happened. You have the possibility of SCOTUS accepting it. Hasn’t happened. You have the possibility of SCOTUS reversing the 7th’s ruling. Hasn’t happened. Yeah, I’m cryin’ over here with our BIG LOSS.