*** UPDATE *** The new bill is here. There’s also a technical amendment here.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* The SJ-R has some deets about a tentative concealed carry deal…
Forby said an “absolute pre-emption” provision that wipes out all local gun regulations — even those unrelated to concealed carry — has been dropped despite objections from pro-gun lawmakers.
Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, who also was involved in negotiations, said municipalities could keep current gun ordinances, such as Chicago’s assault-weapons ban and Cook County’s firearm and ammunition tax, but would be prohibited from enacting ordinances that could potentially deter a person’s Second Amendment rights.
Municipalities also would have a window of time to enact ordinances if they hadn’t done so already, he said.
Despite strong objections from Senate Democrats, people will be able to bring their guns into bars or restaurants, depending on how much of their sales come from alcohol. But business owners could still post signs prohibiting weapons if they wish.
Chicago’s firearm registration ordinance appears to have been preempted as well.
* More…
But the revised version also would toughen penalties for carrying a firearm while drunk.
The bill would prohibit guns from being carried in places like CTA and Metra buses and trains, casinos, government buildings, stadiums and several other locations that were banned in previous incarnations, he said.
The proposal would require the Illinois State Police to review applications for concealed carry permits, but local law enforcement could object if they believed an applicant was a public danger. Those objections could be appealed to an independent board.
Passage depends upon keeping the Senate’s liberals on the roll call. So far so good, but nothing is ever easy or guaranteed. As of last night, the plan was to start the bill in the Senate. We’ll see.
- edbreyer - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:01 am:
I just received an “Action Alert” from the Natl Shooting Sports Foundation indicating that SB1002 would also prohibit mags above 10 rounds. Is this correct?
- Spliff - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:04 am:
HB183 senate amendments 5 & 6 just got sent to senate exec at 11am and they seem to be the conceal carry amendments.
- RNUG - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:06 am:
When I looked at SB1002 just now, that is the language in that bill. And that is all that is in that bill, just regulating mag size, etc.
- edbreyer - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:26 am:
RNUG - thanks for the info regarding SB 1002. So the Senate concealed carry bill is NOT SB1002 (I don’t know the CC Bill’s #).
At least they’re not trying to sneak in a 10 rnd mag limit as part of the CC legislation. I will be pretty upset if my 15 Rnd Glock, WWII Carbine, and AR-15 mags are outlawed! I just called my State Senator’s office (Kimberly Lightford) - but as part of the Chicago area machine it’s not hard to assume that my phone call means nothing to her.
- edbreyer - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:27 am:
I just dicovered that Lightford is a sponsor of SB1002!
- RNUG - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:30 am:
While this is about Illinois, it has always had a national undercurrent. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but …
From where the bills were a couple of days ago, letting Chicago keep their AWB (and regulation of long guns) is a big win for both the Chicago pols and the national gun control groups. The Chicago pols can claim that, in spite of the wrongheaded federal court decision, they managed to keep assault weapons off the streets. IMO, the national gun control groups really want to keep the AWB in Chicago; an AWB is the cornerstone of their national gun control plans. If they had lost it in Chicago, it would have been pretty much game over on the latest national push.
- RNUG - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:32 am:
edbreyer @ 10:26 am
If you live in Chicago, your AR-15 may be in danger if it fits their assault weapon definition
- edbreyer - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:43 am:
I’m not in Chicago but am (barely) in Cook County.
- Mason born - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:43 am:
I am really interested in how this line got in there.
– but would be prohibited from enacting ordinances that could potentially deter a person’s Second Amendment rights.–
I am assuming the SJR used poor language. That seems to be a pretty fluid definition. Could they have meant deter someones right to CCW??
- HenryVK - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:44 am:
edbreyer,
While I happen to think the assault weapons ban is pretty stupid, I am curious as to why a Chicago resident would want an AR-15?
Why do you own one?
- LittleBill - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:53 am:
HenryVK,
They’re easy to shoot and relatively accurate.
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:55 am:
This bill is good, in my opinion, and a reasonable one. It does preserve Chicago’s AWB, which means my AKs and AR-15s remain in their out-of-town storage location. However, it does preempt Chicago with respect to handguns, handgun equipment, and carry, which is essential in my opinion.
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 10:59 am:
I agree with respect to the qualities of the AR-15. I’d use that or my Mossberg 930 shotgun (also banned by Chicago) as my go-to gun for home defense had I the option. The AR-15 is easy to shoot, has great ammunition capacity, and actually does not over-penetrate even indoor walls if the correct ammunition is used (soft-tip). It will actually break up inside the wall unlike 00-Buck from a shotgun. Pretty loud though…a suppressor would help save our hearing.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:01 am:
When you say “the chicago firearm registration ordinance has been pre empted as well” does that mean it will or will not be in effect?
- LittleBill - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:01 am:
David W-
The bill would not allow CC on Metra or CTA trains, how is that “good” for those who can’t afford to drive to and from work?
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:05 am:
>>>>> how is that “good” for those who can’t afford to drive to and from work?
I’m not David, but: it’s not good for those who take bus or train. But it is the best CCW that we might expect to get in IL for a first time bill.
You can unload the peice and “transport” it on th public trans, AFAIK in the current bill. But what’s gonna happen when you get to work? If your employer gonna have a locker for you or let you keep it in your desk? hmm.
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:07 am:
We didn’t win everything we wanted. Public Transportation is essential though, so we will continue to fight for that in future legislation.
Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
- John Boch - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:09 am:
Guns Save Life is neutral on the bill.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:14 am:
Mason, I think the language in the SJR story is just a little loose on tight deadline.
They also wrote this:
–Lawmakers have just one day left in the scheduled spring session and face a court-ordered June 9 deadline to craft a proposal with restrictions permitting Illinoisans to carry weapons in public.–
The reality is, the court ordered nothing. June 9 is the date for a permanent injunction of the current law.
The AP wrote that the court ordered the state to pass a conceal carry law. Also not accurate.
- Slick Willy - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:15 am:
I hope it fails. Too many places where you cannot carry. In short, you can drive around in your car and carry while you mow the lawn.
/snark.
- dupage dan - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:17 am:
The main thing is that it appears shall issue will be statewide. We’ll have to see how Cook Cty or Chicago treats the “public danger” provision. If it can be abused, it likely will be.
- Mason born - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:20 am:
Slick
I look at this like a starting point. In a year or two when the folks who are scared to death of guns anywhere within 5 blocks of them have realized that nothing has happened then we can work on cleaning up the nuttiness of the current bill. After all that is what Florida and other states have done over time. Also if i am correct changes will require a simple majority instead of the super majority for preemption.
- Langhorne - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:36 am:
This whole issue will give writers lots to chew on in months to come. Court says gotta allow concealed carry–which means yes to some and no, not really,to others. It applies statewide, but you cant take it into these places and these places, and other localities may add more restrictions. It up to you to figure it out.
in some instances, you can take it where alcohol is served, as long as the gun is loaded and you arent. All of this leads me to ask– what are the appropriate field sobriety tests for a concealed carry gun owner? Drop cartridges on the ground and reload without falling over? Spell smith and wesson backwards? Count backward from 357? Say “blue barrel beretta beauty” four times fast. Yep, its well thought out and good to go
- Demoralized - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:41 am:
Looks like the big players are neutral on this bill. Indicates to me that it’s not what they all want but they are willing to swallow hard and take what they can get right now.
- Rod - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:41 am:
Like Anonymous I am concerned that the City of Chicago’s Chicago Firearms Permit (CFP)provisions will continue as will gun registration at $15/gun and the Chicago requirement that you can’t register more than one firearm per 30 days. I looked at the bill and was totally unclear on that issue. All I hear discussed is the so called assault rifle ban which the bill continues to be allowed, but nothing relating to the City’s registration policy.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:54 am:
–Court says gotta allow concealed carry–
No, they didn’t. The 7th Circuit ruled that Illinois’ blanket prohibition against carriage was unconstitutional, based on Heller.
In Heller, Scalia noted that concealed-carry prohibitions have been upheld under the 2nd Amendment and state analogues.
Still a lot of “terra incognita” regarding these issues in the courts, as Judge Posner wrote.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:55 am:
The fee still seems a bit high, there will be those who make minimum wage are priced out. I see where military vets have credit for 8 of the 16hrs of training for certain vets.
As for the question of the need of an AR15, it is a fine weapon. It fits many roles from home defense, recreation and hunting. I used the M16A1, M16A2 and M4 as a soldier for 21 years, and own a AR now. It is my defense rifle, fires semiautomatic and I can operate it under any stressful situation day or night.
No worries for anyone that I own one either, I am not a criminal, nor do I desire to cause harm to anyone.
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 11:57 am:
So the 7CA in combination with Heller/McDonald has ruled that a blanket ban on carrying firearms readily available for self-defense is unconstitutional. Of course IL could continue to ban CCW, but then they could not continue to ban the open carry of loaded defensive firearms.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:03 pm:
Dave Lawson, that’s how I read it.
The “terra incognita,” it seems to me, is the breadth of Constitutionally-sound restrictions under the current court.
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
Ok, well I am not opposed to carrying a firearm openly, but I prefer having the tactical advantage afforded by having the firearm concealed. This is why I support CCW laws.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
No matter what some people keep mentioning here, we could stop wasting bandwidth about open carry, it’s not on the table today. We are gonna get concealed carry.
Michigan Avenue is not yet ready for open carry, and may never be.
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:27 pm:
Nothing horrible in my quick reading of it. You are allowed to store your gun in your car in the parking lost of prohibited places, it is “shall issue”, no magazine capacity nonsense snuck in, and pre-empts Chicago’s handgun laws and ammunition possession laws.
Unclear if you still need a Chicago Firearms Permit for long guns?
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:33 pm:
Why would anyone want to open carry? You just become the first target of a takeover robbery or spree killer. Plus you will draw all kinds of police attention as they respond to “person with a gun” calls.
Yes there’s flaws in this bill, those can be ironed out later with a simple majority vote once the “blood in the streets, wild west” doomsday predictions fail to pan out and people become more comfortable with concealed carry.
Can’t carry on public transportation, not really an issue for me because when I’m on public transportation it’s usually because I’m out drinking and wouldn’t be carrying anyway but I can see how it’s an issue for other people.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:40 pm:
JJ, I mention it because many here and in the media see judicial orders and Constitutional mandates that simply do not exist.
Heller, McDonald and the 7th Circuit ruling certainly are game-changers. But they are what they are — nothing more or less.
The state is, and always has been, free to do what it wants regarding gun carriage.
What will come out of the federal courts in the future remains to be seen. Four justices of the Supreme Court recently didn’t see a need to address an effective conceal-carry and open-carry ban in a city of more than 8 million.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
–The state is, and always has been, free to do what it wants regarding gun carriage. –
By that I mean to permit conceal-carry or open-carry to any extent it wished. Obviously, a blanket prohibition of both has been ruled unconstitutional.
- Carl from Chicago - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 12:49 pm:
@John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt: “Michigan Avenue is not yet ready for open carry, and may never be.”
Why do you say that? Cops open carry all the time. I shoot competitively with many cops … quite frankly, there is nothing particularly special about cops in terms of gun handling, safety, and ability to shoot proficiently. My point, I guess, is that the public is already quite accustomed to open carry.
- Lawrence - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
“–The state is, and always has been, free to do what it wants regarding gun carriage. – By that I mean to permit conceal-carry or open-carry to any extent it wished. Obviously, a blanket prohibition of both has been ruled unconstitutional.”
What the 7th Circuit has established is not merely that a blanket ban is unconstitutional. It has established that the right to bear arms outside the home is a fundamental liberty explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment, not just the right to possess arms inside the home or on your own property. That is a game changer in more than simply denying blanket bans.
Fundamental liberties in this country are afforded stricter scrutiny of infringement than our other liberties and rights. While the Moore ruling did not explicitly choose to apply the formal strict scrutiny doctrine to bearing arms, it did make it rather clear in the dictum that the expected scrutiny would be strict or near so.
As such, the state’s ability to restrict bearing of arms, not just a blanket ban, should be expected to come under greater scrutiny than it would have prior to the Moore decision. What would previously been readily accepted by a court due to a legitimate “government interest” is now likely to be expected to be narrowly tailored and backed up with explicit justification and evidence that the restriction merits limiting a fundamental right. The Moore decision, within the territory of the 7th Circuit, should be expected to have a significant ripple effect on the legal reasoning applied by lower courts.
- David0316 - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:14 pm:
The draft amendment has language that allows existing local ordinances on assault weapons to remain in force. However, I saw no language regarding existing local ordinances regarding magazine capacity. Local magazine capacity ordinances can affect weapons other than assault weapons. What is status of local magazine capacity ordinances under the most recent compromise?
- David W Lawson - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:16 pm:
Magazine capacity limits for handguns are preempted.
- David0316 - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 1:55 pm:
That being the case, this legislation will legalize in the City of Chicago the 30 round pistol magazine used in the weapon that shot Congresswoman Gifords, killed six and wounded 12 others without the shooter needing to reload.
- Blue Dog - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:00 pm:
Does anyone know why Phelps is pushing SB2335 am 2&3 right now? Looks similar to HB183 as ammended, but I don’t have time to double check.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/SB/09800SB2335ham002.htm
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:01 pm:
>>>>> Local magazine capacity ordinances can affect weapons other than assault weapons.
Magazine capacities are often criteria for assault weapon definition in a locality.
- ronoglesby - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:18 pm:
David0316
So that crazy was a legal ccw holder?
Stop please
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
=That being the case, this legislation will legalize in the City of Chicago the 30 round pistol magazine used in the weapon that shot Congresswoman Gifords, killed six and wounded 12 others without the shooter needing to reload.=
The legislation is to allow Concealed Carry - have you ever tried to conceal a handgun with a 30 round magazine? It extends well below the magazine well and is practically impossible to conceal. Try again.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:38 pm:
@David0316
Everything the shooter did was prohibited by laws and ordinances. He had criminal intent, no laws or bans can stop people like that.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:45 pm:
–Everything the shooter did was prohibited by laws and ordinances. He had criminal intent, no laws or bans can stop people like that.–
Is that an argument for no laws? I don’t understand those two sentences put together.
Loughner purchased a gun legally and was carrying legally.
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
And the stupid questions from Chicago Dems arise in the Senate debate, per the Chicago Tribune: “But Forby got peppered by lawmakers who worried that the legislation opened up the potential to allowing a person with a firearm owners identification card to have as many as 100 guns in his car trunk without violating laws.
Forby said he saw nothing illegal, prompting some lawmakers to shake their heads in disappointment.”
Seriously? 100 guns in the trunk? The stupid, it burns!
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:51 pm:
“Is that an argument for no laws? I don’t understand those two sentences put together.”
What’s the sense of passing no laws that have no effect when existing laws on the books already prohibit the behavior? Laws are about consequences, not restraint.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:51 pm:
“Is that an argument for no laws? I don’t understand those two sentences put together.”
What’s the sense of passing new laws that have no effect when existing laws on the books already prohibit the behavior? Laws are about consequences, not restraint.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
That was odd.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:53 pm:
>>>>> Seriously? 100 guns in the trunk? The stupid, it burns!
Which part is stupid?
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
I’m pretty sure Loughner broke the law, and in a very big way, when he shot Giffords and the others. Does anyone really think he would have been deterred by a magazine limit????
- Mason born - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
chicago
I saw that made me wonder how she thought a law abiding citizen would move his household. Does she want one gun at a time in the ryder truck or what?
- Mason born - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:56 pm:
Maybe i am not giving her enough credit. Does Chicago or Cook County have a limit on how many guns you may have with you at one time? Providing of course all are cased and unloaded.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
–I saw that made me wonder how she thought a law abiding citizen would move his household. Does she want one gun at a time in the ryder truck or what?–
I think the concern is further enabling the transport of guns into the city that will later be found to have been lost or stolen after they have been used in the commission of a crime.
- HenryVK - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 2:59 pm:
“I’m pretty sure Loughner broke the law, and in a very big way, when he shot Giffords and the others. Does anyone really think he would have been deterred by a magazine limit????”
In an interesting coincidence, I’m pretty sure that the guy who robbed a bank yesterday in the West Loop broke the law, and in a very big way. Does anybody really think he would deterred by a law outlawing bank robbery????
But in all seriousness, I can’t wait for this debate to be over just so we can stop reading the “outlaws break the law, so let’s just get rid of laws” comments.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
@Ken
It is not an argument for now laws. It was about intent of a criminal.
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:00 pm:
John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt said: “Which part is stupid?”
The part where anyone would want to carry 100 guns in the trunk for nefarious purposes. How do you fire 100 guns at a time, or carry 100 guns if your aim is a shooting spree? Why would you need a concealed carry permit to go on a shooting spree with 100 guns? The question makes no sense whatsoever.
Is there even a limit on how many guns you can have in your trunk under existing law? I’ve taken as many as 6 with me to the range.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
Meant no, nor now laws…. Spell check strikes again.
- FormerParatrooper - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
Meant no, not now laws…. Spell check strikes again.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:02 pm:
–The part where anyone would want to carry 100 guns in the trunk for nefarious purposes.–
To sell them to those who can’t obtain them through legal means.
- Mason born - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:11 pm:
Wordslinger
I realize that was her insinuation however there are two things i see here: 1. Nothing that is proposed is a change from existing law in regards to transportation unloaded firearms. 2. The unintended consequences of what she wants would make moving your household more than a little silly.
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:12 pm:
@wordslinger - that’s already illegal. Do you envision that this law somehow enables people to sell guns out of their car trunks to unqualified people?
- David0316 - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
If you think that you cannot conceal a pistol with a 30 capacity magazine, just ask Congresswoman Gifords. Neither she nor anyone else saw the gun until the shooter walked up to her, pulled it out and shot her in the head.
- Amalia - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:22 pm:
so it passed and sen. kotowski is unhappy with the bill. looks like we have a winner.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:25 pm:
“But in all seriousness, I can’t wait for this debate to be over just so we can stop reading the “outlaws break the law, so let’s just get rid of laws” comments.”
Criminal laws are all about punishing a behavior. If you think a criminal law will prevent the crime from happening you’re dreaming. Nobody is talking about abolishing laws.
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:38 pm:
=If you think that you cannot conceal a pistol with a 30 capacity magazine, just ask Congresswoman Gifords. Neither she nor anyone else saw the gun until the shooter walked up to her, pulled it out and shot her in the head=
The mentally ill person who shot Giffords was holding the gun under his coat, not carring it in a holster. You are attempting to use the unfortunate and already illegal actions of a mentally ill person who had criminal intent to kill to argue against allowing citizens to CC. a fair but unsuccessful attempt to use histronics to support your anti-gun stance. Since you have already made up your mind that allowing properly trained and vetted citizens to CC will somehow lead to additional mass shootings by mentally ill people with criminal intent, I will not attempt to confuse you with facts.
- HenryVK - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:38 pm:
That’s interesting, Ken.
You should let the death penalty supporters know that criminal laws are not a deterrent. Because they’ve spent a couple of hundred years making that argument.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:47 pm:
“That’s interesting, Ken.
You should let the death penalty supporters know that criminal laws are not a deterrent. Because they’ve spent a couple of hundred years making that argument.”
It sounds like you’re assuming I’m a proponent of the death penalty simply because I’m pro-gun and that this will illustrate an inconsistency in what I believe? Bzzt.
I actually am a proponent of the death penalty, but not because of deterrence - because it is appropriate punishment for the most grievous crimes. I do not believe criminals can be deterred by anything other than their own personal ethics.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 3:47 pm:
I think GSL took 100 guns to a Chicago Gun Buyback once. No laws were broken. Children were taought gun safety with the proceeds.
- HenryVK - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:03 pm:
Actually Ken, I neither know nor particularly care about your views of the merits of the death penalty.
The relevance was that criminal law has been seen as a deterrent and not just punishment for hundreds of years.
However, the pro-gun people seem to think deterrent works except when it comes gun crimes, in which case they want to abolish law since nobody will follow the law.
- Pew Pew - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:07 pm:
“Chicago keep their AWB (and regulation of long guns) is a big win for both the Chicago pols and the national gun control groups”
Keep spinning…LOL!
Let me guess, concealed carry for all of the state overriding all local laws is also good for the gun grabbers and the mag ban going down in flames is also good for the gun grabbers. If thats a win for the grabbers, I’d hate to think what a loss would be for them.
- Amalia - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:13 pm:
what Ken in aurora said about the death penalty. Justice! and I’m a person in favor of many of the gun restrictions under discussion….though concealed carry should have been instituted years ago, what a waste of time and energy ICHV/Brady, etc.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:16 pm:
“However, the pro-gun people seem to think deterrent works except when it comes gun crimes, in which case they want to abolish law since nobody will follow the law.”
And it seemed as though you were painting me with the same brush. I’m pro-gun and I don’t believe in deterrent effects.
- railrat - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:18 pm:
I hope someone has dispatched a medic evac unit to the 48th ward in Chicago Alderman Harry Osterman is probably going to need some “attention” !! snark of course
- Rod - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:22 pm:
Deal is done it just passed the House.
- Just The Way It Is One - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:36 pm:
Things are churnin’ toward a decent compromise, looks like, ‘n movin’ forward with dignity and civility overall from what I can gather on this extremely difficult, touchy issue, and that’s all good–so I commend the key legislators engaged in the process and to keep the ball rolling forward toward a viable compromise which the majority of the good ‘n upright citizens of Illinois can live with…!
- Chicago Gunowner - Friday, May 31, 13 @ 4:38 pm:
Time to get a pro-gun Governor next election so this can be tweaked without a veto-proof majority.