Change takes time
Friday, Mar 11, 2011 - Posted by Rich Miller
* I’ve been telling subscribers about some of the back stage maneuvering surrounding the concealed carry bill. My Sun-Times column today takes a look at the bigger picture…
I wouldn’t blame you if you thought things are moving way too fast at the Illinois Statehouse.
Civil unions, an income tax increase and then, Wednesday, the death penalty abolition law.
But change like this comes maybe once in a generation, if that. Things move at a glacier’s pace in Springfield. Until January, Illinois’ income tax rate hadn’t been increased in 22 years. And that increase came 20 years after the tax was first imposed.
Illinois was the first state to legalize sodomy between consenting adults, in 1961. Chicago outlawed discrimination against gays 26 years later. But Illinois’ anti-discrimination law wasn’t updated until 2005. And it took another six years to pass the civil unions law.
Twelve years ago, in 1999, Anthony Porter was a mere 48 hours away from being executed when he was found to be innocent of the crime he was alleged to have committed.
Gov. George Ryan’s spokesman initially said the system had “worked,” even though two other Death Row inmates had been exonerated just months before. But then Ryan stepped in and convened a summit. The following year, Ryan placed a moratorium on executions and commuted the sentences of all Death Row inmates to life in prison. That moratorium has stayed in place for 11 years.
I was a columnist for the old Daily Southtown back in 1999 and I wrote about the Porter case.
“Don’t kid yourself,” I cautioned, “that the death penalty will be abolished in this state any time soon. Passing bills in the Legislature is a numbers game. And the numbers just aren’t there for getting rid of capital punishment.”
Back then, public opinion overwhelmingly favored the death penalty. Support has dropped a lot since, but as of last year, 56 percent of Illinoisans still wanted to see Ryan’s moratorium lifted, according to a Paul Simon Public Policy Institute poll.
The way I explained things in that long-ago column was that legislators would never touch an “80 percenter.”
When 80 percent of voters oppose something, they are far more likely to base their vote on that one issue. Because opposition to the death penalty has since dropped far below that threshold, it became a bit easier to “do the right thing” without losing the next election.
And that’s why a “concealed carry” bill has a chance of passing in the next year or so. Downstate voters are far more conservative than those in the Chicago region. The death penalty is still supported by a big majority in that region. And lots more people oppose civil unions and tax increase than they do in the Chicago Sun-Times’ circulation area.
So, in order to chill out tons of very angry “80 percenters” and secure their legislative majorities, the General Assembly’s Chicago Democratic leadership may eventually have to swallow hard and pass a bill to allow some folks to carry concealed weapons.
Downstate Democratic legislators are screaming for the bill as a way to help them throw some much-needed red meat at their furious constituents.
Those three huge bills which were signed into law this year couldn’t have passed until after the election. Lots of “lame ducks” were used to pad the total, while others crossed their fingers and hoped voters would calm down before the next go-around. So the Democrats may choose to wait until after next year’s primary (their “real” election) to do something.
Governing is always a balancing act, and the scales have been tipped so far in one direction that another very large, “once-in-a-generation” law may have to be passed.
You can read that 1999 column in its entirety by clicking here.
* Coincidentally, the Paul Simon Institute has a new poll that looks just at voters in the southern-most counties. Keep in mind that there’s a whole lot of other Downstaters (in more Republican regions) to tally when you look at the bullet points…
* There were 59.5 percent of southern Illinoisans who said the state’s budget deficit could be fixed by cutting waste and inefficiency. Last year, it was 60 percent. Also, the statewide Simon Poll conducted last fall showed 57 percent holding that belief.
* Only 5.8 percent in this year’s Southern Illinois Poll said taxes should be raised; 24.5 percent said it would take a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.
* Seven in ten (71 percent) opposed raising the sales tax rate and 61 percent opposed increasing the reach of the sales tax to include services as well as goods.
* A comfortable majority — 61.5 percent — opposed expanding gambling to raise more revenue. That’s up from 54.9 percent opposition a year ago.
* A whopping 64 percent said they opposed the state’s action to implement a temporary increase in the state income tax from 3 percent to 5 percent. Only 32 percent approved. Similar results were found when asked about the increase in the corporate income tax.
It’s very difficult to find poll results these days where 80 percent of the people agree on anything. it’s more like 70 percent or close to that these days. But these results give you an idea of what the Democrats are facing next year.
* Related…
* Illinois FOID cardholders ask judge to bar disclosure
* Concealed-carry law may need supermajority: Ashley Niebur, attorney for Illinois Municipals League, said House Bill 148 — the plan being considered — deals specifically with a part of Illinois law that favors home rule. “We’re looking at just that subsection, and there’s not the requirement for the three-fifths (majority). Now, maybe that’s arguable, but that’s not my call,” Niebur said.
* Illinois lawmakers balk at gun debate: With all 177 members of the Legislature up for re-election next year, Democratic leaders wary of concealed-carry legislation could delay a vote until after the March 2012 primary in order to protect incumbent members from intra-party challenges.
* Gun owners rally for concealed carry, keeping FOID info private
* Thousands of gun owners rally at the Capitol
* Group seeks to keep gun permit IDs secret
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 9:55 am:
The Illinois State Rifle Association must be scared to death that a conceal-carry law could pass in Illinois. Their fundraising ability would crash through the basement if it did.
- Rule of Law - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:08 am:
I agree with this analysis. Also, I think the Illinois Dems are emboldened by the fact that they came through 2010 relatively unscathed compared to other statehouse Democrats throughout the country.
It has to be invigorating to run on the record they were running on, with the people they were running with, and still win. Considering the opposition, if I was a Democrat, why not be aggressive in passing everything on my progressive checklist?
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:16 am:
Why do downstate democrats believe voting for concealed carry legislation will offset passing the largest tax increase in 40 years? Their argument makes no sense. Concealed carry zealots will vote overwhelmingly for the GOP no matter what democrats do. Are they thinking these types will stay home and not vote in 2012, if they pass concealed carry? I don’t think so.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:17 am:
===Concealed carry zealots will vote overwhelmingly for the GOP no matter what democrats do.===
That’s ridiculous. Plenty of concealed carry “zealots” for for Democratic legislative candidates backed by the NRA. Heck, the NRA even helped Chief Justice Kilbride get retained.
- anon - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:20 am:
I’m glad that downstaters are so opposed to tax increases. Perhaps we should target southern illinois spending exclusively and make our $6 billion in cute there.
- amalia - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:21 am:
Yes, as I’ve posted, it is increasingly likely that the concealed carry bill will pass, especially as a balance to the death penalty legislation. The numbers that appeared in the streets yesterday will not be matched by the other side, not in bodies or calls or emails. And, yes, there are many democrats, including some in the city of Chicago, who have worked closely with the ISRA and are sympathetic. your column is spot on, Rich!
- nieva - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 10:59 am:
I believe you are right about needing to throw a bone to the south. If you look at the countys that voted for Bill Brady in the last election it leads one to believe we are being ruled by a very small geographic area with values that are not ours. Most people in rural Illinois are against abortion,pro second adm. and try to handle their money in a way much different than at the state level.
- Kevin Highland - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:00 am:
I don’t think ISRA is concerned about fund raising, after CCW there is Permitless CCW and Castle Doctrine for which to fight. Even with CCW passed there will always be attempts at restricting the Second Amendment.
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:02 am:
Rich, it’s been my experience over the years that the NRA focused voters are overwhelmingly republican voters. Some democratic officials, especially downstate, try to neutralize the “Bullet Voter” by supporting the NRA. However, even after the democratic candidate satisfies the NRA litmus test, they will more than likely fail to get the NRA vote, unless the democratic candidate is running against a republican anti-NRA candidate, which rarely happens (Kilbride was running against no one but retention). In the current economic environment, passing a concealed carry bill to provide cover against voter’s angst because of a tax increase is hardly worth the effort for democrats.
- dupage dan - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:06 am:
Mr Howe,
Downstate democrats are not like Chicago democrats. See Glenn Poshard. Downstate dems are far more conservative and support gun rights heavily. I assume Rich meant that the downstate dems are looking to the Chicago dems for support on the CCW issue as a way to prevent voters from going over to the GOP come the next election. But then I’m sure you knew that.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:12 am:
I’m not sure gun issues like concealed carry fit easily into traditional Democratic v. Republican categories. Gun issues to me have always been mostly about region, not party, with rural voters being much more receptive to gun rights than city and suburban voters.
For every downstate Democrat who votes for this thinking it will neutralize support for a GOP opponent, there is a Republican in DuPage county who will worry about voting for this and getting hammered for it in a general election. Of course, for the suburban GOP legislator, if they vote against it, they open themselves up to a potential primary fight.
CC is a wedge issue, but a regional one that should give the GOP pause. I think the real political impact of this vote will be on suburban Republicans. They will have political trouble if they vote yes, and trouble if they vote no.
Chicago Dems can vote no without worrying about political repurcussions. And downstate Dems who vote yes on CC aren’t likely to be primaried anyway, at least not over this vote.
And let’s not forget the new legislative map is going to really mix up some of these suburban districts. I think CC, regardless of the outcome of the vote, will hurt the GOP more than help it.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:13 am:
===However, even after the democratic candidate satisfies the NRA litmus test, they will more than likely fail to get the NRA vote, unless the democratic candidate is running against a republican anti-NRA candidate===
Sometimes true, but not totally. There are plenty of NRA Dems who beat pro-NRA Republicans in this state.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:14 am:
While 48 states do allow conceal carry, the laws vary quite widely.
I think Rep. Phelps might have an easier time getting his law passed if he removes from his bill this little weird nugget:
–Any owner, business or commercial lessee, manager of a private business enterprise, or any other organization, entity, or person that prohibits persons holding a permit for concealed firearms from carrying concealed firearms on the premises shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the premises.–
In other words, if I want to keep guns out of my private business, club or home, I can. Thank you.
But if I do so, and a someone gets punched in the nose at my premises, I can be sued because I prohibited the victim from packing a gun on my property.
Anyone have a problem with that?
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:15 am:
==Even with CCW passed there will always be attempts at restricting the Second Amendment==
This argument drives me nuts. Nobody is restricting the 2nd Amendment. Guns are still lawful and that fact is not gonna change. The 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee unfettered access to guns. Even with the Supreme Court’s most recent rulings, they acknowledged that fact.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:23 am:
===Anyone have a problem with that?===
Yep. A big problem. I know of a large private university that is none-too-pleased with this whole bill, and that little section is going to cause some serious heartburn.
Colleges and universities are not likely to allow students to bring guns into their dorm rooms, much less the classrooms. That liability language is a sharp stick in the eye and is reason alone to vote no on this bill.
- Ray del Camino - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 11:43 am:
Rich is right on. Downstate Dems need this in their pocket next November. Plenty of Democrats at the shooting ranges down South–you’ll see gun racks and Forby stickers on the same trucks all the time.
- Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:03 pm:
“Anyone have a problem with that?”
Nope. Property rights must be protected, but property owners must take responsibility for exercising that legal right to the determent of another person’s natural right of self defense.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:15 pm:
Ken, can you please elaborate? I think you meant “detriment,” but I still don’t understand your point.
And do think CC permit holders should carry extra insurance in case of accidents?
- Bill Edley - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:16 pm:
Bill Edley
Twenty years ago, assault weapons were the NRA’s “concealed carry” rallying issue. I was serving my first term in a very (56%+) republican western Illinois house district. All hell broke loose when the assault weapon ban legislation cleared the senate and came over to the house for a vote. The NRA put on a full court press to stop the legislation and I was lobbied extensively and even threatened by the NRA lobbyist with extinction come the next election.
My office received dozens of phone calls that day to vote against the legislation and then I personally checked my voter file to confirm name and addresses so I could respond with a letter. Of the 53 callers who claimed to live in my district, 22 were republican primary voters, 2 were democrat primary voters, 9 general election only voters and the rest either were not registered to vote or lied about living in my district. In addition, I had conducted a recent district poll and found a majority of my voters supported banning assault weapons.
To shorten the story, John Dunn, from Decatur, and I were the only two downstate democrats voting for the ban. True to the NRA threat, every parade I walked, every town meeting I held, there was somebody present expressing their opposition to my vote. My opponent held a gun supporter rally a few days before the Nov 1990 election with over 400 attendees (I was there too, so they could vent their feelings face-to-face.)
On election day, I won with over 61% of the vote. Gov. Edgar received 57% in my district. In my opinion, guns are not the killer issue many downstate democrats should fear. They have much bigger problems.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:21 pm:
–Nope. Property rights must be protected, but property owners must take responsibility for exercising that legal right to the determent of another person’s natural right of self defense.–
You might want to be a little more flexible, Ken, if you really want to get something passed. You might want to ixnay on the atural rights-nay, as well, when it comes to firearms.
Phelps bill, as currently written, would add additional liability to private property owners who barred those with firearms from their premises. In addition, there specifically are no criminal or civil penalties for those who would disregard a private property owners’ mandate against firearms.
That ain’t exactly coalition building. Anyone who won’t take half a loaf ain’t really hungry.
- Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:30 pm:
“Ken, can you please elaborate? I think you meant “detriment,” but I still don’t understand your point.
And do think CC permit holders should carry extra insurance in case of accidents?”
Yep, “detriment”. Spellcheck fail.
My point is this:
* Firearms are a legitimate form of self defense, especially for those that are disadvantaged by age, physical infirmity, gender or disposition. I’m a 48 year old overweight MAWG, I wouldn’t stand a chance of defending myself against an assault by a younger, more fit adversary. My wife is in a wheelchair and would fare even worse.
* Hopefully the state gets with the program and makes provision for the legal concealed carry of handguns for self defense as is the case in 48 other states.
* If a property owner exercises his legal right to not allow CCW holders entrance with their firearms he has taken explicit responsibility for the CCW holders safety and should be held to a higher standard of care.
Regarding insurance - no, I don’t. What accidents do you expect to see? There is no indication firearm accidents are a common occurrence with CCW in other states. (And I’m an insurance professional, a P&C underwriter.)
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:38 pm:
–* Hopefully the state gets with the program and makes provision for the legal concealed carry of handguns for self defense as is the case in 48 other states.–
Would you be cool with Hawaii’s law?
- Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:39 pm:
@ - wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:21 pm:
* By “natural right” in this case I’m referring to self defense, nothing to do with firearms. Do you disagree that you have an absolute right to defend yourself within the boundaries of the law? CCW is simply an logical extension of the existing legal boundary outside the home.
* I is an insurance underwriter, and I see nothing in that provision that adds liability for a property owner. It simply elevates the standard of care that is due, just as is done in other cases (think backyard pools or other attractive nuisance - a parallel concept).
* There already is a simple remedy regarding disobeying a property owner’s legal restriction - trespass. Other states have figured out how to handle it, it’s not rocket science. Google Texas’ rather unfortunately named “Section 30.06″ for a workable, proven solution.
- Ken in Aurora - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:41 pm:
“Would you be cool with Hawaii’s law?”
Do you think I would be?
Quit trying to game me.
- 47th Ward - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:43 pm:
Thanks Ken, I appreciate that. On most points, I don’t disagree. But I do take exception to the concept that by prohibiting weapons on some private property raises the threshold of liability for that property owner. That somehow a private property owner is more responsible for safety if they choose to ban weapons. That is an overreach of this legislation, and needs to be struck.
As for liability insurance for CC permit holders, I’m not pushing for it, but believe me, if you drop your gun in the movie theater and it goes off and I get wounded, I’m going to sue you and take everything you own. So you would be wise to have plenty of insurance coverage since any accidents are likely to have serious financial implications.
If you don’t want to lose your house, CC permit holders should talk to their insurance agents about getting appropriate levels of coverage.
- GMatts - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 12:45 pm:
FOID transparency? OK, how about killing the idea with full transparency. Any person with a FOID who is inquired about, must be likewise advised whom is inquiring (*name only). If part A is ok, then B should be fine too. But if its too complicated, costly or ‘intrusive’, then drop the whole idea.
- Gunowners vs. Legal Gunowners - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:32 pm:
Spot-on regarding the “80-percenters,” Rich.
Separately, gun ownership is such a complex subject with so many important tangential issues, not the least of which is how carelessly drafted gun laws in one state can imperil the safety of individuals in another state, that one doubts it will ever be satisfactorily settled.
As an urban-dwelling, fiscal and national defense conservative with moderate social positions (e.g., I don’t care what adults do behind closed doors, or which adults they marry), who happens to also own guns (i.e., hunting and personal protection), I have no problem with:
- Mandatory background checks;
- Mandatory 24-hr. cooling-off period;
- No “gun show” loopholes;
- Mandatory licensing;
- Mandatory training; and, a
- Ban on “Cop Killer” armor-piercing bullets.
I think those parameters implemented on a nationwide basis would make all of us safer.
And while the genie is out of the bottle in many states, we can begin to put the stopper in to minimize the perpetuation of bad policy.
That said, I certainly find it absurd that cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. erect administrative roadblocks to prohibit (for all practical purposes) responsible individuals from owning handguns. I believe it is similarly misguided for Illinois to prohibit responsible individuals from legally carrying a concealed weapon — particularly given the prevalence of firearm ownership among criminals.
It is not earth-shattering news that the primary deterrent a concealed-carry law creates is not in the form of an actual physical “draw-down” between a criminal and his or her would-be victim, although there’s that. It is instead the uncertainty it fosters in the mind of the would-be assailant that his or her intended victim might actually be carrying a weapon and prepared to fight back.
Notwithstanding Mayor Daley’s histrionics to the contrary, there are better policies than his that could be implemented.
- amalia - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 1:33 pm:
what’s the law in Texas re concealed carry? I understood that businesses could post a sign requesting no guns on premises, but that was several years ago so it could have changed. If that is still the law in Texas, the clause that Word proposes would go beyond the Texas law? if that is so, it is not good. would appreciate someone with more knowledge answering the question. thanks.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:06 pm:
–”Would you be cool with Hawaii’s law?”
Do you think I would be?
Quit trying to game me.–
I’m not trying to game you. But Hawaii is one of the 48 states that has a conceal carry law that are referred to constantly. My point is, among those 48, there is quite a range.
– I is an insurance underwriter, and I see nothing in that provision that adds liability for a property owner–
Rep. Phelps’ bill is very specific in that a private property owner “shall be civilly liable for any injury from a criminal act upon a person holding a permit for carrying a concealed firearm who was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the premises.”
If I prevent you from brining a firearm into my home or business, I’m civilly liable if you get punched in the nose and were not allowed to pull your gun. That dog don’t hunt.
Curiously, the bill exempts taverns from this liability provision. Why’s that?
- TTWSYF - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:07 pm:
Down state Dems wanting a victory. Maybe. Downstaters, even those like myself that support removing the death penalty do not see the disparity in the application of the death penalty that may exist in urban areas. But more to the point, the Phelps bill seems well thought out and gun toting criminals will not be worried about adhereing to all the provisions anyway. So why not allow law abiding citizens some limited ability to defend themselves. They can currently carry their cased and unloaded weapons in their vehicles now. This is not that big a leap.
- Southern Illinois Resident - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:24 pm:
-I’m glad that downstaters are so opposed to tax increases. Perhaps we should target southern illinois spending exclusively and make our $6 billion in cute there. -
Better yet, why doesn’t Southern Illinois “cut” itself from Chicago. Don’t think for one minute it’s not a popular idea down here. Most of the taxes collected here go to fund Chicago’s needs, we’re always the last to receive but the first to be taken from.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:26 pm:
===Most of the taxes collected here go to fund Chicago’s needs===
Hilarious.
Perhaps the most clueless comment of the week. TGIF.
Downstate is a net tax eater. Look around. Do you see lots of very large companies paying people high salaries or a whole lot of government facilities?
- Southern Illinois Resident - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:31 pm:
Opinions vary.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 3:34 pm:
Opinions do vary. Facts do not.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 11, 11 @ 4:10 pm:
Southern Illinois resident, tell me you went to school in Kentucky. Please. At least the math classes. Where they taught the concept of “zero,” — the ones on the right side of the ledger.