90 Comments - wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:15 am: The Big Dogs are in the game now. - Motambe - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:25 am: Many gun rights supporters are also gun safety advocates. Being pro- Second Amendment, a hunter or recreational shooter does not exclude a serious interest in gun safety. Hope the ISRA makes that point in the hearings. - walkinfool - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:27 am: This is for real. Otherwise MJM would have assigned it to the Ag Committee in trade for something else. - Give Me A Break - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:27 am: We could solve the pension issue and fully fund all of state govt. if we could move the hearing to the Convention Center and sell tickets given the number of groups who will want to be there. Just an idea. - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:38 am: @Give Great idea except something tells me Madigan is doing all he can to control the script. Want to bet most if not all the Law enforcement will be Chicago and surrounding. Wonder if Madigan will ask for LE from Miami, Houston or any other ccw city to give him some info on what they have seen with their CCW. - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:49 am: Esquire’s comment is disgusting, no? - Rod - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:49 am: SB1337 is a complete shell bill. Senator Kwame Raoul will have add all the language to the bill because it says nothing. At least he could have pulled most the language from Gary Forby’s SB SB1284 and started with something as opposed to a shell. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:50 am: - Esquire - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:34 am: Classy. Very classy. - Bud - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:52 am: As any important issue should require, the hearings are a good idea. There are a lot of misconceptions out there and a fair and impartial hearing will let some of those issues come out and possibly be resolved. Oh, wait, this is Illinois. never mind - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:06 pm: I’ve long admired Todd Vandermyde and his allies for their ability to persuade many legislators to vote for their gun proposals. And no one can deny the success they’ve had in the courts, which have ruled, repeatedly, that citizens have a Constitutional right to keep and also to bear (carry) arms. Thankfully, they’ve also ruled that this right is not unlimited. So some common ground should be found pretty quickly if we go into this with these two parameters in mind. People have the right to carry firearms. Governments may still put certain restrictions or limits upon this right. I think the tactics and language that served Todd and ISRA well in the past, however, will not serve them as well in public hearings like these. In the current environment, the pro-gun side is losing the public relations battle, and the spotlight is not the place for Todd and some of his more vocal supporters. Persuading a court or a member of the House Ag committee is one thing. Persuading suburban moms who decide elections is quite another. My hope is that we’ll pass a sensible bill that protects the rights of citizens to both keep and bear their firearms, but one that also lets other citizens determine whether and how they will permit firearms on their premises. We might also try to find a way, if possible, of making it very difficult for firearms to get into the hands of those who we all agree should not have them. I really really hope these hearings will be televised. I’m going to need to stock up on some popcorn if they are. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:07 pm: SB1337 is a complete shell bill. Dead on. Funny, there is a bill that has had input from many people in the ILGA, Illinois sheriffs association, Illinois chiefs association, etc. I find it funny how Quinn and Madigan can sit around and act like there is no existing bill and no history of give and take already happening. - Quinn T. Sential - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:08 pm: This is window dressing. No sense in hearing from people in the other 100 counties. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:09 pm: 47th ward, you seem to forget, between now and June we dont have to convince soccer moms that win elections. We dont even have to pass a bill and the pro-gun side gets constitutional carry with a FOID card… we’ve already won. - RNUG - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:10 pm: Why do we need a Senate bill also? What is wrong with using Phelps bill HB0997? It’s a clean one topic bill with most of what both sides claim to want. Wouldn’t starting there save a lot of time? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:14 pm: RNUG, nothing prevents anybody from moving text over to another bill. And nothing stops Brandon from running his own bill. So, I’m not sure I understand your objection. - David Lawson - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:14 pm: It is actually SB1336. - RNUG - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:15 pm: Rich, just seems like wasted motion … not that the GA doesn’t do a lot of that. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:22 pm: ===We dont even have to pass a bill and the pro-gun side gets constitutional carry with a FOID card=== If no bill passes, Chicago and other home rule units can then pass their own ordinances. So, you won’t win there. Face it, you’re stuck at the table. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:29 pm: Wasted motion: The last General Assembly’s special CCW task force, called by Ford. So report was ever issued. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:30 pm: ===we’ve already won.=== As I’ve been saying here for some time, it is precisely because of the court’s ruling and the deadline that Illinois will pass a law. Unfortunately for you, that law will not be dictated by ISRA. Why do you think Madigan is taking the lead with these hearings? Because we’re starting from scratch and even though ISRA has long set the narrative, it isn’t the only voice at the table anymore. Now, you can try to prevent passage of a bill you don’t like, but trust me, if it comes down to it, something is going to pass. No way will we miss the deadline. Your fantasy scenario of unrestricted carry with a FOID card is simply that, a fantasy. - KingWalleye - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:31 pm: Two years ago the Madigan(s),Quinn, Daley and Emmanuel gang worked like madmen to defeat HB-0148. At that time Rep. Brandon Phelps warned them that the courts would “jam it down their throats”. That is where we are today in Illinois. The clock is ticking away towards early June and now the powers that be want to have a “discussion”. Does the expression “talk to the hand” mean anything? HB-0997 and SB-1284 are all you are getting from us on this one. HB-0148 was much more restrictive but you didn’t want to have a “discussion” then so we don’t really care to have one now. (By “we” I mean the lawful Illinois gun owners who support ccw.) - mokenavince - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:35 pm: Another waste of time and money, Madigan acts as if this is a new issue. Nothing will be done one way or the other.More kick the can. - Rod - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:39 pm: I agee with Rich, ISRA will have to be at the table and so will Forby and Phelps who both have concealed carry bills out there right now. I like Forby’s SB1284 more than I do Phelps House bill, but they are very similar as I explained in another post. I even recall seeing yet other bills on my bill tracker system that involve concealed carry but I didn’t save any of them. But even though the real bill will be drafted in secret after the hearings and Senator Kwame Raoul’s SB 1337 will be gutted and replaced there is no indication that there will be a massive bill changing numerous aspects of gun laws in our state as has been feared. But since we are operating with a shell bill, that is still possible but I hope unlikely. - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:47 pm: @Rich I don’t know how stuck at the table Todd and company really are. Most people who want this that i know don’t care much as far as home rule thing. I think we would all prefer one standard statewide but to say that getting that is a huge thing for gun owners not as much. Yes there will be negotiations but to say that the Chicago area goes into this with any real leverage i don’t think so. Assuming that most of what Quinn mentioned in yesterdays post is what Madigan and his cronies want i think those things are DOA. i think this has to be Shall-Issue and reasonable as to training, fees, exclusions. i would hazard to say for myself and those i know closely it would be better to wait till June and sue the home rule cities that ban it. As for 47th concerns every bill put forward allows Citizens the right to restrict on their own Private Property. Of course there is an economic cost to restricting or not restricting. If you restrict carry i will probably walk on and spend my cash elsewhere and if you oppose then you will go where you see the signs. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:51 pm: @ 47th Ward (12:06): If we could agree on the meaning of of the words used in the debates and consistently use the words correctly, we might be able to come to some common understanding and resolve the issue. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. How can we institute laws to regulate the transfers of firearms to “those we all agree should not have them” (by which I presume you mean convicted felons and those adjudged mentally ill) when such transfers are already illegal? Will another such prohibition be the one that will be obeyed? I doubt it but perhaps you can convince me. The current debate was precipitated by the Sandy Hook shooting. Please remember that the transfer that placed those weapons in Adam Lanza’s possession - theft after murder of the owner - is already illegal on a number of levels. How do we pass a law that can possibly prevent someone from deciding to do something they already know is wrong? As for Todd being “in the spotlight” - this is Illinois; how many public policies are set and/or enacted in the “spotlight?” How many are set in a backroom or private office, far from public scrutiny? I submit it is the career deal-makers under the dome that wilt in daylight. Let’s have the debate in the open. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:53 pm: @Rich Miller (12:22): Doesn’t a federal circuit court of appeals ruling trump even “home rule” ordinances? - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:57 pm: ===Let’s have the debate in the open.=== I’m sure Chicago Tonight would love to have Todd come on and debate Elaine Nekritz, and I would love to see it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:00 pm: - Esquire - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:34 am: Classy. Very classy. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:08 pm: == I’m sure Chicago Tonight would love to have Todd come on and debate Elaine Nekritz, and I would love to see it. == So would I though I am not Todd’s booking agent. But, just in case Todd makes an appearance, “Chicago Tonight” is not available where I live; do they post to YouTube? - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:11 pm: 47th You do realize there are folks living south of I-80 right? Ms. Nekritz vote counts the same as Mr. McCanns etc. Jeeper You are right. It in theory does. However remember Imanuel doesn’t think he has to listen until he is directly and specifically ordered so. I would guess that if Chicago goes to a home rule ban then I wouldn’t be surprised if they wouldn’t fight all the way to scotus. The cost of such action is an expense he will gladly bear. That being said even if the Phelps bill passes as is. I would fully expect Chicago to try an end around. Such as making pistol permits practically impossible for resident to get. - Capt'n Ron - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:13 pm: Chicago and Cook County will pass a very restrictive “may issue” ordinance very much like the one in New York City, would be my guess. There is a case that is already scheduled for SCOTUS to determine if those kinds of restrictions pass constitutional muster. But either way, the governments of Chicago areas have been contributing to gun rights groups to the tune of a couple of million dollars over the last few years because they are so determined to allow only the criminals to have guns. That may continue and we thank them for the contributions. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:15 pm: - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 12:22 pm: ===We dont even have to pass a bill and the pro-gun side gets constitutional carry with a FOID card=== “If no bill passes, Chicago and other home rule units can then pass their own ordinances.” True. But we then set up an environment with a hodgepodge of laws all subject to Constitutional scrutiny, and given the Chicago track record, not a great think for the gun control advocates. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:17 pm: ===You do realize there are folks living south of I-80 right? Ms. Nekritz vote counts the same as Mr. McCanns etc.=== I lived south of I-80 for about 20 years pal, so spare me the regional lecture, which is a load of bs. And does McCann chair the committee charged with writing the CCW law? When he does, your comment will make more sense. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:18 pm: 47th Ward: Thinking about that debate… Let’s have Wayne LaPierre and Todd Vandermyde vs Pat Quinn (or Cullerton or take your pick) and Mike Madigan. That debate might get national coverage and - as a bonus - would include the guy at the center of power in Illinois: Madigan… If that ever happens, my money is Wayne & Todd… - wordslinger - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:20 pm: –Let’s have Wayne LaPierre..– I don’t think proponents are going to be bringing in Wayne anytime soon. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:21 pm: Wayne’s been doing a bang-up job lately, hasn’t he? He was for background checks before he was against them. That’s very Kerry-Romney-esque. Is that his idea of bipartisanship? - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:26 pm: @ Wordslinger: Are you sure? As a “proponent” (if I take your meaning correctly), I would. He knows the issue. Do you think Quinn or Cullerton or Madigan can contest the *facts* against Wayne in a competent manner? OR would they just talk over him and say he’s wrong without saying exactly why he’s wrong? Why do you think Madigan & Co resort to midnight votes in lame duck sessions? Is that because they have mastered the arguments and can make a coherent case? Or is it because that is the way they can overcome ANY argument through exercise of raw power? - walkinfool - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:30 pm: Nekritz is having quite an interesting few weeks. - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:32 pm: @47th you miss my point this isn’t a case of getting someone to write a bill the bill has been written. Ms. Nekritz has to deal with the reality that when she tries to turn this into a may-issue type system then she doesn’t have the votes to pass it. South of I-80 the favorability on CCW is pretty high. Which is my point in order for something to pass votes will need to come from down state as well as the Chicago caucus. So Ms. Nekritz can demand a NY state type law but she can’t pass it. Therefore the opinions of law makers such as McCann and company have a big bearing on this. You say the region thing is B.S. okay that’s your opinion. Myself i think the gun issue is completely regionally see Andy Manar as an example. The only thing him and McElroy didn’t argue about was CCW. - Elderberry - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:34 pm: “The court ruling and the incident at Sandy Hook highlight the need to review Illinois law with an eye toward either making gun ownership and possession less cumbersome on law-abiding citizens or toughening firearm restrictions to better limit gun violence.” Why do you insist on calling this an EITHER/OR situation..?? How come all these “brilliant” legislative minds can’t find a way to do both…?? - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:40 pm: 47th Ward: He is against what is currently being touted as “universal” background checks that - magically - seem to include data on the specific gun to be transferred. He is against that because it constitutes federal registration of all guns as each is transferred. I agree with Wayne. He was for the current system of background checks as an effective way to deny firearm sales to felons and the mentally ill; in fact, is was an NRA proposal. Not the same thing. Again, I agree with Wayne. I do not believe the current “instant” background check process is available to me as a private individual if I sell a gun. Politicians decided the system would be abused by persons not federally licensed to sell guns. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:41 pm: Since when have the anti-gunners stopped calling themselves “gun control” advocates and began calling themselves “gun safety” advocates? The first sign of a liar is when they change their name. Gun rights advocates run gun safety schools, clinic, design gun safes, design gun locks, designed every facet of how guns are made, used, stored, handled and taught. Gun rights advocates recognize the responsibilities of gun ownership and safety. They are the originators of gun safety. So I call “horse hockey” at how a bunch of people intending to regulate, outlaw and control guns are now calling themselves “gun safety” advocates. No one is debating safety here. Stop the PR crap! What’s next? Pro-abortionists calling themselves “reproductive rights” proponents? The first group that does this, are the liars. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:46 pm: Mason born, I hear you and understand your point. But if it is such a regional issue, why does ISRA insist on pre-emption? And I think we’ll see more than one CCW bill, and right now I don’t see any of them getting a supermajority. But a bill that doesn’t impact home rule has an easier path to passage. When push comes to shove on the eve of the court’s deadline, you’ll see enough movement to pass something. My bet is the winning bill will be different from what ISRA wants. At the end of this session, Manar and other downstate legislators will be able to say they voted for CCW and it passed. The folks in Mason County will be pleased with that I’m sure. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:47 pm: Jeeper, Exactly, if they if they really wanted universal background checks even for private transfers they would change the system to allow a gun owner to run a check on who they are selling to . And maybe just print out a “He’s ok” certificate. but they dont. What the pols propose is to make every person to person sale go to a Licensed Gun dealer’s store. PAY THEM to run the exchange and fill out all of the government forms recording the sale and the weapon. Its not about background checks. its about tracking every single weapon. besides, Illinois has no gun show loophole, requires FOID cards, etc. its all a non starter here. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:50 pm: ===No one is debating safety here.== Um, I am http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/17776571-452/miller-theres-no-viable-center-in-state-gun-debate.html - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:54 pm: - Pro-abortionists calling themselves “reproductive rights” proponents? - No one calls themself a pro-abortionist; reproductive rights advocates have always labeled themselves as such. Back in fine form indeed. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:57 pm: Chicago Tonight: They do archive their shows and you can watch them on-line. WRT Todd on the show: I’ve only ever seen them get pro-gun folks that no one heard of before, apparently hoping that they are either nebbish or Bubba. - Rod - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:58 pm: Jeeper what leads you to believe that Senator Raoul’s shell bill SB 1337 once filled in will include new gun transfer rules? Expanding “gun safety laws” as was in the press release may or may not include any change in transfer rules that would impact counties beyond Cook. Both Chicago and Cook county as a whole now have these transfer rules in place. The transfer rules as they now exist in both Cook County and Chicago proper are not enforceable except as a penalty against straw purchases after a killing or shooting once the gun is traced to a buyer in Cook County. At most based on the existing data this might reduce the flow of guns to street gangs and drug crews by 20%. It is likely that guns will be imported from other states so the impact will be short lived. I do not expect on a national level any similar transfer rules will pass the House of Representatives. Puerto Rico which is an island is also a very good example of the failure of this type of policy, it formally has a detailed weapons license law, and formally most people are limited to 2 weapons. The law states: “firearms may only be donated, sold, transferred, assigned, left in the custody, or otherwise conveyed by the transfer of the control or command of the same to persons who own a weapons or gunsmith license.” Sounds good for gun control supporters right, no wrong. Just a few days ago Puerto Rico’s new governor called out National Guard troops to help prevent drug and weapons smuggling. The situation is totally out of control and proportionally, the level of violence in Puerto Rico is higher than in Mexico. Last year there were 26 homicides for every 100,000 Puerto Ricans vs. 18 for every 100,000 Mexicans, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. My home town of Chicago looks pretty good by comparison. As to gun rights supporters that could appear at the Madigan hearings. Richard Pearson ISRA Executive Director or Janina Rybicki ISRA would both make crediable witnesses before the Madigan hearings. What we totally do not need is the return of the Decatur Patriot Militia. I hope they stay home and guard Decatur. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 1:58 pm: @47th Ward: ISRA wants preemption is to prevent the “crazy quilt” patchwork of regulations that BOTH sides claim they want to avoid. Besides, let’s face it: crossing a county line while doing something legal should not turn one into a criminal. Why is it that the opponents of concealed carry are now focused on preemption? Could it be because they have lost the debate on the merits of their arguments and are now attempting a “fighting retreat?” It is still a retreat… - Leave a Light on George - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:15 pm: =So I call “horse hockey” at how a bunch of people intending to regulate, outlaw and control guns are now calling themselves “gun safety” advocates.= My HERO. - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:15 pm: @47th Two things you brought up first why does ISRA want preemption. Well 2 things really without having preemption you create a patchwork of legislation. so i may be legal through the whole state but drive through a relatively small town think Pekin etc. on my way to a place where i would be legal i get pulled over and suddenly i am a criminal. The second reason is while this is a regional issue there are quite a few members of ISRA in Chicago that really want this. In fact allow me to invite you to come and meet a lot of them at IGOLD on March 6th. So trying to get preemption best benefits all it’s members. As for proponents voting for some sort of so-called compromise that restricts their rights in other ways not likely. Now last year at this time i might have agreed with you. I am assuming since Madigan has not outlined what he wants to see i am taking what Quinn has said as his position. Right now with the results of the 7th decision Manar wouldn’t be voting for CCW he would be voting for whatever restrictions the chicago crowd shoved in there. I think we are going to see something much closer to ISRA than to Quinn’s. Think of it like a Poker game ISRA holds 4 Aces and unless something unlikely happens they win. Why would they yield one of those Aces to gain nothing? Quinn and Madigan know that ISRA has the 4 Aces but seem to think they can draw an to inside straight on the river. There just isn’t the leverage that Madigan is used to having. The sooner they realize that we can all sit down and actually start negotiating. For existence i would prefer not to see constitutional carry. I don’t want some kid who has never shot a gun thinking that because he has played xbox he can buy a gun and holster and start carrying. However if my choice is between that or a gun ban, magazine ban, or an unreasonable theft reporting requirement then i choose the Constitutional Carry. BTW i do agree with quinn on one thing the Circuit Clerks need to be reporting on who is adjucated mentally ill. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:15 pm: @Rod (1:58): What makes you think it won’t include the transfer reporting? Governor Quinn saluted the Chicago Police Commissioner for making the proposal during his speech the other day, did he not? Why are you making assumptions on what a SHELL bill will ultimately include in its legal language? I was talking about the proposals already 47th was criticizing WP for supporting before he opposed them and showing that is not the case. - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:15 pm: The Big Dogs are, indeed, in the game. Welcome back VM. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:23 pm: ==No one calls themself a pro-abortionist; reproductive rights advocates have always labeled themselves as such.== I must be older than you, Small Town Liberal. I remember that, leading up to Roe v Wade, they called themselves “pro-abortion” or “abortion advocates” and only changed to “reproductive rights advocates” and “women’s health advocates” and other “value neutral” things when they lost the argument everywhere but in court… “Always” appears to cover a longer time than you seem to think… - walkinfool - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 2:59 pm: VMan: Thanks. You made me laugh out loud. Changing labels is an old trick by both parties. “Less EPA Regulation” became the “Clean Air Act” “Anti-abortion” became “Pro-Life” “Global Warming” became “Climate Change” I could go on and on. Frank Lunz, and other linguists and branding experts, have made careers testing and changing labels on political positions. And so it goes. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:16 pm: ===I am assuming since Madigan has not outlined what he wants to see i am taking what Quinn has said as his position.=== That would be a mistake. ===Think of it like a Poker game ISRA holds 4 Aces and unless something unlikely happens they win.=== With Madigan in the game and Cullerton’s history of opposing ISRA, your four aces are going to lose to a royal flush. You’d be better off negotiating new UUW language to better address situations where a gun owner runs afoul of local laws. I agree with those who think most UUW laws need to be revamped and the penalties lowered from their current status. If you start there, preemption becomes a moot point, doesn’t it? Or you and ISRA can bluff and huff and refuse to compromise. Don’t forget, a may issue law authorizing the ISP to grant permits with loads of training requirements and fees will almost surely meet the court’s requirements. - Rod - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:19 pm: Jeeper I am not making the assumption on what the scope of the shell bill may be, but I think its clear that you and others have convinced yourselfs it will be broad. All of us who have seen the Speaker operate know he is very pragmatic and the scope of the bill will be what he believes can pass. So is it likely all of the issues outlined by the Governor will be put in one basket to sink or swim in one shot? It depends on the vote counts and the many alliances the Speaker has built within the Democratic Party. Some of the Speaker’s closest allies in the House are Democrats that generally support gun rights. A good example is Rep John Bradley from Marion who is an ISRA member if I recall correctly and in the last election included this as part of his platform: “Every year, gun-grabbing politicians try to place more restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. This year was no exception. But Bradley once again stood up to the anti-gun special interests and worked to defeat their radical agenda.” John is a very conservative Democrat and he is the chair of the House Revenue & Finance Committee. I can’t tell you the number of times the Speaker has had dinner with John at Saputo’s, but it has been many times. I don’t know what ISRA has for possible vote counts, but I suspect they are different based on the issue be it the capacity of the clip size, universal gun transfer rules, and concealed carry etc. Its clear something needs to be done on concealed carry because of the 7th Court of Appeals ruling, the other issues may or may not be on the front burner. I sure Democrats like John and others will urge the Speaker to limit the scope of the shell bill. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:31 pm: ==Doesn’t a federal circuit court of appeals ruling trump even “home rule” ordinances? == I don’t believe he said it didn’t. The point that was made was that if a bill isn’t passed then the issue is going right back to court for another few years. You might have concealed carry in the state but you definitely won’t have the same rules across the state. The courts said it had to be allowed. It didn’t say where it had to be allowed. I’ll guarantee you different cities will have different rules as to where you can and cannot carry a gun. So, if you want consistency you better get a bill passed. - Benji - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:40 pm: VMan: Thanks. You made me laugh out loud. “Global Warming” became “Climate Change” “Hope and Change” became “Smoke and Mirrors” - Todd - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:40 pm: Rep. Nekritz is a fair and decent Committee chair. I expect the hearings will go well and be informative for those that attend. The resolution ran out of the Ford task force. According to staff, the pro-carry folks were the only ones that submitted changes and edits. I have copy of that around here somewhere. I have no doubt, that you may see a city bill and the NRA bill hit the floor. As to Rich’s comments about going over the cliff the court has set, today we had a call with the lawyers. They are retained, and if it comes to that, and Oak APrk and others decided to pass their own carry laws, then we are prepared for that and have a legal strategy to deal with it. We introduced a reasonable bill because we believe that their should be a set of rules that everyone can understand; cops, State Attorneys, the public, local governments. what you have now are the anti-gun types, Chicago et el tryign to run around and create as many gun free zones and make it impossible to practically carry. We’ll see how well it works for them, as they don’t have 60 votes. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:47 pm: ===We’ll see how well it works for them, as they don’t have 60 votes.=== I’m guessing you don’t have 71 either Todd. I think a restrictive bill loses and I think a wide open bill loses. But as the deadline gets closer, one is going to pass. It’s probably going to be the one that only needs 60 votes in my opinion. - USMCJanitor - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:50 pm: “Or you and ISRA can bluff and huff and refuse to compromise. Don’t forget, a may issue law authorizing the ISP to grant permits with loads of training requirements and fees will almost surely meet the court’s requirements. ” Uh, I happen to remember you saying that the court wouldnt strike down the existing law, now you plan on telling us what the court will accept? BTW, if you read the ruling posner knocks may issue… he does point it out but does not endorse it. That is reading the ruling with rose colored glasses. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:52 pm: By my count, there are around 200 home rule units in Illinois. If gun rights advocates fail to find a compromise, then Chicago and Cook County will move quickly to enact New York-style gun regulations. Those regulations will then not only become the floor for all statehouse negotiations, as they did with the smoking ban, but also the model for the other 198 or so Home Rule units. And make no mistake, most if not all will consider enacting some measure, because few if any are going to be happy with a status quo that allows concealed weapons in movie theaters, bars, schools, day care centers, churches or parks. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:58 pm: OK Wizard, you got me. I’m the dog in the classic painting with the extra ace in my paw. Let’s make it a straight flush to the king. How about that? - Todd - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 3:59 pm: YDD — the voting block for the gun guys in the legislature is VERY different from the tabbaco guys. Please let Carbondale pass a restrictive carry law, or say Wheaton, or Aruora. Not to mention that you are now dealing with a fundimental consitutional right. it gets a lot greater protections than smoking. I would also remind you that some 10K people will be stopping by the capitol on March 6th - Mason born - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 4:03 pm: YDD Thanks for the info never realized there were 200 of them. That being said I am not sure that moves the needle to think Cook might set policy for the rest. Remember Cook and Chicago had a handgun ban and it didn’t drag the other 198 along, some but not all. Either way it will be an interesting 120 some days. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 4:28 pm: Rod: I haven’t convinced myself what that shell bill WILL turn out to be but I am convinced it will not be acceptable to me in its initial form. That said, I AM certain that Mike Madigan, deal maker that he is, will start off with plenty to trade away and, finally, make a deal by dark of night rather than debate the issue openly. - Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 4:59 pm: “Changing labels is an old trick by both parties. “Less EPA Regulation” became the “Clean Air Act” “Anti-abortion” became “Pro-Life” “Global Warming” became “Climate Change” I could go on and on.” “Semi-automatic Rifle” became “Assault Weapon”. - David Lawson - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 5:09 pm: Some people don’t get it. 997 is the compromise bill. Last session I was involved in drafting 148. At that time, my perspective was to draft the most stringent bill that most gun owners in IL would consider. We were betrayed and then strung along for the rest of the session waiting for Ford’s report. All we got was slapped in the face. Then we got a bombshell ruling from Posner. If you haven’t read it, you should. I agree that we aren’t going to revert to FOID carry in June. That simply isn’t something possible in IL in this era. But we are in a much stronger position than last session. 997 is drafted with that in mind. That said, it still has many features that the nanny-staters want. Speaking personally, there are a few things that are negotiable to some degree. From speaking to many gun owners across the state, I’d say that 997 is something at least a majority of gun owners can agree to. I think there are some small changes that a plurality would accept. However, what passes will have to be substantially similar to 997. - Rod - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 5:20 pm: Jeeper I don’t like the shell bill stuff. For sure if there had been an open process HB 190 would have not looked like it did with extra money for earmarks. It’s the reality of the legistative process. But there are now two full concealed carry bills filed and they will in some way have to be addressed at these hearings. I hope gun rights supporters can control themselves at the hearings and many gun rights supporters actually show up in suits as opposed to hunting gear with NRA hats. Showing respect for the legislative process is important and creates a different image of gun owners in general. I understand how people feel I live in Chicago and have to fill out many a form, but regardless of the passion decorum is critical. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 5:25 pm: YDD: I trust my fellow citizens for the most part, as do the other supporters of CCW that I know. Conversely, the gun control advocates that I personally know, do not. They believe they are smart enough to know reasonable behavior but their fellow citizens are not. Further, they believe their fellow citizens to be slaves of their base impulses while they, alone, are beings on a higher moral plane. How do you feel about your fellow citizens? Do downstate Democrats agree with me? Maybe; we’ll have to see. - Capt'n Ron - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 5:30 pm: YDD, If the time runs out, it would be a mess and a few homerule areas would do as you say but the vast majority (particularly downstate) would not. No one wants to have the mess that letting the time run out would create, but we will not give away the store in order to avoid it. HB0997 has been well written and has made concessions that those on the “pro” side would rather not have. I don’t think that you are going to find anyone willing to make any more, other than some minor changes, in the offer that we are willing to accept. A mess created by letting the court ordered time limit prevail would be preferable to voting for and accepting the extreme measures that the Chicago pols would like to impose. - Jeeper - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 5:45 pm: Rod: There is one full CCW bill and one empty shell bill filed, unless I have missed one. While I agree that decorum is important, I think our legislators, particularly those in leadership, have forgotten that they - lawyers though most of them are - work for us, not the other way around, regardless of what they think about how we are dressed. - steve schnorf - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 6:38 pm: I would only say to the concealed carry advocates, this is probably an good time to keep some of your more enthusiastic members under wraps. They scare the s__t out of a lot of people who otherwise would be in the middle on this issue. Cammies, full body armor and face paint won’t win points going forward. Neither will passionate testimony about their gun being the only thing that stands between the people and government tyranny. I would vet the 10k pretty carefully, or at least be careful who I let near cameras and mics. - dupage dan - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 6:50 pm: === Cammies, full body armor and face paint won’t win points going forward === Gun rights advocates take note - no pow-wow. - Anonymous - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 7:03 pm: I don’t think I could have said it any better that Schnorf. You are not going to get a reasoned, intelligent response from anybody if you let the kooks run wild. Don’t let those people be the face of the argument. While they are in the very small minority who do you think the press is going to report on if they are among the “advocates?” It would probably be less scary to people if the gun groups would disavow those people because, whether you like it or not, the majority of your average, everyday citizen think that this “government’s coming after me” stuff is way out there. And the same goes for the other side. Keep the crazy uncles at home. - Demoralized - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 7:03 pm: Sorry. That was me above. - Sgtstu - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 7:52 pm: Rod - Showing respect for the legislative process Are you serious ? Who are you ? Very few people in this State have ANY repect for what is suppose to be a legislative process in Illinois. The Legislative process in this State is behind a closed door with Mike Madigan. - Anonymouse - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 9:53 pm: The last CC bill (I believe 148) had enough votes to pass- just a few short to override Quinns veto. HB0997 and SB1284 Will have enough votes to pass- If quinn decides to veto it-well that is his problem… Constitutional carry will be the order of the day- either way the anit gun crowd lose lose lose. There is no negotiation necessary. - Etown - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 10:41 pm: Once again Schnorf hits the nail on the head. Be careful about who gets in front of camera on ISRA lobby day. Perhaps consider a person other than a white male over 40 who is from a rural area - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Feb 7, 13 @ 11:47 pm: Todd & Jeeper - I know that the “tobacco” bloc is very different from the gun bloc. But let’s keep in mind that the “tobacco” bloc was really more of the bar/restaurant bloc, and its was pretty big once too. Heck, waaaay back in 2004, lawmakers from both parties tried and failed to pass legislation allowing local governments to regulate indoor smoking. Now, it’s banned everywhere. Things change quick. To your second point: I don’t know about Carbondale. Last time I checked, most of their students are from the Northern part of the state, and I imagine there’s a fair number of folks who will think twice about sending their kids to a university that allows concealed weapons on campus…even in the classroom. More importantly, I don’t think this is a fight the NRA wants or can ever win. You’ve spent your resources preparing to fight traditional political wars. Is your traditional army really prepared to fight insurgencies all over the state? Where you won’t be taking on “Mayor Daley” or the “Big City Liberals,” but rather local soccer moms? Finally, I wouldn’t rely too much on previous rollcalls. First of all, a bunch of those folks aren’t around anymore. Secondly, Chicago members who were leaning toward the NRA this time last year just are not going to be with you this year, I expect. Mayor Emanuel and most importantly, their constituents will see to that. Pass a compromise, declare victory. - Mason born - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 5:29 am: YDD As has been said 997 is a compromise. what you are calling for is surrender. Not going to happen. As for SIU most parents are going to have ti accept there are ccw around their kids everywhere they go. As for on campus i think if the Constitutional Carry passes it will be in june and MJM will be back in july ready to pass anything. - the Patriot - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 8:30 am: People in Southern Illinois are not going to be swayed because home rule cities can enact a gun ordinance if no bill passes. We are tired of watching kids die in the streets because Chicago politicians hold on to failed policies and using that as an excuse to infringe on our rights. If Chicagoan want to continue to let their kids die, you can’t put that on downstaters. SIU is not a good example. They have a lot of problems, one of which is crime. I don’t know if it is fact, but the perception is the problem is the students from Chicago that are bringing their way of life South. So I don’t think the fact that less people will send their kids to SIU from Chicago will help either. I think Carbondale would pass a ban. Home rule cities need to figure out gun control makes your city more dangerous not safer. The reason the gun control bills can’t pass is there is no evidence to show they work. - Mason born - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 9:38 am: YDD Actually now that i think about it Wash U., SLU, and MO state seem to be doing just fine. - Endangered Moderate Species - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 10:32 am: Sgtstu- Regardless of how you feel about the legislative process. It is important to consider the advice on how the pro-gun supporters present themselves during the hearings. The Deer and Turkey Classic took place last weekend in Springfield and I was concerned with many of the bumper stickers and t-shirts many of the young men were displaying. Now, is not the time for in-your-face rage. The public perception about guns is changing and those of us whom are gun rights supporters must be smart about presenting our views or we may be a catalyst to losing our gun rights. - Capt'n Ron - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 12:14 pm: Bumper Stickers? Really? Name any pro-gun rally that was miles and miles more sane and respectful of decorum and anything that an Occupy group has ever been involved in. Even that gun rights rant from the Decatur Militia was better than Occupy. But I am sure that someone has contacted that individual and had a meeting of the minds. Other than that, the pro-gun lobby is middle America and we only need to be ourselves. I admit though, that while camo is everyday wear in some communities, it tends to freak out anal-retentive ciy folk. - Jeeper - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 12:56 pm: @Rod: You were correct; there are 2 bills (HB0997 and SB1284) plus the shell, SB1337. However, the only differences a text comparison tool found between HB0997 and SB1284 were the sponsorship line and the page headers. - Endangered Moderate Species - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:22 pm: Capt’n Ron- How successful was the Occupy movement? Did the Occupy Movement create a groundswell of support? I rest my case. The hearings are not being held at the Village Hall. They are being conducted in front of people whose impressions of pick-up truck and camo hats may not be positive ones. Lets be smart. - David Lawson - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:30 pm: The thing is, you can’t keep the crazies away. It’s a free country and they show up where they want. Do you think the Democrats wanted Code Pink disrupting Brennan’s confirmation hearing? I doubt it. - wordslinger - Friday, Feb 8, 13 @ 1:36 pm: –Do you think the Democrats wanted Code Pink disrupting Brennan’s confirmation hearing?– I would hope both Democrats and Republicans would have wanted that. It’s about time this issue got to the front-burner. In the interesting times we live in, it’s been beyond me how more folks haven’t raised the roof over a president assuming the power to assassinate United States citizens and his Justice Department giving a pass to the gangsters who crashed the world economy. There was a time when the national Republican Party would have run hard against such a record, not promise more of the same. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.