72 Comments - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 9:58 am: As long as you can get a downstate permit that legalizes you in the northern violence zone….. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:02 am: Yeah, I went through the amendment line by line that asked for the good reason… it never mentioned defense of ones self as a “good reason” instead it asked for documentation of times you felt threatened, were injured, and copies of police reports or restraining orders… So he can say its like indiana’s BUT using a couple of words and ignoring the rest changes the meaning. Words mean things. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:08 am: I sure hope “I live in Chicago” is a proper reason, because it should be. - Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:13 am: Please don’t let the facts get in the way of the paranoia. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:14 am: @Chicago Cynic 10:13 Can you elaborate on which facts you are referring to and what paranoia specifically? - train111 - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:14 am: It could be lifted verbatim from Indiana’s law. Still expecting hyperventalated response from ISRA and NRA in T minus 5,4,3,….. - Just Observing - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:18 am: Ok.. maybe Indiana’s statute has that clause, but the real question is how often Indiana authorities are denying permits to otherwise law abiding citizens? It may be hardly ever, whereas if Illinois includes such a cause, authorities might be very quick to deny permits because they don’t feel the person faces a threat. NYC has denied permits to otherwise law abiding citizens that faced legitimate concerns for their safety while issuing permits to the rich and famous. - Leave a Light on George - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:19 am: Here are a few other words lifted from the Indiana law. “The”, ‘”a”, “it” “.” - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:22 am: @Train111 its not a forklift of indiana law. They too the phrase “Good Reason” and ignored the definition of good reason for the Indian law completely. Its a head fake. like naming a bill “The Pro-Choice Bill” and then having little in it that is pro choice. The actual content and wording beyond a couple of words means something. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:23 am: Ron, I suspect Chicago Cynic was reacting to the anti-Chicago whining of the Anon poster that started this thread. We get it. Some person too afraid to post even a fake name is afraid to come to Chicago. That’s not exactly news. But to the merits — Kwame raises some interesting points. Too bad he didn’t raise them two years ago, when the NRA was looking for a deal. Now that a 7th Circuit decision is in place, it is a bit late. Kwame really needs to realize that the NRA holds the cards, and the NRA holds the cards because people like Kwame failed to negotiate when they had the possibility of a good deal. Chicago Dems dropped the ball on this one. OK, move on. Take whatever deal Todd will be nice enough to extend. Realize that the game has been lost. - walkinfool - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:24 am: Words do matter. Would the opponents support this section if it were worded substantially identical to the Indiana statute? Or would we be afraid to copy those out-of-control Liberals in our neighboring state? - train111 - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:28 am: I guess when it comes to legislation, it all depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:29 am: @ Walkin If you fork lifted the Indiana law almost completely (obviously with some adjustments because of our FOID system and what not). I Think the gun-owning community would be fine with that. Oh there will still be some that dont want any permit, no gun free zones at all (and I have my own problem with certain GFZs to be honest). but for the most part we would take an Indiana law is my guess. Or even a Wisconsin one… Both decent examples. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:30 am: ===maybe Indiana’s statute has that clause=== There’s no “maybe” about it. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:38 am: @Walkin I would count as one of the opponents. I think Indiana’s law is a good compromise. The problem comes down to all of us trying to form opinions before we can look at the language. If Raouls bill spelled out that precise “good reason” then yes that seems on the surface to be good. Of course if that is the valid reason it seems everyone has it why have the language at all? I also like the definitions that Indiana puts on their law for good character might add known affiliation with a gang but otherwise covers all the bases. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:40 am: Rich SJR was reporting yesterday that the Raoul bill was going in for a rewrite prior to being brought up for debate. Do we know if this is Minor Tweeks or a new bill in all but name? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:42 am: ===Do we know if this is Minor Tweeks or a new bill in all but name? === Yes. Subscribe. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:48 am: Rich Thanks need to get that too you. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 10:52 am: @Mason The amendment that was out there looking for “good Reason” did not define it like Indiana. Actually here is what I saw: —- Section 30 (contents of application) Sub B(17) an explanation of the applicant’s proper reason for and intended use of the firearm, including descriptions of any incident in which the applicant has been threatened or injured, or copies of police reports, orders of protection, or civil stalking no contact orders. —– There was nothing defining good reason. Very much a maryland or NY style may issues where the issuing authority determines if you have a good enough reason. not matching Indiana. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:06 am: We won’t take it. They want us to trust a government that won’t process FOIDs in the allotd time and could care less. They want us to trust an administration that opposes any real carry bill. So the answer is NO. We don’t trust them even if it is word for word from indiana - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:08 am: ==Very much a maryland or NY style may issues where the issuing authority determines if you have a good enough reason.== And those laws are still in effect and, as a matter of fact, the NY law has been found to be acceptable by the courts. While I think the proposal working its way through the GA is not a good one nobody can say that it is not an acceptable one under the law. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:08 am: Do we really want to be like those gun grabbing liberals in Indiana? With language like that the Indiana Government can only have one intent, to take people’s guns away from them. This of course would leave them helpless and unable to defend themselves. Was snark encouraged? The problem with the judges do what they did to us was that they put way too much power into the gun lobby’s hands by requiring the State pass a law, which just allows the gun lobby to try and kill legislation that does give them everything they want. Hopefully the judges recognize their error and move to correct this judicial over reach. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:10 am: ===We don’t trust them even if it is word for word from indiana === OK, now all you folks who said the NRA would take the deal, please come back and explain. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:10 am: @Todd: You say no, huh. Didn’t know your permission was needed. I’m tired of the arrogance exhibited by some. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:14 am: ==And those laws are still in effect and, as a matter of fact, the NY law has been found to be acceptable by the courts. While I think the proposal working its way through the GA is not a good one nobody can say that it is not an acceptable one under the law.== The problem is the bill is essentially the same as Cassidy’s bill that failed in the house with what 31 votes. I don’t think anyone is arguing that it doesn’t meet legal standing. The problem is the majority of legislators won’t accept a may-issue bill. I think that is why before the language came out Raoul was calling it Shall issue. He apparently missed the part in Indiana that made it shall issue i.e. the definition of need. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:17 am: Demoralized, Todd can say no because Todd has a court order. If there is no bill, Todd gets all that he wants. As I noted above, the time to go to Todd was in about 2010. Chicago Dems, as they tend to do, did nothing. They did nothing on pensions. They did nothing on the budget. They did nothing on crime. And they did nothing on guns (but yet they still got paid, which is odd but that’s another matter). And the cases progressed. And Todd won. He’s now holding the cards. You may not like it, but don’t blame Todd for winning. Blame Chicago Dems for repeatedly passing on serious negotiations. Actions have consequences. They failed to negotiate. Those lost the case. Now Todd can do what he wants. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:17 am: Todd Please explain why if it is word-for-word with Indiana we should reject it? The only possible reason i could think is that someone could amend the Definition of “need”. If that is our fear nothing will pass muster because any bill could be amended into the scrap heap in the future. Make no mistake I would prefer 997. But the Indiana law isn’t exactly heinous. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:20 am: ===So the answer is NO. We don’t trust them even if it is word for word from indiana.=== That’s the kind of attitude that is going to lead to shrinking roll call as June 8th gets closer. Are all of your supporters in lock step with you against this reasonable language? The other side only needs to flip about 10 or so of your pluses to get to 60. Being strident in the face of reasonable language, from Indiana of all places, is putting some of your Reps in a bad spot. If this bill gets filed with this language, you’re going to look really silly being opposed to it. If you have problems with FOID processing time, now would be a good time to bring those issues to the table. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:26 am: ==Now Todd can do what he wants. == He can say he won’t agree to something but he can’t do what he wants unless he was elected to office and I don’t know about it. I understand the power of lobbyists and specifically the power of Todd as a lobbyist. But I find such statements arrogant. I’m sorry, but I do. And I still think that June 9 isn’t the panacea that everybody thinks it will be. Concealed carry will come but I think the legal mess that will follow when local government start enacting their own ordinances will be a nightmare. I think it’s in the best interest of everybody to get something done. Unfortunately I don’t think the players on either side agree with that sentiment. And, as I said, I think it’s a bad bill. I have no issue with concealed carry. I have an issue with the attitudes of people on both sides. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:31 am: And all this time I thought proponents just wanted Illinois to be like on of the “other 49 states.” –If there is no bill, Todd gets all that he wants.– If all that he wants is home rule; local governments covering 70% of the population writing their own ordinances. The NRA and ISRA don’t win much in Illinois except occasionally in court. Without a state law, they’ll be going to court a lot. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:32 am: Demoralized – All those local ordinances? The court will stay them the minute the NRA walks into court. It will be another waste of our money. It will be fine for the NRA though, because the NRA probably will end up with an award of attorneys fees. Again. So no, I don’t view the threat of a lot of local ordinances to be a major problem for Todd. Time for people to make some minor face-saving tweaks to the Phelps bill and then get it passed. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:37 am: ===All those local ordinances? The court will stay them the minute the NRA walks into court.=== And you base that on what, exactly? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:40 am: ===So he can say its like indiana’s BUT using a couple of words and ignoring the rest changes the meaning.=== If anything, the Indiana law is much more vague. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:42 am: –All those local ordinances? The court will stay them the minute the NRA walks into court.– Huh? What’s a “stay” of a local ordinance? Beyond that, from my experience, the courts don’t do anything “the minute” anyone walks into court. Takes a lot of time and effort. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:43 am: ===I have no issue with concealed carry. I have an issue with the attitudes of people on both sides. === Amen. - Bigtwich - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:45 am: -The court will stay them the minute the NRA walks into court- Since you have not seen any of the ordinances you must be of the opinion that no regulation is permitted. You are wrong. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:47 am: Demoralized– we get a say because it is our issue ans we represent the vast majority of gun owners perspective. And if we don’t like it, we will tell our members in the districts about it and how a legislator voted to screw them. Quite frankly, your opinion is irrelevent to what will happen. I really don’t care if you like it or not. As Hemry has pointed out, we went to court and won. And we will go to court again if need be. We would love to have the opportunity to have Paul Clement argue this before the Supremes. Mason- is a matter of trust. We don’t trust Quinn, the AG or others to do the right thing. They haven’t wanted to deal in good faith upmto this point. The Senate President has said he does not want to deal with the NRA on this issue. Look atnthe video gaming as an example of how Quinn bungled that cause he wasn’t thrilled with it. Look at the FOID card and their refusal to procss them inaccordance with the law. Look to what Chicago has done after loosing lawsuit after lawsuit. Is there good faith to comply? The Court said what thenthumbing of the municipal nose at the Court if I recall so since we are dealing with unreasonable people whose sole goal to to try nd prevent as many people from exercising their fundimentally protected right, why should we trust them tomdomthe right thing? They haven’t done it so far. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:49 am: Good point, Word. I got lazy with the wording. The court will stay enforcement of the ordinance pending further hearing. It may well take some time to get to hearing (particularly if one sides asks to put on evidence), but a court will issue the order that the ordinance not be enforced until there is a hearing. - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:52 am: Big, Actually a well written ordinance likely would survive. But so far I haven’t seen much of a push by anybody to draft one that would survive. - John Boch - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:53 am: Kwame is playing semantics at best and is just disingenuous at worst. I’d be perfectly happy with an Indiana law in IL. Why stop with the tiny section Kwame is citing. Why not including the whole thing: – Affordable… $30 for 4-year license or $60 for lifetime license. – No training requirement. Training is recommended, but not required. – Pre-emption. Locals may not ban carry or carry in government buildings with narrow few exceptions – Very limited prohibited locations. – Zero wait. Go to your local sheriff’s station, fill out an application and they present you a license a few minutes later after running your background through the computer. – No “Duty to Inform” during police stops. Kwame is just playing games. Guns Save Life and the NRA are probably pretty close to side by side in opposition to anything from a legislator (Kwame) who thinks a stock is a firearm during a hearing earlier this year. No, this Indiana citation is just part of the game. ISRA will also be opposed, I’m pretty sure, only with more exciting verbiage. John - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:53 am: –The court will stay enforcement of the ordinance pending further hearing.– I don’t think courts work that way. And different jurisdictions and judges are hardly predictable. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 11:59 am: Todd Thanks for responding. I can see where you are coming from. The problem is at some point there has to be good faith on both sides. when that happens maybe things will get resolved. Meanwhile thanks for the hard work. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:02 pm: – No “Duty to Inform” during police stops.– What’s the rationale for this? I’m at a loss. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:06 pm: Gosh, that nice man from Chicago lifted it word for word from Indiana compiled statutes and it’s not good enough? Hmm, Indiana does not have two versions of their law, one for Indiana and the other for Chicago. Not even one for Indiana and the other for Indy. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:10 pm: @Todd: My opinion may not matter but I do have a right to that opinion. You just illustrated my point once again with that arrogant statement. Attitudes matter to those of us who remain somewhat rational on this issue. I know you could care less what I think. Continue to be arrogant if you want. If that gets you somewhere then so be it. Like I said, I’m tired of the attitudes by everybody. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:13 pm: “Duty to Inform” sounds nice, and allegedly to protect LEOs. However, LEOs can’t rely on someone volunteering the info when they’re carrying, especially when they are encountering bad guys. “Duty to Inform” can create situations where a few bad acting LEOs can abuse power and arrest or shoot someone who is carrying (such as in “Driving while black”) and claim that they were not informed. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:21 pm: –”Duty to Inform” can create situations where a few bad acting LEOs can abuse power and arrest or shoot someone who is carrying (such as in “Driving while black”) and claim that they were not informed.– C’mon man. Isn’t it just common sense safety? - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:23 pm: Demoralized, you keep talking about arrogance. In fact, isn’t it arrogant for Chicago Dems to keep making demands when a court has ruled against them? Or refusing to negotiate in good faith before the court ruled? That seems pretty arrogant to me. - RonOglesby - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:26 pm: @Wordslinger Duty to inform (or DTI) is often argued in the gun community as potentially escalating things like simple traffic stops. You get pulled over for 41 in 35. The officer comes up and you must inform him you are carrying. Often (not always) in states where CCW is new, you (someone that has done nothing but speeding) are asked out of the car, placed in the position, patted down, weapon secured, and in some cases placed in the back of a locked squad car. Until the officer decides you can get out and get your speeding ticket. Does it happen always? no. I was in texas last year, informed a cop that pulled me over I had my pistol and gave him my CCW w/ my Drivers license. The cop asked where it was and just said, well dont touch it, ok? Gun owners dont want simple traffic stops to turn out like described above, so often as “Why, if I have done nothing criminal” do I have to inform the officer and surrender my weapon” and all that goes along with that. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:31 pm: @Henry: They don’t have a right to try and get their ideas into the bill? I’ve already said that I don’t think it’s a good bill. But I also do not believe what they are attempting to do goes against anything the court said. There are restrictive CC laws out there. I can’t speak to what happened before the ruling and it’s really irrelevant now. If you can’t see the arrogance of all sides then you don’t have your eyes open. - Todd - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:40 pm: Todd Thanks for responding. I can see where you are coming from. The problem is at some point there has to be good faith on both sides. when that happens maybe things will get resolved. Meanwhile thanks for the hard work. What domyou think we have been doing? We introduced bills, we sat down with people and even moved on a number of issues. We seem to be the only ones dealing in good faith. We didnt need to introduce a bill, but we did. We didn’t need to put up amendment 27 but we did. We didn’t need to retool 997 but we did. And we have ben willing to talk to anyone but some people don’t want to sit and talk with us. Ok so be it. Demoralizd– you are entitled to what ever opinion you want. You may not like the fact that I get a say in what happens on this issue, but I do and the people I represent do too. You may not like my attitude, but after all the games played, I’m not in the mood to play patticake and have luci pull the ball out from infront of me anymore. So yes i maybe gruff and short and you can call it arrogant if you like. After winning in court last year, my patience runs thin with people who think we have to be the ones to take what ever gets put infront of us. And while the Supremes turned away a challenge to the New York law, it has little bearing on the ruling of the 7th circuit. And i and many others don’t see how the Kwame proposal passes muster with the court. And while going past the June 9th deadline may not be perfect, we are not affraid of it. And seeing what Chicago and Cook have proposed and what chicago has done with their ordinance I’m pretty sure we can win an injunction. Lets not forget that after Heller when we threatened to sue Morton Grove and others they folded like a house of cards. Only Oak Park and Chicago stuck it out and that cost them about $1.3 million. Chicago paid out $125,000 on the Gowder case we won at trial for denying a chicago firearms permit. If I recall correctly, evey federal case we have brought in Illinois, we have prevailed at the end of the case. - Boondocks - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:47 pm: @ Demoralized… I understand you don’t like the “tone” of the debate, but until the Judge Posner’s ruling, the arrogance from the anti-gun side was deafening. They had an opportunity to get a more restrictive CC law on the books prior to the 7th’s ruling, and with the begrudged support of the NRA….but they arrogantly refused to budge on the ban. Whether or not SCOTUS has any issues with a “may” issue versus a “shall” issue CC law, the anti-gun forces in this state have lost the ability to push their agenda BECAUSE OF THIER ARROGANCE IN THE PAST. The pro-gun forces are in the driver’s seat and need not compromise any further….you can call it arrogance if you wish, I call it WINNING! - HenryVK - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 12:49 pm: Demoralized, A year ago, before the 7th Circuit ruled, I would have agreed that anybody not negotiating was arrogant. But now one side has won. When you have a court order in your pocket, it is no longer arrogant. - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 1:06 pm: @Word I agree that informing LEO that you are carrying is common sense. I do in any state if i am carrying. I usually hand my Carry lisense with my Drivers lisence (both of which i can’t spell)as soon as i can hand them to the LEO. The only time i have ever heard of this being an issue is a timing thing. I.E. LEO doesn’t think the individual informed him in an appropriate period. I believe John was simply quoting the Indiana Statute. Other states are significantly different. I think AZ allows the Officer to confiscate the weapon for the duration of the stop at which point he has to return it. BTW never lead in with “I have a Gun”. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 1:56 pm: If Kwame had only stood at the Lincoln Steps and said: “I want to bring Indiana CCW to all of Illinois”, he would have made lots of friends right away and we would just be waiting for the governor’s veto. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:00 pm: @Boondocks: All I will say is to repeat my comment earlier: I think the attitudes of all sides stinks. It’s almost juvenile the way all of this has and is being handled. I think that’s a shame. - Ken_in_Aurora - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:11 pm: Sen. Raoul (or his staffer) is either being deceptive or incompetent when he emphasizes the Indiana lineage of the bill’s text. I know where my bet lies. - Tasty Grouper - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:13 pm: ==And those laws are still in effect and, as a matter of fact, the NY law has been found to be acceptable by the courts.== No, it actually hasn’t. The Supreme Court denied cert, which means only that they did not want to hear that particular case. It does not stand as an endorsement of the 2nd Circuit’s opinion. There are many who believe that the Court wants the Moore v. Madigan case, because it would present a nice clean case to issue a bright line rule concerning the right to carry a firearm in public places for the purposes of self-defense . - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:21 pm: @Tasty: Yes, actually, it was found acceptable by the courts insofar as the 2nd Circuit’s opinion being allowed to stand. The Supreme Court may not have provided and opinion but the denial of cert allowed the lower court decision to stand pending a Supreme Court ruling on another case. I wish the Supreme Court would deal with the issue. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:26 pm: –The Supreme Court denied cert, which means only that they did not want to hear that particular case. It does not stand as an endorsement of the 2nd Circuit’s opinion.– It let the law stand. How is that not an endorsement? The idea that the Supremes are shopping for a particular case is silly. Once they grab a case on any subject matter, they can do as they please. Who’s going to stop them? The Super-Duper Supreme Court? - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:28 pm: >>>>>> The idea that the Supremes are shopping for a particular case is silly. They do that a lot. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:35 pm: –They do that a lot.– Says who? If four justices wanted to assert a federal Constitutional right to conceal-carry, the New York law would served their purpose just fine. - Mongo - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:42 pm: The two sides are, eventually, going to have to lower the rhetoric a notch…and trust each other. Is ISRA really saying that even though most of the language in this bill comes from Indiana, it won’t consider it because, well, because? - Mason born - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 2:49 pm: Mongo Most of the language in this bill doesn’t come from Indiana. Just the line about character and need. The whole part about Indiana is all about trying to sell it. This bill, after looking at it, has more in common with Cassidy’s bill that was defeated two weeks ago then Indiana’s. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 3:43 pm: Maybe we should all support an appeal to the Supreme Court and we can get the final verdict on weather conceal carry is “constitutional right.” It’s inevitable, we’re just prolonging it. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 4:08 pm: Regardless of what Bill passes, will Gov. Quinn veto it? Will the votes be there to overturn it? - reformer - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 4:15 pm: Demoralized It’s not arrogance if Todd has the votes to kill any “may issue” bill for Cook County. We’ll find out before the end of May. - John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 4:43 pm: >>>>>> The idea that the Supremes are shopping for a particular case is silly. They waited 70 years from Miller to Heller. The decision in one case, I think it was Printz, had Clarence Thomas practically begging for a good 2nd Am case. - Bemac - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 6:17 pm: People don’t live under the effects of statutory language; they live under the effects of statutory language as interpreted and implemented by their elected officials. Even with the same statutory language, I would expect IL officials to interpret and implement its provisions in a far more anti-gun manner than our neighbors to the east. - Juvenal - Tuesday, Apr 30, 13 @ 6:34 pm: Anon: Springfield has a higher violent crime rate than Chicago. I can name atleast a dozen communities in downstate Illinois that are more dangerous than the worst neighborhoods in Chicago. Ever been in Bardolph after dark? facts simply are not on your side. - Logic not emotion - Wednesday, May 1, 13 @ 9:33 am: Juvenal: Never heard of Bardolph until your post; but its population was apparently 253 as of the 2000 census. It does have some bad numbers; but one big family dispute could skew the percentages dramatically with a pop that small. I think we could all agree that there are certain areas throughout Illinois where one is at higher risk of being a victim of violent crime. Areas within Chicago are the poster child for that simply based upon the sheer numbers and Chicago’s extremely strict firearms laws. Logic - John Burch - Thursday, May 2, 13 @ 3:09 pm: Duty to Inform w/criminal penalties was not placed in the bill by Kwame and Madigan or Rahm, it was placed in Phelps original HB148 in 2011, the NRA contract lobbyist put it there. Now we have a Federal Court order and Phelps wants to not only pass a ccw bill, but get the endorsement of the good old boys and Chief of Police. Leave DTI in the bill, and NRA will make a ton of money “correcting” the bad provision in HB997, using people like Gowder and McDonald as cannon fodder. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.