Springfield council talks about drop dead date
Thursday, May 16, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Bloomington and Normal haven’t yet started talking about what could happen if home rule units are given the power to add areas to the state’s concealed carry off-limits list, as has been proposed by Sen. Kwame Raoul…
Bloomington Mayor Tari Renner said it’s premature to comment on Raoul’s idea.
“As a city, as a community, we haven’t even begun to have this conversation yet,” he said. “We don’t know what the repercussions of this would be.”
Normal Mayor Chris Koos said he couldn’t comment without having discussed the issue with the City Council or seeing the context of it within the overarching legislation.
* But the Springfield city council discussed last night what might happen if the General Assembly fails to act by June 9th and the state’s public carry laws are struck down as unconstitutional. From an e-mail sent to me by Springfield Ald. Sam Cahnman…
I along with a number of other Alderman plan to introduce an ordinance to regulate concealed carry in the event the General Assembly fails to act by the June 9th deadline.
As you know, we are a home rule unit. The ordinance would probably honor concealed carry permits from other jurisdictions and allow other Illinois residents to carry if they have a FOID card. It will probably allow business to prohibit carry in their establishment if they got on a computer list and posted the appropriate sign.
It may exclude certain public buildings from the right to carry, like the courthouse and maybe the Capitol Building, or we may just leave it up to the governmental entity that occupies the building, State or County.
We discussed this at our meeting last night of the Committee of the Whole of the City Council.
* By the way, Sen. Raoul penned a Sun-Times op-ed about his bill…
I have spoken with both victims of gun violence and Second Amendment advocates, and this week I will introduce the Gun Safety and Responsibility Act. This bill satisfies the court order, while meeting the critical need for reasonable gun safety laws in the communities most affected by violence.
In Chicago, where we experience the bulk of gun violence, this law would put in place additional layers of security before a person could receive a concealed-carry permit. Not only would the Illinois State Police have to approve the application, but the Chicago Police superintendent also would have to sign off on it.
This system would pose no threat to law-abiding citizens. People with criminal records or a history of mental illness still would be barred from owning firearms. People with licenses would be prohibited from carrying guns in sensitive areas such as schools, child-care centers, hospitals, sports arenas and establishments that serve alcohol. Private businesses and property owners could prohibit people from carrying guns on their property. […]
But the recent showdown in Washington over universal background checks has exposed the intransigence of extremist opponents of common-sense legislation. They stand in the way of any firearm regulation, no matter how reasonable. They count on an energized minority to thwart the will of the rest of us, but it won’t happen here.
* Related…
* State police prepping for concealed carry law
* I-Team: Illinois police enter emergency contract to process gun card applications
- Really - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 9:58 am:
Too bad his suntimes article is generalities. No details. very little transparency in law making.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:00 am:
And the local ordinance circus begins.
==we may just leave it up to the governmental entity that occupies the building, State or County==
I’m pretty sure that law or no law, ordinance or no ordiance, nobody’s carrying a gun into a courthouse or any state building. “Please place your gun into the basket and pass through the metal detector. Sir, I think your keys are setting it off. Take them out and try again. Ok, thank you. Here’s your gun back. Enjoy your day.”
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:01 am:
==very little transparency in law making. ==
You can read EVERY SINGLE BILL AND AMENDMENT on the GA’s website. You can listen to debate on the floor from the website. You can even see some committee hearings on the website. It’s nobody’s fault but your own if you can’t manage to use the tools available to you.
- Really - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:04 am:
@demoralized…
no you cant, not this one. we cant get a copy of the current one. They are keeping it under wraps. Believe me as I do read EVERY SINGLE ONE (with regards to ccw or firearms) when it comes out.
Show me hist current bill/amendment. Its not out there. or wasnt as of last night.
Niove caps when you dont know what you are talking about.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:07 am:
Contingency planning is always a good idea.
You have to wonder though, if no state law is passed by June 9, whether the judges on the court of appeals really want to wear the jacket for opening this can of worms, split as they were on the subject.
Posner’s opinion seemed to invite an appeal to the Supremes. Absent of that, I wonder if there is any contingency planning in the AGs office to stay the court of appeals ruling to give the GA more time, if need be.
I guess we’ll find out. But we’re approaching the point where the players will have to flip their hole cards.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:12 am:
@Really:
It hasn’t been introduced yet. Notice he said he will be introducing it this week? It’s not my problem if you are incapable of reading comprehension. I’m sorry he didn’t get the memo that you get an advance copy of something that hasn’t yet been introduced.
- Really - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:14 am:
@demoralized,
ahh. I forget. all bills shoudl be built in a back room with out participation from the other side, on a complex issue with probably 100+ pages of legal text! Then senators shoudl be asked to vote on it with little notice!!! thanks. You do you side justice and show how it really works.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:15 am:
OK, move along. You can’t read a bill that hasn’t been introduced. Period. End of story.
Move along.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:18 am:
@Really:
Here’s how the process works genius. Somebody or some group drafts a bill. It’s introduced. Everybody gets a chance to look at the bill. Some are debated on longer than others. If you don’t like it then you vote no. It’s pretty simple. There’s more than 1 bill on CC and guns. I’m sorry you weren’t asked to participate in drafting all of them. Grow up.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:19 am:
Sorry Rich. No more back and forth from me.
- Small Town Liberal - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:20 am:
Demoralized, what is your problem? Really would like more details of what Raoul has been working on, and correctly notes that the article doesn’t provide any.
Negotiating deals in private doesn’t necessarily bother me, but you certainly can’t call it transparent.
- Really - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:20 am:
@demo
whatever.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:23 am:
–I’m pretty sure that law or no law, ordinance or no ordiance, nobody’s carrying a gun into a courthouse or any state building.–
I wouldn’t presume that.
In Texas, everyone entering the state capitol has to go through metal detectors. But if you have a c-c permit, you can avoid the line. That led to a rush for c-c permits just for convenience sakes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/guns-get-a-pass-at-texas-capitol.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:24 am:
Assuming the GA doesn’t act on ccw, I wonder as to the constitutionality of a patchwork of local laws essentailly offending the 2nd amendment because a legal ccw carrier in one jurisdiction drives across a municipal border and becomes a law breaker.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:26 am:
–a patchwork of local laws essentailly offending the 2nd amendment because a legal ccw carrier in one jurisdiction drives across a municipal border and becomes a law breaker.–
That condition exists now when you drive around the country. The Supremes have yet to see that as a problem.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:28 am:
@STL:
The bill hasn’t been introduced. I don’t know what else to tell you people. You can get all of the details you want when it is introduced. Name one piece of legislation that isn’t written or negotiated in private before it is introduced. There’s nothing new or different about the process with this bill.
- inker - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:28 am:
I cannot se any way out of a long extended session and special session.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:29 am:
@word:
This ain’t Texas. Nobody’s getting into the State Capitol with a gun. I guarantee it.
- DeKalb Dragon - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:32 am:
In construing our own State laws, Illinois courts are not bound by Federal court decisions other than, in appropriate cases, those of the United States Supreme Court; although such decisions are entitled to respect, they have only advisory effect upon the decisions of an Illinois court. People v. Fern, 240 Ill.App.3d 1031, 1039-40 (2nd Dist. 1993). This is the point that Anita Alvarez’s people made earlier. Technically, the Seventh Circuit’s decision would not prevent the State from enforcing the concealed carry law. Of course, when those convicted file federal habeas petitions, they could rely on the Seventh Circuit’s decision. State courts are also not required to follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent unless the result is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. People v. Gillespie, 136 Ill.2d 496, 502-03 (1990). Which may partially explain why the delay in filing cert to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- John Boch - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:34 am:
So, if you’ve got high crime and existing uber-strict gun control, the smart move is to pass additional layers of gun regulations before someone can obtain the means with which to protect themselves from violent attack?
Seems silly, but what else would we expect from a gun control ideologue like Kwame?
Nevermind that Aurora, roughly forty miles west of Chicago and Illinois second-largest city, has none of Chicago’s strict additional gun controls on handguns and they had zero homicides last year. Yeah, imagine that, zero homicides without those “layers” of so-called security.
Florida, with one million carry permits and a uniform law throughout that state which doesn’t subject minority residents in its large urban centers to additional layers of Jim Crow-like policies, is experiencing *historically low* firearm-related violent crime.
This stuff isn’t rocket science.
But, heavens no, Kwame and company are apparently of the opinion that liberalizing gun restrictions can’t work in Chicago or Illinois. Instead we need a patchwork of laws with every city being a little different.
As president of Guns Save Life, Illinois second-largest gun rights organization and the people who put out those highway signs along the interstates throughout Illinois proclaiming educational and sometimes humorous pro-civil rights slogans, I’m talking with some other key folks and we’re coming to the conclusion that the other side of this debate is perfectly happy with June 9th rolling around without a legislative solution.
Why? It’s our belief that Kwame and friends want there to be a patchwork of local laws, varying from home rule unit to home rule unit, so complex and complicated it will intimidate Illinoisans from carrying their firearms for fear of running afoul of a local ordinance or three on a local trip.
Certainly out of staters will be overwhelmed and conclude the risk is just too great.
It is my opinion that a patchwork of local ordinances doesn’t comply with the letter of the decision in Moore v. Madigan and certainly not in spirit either. And we’ll be looking hard at civil court relief if this indeed is what happens.
Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment Foundation doesn’t beat us to the punch on this…
Maybe NRA will send Rahm another membership cap for the next $1 million dollar “donation” to the NRA to reimburse legal expenses for the next civil rights case involving gun rights that Chicago loses.
Tick tock.
John
- Anon - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:40 am:
The irony is astounding in the claim that “because Chicago has higher gun violence already, they need additional layers of security”.
It’s ironic because statistically, higher crime urban settings receive a larger benefit from conceal carry.
Why should Chicago gun control types have any authority to speak on this? The strictest firearm laws in the nation, and the worst gun crime. Not sure they got the memo that criminals don’t care one bit about the laws.
- Property Owner - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:44 am:
“Contingency planning is always a good idea.”
I fully agree that a backup plan is needed. I also think that each city or county needs to implement a play that meets its needs and the desires of the people who live and vote there.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:47 am:
–Florida, with one million carry permits and a uniform law throughout that state which doesn’t subject minority residents in its large urban centers to additional layers of Jim Crow-like policies, is experiencing *historically low* firearm-related violent crime.–
JB, is it your position that Sen. Raoul is promoting “Jim Crow-like policies?”
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:48 am:
“Illinois second-largest gun rights organization”
Kinda like saying you’re Chicago’s other professional baseball team.
Love the farm signs.How about this one?
Heard a noise
Grabbed my gun
Fired in the dark
Killed my son
- RonOglesby - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:49 am:
Wow, take a quick flight and almost miss all the fun around here!
The Senator has kept the language under wraps… Its his right to do so I guess. And Demo is right we can vote no… and will. and if we dont kill it in the senate, we’ll kill it in the house.
But, a contentious issue like this? not allowing the other side input after telling the house you were putting together a “Bi-partisan” bill???
Reminds me of “we have to pass it, to see what’s in it”.
- Mason born - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:55 am:
The frustrating thing to me with Mr. Raoul’s editorial is he gives no details as to what his bill will or will not do yet he wants citizens to call for it’s support. Yes i know he hasn’t introduced it yet but an outline on his webpage would go a long way.
I could see some potential to this if it is Shall issue from ISP, and CPD have to give a specific reason for denial of their endorsement which can be appealed i.e. Shall issue for CPD. This could be the middle ground.
I also wonder about the whole serving alchohol thing is there a standard here i.e. if you stop at a restaurant that serves wine or beer are you legal?
- John Boch - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:56 am:
Word: JB, is it your position that Sen. Raoul is promoting “Jim Crow-like policies?”
Affirmative in this case.
Ironic, isn’t it?
- RonOglesby - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:11 am:
I’m hoping we get a sane bill. For the sake of the state and town’s bank accounts and for the sake of citizens that may get caught up in being in the wrong township or county with their own goofy laws.
I am afraid they will try to have a bad bill with bad training reqs, high expenses, and arbitrary approval process that can be abused. There are compromises out there. Doing a bill behind close doors anc calling it bi-partisan/common sense and drumming up support in papers bothers me.
- RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:13 am:
Michelle Flaherty @ 10:48 am:
As someone who lost a son in a hunting accident, I find that attempt at humor personally offensive.
- Steve - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 11:17 am:
It’s funny to hear Cook County politicians talk about “common sense” gun control legislation. According them , Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban was “common sense” gun control.Why should Gerry Mccarthy decide whether you can have a gun?? Is Gerry McCarthy the expert on whether someone should wake around with a handgun in Chicago? Is Gerry McCarthy the “role model” for all those carrying a handgun ???
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:09 pm:
Again with the ‘you can carry - except in places where you might need a weapon’ to defend yourself or stop a crime. I was in Texas a month ago and was astounded at the number of locations, from public arenas to convenience stores, displaying signs prohibiting the carrying of a weapon. I’m sure when a bad guy walks up and sees such a sign, he will immediately take his piece back to his car. And this in a long-time concealed and open carry state where they appreciate and respect the Second Amendment.
- RNUG - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
Anonymous @ 12:09 pm:
It’s not that bad. I was just in Texas for a week and other than the obvious places like bars, I encountered very few “guns prohibited” signs.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:38 pm:
- Rich Miller - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 10:15 am:
“Move along.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsvbYKr19ng
- Property Owner - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:42 pm:
“I was in Texas a month ago and was astounded at the number of locations, from public arenas to convenience stores, displaying signs prohibiting the carrying of a weapon.”
I have not been in Texas for a number of years so I have not seen the signs there. But it makes one ask, if concealed carry is such a good idea, why would all those people go to the time, trouble, and expense to put up all those signs?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 12:45 pm:
–I was in Texas a month ago and was astounded at the number of locations, from public arenas to convenience stores, displaying signs prohibiting the carrying of a weapon.–
Dude, if Texas is too strict for you, you’re fast running out of real estate in the Lower 48.
- Amalia - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 5:39 pm:
“I can see Garry McCarthy abusing the snot out of that,” said National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, who opposed the legislation.
ridiculous
- Jeeper - Thursday, May 16, 13 @ 6:10 pm:
How so, Amalia?
Why is it ridiculous to think Chicago police officials might “slow walk” applications and/or the investigations arising from them? They are certainly against any such measure, why wouldn’t “malicious compliance” apply?