* “I ask my colleagues who are in my party to just be fair and look at this from a broader point of view,” Senate President John Cullerton said yesterday of a proposal to ban gun magazines that can hold over ten rounds. Cullerton made his remarks during a press conference with Gov. Pat Quinn and three Sandy Hook parents…
The grieving mother of a 6-year-old killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School joined Illinois Democrats on Sunday in calling for a statewide ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Nicole Hockley choked up when discussing the December massacre in Newtown, Conn., that claimed her son Dylan.
“In Newtown, we learned the brutal truth about the devastation that high-capacity magazines can cause,” said Hockley inside the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
Hockley, who was joined by fellow Newtown parents Mark Barden and Francine Wheeler, said the proposed law — Senate Bill 1002 — could save innocent lives.
Adam Lanza, 20, who stormed Sandy Hook and killed 27 people there, including himself, fired 154 bullets in less than five minutes, officials said. He deliberately chose to carry 30-round magazines instead of smaller magazines to kill as many people as possible, Hockley said.
* While Cullerton’s focus was on the magazine ban, he talked a lot about his chamber’s concealed carry bill, which wasn’t called for a vote on Friday…
A Senate effort to impose restrictive concealed-carry limits on Illinois gun owners failed to surface for a vote Friday as expected even after the legislation was changed to ease opposition from the National Rifle Association.
“One of the realities that I was keenly aware of when I entered this effort was that there are some extremists,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago), sponsor of the gun-control measure. “There are some extremists with some very loyal followings, and they use intimidation as part of their advocacy efforts. And sometimes that intimidation is quite effective.”
Both Raoul and Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) had hinted at a full floor vote after the bill cleared a Senate panel on a 10-4 vote Thursday, but it became clear a consensus had not been reached by Friday.
The bill was at least partly short of votes due to NRA resistance over the legislation requiring Chicago police Supt. Garry McCarthy to vet all permit-seekers in Chicago and allowing local sheriffs to object to any permit application.
* OK, let’s turn on the Wayback Machine, shall we? Set the coordinates to August 27, 2012. Cullerton was in southern Illinois to stump for Sen. Gary Forby’s campaign. He was talked mainly about overriding Gov. Qunn’s veto of parts of the Department of Corrections operations budget. But Cullerton was also asked about Rep. Brandon Phelps’ concealed carry bill, which was still in the House. Would he call it for a vote?
“I’m not going to use the power of the President of the Senate to block a vote,” Cullerton said, and continued…
“What I’m saying is, if that bill is introduced it will be on the senate floor for a vote. We’ll see what happens. I’m not going to block it. And I have talked to the NRA about this.”
* OK, let’s now reset the coordinates to an earlier southern Illinois appearance by Cullerton. This time, April 11, 2011…
Tuesday in Carbondale, Cullerton indicated that even though he is opposed to “people having loaded weapons on them,” he would consider assigning the bill to another committee.
Noting that concealed carry has not fared well in the Public Health committee, Cullerton said, “If it does pass the House, if we have enough folks that want to have a vote on the Senate floor we can have that vote.”
* I asked Cullerton’s press secretary for a response. Shouldn’t Cullerton now stand aside and allow Forby to call a concealed carry bill that he supports?..
Before the 7th circuit’s decision, this could be framed based on Cullerton’s support or lack thereof for passing a concealed carry bill. For that reason, his promise not to block a vote was relevant. And like his promise on overriding the Governor’s prison cuts, he planned to follow through on that promise.
Not only is he not blocking a vote on concealed carry, he isn’t even in a position to do so given the court’s mandate.
Cullerton did assign gun bills to a different committee for consideration this year. He moved them from public health to judiciary with the goal of reviewing all relevant legislation together and designating a point person to develop a plan for consideration.
He has a preferred plan. The NRA doesn’t love it. And not all of our members are going to love it. But it is a concealed carry bill. And ironically, the NRA is blocking it.
It’s hard not to boil this down to anything but the NRA being riled up that Cullerton didn’t defer to their preferred approach on concealed carry.
* From another top Cullerton aide…
Rich, the promise to call a concealed carry bill became irrelevant when the court said we had to act. The downstaters are going to get concealed carry one way or another. That supercedes the mere promise to call a bill. Its all NRA spin. They don’t like Cullerton or his push to increase his caucus numbers in the suburbs at their expense .
Then he invited them to the governor’s mansion in Springfield, three hours away. On Monday they’ll lobby politicians, including some former colleagues of then-State Senator Barack Obama, on curtailing high capacity ammunition magazines.
“Because the courts said so” is not a compelling reason to primary voters, and I suspect Chicago/Cook D primaries are the reason the bill isn’t moving.
Without even getting into the whole downstate v. real people weeds, the Cullerton aide quotes seem perfectly reasonable.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:42 am:
“Should Cullerton step aside and allow a vote?”
Absolutely! He should do so on both Forby’s and Raoul’s bills.
If the legislature is truly a democratic process, Cullerton’s and Madigan’s actions on issues such as this one are a strong endorsement for greatly decreasing the power leadership holds.
As an aside, I remember a State Representative - who held a fairly high level position in his party of majority at the time - complaining about receiving a budget bill just a few minutes before being expected to vote on it. I recognize that someone has to take charge on issues; but I also understand why there is so much frustration among members of the legislature and the general public about the structure and process.
If I am reading this bill correctly, when I retired from the State Police I bought my Glock with 3 fifteen round magazines, so it is legal for me to possess them as the magazines were transferred to me from the ISP. Yet a Chicago Police Officer or other local officers who have to purchase and carry their own firearms can no longer possess the high capacity magazines. If I had retired and not bought my State issued pistol and magazines, instead going to a local gun shop and buying a new pistol/magazines, the magazines would be illegal for me to possess.
Am I correct in my understanding of this bill, if your Agency transfers the magazines to you on retirement you are legal, if you purchase on your own it is illegal????
(c) This Section does not apply to or affect any of the
12 following:
13 (1) Peace officers as defined in Section 2-13 of this
14 Code and retired peace officers not otherwise prohibited
15 from receiving a firearm, in possession of a large capacity
16 ammunition feeding device transferred to the retired peace
17 officer by his or her law enforcement agency upon
18 retirement.
Restricting the size of the clips won’t change a thing. The example of “154 bullets in less than 5 five minutes is a worthless statistic. I can use 10 round clips and get off more than 154 shots in the same timeframe. They are blaming the clips rather than the mentally ill shooter.
That’s like saying we need to outlaw 8 cylinder vehicles because that is what one drunk driver used to kill some innocent children. It still doesn’t address the issue at hand, the drunk driver.
Absolutely worthless legislation that does not fix a thing other than adding useless restrictions to law abiding gun owners.
1. If they ban high capacity rounds, they will have to grandfather current owners in. 2. IT won’t survive anyway. What evidence is there to support the theory that 9 rounds is safe and 10 is not.
These guys need to stop clowning around. Forget the bans, you don’t have the votes get the funds for comprehensive background searches, and if you did, we don’t have the money to jail people for non violent carry violations anyway. This is a perfect storm where the incompetence of Madigan and the Democrats is piling on top of itself.
The court gave us 180 days to get it together. do they think they can pass a bill on June 8th that will start a 2 year application process. We had 180 days to implement a legal form of conceal and carry. Madigan failed again.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:01 am:
The magazine ban is a distraction from CCW.
If I recall, the current mag ban bill had no grandfathering and no compensation, and would turn me into a felon.
With all due respect to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, it seems as if they are being used for political theater. Yes, they have suffered unimaginable pain, and yes, they certainly have the right to be advocates for tougher gun laws, but I struggle to figure out what real, substantive value they bring to Illinois legislative hearings.
–With all due respect to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, it seems as if they are being used for political theater–
That’s just such a vulgar position, with no “due respect.” They are engaging a public policy issue. No one is forcing them to do so.
You may not want to see or hear them, but that’s too bad.
Is Mary Shepard being used by the NRA and ISRA as a “prop” or for “political theater?”
No, she had a life experience that prompted her to take action in the public arena with those of similar views. That entirely appropriate for her and her allies and that’s exactly what the Newtown folks are doing.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:22 am:
Just observing: I agree that they are being used (if willingly). What they bring is emotion. The pro-rights people could possibly counter that with Mary Shepard and others who have suffered serious injury due to not having access to effective self-defense tools; but they haven’t - to my knowledge.
We take some parts of both this and Raoul’s bill and add a further step. Take Raoul’s increased mental illness reporting from Circuit Clerks and add the step that those FOID cards are taken away from the state. Not the gun seller’s call in to the State Police but actually physically take the FOID card from the folks identified with mental illness. Have that part in the bill and add a provision: If you live with a mentally ill person with access to your propert you are required to have all firearms and muntions in a secure locked location. Thirdly, take the gag violence part of The “Kotowski Amendment” and make that apply even more broadly to catch more gang members.
That bill would do something to stop gun violence and I bet the NRA might even support.
But no…we can’t actually solve a problem like pensions we can only cap it at 15% of the problem.
–The pro-rights people could possibly counter that with Mary Shepard and others who have suffered serious injury due to not having access to effective self-defense tools; but they haven’t - to my knowledge.–
You must be kidding. If not, by logic, you’re engaging in willful ignorance.
She’s the plaintiff in NRA/ISRA lawsuit stating just that.
Have you not read these pages before? She’s come up quite a bit.
And try the google, too. You’ll find her experience cited often by pro c-c folks.
mag capacity limits will do little to nothing for crime or even mass shootings. Its a feel good things. The FBI says most shootings are with 3 shots or less. Just like an assault weapons ban is a feel good when like 95+% of violent crimes using a gun are done with handguns.
Anyway, let it come up for a vote. Whatever. it probably wont become law anyway. And if it does I see lots of these laws in other states getting to SCOTUS also…
Politicians dont care, as it isnt their money spent defending these laws. Little to no skin in the game.
=== They are engaging a public policy issue. No one is forcing them to do so. ===
I didn’t say nor imply that they are testifying against their will… I in fact pointed out they have the right to advocate their position… I merely pointed out the theater of it and what value they bring.
=== Y’all need to stop whining. You look like pansy idiots. ===
I certainly wasn’t whining, nor did I question their right to advocate their position. Again, I just pointed out the theatrics of it, and the value their testimony brings. Rich, as you often encourage your commenters to do regarding the gun debate — take a deep breath.
I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will do absolutely nothing because only the law abiding owners will comply. So why not do something that would actually be meaningful?
Simple - make the use of a high capacity magazine in the commission of a violent crime an aggravating factor subject to additional sentencing requirements.
That way you’d actually be targeting the criminals. That is, of course, if that is the intent of these bills as opposed to simply wanting to strip hardware from lawful owners.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:08 pm:
>>>>> I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will do absolutely nothing because only the law abiding owners will comply. So why not do something that would actually be meaningful?
I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will cause some previously law abiding owners to become felons by doing nothing.
- Will Caskey - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:29 am:
“Because the courts said so” is not a compelling reason to primary voters, and I suspect Chicago/Cook D primaries are the reason the bill isn’t moving.
Without even getting into the whole downstate v. real people weeds, the Cullerton aide quotes seem perfectly reasonable.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:42 am:
“Should Cullerton step aside and allow a vote?”
Absolutely! He should do so on both Forby’s and Raoul’s bills.
If the legislature is truly a democratic process, Cullerton’s and Madigan’s actions on issues such as this one are a strong endorsement for greatly decreasing the power leadership holds.
As an aside, I remember a State Representative - who held a fairly high level position in his party of majority at the time - complaining about receiving a budget bill just a few minutes before being expected to vote on it. I recognize that someone has to take charge on issues; but I also understand why there is so much frustration among members of the legislature and the general public about the structure and process.
- Tsavo - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:43 am:
Rich,
If I am reading this bill correctly, when I retired from the State Police I bought my Glock with 3 fifteen round magazines, so it is legal for me to possess them as the magazines were transferred to me from the ISP. Yet a Chicago Police Officer or other local officers who have to purchase and carry their own firearms can no longer possess the high capacity magazines. If I had retired and not bought my State issued pistol and magazines, instead going to a local gun shop and buying a new pistol/magazines, the magazines would be illegal for me to possess.
Am I correct in my understanding of this bill, if your Agency transfers the magazines to you on retirement you are legal, if you purchase on your own it is illegal????
(c) This Section does not apply to or affect any of the
12 following:
13 (1) Peace officers as defined in Section 2-13 of this
14 Code and retired peace officers not otherwise prohibited
15 from receiving a firearm, in possession of a large capacity
16 ammunition feeding device transferred to the retired peace
17 officer by his or her law enforcement agency upon
18 retirement.
- Madigan Schmuckigan - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:57 am:
Restricting the size of the clips won’t change a thing. The example of “154 bullets in less than 5 five minutes is a worthless statistic. I can use 10 round clips and get off more than 154 shots in the same timeframe. They are blaming the clips rather than the mentally ill shooter.
That’s like saying we need to outlaw 8 cylinder vehicles because that is what one drunk driver used to kill some innocent children. It still doesn’t address the issue at hand, the drunk driver.
Absolutely worthless legislation that does not fix a thing other than adding useless restrictions to law abiding gun owners.
- the Patriot - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 9:57 am:
1. If they ban high capacity rounds, they will have to grandfather current owners in. 2. IT won’t survive anyway. What evidence is there to support the theory that 9 rounds is safe and 10 is not.
These guys need to stop clowning around. Forget the bans, you don’t have the votes get the funds for comprehensive background searches, and if you did, we don’t have the money to jail people for non violent carry violations anyway. This is a perfect storm where the incompetence of Madigan and the Democrats is piling on top of itself.
The court gave us 180 days to get it together. do they think they can pass a bill on June 8th that will start a 2 year application process. We had 180 days to implement a legal form of conceal and carry. Madigan failed again.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:01 am:
The magazine ban is a distraction from CCW.
If I recall, the current mag ban bill had no grandfathering and no compensation, and would turn me into a felon.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:04 am:
Meh, what’s the point of having the big chair if you can’t control the agenda?
- Just Observing - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:05 am:
With all due respect to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, it seems as if they are being used for political theater. Yes, they have suffered unimaginable pain, and yes, they certainly have the right to be advocates for tougher gun laws, but I struggle to figure out what real, substantive value they bring to Illinois legislative hearings.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:13 am:
–With all due respect to the parents of Sandy Hook victims, it seems as if they are being used for political theater–
That’s just such a vulgar position, with no “due respect.” They are engaging a public policy issue. No one is forcing them to do so.
You may not want to see or hear them, but that’s too bad.
Is Mary Shepard being used by the NRA and ISRA as a “prop” or for “political theater?”
No, she had a life experience that prompted her to take action in the public arena with those of similar views. That entirely appropriate for her and her allies and that’s exactly what the Newtown folks are doing.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:22 am:
Just observing: I agree that they are being used (if willingly). What they bring is emotion. The pro-rights people could possibly counter that with Mary Shepard and others who have suffered serious injury due to not having access to effective self-defense tools; but they haven’t - to my knowledge.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:26 am:
===They are engaging a public policy issue. No one is forcing them to do so.===
Exactly. Y’all need to stop whining. You look like pansy idiots.
- ProblemChild21 - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:27 am:
Until the legislature is ready to focus on mental health issues and funding, none of the solutions currently being put forward will change anything.
- Greatplainser - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:28 am:
Here’s an idea:
We take some parts of both this and Raoul’s bill and add a further step. Take Raoul’s increased mental illness reporting from Circuit Clerks and add the step that those FOID cards are taken away from the state. Not the gun seller’s call in to the State Police but actually physically take the FOID card from the folks identified with mental illness. Have that part in the bill and add a provision: If you live with a mentally ill person with access to your propert you are required to have all firearms and muntions in a secure locked location. Thirdly, take the gag violence part of The “Kotowski Amendment” and make that apply even more broadly to catch more gang members.
That bill would do something to stop gun violence and I bet the NRA might even support.
But no…we can’t actually solve a problem like pensions we can only cap it at 15% of the problem.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:30 am:
–The pro-rights people could possibly counter that with Mary Shepard and others who have suffered serious injury due to not having access to effective self-defense tools; but they haven’t - to my knowledge.–
You must be kidding. If not, by logic, you’re engaging in willful ignorance.
She’s the plaintiff in NRA/ISRA lawsuit stating just that.
Have you not read these pages before? She’s come up quite a bit.
And try the google, too. You’ll find her experience cited often by pro c-c folks.
- RonOglesby - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 10:37 am:
mag capacity limits will do little to nothing for crime or even mass shootings. Its a feel good things. The FBI says most shootings are with 3 shots or less. Just like an assault weapons ban is a feel good when like 95+% of violent crimes using a gun are done with handguns.
Anyway, let it come up for a vote. Whatever. it probably wont become law anyway. And if it does I see lots of these laws in other states getting to SCOTUS also…
Politicians dont care, as it isnt their money spent defending these laws. Little to no skin in the game.
- Just Observing - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:07 am:
=== They are engaging a public policy issue. No one is forcing them to do so. ===
I didn’t say nor imply that they are testifying against their will… I in fact pointed out they have the right to advocate their position… I merely pointed out the theater of it and what value they bring.
=== Y’all need to stop whining. You look like pansy idiots. ===
I certainly wasn’t whining, nor did I question their right to advocate their position. Again, I just pointed out the theatrics of it, and the value their testimony brings. Rich, as you often encourage your commenters to do regarding the gun debate — take a deep breath.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 11:15 am:
I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will do absolutely nothing because only the law abiding owners will comply. So why not do something that would actually be meaningful?
Simple - make the use of a high capacity magazine in the commission of a violent crime an aggravating factor subject to additional sentencing requirements.
That way you’d actually be targeting the criminals. That is, of course, if that is the intent of these bills as opposed to simply wanting to strip hardware from lawful owners.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:08 pm:
>>>>> I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will do absolutely nothing because only the law abiding owners will comply. So why not do something that would actually be meaningful?
I’m one of those that thinks a magazine ban will cause some previously law abiding owners to become felons by doing nothing.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:16 pm:
JJJS, that’s actually more accurate! I meant nothing in stopping crime.
- Silencedogood - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 12:48 pm:
Is there a reason my comment was deleted
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 1:07 pm:
I figured this post would have 100 comments by now.
Shows what I know about my own blog audience.
lol
- Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 2:58 pm:
Wow, you’re right!
- Endangered Moderate Species - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 3:45 pm:
===Shows what I know about my own blog audience.===
In the last six months, many of us have become wore out on the gun debate and that doesn’t mean we feel it has lost importance as a public concern.
This is an issue that challenges a moderate thinker and leaves us with a feeling that is similar to the feeling of straddling a bard wire fence.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 20, 13 @ 3:55 pm:
===Shows what I know about my own blog audience.===
It had gotten to be where you could guess where the comments were gonna go based on what it was like last time….