Compromise coming on concealed carry?
Sunday, May 26, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* We talked a lot about the House’s concealed carry vote on Friday, including audio of Senate President John Cullerton’s remarks. Here’s the transcript, which may help show you the way forward…
“…So there’s a consensus on - very close to a consensus on - what a concealed-carry law should be. And that’s what our task should be this session, not to go out and do a wish list that the NRA - that has nothing to do with concealed carry that preempts home-rule.”
Q: Are you going to call SB2193 for a vote?
A: “Well, I’m going to try to defeat the bill, and we’re going to have a caucus on it on Monday.”
Q: Madigan said he thought SB2193 would have overwhelming support in the Senate. Can you say where the vote might be?
A: “What would have overwhelming vote in his chamber would be the pension vote that we passed over there that is still in Rules Committee. I don’t know what he bases that on. We have a different makeup here. We have a lot more Democrats than he has over there. We won a few more seats than he did. So, I don’t know why he would predict that.”
Q: But he also successfully lobbied against Sen. Raoul’s bill last week…
A: “That’s true, but now what we’re saying, as it relates to concealed carry, we’re accepting the Brandon Phelps version of concealed carry.”
Q: Do you have an idea how much ground you may need to make up to defeat SB2193?
A: “I really don’t know. The people who want to pass a bill have the burden of going forward and getting 36 votes. So the question is how far back is Senator Forby (the bill’s Senate sponsor) in getting his 36 votes.”
Q: So do you envision calling it, having it rejected and then moving forward with a compromise proposal?
A: “Well that’s what I would hope we have.”
Q: So there will be a vote on Phelps’ bill in the Senate as it is now?
A: “Well, maybe our caucus doesn’t want to go forward with it. Maybe we’ll have a caucus and see there is no support, and we’ll go ahead with an alternative. Once the members realize there’s an alternative that’s very similar, almost identical to the House alternative, maybe we can avoid this. Maybe we can focus our attention on concealed carry, which is what the courts tasked us with doing, and then solve that part of the problem we have facing us.”
The transcript doesn’t show it, but Cullerton is now in favor of preemption of local concealed carry ordinances - something that would be unheard of just a week or so ago. The overwhelming House vote in favor probably moved him (and quite a few of his more liberal members) off that particular dime.
Cullerton is, however, “violently” against the “super preemption” of all local gun ordinances currently on the books.
* The Tribune editorial board actually may have correctly predicted the future on this one…
Imagine the push-back from citizens if you strip local governments of their ability to pass local firearms laws. That’s the most noxious provision of legislation the House approved Friday. The bill includes other reasonable safeguards and restrictions.
We wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the provision pre-empting local firearms laws is a loss leader, added to the bill so it can be negotiated away in talks with the Senate. That chamber, less open to concealed carry, wants to let municipalities and other local governments set rules for their unique circumstances.
So cut a compromise. The Senate can make changes in the House bill — most important, strip out that pre-emption provision — and send it back to the House. You’re not that far from meeting the mandate of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A “loss leader” is probably right on the money. I told subscribers as much last week.
Discuss.
- Namaste - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 3:01 pm:
The House approved bill does nothing to save lives. I am ok with the act but strongly believe that a registration component should have been added. Every one of the guns used to kill was at one time purchased legally. A registry would at least allow law enforcement officials to find out who owned the gun and eventually track down the criminals.
People will continue to lose their lives in the streets of Chicago, but gun dealers and gun manufacturers in Illinois will find themselves richer in the process.
- wordslinger - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
If the NRA can get veto-proof majorities on one statewide standard for conceal carry they might shed crocodile tears in public on other local gun ordinances, but they’ll be popping the champagne in private.
They’ll come back for the other local ordinances in the years to come.
- Anon Post - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 3:30 pm:
Namaste - Your statement that “every one of the guns used to kill was at one time purchased legally” is untrue. A percentage of firearms used in crime are stolen, and are the preferred weapon to use as they haven’t gone through any of the regulations associated with the legal purchase of a firearm. This makes them difficult to trace.
The requirements for legally purchasing a firearm in this state are quite restrictive.
- Mr. Wonderful - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 4:14 pm:
I don’t see the NRA or ISRA supporting a bill without pre-emption. Regulation of firearm ownership is a state matter, not local. But, I’ll agree that local jurisdictions probably have an interest in regulating the discharge of firearms within their jurisdictions - but they have no business telling their residents what kind of firearms or how many they may own. City councils and village boards need only concern themselves with what color posies to plant in the planters hanging from the lamp posts lining Main Street.
- CarrollCounty - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 4:20 pm:
To get such a restrictive CCW version, with 2 days classroom time and super-high fees, required a pretty big “giveback” to the gun community.
Super-preemption, apparently, is just the ticket.
If I were in the ILGA, and not just some schmuck from “downstate”, I would support this compromise. As it stands, I would not apply for a CCW this hard to get, but surely some of IL’s finer citizens will jump thru the hoops and I can respect why they would.
- Carl from Chicago - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 4:56 pm:
I suspect that the folks supporting local gun laws are not gun owners themselves. It’s nice to sit back and say “we don’t want that here, or we don’t want those there” but the local provisions on gun laws are extremely confusing for gun owners. Most of them truly want to remain within the law, but given a patchwork of myriad restrictions that vary by zipcode, it’s really difficult. And it’s confusing. Laws, particularly laws regulating constitutional rights, need to be clear and easy to understand and follow. Preemption of firearm laws is really a no-brainer, at least for those who own firearms. I can’t help but think that folks in favor of gun control in general just don’t care if gun owners are confused or inconvenienced. In fact, they may be happy if that were the case.
I cannot predict whether the preemption will remain in the carry bill, but I am thinking this was part of the compromise. This IL bill is far stricter than the carry laws in most states … removal of preemption may kill the thing entirely.
- Chavez-respecting Obamist - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 4:58 pm:
Anon Post, I think Namaste isn’t saying the guns were purchased by the people who used them to kill. All of them had an original, legal purchaser. My understanding is if a gun is actually traced to a crime and to the original, legal owner, that owner can just say, “oh yeah, it was stolen, I never reported it.” Non-reporting stolen guns should be a crime in itself.
- jake - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 5:39 pm:
How about a Grand Bargain, in which Cullerton would permit a vote in the Senate on the House concealed carry bill, which would almost certainly pass, and Madigan permit a vote in the House on the Senate pension bill, which would almost certainly pass? No, that makes too much sense–will never happen.
- Quinn T. Sential - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:39 pm:
How many convicts will be petitioning to overturn once this gets remanded to the lower court for the current law to be ruledruled unconstitutional
- Chicago Gunowner - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:44 pm:
Pre-emption of local gun laws is a must. It’s impossible for a gun owner to keep track of 200+ local laws, many of which make no sense whatsoever especially here in Chicago. For example, a gun with a laser sight is illegal in Chicago (I guess they don’t want those exercising self defense to hit their target?), so a concealed carrier who has a Ruger LCP laser or other gun with a bult-in laser sight as his carry gun is suddenly a felon if he ventures into Chicago. Likewise anyone with a magazine capacity larger than 12 rounds, forbidden in Chicago yet most modern handguns have magazine capacities larger than that. And even a 12 round magazine can make you a felon if it extends out past the hand grip. These aren’t “reasonable restrictions”, they’re nonsensical restrictions created by people who are dirt-ignorant about firearms and will make otherwise law-abiding citizens felons.
How, exactly, are Chicagoans different from the rest of the state? I’ve actually seen, as support for local gun laws, the statement that Chicago has a large minority population. Isn’t that a racist argument? Are blacks and Hispanics somehow incapable of responsibly carrying?
Perhaps if Chicagoans could arm themselves with the weapons of their choice they wouldn’t be afraid to rat out the gangbanger they saw commit a murder.
I’m not a disinterested observer, I’ve had gangbangers hiding in my back yard from the police, there’s been murders in my neighborhood and just last week 2 people got shot on my street less than half a block away. If any law abiding citizens have the right to be armed it’s those of us in Chicago.
Senate President Cullerton won’t even step on his front porch without an armed escort, it’s hypocritical of him to deny others the protection he demands of himself. And we’re not even asking taxpayers to fund that protection like he does.
- wordslinger - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 10:49 pm:
–Perhaps if Chicagoans could arm themselves with the weapons of their choice they wouldn’t be afraid to rat out the gangbanger they saw commit a murder.–
Such drama.
Are you of the opinion that anyone in Chicago who wishes to have a firearm does not have one, and did not have one even before Heller.
C’mon man. Conceal-carry is going to make the South and West Sides safer?
- wordslinger - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 11:18 pm:
==How many convicts will be petitioning to overturn once this gets remanded to the lower court for the current law to be ruledruled unconstitutional –
You tell me.
Are there a lot of the otherwise legendary “law-abiding citizens” doing time for violating Illinois’ current law against concealed or open-carry?
I get why a lot of people want conceal-carry. They have some rational arguments that I don’t agree with. Ce la vie. To each his own.
But the nonsensical rationalizations for it and the ludicrous historical revisionism to justify it or just as stupid as the predictions of blood in the streets if it passes.
It’s fine if you want it because you want it, not because it’s going to change the world for good or bad.
I’d be happy with the status quo, but that’s not reasonable given the federal courts and popular support for change as reflected in the elected representation in the General Assembly.
I’d be happy for home rule, but that doesn’t seem likely either, given the monster vote in the House the other day.
So at this point, I’d be happy with the House bill, particularly the “sensitive places” such as CTA and Metra.
It’s like the late, great, Illinoisan Paul Douglas said:
In his first term in the Senate, he wanted to save the world.
In his second term, he wanted to save the American economy.
In his third term, he wanted to save the g-d Indiana Dunes.
At this point, I’m holding out for the Indiana Dunes.
- Matthew - Sunday, May 26, 13 @ 11:35 pm:
Believe it or not, most of Illinois is NOT Chicago, and the rest of us are just a bit tired of pompous big city types ruining things for state as a whole. This bill has way too many restrictions and makes it much too expensive to carry. I hope we don’t get a concealed carry bill at all, so we’ll get Constitutional Carry instead. That’s what we ought to have nationwide anyway, since the 2nd Amendment is, after all, at the federal level.
And I’m personally convinced that concealed carry will make everywhere safer.
- Chicago Gunowner - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:20 am:
@wordslinger - the relevant court decision is MacDonald, and it allowed Chicagoans to own handguns and many did buy them afterwards, including yours truly.
And what do you know about the south and west sides? Ever go there and talk to the people living there? The “code of silence” McCarthy frequently mentions is for 2 reasons - criminals who don’t rat out other criminals and from law abiding citizens too afraid to cooperate with the police for fear of retaliation. The ability to defend oneself can embolden the latter.
I’m under no illusion that it will have any effect on gang warfare, but it certainly won’t make it any worse. You’re happy with the status quo? Good for you. So were many white people unaffected by Jim Crow laws, and straight people wrt gay marriage. It’s easy to be happy with the status quo when it doesn’t affect your own life.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:12 am:
>>>>> C’mon man. Conceal-carry is going to make the South and West Sides safer?
It’s not going to make it any worse. Give the law-abiding a chance, a chance to defend themselves legally.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 2:20 am:
>>>>> The House approved bill does nothing to save lives.
Sure it does, it’s CCW. If it saves but one life, it’s worth it.
Like Chicago Gunowner noted, I have a self-defense 5-shot revolver that would put me in jail in Chicago:
1. It’s not registered in Chicago.
2. I do not have a Chicago Firearms Permit.
3. The firearm has an integral laser sighting device.
I also have a self-defense firearm without the laser sight, and it holds 13 in the magazine, so it violates a different Chicago regulation.
I don’t live in Chicago, I am not about to try to get the CFP. We need statewide preemption of all firearms regulations.
- Hipshot - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 8:46 am:
@Namaste - We already have gun registration, but politicians don’t want you to know that.
A gun is produced with a serial number. When the gun is shipped to a Dealer, that Dealer must keep the serial number. When it is sold, the Dealer knows who it was sold to.
If a gun is used in a crime, the Government goes to the Gun Maker with the serial number. They in turn tell the Government who they sold it to (Dealer). The Dealer then tells the government who they sold it to and then there is a knock on your door.
It works just fine the way it is. We don’t need the government making a national database of law abiding citizens with guns. Criminals don’t use legal guns, so they wouldn’t be on the list. Kinda makes you wonder why they would want all of us law abiding gun owners on a list, doesn’t it?
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:03 am:
–Believe it or not, most of Illinois is NOT Chicago, and the rest of us are just a bit tired of pompous big city types ruining things for state as a whole.–
Another victim heard from.
–If it saves but one life, it’s worth it.–
JJS takes the magazine, background check argument, lol.
–And what do you know about the south and west sides? Ever go there and talk to the people living there?–
Sure. Every day on the El rolling through the West Side I start chatting people up on guns. Is that how you do it?
I’m late for the Memorial Day Parade. Time to honor real defenders of the Constitution.