Gov. Pat Quinn has loved to hold Sunday news conferences for decades. He discovered a long time ago that Sunday was usually a slow news day, so a news conference pretty much guaranteed coverage in Monday’s newspapers.
The problem, though, is that newspapers and other media outlets tend to send younger, less experienced reporters to Sunday events. And sometimes those reporters miss something that others might catch.
For instance, two Sundays ago, Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said something pretty important that was completely ignored by the media.
Cullerton appeared that Sunday with Quinn, state Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) and parents of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre victims to tout a ban on high-capacity gun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Cullerton highlighted his anti-gun bonafides during his opening remarks.
“I’m very proud of the fact that Illinois has been the only state in the nation that doesn’t allow for concealed guns to be carried in public,” he said.
But that wasn’t the news. Throughout his long political career, Cullerton has been a staunch opponent of the National Rifle Association. He doesn’t like guns at all. Nothing to see there. Move along.
So what was the big news that was missed?
“In the case of concealed carry, some say we have to pass a bill,” Cullerton told Chicago reporters.
“The fact of the matter is, if we don’t pass a bill in Springfield, the city of Chicago, county of Cook, 208 home-rule units can pass their own legislation. So, while we should pass a sensible bill to regulate it (concealed carry) statewide, if we don’t it’s not the end of the world.”
It was the clearest statement yet from Cullerton that not passing a concealed-carry bill might be the best way to go.
As you know, a federal appeals court has given Illinois until June 9 to pass a state law allowing concealed carry. If not, Illinois’ current law will be struck down.
At first, liberals were being stampeded into passing new legislation. But Chicago’s mayor and his legislative allies have lately made it quietly known that not passing a bill might not be so bad. Chicago could pass a much stricter proposal than anything that could ever get through the General Assembly.
The statement was also somewhat of a cover for Cullerton’s inability to move a concealed-carry bill out of the Senate a few days before. Top sources said two of House Speaker Michael Madigan’s strongest Senate allies flipped from supporting Cullerton’s bill to opposing it.
The sponsor, state Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Cullerton both blamed the NRA. But it was Madigan (D-Chicago) who actually killed it.
Why? Madigan did not want the Senate bill to pass because he believed it would undermine support for the House bill among liberals and Chicagoans. He also believed that the Senate’s far more restrictive bill could not pass the House, so killing that measure was a way to avoid gridlock.
After Madigan passed a concealed-carry bill through the House on Friday, Cullerton said he could see ways to compromise, but he also blasted parts of the House bill as “offensive” and said he was “violently opposed” to them. The main thing Cullerton objected to was a provision that would kill off all local gun control ordinances, including Chicago’s assault weapons ban.
So, if Madigan’s radical local pre-emption language on all gun ordinances were removed, the rest of the bill would be a whole lot more acceptable. Offering up a completely unacceptable and even outrageous demand to get the other side to accept some things they might not otherwise is a pretty standard legislative negotiating tactic.
And if they can’t come to an agreement? Well, Cullerton has said it wouldn’t be the end of the world if nothing happens and the state law is struck down. If he’s telling the truth, it gives him a pretty good negotiating stance.
- Nieva - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:29 pm:
Allowing home rule to rule this issue would be a mistake. Most would be afraid to carry because of the confusion on where it would be legal. We need a state wide law that is clear and easy for everybody to understand.
- RNUG - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 12:30 pm:
I’m not fond of it, but if the House bill doesn’t pass the Senate, what Cullerton’s really done is (1) just delay things a bit, (b) hand the NRA a major fund recruitment / raising issue, and (c) when Chicago predictibly over regulates, set up the environment for a “carry” case to eventually reach SCOTUS, something I thought the gun control people do not want with the current court’s makeup.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 1:03 pm:
–a “carry” case to eventually reach SCOTUS, something I thought the gun control people do not want with the current court’s makeup. –
The Supremes can take a carry case anytime they want. They just passed on one from New York that effectively denies carrying in public in NYC, a city with a population larger than 39 states.
Don’t believe the hype that Scalia and crew are shopping for the “right” case. Once they have one, they can do anything they want.
Heller had nothing to do with carrying guns in public, but Scalia’s ober dictum on the subject was used as the basis for Posner’s opinion on Illinois’ law.
It’s just possible that the 5 for Heller and McDonald don’t hold for carrying in public.
- HenryVK - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 1:22 pm:
The party that has given us the worst employment in the country and the worst pension crisis in the country now is refusing to comply with the order of a federal judge.
Good thing, because that assault weapon ban has been so effective.
Can somebody remind me why Senate Democrats chose Cullerton as their leader? Because his time as leader is known for nothing but failure.
- jake - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 1:45 pm:
I can just convey the feeling in Urbana as I understand it. The restrictions in the Madigan bill were pretty much what we would have wanted in a local ordinance. So we would be pretty happy to let that bill become law rather than fight our own battle in the city. I bet this is true of most of the cities in Illinois outside Chicago. We have other problems to solve, without being involved in a knockdown-dragout local fight in our City Council over gun regulation. Perhaps this could be solved by giving home rule to Chicago alone. I bet other cities, such as Urbana, don’t even want it. And for the pro-gun extremists, Chicago is probably not their favorite place to visit anyway.
- Curmudgeon - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 3:17 pm:
There is no “order” of a Federal Judge. The opinion invalidating Illinois’ concealed carry ban was merely stayed until June 9th. On that date the law is invalid. State can either enact a new concealed-carry regulation, or simple have none on June 9th. Then every county and municipality can enact their own regulations. That was Cullerton’s point. The AG ought to appeal the 7th Circuit ruling in any event. But Lisa may care more about her Governor’s race and not entering this thicket. Judge Posner is not well-regarded in the Supreme Court, and his opinion is illogical in several vulnerable respects.
- Tim Elenz - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 3:22 pm:
So I guess my questions is I hope someone can answer it, if the State does or doesn’t pass a conceal carry law, will it be a felony in those jurisdictions that pass their own rules? Will it be a serious crime or with it be like receiving a citation?
- Chicago Gunowner - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 3:57 pm:
I don’t see how having several hundred local carrying permits/laws complies with the order to have a state carry law?
- jake - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 4:00 pm:
To Tim–
There are three levels of violating the law, 1) a citation (on the level of a traffic offense, 2) a misdemeanor, which gives a record, but not nearly as serious as a felony, and 3) the most serious, a felony. Although actually, there are statistics that show that a person with two violent misdemeanors (for example, domestic violence, threatening violence, stalking, violating an order of protection) is more likely to commit a murder with a gun than a person with a single felony conviction. I would guess that a city outside Chicago would make a first offense of a gun control ordinance perhaps not even a citation, but a warning, on the grounds that a person might well be unaware of a local ordinance. But repeat offenses would probably face escalating consequences.
- Steve - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 4:11 pm:
Cullerton wants piece meal regulation and confusion, no doubt. But, what if Chicago passes a strict gun control ordinance and the NRA “encourages” people to get on juries in which the law is tested. It may sound far fetched but: check out how the NRA used Chicago’s buy back to put more guns out there.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/10/513924/nra-scams-taxpayers-guns-children/?mobile=nc
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 4:40 pm:
–I don’t see how having several hundred local carrying permits/laws complies with the order to have a state carry law?–
There is no such order. The 7th Circuit ruled the current law unconstitutional, but stayed a permanent injunction for 180 days.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 6:27 pm:
Nice leadership, Sen. Cullerton.
- CrookCounty60827 - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 6:44 pm:
Actually, municipalities will have NO power to pass ordinances, Cullerton’s spin to the contrary. Clearly the 7th COA held outright bans unconstitutional, so any municipality trying to pass local bans will simply find their new ordinance invalid.
- Todd - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:18 pm:
Tim– munis can’t impose felonies. And I’m sure Dart has all kinds of room in his jail
- Tim Elenz - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:26 pm:
Thanks Jake,Todd and Crook I appreciate your insight
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:36 pm:
–Clearly the 7th COA held outright bans unconstitutional, so any municipality trying to pass local bans will simply find their new ordinance invalid.–
Easy fix. Do a New York/New Jersey style may issue for cause. Posner’s opinion indicates those are constitutional.
- jake - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:41 pm:
To CrookCounty,
Actually, in the event that the State passes nothing, municipialicities would have the power to pass ordinances that imposed limitations similar to the limitations in the bill that passed the House. I expect our city would do that, and that we would just give first offenders warnings–only impose penalties on repeat offenders. We need to depolarize this situation. There is a reasonable balance to be found between gun rights and public safety, and we ought to be working towards that.
- logic not emotion - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 7:50 pm:
Steve: I think the Guns Save Lives group did a great job of utilizing a misguided and ineffective program for public good.
- casual observer - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 8:26 pm:
So the June 9th date really doesn’t mean anything? Looks like Alvarez was right.
- CrookCounty60827 - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:17 pm:
“May issue” will NOT comply with the Court’s order striking down Illinois law. This is plain as day from the opinion, and municipalities (cities, towns, townships, counties, etc. for purposes here) CANNOT start passing ordinances at odds with the Court’s order. All that will do is get the case right back before the Court of Appeals, and get them ALL overturned. See also McDonald v. Chicago (overturned Chicago’s outright ban on gun ownership). The clock is running and it IS important. Cullerton and Co. are trying to pysch people out, and some of you fell for it hook, line, sinker, and pier!
- jake - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:26 pm:
CrookCounty–
I am trying to be polite but must speak plainly. Anybody who is as certain as you say you are about what courts will do with ordinances yet to be written, in response to a situation that may or may not happen, does not know what he is talking about.
- wordslinger - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 9:38 pm:
–”May issue” will NOT comply with the Court’s order striking down Illinois law. –
What, in the written opinion, makes you draw that conclusion?
- G. Willickers - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:03 pm:
@Crook - ” See also McDonald v. Chicago (overturned Chicago’s outright ban on gun ownership).”
Chicago never had an “outright ban on gun ownership”.
Chicago citizens were always able to possess long guns to defend their homes.
Duh.
- Chicago Gunowner - Monday, May 27, 13 @ 11:42 pm:
Regardless of the legalities, there is the political reality. Cullerton will find that the Illinois Senate, just like the Illinois House, will not support a hodge-podge of local laws or a Chicago carveout. Besides overwhelming public support outside Chicago for home rule pre-emption Madigan controls the purse strings for Dem Senator’s campaign war chests and he will have far more influence over what comes out of the Senate than Cullerton does. I predict within a few days Cullerton, just like Madigan, will discover which way the wind is blowing and relent. By Thursday he’ll give a speech saying he gave it his all and blame the NRA for the law’s passage.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 2:23 am:
This is why the state is so screwed up and broke they don’t care what the people want only what they want. That is why we have all these stupid laws. We need to vote them out.
- Don Gwinn - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 6:05 am:
Steve, even if you disagree with what Guns Save Life did there (and I don’t) they’re not the NRA.
Perhaps more to the point, the NRA doesn’t have a way of stacking juries as you suggest. That’s just not how juries are populated.
Besides, such local laws, if they’re restrictive, will be ripe for plain old lawsuits. No need for conspiracy theories; the argument is simply that the statewide law was struck because it violated the 2nd Amendment, while the new laws violate the 2nd and the 14th at once.
- G. Willickers - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 8:56 am:
@ Chicago Gunowner - “Madigan controls the purse strings for Dem Senator’s campaign war chests”
That claim is just plain wrong. Look up the different Chambers’ finance committees.
What state do you live in?
- Chicago Gunowner - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 9:18 am:
@G. Willickers -I live in the state where Michael Madigan is Chairman of the Democratic Party and where campaign contributions are capped except for those contributions from political parties. So while Bloomberg’s group can donate a limited amount of money to Dem candidates the party controlled by Madigan can donate unlimited amounts. IOW the party Chairman is more powerful than the Senate President.
- Tim Elenz - Tuesday, May 28, 13 @ 11:00 am:
I just get the feeling that there is a bit if “Wag the Dog” going on here. Let’s pass something that is so outrageous in one body so that we can compromise and get something done? lol