* Ben Yount has a very good roundup of videos from yesterday’s Senate Executive Committee hearing to show how despite the failure of the House’s bill, concealed carry backers have pretty much won the Springfield debate. For instance…
The debate is now about where you will be able to carry a gun, not if you will be able to carry a gun. Sen. President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, has been one of the biggest gun controllers in Illinois. Even he is signaling support for a concealed carry law.
Cullerton is now saying he supports state preemption of local concealed carry ordinances - a position that would’ve been unthinkable last year, or even last month, for that matter. Watch…
The two plans still on the table are very similar on concealed carry. Sen. Harmon and state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, say the only difference between the plans is legal language for other gun laws.
I’m sure proponents will take whatever conceal-carry bill they can get, and come back for other stuff in the years to come.
–The sideshow in Springfield has been more about complying with federal law and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; which legislators have taken an oath to uphold.–
Quinn, what federal law is that? And no court ruling has mandated conceal-carry under the 2nd Amendment. That’s fiction.
- BleugrassBoy - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:06 am:
I find it frustrating that it has taken so long to educate some of these legislators of what Sen. Radogno so clearly stated - that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rates of violence.
Whats taken so long to understand this? Anyone with an open mind has been able to read the facts.
There is now about 15 years of data showing that the states that have implemented concealed carry laws do have some incidents and tragedies (accidental and otherwise), but those areas are MUCH safer overall.
Opponents to both CCW and gay marriage are realizing that they are not as bad as once thought. People are listening responsibly to the other side, and shifting.
- CrookCounty60827 - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:28 am:
Actually, the Constitution is Federal law, and the highest law of the land. So the 2nd Amendment IS Federal law. The 7th Ct. Appeals ruling CLEARLY mandated the right to bear arms applies STATEWIDE in Illinois, so where is the legal “fiction”??
You need to calm down. Nobody is trying to take away your guns. I hate the 2nd Amendment argument because rarely is it used correctly, including the way you are using it. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t, nor has it ever, guaranteed an absolute right to own a gun with no restrictions. The Court did say that Concealed Carry could not be banned and that is what the issue is about. But give me a break with the “right to bear arms” crap. And the argument @word made is correct. Concealed Carry has never been proclaimed a right under the 2nd Amendment in general. The Supreme Court hasn’t spoken to that yet. The 7th Circuit has. I’m sure we will find out soon enough but by that time it really won’t matter because all states will have Concealed Carry.
–I find it frustrating that it has taken so long to educate some of these legislators of what Sen. Radogno so clearly stated - that the areas with the strictest laws have the highest rates of violence.==
Ever since the Appellate Court ruling it has been clear that a CCW law would be passed or otherwise allowed (if no law was passed). I don’t think any momentum has swung either way this week. Despite the rhetoric, Cullerton has always acknowledged that we need to pass a CCW law. Nothing changed this week as far as I can tell.
I said some time ago that Illinois would pass a CCW law by the deadline, but that ISRA and others would not dictate the terms of such a law. That’s still an operative prediction.
The Constitution embodies principles of law. But actual federal statutes, court decisions, and federal regulations make up the body of Constitutional Law. It is well accepted that a statute or regulation or court decision can in fact “infringe” on 2nd amendment rights; that right is not an absolute right.
So Obama will be able to restrict the media even further then he has been able to at this time? If the 2nd amendment does not give us any “right” then the 1st is as bogus.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 10:57 am:
>>>>> But give me a break with the “right to bear arms” crap.
That “crap” is precisely why we are racing towards a cliff now. Illinois is violating that right by banning all carry.
People are reading the decision of the 7th to mean Concealed Carry, and they may as well, because the legislators are not going to put open carry in place in Illinois as the way out of the starting gate.
After taking a look at that, it isn’t able to differentiate between cities, just states as shown. Chicago as a city had some of the most toughest anti-gun laws while the rest of the state didn’t. These can only be used to compaer entire states rates.
However, if you look at Washington DC which is broken out and which has always had the most gun control laws, their rate was the highest in the nation by far.
Gun violence rates are fairly complex, but many of the loosest states in terms of restrictions end up high in the rankings–if they have urban centers. So Louisiana & Missouri high, but South Dakota and North Dakota low.
Sort on gun murders rate by 100,000 population and see where Illinois ends up–around the middle at 22. Maryland and California have more restrictive gun laws and higher rates, but otherwise Illinois is the next highest restrictive state. DC is an anomaly as a city without a state and so is generally a bad comparison for this kind of analysis, but it does have very restrictive rules and high gun violence.
- Chicago Gunowner - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 12:11 pm:
Any legislation passed must include preemption. Besides the many types of handguns which are illegal in Chicago, by Chicago ordinance it is illegal to possess a firearm or ammunition in Chicago without a Chicago Firearm Permit. To get this permit requires training and safety course of 4 hours classroom and 1hour range time. Then there’s a $100 fee for the permit.
It’s not even clear that a non-Chicago resident can obtain such a permit, certainly it’s impossible for a non-Illinois resident.
How about this for a compromise way out (and I’m not happy with this): Exempt anyone with a state concealed carry license from any and all home rule firearms ordinances.
From Zorn’s article linked above: “A spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan said researchers in his chamber determined that about half of our home-rule communities already have their own unlawful-use-of-weapons laws on the books, many of which simply reiterate the existing state ban on concealed carry.”
These home rule communities are praying for a compromise bill. There is no way they want FOID carry on June 9. At that point they will have to start defending their own municipal ordinances, which if they mirror state law will do no better in federal district court than the stricken state UUW/AUUW statute.
These home rule communities want to be spared an expensive exercise in futility. I suppose the prevailing attorneys will also get their legal fees paid by these home rule communities. I expect that some of those home rule communities would rather repeal or not enforce their own restrictive ordinances rather than lose and pay NRA/ISRA attorneys.
I don’t know if the gun control side fully understands the June 9 dynamic yet.
===I don’t know if the gun control side fully understands the June 9 dynamic yet.
I don’t think you are wrong entirely, but you are assuming there will be no appeal with a stay.
Even with that, I think a law of some sort will pass within the next year, but maybe not as broad as ISRA thinks it can get now. If this goes to appeal and the deadline is stayed, nothing much changes and the immediate leverage goes away.
I agree with you but that’s not the argument that was being made. Too often people argue using the 2nd Amendment as if any gun law is a violation of it. That has not and never has been recognized in that context. If people would argue rationally using it then I wouldn’t call them out. The absolute argument regarding that amendment is bogus and always will be.
It is a joke that elite elected officials who either carry themselves or have tax payer body guards cannot come to one accord to hit the law abiding people for money to use their 2nd amendment rights. No wonder this state is so far behind the rest of the country we need to get rid of the majority of this leadership and start over lets start with the Govenor.
A big part of the reason NYC has lower gun crimes is because they actually prosecute people for illegal guns. Here they just don’t seem to bother. Case in point was the NFL player serving time for illegal possesion. Even he didn’t get off!
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
>>>>> A big part of the reason NYC has a lower crime rate is because they actually prosecute people that commit crimes.
A better compromise would be require that Homerule communities may only enforce their Regs on their own citizens.
- Just The Way It Is One - Wednesday, May 29, 13 @ 5:53 pm:
Sen. Radogno showed herself to stand up, with all the Big Boys bantering about otherwise, as one wise Lady with her Commentary and insights. I also have always wondered how she must’ve displayed that keen kind of class and political savvy needed to rise over time to her position as state Senate Minority Leader, and up until now have often pondered how she seems to–although to often show practical judgment–nevertheless, just also seem to blandly tow the Party line so often–but her true Leadership abilities and candid, convincing type of well-thought-out articulation of her stance on this critical, current Illinois issue–was on full display here yesterday…!
Come on, a lot of people are trying to take away our guns including the governor of this state, the mayor of its largest city, and the vast majority of Democratic (my party) politicians. Saying they are not trying to take away our guns is like saying Republicans are not trying to take away a woman’s right to chose. It simply is not true. I oppose both of those efforts.
HOME RULE? If we allow every home rule to have a different set of rules, how do we know what the rules are.Lets just say for instance, home rule Chicago could pass a new ordinance allowing only one type of expensive hand gun to be carried concealed. This would effectively stop concealed carry for the average person. They could pass hundreds of new restrictions, so they could arrest almost anybody who carry’s a firearm. We need one set of laws from the STATE, not thousands from every home rule.