|
Second thoughts
Thursday, Jul 11, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller * Gov. Pat Quinn was slammed hard for populist pandering and over-reachoing on his concealed carry amendatory veto. The criticisms were mostly on point. However, think about something for a moment. Quinn’s AV did not insert language to make it a “may issue” bill. Quinn spent a lot of time this year insisting that local governments ought to decide who could carry concealed firearms. Yet he conceded significant ground to the NRA and its allies by accepting a “shall issue” law. The only local control Quinn included was language about letting home rule units pass their own assault weapons bans. But that meant a whole host of other gun control ordinances, including Chicago’s gun registry, would be immediately legislated out of existence. * The proposal as passed allows concealed carry in churches, unless churches post a sign prohibiting it. Quinn didn’t touch on that matter in his AV even though he spent a ton of time railing against the bill in churches during the week between his veto and the override. * His AV didn’t address Sheriff Tom Dart’s objections, either…
What I’m saying is that Quinn, for all his faults, for all his populist bloviating, for all of his over-reaches, came a very long way on concealed carry. David Axelrod called Quinn’s amendatory veto “modest and sensible.” The changes were certainly modest, considering how far the governor could’ve gone. * Unfortunately for him, Quinn’s somewhat reasonable behavior (in relation to what he could’ve done) has given Mayor Bloomberg - who has endorsed Bill Daley - a clear opening to attack the governor for being “soft” on gun control. Yeah, it may be a stretch, but Bloomberg would have the facts on his side. Ironic, no? * Related…
|
 |
|
|
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:12 am:
Some good points. Since the amendatory veto was a political exercise with no chance of being sustained, it is curious that he didn’t make more of it.
Maybe he just didn’t think it through.
- Chefjeff - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:17 am:
One thing not discussed much is the 16 hour training requirement. That is a long time in a classroom, particularly for this guy who has been hunting for 40 years. Or will most of the class be taught “online”. Hope I’m not too far off topic.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:32 am:
===it is curious that he didn’t make more of it.===
I thought the same at first. Then it occurred to me that, since any change would have been overridden, Quinn simply put in some modest and reasonable changes that will look very, very good in his television ads in about 6 months.
He didn’t need to go over the top, since “may” versus “shall” is so inside baseball. He only has to look reasonable and he needs to explain it clearly. We who spend a lot of time here forget that the average Chicago-area citizen is just now learning about the Concealed Carry Law. The Tribune just put a story on the front page explaining the new law. It’s just starting to sink in to a lot of people who have been blissfully ignorant that CCW is the new reality.
I have a feeling a lot of people aren’t going to like what they discover, so Quinn got on the right side of this at the right time politically.
- Anon. - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:39 am:
If people can give him credit for his heart being in the right place, even though he’s totally incapable of achieving his heart’s desires, why shouldn’t people slam him for pandering even though he’s incapable of doing a good job of pandering?
- VonKlutzenplatz - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:51 am:
What bothered some of us about the veto was not the changes themselves. Reasonable minds can differ on the changes.
What was bothersome was that that Quinn stood on the sidelines, waited for a deal, and then got involved.
The veto was not about policy. If he wanted to impact policy, he could have done so in April.
Did they go to far? He’s still got to walk a line. He’s changes were enough to stake out a position in a primary, but I just don’t see them as severe enough to get the NRA to consider IL a priority and really dump money into a race against him.
Quinn is a lousy gov but a very talented and very underrated politician.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 10:55 am:
I think Von hit the nail on the head. I think this is what Quinn thought was middle of the road. Make him look good to his base yet middle of the road for Downstate. I do think he failed on the second part. Though not so much for his proposed changes but the rhetoric he used to justify them.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:09 am:
—
Though not so much for his proposed changes but the rhetoric he used to justify them.
—
Ding, ding, ding.
Yup. one one hand he had a few changes that were no big deal. maybe a couple that were too much.
but then he goes out yelling about how guns are going to be carried in bars all over Illinois unless he got his changes… That turned off anyone that might have listened to his changes at least from the pro-gun side.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:15 am:
Ron
To me it was the post override conference when he said the only reason anyone would have more than 10 rnds was to go out and murder a lot of people. That was really a bad call on his part. One revolver one speed loader 12 rnds pretty standard if you carry a wheel gun.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:17 am:
I would say his attempt to change private property signage from posting GFZs to posting where guns were welcome was a radical overreach. Or did everyone forget that part already?
- VonKlutzenplatz - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:20 am:
Mason and Ron, do either of you consider yourself anywhere near moderate on guns?
The question is what is an average gun owner going to hear. How are moderates going to respond? They may not be happy, but how many are going to be outraged over Quinn’s AV? How many are going to write a check for the first time?
Compare that to the boost he got among Chicago liberals by taking a stand (allegedly) for gun control? If Lisa runs, he can easily point at her. Bill Daley? He wasn’t remotely involved.
This was good politics. Quinn understand his base.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:24 am:
@Ken:
How exactly was the signage thing “radical?” Sheesh.
- VonKlutzenplatz - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:24 am:
Ken, what would that bother pro-gunners?
You would think they would want to post 6×8 signs saying “WE PROUDLY ALLOW GUNS.” That part of the AVE would give them a reason.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:29 am:
@Von
I think it was good politics for his base. No argument. I am just not part of his base.
as for a moderate on Guns… not sure how you define it. Everyone wants to say they are a moderate on something. I can tell you what I think then you can decide… I believe in lawful ownership. I am fine with background checks. I dont believe in banning “features” or “Cosmetics” of a weapon. I dont believe in round count limits (Whats the difference between 10 rounds and 11? none.) I am fine with training and think people should take more than required. I dont think Tanks or missiles fall under the 2A, but I do believe personally carried firearms do. I dont think you should get a felony for a technical OOOPS moment (you forgot to take the pistol out of your bag when you walked over an imaginary line somewhere), but I believe if you commit a violent crime with a gun or buy guys illegally you should go away for a long time…
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:41 am:
Von
Sorry i forgot you asked this. –Mason and Ron, do either of you consider yourself anywhere near moderate on guns?–
You can duplicate Ron’s answer on this as for me. What i will tell you is that where i live about 240+ miles from Chicago i would be considered very Moderate to Left on this. I have been told i am a gun grabber for suggesting that an instant mandatory background check to replace the foid.
- VonKlutzenplatz - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:44 am:
For two guys who claim to be moderates, you sure seem to spend a lot of time thinking and posting about the issues.
Was there anything other than sign that Quinn could have done to earn your approval?
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:49 am:
“How exactly was the signage thing “radical?” Sheesh.”
Show me one other state that requires this.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:50 am:
@Von
Ahhh so if you are a moderate you must not have an opinion then? There are plenty of others (besides mason and I) that post TONS on the gun issue posts yet would probably consider themselves moderates. I guess you are only a moderate or have common sense if you agree with the Gov or others that point out new common sense restrictions… Thanks.
- Ahoy! - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:52 am:
At the end of the day, Quinn made the legislation better, but personalities and his own incompetence got in the way and the legislators wanted to stick to the bill they passed.
- VonKlutzenplatz - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:53 am:
Ken, unique is not the same as radical.
Ron, that’s a question you really need to ask yourself. You seem to care deeply about the issue. Most do not. When it comes to evaluating how the AV will play, Quinn is thinking of the majority who simply don’t care all that much about the issue.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 11:54 am:
Von
Actually i thought the changes to the FOIA made a lot of sense. In fact i thought the Cullerton Follow on bill was good too. I personally think the voices of the Moderates need to be heard. Don’t forget one persons Moderate is another man’s extremist.
I spend time on this issue because i am knowledgeable about it. To be honest i like this blog and the comments because most people seem to know a lot about what they are commenting on. There are other issues i am interested in that i read here but don’t consider myself to know enough to comment about. I am interested in the Abortion case posted today but my comments would simply be duplicates of others. I am interested in Quinn’s veto of pay for GA however i find it to be contemptible and below a GOV again duplicates.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 12:00 pm:
Von
–when it comes to evaluating how the AV will play, Quinn is thinking of the majority who simply don’t care all that much about the issue. –
What i am trying to say is when it comes to my area the minority are those who don’t care about this issue. That i think is Quinn’s miscalculation. The Pols down here all had to comment on this issue repeatedly in elections and argued who was more supportive.
- Confused - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 12:13 pm:
“I dont think Tanks or missiles fall under the 2A”
Maybe, but you can own both if you like. My sons and I built a missile/rocket just last weekend.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Make the gun issue go away
(Head throbs)
- Robert - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 1:26 pm:
Quinn listed 10 items in his AV. If he was intersted in governing and producing a solid compromise bill that included those items he would have grabbed a seat at the negotiating table in the Spring and demanded those elements be in the bill or he would veto it. Then he could have put together a coalition of anti-gun legislators as his teammates to ensure they had his back on an override.
With that kind of engagement he would have gotten 7 or 8 of his 10 AV elements into the original bill. But Pat Quinn isn’t interested in governing and crafting good laws…he’s interested in holding press conferences.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:04 pm:
==Show me one other state that requires this. ==
Who cares? It’s not anywhere near radical and to suggest it is, is just plain ridiculous. And that “any other state” argument is just as ridiculous. You won. Enough with this kind of nonsense. The only thing radical is when people on both sides make dumb comments like this one. If you consider this radical then your tolerance is that of a gnat.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:16 pm:
Demo
Just curious but do you consider the signage requirement for private property in the current bill to be radical?
- downstater - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
I didn’t like the signage in the AV. It goes backwards to what people are used to. People are used to signs being there to prohibit things. Like: No U-Turn, No Parking, No Trespassing. No Hunting. You don’t often see signs that permit things.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:44 pm:
@Mason:
They’re signs. I don’t consider signs “radical.” Anybody that uses the word “radical” with the word “sign” has issues.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 2:47 pm:
Demo
I can agree there. However i think you know he met the Signage rule was radical. I do think Quinn’s thought process was business would be less likely to put up signs allowing the practice if for no other reasons than the appearance of a guns welcome sign on a Denny’s.
- Ken_in_Aurora - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:17 pm:
*I* have issues? Heh.
Yes, I consider his attempt to completely reverse the intent of signage to be radical. Live with it.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:32 pm:
@Mason:
I knew what he meant. I still think it’s a silly thing to call radical. But to each his own I guess. People are entitled to be silly.
- Mason born - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 3:43 pm:
Oh i am sure we all have been silly at least once in our lives.
- RNUG - Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 4:04 pm:
I didn’t agree with Quinn’s reversal on signage.
I will note that as I’ve traveled the US, in some of the States that require “Guns Prohibited” signs I’ve also seen “Guns Welcome” signs in some businesses apparently trying to get a competitive advantage.