Gov. Bruce Rauner said last week that he has never spoken with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel or any legislators about a much-anticipated proposal to toughen penalties for gun crimes.
“I’ve not discussed that issue with the mayor myself,” he said, adding, “Frankly, I’m talking with legislators all the time. They have not brought that issue up with me.”
Rauner was referring to legislation currently being drafted by state Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, and state Rep. Mike Zalewski, D-Riverside, to increase penalties for people who are busted with guns who aren’t legally authorized to possess them because of, for instance, prior felony convictions.
Emanuel and his various police chiefs have demanded such a law for years because far too many violent criminals are getting out of prison too quickly and are then committing more crimes. But a push to pass a bill stalled out a couple of years ago after members of the Legislative Black Caucus demanded that the General Assembly first roll back some other legal punishments.
Every year, legislators jack up penalties for crimes, often because their local news outlets make a big deal about a local criminal act. And every year more people who could be living productive lives are instead trapped even longer in the criminal justice system. The pendulum had simply moved too far in one direction and African-American legislators wanted to push it back the other way. Not to mention that the original enhanced penalty bill would have cost the state millions of dollars it didn’t have.
Rauner came into office promising to reduce the state’s prison population by 25 percent, so his goal dovetailed nicely with Black Caucus demands for reduced punishments on nonviolent offenses.
But with gun violence spiking way up in Chicago, why isn’t Rauner working with legislators and the mayor to find a solution?
Raoul and Zalewski both confirmed that they hadn’t spoken with Rauner about their proposal.
“Technically he is right,” Raoul said about the governor’s statement. But, he said, “I insisted that the Chicago Police Department keep (the governor’s) public safety director apprised, and they/we have. We have not drafted the legislation yet, so there have not been multiple meetings, but his director of public safety did receive a briefing on the concept a couple of months ago.”
Other legislators said privately that there was no need to bring Rauner directly into the talks yet because no legislative language has emerged. They’re still working out the finer points with stakeholders, including the National Rifle Association, which is supportive in general but reportedly has some issues with some minor details, like, for instance, making sure medical marijuana patients are exempted from any enhanced gun penalties.
Zalewski said that, while he hadn’t yet spoken directly to Rauner, he believes passing such a law “makes sense” in the context of the governor’s advocacy for criminal justice reforms.
Rauner, Zalewski said, will need to give legislators political cover for passing the bills necessary to meet his goal of lowering the prison population by a quarter. There is a real fear for some legislators of being tagged as “soft on crime,” so upping penalties on bad guys could balance out votes for reducing penalties for others.
And still others said the governor’s claims that he talks with legislators “all the time” don’t quite provide the complete picture. “He ‘calls’ occasionally,” said one legislator. “But then he just talks. There’s no back and forth. He just talks. And then he says, ‘Look forward to talking again’ and hangs up. That’s not talking. That’s monologuing.”
Anyway, last week Rauner held a Chicago press conference with some of the most liberal Democratic members of the House and Senate to sign a large pile of criminal justice reform bills into law.
The signing ceremony was unusual because Rauner has typically approved those types of bills on a late Friday afternoon without even so much as a press release. In the past, it seemed as if he didn’t want to needlessly alienate his conservative Republican base by too publicly attaching himself to that sort of legislation. But with a general election coming up, Rauner appears to be attaching himself to issues that independents and Democrats prefer.
Hopefully soon the governor can help craft a final agreement to address the other side of this criminal justice coin. Yes, it will cost more money and it won’t help him keep his promise to reduce the prison population, but the hard reality is some people just need to be locked behind bars for longer than they are now.
- Anon - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:02 am:
I’ve often felt that possession of a stolen fire arm should carry penalties that are the equivalent of attempted murder.
But if they’re going to do something like this, maybe we should also raise taxes so we can actually pay to lock people up.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:07 am:
“But then he just talks. There’s no back and forth. He just talks. And then he says, ‘Look forward to talking again’ and hangs up. That’s not talking. That’s monologuing.”
What the legislator misunderstood was that when 1.4% calls, he is giving orders rather than looking a conversation. /s
- weltschmerz - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:08 am:
The feds have a “felon in possession” law which has been used by other states for years. It’s a slam dunk for them and carries stiff penalties. Anything the pols do here is just eye wash until there is enforcement by the courts.
- Langhorne - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:19 am:
He just talks and talks, then hangs up. There is no back and forth. Why am i not surprised.
A salesman, as rauner describes himself, is supposed to listen. but he is a CEO venture capitalist. He talks, you listen, got it?
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:28 am:
When dealing with a Governor with veto powers, including line item veto and ability to reword legislation, you would think a better effort be made by legislators (and the Mayor of Chicago) to speak with him. The “no need to talk to the governor because we are still talking amongst ourselves and various stakeholders” is pretty short-sighted.
So is being silent on the phone listening to “monologues.” If you want a conversation, be a part of it. Chime in. Offer suggestions. Agree or disagree.
Sheesh!
- Responsa - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:32 am:
From the Tribune: “Both Sorrells brothers are convicted felons who were on parole at the time of the shooting — prime examples of the judicial system’s inability to stop habitual offenders, Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said at a Sunday news conference.”
The combination of the innocent bystander Aldridge being killed by gangbanger felons (at least one on early release) who had no business with guns, and the publicity of Nykea’s association with a famous person, and Eddie Johnson’s pointed statements may just finally be the catalyst for this particular legislation which is timely and clearly needed. Let’s get ‘er done, pols. Strike while the iron is hot.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:34 am:
I really don’t think increasing penalties on possession of stolen weapon is going to mean anything to the people who have them. They don’t care, obviously.
What we are seeing is the result of decades of neglect of black communities.
Starve black schools- this is what you get.
Neglect black communities- this is what you get.
Cut social programs- this is what you get.
Don’t support black entrepreneurs- this is what you get.
Criminalize poverty- this is what you get
Ship jobs offshore- this is what you get
Cut government jobs (In Chicago government jobs are some of the best jobs of African Americans)
I could go on. But this is decades in the making.
Go ahead, blame the Democrats. Blame Madigan.
I think you easily could.
There’s your angle Illinois Bob. You’re welcome.
- Casssandra - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:41 am:
My concern would be that racial disproportionality in the state’s criminal justice system would carry over into arrests for carrying guns.
Let me pause here and say that I have never had or even held a gun and neither has anyone in my immediate family. I am not well informed on various aspects of the gun debate although I believe more gun control generally would reduce the number of violent deaths in the US.
I have the impression, though, that lots of folks carry guns outside of the “inner city.” But based on racial bias in the criminal justice system, I fear that those actually picked up and jailed for illegal gun possession will be young urban minority men. They seem to be more likely to get stopped by the police and they often lack adequate legal representation. In other words, not too many white middle and upper class youth will be doing time on illegal gun possession even under tighter laws.
- illini - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:42 am:
— There’s your angle Illinois Bob. You’re welcome.
Can’t wait!
- DGD - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:53 am:
HB - Always the victim. I think we have proven that throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve anything. Broken families are the problem, and that’s not something that can be fixed with a government program.
- Responsa - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:54 am:
So, Honeybear @ 9:34 am:, you eschew additional legislation and strict enforcement that might, just might, help keep a few innocents safer on the mean streets today? Because the crime problem has been festering for decades and the criminals don’t care about laws? With all due respect, girl, your head is not on straight about this.
Also, again from the tribune:
“Darwin,(Sorrels) who has one child, has worked full-time at a warehouse for the past six months, according to a public defender.”
This time at least the “if they only had joooobs” excuse for criminal behavior is a dog that doesn’t hunt.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 9:55 am:
The governor refuses to see himself as a co-equal with legislators in process, and Rauner still sees Rahm like Billy Batts saw Tommy DiVito.
This is telling…
===Rauner, Zalewski said, will need to give legislators political cover for passing the bills necessary to meet his goal of lowering the prison population by a quarter. There is a real fear for some legislators of being tagged as “soft on crime,” so upping penalties on bad guys could balance out votes for reducing penalties for others.===
Rauner is afraid on others turning on HIM, as Rauner continually proves to be a “bad actor” in the Trust department.
“Example?”
K-12 signing to Raunerites that voted “Red” for Rauner
Stopgap that is $8 billion over, but Rauner signing it for himself and Raunerites that had to be “Green”… but instead of going to a neutral corner… you guessed it… Rauner blamed Madigan… with all those Raunerites “Green” too
What legislator is willing to Trust Rauner with historic and fresh examples easily available to see what it would mean to Trust the governor, then have $900,000 in ads thrown against you got what Rauner himself asked for… in Trusting?
Representative Z gets it. They all want to move this, but Rauner’s lack of Trust in the aftermath? Yikes. That’s the bigger gamble.
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:03 am:
“I think we have proven that throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve anything.”
Annual per-pupil spending in Winnetka: $22k
Annual per-pupil spending in Chicago: $15k
– MrJM
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:13 am:
“…members of the Legislative Black Caucus demanded that the General Assembly first roll back some other legal punishments.”
The Black Caucus should be very careful watching the language in any penalty enhancement bill for gun crimes. Brandon Phelps and lobbyist Todd Vandermyde had no problem leaving criminal penalties in their NRA backed concealed carry bill. Every violation of the carry act is arrestable, and they knew that the Duty to Inform provision is more likely to be used against black armed citizens in the Chicago area than hunters in southern Illinois. That was the concern of LaShawn Ford, Will Davis, and Chris Welch in the debates on Phelps HB183 bill which became law in 2013.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:13 am:
DGD–ummm, although I LOVE the victim card, admittedly, I wasn’t playing victim here. Reread.
–I think we have proven that throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve anything.–
I agree. Throwing money at feckless corrupt social programs that don’t work but enrich “founders” and boards has definitely not worked. But some programs have worked and would have kept on working had they not had their funding cut off. Dude, we’ve got to be scientific about what works and what doesn’t and start to put good money behind the good.
–Broken families are the problem–
Nope, not it. Broken families are a problem but not the causative element. They are a symptom. Compare and contrast white and black “broken homes”. Yes, problems but orders of magnitude for black broken homes. Also I’ve seen a LOT of very successful “broken homes” as you say.
–that’s not something that can be fixed with a government program.–
Agreed….what are you surprised? It’s why government handed over the MAJORITY of social service functions to PRIVATE sector social service agencies.
That’s why Rauners destruction of NEARLY THE ENTIRE PRIVATE SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY SAFETY NET SYSTEM HAS BEEN SO SO SO SO APOCALYPTIC.
You do realize that Rauner has destroyed in 18months what took decades to build.
It will take decades before we are back to 2014.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:16 am:
o, Honeybear @ 9:34 am:, you eschew additional legislation and strict enforcement that might, just might, help keep a few innocents safer on the mean streets today?
No, I didn’t say that. I don’t think the criminal care. That’s what I think. I don’t think it will help the situation.
Gun violence is up because black communities have been neglected for decades.
You have a generation of youth who grew up with extreme poverty, neglect, and dysfunction.
- Anonymous - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:18 am:
–This time at least the “if they only had joooobs” excuse for criminal behavior is a dog that doesn’t hunt.–
“This time at least.” Okay and you’re going to start your generalization by pointing to a single example. Wow, I don’t even know which logical fallacy that is.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:20 am:
Sorry 10:18 was me
- RNUG - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:24 am:
- Casssandra - and -Honeybear-,
Lot’s of folks have gone to the trouble and expense of getting the proper training and required permits to legally carry guns. In Illinois, that means the investment of some money and time.
Regardless of the socioeconomic issues, it is a personal CHOICE to illegally carry a gun. The only way I see to reduce illegal carry is to make the choice to illegally carry more expensive (both monetarily and in terms of incarceration) than other alternatives. Part of that would be more proactive enforcement of existing laws especially at the Federal level; for whatever reason, Chicago ranks very low in said prosecution at the Federal level.
I don’t know what alternative, other than locking up the habitual offenders, would work. I have a feeling that even if there were jobs, etc. available, all that would do is reduce the problem around the edges. I think it is more about the breakdown of the family and social mores … or maybe it is about the gang replacing the family … something that can’t / won’t get fixed easily.
And that is not a black or white issue (no pun intended), it is mostly an economic issue. For better or worse, there is a generation or two that feels entitled to the fruits of success but isn’t willing to work and sacrifice to achieve the success of previous generations; they want the easy money. I will not legalization of some drugs might help by eliminating the profit factor from dealing in illegal drugs.
The changing nature of work opportunities, including offshoring of jobs, just makes the problem worse. As does regulatory burdens on starting small businesses. But some people are still managing to achieve success. Instead of more failed welfare programs, we need to figure out why those people succeed, and try to duplicate it.
I’ve wandered far enough afield I’m going to shut up now.
- crazybleedingheart - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:44 am:
== it is a personal CHOICE to illegally carry a gun==
It’s also a personal CHOICE to speed down I-55.
Let’s start with sentencing just like we do attempt murder. I mean, people die, right?
Illinois has a lot of issues.
Weak. criminal. penalties. are. not. one. of. them.
Not for guns, not for any other crimes.
Lying mayors lie. End of story.
- IRLJ - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:52 am:
The people who use guns to kill people because guns are legal, plentiful and easy to use are not going to be deterred when politicians respond to the headline of the day by increasing penalties. The criminal justice system is an easy target, but sociologically, it’s not the problem.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 10:53 am:
===are not going to be deterred ===
You and others are completely missing the point. This isn’t really about deterrence.
They can’t kill anybody on the street if they’re behind bars.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:16 am:
RNUG thank you for taking the time for a thoughtful response. I’ll try to be as thoughtful back.
1) I really don’t care about guns or gun laws. I just don’t think gun laws stop criminals or behaviors.
—I have a feeling that even if there were jobs, etc. available, all that would do is reduce the problem around the edges.—
Totally disagree. Not trying to commit an “appeal to authority” fallacy but I do work in this environment day in and day out. Good jobs that pay a living wage are, in my opinion, the best thing we can try to secure for our people. That’s why the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs has been so devastating for the black communities in Chicago. We’ve got to work hard and fast to get living wage jobs into the heart of Chicago.
–it is mostly an economic issue.—
YES YES YES YES 100% CORRECT!
—For better or worse, there is a generation or two that feels entitled to the fruits of success but isn’t willing to work and sacrifice to achieve the success of previous generations; they want the easy money.—
I hope that you and I have built up enough trust for you to trust me that this is absolutely not the case. Sure there are freeloaders in every demographic. But the vast majority 95% of the people I see every day are hard working, trying their best, want the best for their kids. These communities have been suffering under disadvantages that I am only beginning to comprehend. Honestly it’s very difficult for those of us who rest in privilege (don’t get your hackles up.), which we do as white folks, to understand the nearly insurmountable obstacles that almost ALL black people face. Really, please trust me on this. We’ve got to examine and challenge our own privilege. Talk about entitlement. My spouse and I felt entitled to the “fruits of our success”. We are both highly highly educated, NU, UC. Spouse was an AVP for an international banking/investment house in Chicago. We had done everything “right”. We were by all measures successful. Spouse was ABD on the Ph.D dissertation when the economy collapsed in the Great Recession. Wait….wait….this can’t be happening to us…..we’re elite….where are our fruits?….where’s our bailout? We nearly lost everything. That’s when we really really had to look at our privilege. That’s when we really had to look at how we had helped to maintain the system that kept others down. I will only speak for myself.
In my privilege, I was the one feeling entitled.
In the few years after my hospice work, working in East St. Louis, I have experienced this.
not entitlement
but total despair and hopelessness.
“I’ll never make it or amount to anything”
No I don’t see entitlement with them.
I see entitlement with ourselves.
“I don’t want my tax money being spent on…”
Please don’t think I’m going after you RNUG. I’m challenging how we as a society define and attribute entitlement, success and failure.
- RNUG - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:19 am:
== Weak. criminal. penalties. are. not. one. of. them. ==
When said crimes are not actually charged or are plea bargained away instead of being sentenced, then it is a problem.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:24 am:
===are not going to be deterred ===
You and others are completely missing the point. This isn’t really about deterrence.
They can’t kill anybody on the street if they’re behind bars.
Okay, sorry, I see your point. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m all up in my anti poverty fee fee’s
- crazybleedingheart - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:28 am:
==They can’t kill anybody on the street if they’re behind bars.==
Equally true for anyone committing any offense.
And the vast majority won’t kill anybody if left on the street.
- Responsa - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:29 am:
== I really don’t care about guns or gun laws. I just don’t think gun laws stop criminals or behaviors.==
And yet Rich bothered to write this excellent, thought-provoking article about illegal guns and gun law sentencing for newspaper syndication and posted it on Cap Fax. This is the topic most of us are trying to discuss today– both from a political and public safety standpoint.
- Belle - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:31 am:
I’s prefer to see illegal gun owners in jail than drug dealers. When they are one and the same (as they might be) put them in prison for the weapon offense.
I’m fairly certain that the lack of jobs is contributing to the violence in Chicago-I live here and in an area that used to be rather iffy.
Thee is also a steady increase in burglaries and robberies Unemployment is not an excuse for shooting people, it’s a factor.
The other factor is the loss of CPD which is on Rahm and Daley.
- RNUG - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 11:39 am:
-Honeybear-
Family members have worked for the State in some of those same systems for years; my mom put in 45 years at one of those agencies. Mrs RNUG worked special ed for the local school district and also subbed in a number of the “inner city” schools. The stories she could tell …
I’ve also seen enough (white, not that it matters) people who have learned to work the system and choose to do so. I’m talking up close and personal experiences, not just generic examples, of unmarried mothers who keep having kids by multiple fathers that aren’t around to support them, etc., etc. All legal but their definition of success is surviving on the government programs.
Then I see others who get welfare and have jobs, but they worry about taking promotions or making too much because they will lose “their” benefits. Something is wrong with the system when it “pays” better to not work, or only minimally work.
Finally, to me, it all comes back to personal responsibility and family.
So … I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on at least part of this.
- Honeybear - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 1:09 pm:
RNUG, I don’t think we’re to the point of agreeing to disagree. I rather hope we’re at an interesting discussion.
Here’s something I found.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-have-fallen-by-more-than-20-percent-in-most-states
In my office (serving 52k) I really haven’t seen any TANF recipients getting over 150 a month, which is also budgeted against their food stamps. Honestly, I have no one “living” off welfare. You can’t live off of what they could get. In the article I put above, those are maximum numbers not representative of what people actually get. The one’s I feel sorry for are the disabled and elderly. Actually I take it back. Those folks are living off of SSI and SSA, plus a few food stamps. The majority of elderly get only about 16$ because their assets are counted in AABD. So yeah, the elderly and disabled do live off of assistance.
But anyway big changes are happening next month that will keep the tiny fraction of “freeloaders” away from assistance.
IES- our new software system is a real “big brother” system. It’s know when you are sleeping. It knows when you’re awake. It knows when you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake!
We can say it’s personal responsibility and family but that becomes messy when my family had every family advantage and I know of no one more responsible and conscientious as my spouse. 4 years my spouse was unemployed. Hundreds of applications, hundreds of networking events. Worked nearly full time as the president of our small church congregation, unpaid, just to keep the spirits up. In the 4 years spouse got 2 3 month jobs as an administrative assistant….by taking everything off the resume. So there’s that.
And yes, by the same token, my spouse started at the bottom at a state agency and is now near the top.
We didn’t deserve it. We got lucky.
and we had faith, but we almost lost that.
I can’t imagine starting out like with nothing and having that reinforced in a million ways.
I appreciate this conversation RNUG. It’s the sometimes difficult work of community.
- DGD - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 1:38 pm:
** Annual per-pupil spending in Winnetka: $22k
Annual per-pupil spending in Chicago: $15k **
And our small downstate district gets by on less than $7k per student, as do many downstate districts, yet violence beyond the occasional schoolyard brawl is non-existent.
- Todd - Monday, Aug 29, 16 @ 4:21 pm:
Anon - funny thing is we have not had any complaints about the duty to inform provisions of the carry law.
Today I had a conversation with sen. Raoul if as explained by him and rep Zalewski last week, look forward to working with them and the Supt.
The provisions are aimed at resitivist criminals who carry guns, after having been a convicted felon. And repeat offender.
Both legislators are trying to go after the guys causing the problems and should be applauded for their efforts to drill down into the issue.
Likewise this Supt seems more interested in getting the bad guys and not a one size fits all jail cell for people who shouldn’t be staring down 3 plus years of hard time. Kudos to him as well.
And if the Mayor I’d tryign to get an effective law/policy and is married to the my way or nothing that the previous Supt. wanted then Good for him as well.
Now you all may want to go have stiff drink after reading that.