Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SB 1665/HB 2414 will bring Illinois’ regulatory framework into the 21st century
Next Post: Looks like a sure bet
Posted in:
* A vote yesterday represented a gigantic defeat for gun control advocates…
The Illinois House on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected a strict concealed carry measure in a test vote on the contentious gun legislation.
The measure emerged in the form of an amendment modeled after a highly restrictive New York gun law that has survived a court challenge. It drew support from a number of gun control advocates but failed on a 76-31 roll call, with six lawmakers voting present.
The state’s regional differences were on full display as fellow Democrats who control the legislature argued for and against the proposal.
“More guns are not the answer to the city’s gun violence problem,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a North Side Democrat who sponsored the amendment.
But Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from Harrisburg in southern Illinois, called on lawmakers to reject the Cassidy bill and throw support to a less-restrictive proposal he is pushing.
* More…
Phelps said he is working on revisions to his concealed-carry bill, including raising the fee to $100. He said Wednesday’s vote shows a “may issue” bill cannot pass in Illinois.
He’s probably right.
* Things got tense…
Tempers raged in the Illinois House Thursday as lawmakers debated a last-minute plan to have the state adopt “may issue” concealed carry permits.
“All of this nonsense and two-facedness from the other side of the aisle,” Democratic state Rep. Scott Drury declared after listening to Republicans argue against a plan to let the state and local police decide if someone should be allowed to carry a gun. “It’s nonsense.”
That touched off a torrent of yelling and screaming from Republicans, most notably state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, an adamant gun rights supporter.
To which Drury added “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”
House Republicans then bellowed out a chorus of boos and catcalls.
The scene bordered on getting out of control. State Rep. Al Riley, D-Hazel Crest, who was moderating the floor debate, threatened to call in House doorkeepers to clear the chamber or restore order.
* I thought Rep. Al Riley did a pretty good job of making sure the argument didn’t spiral out of control. Video from our good friends at BlueRoomStream.com…
* And the proposal was seriously flawed…
However, gun-rights advocates argued that a “may issue” law would essentially mean no concealed carry for people living in some parts of Illinois, despite their Second Amendment rights. Rep. Jerry Costello II, D-Smithton, said that in New York, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of residents have concealed-carry permits. Many of those have been issued to celebrities and people of authority.
“We don’t need bureaucrats issuing these permits to their friends and such,” Costello said.
Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, a proponent of a “must issue” bill, said Cassidy’s amendment was opposed by the Illinois Sheriff’s Association and did not restrict the fees that could be imposed for a concealed-carry permit.
“These are unlimited fees. This could be $1,000 a permit,” he said.
* Also, Rep. Phelps’ bill may come up for a vote today. From ISRA…
URGENT ALERT – YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
ISRA-SUPPORTED HB 0997 COMING UP FOR A VOTE SOON
HB 0997, the ISRA supported version of Concealed Carry will be coming up for a vote at any time. It is urgently important that you take action immediately.
* More from Rep. Phelps…
He said he plans to call legislation for a floor vote tomorrow that is similar to House Bill 997, a concealed carry bill he introduced earlier this legislative session. “We’ve got to have something done,” he said, citing the June deadline a federal court gave lawmakers to pass concealed carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state. […]
Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”
Phelps said supporters of his plan believe it is a “last chance” to get a compromise before the deadline runs out. “I don’t know if there’s another chance to pass anything. I think that there’s a lot of people who are going to say, ‘Look, we tried. Let’s just go off the cliff. Let’s do constitutional carry.’” He said a lot of House members who have never voted in favor of a concealed-carry bill are afraid of that happening. “I’ve got a lot of people who are interested in voting for this that never have before because they don’t want constitutional carry.”
But gun control advocates cautioned not to read too much into today’s vote. They said they knew the support wasn’t there yet, but they think they can find backing for a bill that allows Chicago some local control. While lawmakers must get something done, they say, it isn’t crunch time yet.
* Related…
* Tempers flare during state House debate on concealed weapons bill
* VIDEO: Brandon Phelps wants to stop a may issue concealed carry plan
* VIDEO: Roll call
* Final House roll call
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:28 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SB 1665/HB 2414 will bring Illinois’ regulatory framework into the 21st century
Next Post: Looks like a sure bet
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Drury and Bost should grow up. It’s an issue for adults, or should be.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:33 am
Bad form by all.
Representative Drury, a see you are a Freshman, calling a Colleague “someone like that” in any context is shameful and disrespectful to the Chamber, to the voters who elected Rep. Bost, and to the voters who elected you, Rep. Drury.
Are you going to try the “Liar, liar, pants on Fire” move next, Rep, Drury. Very disappionting, and I am sure you are making friends and influencing colleagues by the …”someone like that”… uttering.
You are a Member of the Illinois General Assembly, act like one.
Rep. Bost, I get it, I saw the video. The floor gets intense, and in your role, you too can get intense. Rep. Drury had NO RIGHT to speak those words derrogatory words about you. However, The Chair asked for order, you did continue, and together, you both let it escalate.
Like I said, I get, Representatve Bost. Just keep in mind, people are alos watching you as they were watching Rep. Drury and his “antics”. Why allow yourself to be dragged to Rep. Drury’s level after The Chair asked for order? I get it, I do.
Bad form, indeed.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:43 am
I agree with the shall issue side but as a former member of the ISRA I am offended with their over the top rhetoric. My wife and I both got a big laugh at the outburst in the House yesterday. I agree with Word, both Drury and Bost should grow up and act like responsible people with an issue that is important to both sides.
Comment by Boat captain Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:46 am
Just for the record, a decision by the Supreme Court to deny a petition for writ of certiorari means there were not 4 votes to grant cert, and it means nothing more than that. It does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court approves the lower court’s decision. For example, assume cert is denied on a vote of 3 for granting cert and 6 against. The 3 justices who voted to grant cert may have wanted to hear the case because they wanted to overturn the lower court’s decision; 3 other justices may have voted against granting cert because they were in favor of the lower court’s decision and believed that decision would be overturned if the Court heard the case; and 3 other justices may have voted against granting cert because they wanted to give the lower federal and state courts more time to address different aspects of the issue before agreeing to hear a case on that issue. (From what little we know about the inner workings of the Court, it appears this third possibility is a common occurrence.) So despite claims made on the House floor yesterday, the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in the New York concealed carry case does not make the New York law “the law of the land.” It just means there were not 4 votes for granting cert.
Comment by Anon for now Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:47 am
Good thing Drury admitted he wasn’t a constitutional law scholar. Clearly doesn’t know how cert. review works. Declining to grant cert. is NOT the same as affirming the decision or upholding the law in question.
It merely means that it will not use that case to correct the circuit split.
Comment by Big Guy Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:50 am
Let’s be honest and talk about gun violence for a second. None of these screamers–Drury or Bost–and none of the main may issue versus shall issue people will do a thing to attack any socioeconomic causes of this violence. One side comes with thinly-veiled racism that sounds like it’s from the 19th century and the other side is classist. But all the while, thousands of children travel to school each and every day in fear for their lives and these kids don’t get opportunities for little league or gymnastics or anything else most of us take granted. There’s more than guns involved–jobs, food deserts, schools, transportation–and it’s an issue that should be treated as rightfully complex instead of simplistically just about guns.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:53 am
No way can you equate Drury and Bost’s behavior. Drury is setting himself up to be one of the most disliked members of the house.
Comment by Raising Kane Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:56 am
Will the vote in the US Senate have any effect on what happens in Springfield?
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 9:58 am
Anyone have text of what Rep. Bost was yelling off-mike?
Comment by Penance Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:04 am
===Drury is setting himself up to be one of the most disliked members of the house. ===
Pretty sure he already is, but it’s close between him and Ives.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:04 am
===Will the vote in the US Senate have any effect on what happens in Springfield? ===
None that I can tell. Heck, man, votes in the Illinois Senate have little impact on the Illinois House. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:05 am
Precinct Captain @ 9:53 am:
Yes, those are all important issues … but decades of throwing money at the problem of poverty hasn’t solved it. You’d think after that long there might be some progress but it seems issues like personal responsibility for personal actions have actually worsened over that period. So what is the solution … better education, better role models, jobs, family stability, real consequences for bad decisions? Would less government involvement and more local church / charity involvement make a difference for the better? Would we be better off taking the charity programs out of the hands of the feds and state, and giving it to the cities and counties who might do a better job of targeting it? I don’t know what the answer is, but I know just doing more of the same and expecting different results isn’t a solution.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:06 am
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:04 am:
===Drury is setting himself up to be one of the most disliked members of the house. ===
Pretty sure he already is, but it’s close between him and Ives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bipartisanship…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:06 am
It isn’t the first time Bost loses his composure like that. In my opinion, it’s silly posturing at best and immaturity at worst. It’s not unreasonable to think that short tempered persons maybe shouldn’t own guns.
Comment by Namaste Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:10 am
Drury did come up with a clever retort about Bost not being the kind of person we want carrying.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:14 am
The Drury/Ives “I Know More Than You, Just Ask Me” Caucus…
Freshman Only…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:16 am
I find it very disturbing that Rep. Drury would act like a juvenile on the House floor.
Comment by benji Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:21 am
For the record, he said “nonsense” 7 times.
Comment by Red Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:24 am
Rich, I’m glad you are calling Rep. Drury out on his Floor behavior. Did anyone see Rep. Dunkin give Rep. Drury a high five after he closed his comments? That was pretty classy move as well.
Comment by Grateful Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:27 am
The Cassidy bill was fatally flawed and shouldn’t have been called. While I lean (slightly) more to the control side, I believe there is a right to keep and bear arms. We need to draft a bill that sets out the requirements for who, how and where this right can be exercised in Illinois.
Phelps’ bill does that, and it’s pretty comprehensive. My preference would be that home rule units would retain the ability to add additional requirements if they wish to enact them, and maybe I’d increase the fees/training time, but I think HB997, with one or two amendments, is the basis for a new law.
This should not be as emotional as it has been. Legislation passed in fear is usually pretty bad legislation.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:32 am
== I find it very disturbing that Rep. Drury would act like a juvenile on the House floor. ==
As opposed to Bost’s screaming temper tantrum when he was out of order.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:32 am
Ken Dunkin approves of Drury?
Somebody should warn Drury about his choice of friends.
Those two can form “the everybody hates us” caucus.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:37 am
Riley did a good job. Hving been paying attention much this session, so this was my first time seeing him in the chair. Seems like he has taken to the role well.
And grateful, Dunkin has had more than his fair share of class moments on the floor. the high five pales in comparison to flipping the entire chamber the bird.
Comment by mademyescape Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:38 am
Rich
Is the proposal Phelps is talking about still numbered 0997? Didn’t know if it had a new number? Be nice to see what the new text is. Maybe, and i know i’m dreaming, the proposal he is talking about could actually satisfy both sides.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:39 am
For those calling for local ability to deny permits. Each sheriffs department can and adding in CPD to the mix is a good way to go.
If a “gang banger” with no felony record somehow passes the background check, gets printed, goes to the classes, passes the live fire… CPD can still stop the permit. CPD keeps a list of known gang members, every permit app the name can simply be run through that list. Document to the hearing board/judge why.
I think that is a great compromise.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:40 am
@ 47th
—This should not be as emotional as it has been. Legislation passed in fear is usually pretty bad legislation. —
Damn right.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:42 am
== Drury did come up with a clever retort about Bost not being the kind of person we want carrying. ==
Hardly. Skeeter has used it in most of his gun control advocacy arguments here at CapFax. It’s a talking point now.
Comment by Recidivist Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:44 am
Maybe Drury will get the Century Club Trophy from his friend and perpetual winner, Ken Dunkin.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:44 am
Recidivist,
What good is a gun unless you are really really angry, right?
I, in contrast, think guns should be limited to the calm and rational people.
Not to digress, it is funny that I’ve become some kind of symbol here for the anti-gun extremes.
As anybody who actually reads my comments knows, I’m actually pretty moderate on the issue.
I just have no use for the extreme language of the ISRA.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:53 am
–the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in the New York concealed carry case does not make the New York law “the law of the land.”–
It does in New York. It just won’t be in Illinois, at least not in that form.
What remains to be seen i sif there are enough votes in both chambers to trump home rule.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:53 am
Rep. Riley is a former military man and knows how to maintain his lead. A bright spot in the playground better known as the IL House.
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:54 am
Skeeter,
My post was not meant to be derogatory towards you. I was simply stating that Drury’s “cleverness” was “recycled”. Heck, it’s not a bad argument, take credit if it’s due.
Comment by Recidivist Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:02 am
Employing Oglesby’s logic, if the coppers jump in anywhere with veto power it should be when a “known gang banger” applies for a FOID. Prior restraint is just minor detail, after all.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:07 am
Let them keep yelling at each other. I’m just counting down to June 9 and hoping they don’t get anything done.
Come on Constitutional Carry!!!
Comment by downstater Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:13 am
@ Mr Wonderful.
The logic I am applying is exactly what the is already for the sheriffs dept. The application can be objected to by the sheriff, why not the CPD if that is a compromise they want to pass 997?
Should it be done for the foid? Maybe. But then again even the CPD chief said those that have FOIDs are not the problem.
And its not VETO power. Its the ability to object to a specific person for grounds that they can document. And the person applying can then appeal. It was already in the 997 bill for Sheriffs. I dont see an issue with the CPD having the same option we give to sheriffs.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:15 am
Could this bill be improved if the specific causes on which a sheriff’s department could object were clearly specified?
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:26 am
Cincinnatus
The Cassidy bill had to be approved by locals under some vague special need. Then ISP had to agree that there was a special need. Then ISP could decide whether to issue or not.
The Phelps bill unless it has changed allows locals to object but they have to document and the applicant gets a chance to challenge them. Once the locals either do not object or the applicant disproves the challenge. Then ISP has to issue unless the applicant fails the background check or training requirements.
From HB0997
Department may consider any objection or recommendation made by the sheriff or a municipal law enforcement agency that demonstrates the applicant is a danger to himself, herself, or others. Based upon those objections, if the applicant is found by the Department to be a danger to himself, herself, or others, the
Department shall deny the application and notify the applicant and the sheriff or the municipal law enforcement agency in writing, stating the grounds for denial.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:40 am
Can we count on Quinn for that veto he promised?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:46 am
Tommy Dart is capable of speaking for himself he doesn’t need McCarthy’s help. Personally I cannot support a bill that has an option allowing sheriffs to object to someone who is otherwise clean.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:47 am
Mr Wonderful,
They can object, that doesnt mean the applicant doesnt get the permit. The onus is on the sheriff or CPD to show WHY they are not wanting to issue the permit.
Its a compromise that is not perfect. But if it gets shall issue without Chicago making all of cook county a no carry zone… Something I can live with.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 11:54 am
I guess that Dart and McCarthy will get tired of filing objections sooner or later.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 12:09 pm
@Wonderful
But that is no different than 997 right now. Sheriffs can object. its shall issue, with the ability for a sheriff to object.
So are you saying no objection from a sheriff at all are are you against CPD getting that option also?
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 12:27 pm
Mr. Wonderful
You seem to miss the point that they have to document otherwise their objections do no good.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 12:36 pm
Somewhere…Bill Black is smiling.
Comment by Middle of the Road Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 12:48 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Mason born.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 12:51 pm
Local control on guns got soundly rejected with the defeat of the Cassidy amendment. Yet today, local control of sex education was also rejected with the passage of Lilly’s sex ed bill, HB 2675.
Thirty one reps who insist local control is indispensable on concealed carry also voted to require any school district that teaches sex ed to use the comprehensive state curriculum.
At least the opponents of local control on concealed carry who also supported the Lilly bill were consistent. They don’t want local control on guns or sex ed.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 1:15 pm
Wouldn’t local control only work as to a community’s own residents? If someone from Winebago County gets a CCP at home, he/she could carry in Chicago, right?
Comment by titan Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 1:25 pm
“Skeeter,
My post was not meant to be derogatory towards you. I was simply stating that Drury’s “cleverness” was “recycled”. Heck, it’s not a bad argument, take credit if it’s due. ”
Thanks, and proving yet again that I am nothing if not thin skinned!
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 1:28 pm
Phelps is all in on this one. He lost Tamms which means his own party killed the biggest employer in his district. If his own party will kill him economically, and on social issues, he is useless.
If he does not get HIS bill passed, people will know once he voted for Mike Madigan for Speaker, his legislative session was over.
It is very Simple for Brandon Phelps. If Madigan does not give him his Bill, Madigan is telling him Chicago democrats really don’t need him. Once that happens, Forby and Bradley won’t be far behind.
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 1:30 pm
I’m not at all surprised by Drury’s defamatory crack against Bost - isn’t he the clow… er, panel member that was rudely busting Todd’s chops at that Chicago CCW forum a few weeks back? He seems to like trying to get a rise out of people.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 1:47 pm
@ Patriot
“If he does not get HIS bill passed, people will know once he voted for Mike Madigan for Speaker, his legislative session was over.”
Can you expound?
Comment by Charlatan Heston Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 2:18 pm
All this screaming will lead to a federal judge making Illinois law. We argue throw fits swear and Illinois loses people every year. Soon no one will care or pay attention.
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 5:18 pm
Mandatory insurance should be a requirement for concealed carry. The amounts should be at least as high as minimum required for drivers. Guns can cause serious injury and the person carrying guns should be able to cover damages caused by their actions. Recently a man in Florida, with concealed carry permit, shot at a group of teenagers and killed one because he was upset about their loud music. The public needs to be protected from any reckless conduct by persons allowed to carry concealed.
Comment by David0316 Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 5:48 pm
David,
The case you mentioned would be an intentional act and as such excluded.
It would be extremely rare for an insurance policy to provide coverage for any shooting.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 5:52 pm
Insurance covers accidents, such as accidental discharges that might cause injury. In addition insurance carriers for municipalities cover injuries that might be inflicted upon bystanders in police shooting situations.
The NRA endorses gun owners insurance with additional liability coverage that might not be included in standard policies and “self defense insurance” that covers the cost of criminal and civil defense and any damages that might be assessed in a civil trial. If the activity is determined to be criminal, the policy does not pay.
Intentional acts can be insured if they cause injury to a 3rd party. Criminal activity cannot be insured. Responsible gun owners carry insurance. Concealed carry permits should require responsibility.
Comment by David0316 Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 6:28 pm
Really David? Name an insurer that writes policies that do not include an intentional acts exclusion.
Face it — there is no policy that is widely available.
The insurance requirements do nothing than add an expense to people some do not like.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 7:15 pm
Looks like the Phelps bill lost.
Chicago Dems just shot themselves in the foot.
That was a reasonable compromise.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 7:16 pm
@David
that is a crime find me a insurance company that covers a crime you commit… We just punish those people.
Besides the ‘gun safety” people got bit yesterday with only 30 something votes for may issue. Shall issue where we gave up a lot only got 64 votes.. needs 71.
Open carry on June 8th chicago just wont let it go and vote to set rules.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 7:18 pm
“Intentional act exclusions” are intended to exclude coverage when the injury was intended, not the act. If a driver intends to speed, they are not intending to cause a crash. Their insurance pays.
“Intentional acts” should not be confused with “intentional injury.” Former VP Cheney intended to fire his shotgun, but he did not intend to shoot a fellow hunter.
Check the NRA website, they endorse insurance to cover members who are sued for damages claimed as a result of the insured exercising their right of self-defense. With rights come responsibilities. Persons wishing to exercise their right to concealed carry should be required to be responsible andcarry insurance.
Comment by David0316 Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 8:00 pm
The only time a conventional policy would provide coverage would be for accidental discharge.
A typical homeowner’s policy would cover that anyway.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 8:29 pm
–Chicago Dems just shot themselves in the foot.–
I don’t see how. Home rule seems to be ace in the hole at this point. And that’s not much different from the New York amendment that failed yesterday.
The Phelps bill lost three votes from last time out, going from 67 to 64.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Apr 18, 13 @ 10:38 pm