Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: It ain’t that easy
Posted in:
* My weekly syndicated newspaper column…
During the Illinois House’s floor debate last week over the concealed-carry bill backed by the National Rifle Association, I was told by an intimate of House Speaker Michael Madigan that Madigan wanted to make sure the bill received no more than 64 votes.
Because the bill pre-empts local government home-rule powers, the bill required a three-fifths majority of 71 votes to pass.
The anti-gun forces were demoralized the day before when their highly restrictive concealed-carry proposal got just 31 votes, so Madigan (D-Chicago) wanted to do the same to the NRA’s version, I was told.
The idea, the source said, was to show both sides that they couldn’t pass their bills on their own and needed to get themselves to the bargaining table and work something out.
As you know, a federal appeals court has ruled that Illinois’ prohibition on concealed carry is unconstitutional, but the court left open the door to quite a few restrictions. The appeals court gave Illinois a June 9 deadline to enact a concealed-carry law, so the pressure is on to find a solution.
Without legislation, Illinois’ existing ban won’t be enforceable, which likely means anyone with a state firearm owner’s ID card could walk the streets carrying loaded weapons without a permit.
The NRA bill ended up getting 64 votes, exactly Madigan’s reported target number. By the way, that’s three votes less than the roll call on an even less restrictive concealed-carry bill a few months ago, so this was a huge loss for the NRA.
And keep in mind, the NRA was missing one of its supporters during that last roll call. So it actually lost four votes from the last time around and perhaps as many as nine from earlier in the day.
Madigan’s staff worked the bill hard, pulling off votes for their boss. Gov. Pat Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s people also worked against the NRA bill.
Pro-gun forces began the day believing that they had more than enough votes to pass it, and they were furious when the tide began to turn against them. But there was nothing they could do as they watched one promised vote after another flip on them.
Afterward, some were defiant, saying they would now walk away from the table, kill anything they don’t like and wait for the federal appeals court’s deadline to arrive — when Illinois’ law on unlawful use of a weapon relating to concealed carry would not be able to be enforced. Others were more cautious, leaving open the possibility of a deal.
On the other side of the Statehouse, Sens. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) said they were close to wrapping up negotiations over a concealed-carry law. Raoul said the tentative proposal would be unveiled within days. It contains what will undoubtedly be a controversial “endorsement” clause.
If approved, anyone who is awarded a concealed-carry permit by Illinois State Police could carry anywhere in Illinois except Cook County and Chicago. If they want to carry in those areas, they would have to apply for an “endorsement” from local law enforcement. An appeals process was being added to the bill for those who are denied an endorsement, Raoul said,
The NRA’s top lobbyist responded that he would attempt to kill such a bill, but Bivins, who was Lee County’s sheriff for 20 years, didn’t seem very concerned that the final proposal might not be viewed favorably by the NRA.
Back in the House, Rep. Mike Zalewski (D-Riverside) held out hope that a deal could still be struck in his chamber. Zalewski, who voted “present” on the NRA’s concealed-carry bill, has been one of the go-betweens in the negotiations with the NRA and anti-gun groups.
Zalewski said he opposed some lower penalties in the NRA bill and wanted other items, including more restrictions in government buildings. He also said people with concealed-carry permits in other states should meet the same training requirements as those imposed in Illinois.
But the pro-gun forces complain that they’ve been negotiating with themselves. They’ve repeatedly compromised, only to see the goalposts moved farther away.
* From the AP…
A key Illinois senator says legislation allowing public gun possession will carve out an exception for Chicago.
Republican Sen. Tim Bivins says the measure he and Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul negotiated would allow Cook County authorities to deny a concealed carry permit even if an applicant passes the required background checks.
The former county sheriff from Dixon says the rest of the state would be governed by a so-called “shall issue” law — anyone meeting requirements would get a carry permit.
Bivins says the bill is being written. He says it’s not ideal but gun-rights advocates have to compromise.
Thoughts?
* This is also true, and the point was driven home hard by House Dem staff…
The other thing that happened is, due to a snafu with all the gazillion different drafts of 997, there were errors in the draft that came up for a vote. A few votes fell off because of that.
* Meanwhile, Bill Daley is upset that he gave money to a conservative Democrat from a pro-gun “red” state who then sided with the NRA…
I want my money back.
Last October, I gave $2,500 to support Heidi Heitkamp’s campaign to become North Dakota’s junior senator. A few weeks later, she won a surprise victory.
I have had a long career in government and politics, but I don’t donate heavily to political campaigns. When I contribute, it’s because I know the candidate well or am really impressed with the person. Heidi Heitkamp was one of the latter: She struck me as strong-willed, principled and an independent thinker.
But this week, Heitkamp betrayed those hopes.
She voted to block legislation to make gun background checks more comprehensive. Her vote — along with those of 41 Republicans and three other Democrats — was a key reason the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:26 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Caption contest!
Next Post: It ain’t that easy
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
any bill has to pass both houses. Leaving Chicago/Cook county out is not in our sights right now.
Remember Cook county is all heavy urban. Remember places like Matteson are COOK County. Thats as far south as Joliet near Rt 30 and I57… I used to drive through the frickin farms to get to my job in University park, some of it Cook County.
So a Chicago carve out needs 60 votes, meh… last one got 31.
And asking us to “get back to the table”. As rich pointed out, we have negotiated in good faith over and over. We’re done. Let those that need to pass a bill come to us with their language and what they want.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:35 am
That was supposed to say Not all of Cook County is Heavily urban (down town, near south/north sides…) its very different in south cook.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:36 am
I think this is the second national op-ed Bill Daley has had recently. I don’t think that does you any good running for governor. Just misses the attention, maybe?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:37 am
Perhaps Mr. Daley should be reminded that exchanging money for a vote is illegal. While he portrays the fact that he donated because she is “strong willed, principled and an independent thinker” the fact that he wants money back because of 1 vote tends to tie the two together.
Comment by Dazed & Confused Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:43 am
I thought Daley’s column was a bit absurd too. Regardless of his run for Governor (he’s not running), it made him look silly. Politicians shouldn’t be responsive to donors. That’s one of the biggest flaws in American politics, and threatening politicians with donations/withholding of donations is why the far right has control over the GOP. Heidi Heitkamp may have been out of step with her state’s public opinion, as he contends, but saying that she should have followed through on the promises she made to her out-of-state high-dollar donors is just absurd.
Comment by Empty Chair Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:43 am
Dazed is correct. His connection of a political donation to official actions is way wrong.
I am strongly in favor of the background check bill, but once you give political money - it’s gone. This was a foolish letter for him to publish.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:45 am
I think the Raoul-Bivins bill is the way to go.It might just be the beginnig of the seperation of the state that many people want.
Comment by reflector Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:55 am
RonO (the reluctant one) he who chooses not to go to the table, finds his seat taken by someone else who does go to the table. That someone else may not share your view, and the resulting bill may not reflect your interests.
I am enjoying your stubborn insistence that this has to be your way or no way at all.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:02 am
Bill Daley is from Chicago. In that town, the definition of an “honest” politician is that once he has been bought, he stays bought!
Comment by Skirmisher Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:08 am
@mongo….
ahhh, yes, like we on the pro-ccw side have not been at the table. Thank you for your insight. That is what me missed… Negotiating with everyone from the ISp, the Sheriffs association, the Chiefs association and who knows how many legislators.
Yes, we havent been the that table!!!! Thats what we missed. Thank you!
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:13 am
“A key Illinois senator says legislation allowing public gun possession will carve out an exception for Chicago”
Could we carve Chicago out of everything?
Comment by Jasper Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:15 am
Great Bill Daley Op-Ed that illustrates what’s wrong with Washington, D.C., these days — politicans with no guts. There was more guts in the fingernails of the kids at Sandy Hook than there is with D.C. incumbents who calculate at the expense of courage. It’s disgusting. Way to go, Bill Daley.
Comment by NW Illinois Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:15 am
Ron, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make about Cook County farms, but the Census Bureau lists it as 100% urban.
There is some farmland tucked away in a densely populated area. What’s the point, again?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:15 am
That’s some pretty blantant pandering to the liberal base by Bill Daley. Going out of his way to bash a swing-vote senator indicates he’s more interested in appeasing Dem primary voters than he is in influencing banking legislation in Washington. Guess that guv campaign ain’t dead yet — just in mothballs.
Comment by Frank Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:23 am
@Rich: great reporting.
I can just imagine the “discussions” on the bill with House Dem staff. The last few switchers probably took cover under the argument that the bill had some minor drafting errors, and wasn’t quite finished yet. Of course, that’s often handled by the other chamber on less controversial issues.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:30 am
So if you have a valid cc outside of cook county what happens to visitors that enter cook county?
Once again I see a give me money/important person exception which will encourage corruption. These freinds and family doacretionary exceptions breed corruption. it begs he question of why they can not identify the standards and limitations under a fair framework applicable uniformly to all for cook county. An expensive and lengthy court battle over denials is not protection. Cook county can’t handle parking tickets fairly, why would you give them unbound discretionary authority over permits?
On a side note laws that have no clear guidelines, like this in in cook county are ripe for a constitutional challenge for arbitrary and capricious application.
Let’s make this fair, identify the cook county criteria so its more then just who has donated to whom or is friends etc etc with decision makers.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:30 am
==Let those that need to pass a bill come to us with their language and what they want. ==
Can you be any more arrogant? That’s the exact attitude which would make me NOT want to talk to you. Why is it that attitudes like that seem to prevail in this debate. It’s a zero sum game for both sides. No wonder neither of you can get anything done.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:35 am
Isn’t Chicago under a court monitored process for their hiring because of their inability to make hiring decisions that are legit? And now we want to give them more discretionary authority?
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:38 am
Why should Chicago and Cook County get an exception on carrying??? Houston is urban and they have way less murders. What ever happened to “equal protection under the law”?
http://nalert.blogspot.com/2013/04/murder-in-houston-vs-chicago.html
Comment by Steve Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:39 am
@word.
I could care less what the Census dept lists cook county as. My point is that carving our all of cook county is based on the fact that people running cook county think then entire county looks like the view from the corner of Randolph and LaSalle or maybe 63rd and Cicero.
Instead, you have people that do not live in a metro area by far and will not be on trains, or in downtown crowded streets yet will be treated as if they are.
The primary reason chicago lists as not wanting this is density or plays on density. (other than they fact that they only think pols and Luis Farrakhan’s son should have guns on their person).
Well and tire cook county carve out spits in the face of all the “rules that work elsewhere dont work in chicago” Well Cook County is NOT chicago. And if you go south you will see, you are far away from help/police yet you will be treated like you are hanging out on Michigan avenue.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:49 am
@ demoralized.
Then what would you have us do? You dont like that we ask for their language, that they want? for years we have been trying, and re-writing these bills. Last minute pols ask for something then you change it for them and then they dont like and dont vote for it.
You can choose not to vote for the bill, but your side negotiates in bad fatih. So we will just keep killing bad bills until the 9th. We WANT a bill but we dont NEED a bill… I think the other side often forgets that.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:51 am
===We WANT a bill but we dont NEED a bill===
You need a bill. Don’t kid yourself.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:53 am
—And if you go south you will see, you are far away from help/police yet you will be treated like you are hanging out on Michigan avenue.–
What do you consider “far” and what does that have to do with conceal-carry, anyway?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 10:57 am
===We WANT a bill===
And you’re going to get one. You’re just not going to dictate all of its terms. It’s a big and diverse state and the CCW bill is going to reflect that.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:01 am
If the politicians in Cook County feel the people who elected them are less responsible or less civilized than the rest if the State, then the people there have sealed thier own fate.
I believe all should be treated the same and held to the same standards, but if the entire States population is to be penalized for the actions of a few, then by all means carve Cook County out of the Bill. Maybe then the people will hold the politicians accountable and more importantly the lack if criminal enforcement will become more urgent.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:11 am
Can’t wait to see Cook co waste tax money defending not allowing concealed carry. Or since it is a state law will it be state tax dollars wasted on this. Wonder how much the envelope to the Cook Co Sheriff will have to hold if you want your *endorsement.”
Comment by Fed up Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:13 am
@47th and Rich
see that is where we disagree. But thats ok.
And 47th… we havent dictated all the terms and to say so is completely dishonest. To say we have not come to the table and made change after change to accommodate people is VERY dishonest. Hell we have reps now arguing that they dont like the Duty To Inform clause in the bill… Reps from Chicago!!! that is where you have to inform a police officer if you are carrying and are in contact… And a Chicago rep is griping about it!!!!
Why is it there? to satisfy the sheriffs and police!!!
Please. a smaller % of the reps want a May Issue, politicians get the hook up bill. And more want a shall issue. Yet with all that we have negotiated we still hear from folks here that WE arent negotiating. Thats a laugh.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:14 am
The part that disgusts me the most in this article is this: “Madigan wanted to make sure the bill received no more than 64 votes”. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the people want or what’s best for the state; it’s all about King MJM and what HE wants!
Comment by Both Sides Now Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:17 am
I do my best to avoid trips to Chicago so I wouldn’t be that affected personally often; but Chicago is probably the place where carrying a firearm is most easily justified and where I’d most feel the need.
I think the residents there deserve the same ability to defend themselves as others and the ability to obtain that means without an arbitrary, capricious process.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:20 am
I should have also added “burdensome” as in without an … burdensome process.
Comment by Logic not emotion Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:23 am
So now that the downstaters have told us how much they hate Chicago, and now that, on behalf of Chicago residents I’ve let you downstaters know that those of us up here in the land of indoor plumbing are not fond of the rest of you, can we get back to the merits?
It would be great to read a thread about CC without wading through the “No, we hate you guys more!” stuff.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:42 am
Rich
Do you know if there are clear standards to be met for the “endorsement”? While i would prefer a statewide standard if the people in Chicago prefer extra hoops so be it. If the bill is written so that Chicago has to prove a valid reason for denial of the endorsement and can be appealed then it seems tolerable. Actually on second thought it should include language for those traveling through Chicago. I.E. No endorsement required while you are in your car.
Comment by Mason born Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:47 am
Ron, no where have I said the pro-carry side hasn’t compromised. It surely has. The sticking points have always been shall v. may, and pre-empting home rule. The pro-CCW folks won’t compromise on these, and that’s where we’re stuck for the most part. Other sticking points include carrying on mass transit, training time and fees.
Again, if pre-emption of home rule wasn’t an issue, we’d already have CCW in Illinois. My bet is that, given a choice between no bill on June 8th and a bill that only needs 60 votes, there will be 60 votes to pass some regulation before the dreaded “constitutional carry” with a FOID card becomes the law.
There is a deal to be had. Is it perfect? No. But perfect is rarely the product of legislative negotiation.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:53 am
Ahhh…a break from work and I see RonO claims he has been to the table, is (wait, scratch that, was) negotiating. I won’t use arrogant because I don’t know you. Instead, I’ll comment on your apparent sense of omnipotence. You NEED a bill, and even more galling, you need some of the other side to get what you NEED.
June 9 is a long ways off. Get back on the horse and negotiate.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:54 am
Mongo,
Could you flesh that out a bit?
Why does RonO need a bill?
If there is no bill, current law goes out.
No bill, and you have CC statewide.
It sure doesn’t seem to me that the the pro-gun people NEED a bill.
What am I missing?
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:59 am
The pro-self defense side wants a bill whereby any person who passes a background check and gets proper training in the laws on deadly force and can qualify at the range would get a permit.
The anti-self defense side wants a bill that sets the bar so high that nobody would get a permit.
I don’t think there is any middle ground here.
Cook County would be effectively “carved out” of any bill that is passed since nobody in Cook County wants a permit because Cook County residents know how dangerous guns are. So, there would be no applications filed for permits in the county.
Comment by Mr. Wonderful Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:02 pm
To RonO and others,
Has the “driving through Chicago if its rules are different from the rest of the state” issue been satisfactorily addressed?
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:11 pm
You’re telling me 49 states are wrong and Illinois is right? Chicago and Cook Co are one of the most inept politically corrupt areas in the country whose legislators are puppets to the simple minded man.
They (Chicago & Cook Co politics) can’t do anything right. Pension mess, over spending, high crime they can’t control, corruption they can’t control. They have brought the whole state to its knees and placed us as the worse fiscally ran state in the entire United States. An absolute embarrassment. Pathetic doesn’t even cover it.
And they gave us a President whose only political experience is Chicago politics and look where our country is now. In debt over our heads and the hole is getting deeper.
And you wonder why non-Cook Co Illinois residents are cynical and demoralized.
The best thing that could happen is June 9th arrives without a bill and Illinois gun laws are for naught. It would be fun to watch the panic in the streets and then watch how long it takes Chicago legislators to realize that the end of the world did not come and crime or killings did not increase. The sun actually came up the next days and birds were still singing. Sweet!
Comment by Munchkin Madigan Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:15 pm
Good afternoon Henry
There is a lot of debate about what happens June 9. I for one don’t think it is clear what will happen. In fact I think some counties and municipalities will enact cc bans, even if it invites litigation.
So one reason cc supporters NEED a bill is to avoid the cost of confusing litigation.
If these are litigated there is no guarantee that cc advocates will win (see NY decision early this month).
So that’s another reason cc supporters NEED a bill. Do you really want to take the chance of going to court? I know cc supporters will, but why take that unnecessary risk? A bill solves that.
You posted earlier about the animosity between the people in the “land of indoor plumbing” (btw way that was good) and the “others”.
So that’s a third reason…Illinois is a diverse state but we are one state. We have agreed before on important legislative measures with big differences in how regions of the state are affected. We can do it again.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:18 pm
===You’re telling me 49 states are wrong and Illinois is right? ===
Actually, NY’s law is highly restrictive, as is California’s, so the Senate proposal would be in line with those states.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:34 pm
A chicago or Cook County endorsement MAY be ok if that is what it takes to get a bill…
But I say MAY as in it also MAY NOT be ok.
If the endorsement requires say… additional 20 hours of paid for training or more shooting time than cops have to do, OR a MAY ISSUE component.
If its just that they run an extra check on you against their gang databases or something… Ok. I can get that. But if it is a MAY ISSUE boondoggle where its only friends family and clouted that get the “endorsement” that is completely un-sat.
How does Ron who lives in Will County become a problem simply driving up I55, existing laGrange road to go to my parents hour in Burbank/Bridgview. IF there is a Cook county carve out and they have to approve me it should be simple and easy for me to get that. But I doubt that is what they are thinking.
BTW, Ron out in Will county is a combat vet, holds 2 other CCW licenses from other states (with FBI background checks) and has plenty of existing DOD security clearances. I can see this turning into “Ron can’t get endorsed because he doesnt know Tom Dart or didnt contribute to his campaign”.
We should ALL be worried about that in Illinois. May issue anywhere can turn into corruption here… Just search the papers today for Farrakhan’s son and concealed carry.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:35 pm
Meeting the requirements for the FOID are more than adequate for allowing Concealed Carry. June 9, without a bill, will provide a very good starting point.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:36 pm
As a former Chicagoan, I completely understand both sides. However, Chgo has had it exactly how they have wanted it for decades. I know it’s obvious, but how has that been working? I have been following IL cc VERY closely for a long time. After all the arguments, I have come to the conclusion that I would make one more compromise. No Cook County carve-out. Carve-out for Chicago only. With that, there must be wording that allows those of us with valid IL cc permits who live in other parts of IL to be allowed to travel through Chgo without fear of arrest or prosecution. We should also be able to carry our guns unloaded in a case which would cover us if we had to spend a night in a Chgo hotel, etc. Just my .02. I don’t like giving in to any carve-outs, but if it get me CC, I’ll do it. I’m just tired of not having a cc permit because of a few overpopulated acres run by politicians who do not trust their constituents.
Comment by FormerChicagoan Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:38 pm
@ Rich
it depends. CA is very county focused. Get out of SanFran or SD and you are pretty much going to get a permit if your record is clean. Its a handful of counties that sheriffs has the no-issue policy.
NY is also the same most if not all counties are very CCW friendly in the state. BUT the very interesting thing about NY is how NYC has a SPECIAL carve out.
Your permit from one county over that is valid for the rest of NY state is NOT valid in NYC… I can get NYC having some say in who in their city gets a permit. BUT i still dont understand how the guy with a clean record and permit driving into brooklyn for a meeting suddenly is a felon with a mandatory 3 year sentence.
if its an NYC type carve out I would press NO.
Comment by RonOglesby Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Munckin,
George “Everything for a Price” Ryan and Jim “We will be fine skipping a few pension payments” Edgar send their greetings.
Now tell us again how wonderful downstate politicians run the state?
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:51 pm
Mongo wrote “So one reason cc supporters NEED a bill is to avoid the cost of confusing litigation.”
Under the latest proposals, it looks like we would have one rule in Chicago and then another elsewhere.
That doesn’t seem reasonable or effective.
In addition, it does seem like the pro-gun people are holding the cards. Come June, the current law is out. It will not be enforced.
Cook County may pass a law. If the county does, I can almost guaranty that whichever federal judge hears it will enter a stay. What will be the eventual result? No idea. It depends on who hears it first, the panel that hears the appeal, and of course whether the whole 7th Circuit eventually wants to hear it. But that being said, I just don’t see any local CC bill being enforced until the 7th Circuit says it is OK.
The pro-control people just don’t seem to get that they are up against it.
It is time to compromise.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 12:58 pm
@Ron:
I don’t have a side. Stop labeling people as being on the “other” side just because I happen to disagree with you on one point. That’s just more evidence of the irrational debates taking place. It’s always an us vs. them debate.
And, yes, you DO need a bill. More arrogance.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:00 pm
@Munchkin:
If you think the issue simply disappears if there is no law in June then you are naive. And where do you get that Illinois gun laws will be for “naught” on that date? The judge didn’t invalidate Illinois gun laws. Get a clue.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:03 pm
Demoralized,
If there is no bill, all we have left is the FOID card. That’s it. No CC laws would exist in Illinois.
With that in mind, could you explain to me why the pro-gun people should need a bill?
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:07 pm
Rich, I disagree, we don’t need a bill. People in Chicago need a bill.
Conceal and carry folks have been at the negotiated table for years. They asked for one thing. an up or down vote on fhe floor. Mike Madigan told them to pound sand and refused to allow elected officals to even vote on the issue because his side was in the minority.
You don’t tell people to shove it for years, then when the court says you were wrong ask them to negotiate. You lost, get over it.
If anti gun people wanted a NY gun law, they should have negotiated one when they had leverage. Not it is up to Madigan to strong arm people to get a bill, which will cost some downstate dems their seats.
Comment by the Patriot Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:07 pm
–With that in mind, could you explain to me why the pro-gun people should need a bill?–
They sure seem to want one.
I’m not sure where the confidence regarding “all you’ll need is an FOID card” comes from. Was that in Judge Posner’s opinion?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:10 pm
Sure they want one. A reasonable and uniform law is in the best interest of all of us.
With regard to the opinion — no, all his opinion said was that unless Springfield does something to the contrary, he’s tossing the CC law.
That would seem to leave us with nothing other than a FOID card and with no restrictions on CC.
What am I missing?
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:14 pm
hey, at least Todd is not on this thread as he was a few days ago, reminding the Black Caucus that the Sheriff in Cook County might not let them get a permit. and some wonder why the dialogue on this issue is so difficult.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:15 pm
@Henry:
There are a lot more laws dealing with guns than just a CC ban. Those laws remain.
And why would you think you don’t need a bill? You don’t think localities will start doing ordinances to place limits on where you can carry? You don’t think it’s a problem to have multiple oridinances on the books that will differ from one town to the next? You don’t think the lawsuits will start flying when all of those ordinances start to be passed limiting places where you can carry?
And if people think they are going to be able to strap a gun on their waste in June and start walking around, whether it’s technically legal or not, without some problem arising they are being naive. It will be messy and it’s wrong to think it won’t be.
A bill is necessary whether anybody likes it or not. The judge didn’t say there had to be carry with no restrictions. He just said there had to be carry. Wouldn’t you rather have a uniform carry law throughout the state instead of having to litigate this stuff one municipality at a time?
The legal process is far from over on this and I would think people would want to get this settled once and for all.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:17 pm
>>>>> reminding the Black Caucus that the Sheriff in Cook County might not let them get a permit
If you are a member of the black caucus, you would get a permit. If you are a member of the black populous, you would not get a permit.
If you are a gangbanger or just a n’er-do-well, it will be business as usual.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:25 pm
Demoralized,
Yes, a variety of local laws are a bad idea.
Which is why the gun lobby wants one law for Illinois.
Yes, certain counties and cities may pass laws. As I noted above, I can’t imagine the court enforcing any of them until the 7th Circuit gives approval. The laws will be passed and that day or the next Todd and his pals will go into court and the court will issue a stay.
Again, I’m failing to see what the gun lobby should be rushing to compromise. Seems like a year or two of no law banning CC would be just what the gun lobby wants.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:28 pm
–If you are a member of the black caucus, you would get a permit. If you are a member of the black populous, you would not get a permit.–
Did Tom Dart tell you that? You must have a reason for saying that with such absolute certainty.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:44 pm
==Again, I’m failing to see what the gun lobby should be rushing to compromise.==
Because they will be spending a lot of money in legal fees fighting off the various CC laws that will be passed by cities and counties. I’m not suggesting they compromise beyond what they are comfortable with. But I am suggesting that it would be better to have a law than go through the legal mess that will come.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:48 pm
Demoralized,
They should accept a bad law rather than paying lawyers?
Has the NRA ever backed down from paying lawyers to fight a law the NRA didn’t like?
And now about the pro-control people? Shouldn’t the realize that one law is better than many?
And shouldn’t they be concerned about wasting tax dollars passing laws that are certain to be challenged?
You keep insisting that the gun lobby should come to the table. What’s in it for the them?
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 1:56 pm
@Henry:
They should ALL realize a law is better than no law. They should ALL come to the table. I’m sick and tired of this us vs. them attitude. I never suggested they should accept a “bad” law. I suggested that a law is needed. If they think it’s ok to have no law then I guess it’s their right. I think it will be messy and I think it’s stupid. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for some of you to discuss the issue without saying, “Yeah, but the other side is [fill in the blank.]” And people wonder why nothing can get done on the issue. The arrogance of both sides is ridiculous.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 2:07 pm
Demoralized,
I have this thing about being realistic.
Apparently that bothers you.
But in any case, no I don’t see any reason for the NRA to accept a bad bill. The Phelps bill included some significant compromise and it still lost.
So far, what have the pro-control people offered? A carve out to let local government do as they please.
That would be terrible on so many levels. The number of votes it got is telling.
Basically D, you think the NRA should just accept a bad bill to be polite. I disagree.
Since that appears to be the sum your argument, I don’t see a point in responding to any further comments on this topic.
Have a great afternoon!
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 2:14 pm
@Henry:
That’s not at all what I said, but whatever. Perhaps you need reading comprehension classes.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 2:16 pm
It doesn’t hurt Bivens’ constituents any to throw Cook residents under the bus. But I doubt the gun lobby will abandon all of their members from the county of Cook.
I would love to hear the suburban Cook legislators explain why they don’t want any of their constituents to have the same right to carry as residents in the other 101 counties.
Comment by reformer Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:07 pm
Vk and demoralized, allow me to mediate
The fun lobby does not need to come to the table. They have no actual voting rights. If they don’t want a day in the bill that’s up to them. It sure seems like a good idea for them to sit at the table though, I believe Brutus showed us the error of walking away from a debate.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:22 pm
Ghost,
Based on the history of the bills presented, what is the NRA likely to obtain by negotiation?
Based on the history of the votes both this year and in prior years, is there a reasonable chance that votes are there to pass a bill opposed by Todd and his friends?
If there is no bill, what is the result?
It sure seems to me that Chicago Dems should realize they’ve lost this one and should start working on how to vote for something Todd accepts while still giving certain members the opportunity to vote no to save face.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:31 pm
Only 48 days left until June 9!
Comment by Non-ISRA Member Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:34 pm
@ Former, “However, Chgo has had it exactly how they have wanted it for decades. I know it’s obvious, but how has that been working?”
Really? I didn’t realize Chicago had control over how easy it is for strawmen to get guns in Indiana or even in the suburbs and then “recycle” them on the blackmarket in Chicago.
There’s a reason even REPUBLICAN Mark Kirk is trying to fix the lax Federal gun traficking laws (which the NRA for some reason is dead-set against).
But don’t let that fact get in the way of your own straw man argument.
Comment by G. Willickers Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:34 pm
Henry, you couldn’t keep your hands off the keyboard, could you?
Something does not become true just because you repeat it over and over. Phelps’ bill is likely the template for whatever does pass. Do you know how many times a bill is “killed” only to be resuscitated by an amendment, a new sponsor, a new co-sponsor, the withdrawal of a co-sponsor, etc.? It happens all the time, every Session. I am amazed and frankly amused at the wild uproar over “he promised a yes” but then voted Present or no.
A bill will pass this session. The fact that you had 64 votes is very significant. Do you expect to win every debate on this issue? Ain’t gonna happen.
The 2nd amendment activists can sit it out, pride wounded, and frustrated by the process, or remain engaged. Remaining engaged assures that your interest will be vigorously represented. Seems like a pretty easy call to me.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:46 pm
FormerParatrooper
== I believe all should be treated the same and held to the same standards ==
Drive a pick-up truck on Lake Shore Drive and let me know how that works out.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:48 pm
Or park your pickup on a Chicago street.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:54 pm
Vk depends on the conversation at the table. What have they got to lose? Being present gives them a voice and opportunity to say no and why. Refusing to talk or participate at all rarely does much but guarantee a lack of a voice.
They can participate
how they effectuate that role is up to them. No sane bill should have a friends and family carve out for cook county.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:54 pm
===what is the NRA likely to obtain by negotiation?===
I have no idea what components will end up in the final bill or what ISRA’s bottom line really is, but here’s one thought on where compromise could lead:
If we have statewide rules on how and where a permit holder can carry, there is clarity that would extend statewide. That’s a positive for CCW supporters.
The remaining piece is who can carry, and if home rule units wish to add additional criteria above the state’s minimums for residents of their jurisdictions, why should they be prevented from doing that?
This could result in people in Kankakee County or Jackson County or where ever getting permits where they live and still being able to visit Cook and carrying within the limits of the statewide bill. It would give Cook and Chicago a means to raise the bar (within reason, like additional training, higher fees, etc.) for those residents to get permits if they so choose.
So there could be one uniform law on how and where (proximity to sensitive areas like schools or government buildings) permit holders could carry, and a minimum statewide threshold for who can receive permits. Home rule areas could then add higher thresholds for their residents if they choose, but would have to accept that those limits only apply to permit applicants in their jurisdictions, not to those from outside their jurisdiction.
That kind of compromise bill could pass with 60 votes.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 3:54 pm
Mongo,
You seem to have a difficult time with bias.
I have no bias. I really don’t care either way.
I’m more interested in the process.
Pass? Fine with me.
Doesn’t pass? Fine.
I honestly don’t care whether people carry or not.
The negotiations and the failure of leadership that got us to this point?
Now that’s interesting.
So go back to viewing things through your rose colored glasses and tell yourself that what you want to happen is going to happen. I don’t care.
But when you do discuss it, get rid of this idea that I’m biased for one side or the other. I’m not. I don’t care.
Comment by HenryVK Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 4:00 pm
Dang spell checker!
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Hey my post disappeared. Either I got filtered or it must be some kind of vortex from the flooding. I’d better watch my P’s and Q’s or suffer the wrath!
Comment by benji Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 4:13 pm
I have this question, and Bivens and Raoul need to be called on the carpet to answer it: In Judge Posner’s ruling, the right of self defense for a high-rise dweller in CHICAGO was the point! How is it now that Cook County politicians feel empowered to “negotiate” constitutionally granted rights to “get” votes from Cook County? The Phelps bill is fair and well written.
Comment by Livin' in Cook Cty Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 4:19 pm
Henry, I didn’t assume you have a preference one way or the other. Usually a cynic I am, and perhaps you are playing that role today. But I also believe that nature (and the General Assembly) abhors a vacuum. That is especially true with a looming deadline.
I too don’t have a horse in this race. I do think that the sooner we solve this, the more attention we can spend on other (equally) important issues.
I would just like to see everyone at the table. Otherwise we get a bill that isn’t as strong as it should be.
Comment by Mongo Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 4:21 pm
Will (Sen.) Kwame’s bill be DOA then? Remains to be seen–at least it’s Bi-partisan, and that’s a Start…But may I also cheer-lead a bit and chant, “Go Z Go!” (As in (Rep.) Zaleswski)–good for him–and Illinois, no matter what his motive–it’s good to see, at least on the surface, a Legislator down there workin’ his tail off apparently trying to serve as an in-good-faith Go-Between to do all HE can on this daunting dilemma, at least, to find adequate “middle ground,” hopefully at least, so that they can get this thing done somehow–or should I say done “miraculously,” instead, if it CAN get done with polar opposites on the issue so firmly entrenched up until now!
And, also, nice Column as well, as typically the case–thanks for the free read…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 7:46 pm
Chicago resident here. We aren’t looking to beg Dart or McStreetLights for a carry permit. We already have two permits with two different background checks and training to boot.
Face facts, gun control in IL (from the FOID act to Chicago’s old handgun ban) have been all about keeping black people from having guns. This carry carve-out is just the latest. Just poll people from both ends of the 5th District.
Comment by David W Lawson Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 8:27 pm
I have friends in Chicago. We are not going to see another bill after this one. If we intend to have a bill and not let it become constitutional carry, let’s get it over with. If Chicago doesn’t want to carry guns , let them opt out, I never go to Chicago anyway. Let’s get it done and move on.
Comment by Moses Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:30 pm
I live in far Northwest Cook. Myself and the rest of Cook County’s residents (INCLUDING Chicago), don’t have any less rights than our neighbors in Lake, Dupage, McHenry, or downstate. Illinois is ONE state and will have ONE law.
“Madigan only wanted the bill to get 64 votes”
What a laugh. If Little Napoleon had that kind of control, his Cassidy bill would have done a LOT better than a dismal 31 votes. They have NO hope of passing a Cook county carve-out, or New York style “may issue” bill. In a week or two, they had better start BEGGING Mr. Phelps to bring his bill back, because it’s the only one with a chance to pass. No one wants the nightmares and confusion that would come with constitutional carry, so they better start facing facts down in Springfield. They need to realize that they are NOT different from the other 49 states. Phelps has already made his bill one of the most restrictive in the nation, so they better grab it while they still can.
Comment by Pete S Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 9:59 pm
Why do I get the feeling this is also as much about whose names ends up as the bill sponsors as it is about what actual wording is in the bill?
In the end, I think we’ll end up with 98% of Phelps language in a bill sponsored by one or two anointed public servants.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:06 pm
Pete S
As Rich pointed out to a previous commenter, park a pickup truck on a city street in Chicago and let us know how that works out for you.
Comment by Smitty Irving Monday, Apr 22, 13 @ 11:50 pm
I honestly don’t understand the reference to a pick up truck in Chicago. Is there a parking ordinance against trucks?
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 8:20 am
Logic not emotion
Yes! Outside Chicago, you can drive a truck anywhere (outside a construction zone), subject to weight limits.
In Chicago, even if it weighs less than a minivan / SUV, you cannot drive a pickup on Lake Shore Drive, and (according to Rich) you can’t park one in a residential area, either.
The point is Chicago already bans things that are legal in the rest of Illinois. Doesn’t mean it can, or will, happen in the concealed carry realm. But, speaking just for me, the notion that anything legal in Alexander County is legal in Chicago / Cook County is just plain wrong.
Comment by Anyone Remember? Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:05 am
Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t have a clue. Not to derail from CC focus; but what is the logic behind that?
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Apr 23, 13 @ 10:57 am