Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Here come the “consequences”
Next Post: Dillard to announce Monday
Posted in:
* It’s hard to disagree with Dave McKinney’s analysis of yesterday’s drubbing…
Hoarse and unusually agitated, Gov. Pat Quinn went before cameras Tuesday to explain his resounding defeat on concealed-carry legislation and to tell voters one more time why he couldn’t exert his will over a Democratic-led state Legislature.
“Today was a bad day for public safety in Illinois,” the governor said.
But in fact, it was Quinn himself who had the bad day, perhaps one of the worst of his one-and-a-half terms as governor.
The Democratic governor was resoundingly mowed down by lawmakers in his effort to rewrite portions of the gun bill – even on something as basic as requiring a concealed-carry licensee to tell a cop if he or she is armed and to strengthen the state’s hand in keeping concealed weapons out of the hands of a gun owner who presents a “clear and present danger.” […]
One could argue Quinn has set out on a path to seek his second full term by running against the Legislature, whose members consistently rate lower in popularity than even the chronically unpopular Quinn.
But that strategy, as his concealed-carry and pension defeats show, leaves Quinn looking weak, which the governor strained to explain away Tuesday during his news conference.
“With respect to working and getting the job done, I think the people of Illinois know I work every day for their common good,” Quinn said.
Working every day for the common good is a fine thing. But you gotta show accomplishments in order to do good things. Doing ain’t exactly his strong suit.
* The Tribune editorial board was on point as well…
It wasn’t a good day for the governor. His veto was swiftly and summarily dismissed by an overwhelming number of lawmakers. His rhetoric — slapping this bill as some National Rifle Association diktat — didn’t ring true. It was the product of a difficult but balanced negotiation, compelled by the ruling of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
That’s exactly right. If Quinn wanted to be in the negotiations, he could’ve been. He chose to sit them out so he could do what he eventually did. Showmanship instead of leadership. But, hey, throwing rocks at the process has long been his thing.
* I tried twice to get Quinn to answer a simple question yesterday about why he or his staff weren’t in the room when the Legislature negotiated the concealed carry bill. He wouldn’t move off his talking points, then left after I pressed him a second time…
* This ain’t the end, however. Not by any means…
But the legislature’s decision to override Quinn and stick to its agreed-upon compromise may represent only a short-lived truce between gun rights advocates and gun control supporters in a state where there is a vast divergence over how firearms are viewed, dependent largely upon cultural and regional differences.
Even a late effort by lawmakers to amend another bill to reflect three mostly minor changes that the governor had proposed ended up falling short of the votes needed in the House after first passing the Senate. […]
Sen. Christine Radogno of Lemont, the Senate Republican leader, told colleagues that “I don’t think this is the last time we’re going to be discussing this issue.” And Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, a gun control supporter, said “it is a very safe bet that we will be back” fighting over changes in the new law. […]
Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, said lawmakers “can and should add more protections to when and how people can carry guns in public places. I believe in give-and-take and compromise, but we can’t bargain away the safety of our families.”
Richard Pearson, who heads the Illinois State Rifle Association, cheered the vote of legislators to overcome Quinn’s efforts to make the legislation more restrictive. But he also said that the new law was “not perfect” and that it would be reviewed and fine-tuned when necessary.
The trailer bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and got 62 House votes. It died in the House because it needed a super-majority due to its immediate effective date. That bill, and others, will likely pass next spring if they’re allowed to the floor.
* Related…
* How gun law works: Likely 2014 before permits issued
* New law gives suburbs 10 days to ban assault weapons
* Attorney General Lisa Madigan: Appealing federal court’s concealed-carry ruling now moot after override effort
* Concealed-carry legal in Illinois after Senate joins House in blocking Quinn’s amendatory veto
* Illinois lawmakers school governor with concealed carry override
* Despite Chicago bloodshed, Illinois will allow concealed carry
* 9 Illinois lawmakers skip historic concealed carry vote
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:29 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Here come the “consequences”
Next Post: Dillard to announce Monday
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Just reinforces the ineptness and lack of leadership qualities by Governor Quinn. Those with good intentions, as stated, need to be able to make those intentions reality. Quinn seems to reached the Peter Principle, as Lt. Governor.
Comment by Downstater Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:38 am
Rich, good to see you carry on your fair and balanced coverage of the Governor.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:38 am
Anonymous, is that state ISP address of yours in the governor’s Chicago office? lol
Just asking…
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:43 am
I have a question regarding the part of Quinn’s re-write that pertains to concealed firearems in places that serve alcohol. The gun control advocates, Quinn included, seem to be horrified about the idea of being able to carry a gun into a bar. I am not certain of this but don’t some states allow concealed carry (or open in some states) in bars? Is there any empirical evidence to support the assertion that allowing guns in places that sell alcohol will result in shootouts in bars? It seems to me that if there were many examples of this in other states, they would have been trotted out by now. Is this a fair question?
Comment by the unknown poster Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:45 am
I said this yesterday, but the Governor’s Amendatory veto (in my opinion) improved the bill quite a bit, it’s just too bad that he can’t find it in himself to negotiate and lead (or at least sit at the table and act like he’s the governor).
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:45 am
When asked by Rich Miller about why he or his staff weren’t in the room when the Legislature negotiated the concealed carry bill.
The Governor replied that he believes he was feeding Squeezy during the meetings. Or, he may have been shopping for his late night snacks since he works night and day on all state issues. Or, he was working with Wirtz to ensure the Blackhawks got to the Stanley Cup.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:46 am
Meh, Quinn knew it was coming and made the most of it for a primary electorate audience.
If Lisa ever takes a break from fundraising and up her mind to run for governor, he’ll hit her failure to appeal the court of appeals ruling, also for the benefit of a primary electorate.
You get lemons, you make lemonade.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:48 am
I’m going to disagree with Rich on what will pass as changes to the carry law. Neither NRA, ISRA or Illinois Carry opposed the trailer bill. WE will take another look at it, particularly the signage issue as to what notice should be required. There were some good points made during the House debate.
If we go hard NO on something, I think we’ll have the votes to stop it. But lets be clear, the tweaks, were nothing monumental. going from telling an officer if he asks you have a gun to telling an officer if he asks IMMEDIATELY you have a gun, is not some earth shattering change to the law.
It appeared to be more face saving and trying to soothe some bruised egos.
All the big changes Quinn wanted are DOA. Remember the roll call Brandon had on 997. The suburban types got their roll calls on a couple of issues. I doubt they are going to be voting to make the RTC law more restrictive. In fact the trend nationally has been just the opposite.
Comment by Todd Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:49 am
Rich: LOL
Anon: Uh oh.
Fair and balanced? Wasn’t that the Faux News ideal (which they promptly ignorned)?
Gov. Quinn is a manager, not a leader. He demands people do things regardless of reality, complains when it doesn’t happen, and pouts when people point out that the Emperor’s clothes are kinda see-through. His grip on the facts is often tenuous at best. While he may be as honest as the day is long, this manifestly fails to make up for his lack of leadership ability.
Comment by CrookCounty60827 Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:50 am
Question for Governor Quinn: when is Chicago going to have a murder rate as low at Houston??? When is Chicago going to have a murder rate as low as the not so wild west???
http://www.amazon.com/The-Not-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373468502&sr=8-1&keywords=not+so+wild+west
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:02 am
Quinn has made himself irrelevant.
Rich, you’re spot on: Showmanship instead of leadership. The only problem is, Quinn’s showmanship is nothing but rhetoric and demagoguery that doesn’t resonate outside of a very narrow, minority viewpoint.
“[D]on’t some states allow concealed carry (or open in some states) in bars?”
Yes, Indiana and Kentucky, both, for instance. No epidemic of shootouts in the bars in either state - not even occasional shootings aside from the occasional armed robber that gets himself perforated.
Guns and alcohol don’t mix? Well neither do cars and alcohol, but don’t ban cars from places that serve alcohol, now do we? Instead, we rely on good people to use good judgement and punish bad people who don’t use good judgement.
John
Comment by John Boch Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:04 am
- ban cars from places that serve alcohol, now do we? -
Well, you’re not allowed to drink while driving one, even if you are under the legal limit. So, should you be able to drink while carrying, even if it’s just a beer with dinner?
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:08 am
If your local amateur drama group ever stages the musical “Chicago,” I think that Pat Quinn would kill doing the vocal solo on the tune “Mister Cellophane.”
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:12 am
This is Illinois. He really doesn’t need to point to any accomplishments.
If accomplishments were required, then most of the State House and Senate would be voted out. Look at the Speaker — we are last in just about every category, it happened on his watch, and he’s the most powerful man in Illinois.
I know this sounds like snark, but I’m serious.
What the Gov. did was to play to the primary base. He is now the strong anti-gun guy and that’s an extremely popular position with Dem primary voters. Bill Daley was on the sidelines and Lisa Madigan had the opportunity to get involved but pointedly refused.
Quinn needed one issue to push primary voters. Grandstanding on guns may have been bad policy for Illinois but it was good politics for Quinn.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:25 am
Call me overly sensitive if you must but I don’t care for McKinney saying the Governor was “mowed down”. It’s unnecessary violent imagery that was at best superfluous and at worst irresponsible.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:26 am
@ CookCounty - agree 100%. In light of that, I must ask again: Is there anyone, anyone at all, over there who knows what they are doing?
as for anon - dude, you ever hear of a smartphone??
Un.Be.Leave.Able
Comment by low level Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:29 am
@ the unkown
—
The gun control advocates, Quinn included, seem to be horrified about the idea of being able to carry a gun into a bar.
—
Uh you cant carry a gun into a Bar with this law. Quinn just kept repeating that. You can carry (if the owner does not place a sign up) into a restaurant that has a liquor license, like applebees or TGIF, etc.
The bar thing was a straight out lie to the masses.
Comment by RonOglesby Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:30 am
Check out the 8:45 to 9:30 marker of the video. Pat Quinn declares war on Grandmas! The war on women is here.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:30 am
=== Call me overly sensitive if you must but I don’t care for McKinney saying the Governor was “mowed down”. It’s unnecessary violent imagery that was at best superfluous and at worst irresponsible. ===
Agree, let’s ban mowers. It’s too hot for them anyway.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:31 am
–This is Illinois. He really doesn’t need to point to any accomplishments.–
Rich did a thread on this subject a while back and it was more robust than you might think.
Things that come immediately to mind are income tax increase, cutting spending, paying down old bills, civil unions, abolishing the death penalty…
Quinn spent his entire career building himself up by running against the powers-that-be. That’s not the business model for being CEO and getting everyone to play nice.
Still, I won’t make the mistake of discounting his chances again. I thought Hynes, then Brady, would beat him pretty easily. I was wrong.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:35 am
Norseman: I don’t like lawnmowers either; but we should probably be fair and just ban the high performance lawn mowers that are particularly dangerous due to their paint schemes and accessories.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:45 am
“We are last in almost every category.” … .??
Some folks on this blog need to dial down their partisan filters and spend more time in Mississippi. Seriously the IL bashing on this blog has gone to 11 recently.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:14 am
===Look at the Speaker — we are last in just about every category, it happened on his watch, and he’s the most powerful man in Illinois.===
Yikes!
Thompson, Edgar, Ryan, Blago, Quinn …They all pointed to accomplishments, many needed legislative assistance. I think the Speaker is in the legislature …
So MJM is responsible for all that is bad, did nothing good, and not one thing was ever accomplished with the General Assembly good … as he was Speaker …
The hyperbole is cute thou …in just about every category.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:23 am
Sure ZC and Oswego.
Things are awesome in Illinois!
Stay the course!
And ZC, it is partisan if you blame one side. I don’t blame one side.
That being said, I am sort of amused by Oswego’s take on this. He apparently wants to get voters to go from Dem to GOP, but do so without blaming Dems for anything, or even stating that things are not going well.
“This are great in Illinois. No need to blame the Speaker or any Dems for any conditions, but I want about 2/3 of you to switch from voting Dem to voting GOP.”
Seems like a tough sell.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:31 am
Word,
Whether or not you consider those on your accomplishments and whether or not you give Quinn credit or blame for them doesn’t really seem to matter to primary voters.
My argument is that a record of accomplishment really doesn’t matter in Illinois. We have no history of tossing failures out of office.
Quinn thinks he can appeal to primary voters by staking out positions that appeal to the far left. I think he’s right. I just don’t think voters care about what, if anything, he’s accomplished.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:35 am
Oswego,
You and I have discussed this matter before, but I admit I’m not clear on your position.
It is your goal to elect Republicans, right?
What’s your selling point? Why, in your view, should people who currently vote for Dems switch and vote for the GOP?
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:36 am
===He apparently wants to get voters to go from Dem to GOP, but do so without blaming Dems for anything, or even stating that things are not going well.===
Then we should “Fire Madigan!”
Yikes. Here endeth the lesson!
We in the ILGOP need to stand for something, not be against …everything.
Being against Dems …because they are Dems … and maybe “firing Madigan” is the best way to stay irrelevent. Can you say “veto” “proof”…
“Must”, “always”, “never”, “only” is the best way to get people NOT to vote for you.
Dope.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:37 am
I don’t dispute IL has seen better days (and better leadership), just wanted to clarify when we’re being literal and when we’re making rhetorical points.
It’s too common these days (for partisans on both sides) to make a vastly inflated (or flat out inaccurate) claim, and then sort of let it “float,” and maybe fool some people if nobody speaks up, and then if anyone challenges you to fall back on, “Oh, what I really meant was…” Kind of a get-out-of-truth-once-free card.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:37 am
Sure Oswego.
Saying thinks are going well, not criticizing current leadership, and standing for something (to be determined) is a great plan.
Voters will love it!
Is this another one of your little jokes? You are a funny guy, Willy, but at times your humor is beyond me.
Any time you feel like coming up with a plan, please let us know.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:44 am
===Why, in your view, should people who currently vote for Dems switch and vote for the GOP?===
Because we are not Democrats, or because MJM is “always bad” hasn’t worked …
Stand for something.
When did we, “- VonKlutzenplatz -”, have a discussion. I do not remember your handle, sorry.
Use the “search” engine of your choice if you want to know how I feel about it, it’s out there. This post is about the worst day ever, not about how I think the GOP needs to market itself to voters. Being “against” something, ala “Fire Madigan” doesn’t work, we have veto-proof chambers to prove that.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:46 am
ZC,
“Every” was probably a bit extreme, but it is clear we are facing extremely serious problems and we rank very low in several categories.
Budget and credit rating come to mind, where we are in fact ranked last.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:46 am
Interesting, OW.
You remember to call me “dope” but you don’t seem to remember your own plan to elect Republicans.
But this discussion seems to have run its course. Now go back to telling your really funny Plumber jokes. You are not good at coming up with political solutions, but you sure can tell a Plumber joke.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:50 am
===…not criticizing current leadership,…===
and …
===…any accomplishments…====
Any? really?
You can’t run campaigns on;
“Any”, “Never”, “Always”, “Must” or “Only”
Unless you don’t want to be taken seriously and sound super-partisan and Dopey…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:51 am
- VonKlutzenplatz -,
lol,
you can use a “search” engine, right? This post is not about what i think the GOP should do, but its out there…geez, lol
Plummer has no “b” in it, and an extra “m”.
You’re welcome.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 11:55 am
VK, there’s a huge difference between being against something and presenting an alternative. The former is reactive, and obviously hasn’t worked. The latter is proactive.
It’s lot easier to vote for someone with a solid vision than someone who simply says, “No!” like a petulant two year old.
No? Ok then. What’s YOUR plan to get us out of this mess? That’s what OW is advocating.
Comment by ChrisB Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:14 pm
Thanks, - ChrisB -, appreciate you understanding …
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 12:17 pm
what wordslinger said.
you know who really had a bad day yesterday? ICHV. misplaying this issue for years.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:07 pm
I wonder about Quinn’s gain with Primary voters. While i understand going left on this appeals to the Chicago area. I don’t think it helps him any Downstate. I personally don’t care what party you are in D or R i care what you believe and stand for. The line in the Press conference where he said and i am paraphrasing “the only reason to have more than 10 rounds is to murder a lot of people”. Is quite honestly very insulting and frankly Stupid. Down here in the sticks where i live even the Democrats are pretty fond of gun rights. I can’t see any of them being more inclined to vote PQ after that tirade. To me it left some room for a challenger to run to the right of him on this. Even if LM just said ” this is the law of the land and my job as Gov. is to enforce it” she’d look like a reasonable individual on this issue. I guess to make it short Quinn went too far for a large portion of the voters he needs.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 1:40 pm
==I don’t think it helps him any Downstate.== Quinn does not need downstate votes. He needs Cook County and collar votes.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:29 pm
Precinct
I agree for the general election however in the primary if he is in a threeway race against LM and Daley the downstate votes might become very important.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 3:48 pm
Mason born hits the jackpot, which is why I am shaking my head over the veto. He passes on the veto and he could push hard downstate which would be critical in a 3-way D race. Now, I think there is some downstate D>R crossover potential in the primary…
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:02 pm
Cincinatus
What amazes me is he had the chance to make some minor tweaks like Cullertons bill did as well as fix the FOIA problems and come off as “i don’t like it but i made it better.” Most likely he could have got some votes and maybe his changes. Add to that he looks like a guy not for Gun rights but not apoplectic about it.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:11 pm
Mason.
For every downstate Dem pro-gun voter, there are 100 Chicago area Dem anti-gun voters.
Quinn may be a lousy governor, but he understands his base.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:13 pm
Von
No offense but i don’t think the spread is quite that big. For one i think you are underestimating how pro-gun downstate dems are. For two I am going to assume that there will be fierce competition up there for those dem voters from all dem candidates. Noticed i didn’t say LM should endorse CCW but take a “okay it’s law of land i am not thrilled but i will enforce it”. That is still an anti-gun message but it is far to the middle from Quinn. If either of the other two pick off a sizable portion of that base say 30% and the other 15% then those 1 out of 100 votes might make a huge difference.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:33 pm
Mason,
There may have been fierce competition, but Quinn completely outplayed his potential primary opponents.
Lisa (and I doubt she’s running) will have to explain to them why she stood on the sidelines and did nothing.
Daley can talk about it, but Quinn got to talk about it and can claim he tried to do something.
Chicago and anti-gun votes are going to decide this. There is no way a moderate on guns gets through a statewide Dem primary.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:46 pm
===For every downstate Dem pro-gun voter, there are 100 Chicago area Dem anti-gun voters.===
100 to 1?
Dunno about that. What is that based on? Even in the Democratic primary, 100 to 1 is a big spread.
Fifty to 1 is a big spread.
Playing to the “base Quinn voter in Chicago” is about right… love to see the 100 to 1 in a Dem primary based solely on CCW.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:47 pm
Von
You really going to tell me Chicago in a few months will be a one issue town??
That LM and Daley won’t have barrels full of Ammo (no pun intended) to throw at Quinn??
Really i mean if quinn overall had done a good job or even a decent job maybe the CCW issue would be a show stopper. However Quinn IMHO has been a pretty Terrible Governor and no leadership. I am sure LM and Daley have issues to pursue Quinn’s base with.
On a side note heard Daley on Springfield radio this A.M. while on the road. Seems he thinks the downstate votes are worth a shot.
Comment by Mason born Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 4:54 pm
I looked at the numbers. I was nowhere near correct.
It is definitely not 100/1.
Looks like 3/4 of Quinn’s primary vote came from Chicago. That’s roughly 300,000 out of 460,000.
I still believe that the anti-gun position is a huge advantage, but not by the margins I suggested.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:03 pm
Mason,
Regarding the other issues —
The only other one that would matter with Dem primary voters would be union contracts.
I spend way too much of my life talking to Democratic voters.
The ones that care about pensions and taxes and long term solutions are few and far between.
In a general election, other issues will matter, but not in a primary.
I can’t stand Quinn, but I think he’s making the right play.
Comment by VonKlutzenplatz Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:06 pm
I had lunch at a downstate eatery today. At an adjoining table were eight women. My ears perked up when I heard one mention that they approved concealed carry. I was really curious as to their stance and comments. I was subsequently amazed that they were all very supportive (i.e. about time). They talked about a lady they knew of that was kidnapped and killed and how concealed carry will help them be able to protect themselves. The issue is definitely a regional one. I also know of some people I would otherwise classify as ultra-liberal who support concealed carry.
Comment by Logic not emotion Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:12 pm
Bad day at black rock for Quinn. The night they count the primary votes will be worse for him. How big will his pension be?
Comment by Rollo Tomasi Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 5:25 pm
All in all, I would say Pat had an up day.
Sincerely,
Rod Smith
Comment by Prison Library FCI Englewood, CO Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 7:25 pm
Rollo Tomasi @ 5:25 pm:
Too big.
Not sure how many years as an aide under Walker (at most 4), but he has 15 years in elected office: 91-95 as State Treasurer, 03-08 as Lt Gov, 09-13 as Gov. So his pension will be based on a minimum of 15 years. I believe the Gov position falls under GARS (all elected officials). If it’s the GARS rules, for 15 years he should get at least 60% of ending salary or a minimum of about $106K annual pension. It would be higher based on how the Walker years get counted.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 8:02 pm
BTW … that’s GARS Tier 1 rules I used for the calculation.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 8:04 pm
RNUG I agree with your conclusion, but wouldn’t PQ have 16 years GARS? 4 as Treas plus 1 and 1/2 terms each as Gov and LG (roughly) for 16 total? If he has 16 GARS and 4 from SERS or other reciprocal service he is ah, bleeping golden.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 9:09 pm
==They talked about a lady they knew of that was kidnapped and killed and how concealed carry will help them be able to protect themselves.==
Yes, and if only X,Y,Z happened A,B,C would be different.
“Despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.”
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Jul 10, 13 @ 10:31 pm
AA,
He probably has close to 20 yrs total but I wanted to be conservative on the calculation. I wasn’t sure if the Walker years would be under GARS or SERS, which makes a big difference in the calculation. Think it would be SERS 2.2% per year (instead of GARS 5% but those appointed positions sometimes fall into funny categories.
And you’re right, he should have 16 GARS by the end of his current term (so add 5% / $9K for the extra year). Unlike some, he won’t immediately make more that he did while working but he shouldn’t have to worry about his next meal.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jul 11, 13 @ 7:59 am
unknown poster- Armed citizens may not be under the influence with this act. No criminal statute in IL addresses police under the influence of drugs or alcohol when armed. Police under the influence of drugs or alcohol still retain police powers to arrest and use force when hanging out in taverns. This is the urban Chicago machine version of the good old boys mentality that brought Duty to Inform into the Phelps carry bill. Differenct rules for the serfs that pay the taxes.
Harrisburg good old boy Brandon Phelps lives in one of the poorest districts in IL. Want a job? Hope one opens up at the Wal-Mart or the juvenile prison. The good old boy endorsement of the Chiefs of Police is very important in Harrisburg for Phelps re-election. That’s why Phelps refused to remove DTI from his “good” NRA backed HB997 carry bill.
If Phelps is the NRA guy and hero to gun owners, why is it that Chicago Dems like Rep. LaShawn Ford
and Will Davis were the only ones debating Phelps on the dangers of DTI? Because DTI is Jim Crow. It’s not meant to be used in Harrisburg, only against people in Chicago.
When grassroots Buckeye Firearms was trying to pass citizen carry in Ohio, and the police unions wouldn’t endorse it, they got a bill passed that cops police powers are suspended when under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Instead we have NRA contract lobbyist for IL Todd Vandermyde placing DTI w/ criminal penalties in Phelps HB997 carry bill in Feb., when the Federal court ORDERED the IL legislature to pass a carry bill. But it’s important to keep the Chiefs of Police happy and all. Apparently Chris Cox and Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA aren’t keeping to close a watch on their contract lobbyist in IL.
Comment by John Wednesday, Jul 17, 13 @ 7:34 pm