Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: IDOC statement debunked
Next Post: “I work with Mark Janus. Here’s how he benefits from a strong union”
Posted in:
* The governor’s AV outline…
.@GovRauner proposes reinstating the death penalty, for "mass murderers and cop-killers." Also uses amendatory veto power to:
-require 72 hour waiting period for sale of ALL guns
-ban bump stocks, trigger cranks
-"firearm restraining order" for those adjudicated dangerous
… pic.twitter.com/Sv83r3KWQA— Amanda Vinicky (@AmandaVinicky) May 14, 2018
* As the governor said today, Speaker Madigan doesn’t like to accept amendatory vetoes (I think he approved one under Blagojevich). So, I kinda doubt this AV will be approved. Instead, as the governor said, the GA could take up the AV as a new bill and then pass that.
* Reinstating the death penalty for mass murderers and cop killers appears to be designed to appeal to his party base and drive a wedge in the electorate. The governor’s proposal would increase the standard of proof to “guilty beyond all doubt.” One of the problems with reinstating the death penalty is that people start to ask “Well, what about (fill in the blank) murderers?” Rauner was asked this question today and said he could be in favor of expanding the death penalty to other topics, but refused to say what they might be, going so far as to say the question wasn’t serious. Also, for a guy who constantly complains about government incompetence and the need for judicial reform, giving that same state the power of life and death over individuals seems a bit contradictory.
* Handgun purchases already require a 72-hour waiting period. This bill expands that period to all guns. The underlying bill only applied to assault weapons. Because there’s such an intense disagreement over how to define assault weapons (and assault weapons themselves have been so politicized), this change does make some sense if you think the waiting period is useful.
* The firearm restraining order has been hotly opposed by groups like the Illinois State Rifle Association, which complains about the lack of due process for gun owners. We don’t yet have the governor’s actual language, so I’m not sure if he modeled his language on existing legislation. The governor said that property rights need to be constitutionally balanced with protecting lives.
* Not a single Democratic lawmaker was at the governor’s press conference today. When asked about this, the governor said his administration has had conversations with Democrats. He was also asked whether he had spoken to any members of the Black Caucus about the death penalty and he completely dodged the question, saying he believes the issue would be popular with the public.
…Adding… More from the governor’s Twitter feed because we don’t even have a press release yet, let alone actual language…
Public needs to know why gun offenders are allowed back on the streets. Our plan is to make judges and prosecutors put on the record why charges are reduced in plea agreements in gun cases. It is much needed transparency. #PublicSafetyIL
— Governor Rauner (@GovRauner) May 14, 2018
Let’s free up revenue from County School Facilities Sales Tax to permit schools to hire resource officers and mental health workers to intervene and help students before violence occurs. #PublicSafetyIL
— Governor Rauner (@GovRauner) May 14, 2018
*** UPDATE 1 *** The governor’s press release is here. The headline is “Gov. Rauner proposes death penalty for mass murderers and killers of law enforcement officers,” so it’s pretty clear where he’s trying to go with his messaging.
…Adding… Tribune headline: “Rauner proposes reinstating Illinois death penalty in cases of mass killings, police slayings”…
Democratic state Rep. Jonathan Carroll of Northbrook said he expected the death penalty provision and changes on plea bargains to complicate things politically.
“He hijacked my bill and put politics ahead of policy,” Carroll said. He said he had not been consulted about the governor’s proposed changes.
“I think that it was very telling that there was not one Democrat there,” Carroll said of the news conference, which was held at an Illinois State Police facility in Chicago. “It would have been nice if, as the original sponsor, if I would have been invited to have conversations about this bill or even to the press conference today to talk about this bill.”
* Sun-Times headline: “Rauner pushes to reinstate death penalty for cop killers, mass murderers”…
In announcing his recommendations, Rauner stood alongside Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials at the Illinois State Police headquarters in Chicago. […]
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said he has yet to see the governor’s recommendations.
“First we want to make sure it complies with the Constitution, as we do with all amendatory vetoes,” Brown said. “And then we’ll go from there.”
But Brown criticized the governor’s “negotiations” on the package: “This is the governor’s negotiated gun safety program. I guess there’s no negotiations. It’s just absurd.”
*** UPDATE 2 *** Click here for the governor’s veto message.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 14, 18 @ 10:51 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: IDOC statement debunked
Next Post: “I work with Mark Janus. Here’s how he benefits from a strong union”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“He was also asked whether he had spoken to any members of the Black Caucus about the death penalty and he completely dodged the question, saying he believes the issue would be popular with the public.”
All that line was missing was the “As a white male” disclaimer from the Governor.
Comment by Concerned Dem Monday, May 14, 18 @ 10:58 am
Hot take:
This is a pretty good AV. Is the Governor starting to figure out how to, actually govern? MJM should take this up but he won’t. It would be a win for the Governor and we all know MJM will never let that happen.
Comment by Flat Bed Ford Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:00 am
Pure political theatre.
If he really believed in the waiting period concept, he would have signed this bill and asked the GA to pass legislation to apply it to all long guns.
But then again, he might be the first governor in state history to never actually propose and pass a single piece of legislation…so I gues I’m asking too much.
Comment by Roman Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:01 am
Is there a definition of ‘mass murderer’ that everyone agrees with?
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:08 am
–Rauner was asked this question today and said he could be in favor of expanding the death penalty to other topics, but refused to say what they might be, going so far as to say the question wasn’t serious. –
What is not “serious” about the question? What’s more serious than who lives and who is executed by the state?
Another case where Rauner’s shallowness and inability to go off-script and think on his feet is revealed. I suspect Rauner does not consider his own death penalty proposal serious. Just red-meat politics.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:09 am
Is there evidence that waiting periods actually work? If they do, is 24hours adequate? If 72 hours is better would a week or a month be better? Do states without waiting periods experience less gun crime?
I’m thinking it is just another law that only inconveniences the law abiding while doing nothing to limit the criminal.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:10 am
Did he put everything in Amanda’s tweet and everything in his own tweets in the AV? Why didn’t he also add in rolling back the tax hike?
I think there is some good stuff in there, but a single AV is not how you get a comprehensive gun regulation agenda done. It just collapses under its own weight. It is consistent with his “all or nothing” approach to governing, where he is happy to get nothing.
Comment by Montrose Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:10 am
I am pretty sure reinstating the death penalty is a no go. It’s not going to deter mass murders who may well be too insane to understand the consequences. And it just opens the door to more broadly defining how capital punishment is applied. We got rid of capital punishment because of flaws with the system and I don’t think those flaws have been adequately addressed.
Comment by A Jack Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:19 am
==I’m thinking it is just another law that only inconveniences the law abiding ==
If you can’t wait three days to get a firearm then perhaps we should be looking at why you can’t a little more closely.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:24 am
== Is there evidence that waiting periods actually work? ==
Yup: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114
Comment by Anon Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:30 am
My take is that Rauner is using the AV to effectively kill the bill so it goes away for the General. He’ll be able to claim not being in charge once again and try to use that to placate whatever “base” he’s trying for at the moment.
Comment by Anon221 Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:30 am
I like how Rauner drops in the County School Facilities Sales Tax too… why not “free” up that money (because our actual facilities don’t need tending to) / encourage areas that don’t already have it to raise their sales taxes. He might as well have just added “and to pay for my pension dump plan too”.
Comment by Concerned Dem Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:33 am
For those who claim a waiting period would endanger them (dangerous ex, violent stalker, etc.) perhaps there also needs to be a law mandating that the police provide personal protection detail (with liability for failure to protect) until the expiration of the waiting period. Society gains perhaps by slowing down the acquisition of firearms in haste, and individuals are not left both without protection and the means of protection.
Comment by JosephLochner Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:36 am
Pretend governing from Governor Junk. He does not care about any middle class person in Illinois and seems to despise low income citizens.
Comment by MickJ Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:39 am
–For those who claim a waiting period would endanger them (dangerous ex, violent stalker, etc.) perhaps there also needs to be a law mandating that the police provide personal protection detail (with liability for failure to protect) until the expiration of the waiting period. –
LOL, I’m guessing NRA types don’t want to introduce the word “liability” into any discussion on guns.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:41 am
I can’t decide if this AV is an appeal to suburban moms for votes this fall or red meat to get the NRA/ISRA/GSL riled up to prevent any bill getting enacted. Could be an attempt at both, I guess.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:41 am
Our “pro-choice” governor now wishes that a “pro-choice” position is available for government use at the end of life, as well.
Rauner reveals that he has absolutely no “pro-life” positions on either abortion or capital punishment.
Rauner believes that conservatives he woos, are not as bright as he thinks - he is.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, May 14, 18 @ 11:47 am
wordslinger:
As has been well established in numerous court rulings, the state has no general responsibility nor liability for your safety. You are responsible for that. For those anti-protection, go hide in a closet types, whose riposte is that life is dangerous, and the price of a woman being beaten to death by a former boyfriend who broke down the door and completed his murder before the police finally arrived (in which scenario courts have ruled the state has no liability), is a reasonable price to pay for a world with greater restrictions on the possession of firearms, “laughing out loud” at a modest proposal to provide real protection in that situation while still enabling the “antis” to have a waiting period, is in rather poor taste.
Comment by Joseph Lochner Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:02 pm
–Tribune headline: “Rauner proposes reinstating Illinois death penalty in cases of mass killings, police slayings”…–
Gacy would have been in the clear. He was a humble serial killer/kiddie rapist.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:08 pm
Lochner, that’s a common sense solution to a problem I’m guessing most haven’t strongly considered. I doubt it’d make it out of a committee though.
I’m okay with a 72 hour waiting period across the board. Not thrilled with it, but it makes it uniform and takes some of the guesswork out of what’s a “sporting” rifle and “assault” rifle.
Comment by Fixer Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:12 pm
Good policy from Governor Rauner.
Comment by Ron Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:13 pm
JL, your harrumph-harrumph is duly noted.
If a small-government type like yourself would like to see the state “liable” for providing personal protection to every gun purchaser during a waiting period, certainly you believe gun owners and manufacturers should be required to carry liability insurance for their “tools?”
You know, with rights come responsibilities.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:14 pm
All the snickering that this bill would have caused all kinds of additional political discomfort to the Governor is instantly forgotten with this AV.
The hot potato now deservedly and uncomfortably sits back on the laps of those who heated it up and sent it to the Governor in the first place.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:25 pm
@Cheryl: how about, if you kill a person whose body has mass, then you’re a mass murderer. Does that definition work for you?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:27 pm
wordslinger:
I am a person who believes that “society” when it acts through government must bear the cost of the policies it imposes on individuals. Just as the public benefits from taking private property to build a park, and must compensate the owner of that property, government should compensate those who it burdens to achieve larger societal goals, even those less concrete than physically taking property. The good of society should not borne on the shoulders of the few. If society wishes to make the means of effective self defense difficult to obtain on the one hand, it cannot justly on the other hand absolve itself of concrete responsibility for the effects of that policy and place the burden solely on the individuals who are impacted by that policy. This is one of the greatest ills our governments create — seeking collective benefit without the people bearing the true cost of that benefit. This is not a partisan issue, as it crosses all boundaries.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:29 pm
–I am a person who believes that “society” when it acts through government must bear the cost of the policies it imposes on individuals.–
Uh-huh. And you apply that in all things, I’m sure.
And your practical, real-world application of your dorm-room philosophizing is that the police provide 24-hour protection to all those in a waiting-period for a gun purchase.
Still no deep thoughts from you on the responsibilities of gun owners, such as liability insurance. Can’t drive a car without that.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 12:57 pm
Brownie you do a ‘Heck of a job’ covering Madigan’s backside. What do you call the ‘negociations’ That have taken place to date on gun bills. Please spare us the indignation.
Comment by nagidam Monday, May 14, 18 @ 1:14 pm
Anyone who has actually bought a long gun in IL, and has had to wait for the paperwork to clear the ISP background check, knows that a 72 hour waiting period means nothing. Many purchases wait weeks due to the backlog at ISP. If IL would pass a 72 hour waiting period, and use the NICS check instead of ISP, it would actually be an improvement that I could support. That being said, will go back to spending money out of state again due to IL continuing to drive business out of state.
Comment by SOIL M Monday, May 14, 18 @ 1:19 pm
Maybe upon issuance of protective order, waiver of waiting period? Does that fit the bill? But again, this is politics, not policy.
Comment by Csfhekjv Monday, May 14, 18 @ 1:47 pm
“guilty beyond all doubt,” works with a jury how? a judge maybe, but I can’t see that working with a jury. that said, yes, the death penalty will be on the minds of those shooting at law enforcement if this were ever to pass. Let’s ask the ATF how they feel about people who shoot at law enforcement. (hoping the agent who was shot in the head a few days ago in Chicago is doing better.) most people who murder someone nowadays in Illinois get out in a much shorter time than one would think is needed. California still has the death penalty so it’s not so out there to propose this.
Comment by Amalia Monday, May 14, 18 @ 1:55 pm
Does an AV have to comply with the single subject rule and if do, how does the death penalty share a subject with gun control?
Comment by TominChicago Monday, May 14, 18 @ 2:01 pm
=Still no deep thoughts from you on the responsibilities of gun owners, such as liability insurance. Can’t drive a car without that.=
If your car is stolen and the thief drives it into a crowd of people, your insurance does not cover that. So are you proposing similar insurance for gun owners? As in a a policy where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.
Otherwise the comparison isn’t very valid.
Comment by m Monday, May 14, 18 @ 2:39 pm
–If your car is stolen and the thief drives it into a crowd of people, your insurance does not cover that. So are you proposing similar insurance for gun owners? As in a a policy where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.
Otherwise the comparison isn’t very valid.–
LOL, why are you limiting it to “stolen” property?
How’s about if you yourself shoot someone with your gun, or have an “accident” with your gun, or “lend” your gun to someone who shoots someone.
Didn’t really try too hard building that strawman, did you?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 2:47 pm
Honest question-
Is this language that Rauner inserted into the AV consistent with other definitions of “human being” in Illinois law?
(720 ILCS 5/9-1.5 new)
Sec. 9-1.5. Death penalty murder.
(a) In this Section, “human being” means a person who has been born and is alive.
****
See also Illinois in this review:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Comment by Anon221 Monday, May 14, 18 @ 3:33 pm
=Didn’t really try too hard building that strawman, did you?=
You might want to re-read my comment.
I asked, clarified even, if you were proposing insurance “where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.”
So if that’s what ISN’T covered, then it would seem to be that everything else IS covered, such as the examples you provided.
I asked, because there is a big difference, policy-wise, and politically, between a policy that covers what you do with your gun and one that also covers what someone else does with your gun (without your permission). The former would be a good comparison to car insurance, the latter would not.
So now that I’ve clarified again, which is it that you are proposing?
Comment by m Monday, May 14, 18 @ 3:51 pm
–So now that I’ve clarified again, which is it that you are proposing?–
I suggest you read your two posts and then look up the definition of “clarified.”
Particularly as you brought in stolen property, for no good reason that I can see.
–As in a a policy where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.–
That where what is where you lost me, as to clarity.
But liability insurance similar to car insurance for guns would be a good idea. How’s that for clarity, where what?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 5:54 pm
I suggest you read your two posts and then look up the definition of “clarified.”
From the dictionary, as you asked: “make (a statement or situation) less confused and more clearly comprehensible.”
Here you go, from my post: =So are you proposing similar insurance for gun owners? As in a a policy where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.=
See that second sentence? “Clarifies” what the first says. =As in= would be the first clue that a clarification was to follow.
=But liability insurance similar to car insurance for guns would be a good idea. How’s that for clarity, where what?=
So we’ll try again:
Insurance plan 1: Just like car liability insurance, but for guns. Does not include harm caused with your gun(s) by someone who does not have permission to have the gun, as in stolen. Nor would it cover your guns if you sell them, just like your car insurance wouldn’t cover a car after it is sold.
Plan 2. Just like plan 1, except it also covers harm caused by someone with your guns even if the person didn’t have permission or stole them.
Plan 3. Just like 2, except it covers guns you sold as well.
So which plan do you want?
From =liability insurance similar to car insurance for guns would be a good idea.= I would assume plan 1.
But =manufacturers should be required to carry liability insurance for their “tools?”= would seem to imply plan 3, since car makers don’t have to have insurance for what someone does with their cars after they sell them.
So you see, =liability insurance similar to car insurance for guns= doesn’t seem to agree with your previous comment. There is an implication of a much more onerous requirement from you.
So again, simple question, 1, 2, or 3?
Comment by m Monday, May 14, 18 @ 6:29 pm
Dude, if you think the phrase, “as in a a policy where what harm someone else causes with your gun isn’t covered.,” clarifies anything, you’re on your own.
Liability insurance for gun owners similar to that required for car operators. No special liability exemptions by law as currently enjoyed by gun manufacturers.
Are you less confused and clearly comprehending, where what now?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, May 14, 18 @ 6:55 pm
== Liability insurance for gun owners similar to that required for car operators. ==
-word-, easier said than done. A recent court case ruled that the liability insurance being offered through the NRA by one company for legal fees associated with any shooting wasn’t legal … and there were only 2 insurance companies offering such coverage in the first place.
I don’t see it happening …
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 14, 18 @ 8:11 pm