Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sanguinetti calls Madigan “harasser-in-chief”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* David Risley, the director of criminal justice and public safety policy for the governor’s office, testified in a House committee hearing today and made a surprising offer…
Office of @GovRauner just committed to signing & @WillGuzzardi offered to sponsor standalone bill imposing a 72-hour waiting period on purchase of ALL guns. Waiting periods are evidence-based. We would be happy to work with the Gov & General Assembly to make it happen! #twill
— SCY Chicago (@SCY_Chicago) May 23, 2018
* Rep. Guzzardi was skeptical…
.@GovRauner’s guy: “We’ve got a clean bill on the waiting period drafted and ready to go, which we’d support.”
Me: “Umm… ok, let’s just do that?”
Him: “OK let’s do that!”
So… any bets on how quickly they walk it back?
— Will Guzzardi (@WillGuzzardi) May 23, 2018
* From the full transcript of the exchange…
Rep. Will Guzzardi: So what I’m asking you is to commit on behalf of the Governor’s office to enact a clean bill on a waiting period that the Governor’s office – on whose behalf you speak – admits will save the lives of Illinoisans without hanging it up on all these other provisions which are obviously very controversial. Is that a commitment that the Governor’s office can make to us today?”
David Risley: “Let me put it this way, we’ve already prepared that bill. We would hope that it would reach the Governor’s desk with exactly the language that he has proposed in the amendatory veto, without limiting it as it was in the original bill to a certain class of firearms, of long guns. The Governor wants to extend it to all firearms and it that bill reaches his desk I would fully expect he would sign his own bill.”
Rep. Will Guzzardi: “You say ‘that bill.’ You mean a standalone bill on a waiting period?”
David Risley: “Right, right. Exactly.”
Rep. Will Guzzardi: “That’s a bill that the Governor’s office would commit to signing?”
David Risley “I would fully expect so.”
Video is here.
I asked the governor’s office for comment at 1 o’clock this afternoon. I’ll let you know what they say if I do hear back.
*** UPDATE *** From the governor’s office…
The governor has presented a comprehensive public safety package to the General Assembly. We urge the General Assembly to consider this package that gets to the heart of critical public safety issues including a standard 72-hour waiting period for all gun sales, banning bump stocks, keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals, holding judges and prosecutors accountable for sentencing, freeing up local revenue to hire school resource officers and the death penalty for mass murderers and those who would kill law enforcement officers. A motion to accept the Governor’s changes to House Bill 1468 has been filed by the sponsor. There is a clear opportunity for the House to consider the package in its entirety.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:06 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sanguinetti calls Madigan “harasser-in-chief”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner does have a history of signing what he’s vetoed. So, he’s been consistent in that sense.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:08 pm
ISRA is going to demand a refund.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:09 pm
It’ll be fun, seeing Rauner’s 60 and 30… how many will be Republicans, how many will be conservatives?
Who is Rauner’s constituency?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:13 pm
“I hope he signs it, and soon”
- Fake Sam McCann
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:14 pm
72 hour waiting period is a feel good bill that won’t make any difference but lets the Governor and GA claim they did something.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:20 pm
Evidence based. Lots of that going around these days. Catchy little buzz phrase I might add.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:21 pm
I bet he doesn’t sign that bill unless he knows that Sam will not be on the ballot.
Comment by A Jack Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:22 pm
How do you walk back Risley’s comments? He’s unequivocal.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:22 pm
===How do you walk back Risley’s comments?===
I can’t wait to find out. I’m sure it’s going to be impressive.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:25 pm
===How do you walk back Risley’s comments?===
Easily. It’s not like Guzzardi is a Cardinal or anyone the Guv respects. He’s just a state rep.
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:33 pm
To the update:
And there goes Risley under the bus. That was quick.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:38 pm
=I bet he doesn’t sign that bill unless he knows that Sam will not be on the ballot.=
If there’s one thing he could do to get Republicans to actually consider voting for McCann, this might be it.
Comment by m Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:39 pm
To the update: Did I miss the part where Rauner was crisscrossing the state since the AV to build public and legislative support for this “comprehensive public safety package”?
Comment by Dance Band on the Titanic Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:40 pm
==Rauner does have a history of signing what he’s vetoed. So, he’s been consistent in that sense.==
He didn’t veto a bill that required a 72 hour waiting period on all guns
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:43 pm
Should have traded the 72 hour wait for the elimination of the FOID.
Foid holders names are run every night so essentially this is a background check every day. But still have to wait 72.
CCL holders have been fingerprinted and passed FBI bacground check and thoroughly vetted by local and state law agencies. Still gotta wait 72.
Trade in an AR15 or .44 mag for a single shot target rifle at the local dealer? Sorry, still gotta wait 72.
Makes perfect sense… for Illinois…
As soon as I can, I am joining the thousands of law abiding, tax paying citizens establishing residency in another state.
Comment by Tequila Mockingbird Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:43 pm
===There is a clear opportunity for the House to consider the package in its entirety.===
…
===Rep. Will Guzzardi: “You say ‘that bill.’ You mean a standalone bill on a waiting period?”
David Risley: “Right, right. Exactly.”
Rep. Will Guzzardi: “That’s a bill that the Governor’s office would commit to signing?”
David Risley “I would fully expect so.”===
LOL
Who do we not trust… Risley or Rauner?
This is just farce now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:44 pm
Tequila:
If you can’t wait 72 hours for a gun then I would question why you can’t wait.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:47 pm
More evidence this Governor cannot be trusted in any negotiation.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:49 pm
–If there’s one thing he could do to get Republicans to actually consider voting for McCann, this might be it.–
If he makes the ballot, McCann has already signaled that he’s going run the Ives playbook. Seems some Republicans voted for her.
Plus, even a majority of gun owners support a 30-day waiting period for gun sales, polls show.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:49 pm
–As soon as I can, I am joining the thousands of law abiding, tax paying citizens establishing residency in another state.–
The great majority of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens in the 50 states favor waiting periods.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 2:53 pm
Risley needs to review radognos experience.
The playbook centers on “comprehensive”, meaning lots of talking points popular with the public, which as a package are guaranteed to fail. No sincere interest in passing it piece meal.
Comment by Langhorne Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:18 pm
“bill that won’t make any difference but lets [them] claim they did something.” Compared to the “absolutely nothing” that’s been done so far, I’ll take it as a good first step.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:24 pm
Ah … I see. Risley goes under the boss.
That’s leadership, Bruce. Nice!
Comment by Macbeth Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:26 pm
== The great majority of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens in the 50 states favor waiting periods. ==
Don’t see longer waiting periods making a difference. In almost every case, shooters have either stole legally obtained firearms or managed to legally obtain them. And in some cases, in spite of existing red flags.
I’ve owned firearms for over 40 years. With shotguns, rifles and pistols already in the gun safe, a waiting period wouldn’t matter if I were to go nuts.
About the only time a waiting period might make a difference would be if it was the first firearm purchase by an individual.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:28 pm
Rnug, some research.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:31 pm
-word-, I believe I conceded it might matter for first time buyers.
== About the only time a waiting period might make a difference would be if it was the first firearm purchase by an individual. ==
Reading the references, it appears a waiting period does cut down on anger / homicidal tendencies. It also concludes that the study is inconclusive in relation to suicide.
The takeaway for me is we could get a 7% to 15% reduction with a waiting period. It isn’t clear what an ideal waiting period is. And, as the paper points out, it doesn’t stop the purchase, it just delays it until the buyer may have cooled off.
So maybe we need a long waiting for a first time buyer, and could reduce or eliminate it for existing firearms owners (in Illinois, that would be long term.FOID holders).
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:54 pm
I’ll also add I didn’t see any information on whether it was just first time buyers who were affected or long time owners.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 3:57 pm
Waiting periods do not prevent crime, just as other laws do not. The CDC did a study released in 2003 that said in part ” Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase”.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.
And remember, this was at a time when the CDC was banned from doing it’s famously antigun research after declaring guns a “public health problem”.
Comment by revvedup Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 4:00 pm
==just as other laws do not==
Why even have laws, right?
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 4:12 pm
–Waiting periods do not prevent crime, just as other laws do not.–
So much for all those pesky laws, then.
You know, there are other Western democracies on Planet Earth that do not have these regular gun massacres.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 4:46 pm
Lots of noise and energy spent on something useless. Meanwhile my kid sits in a classroom gaurded by nothing more than a glass entry door.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 4:58 pm
“If you can’t wait 72 hours for a gun then I would question why you can’t wait. ”
Perhaps a woman wants to protect herself or her kids from a newly violent ex? Thats seems legit. Seems that gun-ban folks forget that guns can be used for definsive as well as offensive purposes.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 5:08 pm
Anon - wait about calling the police if you know you are in danger from an ex?
Comment by Ike Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 5:55 pm
Sure. The police are going to stick around for 72 hours?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 5:57 pm
Word. Just curious. What’s your solution to all the violence?
Comment by BlueDogDem Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 6:42 pm
Anonymous
72 he waiting period equals someone being a gun ban person. Unbelievable.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 7:16 pm
I apologize if that isnt the case, but i did highlight a completely reasonable response to your question
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 7:28 pm
“I would fully expect so.”
Code for “not a chance in hell will 1.4% ever sign this bill.”
Comment by Huh? Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 9:26 pm
We could take a long hard look at what Australia did following their last mass shooting in 1996 as a starting point.
Comment by Pundent Wednesday, May 23, 18 @ 9:40 pm
==Perhaps a woman wants to protect herself or her kids from a newly violent ex? Thats seems legit. Seems that gun-ban folks forget that guns can be used for definsive as well as offensive purposes.==
Unless you are black. Then you get 20 years even in a stand your ground state.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 5:43 am
==Perhaps a woman wants to protect herself or her kids from a newly violent ex? Thats seems legit.–
That’s the objection to waiting periods that “seems legit” to you?
Then certainly those that have been found to threaten or commit domestic violence have forfeited their gun rights, correct?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 24, 18 @ 8:07 am