Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Bill fails with just 53 votes - Video of full debate *** House vote expected today on medical marijuana
Posted in:
*** UPDATE 1 - 1:49 pm *** From the AP…
Gov. Pat Quinn says it would be “ironic” if the Illinois House legalized concealed carry of firearms on the same day the state honors fallen police officers.
The Chicago Democrat spoke Thursday at a ceremony for police officers killed in the line of duty.
Afterward, he told reporters that letting people carry concealed guns would reduce public safety and make life more difficult for police.
*** UPDATE 2 - 2:40 pm *** This Tweet by a Chicago reporter didn’t check out when I ran it down a couple minutes ago…
Veteran vote counters in IL House: Concealed Carry HB148 unlikely to pass. Sponsor Rep. Phelps now “maybe” on calling it.
Rep. David Phelps just told me that he’s waiting for the bill to be put on the board. “I’m running it today,” he insisted.
Yesterday, opponents claimed that the bill had between 65 and 68 votes or so. Proponents claimed they had the minimum three-fifths majority of 71 lined up. We’ll know who’s right soon enough.
*** UPDATE 3 - 3:05 pm *** Another inaccurate Tweet from the same Chicago reporter…
Desperate #ConcealedCarry supporters file last-minute amendment. Will it win a few more Reps? Delays floor vote at least 1 hour.
That amendment looks like a technical clean-up amendment. And the bill is being debated right now. Click here to watch or listen.
*** UPDATE 4 *** Live-blog…
*** UPDATE 5 *** 65-52-1. The bill needed 71 votes. It’s on postponed consideration.
*** UPDATE 6 *** I just got off the phone with an NRA member who spoke to Rep. Monique Davis a couple of months ago in her Springfield office. He says she supported the bill at that time. I’ll have more for subscribers tomorrow.
* A whole lot more may be on the line than just concealed carry today…
[Gov. Pat Quinn] told reporters his opposition to the bill goes beyond the veto threat. He said he has called some House Democrats and urged them to vote “no,” setting up a potentially embarrassing defeat for either the governor or the bill’s Democratic sponsors, depending on the result of the vote.
Rep. John Bradley, D-Marion, said the governor did not notify Democrats who support concealed carry before issuing his veto threat at a news conference in Chicago on Tuesday.
Asked whether Quinn’s position would affect whether Democrats back the governor on other key issues, Bradley said, “I hear that a lot in the downstate caucus.
“I am not happy about it,” Bradley said, although he said his vote personally is based on the merits of each issue. “I think a lot of us in the downstate caucus would at least have liked to have had the courtesy to know he was going to do it.”
As I told subscribers earlier this week, whatever happens, the governor may very well end up damaged. Either the bill passes and he’s seen as a loser, or the bill fails and conservative Dems become even more furious at him than they are now.
* Even so, the Tribune editorialized against the bill today…
Bottom line: Concealed-carry laws don’t seem to have a significant impact on violence one way or the other. The odds aren’t much greater that you’re going to wind up successfully defending yourself with a gun on the street, or that you’re going to mistakenly or intentionally plug somebody with a bullet. There are cases, though, where licensed holders do commit violence.
Even those who have drafted this bill seem to recognize the potential for mayhem. The bill would not allow people to carry a gun in a school, a college campus, a church, a casino, a racetrack, a stadium, a gated amusement park or, ahem, the General Assembly.
If there is such concern about keeping schools and churches and the House and Senate as gun-free zones … why not playgrounds, malls, hospitals, banks, gas stations, bowling alleys and street festivals? They’re not mentioned in the bill. Headed to the hospital? Strap up and go forth.
Employers could prohibit guns at their workplaces, if they posted signs to that effect, like an old-time saloon warning cowboys to check their six-shooters at the door. Permit-holders still could keep weapons in their cars parked at their workplace, though. How convenient for performance-review time.
Thoughts?
* Related…
* IL business groups taking no position in debate on law to allowed carrying of concealed weapons
* Illinois the epicenter of national debate about gun control
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 5:00 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Bill fails with just 53 votes - Video of full debate *** House vote expected today on medical marijuana
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Permit-holders still could keep weapons in their cars parked at their workplace”
Any FOID card holder can legally do that now; I always carry one in my car.
Comment by Razer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:19 am
–If there is such concern about keeping schools and churches and the House and Senate as gun-free zones … why not playgrounds, malls, hospitals, banks, gas stations, bowling alleys and street festivals? They’re not mentioned in the bill. Headed to the hospital? Strap up and go forth.–
Surprised the Tribbies didn’t mention public transportation. The edit board must have parking spots in the Tower lot.
Still, a good question, and the conundrum facing supporters as they look to add votes. The logic starts to fall apart. If it’s not a “right” for law-abiding citizens to legally carry a concealed weapon in the proposed exclusionary zones, why is it anywhere else?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:27 am
49 states allow concealed- or open-carry.
Illinois is the only state which does not trust its citizens? Sheesh.
Comment by Damfunny Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:40 am
You have to start somewhere word. I agree that this bill is a bit overly restrictive, in that a licensee should be allowed to carry wherever they want.
An exception would be those private businesses that choose to not allow the carrying of a firearm. The licensee would then make a personal decision as to whether he/she would want to conduct their business there.
Comment by The Good Lieutenant Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:50 am
The Tribune says,
“Bottom line: Concealed-carry laws don’t seem to have a significant impact on violence one way or the other.”
If this is true, what compelling reason can their be to restrict any right? The argument holds true for anything. If there is no measurable difference between banning X and not banning X, why is there a law in the first place since there is no public impact. We should always default to NOT restricting an individual right when the public is not impacted.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:03 am
“Any FOID card holder can legally do that now; I always carry one in my car.”
Razer - you better have it unloaded and cased and the ammo completely separated from the handgun. cant have the clip laying in the case next to the handgun. I’ve always heard that ammo must be in glovebox and gun in backseat or something like that so the two are completetly separated.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:03 am
Quinn doesn’t know how to play the game. great guy, but poor politician. He will be a one termer
Comment by Palatine Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:11 am
Anonymous, the ammo does not have to be seperate from the gun. From the ISP: Is it illegal to have ammunition in the case with the gun? No, if the firearm is unloaded and is properly enclosed in a case and the individual has a valid FOID
Comment by 332bill Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:12 am
Anonymous,
As I said, I have a FOID card, and am VERY aware of the laws, and you are exactly correct. I would assume that any licensed CCW card holder would take this priveledge very seriously, and abide by the rules invovled.
No matter which way this bill goes; the criminals will still retain their “Status Quo”.
Comment by Razer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:15 am
- 332bill
I stand corrected on that count, but I keep my magazine stored seperately from the encased firearm.
Comment by Razer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:18 am
Quinn was probably already doomed to be a one-term Gov. We will end up with Gov Lisa after this. I’ll be happy.
Comment by Redbright Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:23 am
Cincinnatus x2
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:24 am
Once again, Quinn is demonstrating his world class skills in political maneuvering. They match up nicely with his world class skills in problem solving.
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:37 am
–Illinois is the only state which does not trust its citizens? Sheesh. –
It’s not quite that simple, although Illinois certainly is among the most restrictive.
Hawaii and New Jersey are effectively “no issue” states. Maryland is very tough sledding to get a permit. “Shall issue” laws in California and New York make the large urban centers in those states effectively “no-issue.”
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:38 am
- If there is no measurable difference between banning X and not banning X, why is there a law in the first place since there is no public impact. -
Who said there’s no impact? They were talking about violence. I don’t know the stats on accidents, or suicides, or anything else, but the article didn’t say there is no public impact.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:38 am
To Anonymous @ 8:03 - I don’t think what you’ve always heard about gun and ammo is accurate anymore given recent IL Supreme Court decision.
Comment by Bird Dog Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:39 am
332bill
thats good to know. ive always been told by cops to keep them completely separated and like razer have done so.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:42 am
DamFunny and other CCW proponents - the “fact” about 48 other states allowing conceal carry is only partially true.
Many of those states have much more severe restrictions on their permit holders than HB 148 does as amended. In some of those states the only people who are granted CCW permits are retired service members and retired public safety personnel - that’s not the same thing as “anyone” under this bill. Some states, like Virginia, make it a felony to violate some of the exempted areas - this bill does not.
If we’re the last state - why does our measure have to be so much more permissive and so much more aggressive than all those other states?
If the IL NRA is so anxious to get a conceal carry bill - why not start with one that is more conservative? Why does IL all of a sudden have to have the 3rd most permissive and most aggressive CCW bill in the country?
Comment by siriusly Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:50 am
Instances of violence prevented by legally concealed weapons are somewhat rare but exist. Instances of violence by permit holders are quite rare. At least give me a damn choice. I can legally carry in 33 other states with my non-res permit. Why can’t I carry in the state where I live, work, own business, and vote? wake up Illinois! vote those Chicago politicians out! Daley retires and gets armed bodyguards at taxpayors expense, where do I get mine?
Comment by G Whiz Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 8:54 am
For once, I agree with Cincinnatus.
Comment by 10th Voter Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:00 am
Anon, and anyone else interested in the allowable means to transport firearms in vehicles, go to the ISP website, they have a nice brochure on legally transporting firearms/ammo. It’s under the Firearm/FOID link on the left, last link in the pop-up window.
Comment by 332bill Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:00 am
If the IL NRA is so anxious to get a conceal carry bill - why not start with one that is more conservative? Why does IL all of a sudden have to have the 3rd most permissive and most aggressive CCW bill in the country?
Seriously: I’d like to see your substantiation on this………..
Comment by Razer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:03 am
http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/1-154.pdf
Is the link to the PDF 332bill mentions
Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:06 am
Thanks Kevin, I guess I could have done that.
Comment by 332bill Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:11 am
- 10th Voter - Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:00 am:
“For once, I agree with Cincinnatus.”
Sometimes, a blind squirrel gets a nut.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:25 am
When Rep. John Dunn, Rep. Dick Mautino and myself formed the Downstate caucus twenty years ago, we specifically excluded social issues like abortion and gun control from our agenda, and instead focused our alliance on school funding (i.e. general state aid formula), road funding (i.e. protecting the road fund from GRF raids), state parks and other “bricks and mortar” issues. Not only is it disingenuous, to label downstate priorities as supporting “concealed carry” and other gun related issues, but by fighting for such non-economic issues we undermine downstate’s ability to focus upon an effective legislative agenda to address real economic security for our citizens.
Comment by Bill Edley Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:35 am
“Sometimes, a blind squirrel gets a nut. ”
So, does that make you the nut?
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 10:07 am
razer - I do have some of that info and I will post it here this afternoon if I have time
Comment by siriusly Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 10:09 am
Does anyone think that it will get a floor vote today?
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 10:55 am
Before everyone starts calling Quinn’s defeat in the next election let’s remember a couple of things. First he pulled off two victories last year that everyone thought were in the bag for his opponent.
Second, the concealed carry issue is just one in a series of issues and it’s early in the term. I’m betting that if he does veto this legislation and another one does not come up again before the 98th GA, there will be plenty of other measures for Quinn to find strong support from a lot of Democrats. The veto of the bill will be remembered, but the sting will be dulled by the pain of time so to speak.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:06 am
Democrats in both the House and Senate have already split with the Governor on the budget, so I don’t really see that much of a downside for Quinn as far as inside baseball goes.
Certainly, he probably could have given the sponsors a heads-up, but what would that have achieved? Simply a heads-up for the Illinois State Rifle Association, maybe 10,000 calls to the governor’s office asking him to support the measure?
Politically, threatening to veto this bill is a good thing for Quinn, unless of course he doesn’t follow through on his promise.
Speaking of politics, where’s the Attorney General? It occurred to me yesterday that we’ve dealt with the death penalty and are dealing with medical marijuana and concealed weapons and I haven’t heard much from the AG. Maybe I just missed her?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:11 am
ah, spring. the Legislature hot in action on the Concealed Carry bill, the time for opening up the garden. time to get out my copy of an informative magazine…and I’m not making this up….Gardens and Guns.
Comment by amalia Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:11 am
Amalia, must be like the old “Eats, Shoots, and Leaves” joke.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:24 am
“Bottom line: Concealed-carry laws don’t seem to have a significant impact on violence one way or the other.”
The conclusion: Reject this bill for “the safety and well-being of the people.”
Seriously, Tribune? I can respect the position, but connect the dots for me. Why is this a safety issue?
Comment by Regular Reader Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:49 am
Illinois is only state with any sense.
Comment by Louis XVI Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:08 pm
Wordslinger, asking the bill’s proponents why power brokers influenced by its opponents demanded restrictions doesn’t make sense. Most people in favor of the bill agree that exempting government buildings and churches and the like is unnecessary (as other states have found by years of experience.) If others don’t understand that yet, that’s not our problem. We simply made a compromise in that area to gain the support of those who were worried. Everyone has to pick his battles.
As far as the Tribune’s editorial, it’s dishonest. They use two standards. When they discuss benefits of concealed carry, the standard is statistical evidence that violence is reduced, and they admit that the evidence is basically neutral in that regard. But when they want to say people should be frightened, they switch to a MUCH lower standard: since there are a few anecdotes of violence committed by permit holders, that’s enough to argue against it.
They don’t give the source of their anecdotes or even retell any of them, so I can’t address the substance . . . but I suspect they’re alluding to the Violence Policy Center’s thoroughly debunked “study” in which they counted suicides, strangulations, permit holders who had only been accused and were later acquitted of any charges, and even crimes committed by people who were not permit holders at all.
Weak.
Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:23 pm
Louis XVI nailed it. Cinnci is off base again. There is no fundamental right to carry a hidden loaded saturday nite special anywhere you want to roam. Further, the issue is not self-protection; it’s protection from you when you are carrying the damned thing and then thinking you’re John Wayne and using it.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:24 pm
“Second, the concealed carry issue is just one in a series of issues and it’s early in the term. I’m betting that if he does veto this legislation and another one does not come up again before the 98th GA, there will be plenty of other measures for Quinn to find strong support from a lot of Democrats. The veto of the bill will be remembered, but the sting will be dulled by the pain of time so to speak.”
There’s something to that, but remember that he’s already in the hole as far as the downstate Democrats are concerned. They’ve crossed their constituents to help him pass a much larger income tax increase than even he had proposed before, then ended the death penalty for good. This is only one of several issues, but several of those other issues are already costing him dearly, and if he’s not careful with the downstate Democrats, they’re going to cost him a lot more.
Comment by Don Gwinn Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:26 pm
Agree with Cinnci. D.P. Gumby is way off base. The only people hurt by these laws are the law abiders. The criminals are going to be criminals either way. you say there is “no fundamental right to carry a hidden loaded saturday nite special anywhere you want to roam. Further, the issue is not self-protection; it’s protection from you when you are carrying the damned thing and then thinking you’re John Wayne and using it.” Sounds like a good right to life argument. But you will probably tell me there is no fundamental right to life at which point your argument becomes circular.
Comment by Blue State Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:31 pm
The ammo can be stored with the gun if it is in a locked case, not accessable by the driver.
These debates remind me of when:
They started adding gas lines to homes to provide lighting. Many thought itshould e outlawed, as it was dangerous and unsafe;
When electircity was starting to be available. Many thought electricity should be outlawed as it was dangerous and unsafe and only gas should be used….
i.e. people are uncomfortable with change. A properly regulated conceal carry plan should be passed.
Black and white laws, such as no marijuana under any reason, no guns under any reason etc are two narrowly focused. A more socially advanced concept is laws which provide regualtion and restrictions over a simple process off fear banning.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:35 pm
=Even those who have drafted this bill seem to recognize the potential for mayhem. The bill would not allow people to carry a gun in a school, a college campus, a church, a casino, a racetrack, a stadium, a gated amusement park or, ahem, the General Assembly.=
The Tribune is being disingenuous here. Recognizing the potential for mayhem? Really? the sponsors of the legislation are trying to mollify the opposition and the Tribune takes that as a recognition of the potential for mayhem. I gotta quit buying that rag.
Comment by dupage dan Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:43 pm
The actual law is unloaded and in a case, that’s it. It can be accessible, you can keep a gun and full magazine in the center console of your car, so long as the lid of the console is shut and the magazine is not actually inside the gun.
Comment by tak1885 Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 12:57 pm
D.P., don’t be bashin the Duke. He played a lawman in a lot of his movies and would be able to carry a firearm without a conceal carr permit. I think that Lefty from Willie Nelson’s “Poncho and Lefty” would be a better analogy.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 1:10 pm
The Tribune editorial says, “Even those who have drafted this bill seem to recognize the potential for mayhem. The bill would not allow people to carry a gun in a school…[et al].”
But the exceptions in the bill are not there because the sponsors think there will be mayhem if guns are allowed in those places. The exceptions are present because some opponents (most of whom have never even shot a gun) are afraid that the presence of guns will suddenly cause people to go killing rampages in schools, stadiums, etc. Looking at the experience of other states, that simply hasn’t happened.
Pretending like even the bill sponsors are secretly afraid of guns in public is either clueless or disingenuous.
Comment by Sonic Infidel Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 1:14 pm
Unfortunately Ghost, you do not know what you are talking about. The case does NOT have to be locked OR inaccessible.
Comment by wishbone Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 1:14 pm
Don Gwinn - there is evidence that CCW permit holders have committed acts of violence. In fact, it is about 1% of all murders are committed by CCW permit holders.
11 dead police officers are included in that body count:
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Comment by siriusly Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 2:08 pm
folks shouldn’t assume anything about how long Pat’s tenure will be because of this issue 2014 is a long time away…do you really want Gov. Lisa if her Dad sticks around and befriends enough Hispanics to save his political hide?
I am not willing to cede the state of IL to the Madigan family…ever…
Comment by Loop Lady Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 2:29 pm
Rich -
You mean Brandon Phelps, not David Phelps.
@siriusly -
Thanks for the link. Particularly loved this little story:
On September 29, 2008, Troy Brake, 31, shot to death 52-year-old Sharmaine Zimmer, her sons, Tyler (age 17) and Jeremy (age 20), and beat to death Jeremy’s girlfriend, university student Katherine Brown (age 18). Brake once lived next
door to the Zimmers and had lived with them for a time while growing up. At trial, the
jury was told that Brake shot the Zimmers to death in order to have sex with Brown, and
that he then doused the lower half of Brown’s body with gasoline. The Zimmers’ house
was set on fire and destroyed. A month after the attack, police arrested Brake for beating
up a prostitute and found that a 40 caliber Glock pistol owned by Brake was linked to the
earlier murders. Brake, who had a concealed handgun permit, was convicted of first
degree murder in the deaths of the Zimmer family and Katherine Brown. He was also convicted of assault and rape of the prostitute he had attacked.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:02 pm
siriusly-
How many of those 1% of criminals that had CCWs would have committed violence without a CCW? How many people commit violence while carrying a gun illegally anyway? Say, for instance, in the City of Chicago?
Mindless recitation of statistics is not an argument.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:03 pm
siriusly, there are currently 6 million individuals licensed to carry either concealed or openly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/). The VPC link you provided lists 300 people killed as a total of all conceal carry/open carry licensed individuals. That’s a pretty low rate.
The total murder rate in 2008 per 100,000 was 5.4 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0302.pdf). Not sure of the math, but I believe that the rates between ccw holders and the general populace are at least comparable to if not lower than the general populace.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:12 pm
@John Bambenek -
A guy has a concealed weapon permit. A guy uses a concealed weapon to kill four people. What more do you want?
I mean, under your argument, why deny firearms licenses to ex-felons and people with mental illnesses? If they really want to kill someone, they are going to get a gun anyway, right?
Speaking of which, LOVE this story from Florida:
“Paul Michael Merhige allegedly opened fire at his family’s Thanksgiving dinner shooting six relatives, killing four. The deceased victims were his twin sisters (one of whom was pregnant), his 76-year-old aunt, and a six-year-old cousin. Merhige bought two pistols and a rifle the day before the shooting according to the gun shop owner who sold them to him. Merhige had a concealed handgun permit.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:15 pm
@YDD 3:15P, that’s relevant because????????????
CCW permits don’t shoot anyone….people shoot people…no permit is required. How many people are shot by criminals….
Comment by one day at a time Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:32 pm
@one day at a time -
To be more accurate, people with CCW permits shoot people.
We’ve been told that CCW permits will only be issued to law-abiding citizens, and that arming them will make people safer.
That’s clearly “not an operational statement” or as some folks like to say “was not intended to be a factual statement.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:43 pm
Why the heck would the NRA admit defeat before the bill has a vote? Anyone who was a cautious “yes” up till the vote will now jump ship!
Comment by Trump2012 Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 3:46 pm
71 was always going to be tough to reach, but knowing that Monique Davis was #71 tells me that proponents may have been a wee bit optimistic.
I sympathize with Todd to a point. I’ve had legislators tell me they were with me right up until they voted against me, which happens all the time in Springfield and sucks (for the individual lobbyists) every time it happens. The only accurate roll call is the one taken on the big board, not on a lobbyist’s tally sheet.
But they were counting on Monique Davis? For CCW? Wow.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:01 pm
@Trump2012 -
Cautious “yes” votes will be watching the board.
Before Quinn issued his veto threat, they were watching to see if it would reach 60, since rumors were swirling that Quinn might sign it.
Now, they’re watching to see if it hits 71.
Tweets are hardly a factor.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:02 pm
It is sad for the people of Chicago that they live in a City where the Government refuses to protect them and they are too dumb to support legislators who will allow them to proect themselves. Lets face it, this is a Chicago vs. the South on this issue. But no one got shot in my neighborhood today.
Talk about using victims for political gain. I want to know that last time a police officer was shot by a law abiding citizen who properly possesed a FOID card?
Comment by the Patriot Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:08 pm
Hey Rep. Mitchell, maybe you need 71 votes for the same reason this bill went through the Ag Committee. How about that?
Comment by Seriously??? Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:09 pm
Again, the recertification for retired law enforcement officer is stricter than it is for “regular” citizens under this bill.
Comment by Seriously??? Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:15 pm
District of Columbia v. Heller decision disagrees. In the majority decision of that case, Justice Scalia writes, “The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
Comment by Seriously??? Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:16 pm
Looks like it’s become a case of they said, she said for the NRA and Rep. Davis. Not sure who I trust less…
Comment by TJ Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:17 pm
Great, after almost two decades, we get a vote on the floor and now we have a list of 33 Reps. from which to choose from to work against in 2012.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:27 pm
Yellow Dog, I can’t say how sick I find the fact that you love that tragic shooting in FL. Now explain how the permit was relevant since it was in the home. Of course, I forgot, you want to ban all guns from all places. The ‘gun free’ utopia that Osterman wants so much hasn’t existed since the Dark Ages.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:30 pm
can’t find the vote post….who was present?
Comment by amalia Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:31 pm
Just doing the math in my head and the reports of 65-32-1 doesn’t add up (though the one tweet of 65-52-1 makes sense). Looks like we have 53 to work against.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:33 pm
TJ, more like ‘he said, she lied’.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:33 pm
David, that was a typo on my part. Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:43 pm
@David Lawson -
The example is relevant because he carried the concealed weapon into someone else’s home.
But more importantly, we’ve been told all along that we’re going to screen the folks we issue concealed weapons to so that we ensure they only end up “in the right hands.”
And I love the example, although not the event itself, because it proves once again that human beings are too unpredictable to know who the right hands are.
That said, I’ve been back-and-forth on the concealed weapons issue. I think the argument that some form of concealed weapons are allowed in 48 other states is a strong one.
The argument is weakened however by three points:
1) Those other states aren’t noticably safer than Illinois;
2) There are ample examples of people issued concealed weapons permits using them to commit crimes;
3) There are serious problems with how this bill was constructed, particularly the fact that you only have to get 70% on the shooting range test to qualify.
That said, there IS a victory of sorts in this vote. If Phelps rewrites the bill to allow Home Rule communities to opt out, it will only need 60 votes and will surely pass.
Then they can carry ALL the concealed guns they want in Mt. Vernon and life continues as before in Chicago.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:46 pm
Just another sad day in the history of Illinois politics.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 4:57 pm
you know… 65 may not be enough to pass HB0148; but it is certainly enough to control (push or stop) most other legislation that attempts to go through from here on out.
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 5:03 pm
–Great, after almost two decades, we get a vote on the floor and now we have a list of 33 Reps. from which to choose from to work against in 2012.–
Farmer, at that kind of work pace, you’re going to have an awfully long beard before you get what your want.
But, happily, you can keep on raising money.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:04 pm
@ YDD -
“To be more accurate, people with CCW permits shoot people.”
Not that I totally disagree but I think your statement could be more accurately worded to say “people with CCW permits can defend and shoot, if necessary, those wishing to inflict life-threatening harm to themselves or others.”
My point is that a person can shoot another with, or without a permit.
Comment by too tired to watch anymore Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:05 pm
Wasn’t me said she said she told two others she would vote for the bill.
We were in the hunt, but chicago did some bone breaking on this one seems the mayor didnt want tomget screwed on his way out the door.
We will live to fight another day, time to check the court house hours….
Comment by Todd Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:11 pm
I’m sure the vote was closer than 65, no doubt some dropped off when it appeared that it wouldn’t pass, just like some would have piled on had it prevailed.
WS, I don’t raise money, I donate. Probably to judicial solutions until election season.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:16 pm
Todd and Dave, you’re doing your jobs and I respect that, even though I opposed you’re shoot-the-moon bill.
Any thoughts to a California or New York “may issue” compromise? It’s probably a slam dunk, and will get a lot of your folks straightened out.
Like the man said, anyone who won’t take a half loaf ain’t hungry.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:48 pm
Pass it with an opt-out for Home Rule communities and everybody goes home a winner.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:11 pm
–We were in the hunt, but chicago did some bone breaking on this one seems the mayor didnt want tomget screwed on his way out the door.–
As an aside, that negative “Chicago” stuff rubs me and I suspect a lot of folks who don’t even live in Chicago the wrong way.
I grew up Downstate (and I live in Cook, not Chicago), so I get the implication, but it turns off a lot of people. It might play in some areas, but you already have those folks. The idea is to add people, and it doesn’t help to build a coalition in the biggest population area.
I don’t think “Chicago” was a negative when you get the endorsement of the Chicago Police Lieutenants group.
And, seriously, Daley hasn’t had any pull since the Olympics bid. He certainly didn’t kill this bill a few days before he’s gone. He’s old news. Power doesn’t work that way.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 7:38 pm
Word –
I have a hard time tossing otis mcdonald under the buss and saying i can get my permit cause my sheriff will issue them and his won’t. He went to bat for me, i just dont think i can turn my back on him
Word coming put tonight is that legislators who work for the city or county got very strong message about voting for the bill. Their employment in thier second job would be
Comment by Todd Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:30 pm
Oops
Their jobs would be in jepardy. Some have famlily members working in departments and they get to them that way. It happens when they can not win on the merits it is the card they play.
I am a big boy and know how it works. Thjat is what hapened
Comment by Todd Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:33 pm
I helped draft that bill 2 years ago and it didn’t pass. Now we don’t have to settle for a Jim Crow system. Compromise? That bil was the compromise. Now watch us whittle away at UUW restrictions until they beg for a licensing system for concealed firearms.
Comment by David Lawson aka Federal Farmer Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:42 pm
Hey word one more thing,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1207.htm
Comment by Todd Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:43 pm
Funny how bill edley claims to have started the downstate dem caucus. He did not, was a joke and the worst member they have ever had. He was not allowed in most meetings or never asked to attend. He voted with Jan schakowsky as if they were district mates!!!! Bill, your irrelevant and always were. I wonder if you took time away from your state job to email. Sounds like an ethical breach to me. grow up mr. Nobody. How many times did you beg Quinn for a job????? Your a pathetic man.
Comment by Joke Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 9:45 pm
“…and life continues as before in Chicago.” With more shootings than the rest of the state combined.
Comment by wishbone Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 10:53 pm
@ David Lawson aka Federal Farmer - Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 6:16 pm:
I’m sure the vote was closer than 65, no doubt some dropped off when it appeared that it wouldn’t pass
You are correct, sir.
http://blogs.sj-r.com/thedomeblog/index.php/2011/05/05/concealed-carry-comes-up-short/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Watch all the greens that flip to red at the last second while the “Have all voted who wish?” cattle call goes out.
I count 2, maybe 3 votes that flipped from Yes to No just before Phelps yanked it.
Wusses.
But it also goes to show that Phelps’ whip count was bad noodles and he wasn’t near 71 in the first place.
—–
@ wishbone - Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 10:53 pm:
“…and life continues as before in Chicago.” With more shootings than the rest of the state combined.
Sounds like all the other big cities in America.
You know, in the 48 states that do let people walk around with loaded guns.
Comment by G. Willickers Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:25 pm
>>>2) There are ample examples of people issued concealed weapons permits using them to commit crimes;
Some of those are trumped up. The total amount is an extremely low per capita rate.
Comment by John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt Thursday, May 5, 11 @ 11:28 pm
@JJJ Schmidt -
Anecdotes are the gasoline of public policy and hypocrisy is the oil.
I understand libertarians who vote for conceal carry.
I don’t understand libertarians who vote for conceal carry and against medical marijuana.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, May 6, 11 @ 8:25 am