Posted on 06/11/2013 5:56:13 AM PDT by rellimpank
The bill permitting the concealed carrying of weapons that passed in the closing days of the Illinois General Assembly spring session includes provisions that create a bad legislative precedent and public safety risks. Although the bill sailed through by wide margins, Gov. Pat Quinn should employ an amendatory veto to try to eliminate the bill’s worst parts. He should also revise his call for a June 19 special session, now set to deal only with pensions, so the Legislature can act on concealed carry as well.
As now written, the bill preempts county and municipal governments from putting stronger limits on concealed carry than the state law would. But it also goes beyond that to preempt other gun laws that have nothing to do with concealed carry. Local governments would have only 10 days to ban assault weapons within their borders, for example, and then the window would close. Often, governments don’t act until they have a problem. But if the problem becomes obvious after 11 days, the governments could do nothing. How does that make sense?
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
I fully expect Quinn to veto the bill. He’s got nothing to lose, and he’s a die hard gun-grabbing hoplophobe.
What happens if Quinn vetos this bill?
I think it passed by veto-proof margins so he’ll just be overridden.
You would be surprised how those former margins suddenly change after a veto raised the specter of the issue.
There is safety in numbers and not bucking the party bosses.
Fundamental conflicts for the wicked and corrupt.
Chicago MSM continue to wet themselves over this - a bill which might - just might - bring peace to the murder capitol of the United States.
In the end, IL will get some form of ccw, but mark my words, Chicago will find a way to thwart it.
Constitutional carry in Chicago may actually lower the murder rate, but this is wishful thinking.
“...this is wishful thinking.”
Not my view at all.
They have to pass something, and soon, because the 7th Circuit is voiding their conceal carry ban as unconstitutional. Lisa Madigan has been given an extension of thirty days and told she will not be given another. She has aspirations to be the next governor of IL, so she and her dad Mike Madigan are not on the same page as Quinn. In fact, Many observers here, myself included, believe Mike & Lisa want this gun issue out of the way, and if that’s the case, you can expect those veto-proof majorities in both houses to hold up. Quinn here is the odd man out, even within his own party. I do not expect him to last.
One more thing. Those supposedly “worst things” about the bill (the preemption, for example) are about the ONLY things that are bringing the pro-gun people into the deal. If we’re not in, there is no deal. We’ve already proved that several times over. So if Quinn kills the deal, we would go into default (aka constitutional) carry, and nothing brings out the lefty bed-wetters like the thought of totally losing control over guns. We have the advantage, and we are using it.
Isn’t there something about a June 9th deadline and reverting back to the municipalities?
Prior to the Heller v DC ruling, it was virtually impossible to have a handgun in DC. After Heller, due to schemes and roadblocks, it is nearly just as difficult to obtain a handgun. IMHO, Chicago will work tirelessly to do the same.
That is indeed good news.
I have to wonder (as a defense attorney) how things will play out on the ground when cops encounter citizens who are carrying.
Their MO is to just harass and arrest with no regard to the law in some places.
Keep them in jail a couple of days then release with no formal charges.
People need to get a good defense attorney retained and on standby.
Note I’m not licensed anywhere but Texas so I’m not fishing or clients here.
Even if I lived in Illinois I would have a colleague of mine on standby in anticipation of lawless LEOs.
God bless you guys and keep up the good fight!
As a resident of this hellhole named Illinois, I sure do hope you’re correct.
The leftists' real fear is not that elimination of the anti-gun rules would cause blood in the streets, but rather that it will quite conspicuously fail to do so. If the elimination of all the illegitimate rules is followed by a violent drop in violent crime, it will be hard to argue that the rules need to be reinstated to prevent... what exactly?
Hmmm... well, you may be right about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.