TEMPERS FLARE: “May issue” went down hard

[lostinblue 1,989]

EMPERS FLARE: “May issue” went down hard

April 18, 2013

Illinois Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, argues gun legislation while on the House floor during session at the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, April 17, 2013, in Springfield Ill. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman) Caption by State Journal-Register.

Tempers flared in the Illinois General Assembly yesterday as die-hard leftists tried one last time to push through a highly-restrictive “may issue” carry bill and met with a humiliating and overwhelming defeat.

It was a smack-down of epic proportions, in fact.

The “may issue” proposal was hailed by the Chicago media and so-called “moderate” Illinois House members as a “great compromise” to all Illinois to comply with the Seventh Circuit decision requiring Illinois to join 49 other states with carry laws, while at the same time offering a de facto means for local authorities to deny licensing people for arbitrary or capricious reasons – and allowing these same local municipalities to ban carry in their cities, creating a massive patchwork of laws and rendering the bill effectively worthless.

So, what happened?

As we mentioned, tempers flared and the Illinois House sounded a lot like the British Parliament’s House of Commons for a while.

Springfield (Watchdog.org) – …Tempers raged in the Illinois House Thursday as lawmakers debated a last-minute plan to have the state adopt “may issue” concealed carry permits.

“All of this nonsense and two-facedness from the other side of the aisle,” Democratic state Rep. Scott Drury declared after listening to Republicans argue against a plan to let the state and local police decide if someone should be allowed to carry a gun. “It’s nonsense.”

That touched off a torrent of yelling and screaming from Republicans, most notably state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, an adamant gun rights supporter.

To which Drury added “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”

House Republicans then bellowed out a chorus of boos and catcalls.

The scene bordered on getting out of control. State Rep. Al Riley, D-Hazel Crest, who was moderating the floor debate, threatened to call in House doorkeepers to clear the chamber or restore order.

In the end, the “May Issue” bill received just 31 votes, barely half of what it needed for passage. As we mentioned, it was a monumental failure for leftists who favor gun control.

Debate continues this morning and into this afternoon over a shall-issue bill. We’ll keep you up to speed as we can.

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=7125&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=tempers-flare-may-issue-went-down-hard

The video is worth watching at the page linked.

[himher 634]

Outstanding.

Gun rights advocates are winning in the President's state.

[Darnell 8,479]

President's state no longer Hawaii ? OK !

Sure, sure, he was in Illinois, but only as an interloper and part-time partying man.

[Darnell 8,479]

Ah, the House in IL. I feel bad for them, really. Partisan Rocks !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ah, the House in IL. I feel bad for them, really. Partisan Rocks !

Shall issue hasn't passed either. And there is always a chance that SCOTUS may intervene between now and June, to put the 7th Appellate Courts decision on hold, until they decide to reverse that decision. If not, and the Illinois legislature and governor pass no legislation, then no limitations of the ability to carry a loaded firearm in public firearm would exist until the legislature deals with the issue. If they agree to any legislation, other than the exiting laws determined to be unconstitutional for the time being, then that will satisfy the decision until the court(s) decide otherwise.

[Darnell 8,479]

The Patriot - you've stolen my writing template.

Please toss it aside, and get back to yer normal style of writing? Please? Purty Please? Purty Please with scarlet-red underbritches on it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The Patriot - you've stolen my writing template.

Please toss it aside, and get back to yer normal style of writing? Please? Purty Please? Purty Please with scarlet-red underbritches on it?

Ha? No catch ball.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Update:

How the NRA’s bill went down in the House, and the Senate’s “may carry” bill starts to move

During the Illinois House’s floor debate last week over the concealed-carry bill backed by the National Rifle Association, I was told by an intimate of House Speaker Michael Madigan that Madigan wanted to make sure the bill received no more than 64 votes.

Because the bill pre-empts local government home-rule powers, the bill required a three-fifths majority of 71 votes to pass.

The anti-gun forces were demoralized the day before when their highly restrictive concealed-carry proposal got just 31 votes, so Madigan (D-Chicago) wanted to do the same to the NRA’s version, I was told.

The idea, the source said, was to show both sides that they couldn’t pass their bills on their own and needed to get themselves to the bargaining table and work something out.

As you know, a federal appeals court has ruled that Illinois’ prohibition on concealed carry is unconstitutional, but the court left open the door to quite a few restrictions. The appeals court gave Illinois a June 9 deadline to enact a concealed-carry law, so the pressure is on to find a solution.

Without legislation, Illinois’ existing ban won’t be enforceable, which likely means anyone with a state firearm owner’s ID card could walk the streets carrying loaded weapons without a permit.

The NRA bill ended up getting 64 votes, exactly Madigan’s reported target number. By the way, that’s three votes less than the roll call on an even less restrictive concealed-carry bill a few months ago, so this was a huge loss for the NRA.

And keep in mind, the NRA was missing one of its supporters during that last roll call. So it actually lost four votes from the last time around and perhaps as many as nine from earlier in the day.

Madigan’s staff worked the bill hard, pulling off votes for their boss. Gov. Pat Quinn, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s people also worked against the NRA bill.

Pro-gun forces began the day believing that they had more than enough votes to pass it, and they were furious when the tide began to turn against them. But there was nothing they could do as they watched one promised vote after another flip on them.

Afterward, some were defiant, saying they would now walk away from the table, kill anything they don’t like and wait for the federal appeals court’s deadline to arrive — when Illinois’ law on unlawful use of a weapon relating to concealed carry would not be able to be enforced. Others were more cautious, leaving open the possibility of a deal.

On the other side of the Statehouse, Sens. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago) and Tim Bivins (R-Dixon) said they were close to wrapping up negotiations over a concealed-carry law. Raoul said the tentative proposal would be unveiled within days. It contains what will undoubtedly be a controversial “endorsement” clause.

If approved, anyone who is awarded a concealed-carry permit by Illinois State Police could carry anywhere in Illinois except Cook County and Chicago. If they want to carry in those areas, they would have to apply for an “endorsement” from local law enforcement. An appeals process was being added to the bill for those who are denied an endorsement, Raoul said,

The NRA’s top lobbyist responded that he would attempt to kill such a bill, but Bivins, who was Lee County’s sheriff for 20 years, didn’t seem very concerned that the final proposal might not be viewed favorably by the NRA.

Back in the House, Rep. Mike Zalewski (D-Riverside) held out hope that a deal could still be struck in his chamber. Zalewski, who voted “present” on the NRA’s concealed-carry bill, has been one of the go-betweens in the negotiations with the NRA and anti-gun groups.

Zalewski said he opposed some lower penalties in the NRA bill and wanted other items, including more restrictions in government buildings. He also said people with concealed-carry permits in other states should meet the same training requirements as those imposed in Illinois.

But the pro-gun forces complain that they’ve been negotiating with themselves. They’ve repeatedly compromised, only to see the goalposts moved farther away.

http://capitolfax.com/2013/04/22/how-the-nras-bill-went-down-in-the-house-and-the-senates-may-carry-bill-starts-to-move/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Also, it appears the NRA will not get its way in Chicago:

Illinois Senate gun bill would exempt Chicago

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — A key Illinois senator says legislation allowing public gun possession will carve out an exception for Chicago.

Republican Sen. Tim Bivins says the measure he and Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul negotiated would allow Cook County authorities to deny a concealed carry permit even if an applicant passes the required background checks.

The former county sheriff from Dixon says the rest of the state would be governed by a so-called "shall issue" law — anyone meeting requirements would get a carry permit.

Bivins says the bill is being written. He says it's not ideal but gun-rights advocates have to compromise.

A federal court has ordered Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law by June 9.

A statewide "shall issue" bill failed Thursday in the House.

http://thesouthern.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/illinois-senate-gun-bill-would-exempt-chicago/article_62507fba-a92b-11e2-93b1-001a4bcf887a.html#comments

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Also, it appears the NRA will not get its way in Chicago:

Interesting. Wonder why that is.

[justashooter 430]

a bill exempting $hitcago would provoke a 14th amendment challenge, an "equal protection clause" issue.

anyway you write it, this is a big loss for gun grabbers.

[lostinblue 1,989]

a bill exempting $hitcago would provoke a 14th amendment challenge, an "equal protection clause" issue.

anyway you write it, this is a big loss for gun grabbers.

Lawsuits will be flying all over the country.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Lawsuits will be flying all over the country.

huh? This is an Illinois issue at the moment, at least until SCOTUS gives it back to the states.