Illinois House and Senate passes CCW!

[DaveTN]

2nd States Attorney has stepped up.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/12/2nd-Illinois-county-wont-enforce-ban-on-concealed-carry/UPI-61991371076905/

[Worriedman]

2nd States Attorney has stepped up.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/06/12/2nd-Illinois-county-wont-enforce-ban-on-concealed-carry/UPI-61991371076905/

 

Seems the State Police and Sheriffs are lined up against this, (big surprise)

 

The Illinois State Police, Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, and Illinois Sheriff's Association issued a joint statement.

"Current Illinois law prohibits the carrying of an immediately accessible or loaded firearm on your person or in your vehicle regardless of whether it is concealed," the groups announced. "Persons in violation are subject to arrest."

 

[2.ooohhh]

Seems the State Police and Sheriffs are lined up against this, (big surprise)

 

The Sheriff's are not all in line with this, just the association. . .

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/06/08/clinton-county-sheriff-on-concealed-carry/

 

So that apparently makes the list Clinton, Randolph, and Madison counties at the moment.

[DaveTN]

Seems the State Police and Sheriffs are lined up against this, (big surprise)

That’s not fair; most of the County Sherriff’s that have made statements support the carry bill. 73 County Sherriff’s voted unanimously not to support weapons bans.
 http://www.ilsheriff.org/images/stories/press/press%20release%20on%20gun%20control%20resolution.pdf
 
One spokesperson can speak for the State Police so of course they have said they will enforce the law. Troopers have discretion in Illinois though.
 
It’s a good thing that some States Attorneys are stepping up. The bad is that some citizens will have a false sense of security. They can still be arrested and have to spend a lot of money before the case going to the SA’s office. Also, if something would happen to cause a change of the States Attorney before their case is settled they could find themselves being charged.
 
I hope the downstate voters are paying attention. The Governor can’t stop this bill that the legislature passed. The Governor and the state Attorney General are both intentionally holding up this legislation that has passed; both will be running for Governor in the next election. Want to take any bets on what they say when they are campaigning about whether or not they support the 2nd amendment? Not only do they not respect or support the 2nd amendment; they don’t respect the state legislature that passed this legislation.

[Worriedman]

That’s not fair; most of the County Sherriff’s that have made statements support the carry bill. 73 County Sherriff’s voted unanimously not to support weapons bans.
 http://www.ilsheriff.org/images/stories/press/press%20release%20on%20gun%20control%20resolution.pdf
 
One spokesperson can speak for the State Police so of course they have said they will enforce the law. Troopers have discretion in Illinois though.

 

The Sheriff's are not all in line with this, just the association. . .

 

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/06/08/clinton-county-sheriff-on-concealed-carry/

 

So that apparently makes the list Clinton, Randolph, and Madison counties at the moment.

 

So noted.  Just like the Sheriff's Association in TN, which is in fact a big political lobbyist organization that does not necessarily speak for every individual Sheriff, and the Chiefs of Police are not the rank and file beat guys, I can see where the brass would hold the Chicago line while the grunts who do the actual work may not be so inclined as to drink the cool-aid.

[TSprint1]

So noted.  Just like the Sheriff's Association in TN, which is in fact a big political lobbyist organization that does not necessarily speak for every individual Sheriff, and the Chiefs of Police are not the rank and file beat guys, I can see where the brass would hold the Chicago line while the grunts who do the actual work may not be so inclined as to drink the cool-aid.

You mean just like when the Tennessee Sheriff's Association came out of the woodwork at the last moment and bushwhacked the knife bill in the last legislative session?  Said they hadn't know the bill was being considered. Buncha BS.

[DaveTN]

Governor Quinn has sent a amendatory veto with a message to the house. Even though he can't veto this bill they have to vote on his proposed changes. His changes would almost outlaw carry anywhere. Especially the part where businesses would have to post a sign if they want to allow carry.

Local legislators think will have the votes to override his changes on Tuesday. But I hope the people of Illinois remember in the next the election that both he and the Illinois Attorney General are fighting feverously to stop the wishes of the people of Illinois and the Illinois legislature. Looks like they are taking their cues from Obama. If you don't agree with the Constitution, the Federal Courts, and the legislature; find a way around them.

Here are some of the changes he wants to make:

Alcohol: No carry where alcohol is sold or served.

Handguns: one gun carry limit with 10 round max mag capacity.

Home Rule: Allows local governments to ban assault weapons. (This isn't even an assault weapons bill)

Signage: Would not only allow business owners to post against carry; but would require them to post if they wanted to allow carry.

Employers rights: Allows employers to ban guns on their property.

Concealed: Means completely concealed.

Mental Health: Full access to mental health records.

Open meeting: Results of the licensing board findings and arrest records or mental health records used in making their decisions would be open to the public.

[Erik88]

I am not surprised at all. This bill may end up being useless by the time it's passed. 

 

 

I think Elliot was right.

[mikegideon]

I am not surprised at all. This bill may end up being useless by the time it's passed. 

 

 

I think Elliot was right.

 

We call him Chucky T in these parts :)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Governor Quinn has sent a amendatory veto with a message to the house. Even though he can't veto this bill they have to vote on his proposed changes. His changes would almost outlaw carry anywhere. Especially the part where businesses would have to post a sign if they want to allow carry.

Local legislators think will have the votes to override his changes on Tuesday. But I hope the people of Illinois remember in the next the election that both he and the Illinois Attorney General are fighting feverously to stop the wishes of the people of Illinois and the Illinois legislature. Looks like they are taking their cues from Obama. If you don't agree with the Constitution, the Federal Courts, and the legislature; find a way around them.

Here are some of the changes he wants to make:

Alcohol: No carry where alcohol is sold or served.

Handguns: one gun carry limit with 10 round max mag capacity.

Home Rule: Allows local governments to ban assault weapons. (This isn't even an assault weapons bill)

Signage: Would not only allow business owners to post against carry; but would require them to post if they wanted to allow carry.

Employers rights: Allows employers to ban guns on their property.

Concealed: Means completely concealed.

Mental Health: Full access to mental health records.

Open meeting: Results of the licensing board findings and arrest records or mental health records used in making their decisions would be open to the public.

Just curious, but why do they have to vote on anything that the governor does? The governor in most states can

only make suggestions about lawmaking. Doesn't it still preside in the legislature, or is this unique to Illinois? And,

usually a veto proof bill automatically withstands against a veto, like you mentioned. I'm only asking why they would

have to even answer the governor's veto, at all. It may just be an Illinois thing. I don't know.

[mikegideon]

Just curious, but why do they have to vote on anything that the governor does? The governor in most states can

only make suggestions about lawmaking. Doesn't it still preside in the legislature, or is this unique to Illinois? And,

usually a veto proof bill automatically withstands against a veto, like you mentioned. I'm only asking why they would

have to even answer the governor's veto, at all. It may just be an Illinois thing. I don't know.

 

It's an Illinois thing. Don't forget, politicians have their own cell block at the state pen in Illinois, and it stays occupied. :)

[TripleDigitRide]

It's an Illinois thing. Don't forget, politicians have their own cell block at the state pen in Illinois, and it stays occupied. :)

So true.  :rofl:

[DaveTN]

Just curious, but why do they have to vote on anything that the governor does? The governor in most states can

only make suggestions about lawmaking. Doesn't it still preside in the legislature, or is this unique to Illinois? And,

usually a veto proof bill automatically withstands against a veto, like you mentioned. I'm only asking why they would

have to even answer the governor's veto, at all. It may just be an Illinois thing. I don't know.

I don't know either. This bill was veto proof. But it has 60 days before it can become law without his signature. Maybe during that 60 days he can send it back with changes that they have to answer. I know they have said it is an all or nothing vote on his changes; they can't pick and choose what they want. Since his changes are basically a carry ban a lot of people would have to flip to make the changes.

[DaveTN]

It's an Illinois thing. Don't forget, politicians have their own cell block at the state pen in Illinois, and it stays occupied. :)

At least when they commit crimes they put them in prison instead of leaving them in office. :) 

[mikegideon]

I don't know either. This bill was veto proof. But it has 60 days before it can become law without his signature. Maybe during that 60 days he can send it back with changes that they have to answer. I know they have said it is an all or nothing vote on his changes; they can't pick and choose what they want. Since his changes are basically a carry ban a lot of people would have to flip to make the changes.

 

As I understand it, the governor has line item veto power in Illinois. I don't know the mechanism for rewriting the bill, other than just making the statement that he won't veto his wish list. Anyway, here's hoping the legislators override everything.

Edited July 4, 2013 by mikegideon

[mikegideon]

At least when they commit crimes they put them in prison instead of leaving them in office. :) 

 

There are no redeeming qualities. I've lived there some, married one girl from there, hung out there even more, and still have family there. I have a lot of friends there too, from Chicago to the southern tip. With all that said, the state itself is the sorriest, most corrupt POS in the union, and always has been.

[Chucktshoes]

At least when they commit crimes they put them in prison instead of leaving them in office. :)

There are no redeeming qualities. I've lived there some, married one girl from there, hung out there even more, and still have family there. I have a lot of friends there too, from Chicago to the southern tip. With all that said, the state itself is the sorriest, most corrupt POS in the union, and always has been.

Preach it brother!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I thought the line item veto was declared unconstitutional. Maybe that was only federal and didn't affect states.

 

As I understand it, the governor has line item veto power in Illinois. I don't know the mechanism for rewriting the bill, other than just making the statement that he won't veto his wish list. Anyway, he're hoping the legislators override everything.

The line item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court after it was given to the president. Yep, after looking at it, it's

scope was federal only.

[mikegideon]

And I thought the line item veto was declared unconstitutional. Maybe that was only federal and didn't affect states.

 

The line item veto was struck down by the Supreme Court after it was given to the president. Yep, after looking at it, it's

scope was federal only.

 

It's Illinois. I don't think they give a rat's ass about anybody's constitution.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You could be on to something I haven't considered, Mike.

[Garufa]

I don't pretend to know doodly-squat about IL's constitution or this "amendatory veto" power it gives the EXECUTIVE branch to make law but the actions of those assholes once they get to the federal level is now making sense.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Garufa

[Chadastrophic]

I saw this ironic T-shirt while in the Sears tower.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[Dane]

It's an Illinois thing. Don't forget, politicians have their own cell block at the state pen in Illinois, and it stays occupied. :)

At least when they commit crimes they put them in prison instead of leaving them in office. :)

No they don't- they send them to DC.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[2.ooohhh]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-illinois-concealed-carry-pat-quinn,0,3834852.story

 

vs.

 

http://www.foxillinois.com/news/illinois/Lawmakers-Against-Quinns-Concealed-Carry-Changes-214613441.html

 

 

Should make for an interesting week. . .

Edited July 9, 2013 by 2.ooohhh

[DaveTN]

They overrode the Governor’s veto and passed the bill as written.