Jump to content

Chicago Machine Might Ignore 7th Circuit?


mstrat

Recommended Posts

Anyone else p***** off that they only consider doing the right thing after they asked, not if someone could carry in downtown Chicago but rather, if someone could carry in the capital?

 

Well I think it really just put things into perspective for them. I wouldn't get too hung up on location or anything like that. I mean, maybe a better question would be to say "So you mean anyone can carry into a school, open or concealed?!". Then they'd be like OMGOSH What the hey!!! what do we do?!?!?!?!?!? :frantics:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From capfax

 

Like I have said before we are winning

 

 

 

HDEMS BRIEFED ON GUNS House Democrats were told during a private caucus meeting yesterday that, despite what Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez says, inaction on concealed carry would have very serious consequences.

 

A federal appellate court has given the state until June 8th to pass a new law allowing some form of public carrying of loaded weapons. After that deadline, Illinois' laws against public carrying guns would be struck down. Illinois is the only state in the nation which totally bars the practice. An aide to Alvarez told the House Judiciary Committee this week, however, that the federal appellate ruling means nothing to the state.

 

The chairman of that committee, Rep. Elaine Nekritz, mistakenly believed this week that the House Democratic legal staff agreed with Alvarez, and she told that to myself and to some of her fellow legislators. But that didn't turn out to be true. In fact, the technical review staff completely disagrees, Democrats were told yesterday.

 

At one point during the closed-door meeting, Rep. Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago) rose to ask whether staff was claiming that if nothing passes the General Assembly, then after June 8th he could legally carry a loaded semi-automatic rifle into the Statehouse. "Yes," he was told.

 

A stunned silence fell over the caucus meeting, said several House Democrats who attended. "I think they finally get it now," said one pro-gun HDem yesterday.

 

Some historically anti-gun members talked after the committee about how they now need to vote for a bill that would prevent a "constitutional carry" (essentially no restrictions other than a FOID card) scenario. So, Dunkin's question and the answer given appear to have worked. At least for now, members are not willing to kick this particular can down the road.

 

What was the source of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...