What effect on concealed carry will we likely see with a Dem governor?

[vito]

None of the leading Democrats seeking the nomination for Governor seem likely to be supportive of concealed carry or any other pro-gun position, and I really doubt that Rauner can get re-elected. I'm wondering what effect a new Democrat Governor is likely to have on our current concealed carry law, i.e, might we see more places added to the "do not carry" list, might the legislature push through fee or other changes to make it harder for citizens to get or renew their license, or might we face a state version of the "assault weapon ban" or the "high capacity magazine ban" or something similar.

[Jam77]

I’m sure it won’t be good.

[soundguy]

I think, if the legislature stays Pro 2A we wouldn't see much change. CC has not been a bloody failure, as predicted by some.

 

If the legislature desires, we could see the improvements we feel it needs (allow carry in parks, mass transit, etc). A Governor can't just change things on his/her own. There are actual problems that need to be resolved and watering down CC isn't one of them.

 

I don't care for any of the Dem contenders and will likely vote for Rauner again... Unless a better 2A candidate surfaces.

[Quiet Observer]

Jeanne Ives a state representative, district 42, from DuPage County is in the early stages of establishing a primary challenge to Governor Rauner. She is a West Point grad and veteran and votes pro-2A. She has chosen Rich Morthland, a Rock Island County Board member who previously served in the Illinois House from 2011 to 2013, as her running mate. Going against the big money of Rauner and Pritscher will be stiff challenges.

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=2045

http://www.nwherald.com/2017/11/02/illinois-rep-jeanne-ives-confident-she-will-be-on-ballot-against-gov-bruce-rauner/atkvx5z/

http://www.jeanneives.org/

[mauserme]

I think, if the legislature stays Pro 2A we wouldn't see much change. CC has not been a bloody failure, as predicted by some.

 

If the legislature desires, we could see the improvements we feel it needs (allow carry in parks, mass transit, etc). A Governor can't just change things on his/her own. There are actual problems that need to be resolved and watering down CC isn't one of them.

 

I don't care for any of the Dem contenders and will likely vote for Rauner again... Unless a better 2A candidate surfaces.

 

I agree and would add that the anti-gun faction in the legislature has mostly ignored the fact that they can't rely on Governor Rauner to sign any bill the send him, the way they could rely on his predecessors. In other words, it hasn't changed the kinds of bills they've tried to pass one bit.

[mic6010]

What more could they possibly add to the list banned places ? Walking down the sidewalk ? Any relevant place that the state or a municipality has any control over is already prohibited.

Any private place is allowed to ban carry on its premises at any time.

 

I agree with others, the legislature is where anti gun anything starts and stops. Having a Republican governor who is pro gun is simply a little added insurance in case something horrible does get through. The pressure on our 2nd amendment rights is not gonna change regardless of who gets elected. IL has been selected (for obvious reasons) as a battleground state in the war against the second amendment. They will not stop trying to make an example out of us by turning us into California or New York. Its never gonna stop. Not ever.

[RoadyRunner]

Remember, carry was passed under a very anti-2A D Governor, who issued an amendatory veto that was then overridden by the legislature.

 

Yes, it was under a clock set by a court order, but still...

[Trevis]

Remember, carry was passed under a very anti-2A D Governor, who issued an amendatory veto that was then overridden by the legislature. Yes, it was under a clock set by a court order, but still...

That's about the only reason they did anything, because that clock to constitutional carry was something the Chicago establishment types REALLY didn't want. So they passed the best they thought they could get to make it as hard as they possibly could. Kind of sad that when a court says it's our right, and the legislature says, ok, we'll make it as hard and expensive as we can and stay out of court.

[BobPistol]

Many ways.

 

All the gray areas we talk about, can easily be made into prohibited areas by executive order. Then court lawsuits happen.

 

Plenty of test cases can easily be created.

Prohibit carry in all forest preserve districts outside of Cook County? Done. EO signed.

 

Prohibit carry in day care centers? Another EO says they're "educational facilities."

[soundguy]

Many ways.

 

All the gray areas we talk about, can easily be made into prohibited areas by executive order. Then court lawsuits happen.

 

Plenty of test cases can easily be created.

 

Prohibit carry in all forest preserve districts outside of Cook County? Done. EO signed.

 

Prohibit carry in day care centers? Another EO says they're "educational facilities."

 

 

 

 

 

While I've only done a little reading on this, I'm pretty sure the Illinois Gov can't do that with an executive order, which seem to be fairly limited...

 

Generally, you

can think of executive orders as the way the governor tells employees how

to get their jobs done, or how they must behave as the governor’s employ-

ees. For example, in 2010, Governor Pat Quinn issued an executive order

creating the Governor’s Office of New Americans.

 

[gangrel]

Not saying that we shouldn't be vigilant or keep fighting here, but have y'all noticed that Rauner hasn't had to veto any anti-gun legislation? That's because it's gotta' get through the ILGA first, and they don't have the votes. A Democratic governor would mean that we're not going to get much in the way of improvements to CCW or better laws, but it is not the Republicans keeping the anti-gun legislation at bay, it is the downstate representatives and senators. It is telling that the closest the antis have come to passing anything at all in the last 3 years was getting Dealer Licensing past the Senate vote. While that is far too close for comfort for me, and while the yea vote and the excuse was way beyond the boundaries of decency for me, I received a response from one senator who voted yea on that bill partly because he knew for certain it didn't have the votes in the House.

 

Chicago kept gun rights in this state trapped for decades because any bill that preempts home rule requires a 3/5 supoermajority to pass. A minority held our rights hostage because they were a big enough minority. Then Moore/Shepard happened, and the numbers shifted. They were the ones who needed to pass SOMETHING, and they didn't have the votes to stay away from the cliff. Because that cat is out of the bag, and the preemption that comes with it, it is no longer the pro-gun side that needs a supermajority, it is the antis who need it. They don't have a simple majority, let alone a supermajority.

 

Unless the Governor is signing or vetoing bills, either pro-gun or anti, the office doesn't even figure into this fight.

 

Personally, I hope Rauner or whomever mounts a successful primary challenge can hold the office. There are plenty of other reasons I want a Republican to hold the Governor's office. But if you're worried about gun rights, you're focused on the wrong branch of the government.

[vito]

For me, both my State Senator (Syversen) and my State Representative (Sosnowski) are reliable pro-gun votes. As we all know, the gorilla in the room is the Chicago Democrats and I can't do much about that. I see the Governor as the almost last hope should some anti gun bill make it to his desk, and having a Democrat at that desk is not likely to be much help for us.

[BobPistol]

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I've only done a little reading on this, I'm pretty sure the Illinois Gov can't do that with an executive order, which seem to be fairly limited...

 

Generally, you

can think of executive orders as the way the governor tells employees how

to get their jobs done, or how they must behave as the governor’s employ-

ees. For example, in 2010, Governor Pat Quinn issued an executive order

creating the Governor’s Office of New Americans.

 

 

 

Executive orders can also codify the government's interpretation of an existing law. Administrative regulations already do this. An EO can be one of them too.

 

Law says "educational institution" for no-carry zones deals with A, B and C. EO says government's interpretation of A is A1, A2, A3. Example: educational institutions funded by the government are no carry zones. So an EO can define a day care center funded by tax dollars as one of those the government considers no carry zones.

Another example: Are AR pistols considered handguns under pre-emption? An EO can say No because it is part of the AR (rifle, long gun) platform and let the lawsuits fly.

Whether those interpretations are correct, the 50,000 lawsuits filed will determine.

[soundguy]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While I've only done a little reading on this, I'm pretty sure the Illinois Gov can't do that with an executive order, which seem to be fairly limited...

 

Generally, you

can think of executive orders as the way the governor tells employees how

to get their jobs done, or how they must behave as the governor’s employ-

ees. For example, in 2010, Governor Pat Quinn issued an executive order

creating the Governor’s Office of New Americans.

 

 

 

Executive orders can also codify the government's interpretation of an existing law. Administrative regulations already do this. An EO can be one of them too.

 

Law says "educational institution" for no-carry zones deals with A, B and C. EO says government's interpretation of A is A1, A2, A3. Example: educational institutions funded by the government are no carry zones. So an EO can define a day care center funded by tax dollars as one of those the government considers no carry zones.

 

Another example: Are AR pistols considered handguns under pre-emption? An EO can say No because it is part of the AR (rifle, long gun) platform and let the lawsuits fly.

 

Whether those interpretations are correct, the 50,000 lawsuits filed will determine.

 

Does an EO work this way in Illinois? I haven't yet seen and IL EO that gets into anything like that.

It seems rather far fetched...

[BobPistol]

 

 

 

 

 

Does an EO work this way in Illinois? I haven't yet seen and IL EO that gets into anything like that.

It seems rather far fetched...

 

 

EO's work this way on the Federal level. I'm wondering why they wouldn't work this way on a state or local level.

 

An EO can't make new law, but it can interpret existing law.

 

Example I've seen in the city of Chicago: Mayor Daley issued an EO (mayoral directive) that there is no free parking in the Loop. There are perhaps dozens of parking spots, properly signed, that if you park there, you an park for free. But you'll get a ticket. This directive continues even under the Rahm's administration.

It will be dismissed if you show up in person and make the case, bring pictures as proof.

 

You will beat the rap, but you won't beat the orange present.

 

This is a case of an EO contradicting existing law (state law says a sign must be posted, and so does city ordinance). However, this EO is their interpretation of existing parking laws.

 

My guess is that this directive was put in as part of the "leasing parking meters" contract.

[sctman800]

Not looking forward to that possibility, I won't call it a sure thing but highly possible. The big difference I see is some of the squishy lawmakers here in Illinois will go more anti. If they are worried about a veto from the Governor they are more likely to vote with the gun owners. That way they wont Pi$$ off the gun owners on a vote that was wasted. Jim.

[Jeffrey]

For me, both my State Senator (Syversen) and my State Representative (Sosnowski) are reliable pro-gun votes. As we all know, the gorilla in the room is the Chicago Democrats and I can't do much about that. I see the Governor as the almost last hope should some anti gun bill make it to his desk, and having a Democrat at that desk is not likely to be much help for us.

Lets face it, Chicago runs the rest of the state. The Governor doesn't seem to do much for us regardless of the party. Yes Rauner is/was a potential safety net in case something got through our state reps. We fortunately do have some dems down south that still believe in the Constitution. That said, what has Rauner blocked to help our cause? I don't believe that the reps haven't passed anything because they were afraid of Rauner vetoing anything. The fact is, if the dems in Illinois truly want something collectively, they'll talk to Chicago and make it happen.

[soundguy]

EO's work this way on the Federal level. I'm wondering why they wouldn't work this way on a state or local level.

 

As a State, we have our own constitution outlining/limiting what Government can do.

 

If such changes to a law could be made by our Governor, I think Gov Quinn would have done so. Blagojovich certainly would have outlawed ALL guns. In the days following a shooting at NIU, I recorded him telling three NIU students that all guns would be banned from Illinois if it was up to him. Or perhaps Rauner could make it easier to carry everywhere by issuing an EO. That would certainly enhance his popularity with us...

 

I'm pretty sure it cannot be done.

 

Generally, you can think of executive orders (in Illinois) as the way the governor tells

employees how to get their jobs done, or how they must behave as the governor’s

employees. For example, in 2010, Governor Pat Quinn issued an executive order

creating the Governor’s Office of New Americans.

[BigJim]

I could go on and on with bills they tried to pass in the past but why remind them?

[mauserme]

I beleive this is the extent of the Governor's EO authority

http://ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conent.htm


SECTION 11. GOVERNOR - AGENCY REORGANIZATION

The Governor, by Executive Order, may reassign functions
among or reorganize executive agencies which are directly
responsible to him. If such a reassignment or reorganization
would contravene a statute, the Executive Order shall be
delivered to the General Assembly. If the General Assembly is
in annual session and if the Executive Order is delivered on
or before April 1, the General Assembly shall consider the
Executive Order at that annual session. If the General
Assembly is not in annual session or if the Executive Order
is delivered after April 1, the General Assembly shall
consider the Executive Order at its next annual session, in
which case the Executive Order shall be deemed to have been
delivered on the first day of that annual session. Such an
Executive Order shall not become effective if, within 60
calendar days after its delivery to the General Assembly,
either house disapproves the Executive Order by the record
vote of a majority of the members elected. An Executive Order
not so disapproved shall become effective by its terms but
not less than 60 calendar days after its delivery to the
General Assembly.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

[civilone]

I could see an attempt to change from "shall issue" conceal carry to "may issue-if you can justify" conceal carry (similar to other states), magazine capacities (introduced before in Illinois), firearm order of protection (introduced before in Illinois), partial rifle ban (introduced before in Illinois), and gun dealer licensing (introduced before in Illinois).

[chislinger]

What we get with a Dem governor:

 

- any improvements to gun laws and concealed carry laws get vetoed, and there won't be enough votes to override.

 

- any new restrictions of gun rights is immediately signed into law.

 

If you think this doesn't matter you aren't thinking clearly.

[WitchDoctor]

What we get with a Dem governor:

 

- any improvements to gun laws and concealed carry laws get vetoed, and there won't be enough votes to override.

 

- any new restrictions of gun rights is immediately signed into law.

 

If you think this doesn't matter you aren't thinking clearly.

Chislinger, your take seems to be how I feel too. G-d help us if BJ Pritker makes it into office. That is another reason to GTFO from Illinois in general.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

 

Jeanne Ives a state representative, district 42, from DuPage County is in the early stages of establishing a primary challenge to Governor Rauner. She is a West Point grad and veteran and votes pro-2A. She has chosen Rich Morthland, a Rock Island County Board member who previously served in the Illinois House from 2011 to 2013, as her running mate. Going against the big money of Rauner and Pritscher will be stiff challenges.

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=2045

http://www.nwherald.com/2017/11/02/illinois-rep-jeanne-ives-confident-she-will-be-on-ballot-against-gov-bruce-rauner/atkvx5z/

http://www.jeanneives.org/

 

This is interesting to me for 2 reasons. 1, Republicans are trying to primary a sitting governor and 2. I actually like her alot based on the floor debates I have witnessed from her. She is strong and I agree with most of her politics. I have not researched her enture voting record yet however.

 

I'm not sure Rauner can get re-elected. He's done a few things (unrelated to guns) that have p***** off some people whom have voted for him. Also I'm not sure he's done enough to garner votes from moderates away from Pritzker. He's done alot of good fighting Madigan but Madigan controls the media as well as the state house, and was able to flip all over that against Rauner.

 

I've been helping campaign for someone who is trying to run for rep against Lou Lang (BTW if you are in Skokie, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove or Roger Park, can I get you to sign a petition please?!), what I have learned is that all Republicans are running against Trump. Imagine the pleasantries I was told as I was asking for petition signatures.

[BobPistol]

Pritzker. The Democrat party crony who wants to buy the Governor's seat.

[Hap]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see more attempts to limit or roll back preemption.

[ChicagoRonin70]

 

 

What we get with a Dem governor:

 

- any improvements to gun laws and concealed carry laws get vetoed, and there won't be enough votes to override.

 

- any new restrictions of gun rights is immediately signed into law.

 

If you think this doesn't matter you aren't thinking clearly.

Chislinger, your take seems to be how I feel too. G-d help us if BJ Pritker makes it into office. That is another reason to GTFO from Illinois in general.

 

 

This is the absolute truth. You are basically looking at the most expensive Governors race in the history of Illinois but here's the thing. You are going to have two billionaires going at it. The problem with Rauner is two fold. First: Even the people who would normally vote for him have a why bother even voting attitude. The perception is that he turned Illinois into the laughing stock of the nation. Second, he made a lot of enemies who were on his side when he signed HB40.

 

A lot of Republicans would love to see someone like Jeanne Ives run against him, the bold truth is he is not likeable. The bolder truth is he has the money to crush anybody who runs against him in a primary.

 

He does not have enough money to take down Pritzker.

 

"When I was 7 years old, my dad passed away, and my mother was left with three young children. She lost her job as my father’s partner in business. She lost her life partner, and she was afflicted with alcoholism.

She struggled valiantly to overcome a disease so she could take care of her own kids, and even though she lost the battle, she ultimately won because although she passed away, all three of us survived."

 

That makes Democrats instantly burst into tears.

 

How about this for the a bit more of the truth.

 

"I was born into one of the wealthiest families in the United States and my mother had a drinking problem after my rich father passed away when I was 7. She was run over by the tow truck that was towing her Cadillac which had broken down during a shopping spree in 1982 when I was 17. I come from a family that has never lived a normal existence. We are FILTHY RICH and when I was young and pointed at something, I would say mine and it was so. My families wealth is 30 BILLION DOLLARS. I now point to being the Governor of Illinois and say mine."

 

Hello Indiana!

 

 

Hah! I forgot about that! That is bizarrely hilarious!