57 replies to this topic

[Tvandermyde]

Session closed out without a vote on right to carry this year.

We continue to face the opposition of president cullerton unwilling to let us have a vote with out the house passing a bill first.

We had bils positioned at the end as you can see we had a bill that had already passed the senate, that coud have passed and gone back to the senate for a concurance motion which only takes a matter of hours, instead of the normal three legislative days.

I am sorry we didn't get it across the finish line this session, ,and dissappointing you is not something I like to do.

But it has been an interesting session.

I am going to take the weekend off and spend time with my kids who iI have missedover these past 5 months. I will have a more detailed write up early next week.

Some have asked about the task force report. It became clear in the last two weeks of session, that it most likely would not provide any additional votes in the closing days . So there was no reason to rush a report. I know some have been waiting with baited breath for the report but I would rather get it right than not

Time for a beer.... Talk to you soon.

[Gray Peterson]

Tvandermyde, on 02 June 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Session closed out without a vote on right to carry this year.

We continue to face the opposition of president cullerton unwilling to let us have a vote with out the house passing a bill first.

We had bils positioned at the end as you can see we had a bill that had already passed the senate, that coud have passed and gone back to the senate for a concurance motion which only takes a matter of hours, instead of the normal three legislative days.

I am sorry we didn't get it across the finish line this session, ,and dissappointing you is not something I like to do.

But it has been an interesting session.

I am going to take the weekend off and spend time with my kids who iI have missedover these past 5 months. I will have a more detailed write up early next week.

Some have asked about the task force report. It became clear in the last two weeks of session, that it most likely would not provide any additional votes in the closing days . So there was no reason to rush a report. I know some have been waiting with baited breath for the report but I would rather get it right than not

Time for a beer.... Talk to you soon.

So, the caucus members who said they needed the positive task force report lied to us, just to delay things further.

That's fine.  I hope they like the idea of $1/year carry licensing with no training required....

[abolt243]

Gray Peterson, on 02 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

So, the caucus members who said they needed the positive task force report lied to us, just to delay things further.

That's fine.  I hope they like the idea of $1/year carry licensing with no training required....

Gray,

Are you sure you're not just Bud with a fance Gadsen Flag?  Same unbridled optimism!!

I like the way both of you think!!

AB

[Mr_Rich]

Todd:

You deserve a minimum of 2 beers.

[es503IL]

Is it too much to hope for a massive heart attack suddenly striking a couple of select Reps???

Seriously, this is starting to feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football... I do have to hand it to Madigan though, he strung "us" along until the time ran out. Essentially, watching "us" flail away while he laughed his ass off.

Edited by es503IL, 02 June 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[Gray Peterson]

abolt243, on 02 June 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 02 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

So, the caucus members who said they needed the positive task force report lied to us, just to delay things further.

That's fine.  I hope they like the idea of $1/year carry licensing with no training required....

Gray,

Are you sure you're not just Bud with a fance Gadsen Flag?  Same unbridled optimism!!

I like the way both of you think!!

AB

I just have little tolerance for whining and hand wringing. Madigan and his crew wants to play dirty deeds with us with at least 5 Supreme Court Justices supporting the correct reading of "bear", with the only state jurisdiction that completely bans all normal private citizen self defensive carry with loaded handguns, then that's their cross to bear.  He should call up former Mayor Adrian Fenty of DC and ask him how well that went for him.

Good luck getting 60 votes for a "Chicago machine" carry bill.  The votes don't add up, and we can hammer away at municipalities which have similar carry bans to the state using preliminary injunctions and TRO's.

It will be glorious battle.

[Gray Peterson]

Lou, on 02 June 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

..

?

[Bud]

Todd,

Give me a call in a coupled of days after you've zoned out.

Maybe we can go pop a couple of rounds at Sandy Ford Sportsman Club south of Ottawa.

I am looking at attending court on Friday the 8th and mybe seeing the begiunning of the end of tyranny in Illinois and the opening shot of what will end up being a modified constitutional carry in Illinois, both open and concealed.

[FAL]

Todd, no one blames you for the Illinois legislators not doing their job and you haven't let anyone down. They let the citizens of this state down and they will be held accountable.

[wazzle]

The beers are on me if you ever get down to Carbondale Todd. Your work is appreciated.

[Paul Kirsey]

Todd,

Add me as one who is disappointed in the outcome this year but I will never, EVER, question your dedication. You, Valinda, and so many others at this site consistently give me hope when there is seemingly none. I will continue to get in my representative's ear even though I know she is probably a lost cause who needs to be voted out in November. I will continue to write letters to my newspaper. I will continue to try to educate others I come in contact with on the virtues of bringing RTC to this cesspool of a state, and I wish you a joyful time with your family and time to recharge. If we have to wait til next year I guess we're all used to that so it's just part of the process. I have no doubt we will eventually get RTC here(hopefully in my lifetime)so I will try to stay positive, although it's very hard to do at this point. Thanks, Todd for all you do, and thanks to the many others so involved here. You are my heroes.

[colt-45]

thanks for all your help Todd. now does any one still think's that rep ford will vote yes? cause i don't. that report was to stall us into thinking we would of got more votes, but we didn't. so if we can't get the votes with this kind of proof than we can only hope for the courts.IMO

[vezpa]

Gray Peterson, on 02 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

So, the caucus members who said they needed the positive task force report lied to us, just to delay things further.

LOL

Keep thinking the anti's are stupid folks, thats exactly what they want you to do.

Its time to take the gloves off and play dirty.

Edited by vezpa, 02 June 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[pyre400]

So the report [was] a stall tactic.  People who asked for it never had the intentions of supporting carry - I knew it.  Slimeballs...

[colt-45]

vezpa, on 02 June 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Gray Peterson, on 02 June 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

So, the caucus members who said they needed the positive task force report lied to us, just to delay things further.

LOL

Keep thinking the anti's are stupid folks, thats exactly what they want you to do.

Its time to take the gloves off and play dirty.

more money and bigger push.

Edited by colt-45, 02 June 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[Sigma]

I gold needs to be at Madigans house

[Gray Peterson]

colt-45, on 02 June 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

thanks for all your help Todd. now does any one still think's that rep ford will vote yes? cause i don't. that report was to stall us into thinking we would of got more votes, but we didn't. so if we can't get the votes with this kind of proof than we can only hope for the courts.IMO

Yep, and at that point it's a matter of denying the Chicago machine the 60 votes they need to pass a crap bill.  That number is a lot easier to muster than 71 voting FOR the carry bill.   They don't have the votes to pass a crap bill with "home rule" left in (w/o preemption).  Also remember that the NRA and SAF will likey do a blitzkrieg offense against home rule city carry ban ordinances like the NRA did when Heller came down.   The Chicago/Oak Park NRA case, which got combined together with McDonald, was actually one of 6 or 7 different NRA filed suits.  All of the handgun ban villages, like Wilmette, Morton Grove, Evanston, and others, repealed their handgun possession bans, except for Oak Park and Chicago (which resulted in the SCOTUS decision in 2010).

Edited by Gray Peterson, 02 June 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Joeyl]

Gray Peterson, on 02 June 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

colt-45, on 02 June 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

thanks for all your help Todd. now does any one still think's that rep ford will vote yes? cause i don't. that report was to stall us into thinking we would of got more votes, but we didn't. so if we can't get the votes with this kind of proof than we can only hope for the courts.IMO

Yep, and at that point it's a matter of denying the Chicago machine the 60 votes they need to pass a crap bill.  That number is a lot easier to muster than 71 voting FOR the carry bill.   They don't have the votes to pass a crap bill with "home rule" left in (w/o preemption).  Also remember that the NRA and SAF will likey do a blitzkrieg offense against home rule city carry ban ordinances like the NRA did when Heller came down.   The Chicago/Oak Park NRA case, which got combined together with McDonald, was actually one of 6 or 7 different NRA filed suits.  All of the handgun ban villages, like Wilmette, Morton Grove, Evanston, and others, repealed their handgun possession bans, except for Oak Park and Chicago (which resulted in the SCOTUS decision in 2010).

  Gray, I really hope you, Bud etal.. are correct. A court victory and FOID becoming the defacto ccw. I'll coattail on your optimism if you don't mind. If this does happen the hardcore anti's are going to c**p their pants, they can't conceive of such a thing being possible. Case in point an email from Rep Ann Williams from last year on this idea.  "....  Additionally, I have read both court decisions and would be surprised if the Court holds as you suggest.  If they do, however, I am confident they would have the sense not to preclude a state or local government’s ability to provide for training requirements, etc. ..."

Edited by Joeyl, 02 June 2012 - 09:29 PM.

[drdoom]

I'm sorry guys, but the amount of frustration, and disappointment has me at a point where, I want to see NO COMPROMISE! If Chicago call's an 'emergency' session to pass license to carry, I say screw them all! If it comes to that point, I'd encourage EVERY person in the legislature, who would have voted for 148 and 5745, when it was relevant, to vote 'present', that way, we can show how much of a minority, anti-gun politicians are in this state.

Edited by drdoom, 02 June 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[xmikex]

Todd, Molly and ALL the other folks have done a great job fighting for our rights over the past years.
I'm looking forward to CCW coming to IL (and hopefully by extension to ALL the states saddled with MAY Issue CCW).
I have "High Hopes - but LOW Expectations" for CCW in IL in the next year or 2 but it will come.  

The anti-gunners are playing Chess - Not Checkers and a lot of us need to remember that these experienced, veteran politicians are at the top of their game.  We've got a ways to go and while CCW is on a lot of politicians' radar, it's not a dealbreaker issue.  

We need to make it a dealbreaker issue with pro-gun politicians.


As for the Charlie Brown analogy, I put this together the other day and it deserves a repost if I DO say so myself ;-)

[Jeepster]

I say, let it go to the courts and the courts and the courts, bombard the courts. Unless a Bill is written with an opt-out clause for Chicago, there will never be a Bill for Conceal Carry passed in this state and you can take that to the bank. Only a higher authority with some cojones will make Chicago act for our Rights but!!!! if the head Chicago hoodlum in Washington is re-elected, you can piss your 2nd Ammendment Right goodbye, the Supreme Court will belong to the Democrats long after we are gone.

[Tvandermyde]

Not to be too redundant later, I am not sure what Rep. Ford’s intentions are. But I will say that SB-1034 took a lot of time and wind out of things at the end. Those were some pretty intense 3 – 5 days to get it all worked out.

Last night we gave the pool house a real shakedown run with a pool party for my youngest, today we have one for my oldest’s class. Enough to drive you to drink. Last night some of my neighbors came by and we helped the GDP of both Holland and Mexico.

I wonder if I can cut and paste Florida’s statute in a word document?

Enjoy your weekend. Understand the fight is not over, but taking another turn in the battle. Thank you for the kind words, but I really didn’t want to disappoint so many after all of you working so hard on all the townhall meetings and such. You really made a differenace in the feel of things in Springfield.

Now I'm gonna try out the Pool, sans kids.

[Drylok]

Todd, if this goes all the way to SCOTUS and they rule in our favor with just medium scrutiny which I'm sure they will, then will we be able to block a shall issue bill from going to the floor or will we still have to go shall issue?

[Tvandermyde]

Drylock --

I'm going to take your question as if the Court rules it is a right, then can we hold consitutional carry and block a permitting or licensing requirement? If that is the re-phrased question the short answer is no.

If you add the Chicago + Cook County + suburban legislators we would  not be able to hold it. A bunch of the suburban Rs & Ds would not hold out against any form of permitting and let things go that way. Many support a carry process, but few of them would be willing to go so far as to say no rules. Which also has the problem of letting every municipality in the state set their own rules. And that means a lot more litigation.

Just imagine if UUW were decriminalized. And all you had was a FOID, open or concealed carry. Now town A says no rules. Drive to Town B a couple of counties over step out of your car and they have a whole differnt set of rules, maybe a list of approved guns or holsters or no open carry and you didn't know cause it's summer and 95 out.

To go from the last state without a carry law for the general public, to one of 5 constitutional carry states I don't see as being realistic, given the makeup of the General Assembly. Can we hold out for a Florida type law? yea I think that is much more doable. Can we preempt Chicago and Oak Park and Cook County and a host of other towns -- yes.

I think if you look at 148 and then look at the last amendment filed, you will see changes and progressions as a lot of PMs and emails have been traded and different points of view taken into account and I have tried to accomidate them where we could.

Not to disscuss the details, but I think some here will see the tweeks that benefit us and our position on the issue.

now back to my regularly scheduled dip in the pool and bartending duties. . . .

[THE KING]

Sigma, on 02 June 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I gold needs to be at Madigans house

I GOLD needs to be downtown CHICAGO !!

[abolt243]

THE KING, on 03 June 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Sigma, on 02 June 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I gold needs to be at Madigans house

That was tried, twice.  With a few exceptions, most of the attendees had driven 3+ hours or ridden the train many hours to get there.  500 people, tops.

I GOLD needs to be downtown CHICAGO !!

[willxjcherokee]

Why not have 3 igolds

IGOLD CHICAGO
IGOLD SPRINGFIELD
and
IGOLD MADIGAN

Oh wait we would probably be arrested everywhere but springfield...

Edited by willxjcherokee, 03 June 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[vezpa]

Tvandermyde, on 03 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Just imagine if UUW were decriminalized. And all you had was a FOID, open or concealed carry. Now town A says no rules. Drive to Town B a couple of counties over step out of your car and they have a whole differnt set of rules, maybe a list of approved guns or holsters or no open carry and you didn't know cause it's summer and 95 out.

I hope everyone in Chicago/Cook here read this line from Todd.  Along with the No Guns signs.  "Allowable weapons, approved holsters, acceptable calibers and ammunition"  The battle to come can and will have so many fronts.  I see acceptable calibers and weapons types becoming a real reality.  Any weapon used for CCW in Chicago must be able to sustain a 33,000 foot free fall onto pavement and not discharge.  Laugh but many of you know this may become a reality.  Chicago will say it's OK to carry and conceal so long as what you are carrying  is approved by them, exactly like California has done with their BS.  Maybe we will even have to buy a "special" chicago edition gun for carry with a 18lb trigger with proceeds going to Rhams campaign and then violence centers like the ammo tax would have done. Of course the approval process of such "approved" weapons and ammunition will first need to be done by a committee and then testing done by Chicago/Cook operated labs which could take years.  Chicago has so many way to still legally Fu^& us at their disposal its inconceivable.

Edited by vezpa, 03 June 2012 - 02:11 PM.

[es503IL]

I do just want to point out that in the "History" of the United States, a SCOTUS decision (for example Brown v. Board of Education in 1954) does not always mean that Government's (State/Fed/Municipal/etc) will abide by the decision. Anyone remember when the 101st got called up to enforce integration in Little Rock, AR? Even after that, "Brown II" and "Brown III" still had to be argued to get full implementation of the intent of the orginal decision. Some schools (in Topeka I think) did not fully meet their legal requirements until 1999. Thats 45 YEARS after they were ordered to integrate. Guess whats going to happen in Chicago/Illinois...

For a more recent decision directly relating to the 2A, look at Heller & McDonald. "We" (and likely even those in power in Chicago and Illinois) understand what was being said, but yet, Illinois is forcing that the State be dragged kicking and screaming into reality.

Edited by es503IL, 03 June 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[Drylok]

Ok thanks Todd and I see what you mean now that I look at it from that point. You can't just say well if we have enough votes to pass a shall issue then we have enough to block a shall issue after the court strikes down our law. Got ya thanks!