27 replies to this topic

[citrix_guy]

I know that all the great people around here have been working for years on the getting the votes to pass (and a super majority at that) a CCW law here in illinois. I asked in another thread but that was probably overlooked as the topics are getting pretty deep there about home rule.

Anyway. Wisconsin passed a CCW two times (maybe 3?) before it was finally signed by the current gov.
In our case Quinn has already promised a veto last year. I am assuming we have an idea that we would see a veto this year if we do get the votes.

In Wisconsin they would get the votes, the Gov would veto, then they would lose just enough votes (Y turned to N) to miss the number of votes needed to override the Veto...

There has to have been thought given to this? What are the laws in illinois? Can the governor ignore the law on his desk (not sign it but not veto it) and it just becomes a law like in some other states...

I think a veto is really likely if we get the votes. Thoughts?

Edited by citrix_guy, 23 March 2012 - 04:43 PM.

[Bud]

citrix_guy, on 23 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

I know that all the great people around here have been working for years on the getting the votes to pass (and a super majority at that) a CCW law here in illinois. I asked in another thread but that was probably overlooked as the topics are getting pretty deep there about home rule.

Anyway. Wisconsin passed a CCW two times (maybe 3?) before it was finally signed by the current gov.
In our case Quinn has already promised a veto last year. I am assuming we have and idea that we would see a veto this year if we do get the votes.

In Wisconsin they would get the votes, the Gov would veto, then they would lose just enough votes (Y turned to N) to miss the number of votes needed to override the Veto...

There has to have been thought given to this? What are the laws in illinois? Can the governor ignore the law on his desk (not sign it but not veto it) and it just becomes a law like in some other states...

I think a veto is really likely if we get the votes. Thoughts?

He has to do something, sign, veto or ignore it in which case it becomes law 60 days after it was sent to him

As far as his promise to veto it. Quinn's promises are not thre same type of promise you or I would make. Quinn always promises and then conveniently ignores whatever promise he made and to do the politically expedient best thing to try and get re-elected pr how he has been directed to do by the Chicago Machine.

If he thought for a moment that vetoing a concealed carry bill would be unpopular with the majority of voters, particularly those in Chicago and Cook County, he would just ignore it.

The Chicago/Cook County voters are everything, they are the means to get RTC passed. That's why the SAF/ISRA Town Hall meetings by Molly B and MikeW are so incredibly important. We don't have to convince the downstate, western State or northwestern State voters, they are already overwhelmingly on our side.

[willxjcherokee]

IS there any method of overriding a veto in IL?

[ike]

if Quinn does nothing for 60 days it becomes law, but we have a long way to go before it gets to his desk. the way we go through governors, he may be inpeached before it gets to his desk.

[BadWaterBill]

The 71 votes needed to put the bill on the governors desk is the same # needed to over ride his veto. Then to protect himself the governor will just let the bill sit on his desk for 60 days and it automatically becomes law and he can say "I did not sign it into law". He kept his promise to the anti gun money folks.

[Tvandermyde]

the help here, may come from the Courts. If we win Shepard, there is the perfect opportunity to give the Governor and others an out, to change their positions or face being forced feed the issue by the Courts.

[Buzzard]

Tvandermyde, on 23 March 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

the help here, may come from the Courts. If we win Shepard, there is the perfect opportunity to give the Governor and others an out, to change their positions or face being forced feed the issue by the Courts.

Isn't it about time for a decision in Shepard?

[Tvandermyde]

yes maybe next week, keep your fingers crossed.

[willxjcherokee]

Tvandermyde, on 23 March 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

yes maybe next week, keep your fingers crossed.

I pray they side with us... and I'm not a praying man

Edited by willxjcherokee, 23 March 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[SFC Stu]

willxjcherokee, on 23 March 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 23 March 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

yes maybe next week, keep your fingers crossed.

I pray they side with us... and I'm not a praying man

A prayer never hurts!

[abolt243]

willxjcherokee, on 23 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

IS there any method of overriding a veto in IL?

Yes, a three fifth's majority vote in both Chambers will override a Gov's veto.  That's what "Veto Session" each Fall is about.  3/5 in the House is 71, in the Senate is 36.  That's why we keep talking about 71 votes.

[Gooch]

citrix_guy, on 23 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

In Wisconsin they would get the votes, the Gov would veto, then they would lose just enough votes (Y turned to N) to miss the number of votes needed to override the Veto...

I predict the above is what will happen here in Illinois. IF by chance enough votes (71) are wrangled up in the house, the Chicago machine will do a few "favors" for a few politicians and they will all of the sudden change their vote for the veto session. Now, that being said, I have always believed that for this state to get CCW, they will be drug through the court system "kicking and screaming" ...... which is what we are seeing right now. I pray that the Judge in the Shepard case rules properly.  

Just my .02c worth
Gooch

[defaultdotxbe]

BadWaterBill, on 23 March 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

The 71 votes needed to put the bill on the governors desk is the same # needed to over ride his veto. Then to protect himself the governor will just let the bill sit on his desk for 60 days and it automatically becomes law and he can say "I did not sign it into law". He kept his promise to the anti gun money folks.

no, he will veto it and work on flipping some Y votes so it wont get overridden in the veto session

[ilphil]

Gooch, on 24 March 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

citrix_guy, on 23 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

In Wisconsin they would get the votes, the Gov would veto, then they would lose just enough votes (Y turned to N) to miss the number of votes needed to override the Veto...

I predict the above is what will happen here in Illinois. IF by chance enough votes (71) are wrangled up in the house, the Chicago machine will do a few "favors" for a few politicians and they will all of the sudden change their vote for the veto session. Now, that being said, I have always believed that for this state to get CCW, they will be drug through the court system "kicking and screaming" ...... which is what we are seeing right now. I pray that the Judge in the Shepard case rules properly.  

Just my .02c worth
Gooch

I agree...the arm twisting and enticements to change a few votes will reach new levels. This is a symbolic issue that the "machine" simply cannot lose.

The only way I will feel reasonably confident is if we have 76 votes in the House and at least 40 in the state Senate. And I just don't know if we can get that many votes without making so many more concessions that the bill wouldn't be what most of us would want anyway.

We NEED the courts holding a very large hammer over Madigan and Quinn's heads.

Just my opinion, of course...  

[Don Gwinn]

As matters stand now, the bill will not get to the Governor without a super-majority (71+) in the House, because it won't be allowed to pass the House without 71.  The Senate might do it differently, but it's likely that the super-majority is there for us in the Senate anyway.  
I believe that (again, as matters stand now) Governor Quinn will follow through and veto the bill, knowing that it only came to him because we had enough votes to override a veto in the first place.  At that point, the game will probably switch from offense to defense.  He'll be trying to separate votes from the coalition in the House to get our majority under 71 so that his veto will stand.  We will be trying to keep everyone together for 60 days.  As the 60-day deadline nears, he'll have to issue the veto and take his chances, because after 60 the bill becomes law if he doesn't.  So the question will be:  for 60 days, can we protect our majority against the Governor's attempts to chip away at it by either threatening, cajoling, or trading with wavering legislators?

But as Vandermyde points out, all this is subject to change without notice.  If Shepard comes back a victory, Quinn could easily say "Well, I tried, but the activist judges in the NRA's pockets are forcing my hand."  Or, if he wants to be even more subtle, he can issue his veto right away, knowing that it can be overridden, and then move on to other things instead of fighting to chip down the majority below 71.  In other words, issue the veto, let it be overridden, and settle for having the cover.  "Look, I did what I could--and kept my promise!--I vetoed the NRA's vigilante protection program bill the day after it passed.  But they had a super-majority in both houses, and with the way the NRA's activist judges turned on the people of Illinois, there was nothing more to be done. That's why it's so crucially important that the people of Illinois send me back to the Governor's office in two years, so that I can fight to . . . . . "

[bob]

It has occurred to me that it may well be better for us (us = lawful gun owners collectively) not to get LTC in Illinois until after the court cases are settled in our favor. Mooting the court cases may not be in our long term best interests.

In any case, we are not close to a veto just yet. It has to get past the house first, and then the senate with super majorities. It is hard to estimate just what our chances truly are in either house given the total lack of information upon which to make such an estimate and the lack of an actual bill to be voted on. If I understand correctly the way the state legislature works, we are approaching the end of the period of time in which it could be considered though for the immediate future so whatever happens will happen pretty soon.

[Buzzard]

ilphil, on 24 March 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Gooch, on 24 March 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

citrix_guy, on 23 March 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

In Wisconsin they would get the votes, the Gov would veto, then they would lose just enough votes (Y turned to N) to miss the number of votes needed to override the Veto...

I predict the above is what will happen here in Illinois. IF by chance enough votes (71) are wrangled up in the house, the Chicago machine will do a few "favors" for a few politicians and they will all of the sudden change their vote for the veto session. Now, that being said, I have always believed that for this state to get CCW, they will be drug through the court system "kicking and screaming" ...... which is what we are seeing right now. I pray that the Judge in the Shepard case rules properly.

Just my .02c worth
Gooch

I agree...the arm twisting and enticements to change a few votes will reach new levels. This is a symbolic issue that the "machine" simply cannot lose.

The only way I will feel reasonably confident is if we have 76 votes in the House and at least 40 in the state Senate. And I just don't know if we can get that many votes without making so many more concessions that the bill wouldn't be what most of us would want anyway.

We NEED the courts holding a very large hammer over Madigan and Quinn's heads.

Just my opinion, of course...

Well gentlemen, then here is how we handle such things.....

When someone votes in our favor, we do our best to return that favor by voting for them in the next election.

But if they vote in our favor . . only to turn that vote against us in the veto session, . . . . then come election time we send in just as many members as we can . . . and we collect signatures, we answer phones, we plant signs and do what ever is asked of us - to elect someone who won't stab us in the back after all the hard work we've done to get a concealed carry law passed!!

[TFC]

Gooch, on 24 March 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

I predict the above is what will happen here in Illinois. IF by chance enough votes (71) are wrangled up in the house, the Chicago machine will do a few "favors" for a few politicians and they will all of the sudden change their vote for the veto session. Now, that being said, I have always believed that for this state to get CCW, they will be drug through the court system "kicking and screaming" ...... which is what we are seeing right now. I pray that the Judge in the Shepard case rules properly.  

Just my .02c worth
Gooch

You understand Illinois politics well.....

[snubjob]

Yep.

[BadWaterBill]

This may just be the year folks. A judge WILL rule thou shall not be infringed is just what it says. You only have to take an N R A course and show proficiency. PERIOD

Do not laugh.

Who ever thought you would have to cut your grass or the tulips would be in full bloom or 5 straight 80 degree days in March.

Yes this is the year.

[abolt243]

BadWaterBill, on 25 March 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

This may just be the year folks. A judge WILL rule thou shall not be infringed is just what it says. You only have to take an N R A course and show proficiency. PERIOD

Do not laugh.

Who ever thought you would have to cut your grass or the tulips would be in full bloom or 5 straight 80 degree days in March.

Yes this is the year.

  But, isn't requiring a course and a show of proficiency a type of infringment on an unalienable right??  Does any one have to take a course and pass a test to exercise their 1A right of free speech??  

[Bud]

The ultimate aim for me is constitutional carry with the only people barred from possessing/carrying are convicted felons and thiose suffering from significant mental illness.

Getting to that point thjough is going to be a series of baby steps as all of the other States have already proved.

And this is the year, the RTC in Illinois will happen this legislative season

[TFC]

I trust politicians about as far as I can throw a Sherman Tank.
I can't help but think that some of the career politicians have agreed to vote for RTC BECAUSE they know that they can use it to extort favors from the "machine."
And once they get what they want, they'll throw us under the bus.

[BadWaterBill]

abolt243, on 25 March 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

BadWaterBill, on 25 March 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

This may just be the year folks. A judge WILL rule thou shall not be infringed is just what it says. You only have to take an N R A course and show proficiency. PERIOD

Do not laugh.

Who ever thought you would have to cut your grass or the tulips would be in full bloom or 5 straight 80 degree days in March.

Yes this is the year.

  But, isn't requiring a course and a show of proficiency a type of infringment on an unalienable right??  Does any one have to take a course and pass a test to exercise their 1A right of free speech??  

I agree 100% but I also realize that the folks on our side are not SUPERMAN.

I was not  able to say my name for the first year of my life and had to practice before I could use my 1 A rights is a reason they will use to get some sort of RESTRICTION on CCW but I feel we could live with that for NOW.

In the mean time many folks WILL be a whole lot safer with some sort of CCW law on the books.

I just do not want to see something where the machine can be allowed to throw so many restrictions on CCW (you must qualify as a Navy Seal and be a CIA agent and have a $1,000,000.00 insurance policy etc.)to get our CCW.

Many folks that will benefit the most can not afford to take a course extending over 40 hours and costing ????? dollars. Then they can only use X brand of boolits  costing over $150.00 per box.

After 76 years of waiting I can live with proving for now. Later next year or the year after we can go for the whole ball of wax.
    
I hope we can get that this year.

[abolt243]

BadWaterBill, on 26 March 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

abolt243, on 25 March 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

BadWaterBill, on 25 March 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

This may just be the year folks. A judge WILL rule thou shall not be infringed is just what it says. You only have to take an N R A course and show proficiency. PERIOD

Do not laugh.

Who ever thought you would have to cut your grass or the tulips would be in full bloom or 5 straight 80 degree days in March.

Yes this is the year.

  But, isn't requiring a course and a show of proficiency a type of infringment on an unalienable right??  Does any one have to take a course and pass a test to exercise their 1A right of free speech??  

I agree 100% but I also realize that the folks on our side are not SUPERMAN.

I was not  able to say my name for the first year of my life and had to practice before I could use my 1 A rights is a reason they will use to get some sort of RESTRICTION on CCW but I feel we could live with that for NOW.

In the mean time many folks WILL be a whole lot safer with some sort of CCW law on the books.

I just do not want to see something where the machine can be allowed to throw so many restrictions on CCW (you must qualify as a Navy Seal and be a CIA agent and have a $1,000,000.00 insurance policy etc.)to get our CCW.

Many folks that will benefit the most can not afford to take a course extending over 40 hours and costing ????? dollars. Then they can only use X brand of boolits  costing over $150.00 per box.

After 76 years of waiting I can live with proving for now. Later next year or the year after we can go for the whole ball of wax.

I hope we can get that this year.

I agree 100% Bill.  I was playing devil's advocate, hence the .  As to the requirements, read either of the bills in play, 148 or 5745 and you'll see that the requirements are quite reasonable and in line with most of our neighboring states.

AB

[Scots]

When exactly does this legislative session end? That pretty much represents the deadline for a vote, right?

[Federal Farmer]

dnielson, on 26 March 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

When exactly does this legislative session end? That pretty much represents the deadline for a vote, right?

In prior sessions bills have gotten extensions.  This session ends in May, I think, but there is the veto session in November through Jan, IIRC, and our bill can be alive all the way through with extensions.

[Sigma]

lol boolits, can I borrow that please