128 replies to this topic

[stm]

colt-45, on 11 May 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

abolt243, on 10 May 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

C0untZer0, on 10 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Don't we need a 2/3 majority to over-ride home rule and don't we need 2/3 majority to make it veto proof?

And aren't there 118 house members?

And isn't 2/3 of 118 = 78 ???

No, we need a 3/5ths majority = 60%.

Do the math.

Do you really think that people that have been doing this for 10+ years don't know how many votes it takes??

and there are 113 house member's instead of 118 the last time i counted.

If that were the case, we only needed 68 votes last year to pass HB148.

There are 118 reps in the Illinois State House.

[Drylok]

Hey colt-45, there are 118 members of the house of representatives

[Ashdump]

I think it's 3/5, not 2/3.

[Uncle Harley]

colt-45, on 11 May 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

abolt243, on 10 May 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

C0untZer0, on 10 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Don't we need a 2/3 majority to over-ride home rule and don't we need 2/3 majority to make it veto proof?

And aren't there 118 house members?

And isn't 2/3 of 118 = 78 ???

No, we need a 3/5ths majority = 60%.

Do the math.

Do you really think that people that have been doing this for 10+ years don't know how many votes it takes??

and there are 113 house member's instead of 118 the last time i counted.

Then how did 114 of them vote on my  BB gun bill HB4063?   there were 113 y  1 N  0 voting Present  
http://www.ilga.gov/...17&SessionID=84

Edited by Uncle Harley, 11 May 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[mauserme]

House Rule 70 states, in part:

Quote

If a majority of those elected, but fewer than

71, vote affirmatively for a bill on Third Reading that requires the affirmative vote of 71

members elected to deny or limit a power of a home rule unit, the bill has not passed...

It's based on the percentages you're debating but its a firm number.

[Getzapped]

Democrats: 64   Republicans: 54

http://www.ilga.gov/...ber&sortbyGA=97

[Danielm60660]

lockman, on 10 May 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

If we can flip just one Chicago representative, can't they just vote twice?

Hey, hey, hey. That is totally uncalled for. This IS Chicago after all and that sort of thing is UNACCEPTABLE everywhere but HERE.

[Danielm60660]

Should I add a smiley so everyone knows I'm joking?

[colt-45]

Drylok, on 11 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Hey colt-45, there are 118 members of the house of representatives

yea i seen that, there was 5 missing off my list, i put them on there so now i'll know. they was all DEM's

Edited by colt-45, 11 May 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Danielm60660]

Does anyone know where the Gov is on this-this time?

[Drylok]

Daneilm, The governor says he's opposed but he changes his position on things on a whim, so who knows what he'll do if we roll this out with a strong super majority.

[ChiShooter]

Why are there always questions about what Quinn thinks ? Who cares ? Isn't this majority enough to override his veto, so if we get it pushed through in the first place we implicitly also have enough votes to override his veto ?

[Drylok]

Chishooter, if he vetoes it we have to come back in the fall session and vote on it again and the key there is holding on to the super majority vote because if we vote in the veto session and only get 70 we lose. It would be much easier and quicker if he signs it into law or just let's it lay on his desk for 60 days and let it become law.

[Len S]

Quinn will do what ever he is told to do.  It just depends on who he is listening to that day.

[Buzzard]

What can happen is - we get a 3/5 majority vote this go around. It goes to the governor's desk for a signature and instead,  Quinn veto's it, as he has promised. We then have to RETAIN all those votes and have them on our side AGAIN for the vote in the fall. Now, what do you suppose could happen....say....if something is promised to a Representative to change his vote. Something like....a little community improvement that his voting district wants or needs. Or, maybe added support come election time if said Representative had a close election victory last time.

[vezpa]

Buzzard, on 11 May 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

What can happen is - we get a 3/5 majority vote this go around. It goes to the governor's desk for a signature and instead,  Quinn veto's it, as he has promised. We then have to RETAIN all those votes and have them on our side AGAIN for the vote in the fall. Now, what do you suppose could happen....say....if something is promised to a Representative to change his vote. Something like....a little community improvement that his voting district wants or needs. Or, maybe added support come election time if said Representative had a close election victory last time.

This is what I was getting at earlier when I asked if they can change their minds.

[stm]

IIRC, that happened in Wisconsin once or twice before they got RTC passed.

[FarmHand357]

And, as I understand it, there won't be a vote until the Ford Task Force report (because the amendment postponing it until December is bogus right?)  Assuming the results are positive, this gives political cover to the on-the-fence legislators for a yes vote so that Drylock's whirlwind can commence, perhaps rendering Moore and Shepard moot...?

Edited by FarmHand357, 11 May 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[C0untZer0]

Moore/Shepard is coming up here pretty quick...

[C0untZer0]

Did Fox get it wrong when they said the house could vote on it this week or next?

Or was Phelps being overly optimistc?

I have to admit I am really jacked that we are this close to a CCW law in Illinois.  Is this week going to be an epic week for the Illinois house when it comes to CCW?  I know they're out tomorrow... It seems like nothing will happen unless the report from the task force comes back anyway...  I know they're working on the task force report "as fast as some can type", but I don't think that they could deliver it this week, have the members study it and vote all in one week right?

[Bud]

The vote will be before the 23rd of this month

[bob]

C0untZer0, on 13 May 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

Did Fox get it wrong when they said the house could vote on it this week or next?

Or was Phelps being overly optimistc?

Who knows for sure about the ILGA. Just about anything is possible.

There is a lot of posturing going on by both sides and has been for a long time. It is very difficult to tell what is real and what is just politics.

If I had to bet, I would bet on no vote of any kind until after the election. But, like everyone here who is also speculating on it, it is just that - speculation.

[Lou]

Bud, on 13 May 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

The vote will be before the 23rd of this month

I'll make sure to have a bottle of Merlot ready in honor of 'Ole Coach.  He would have wanted it.

[FAL]

Buzzard, on 11 May 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

What can happen is - we get a 3/5 majority vote this go around. It goes to the governor's desk for a signature and instead,  Quinn veto's it, as he has promised. We then have to RETAIN all those votes and have them on our side AGAIN for the vote in the fall. Now, what do you suppose could happen....say....if something is promised to a Representative to change his vote. Something like....a little community improvement that his voting district wants or needs. Or, maybe added support come election time if said Representative had a close election victory last time.

Yep, that's what we're up against. The Chicago machine will do anything necessary to keep this from passing, each step of the way. If it makes it through the House, they'll try to stop it in the Senate. If it makes it through the Senate, they'll try to stop it with the Governor. Once he vetoes it, it's up to the House and Senate to then override, which historically hasn't been done (aka Wisconsin).

[abolt243]

Uncle Harley, on 11 May 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

Then how did 114 of them vote on my  BB gun bill HB4063?   there were 113 y  1 N  0 voting Present  
http://www.ilga.gov/...17&SessionID=84

Not all of them are on the floor all the time.  So sometimes they miss a vote.  However, the 3/5ths rule applies to the number of members, NOT the number of members present.  A majority of the members elected constituted a quorum, so a bill that required a simple majority of the House could be passed with 60 votes with only 60 members on the floor, as long as they all voted yes.

We don't need all of them there, just the right 71.

[abolt243]

colt-45, on 11 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Drylok, on 11 May 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

Hey colt-45, there are 118 members of the house of representatives

yea i seen that, there was 5 missing off my list, i put them on there so now i'll know. they was all DEM's

You ever used the ILGA site??

[Dilbert]

Bud, I have been reading this site for over a year now and tried to develop a balanced opinion/position. I have completely plagiarized the earlier comments into a letter and I will hand deliver it to my representatives’ office. Would you take a moment and review what I compiled for accuracy. I don’t want to miss-state any facts. My goal is to clearly drive home the point. I have spoken to Ms. Mussman several times about this topic with little effect. But no effect doesn't mean I give up. She is going to hear from me again. Since we appear to be close I just want it to be accurate. Thanks.

--begin letter--

Dear Representative Michelle Mussman,

The appeal arguments will soon be held for Moore vs. Madigan and Shepard vs. Madigan, the two lawsuits against Illinois' complete ban of carrying firearms for self defense.  As I’m sure you are aware a federal district court in Maryland has already ruled that the state's discretionary permitting system is unconstitutional. This case, Woolard vs. Sheridan, will most likely go to the Supreme Court of the United States.  In any of these cases a ruling in favor of the People's right to keep and bear arms will spell an end to Illinois' ban.

When the Illinois ban is struck down the following conditions will be true:

• There will be no permit necessary to carry a firearm for self defense for Illinois residents or anyone from out of state.
  
• There will be no additional background checks necessary to carry a firearm for self defense.
  
• There will be no additional specialized training necessary to carry a firearm for self defense.
  
• Citizens will carry a firearm for self defense in public, both concealed and openly with impunity.
  
• A business posting a "No gun" sign will have zero legal weight and will be disregarded with impunity.
  
• Citizens will carry handguns, rifles, and shotguns for self defense with impunity.
  
• Citizens will carry firearms for self defense in every county and city in Illinois including Chicago with impunity.
  
• The state of Illinois will miss out on a substantial amount of money (conservative estimates are $32 million plus) that can be gained through a licensing process.

Voting in favor of HB 148 and 5745 the, shall issue concealed carry law in Illinois will prevent many of the above conditions.

Illinois will not hold out for much longer as the last state to deny its citizens their constitutional right to self defense. Whether this right is restored via constitutional carry or regulated carry, it is going to happen. The only question is which way do you want it?

Sincerely,

Name, Address, CSZ

--end letter--

[TFC]

If there are punitive damages in the court cases, cities, counties and states could take a hit from that as well. More millions out the door. This goes from a +32 million gain to a potential multimillion dollar loss that the tax payers will have to eat.
Then there are the court costs......

Edited by TFC, 13 May 2012 - 08:29 PM.

[milq]

Dilbert, on 13 May 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Voting in favor of HB 148 and 5745 the, shall issue concealed carry law in Illinois will prevent many of the above conditions.

Misplaced comma!

Sorry, I get nuts trying to make similar letters as perfect as possible.

[Sidartha]

Dilbert, on 13 May 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Bud, I have been reading this site for over a year now and tried to develop a balanced opinion/position. I have completely plagiarized the earlier comments into a letter and I will hand deliver it to my representatives’ office. Would you take a moment and review what I compiled for accuracy. I don’t want to miss-state any facts. My goal is to clearly drive home the point. I have spoken to Ms. Mussman several times about this topic with little effect. But no effect doesn't mean I give up. She is going to hear from me again. Since we appear to be close I just want it to be accurate. Thanks.

--begin letter--
......

It might be useful to add a bit of carrot to that rather large stick.

For Example: (I'm doing this off of memory so double check me)
1) With the passage of HB148/5745 every applicant will be subject to additional screening by both the State Police and the FBI.
2) Every applicant will be required to place their fingerprint on file with the State Police.
3) Property owners will have the option to "opt out" and violators will be subject to prosecution.
4) Application fees will be used to update and expand the capability's of the State Police background check system
5) Restrictions will be in place so that people cannot carry guns into government buildings, schools or libraries.

Some of the words were chosen on purpose to appeal to a Reps inherent Nanny State mentality.
Words like "required" in #2 shows we will be controlled.
"Additional screening" in #1, statists love extra screening to exercise a right.  
"Subject to prosecution" in #3, let them think we can be thrown into a pit for 1000 years.

Just my opinion, as it were.