Why Madigan wouldn't let the new CCW Bill come out of committee

[Bud]

If you stop and think about it for a few momen ts, there has to be a reason why Madigan wouldn't let the new CCW Bill come out of Committee for debate and a vote.

 

While it's true he may just be a tyrant and acting imperially, the real reason is that he was probably afraid that the Bill would pass.

 

Before bad mouthing the NRA or the ISRA or all of the politicians who did not get a chance to vote on the Bill, take a moment and think about what that means.

 

There was probably enough votes to pass the Bill and just look at how far we have come.

[Jeff Johnson]

also its an election year and taking any dems taking a position against ccw could be facing consequences at the polls. supporting it would be better for downstate dems but a split for the power party.

[202s]

On the news last night the Il house was covered, and it was suggested that there would be an extended fall sesion to get pension reform passed. Doesen't this still give us a chance to hold out for a vote on CC?

[Drylok]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat.

[BigJim]

We could have 100% of the votes but the those votes don't do us any good if the bill does not get called. Look at it however you want, but we did not get CC so we lost (again).

[kurt555gs]

Well, the good news is we won't need new signs like "down with FOID" for next year's IGOLD. So, we've got that going for us.

[drdoom]

Poetic justice: using the FOID as shall-issue permit

[Davey]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat said nuts.

 

Fixed.

[ishmo]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat.

In the event the 7th issues an injunction and the SCOTUS declines an emergency stay or cert appeal we'll have CC with a FOID.

 

What would be really unique in that situation is that we'd be busy trying to convert all those yes votes we've been working on to no votes. I personally find the thought of seeing all the Chicago/Cook Dems voting for either of our bills to ensure they get that 30+m in fees plus some control over the issue to be hilarious.

 

Jmho but this ain't over by a longshot and at worst I expect the issue to be resolved in our favor by the end of June next year at the latest.

[Xwing]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat.

 

The 7th is owned by Chicago, IMO. They will not rule in our favor.

[05FLHT]

The 7th is owned by Chicago, IMO. They will not rule in our favor.

 

The 7th is not 'owned by Chicago,' at all and, IMO, there is a VERY good chance the 7th will remand with orders to issue the injunction.

 

Take the time to read the briefs in Sheppard & Moore. The State got pwned, hard.

[snubjob]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat.

 

The 7th is owned by Chicago, IMO. They will not rule in our favor.

I'm bettin with you. It's appealed either way. Madigan's plan is to hold out as long as possible. And it's working. Whether he had the votes to put it down or not isn't relevant to his plan.

[TyGuy]

So, I get what happens if the 7th rules against us, as that sets up conflicting appeals ruling on RTC, but what happens if the 7th sides with us? Then an appeal is filed, but SCOTUS refuses to hear it. Does that mean that we get defacto RTC?

[abolt243]

So, I get what happens if the 7th rules against us, as that sets up conflicting appeals ruling on RTC, but what happens if the 7th sides with us? Then an appeal is filed, but SCOTUS refuses to hear it. Does that mean that we get defacto RTC?

 

Depends on what the ruling says.

[lockman]

So, I get what happens if the 7th rules against us, as that sets up conflicting appeals ruling on RTC, but what happens if the 7th sides with us? Then an appeal is filed, but SCOTUS refuses to hear it. Does that mean that we get defacto RTC?

 

Most likely, but not without strings unless they a very clear in the ruling. If they enjoin enforcement of UUW and AGG UUW then you have RTC open or concealed. If they strike portions of it then place/circumstance restrictions could still carry a felony penalty and we would have to assess the new parameters.

[ChicagoSigFan]

In my mind, it doesn't matter why it didn't come out of committee. A bill that could get 100 votes is useless if it never comes up for a vote.

 

As for the courts, while I am optimistic about the eventual outcomes, I think this is a more dangerous path, because outcomes are not guaranteed. Also, as a lawyer, I know that the final outcomes could be a couple years away or more.

(which then brings into play the possibility of changes at SCOTUS). Then you have the issue of Chicago "interpreting" the ruling and creating restrictive laws as they did after Heller/McDonald.

 

I prefer the legislative route and am very disappointed (but not surprised) with Madigan's Shinanigans.

[miztic]

Just out of curiosity, Madigan is 70 years old, maybe he will retire soon and maybe someone who actually respects people's rights can get in there to replace him? (Bost?)

[1911]

To get rid of Madigan you need Republican control of the house. This is why we need to vote for change. It doesn’t matter which party you vote for as long as you vote for change. (Re-elect no one)

If he were gone, by death or incapacity before the end of his term, the Democrats would appoint someone else to fill his spot. Probably Currie and at least she doesn’t have the power Madigan has.

[bob]

If the 7th ruled in our favor there might be a chance for that but it will probably be appealed by the state and numb nuts won't let it go for a vote until the court has him by the throat.

That seems the most likely scenario to me as well.

 

However, on the not impossible chance that SCOTUS makes a bad ruling for us, we really need to keep the pressure on so that even if we ultimately lose in the courts, we still have a good chance of getting LTC eventually.

[GldRush98]

Illinois won't get RTC this year, nor any year soon. The only thing that could possibly happen would be a forced ruling from the SCOTUS, but I don't think that will even give Illinois citizens back their 2A rights. Guess I'm glad I didn't waste money on an IWB holster that I'll never get to use.

[Gray Peterson]

Illinois won't get RTC this year, nor any year soon. The only thing that could possibly happen would be a forced ruling from the SCOTUS, but I don't think that will even give Illinois citizens back their 2A rights. Guess I'm glad I didn't waste money on an IWB holster that I'll never get to use.

 

Please explain the basis of your belief with your supposed expert knowledge on the way 42USC1983 challenges? Also, please explain your experience as a plaintiff-litigant on a carry case where you can speak with any such knowledge or authority?

 

If the Supreme Court declares carry a right, the state UUW ban is tossed, and the officers within the cities which copy the state's ban will lose their qualified immunity protections. This means the law enforcement officers are PERSONALLY liable if they attempt to arrest a FOID card holder with a city carry ban. Personal liability means they have to pay out of their pocket. NRA and SAF will file blitzkrieg style of lawsuits in the 20 cities that copy the state UUW bans, and use preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to get the bans tossed extremely quickly.

 

Don't be such a BGOS sufferer.

[jkrzos]

Howdy,

 

My take on this is as follows:

 

7th says its a right- we get constitutional carry. Before the ink dries on the paper, the GA will go into panic mode. They don't want the law abiding citizens carrying openly, so they will pass it, then make stipulations to restrict it in the strictest sense of the word. The gangbangers who support the elected officals(chicago's veryown) don't want to think about whose carrying/seeing something like a holster on intended victims. Makes their job too hard.

 

7th says No-they get sued/appealled all the way to SCOTUS. The problem with that is if 2 Judges, appointed by resident alien, reverses everything/diminishs everything to their way of thinking. We go back to applying pressure again, on Ill GA.

 

Illinois is very important to the resident alien- he will loose face with Dem's. After all, he's from here,a product of Alinsky & Dem's Machine. If we get CCW, after the Dem's have fought it for so long, it will show weakness in the party. Big NO-NO.

 

Should something happen to Madigan, like scandal, it would make it easier to depose him. Someone weaker is installed and then maybe with the votes we have-we'll get CCW.

 

jkrzos

[chip]

Maybe a little off topic but...one of the biggest problems we have is the career politician. There need to be term limits on all offices. Being a politician should be something done to serve citizens, not to become a self serving, lobby serving, or party serving career politician. The second biggest problem is the 2 party system. The 2 party system gives the illusion of choice. It's like the choice between a kick in the groin or a punch in the throat...it's really an ultimatum. It may be a long road to resolving those two issues, but it's an even longer road if the journey never begins.

 

In the meantime, we need to educate our friends and family about this issue. So few people in Illinois know that we are the ONLY state where the right to self defense is completely denied. I strongly feel that through education, public opinion can be won to our side. The majority of anti-gun folks are usually "all my knowledge of guns comes from violent movies and TV reports" folks.

 

I have a film production company, and would be glad to donate some time in developing Public Service Announcements that tell the truth about legal gun ownership, with a focus on women, the elderly and the disabled having a right to defend themselves in the same manner as the 49 other state's citizens do. OK, I'm getting pretty p***** off here just thinking about how Illinois is the "Land of Victims". I'm gonna chill out and have a piece of pie. Geesh.

[jkrzos]

Chip,

 

Please email Valinda at illinoiscarry.com with your offer. Email Don Moran at isra.org. with offer also. They can put it to the right people. BTW, thanks for your offer, and welcome to the fight.

 

jkrzos

[TyGuy]

Illinois won't get RTC this year, nor any year soon. The only thing that could possibly happen would be a forced ruling from the SCOTUS, but I don't think that will even give Illinois citizens back their 2A rights. Guess I'm glad I didn't waste money on an IWB holster that I'll never get to use.

You never go to any of the other 49 states? Heck, in WI you can OC without a license. Take a UT class and then carry in IA, IN, MO, etc....* Just cause we're stuck in limbo in IL doesn't mean you can't protect yourself elsewhere.

 

*carry laws change - consult with a reputable source before travelling to avoid breaking state law

[C0untZer0]

If the Supreme Court declares carry a right, the state UUW ban is tossed, and the officers within the cities which copy the state's ban will lose their qualified immunity protections. This means the law enforcement officers are PERSONALLY liable if they attempt to arrest a FOID card holder with a city carry ban

 

Wow, I didn't know this.

[C0untZer0]

Since we have 68 or 69 votes for CCW - doesn't that mean that if 7th Cir overturns IL UUW as unconstitutional, that no matter what the 50 other legislators tried to do - they wouldn't be able to get a gun control bill passed correct?

 

The anti-gunners would have to either accept our 2 gun bills as proposed, or accept "constitutional carry, correct?

 

If 7th Cir rules IL law unconstitutional, I don't see the anti-gunners having much power to pass a state law restricting gun rights.

 

Or am I seeing this incorrectly?

 

Are there a good number of "our" pro-gun votes who don't want to see simple constitutional carry and would compromise with some kind of gun bill offered by the other side?

[sctman800]

Even some of our "yes" votes for our proposed carry law don't want constitunal carry or open carry. For sure we will be in a good bargining position if Illinois ban on carry is struck down but it still will not be wine and roses. No doubt in my mind if this does happen and the state is looking to pass a concealed carry law to fill the void all of a sudden it will only need to get 60 votes to pass even if it is "state wide." This is only my own opinion and I could be wrong totaly or in part, just what I guess will happen from everything else I have read here. Jim.

[I HATE ILLINOIS]

another year down, what happened bud,, you guaranted rtc and i said no, but i was right now like ive said not now not next, its wishfull thinking for a few, yes few years

[ishmo]

another year down, what happened bud,, you guaranted rtc and i said no, but i was right now like ive said not now not next, its wishfull thinking for a few, yes few years

Are you familiar with that old saying, pride goes before a fall? I'd be careful about crowing too soon, last I looked there's still almost six months left this year.