30 replies to this topic

[wazzle]

Video and article link.

http://www.wsiltv.co...-158384915.html



WSIL TV -- The 2012 legislative session ended a little more than a week ago, and with it, no vote on a concealed carry proposal, despite local lawmakers touting this was the year the bill would pass, after previous failures.

For years, a concealed carry proposal has been in the crosshairs of downstate lawmakers, and every year, the aim misses the target. For supporters of the bill that would allow registered citizens to carry guns, this year was promised to be different.

"We think we have a good bill. This is the closest we've ever been in Illinois history to passing this," says representative Brandon Phelps, who sponsors the House bill.

Now that the spring legislative session is over, those supporters are asking about that promise, to have Illinois join the rest of the country in putting a concealed carry law on the books.

Phelps says, "We're going to get called back for this pension vote, probably. I'm hoping to maybe try and run it then, or maybe in veto session coming up in the fall."

He says he's waiting for the Firearm Public Awareness Task Force to finish its report on the pros and cons of concealed carry and give reason for Chicago lawmakers to vote for the bill.

"That's what some of the legislators from Chicago were waiting for," explains Phelps. "They want to see the findings of this report from the task force, and once we get that, we think that's going to give them some cover to vote for this."

Senator Gary Forby says, "This year, I think {Phelps} is within two votes. I really believe if he gets it passed, I think we've got enough votes in the senate to do it this year."

A normal 60 vote count in the House won't do it to pass the bill. Phelps says the concealed carry requires a three-fifth majority vote to preempt Chicago's ban on handguns.

"We think, also too, you're going to need a super-majority, because we think the governor would veto it," says Phelps. "So you're still going to need super-majority to override his veto."

The end goal for these lawmakers is 71 votes in the house and 36 in the senate.

Phelps says he expects the Task Force to finish its report by the end of June or July. Forby says he knows he can get the 36 votes needed in the Senate.

[colt-45]

well i guess we will see. i hope they can and we get a good ruling to.

[output]

I thought the concealed carry task force report was already done? According the this report is has not yet been completed?

[jfd287]

Wasn't the draft of the report done in the last week of session?

[RandyP]

If it was a draft it isn't the "Final" report.

[Jeckler]

All summer long, we have been worried about 71 votes in the House.  The concenous is that we have enough votes in the Senate.

Question:  Why don't we start in the Senate?  Why not get a bill passed through the Senate and then sent to the house for reconcilliation?

The amount of press coverage and PR would be astounishing.  Illinois Senate passes concealed carry.  I can just see the headlines now.

Maybe that would also help to "force" the House into action.

[Ilannoyed]

Jeckler, on 11 June 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

All summer long, we have been worried about 71 votes in the House.  The concenous is that we have enough votes in the Senate.

Question:  Why don't we start in the Senate?  Why not get a bill passed through the Senate and then sent to the house for reconcilliation?

The amount of press coverage and PR would be astounishing.  Illinois Senate passes concealed carry.  I can just see the headlines now.

Maybe that would also help to "force" the House into action.

IIRC, we are(were) in the same procedural trick-bag with Cullerton as we are with Madigan.

[Jason4567]

I thought special sessions were one issue affairs. Why does this report indicate otherwise? And for that matter why does it reference a chicago handgun ban that has been gone for 2 years?

[Federal Farmer]

Jason4567, on 11 June 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

I thought special sessions were one issue affairs. Why does this report indicate otherwise? And for that matter why does it reference a chicago handgun ban that has been gone for 2 years?

They can adjourn the one special session and convene another special session for a different matter.

[Sigma]

Cullerton wont call it for a vote unless Madigan does. Madigan wont call it for a vote unless Cullerton does.

[GldRush98]

Having the votes is apparently irrelevant since Madigan will just continue to ignore the bill while it has a chance to pass.

[Gunslinger]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Revolts have started for less

[drdoom]

Why bother going through yet another BS circus? Wait for the Court to rule, then re-write the bill!

[colt-45]

even if the courts rule for us i still don't think they will go into a special session. IMO

[M77]

I heard a more abbreviated Phelps' qoute on the radio today, (shorter than the OP describes) in which he basically said he would try for a vote on CCW in special/veto session. Also, it sounded to my ears like the task force report was done and being read and comtemplated by those involved in voting and he sounded (on the radio) as if he was pleased with the results of the report.

[colt-45]

M77, on 11 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

I heard a more abbreviated Phelps' qoute on the radio today, (shorter than the OP describes) in which he basically said he would try for a vote on CCW in special/veto session. Also, it sounded to my ears like the task force report was done and being read and comtemplated by those involved in voting and he sounded (on the radio) as if he was pleased with the results of the report.

thats good than

[M77]

Sounds good, but this was downstate radio and I have heard similar things before, became very optimistic, and was let down. I still keep my fingers crossed, but must say that after the court case Fri. I am optimistic as ever.

[C0untZer0]

I like Phelps, but he has a tendency to make these pronouncements.  They last thing he said in the media was that we were two votes away from a super-majority and a vote couls come as soon as next week or the next.  The vote obviously never came.

[ishmo]

According to this from yesterday he has the votes to pass it.  Sounds like he's trying to firm up support and is waiting on the 7th Circuit decision.

Quote

Phelps said he has the votes for a veto-proof majority but wants to wait for the results of the Firearm Public Awareness Task Force before moving forward. He says he hopes the findings will sway undecided lawmakers.
“I have a lot of colleagues in Chicago that want to see it, want to view it,” Phelps said. “That are right on the cusp of voting for this but I think they want something to drive them to vote for it.”
He said he is also waiting for the results of several court challenges to the state’s concealed carry ban. It’s an issue that has been brought before lawmakers for years without success.

[Drylok]

I'm not sure madigan will let it out until SCOTUS forces him. Then we'll have to negotiate between their california style bill and our constitution bill and we'll end up with something that looks like 148. I was thinking last night of how they could drag it out the longest if we win in the 7th and I think I have the answer. The best thing they could do is file that en banc thingy to the 7th, get them to hear it, which won't be until the fall. Then when we win that, they appeal to SCOTUS and that way they won't hear it until next winter and hopefully Obama will have won and Kennedy has a stroke or something.

[GuitarJedi]

This artilce has it all in a nutshell. It truely shows the insanely political playing field in Illinois. Madigan is Emperor. lol


http://blogs.sj-r.co...en-at-his-desk/

[oneshot]

Gunslinger, on 11 June 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Revolts have started for less

Probably not a good idea to mention the idea unless you're ready to start one and even then I wouldn't do it here.

[C0untZer0]

I don't feel hopefull at all that anything could be done in a special session or the veto session.  Maybe Phelps is just being ovelry optimistic himself.

On the otherhand if Illinois UUW law is overturned, then I can see a special session being convened to craft some kind of carry bill to prevent constitutional carry...

[Drylok]

Countzero, the best thing that could happen is just that, remand WITH an injunction. But since that's not likely I'm hoping for a flat out loss from the 7th so we can keep control, go to SCOTUS and get it on!

[C0untZer0]

It's almost like this stuff with Phelps is just distracting.  I can't fault him, he's a great guy and he's doing more for the cause of the 2nd Amendment than any other Illinois politician, but at this point it's just distracting IMO.  At least for me it is.

Maybe keeping the heat on serves a tactical purpose in the long run, but for me personally I'm inclined to just let Phelps make noise however he wants to but not spend too much of my own mental energy paying attention to it.

I think we're in a waiting period until the 7th cir comes back with a ruling.

[Drylok]

We're in a holding period until SCOTUS drops the gavel.

[TyGuy]

oneshot, on 12 June 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Gunslinger, on 11 June 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Revolts have started for less

Probably not a good idea to mention the idea unless you're ready to start one and even then I wouldn't do it here.

I am NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT advocating any armed revolt here, but when I watched the John Adams miniseries on HBO, you know, the one that David McCullough made into a book after it aired, I thought about how the colonists revolted over so much less than the total government burden is on us today.  It got me wondering if there would ever come a point where citizens would say enough is enough.  I am not saying that we are there, and I would rather NEVER get there (work through the system), but I wonder if we've become too complacent with out cell phones, American Idol, etc....  Food for thought.

Again, now it NOT the time for revolt.  Now is the time to work within the system to move the law in the direction that we want it.

[Lou]

OK I guess I can put the torch and pitchfork back in the garage.

[papa]

Lou, on 12 June 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

OK I guess I can put the torch and pitchfork back in the garage.

Ok , but what about the flashlights and rifles ??

[snubjob]

Drylok, on 12 June 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

We're in a holding period until SCOTUS drops the gavel.

Yup.  Your post above says it pretty accurately.

Edited by snubjob, 12 June 2012 - 11:12 AM.