66 replies to this topic

[miztic]

I'm not sure if this is the right section, but I realized this morning that I still haven't heard anything about the commission's report about Concealed Carry. I guess various reps are on vacation etc., so nobody is around to finish the report, or hook us up with a copy?

[Talonap]

Good question! I was wondering the same thing last week ...

[colt-45]

we are all still waiting on it, they have tell Dec 31 of 2012 to make it public. or they can get another extension.

[Davey]

miztic, on 06 July 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I'm not sure if this is the right section, but I realized this morning that I still haven't heard anything about the commission's report about Concealed Carry. I guess various reps are on vacation etc., so nobody is around to finish the report, or hook us up with a copy?

The completed report is locked inside someone's desk drawer.

[Fidelity Academy]

Isn't there a draft report that was released, floating around somewhere?

[miztic]

Davey, on 06 July 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

miztic, on 06 July 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I'm not sure if this is the right section, but I realized this morning that I still haven't heard anything about the commission's report about Concealed Carry. I guess various reps are on vacation etc., so nobody is around to finish the report, or hook us up with a copy?

The completed report is locked inside someone's desk drawer.

Never to be seen again because it doesn't say what they wanted it to say? That's the cynic in me talking

Fidelity Academy, on 06 July 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Isn't there a draft report that was released, floating around somewhere?

I'd like to read it, should be interesting to see.

[TyGuy]

I'd tell you Miztic, but I don't talk to peacekeepers.

[vezpa]

The report already served it's intended purpose which was a stall tactic and an incredible waste of time to keep any of our bills from reaching the floor for a vote based on new "information"  I would bet that it doesn't exist now and they will find a way to never be required to release it or anything of any significance.  Deadlines mean nothing to the Anti's.

Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice.......................

Edited by vezpa, 07 July 2012 - 07:18 AM.

[firepiper]

Per Molly the draft was completed sometime just before the anticipated vote,, around the end of May....

That is the last "official" word released (as far as I have read)...

I concur with Vezpa......

We should have realized it when the deadline had been passed and they hadn't even had their first meeting.....

[miztic]

TyGuy, on 06 July 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I'd tell you Miztic, but I don't talk to peacekeepers.

LOL

firepiper, on 07 July 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Per Molly the draft was completed sometime just before the anticipated vote,, around the end of May....

That is the last "official" word released (as far as I have read)...

I concur with Vezpa......

We should have realized it when the deadline had been passed and they hadn't even had their first meeting.....

And I thought I was cynical
I figured they were just busy politicians and their schedules didn't line up until then. Wonder if one of Ford's constituents can call him and ask what the story is. Judging by what I heard about his questions it was a pretty legit effort on his part.

[vezpa]

miztic, on 07 July 2012 - 11:34 PM, said:

Judging by what I heard about his questions it was a pretty legit effort on his part.

Have you lost your mind?  Really?

[bob]

vezpa, on 07 July 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

The report already served it's intended purpose which was a stall tactic and an incredible waste of time to keep any of our bills from reaching the floor for a vote based on new "information"  I would bet that it doesn't exist now and they will find a way to never be required to release it or anything of any significance.  Deadlines mean nothing to the Anti's.

Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice.......................

I agree it was entirely a stall tactic, but I am not sure who was responsible for it. Might have been a mutual thing as it gives everyone involved political cover.

[colt-45]

bob, on 08 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

vezpa, on 07 July 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

The report already served it's intended purpose which was a stall tactic and an incredible waste of time to keep any of our bills from reaching the floor for a vote based on new "information"  I would bet that it doesn't exist now and they will find a way to never be required to release it or anything of any significance.  Deadlines mean nothing to the Anti's.

Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice.......................

I agree it was entirely a stall tactic, but I am not sure who was responsible for it. Might have been a mutual thing as it gives everyone involved political cover.

Ford was responsible for it, he will never vote for cc and that was the plan to keep us busy with it.

[vezpa]

colt-45, on 08 July 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

bob, on 08 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

vezpa, on 07 July 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

The report already served it's intended purpose which was a stall tactic and an incredible waste of time to keep any of our bills from reaching the floor for a vote based on new "information"  I would bet that it doesn't exist now and they will find a way to never be required to release it or anything of any significance.  Deadlines mean nothing to the Anti's.

Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice.......................

I agree it was entirely a stall tactic, but I am not sure who was responsible for it. Might have been a mutual thing as it gives everyone involved political cover.

Ford was responsible for it, he will never vote for cc and that was the plan to keep us busy with it.

BINGO

[Molly B.]

I disagree.  We will see a finished report. They are on summer break, ginning up their campaigns, and I dare say they see no urgent time line because of those very reasons.

[miztic]

Molly B., on 08 July 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I disagree.  We will see a finished report. They are on summer break, ginning up their campaigns, and I dare say they see no urgent time line because of those very reasons.

That's what I figured was going on, nobody around to finish it up, or even pass it out.
We'll see how fast they work when the 7th issues a ruling on Shepard

[Buzzard]

miztic, on 08 July 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Molly B., on 08 July 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I disagree.  We will see a finished report. They are on summer break, ginning up their campaigns, and I dare say they see no urgent time line because of those very reasons.

That's what I figured was going on, nobody around to finish it up, or even pass it out.
We'll see how fast they work when the 7th issues a ruling on Shepard

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

[miztic]

Buzzard, on 08 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

miztic, on 08 July 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Molly B., on 08 July 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

I disagree.  We will see a finished report. They are on summer break, ginning up their campaigns, and I dare say they see no urgent time line because of those very reasons.

That's what I figured was going on, nobody around to finish it up, or even pass it out.
We'll see how fast they work when the 7th issues a ruling on Shepard

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

Hopefully our votes have enough spine to hold out for one of our bills instead. I always worry some of the people we got to vote for our bill through compromise will flip to the may issue side instead because it's politically convenient.

[vezpa]

I'm REALLY hoping that Todd is holding out on some new bill he has not released info on yet that caters to "our" needs & not the wants of those who already had their chance to help us.

One that makes training 4 hours and eliminates duty to inform.  That would be OK with me.

Edited by vezpa, 09 July 2012 - 12:58 AM.

[bob]

Buzzard, on 08 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

A may issue bill won't do them much good.  Presuming SCOTUS eventually rules in our favor on outside the home (which seems likely, but is not a lock), there is no way the courts will allow a state to arbitrarily decide which of its law abiding citizens gets to exercise that particular constitutional right.

[stm]

bob, on 09 July 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Buzzard, on 08 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

A may issue bill won't do them much good.  Presuming SCOTUS eventually rules in our favor on outside the home (which seems likely, but is not a lock), there is no way the courts will allow a state to arbitrarily decide which of its law abiding citizens gets to exercise that particular constitutional right.

My thoughts exactly!

[miztic]

bob, on 09 July 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Buzzard, on 08 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

A may issue bill won't do them much good.  Presuming SCOTUS eventually rules in our favor on outside the home (which seems likely, but is not a lock), there is no way the courts will allow a state to arbitrarily decide which of its law abiding citizens gets to exercise that particular constitutional right.

Unfortunately what the courts say doesn't stop them, and it's one more way to draw things out as long as possible, the may-issue law would have to be challenged in court and work it's way to the supreme court again.

[Buzzard]

miztic, on 09 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

bob, on 09 July 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

Buzzard, on 08 July 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

They may suddenly be in a frantic rush to pass something, but it will then be us that will be holding up the process, if they try to pass a lousy bill. By the way, are there any unused shell bills laying around that they can utilize to create their own carry bill? And I wouldn't be surprised if they already have a "may issue" bill drafted and ready to file.

A may issue bill won't do them much good.  Presuming SCOTUS eventually rules in our favor on outside the home (which seems likely, but is not a lock), there is no way the courts will allow a state to arbitrarily decide which of its law abiding citizens gets to exercise that particular constitutional right.

Unfortunately what the courts say doesn't stop them, and it's one more way to draw things out as long as possible, the may-issue law would have to be challenged in court and work it's way to the supreme court again.

Exactly. It will first have to be challenged in court . . . and with your tax dollars payin' the tab. That's how they do things here in Madiganistan.

[Gunslinger]

At this point I'm even okay with may issue as long as its up to the sherriff not ISP. Before i get flamed im just saying that those of us outside of chicago for the most part will get it. My sheriff, and I know he is not alone, will issue to anyone who passes background check.  It will be treated as shall issue, and Chicago can just deal with it. Sorry but we are defenseless down here agaist the crap that migrates out of that city and will take anything we can get.

[mauserme]

Gunslinger, on 09 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

At this point I'm even okay with may issue as long as its up to the sherriff not ISP. Before i get flamed im just saying that those of us outside of chicago for the most part will get it. My sheriff, and I know he is not alone, will issue to anyone who passes background check.  It will be treated as shall issue, and Chicago can just deal with it. Sorry but we are defenseless down here agaist the crap that migrates out of that city and will take anything we can get.

One of the biggest problems with that is Chicago politicians do not want concealed carry within the city limits.  Statewide "may issue" does not accomplish a ban on carry in Chicago and conceding the point would only be a step in their list of demands

Another problem is, as you say, you are defenseless against the crap that migrates out of the city and that, to a degree, includes their politics (ask any suburbanite old enough to remember the corn fields where malls and subdivisions now stand if they ever thought they would become an extension of Chicago).   Your sheriff migh treat a may issue law as shall issue while he/she is in office.  But retirements and lost elections happen and you might have no guarantee you will even be able to renew an already issued permit, let alone get a new one.

[thm57]

Gunslinger, on 09 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

At this point I'm even okay with may issue as long as its up to the sherriff not ISP.

Iowa was may issuse by the sheriff and it turned out some sheriffs were playing favorites.   Iowa is now a shall issue state.

Terry

Edited by thm57, 09 July 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[TFC]

Look at California and New York. There, may issue is won't issue.... unless you're rich or a celeb.
In Illinois, especially Cook county it will be won't issue.... unless you send 500.00 to the Democratic committee, another 100.00 to the sheriff's election campaign and 500.00 to your alderman's election committee and leave a 50 at the desk of the local police station.

No. It has to be shall/must issue.
Anything less is asking for more corruption.

[colt-45]

TFC, on 09 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Look at California and New York. There, may issue is won't issue.... unless you're rich or a celeb.
In Illinois, especially Cook county it will be won't issue.... unless you send 500.00 to the Democratic committee, another 100.00 to the sheriff's election campaign and 500.00 to your alderman's election committee and leave a 50 at the desk of the local police station.

No. It has to be shall/must issue.
Anything less is asking for more corruption.

+1

[Lou]

TFC, on 09 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Look at California and New York. There, may issue is won't issue.... unless you're rich or a celeb.
In Illinois, especially Cook county it will be won't issue.... unless you send 500.00 to the Democratic committee, another 100.00 to the sheriff's election campaign and 500.00 to your alderman's election committee and leave a 50 at the desk of the local police station.

No. It has to be shall/must issue.
Anything less is asking for more corruption.

Corruption in Illinois??!!?!!   No way!!

[TFC]

Lou, on 09 July 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

TFC, on 09 July 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Look at California and New York. There, may issue is won't issue.... unless you're rich or a celeb.
In Illinois, especially Cook county it will be won't issue.... unless you send 500.00 to the Democratic committee, another 100.00 to the sheriff's election campaign and 500.00 to your alderman's election committee and leave a 50 at the desk of the local police station.

No. It has to be shall/must issue.
Anything less is asking for more corruption.

Corruption in Illinois??!!?!!   No way!!

I'm sorry, Lou....
I didn't what you to hear about it this way..