wazzle Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:22 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:22 PM Listening to Brandon right now. He has a meeting in an hour to find out what is in the bill. He thinks he is going to be the sponsor. He said shall issue and preemption are in the bill. Training is being discussed. He thinks he can get it passed in the house and hopes Gary Forby can get it done in the Senate.
Bhawk99 Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:39 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:39 PM Very encouraging news, thanks.
supprmann Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:42 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:42 PM ****crossing fingers**** would go for toes, buy it would hurt in my shoes.....
DoktorPaimon Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:44 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:44 PM Did anyone ask him about capitulation carve outs?
TyGuy Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:47 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:47 PM Listening to Brandon right now. He has a meeting in an hour to find out what is in the bill...... Ummm, WHAT? He's not one of the authors of the bill? I know, I know....wait until the text comes out before I crap and moan, but who exactly is writing this bill? It's not Todd, and apparently it's not Phelps. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the antis to write a reasonable bill let alone an actual good bill. IDK man, doesn't sound promising to me.
Jfl0 Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:51 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:51 PM I'm somewhere in between as skeptical as TyGuy is and hopeful that Phelps won't screw the pooch. Just who wrote that document, anyways?
DoktorPaimon Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:52 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:52 PM Ummm, WHAT? He's not one of the authors of the bill? I know, I know....wait until the text comes out before I crap and moan, but who exactly is writing this bill? It's not Todd, and apparently it's not Phelps. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the antis to write a reasonable bill let alone an actual good bill. IDK man, doesn't sound promising to me. It could be that this is the bill that came out of the series of meetings Phelps was in on last week, he agreed on the language then, but wants to give a look over the final product to make sure he doesn't end up in the same trick bag Bivens found himself in. I hope thats what this is, Phelps being cautious.
Jfl0 Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:58 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 01:58 PM Ummm, WHAT? He's not one of the authors of the bill? I know, I know....wait until the text comes out before I crap and moan, but who exactly is writing this bill? It's not Todd, and apparently it's not Phelps. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the antis to write a reasonable bill let alone an actual good bill. IDK man, doesn't sound promising to me. It could be that this is the bill that came out of the series of meetings Phelps was in on last week, he agreed on the language then, but wants to give a look over the final product to make sure he doesn't end up in the same trick bag Bivens found himself in. I hope thats what this is, Phelps being cautious. That makes sense, actually. Resolves some of my fears.
wazzle Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:01 PM Author Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:01 PM The meeting he is having this morning is with a bunch of lawyers, Dem and Republican side both. He was asked point blank if he was going to be the sponsor and he answered, he thought he was. He said preemption, which would indicate no carve outs I would assume. I hoped for a lot positive response from Mr Phelps, as many of you are too. He will know more after the meeting.
TyGuy Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:03 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:03 PM As a trained mathematician yes I am skeptical, about pretty much everything. I don't take things for granted. I'd like to know who is writing the bill. Phelp's aide, an anti, an anti's aide, someone else, etc....? I just don't trust them farther than I can throw them. I don't trust that there won't be sneaky language in there that Phelps, or we, can't parse through before a vote is called. Skeptical TyGuy is skeptical. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m16jbnRs3q1ro1guto1_400.jpg
DoktorPaimon Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:04 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:04 PM He said preemption, which would indicate no carve outs I would assume. Not necessarily. You could have strong preemption language and still require that Chicago or Cook residents have an endorsement from whatever political hack has been anointed as Sheriff or heads the CPD. You could also craft a specific exemption for home rule units above 1.5 million residents, or just for Chicago, or whatever. Assume nothing, not at this point in the game.
Grey Beret Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:21 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:21 PM Listening to Brandon right now. He has a meeting in an hour to find out what is in the bill...... Ummm, WHAT? He's not one of the authors of the bill? I know, I know....wait until the text comes out before I crap and moan, but who exactly is writing this bill? It's not Todd, and apparently it's not Phelps. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the antis to write a reasonable bill let alone an actual good bill. IDK man, doesn't sound promising to me. That is exactly what I thought. He shouldn't be having a meeting to find out what's in the bill ... He should be writing the bill himself. I would love to know who actually wrote the bill because I guarantee you it's somebody who's not on our sideIf we wait for the text to come out the guys will be on the floor voting on it and it is really hard to reach them when they are actually on the floor. We need it well before the vote. Yeah, I know!!!!!
TyGuy Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:23 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:23 PM Hard to take a logical reasoned stance on a bill without having the text though. Only responding to it emotionally is a play out of the anti's book. I am skeptical, but I am also rational.
Livewire18 Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:44 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:44 PM did he mention amount of training or cost in the interview?
jjording Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:51 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 02:51 PM I, too, would withhold ultimate judgement until seeing the bill. But, for me, prima facie evidence that I am not going to like it is that it seems no one knows what is in it or who wrote it. All this cloak and dagger stuff creates the presumption that some one is trying to keep this from seeing the light of day before a midnight push to pass. That doesn't sound like the bill I want to support. If it was really 997 redux, then it wouldn't be taking this much work to bring forth language.
RockerXX Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:16 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:16 PM Listening to Brandon right now. He has a meeting in an hour to find out what is in the bill...... Ummm, WHAT? He's not one of the authors of the bill? I know, I know....wait until the text comes out before I crap and moan, but who exactly is writing this bill? It's not Todd, and apparently it's not Phelps. I'm sorry, but I don't trust the antis to write a reasonable bill let alone an actual good bill. IDK man, doesn't sound promising to me. This, I'm not holding out for an 11th hour cram something down out throats Bill that is being held under wraps and apparently written outside the circle...
Grey Beret Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:23 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:23 PM Technical indicators all work until they stop working. Like most of them did in 2009
Grey Beret Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM Technical indicators all work until they stop working. Like most of them did in 2009 They treat me well consistently so far!!!!
SLIM410 Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:49 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 03:49 PM 997 was sent back to committee for language. It's Phelps's bill. Everyone will see it this week. I have no idea why you beat around the bush.
papa Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:04 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:04 PM 997 was sent back to committee for language. It's Phelps's bill. Everyone will see it this week. I have no idea why you beat around the bush. I am wondering what makes it Mr. Phelps bill if he doesn't know what is in it. Until I see this new bill I will withhold judgement but I am very skeptical about the way things are going here at the last min.
RockerXX Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:04 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:04 PM 997 was sent back to committee for language. It was sent back to committee because that is what happens to bills in limbo, especially at the end of a session when they try to clean the floor of all the stagnant bills to streamline the process so that only 'important' bills are called... It's Phelps's bill. Everyone will see it this week. Did you read the OPs post? It appears it's not one of Phelps' bills but yet another bill that Phelps might or might not sponsor... The Cloak-n-Dagger in regards to Phelps recent interviews is not instilling faith in me...
cm.stites Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:06 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:06 PM 997 was sent back to committee for language. It's Phelps's bill. Everyone will see it this week. I have no idea why you beat around the bush.997 was sent back to committee when he pulled it from consideration.theres been no inclination from anyone including phelps it will be that same bill number..
Molly B. Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:07 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:07 PM Many have input on the bill - ISRA, Todd, Illinois Carry, other pro carry legislators, legal types, etc.Bill number and sponsor are all part of planning the strategy.
TyGuy Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:10 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:10 PM The actual number matters? Er mah gerd.
wkoukios Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:11 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:11 PM Here we go down the EXACT path Madigan and his cohorts planned all along. There meeting in a outhouse, so you tell me what you expect to come out?
TyGuy Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:15 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:15 PM The actual number mattering makes me wonder if the paper type or font matters, which reminds me of....this!
Drylok Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:16 PM Posted May 21, 2013 at 04:16 PM At this point as long as shall issue is in there and the training is decent I don't really care, let's just get it on and get it over with. We can fix the rest of it one provision at a time, 60 votes at a time.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.