79 replies to this topic

[Drylok]

There's only one person who matters in this state. Mike madigan

[gangrel]

Mack, on 25 May 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I think I'm as paranoid as the next guy when it comes to gun rights in Illinois, but the idea that Quinn will gut the bill if it gets to him and that the House and Senate will pass his amendatory veto bill with majorities is, while theoretically possible, - about as likely as winning the lotto or getting hit by an asteroid.

Well said.  I was going to say the chance of that would be about the same as the chance of getting mauled by a polar bear and by a regular bear in the same day...but yours works just as well...  

[Bhawk99]

Mack, on 25 May 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

Lots of rumors, misinformation and speculation. I will believe we have shall issue CCW with preemption when it is signed by the governor or passed as an override of his veto.

I may be whistling past the graveyard but I think the odds are better than 50% that the CCW bill just passed by the house will also pass the Senate. My thoughts are that Cullerton and Raoul are feverishly doing a rewrite of Raoul's bill to make it mirror the House bill but exclude the the preemption language. The problem I see for them is two fold. One I don't see where they get a majority of Senators to support their bill, why would downstate Democrat Senators and Republicans in the majority in the Senate vote for it, especially when their is an alternative in the bill the house already passed that a majority would prefer over the mess that will be offered by Cullerton and Raoul. Two, the Senate bill pushed by Raoul and Cullerton would have no chance in the House and so why would Senators knowing that even seriously consider it as a possible viable alternative. I think pro-gun Democrats will be pushing those points in Caucus come Monday and pushing for a vote on the bill passed in the house. Oh, and a third point, the rewrite will supposedly drop preemption on everything but CCW law, but retaining even preemption on just that portion is going to require a supermajority on Raoul's bill - I just don't see that bill as having even a majority let alone a suprermajority.

Now Cullerton could refuse to allow the bill passed by the House to come to a vote, but when Raoul's alternative fails to gain the support it needs, the only alternative then is to go off the cliff or at least face that as a real possibility. Will the majority of Senator's be willing to follow that lead?

That's why I believe the bill passed by the house has a very good chance at passage in the Senate. Though, this being Illinois I won't count on anything until the ink is dry and the voting done.

If it passes both House and Senate with the required supermajorities, Quinn may veto it and use his amendatory veto to rewrite the bill, but I can't see majorities in both the house and senate passing the bill with Quinn's rewrite. I could see them voting to override with even greater majorities than they initially passed it. I think legislators are tired of dealing with this issue with the pension and budget crisis also bearing down. I think they are just going to say, get it done with.

Thoughts?

Nice post.  I agree with all your points.  I am really starting to believe this is a done deal and that we are the big winners.

[Mack]

Interesting article - Cullerton seems to be scrambling, lots of maybes in his quotes.

http://www.news-gaze...aled-carry.html


"House Speaker Michael Madigan predicted, however, that it would easily clear the Senate with enough votes to overcome any potential gubernatorial veto.
"I think if the bill is called in the Senate, I think we'll get a vote in the Senate comparable to the vote it got today, which was an overwhelming supermajority vote," Madigan said.
Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, agreed with Madigan.
"I would think you could get to 37 (votes), yeah," he said.
Cullerton, however, said he "would try to defeat the bill" in the Senate and pledged to try to persuade his 40-member Democratic caucus to oppose it.
"Maybe our caucus doesn't want to go forward with it. Maybe we'll have a caucus and we'll see that there's no support, and we'll go ahead with an alternative," Cullerton said. "Maybe we can focus our attention on concealed carry, which is what the court tasked us with doing."
Cullerton said he hoped to amend a concealed-carry bill sponsored by Sen. Kwame Raoul, D-Chicago, and pass it through the Senate.
"Senator Raoul would be prepared to amend his bill, to pattern it after the conceal-and-carry portion of the bill that passed out of the House today, with some minor changes," Cullerton said."

[riverrat61265]

Onytay, on 24 May 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

riverrat61265, on 24 May 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

i lack trust in how it will be implemented.rocker brings up more info and i tend to agree that if you give them an opening to pick and choose who can or cant cc then there going to choose cant more often than can, now how bout the ludicrous 16 hours training and overall cost. That cost will be prohibative to allot of people. in fact it will eliminate many if not most that would otherwise directly benifit from cc. So the point being is if you have $500 or so you can blow on aquiring a cc permit as well as finding time or a place to take 16 hours of training, buying a cc gun, some ammo for cc, ammo for 3 hours of range training. so now your average person is looking at $1000 give or take.

My math isn't the greatest but.......

CCW permit fee $150
Training from Bud at Buffalo   $100
200 rds of WWB 9mm $55

Thats $ 305 for the permit, a little more if you elect to submit digital fingerprints

I dont figure the cost of a firearm into the overall fee because that would depend on the person and the price spread is way to broad. Alot of the people looking to get a permit probably already have a firearm or are happy to have a reason to buy a new one.

ok well ive seen upwards of $150 for a 8 hour training course and dont know where buds is and weather his price is 100 for a 16 hour course but im guessing that you dont have your facts in a row either.
my guess is $250 to $300 for 16 hrs training and 3 hrs range time.
so thats
training $250
Fee $150
Ammo, ?  unless you have a private stockpile you could be months hitting the stores.
ive seen 9mm go for $40-$50 for a 50 round box and would dearly love to know where i can score 200 rounds for $55   i think your in a time warp back to 2007 or something.

so im concluding at least $550 for the total cost minus what you spent on a gun. not everyone has a proper cc pistol. i have 2 already but im not thinking of just myself like so many on here are, not everyone can lay out close to a $1000 in purchasing a cc gun and permit costs adding additional burden of finding time,. sitters, time off work etc to go take 16 friggin hours of class time.   yea so if you have money falling out of your pockets and way too much time on your hands this really is a sweet deal. tell that to those on fixed incomes or low wage people with 2 or 3 kids.
this was supposed to be something everyone could participate in. instead theres more of a elitist attitude about this that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[mostholycerebus]

Really, the ammo cost is sunk so shouldnt count, you werent going to shoot anyway?  Thats a fun weekend for me.  The problem is low-income folk, but honestly they should put at least  a couple hundred rounds on paper.

Walmart has reasonable WWB, if you get there on delivery day.  Ammo is slowly becoming more available, I doubt we will have this level of shortage for domestic calibers in the 6-9 months this takes to enact.  There are rumors of shutting down cheap import surplus, but that mostly affects rifle rounds.  Sadly, this bill makes it almost impossible for me to carry my Draco.

[Mack]

Okay, a little online research - "if" Raoul's bill requires a supermajority to pass - which my understanding is that it would with just CCW preemption - then the bar for passage is 36 votes in the Senate. Assuming that all 19 republicans would not vote for it but would be in favor of the house bill - that means that of the forty democrats in the senate - Cullerton would need all but four to vote with him. Pro-concealed carry democrats from the downstate caucus are - John Sullivan (D – Rushville), Chairman of the Senate Democratic Downstate Caucus, Senator Mike Frerichs (D – Champaign), Senator William Haine (D – Alton), Senator Mike Jacobs (D – Moline), and Senator Dave Koehler (D – Peoria). That's five and means that at maximum with no other defections that it is at least one short of passing Raoul's modified bill.

Passage of the house bill would require 17 democrats to vote for the bill and for Cullerton to allow the bill to come up for a vote. Unless Cullerton has the votes to pass an alternative - I can't realistically see him preventing a vote on the house bill - as it would then all be on him for blocking a ccw bill and facing the cliff. I think that would engender even more defections to the house bill from senate democrats.

So, it does not seem that passage of Raoul's bill is statistically possible. Barring Cullerton unilaterally blocking a vote on the house bill - are there 17 democratic senate votes for the house CCW bill?

[Matt B]

It sounds like what Cullerton is going to do is try to alter Kwame's bill just enough to make it palatable to enough of the Senate for passage. No thanks. The current Phelps bill is enough compromise.

Enough of this garbage, ram it down Cullerton's throat if you have to.

[Molly B.]

Egyas, on 24 May 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

As written, it will outlaw possession in public housing, which the court has already ruled to be unconstitutional IIRC.

I do not believe this would meet the spirit of Judge Posner's ruling about carrying for self-defense outside your home.  If a public housing authority tried to do this, it would be challenged in federal court.

And if it is already ruled unconstitutional then it would be a mute issue.

[Mack]

From my understanding, only based on my limited knowledge and the news quotes, Raoul's bill will supposedly adopt all the language of the house bill except that the preemption language will only apply to the concealed carry law. Given it would have preemption related to concealed carry it would I understand then require a supermajority of 36 to pass the senate. Will any of the 19 republicans or at least 5 downstate democrats who support concealed carry be willing to vote for Raoul's bill instead of the bill passed by the house? If not then Raoul's and Cullerton's alternative is dead. Also are there the votes in the house to pass Raoul's/Culleton's alternative - 71 votes - I can't see realistically how it passes. That leaves the house bill as the only viable alternative right now - that means that 12 of the remaining 40 democrats would have to choose to support it for it to pass - would 12 vote for it with the court cliff starring them in the face? Will Cullerton refuse a vote on the house bill without an alternative? Don't know, but I think the odds are in our favor, especially if we put the heat on in support of the bill passed by the house.

[Onytay]

riverrat61265, on 25 May 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Onytay, on 24 May 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

riverrat61265, on 24 May 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

i lack trust in how it will be implemented.rocker brings up more info and i tend to agree that if you give them an opening to pick and choose who can or cant cc then there going to choose cant more often than can, now how bout the ludicrous 16 hours training and overall cost. That cost will be prohibative to allot of people. in fact it will eliminate many if not most that would otherwise directly benifit from cc. So the point being is if you have $500 or so you can blow on aquiring a cc permit as well as finding time or a place to take 16 hours of training, buying a cc gun, some ammo for cc, ammo for 3 hours of range training. so now your average person is looking at $1000 give or take.

My math isn't the greatest but.......

CCW permit fee $150
Training from Bud at Buffalo   $100
200 rds of WWB 9mm $55

Thats $ 305 for the permit, a little more if you elect to submit digital fingerprints

I dont figure the cost of a firearm into the overall fee because that would depend on the person and the price spread is way to broad. Alot of the people looking to get a permit probably already have a firearm or are happy to have a reason to buy a new one.

ok well ive seen upwards of $150 for a 8 hour training course and dont know where buds is and weather his price is 100 for a 16 hour course but im guessing that you dont have your facts in a row either.
my guess is $250 to $300 for 16 hrs training and 3 hrs range time.
so thats
training $250
Fee $150
Ammo, ?  unless you have a private stockpile you could be months hitting the stores.
ive seen 9mm go for $40-$50 for a 50 round box and would dearly love to know where i can score 200 rounds for $55   i think your in a time warp back to 2007 or something.

so im concluding at least $550 for the total cost minus what you spent on a gun. not everyone has a proper cc pistol. i have 2 already but im not thinking of just myself like so many on here are, not everyone can lay out close to a $1000 in purchasing a cc gun and permit costs adding additional burden of finding time,. sitters, time off work etc to go take 16 friggin hours of class time.   yea so if you have money falling out of your pockets and way too much time on your hands this really is a sweet deal. tell that to those on fixed incomes or low wage people with 2 or 3 kids.
this was supposed to be something everyone could participate in. instead theres more of a elitist attitude about this that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

First off I saw Buds post stating his $100 price. Secondly I am an Instructor as well so I have an idea of the cost involved. The ammo price came from the 2 100 count boxes of 9mm WWB I bought from Walmart 3 days ago. I agree 16 hrs is allot but it can be spread out across at least 2 separate classes to make it easier to afford. There are more things out there that people blow 200-300 bucks on and in the end you will appreciate the training you receive.

[Molly B.]

riverrat61265, on 25 May 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

this was supposed to be something everyone could participate in. instead theres more of a elitist attitude about this that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

We were fighting for a fee waiver or reduction for limited income folks and our military/veterans.  We were also fighting for mass transit right up to the final second before Amend. 2 went to ink.

These will be issues we will have to take to court.

[cm.stites]

Mack, on 25 May 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Okay, a little online research - "if" Raoul's bill requires a supermajority to pass - which my understanding is that it would with just CCW preemption - then the bar for passage is 36 votes in the Senate. Assuming that all 19 republicans would not vote for it but would be in favor of the house bill - that means that of the forty democrats in the senate - Cullerton would need all but four to vote with him. Pro-concealed carry democrats from the downstate caucus are - John Sullivan (D – Rushville), Chairman of the Senate Democratic Downstate Caucus, Senator Mike Frerichs (D – Champaign), Senator William Haine (D – Alton), Senator Mike Jacobs (D – Moline), and Senator Dave Koehler (D – Peoria). That's five and means that at maximum with no other defections that it is at least one short of passing Raoul's modified bill.

Passage of the house bill would require 17 democrats to vote for the bill and for Cullerton to allow the bill to come up for a vote. Unless Cullerton has the votes to pass an alternative - I can't realistically see him preventing a vote on the house bill - as it would then all be on him for blocking a ccw bill and facing the cliff. I think that would engender even more defections to the house bill from senate democrats.

So, it does not seem that passage of Raoul's bill is statistically possible. Barring Cullerton unilaterally blocking a vote on the house bill - are there 17 democratic senate votes for the house CCW bill?

your missing forby  who has a version of phelps bill and a few others in your list.

[RoadyRunner]

Molly B., on 25 May 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

.  We were also fighting for mass transit right up to the final second before Amend. 2 went to ink.

These will be issues we will have to take to court.

I really hope so. That is awesome.

[Mack]

cm.stites said:

"your missing forby  who has a version of phelps bill and a few others in your list"

That's even better then - means even less chance of Raoul's garbage passing and more of a chance of bill passed in the house being passed.

[Mack]

With the republicans, the five I listed and then Forby and some others thats what at least seven to nine or more? So that leaves maybe a half dozen or more so votes to pass the house bill and to definitely deep six Raoul's bill.

[scout26]

No matter what happens in the Senate, Quinn has vowed to veto this.  So IF it passes the Senate, it then goes to Quinn who has 59 days to veto it. (Yes, he can wait that long.)  then it goes back to the GA and starts all over again.  At that point, we will have gone over the cliff and been in free fall for a while.  And in those x# of days people will see people carrying not having shoot-outs over parking spots or Illinois turn into "The Wild West."

Yes, there will be "Person with a Gun" calls to police.  Hopefully, they will ask the caller "What are they doing?"   If they are simply walking around, shopping, buying gas, looking at books, etc. the police will be smart enough to ignore it.

The best thing to happen will be nothing.

[vezpa]

scout26, on 25 May 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

No matter what happens in the Senate, Quinn has vowed to veto this.  So IF it passes the Senate, it then goes to Quinn who has 59 days to veto it. (Yes, he can wait that long.)  then it goes back to the GA and starts all over again.  At that point, we will have gone over the cliff and been in free fall for a while.  And in those x# of days people will see people carrying not having shoot-outs over parking spots or Illinois turn into "The Wild West."

Yes, there will be "Person with a Gun" calls to police.  Hopefully, they will ask the caller "What are they doing?"   If they are simply walking around, shopping, buying gas, looking at books, etc. the police will be smart enough to ignore it.

The best thing to happen will be nothing.

Quinn will veto it immediately to save face and we will vote again and it will pass, all before the "cliff" deadline.

.

Edited by vezpa, Yesterday, 03:02 PM.

[gangrel]

Mack, on 25 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

From my understanding, only based on my limited knowledge and the news quotes, Raoul's bill will supposedly adopt all the language of the house bill except that the preemption language will only apply to the concealed carry law. Given it would have preemption related to concealed carry it would I understand then require a supermajority of 36 to pass the senate. Will any of the 19 republicans or at least 5 downstate democrats who support concealed carry be willing to vote for Raoul's bill instead of the bill passed by the house? If not then Raoul's and Cullerton's alternative is dead. Also are there the votes in the house to pass Raoul's/Culleton's alternative - 71 votes - I can't see realistically how it passes. That leaves the house bill as the only viable alternative right now - that means that 12 of the remaining 40 democrats would have to choose to support it for it to pass - would 12 vote for it with the court cliff starring them in the face? Will Cullerton refuse a vote on the house bill without an alternative? Don't know, but I think the odds are in our favor, especially if we put the heat on in support of the bill passed by the house.

A supermajority of the representatives, particularly the Chicago ones, won't cross King Mike.  The downstaters won't vote for a modified Raoul bill after already passing one that preempts ALL firearms laws.  The senate bill is DOA in the House.

[gangrel]

scout26, on 25 May 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

No matter what happens in the Senate, Quinn has vowed to veto this.  So IF it passes the Senate, it then goes to Quinn who has 59 days to veto it. (Yes, he can wait that long.)  then it goes back to the GA and starts all over again.  At that point, we will have gone over the cliff and been in free fall for a while.  And in those x# of days people will see people carrying not having shoot-outs over parking spots or Illinois turn into "The Wild West."

Yes, there will be "Person with a Gun" calls to police.  Hopefully, they will ask the caller "What are they doing?"   If they are simply walking around, shopping, buying gas, looking at books, etc. the police will be smart enough to ignore it.

The best thing to happen will be nothing.

I've seen Quinn say in the press that this bill is "not right for Illinois."  I've seen him in the press say he will veto ANY carry bill that comes to his desk, but this was before the CA7 ruling.  I have not seen anything about him vowing to veto THIS bill if it gets voted in by the senate.