17 replies to this topic

[chip]

ScareNario -
Just playing Democrats Advocate...is it possible that WE are being played? I mean, we know Quinn and his cronies wanted statewide AWBS, and by giving the scary scenario of municipalities not being able to legislate firearms at all unless they pass the most restrictive AWBS now, he's getting what he wants. If he was a really sneaky *******, wouldn't he WANT a bill to come to his desk that prohibits municipalities after passing into law? Wouldn't that pending law be the perfect storm to get folks to rush an AWBS? What if this sneaky ******* put the the other DemocRats on the yes side, to get the bill THIS FAR, and once it comes back with an amendatory veto, they pass THAT instead. Just a worst case ScareNario. Thoughts?

[Deuce]

Not really. In the negotiations handgun bans are off the table, but the door was left wide open for a brief period to have "carve outs" passed with the assault weapons bans. This is what the stalling is all about so Quinn and co. can try and scare as many communities as they can into creating these bans before they are not allowed to after 10 days from signing.

[defaultdotxbe]

If quinn sends it back with an amendatory veto it will be up to the bills sponsors (phelps and forby) to decide whether to vote to concur with the amendments or vote to override.

in short, there would not be a vote to concur, only override. if the override fails the bill is dead and we are back to square one, just a lot closer to the cliff

[chip]

Deuce, on 18 June 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Not really. In the negotiations handgun bans are off the table, but the door was left wide open for a brief period to have "carve outs" passed with the assault weapons bans. This is what the stalling is all about so Quinn and co. can try and scare as many communities as they can into creating these bans before they are not allowed to after 10 days from signing.

Yes Deuce, I know handguns are off the table, but AWBS can still address handgun magazine limits, at the least for non-CCW permit holders, plus there's nothing good or sane about any AWBS. There's no real definition for an assault weapon, it's just a term created by Josh Sugrman.

defaultdotxbe, on 18 June 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

If quinn sends it back with an amendatory veto it will be up to the bills sponsors (phelps and forby) to decide whether to vote to concur with the amendments or vote to override.

in short, there would not be a vote to concur, only override. if the override fails the bill is dead and we are back to square one, just a lot closer to the cliff

OK, that makes sense, and answers my question about that possibility. Thanks.

[handyflyer]

Phelps won't let any AV pass. He'll kill it with fire.

I truly think Jello is just stalling. He wants the local governments to try to do what he failed miserably at doing. Passing an AWB. I am a firm believer that Jello WANTS 183 to pass. The communties that have an AWB in place before he signs it will be able to keep them in place no matter what the state does.

[cls74]

Regardless of what happens, say they kill this bill failing to override with the supermajority. Anything other than concurring with a veto will require a supermajority at this point. It is far easier for us to kill a bad bill, so I don't think they would try to take overriding votes away as who knows how long it would take or what kind of bill they would end up with. I would hope they wouldn't try to kill it at the override to renegotiate a new bill.

This being IL I wouldn't rule anything out yet, truthfully it's just becoming comical to me anymore. Every twist in the saga, it's like living a choose your own adventure book when I was a kid.

[DoYouFeelLucky]

_{Time is what they need.  Look for some creative ways they will try to mitigate the CCW legislation.}

[THE KING]

chip, on 18 June 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Deuce, on 18 June 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Not really. In the negotiations handgun bans are off the table, but the door was left wide open for a brief period to have "carve outs" passed with the assault weapons bans. This is what the stalling is all about so Quinn and co. can try and scare as many communities as they can into creating these bans before they are not allowed to after 10 days from signing.

Yes Deuce, I know handguns are off the table, but AWBS can still address handgun magazine limits, at the least for non-CCW permit holders, plus there's nothing good or sane about any AWBS. There's no real definition for an assault weapon, it's just a term created by Josh Sugrman.

defaultdotxbe, on 18 June 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

If quinn sends it back with an amendatory veto it will be up to the bills sponsors (phelps and forby) to decide whether to vote to concur with the amendments or vote to override.

in short, there would not be a vote to concur, only override. if the override fails the bill is dead and we are back to square one, just a lot closer to the cliff

OK, that makes sense, and answers my question about that possibility. Thanks.

I think your completely wrong with the statement that I bolded. If and when HB183 becomes law, the state has exclusive power over handguns. So, please explain how an AWB can regulate a handgun magazine ??

[defaultdotxbe]

THE KING, on 18 June 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

I think your completely wrong with the statement that I bolded. If and when HB183 becomes law, the state has exclusive power over handguns. So, please explain how an AWB can regulate a handgun magazine ??

HB183 does not address magazines or accessories, just the firearms themselves. Home rule units could try to use that loophole to regulate magazines

then there are also rifles that use the same mags as some handguns, home rule could argue that in those cases the mags are AW mags, not handgun mags

[03rev]

A magazine is a part of the gun. Without one its useless. If they could ban magazines what's to stop them from banning triggers or firing pins?

Edited by 03rev, Today, 01:17 PM.

[THE KING]

defaultdotxbe, on 18 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

THE KING, on 18 June 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

I think your completely wrong with the statement that I bolded. If and when HB183 becomes law, the state has exclusive power over handguns. So, please explain how an AWB can regulate a handgun magazine ??

HB183 does not address magazines or accessories, just the firearms themselves. Home rule units could try to use that loophole to regulate magazines

then there are also rifles that use the same mags as some handguns, home rule could argue that in those cases the mags are AW mags, not handgun mags

Respectfully, I have to disagree. As an example, if I buy a firearm and it has a Crimson Trace laser attached, then that laser becomes part of the firearm / handgun. So I think magazines and accessories are covered by the bill.

I will send you a PM,

[Deuce]

THE KING, on 18 June 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

defaultdotxbe, on 18 June 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

THE KING, on 18 June 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

I think your completely wrong with the statement that I bolded. If and when HB183 becomes law, the state has exclusive power over handguns. So, please explain how an AWB can regulate a handgun magazine ??

HB183 does not address magazines or accessories, just the firearms themselves. Home rule units could try to use that loophole to regulate magazines

then there are also rifles that use the same mags as some handguns, home rule could argue that in those cases the mags are AW mags, not handgun mags

Respectfully, I have to disagree. As an example, if I buy a firearm and it has a Crimson Trace laser attached, then that laser becomes part of the firearm / handgun. So I think magazines and accessories are covered by the bill.

I will send you a PM,

This is the way I understand it is well that there can be no restrictions on handguns, that's why they tried to pass the statewide high cap mag ban.

[defaultdotxbe]

Deuce, on 18 June 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

THE KING, on 18 June 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

Respectfully, I have to disagree. As an example, if I buy a firearm and it has a Crimson Trace laser attached, then that laser becomes part of the firearm / handgun. So I think magazines and accessories are covered by the bill.

I will send you a PM,

This is the way I understand it is well that there can be no restrictions on handguns, that's why they tried to pass the statewide high cap mag ban.

I agree too, however I'm thinking about how Chicago etc will try to interpret it

[THE KING]

What he said ^

Dang, Default, you beat me to the post. That was meant for Deuce

Edited by THE KING, Today, 01:57 PM.

[chip]

I seriously hope you guys are right...but I can easily see them arguing that they have the right to regulate magazine capacity for non-CCW holders.
I've only read the bill twice, I'll have another look through it. Of course, IANAL...but I've been a PO and studied a lot of law. I'd like to hope that there are no loopholes, but there usually are.

[defaultdotxbe]

chip, on 18 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I seriously hope you guys are right...but I can easily see them arguing that they have the right to regulate magazine capacity for non-CCW holders.
I've only read the bill twice, I'll have another look through it. Of course, IANAL...but I've been a PO and studied a lot of law. I'd like to hope that there are no loopholes, but there usually are.

The bill amends the FOID law with the same preemption text it uses for the CCW part, so whichever interpretation is taken it applies the same to CCW and FOID holders

[Deuce]

defaultdotxbe, on 18 June 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

chip, on 18 June 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I seriously hope you guys are right...but I can easily see them arguing that they have the right to regulate magazine capacity for non-CCW holders.
I've only read the bill twice, I'll have another look through it. Of course, IANAL...but I've been a PO and studied a lot of law. I'd like to hope that there are no loopholes, but there usually are.

The bill amends the FOID law with the same preemption text it uses for the CCW part, so whichever interpretation is taken it applies the same to CCW and FOID holders

That's correct, there are no "special" rules (besides carrying of course) that applies to CCW card holders that wouldn't apply to just FOID such as what handguns they can own and what not.

[Blackhawkpaul]

Yes we are being played by the "Combine" whose mrmbers are thick as thieves in everything they do all ofcwhich is orchestrated by: Mike and Lisa Madigan, Cullerton, Quinn, the Daleys. They own IL and won't change unless they lose a major office in an election. Yes they communicate with each other on all major issues and work together towards their one goal of keeping control of IL. Gun control will be played as a diversionary issue as the budget problems need to be hidden. Are we being played? YES!