ScareNario - Is Quinn Getting What He Wants?

[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]

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.

 

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]

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.

 

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]

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?

[THE KING]

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]

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]

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

[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]

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]

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!

[snooter]

i think and am starting to believe chicago will get its carve out...what form of carve out takes i think is really the only issue unknown right now..but i dunno for sure..right now the game is giving municipalities time to get local laws on the books before the day of reckoning and then lisa delaying until a scotus decision...heck i dunno just seems that way to me...quinn seems to have done a good job making lisa that bad guy in all of this though..thoughtless thoughts-god speed

[defaultdotxbe]

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!

I don't think we are being played. I don't think anyone in the IL aristocracy gives enough credit to want to "play" us.

 

Between Mike and Lisa, Cullerton, Quinn and Rahm there are definitely two teams on the field. I'm not sure who is all on which team, but I think people realize Quinn is serving his last term and multiple people want to sit his chair, and we are just getting caught in the middle of the power struggle

 

Think about it, if everyone was on the same side why would have to do anything to fool us? they could just push through whatever they wanted

[Blackhawkpaul]

The portrayal of conflict within the Combine is merely theater to give the electorate the impression that the Combine is giving voters a choice. The gun control issue plays well to a majority of Combine electorate demographic as it provides a means of blameshifting responsibility. Sadly the 2A issue in Chicago thusly places us in the Stalingrad of the Gun Control issue.

[Deuce]

i think and am starting to believe chicago will get its carve out...what form of carve out takes i think is really the only issue unknown right now..but i dunno for sure..right now the game is giving municipalities time to get local laws on the books before the day of reckoning and then lisa delaying until a scotus decision...heck i dunno just seems that way to me...quinn seems to have done a good job making lisa that bad guy in all of this though..thoughtless thoughts-god speed

 

The city of Chicago have essentially already gotten it with how strict the carry bill is, not to mention their existing AWB will stay. Will they try and take it even further? We will soon find out,..

[vezpa]

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.

 

We only have the power to kill an amendatory veto with the help of the flip-floppers who I don't trust until SCOTUS is taken off the table.

.

[Neumann]

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

 

Regulating magazines would allow the restrictive community to govern state carry law. That won't stand in any but the most colloquial court. Still, some cities will use the most flimsy excuse to justify their actions.

[cm.stites]

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.

 

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.

They cant control handgun magazine size either. they lose everything handgun related when 183 becomes law.