NRA-ILA Lobbied Against IL License to Carry Bill

[SmershAgent]

Somebody help me out here,please.Back when then Gov. Edger vetoed our last almost passed LTC bill,did we need a super majority for the bill to get out of the GA? If so,why then didn't we have the votes for an override?

 

TIA

 

When that LTC bill was passed, the GOP controlled both chambers. I don't remember who the Speaker and President of the Senate were, but I suspect they were less hostile to pro-Second Amendment legislation than Madigan and Cullerton are and may have only required a regular majority. I also think that bill was closer to a "may issue" than "shall issue" which might have made it less preemptive and thus not need a supermajority.

 

I do not believe that both chambers have been in Republican hands simultaneously since then, which is part of our problem.

 

But as to the premise of your question, it's unfortunately not a rare occurrence for legislators to vote for a bill and then withdraw their support when it comes time to override if the governor who vetoed is from their party. In most cases, override margins are tight enough that all it takes is for a couple of legislators to lose their resolve.

[asfried1]

Does the NRA have some obligation to support my family if I get killed in an part of Illinois that would not have used home rule to prohibit LTC? After all, they were against (before they were neutral) a bill that would open up most of Illinois to LTC and armed self-defense.

 

With all due respect, you are being ridiculous with that kind of argument.

 

Presumably your life insurance company would be obligated to support your family in such a case, but only to the terms of your policy (assuming you have one). And I think that life insurance policies are available via the NRA (assuming you are a member).

 

With all due respect, I am not in any way being ridiculous. While I might be accurately accused of engaging in hyperbole, I was doing so deliberately in response to a question that I thought was ridiculous. My interest in this subject comes from being the victim of 2 violent crimes. In one cases, I was able to physically fight my way clear of being (who knows) beaten or killed. In the other, I was able to bluff/intimidate myself out of being beaten or killed (the two gangbangers in that case were small, young, and obviously a bit scared). I am not so sure I or my loved ones will be so lucky next time. To me, the idea of "responsibility" is silly when the entire population of this state is disarmed. As I referenced in a previous post, I would have thought that the NRA position would be to advocate for any law that would increase the number of citizens allowed to carry firearms legally while opposing any law that does the opposite.

 

The idea that anyone thinks it is better to be disarmed rather than have to figure out local firearm laws bewilders me. In fact, that concept is pretty much as alien to my way of thinking as the idea that since guns kill people, everyone should be disarmed. Just doesn't compute for me at all.

 

I would gladly figure out where I can legally carry if I could only exercise my natural right to do so.

[GarandFan]

I would gladly figure out where I can legally carry if I could only exercise my natural right to do so.

 

As would I. Thanks for clarifying the context of that message I quoted. My apologies for misunderstanding.

[abolt243]

But as to the premise of your question, it's unfortunately not a rare occurrence for legislators to vote for a bill and then withdraw their support when it comes time to override if the governor who vetoed is from their party. In most cases, override margins are tight enough that all it takes is for a couple of legislators to lose their resolve.

 

As I understand it. Yes, the rules regarding Home Rule have been in effect since the 1970 State Constitution re-write. The bill in '93 was passed with a 3/5 vote, but then one or two votes were stripped off in the override attempt.

 

Doesn't make much difference how it happened. It was a lousy bill, a "may-issue" IIUC, but from that same year, up until 2002 when the R's lost the governor's seat and legislature in IL, 18 other states passed "Shall Issue" laws, fully half of them moving their own "may" to "Shall". It would have been very interesting to see what IL could have done in the same time frame with something to build on.

 

Water under the bridge, can't help it now except to do our best to lobby the NRA for full support, and then press on as best we can using whatever support we gain.

 

Tim

[Drylok]

For those who argue that if a home rule law is adopted it would leave Chicago out forever:

Why do you think that would happen in Illinois when that has not been the case in other states that passed home rule ltc?

 

Also if the rest of Illinois is in a position to pass ltc, why would you want to deny us that?

 

It seems to me that those who live in home rule units think that the issue will die if we get a home rule bill passed.

 

I just don't think we can stress enought that we will not rest until everyone in Illinois has the legal ability to exercise their right.

 

Oh, I could just scream!

[Ol'Coach]

I've been told by a lawyer, that should a non-preemptive bill pass, a home rule locality would have to vote in order to preempt out, despite any bans prior to the passing of the bill.

 

No vote, no preemption!

 

Knowing the present climate, how many areas would vote to preempt out? Should someone be arrested prior to a successful vote to preempt, "Hello, Judge"!

[Federal Farmer]

I've been told by a lawyer, that should a non-preemptive bill pass, a home rule locality would have to vote in order to preempt out, despite any bans prior to the passing of the bill.

 

No vote, no preemption!

 

Knowing the present climate, how many areas would vote to preempt out? Should someone be arrested prior to a successful vote to preempt, "Hello, Judge"!

 

I'm not so sure. I haven't looked lately, but I bet Chicago already has a law banning carry. Certainly if a municipality did not have such a law they'd have to vote one in. In Chicago, that would take a 5 minute trip for Daley down to the City Council to demand the law, just like he did with the law repealing their fois gras ban.

[Buzzard]

I've been told by a lawyer, that should a non-preemptive bill pass, a home rule locality would have to vote in order to preempt out, despite any bans prior to the passing of the bill.

 

No vote, no preemption!

 

Knowing the present climate, how many areas would vote to preempt out? Should someone be arrested prior to a successful vote to preempt, "Hello, Judge"!

 

I'm not so sure. I haven't looked lately, but I bet Chicago already has a law banning carry. Certainly if a municipality did not have such a law they'd have to vote one in. In Chicago, that would take a 5 minute trip for Daley down to the City Council to demand the law, just like he did with the law repealing their fois gras ban.

 

Whatever the case may be, the language in HB2257 clearly establishes a timeframe and the necessary notification for such action:

 

Section 95. Municipal ordinance submission. Within 30 days

after the effective date of this Act of the 96th General

Assembly, every municipality that enacts an ordinance

prohibiting LTC holders from carrying a defensive firearm

within its boundaries must submit to the Department of State

Police a copy of the ordinance adopted by the municipality that

prohibits the carrying of firearms by LTC card holders. The

Department of State Police shall compile a list of these

municipalities and publish them in a form available to the

public free of charge and shall periodically update this

compilation in a manner prescribed by the Director of State

Police.

 

In establishing a 30 day window for submitting a LTC prohibitive ordinance, this would prevent municipalities - Chicago included - from enacting such local ordinances at a later date and creating a prohibited area that is not documented in the State Police list of municipalities prohibiting LTC.

 

It does say it will be updated periodically, but I would hope there would be a specified window in which to enact new ordinances.

[Ol'Coach]

I've been told by a lawyer, that should a non-preemptive bill pass, a home rule locality would have to vote in order to preempt out, despite any bans prior to the passing of the bill.

 

No vote, no preemption!

 

Knowing the present climate, how many areas would vote to preempt out? Should someone be arrested prior to a successful vote to preempt, "Hello, Judge"!

 

I'm not so sure. I haven't looked lately, but I bet Chicago already has a law banning carry. Certainly if a municipality did not have such a law they'd have to vote one in. In Chicago, that would take a 5 minute trip for Daley down to the City Council to demand the law, just like he did with the law repealing their fois gras ban.

 

I'm not so sure either, but, tryin' to think this through...

 

...should a non-preemptive bill pass, that would be new law in Illinois.

 

Question is, would the current ban preempt the new law?

 

I'm not a lawyer, and I dunno!

[Drylok]

I'm not very good at this, so if anyone wants to make any suggestions before I send it, please do so.

 

To: NRA Leadership

 

I would like to thank the NRA leadership for the countless gun laws they have helped stop across the country.

 

I live in Illinois , one of only two states that does not allow its law abiding citizens the opportunity to legally conceal carry for protection and the only state that does not allow its law abiding citizens to carry for protection in some form, be it open or concealed. This is why I was shocked to find out last Friday that the NRA has taken a neutral position on a house bill in Illinois that would allow conceal carry for law abiding citizens simply because this particular bill is subject to home rule rather than pre-empt.

 

I find it infuriating that the NRA lobbyists would not help us pass a bill that would allow the vast majority of Illinois residents to obtain the legal ability to protect themselves. You can not deny that such a law would be anything but a victory and a step in the right direction to our ultimate goal of every law abiding Illinois resident to obtain the right to bear arms.

 

I was wondering if you are aware that other states such as PA, NE and MO among others passed LTC bills that were "non pre-empt and now enjoy the right in every corner of their state. We now have the opportunity to do the same here in Illinois and you want to deminish our efforts by blocking it?

 

I work in and spend most of my time in a city that most likely will opt out of a home rule LTC law, but I am asking you to please reconsider your position on a subject to home rule LTC law in Illinois and let those folks outside of the home rule units have the opportunity to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Until the NRA leadership re-considers it's position on this issue I will withhold any further contributions, but I look forward to obtaining a life time membership if you help Illinois pass a good subject to home rule carry law in Illinois. The choice is yours.....

 

Scott,

 

Edit To Add: Crap I can't figure out how to word it if I'm not going to use "2257".

 

Ok, there we go....

[mauserme]

Sounds great to me Scott. Better than I sent.

 

But just reassure anyone with the same concerns, I think right now the number of members sending emails is more critical than how eloquently they are phrased.

 

Keith

[Buzzard]

And don't forget phone calls. This is no different than trying to influence our legislaters.

 

You.....you do also call.....and write your legislaters.......don't you?

[Ol'Coach]

And don't forget phone calls. This is no different than trying to influence our legislaters.

 

You.....you do also call.....and write your legislaters.......don't you?

I can guarantee you, he does!

 

So do I!!

[mauserme]

You.....you do also call.....and write your legislaters.......don't you?

Me?

 

You betcha'

[Drylok]

Oh ya I call them too. That poor gal at Chapins office probably gets tired of me calling her every other day. I actually have his office on my 20 list so I don't get charged cell minutes when I call. It's pretty sad when you have a dozen reps and senators on speed dial. lol

 

I was going to use today for letter day and tomorrow for phone call day.

[Kenny]

I'm not very good at this, so if anyone wants to make any suggestions before I send it, please do so.

 

To: NRA Leadership

 

I would like to thank the NRA leadership for the countless gun laws they have helped stop across the country.

 

I live in Illinois , one of only two states that does not allow its law abiding citizens the opportunity to legally conceal carry for protection and the only state that does not allow its law abiding citizens to carry for protection in some form, be it open or concealed. This is why I was shocked to find out last Friday that the NRA has taken a neutral position on Illinois House bill 2257 because it is a license to carry bill that is subject to home rule, rather than pre-emp.

 

I find it infuriating that the NRA lobbyists would not help us pass a bill that would allow the vast majority of Illinois residents to obtain the legal ability to protect themselves. You can not deny that such a law would be anything but a victory and a step in the right direction to our ultimate goal of every law abiding Illinois resident to obtain the right to bear arms.

 

I was wondering if you are aware that other states such as PA, NE and MO among others passed LTC bills that were "non pre-empt and now enjoy the right in every corner of their state. We now have the opportunity to do the same here in Illinois and you want to deminish our efforts by blocking it?

 

I work in and spend most of my time in a city that most likely will opt out of a home rule LTC law, but I am asking you to please reconsider your position on HB 2257 and let those folks outside of the home rule units have the opportunity to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Until the NRA leadership re-considers it's position on this issue I will withhold any further contributions, but I look forward to obtaining a life time membership if you help Illinois pass HB 2257. The choice is yours.....

 

Scott,

 

Dear Scott,

 

I quit reading when you said you were from Illinois. Your letter means nothing to us unless there is a sizable check enclosed with it. That is how we do things here, you should know how the game is played because you are from Illinois. The only reason I have responded to your letter is because you seem like a nice kid, Tell all your grassroots friends to pool up some money & send it in with a request of what you are wanting to accomplish. We will then look at the size of the contribution & see if we can help in any way.

 

Thank you

The NRA

[Drylok]

Hey Kenny,

Let me tell you something about America, nobody likes a smart a**!

[Lou]

Hey Kenny,

Let me tell you something about America, nobody likes a smart a**!

 

 

Oh I beg to differ - Kenny certainly qualifies as a smart a** and I kinda like him.

[Drylok]

He's alright in my book too!

 

Oooooh man, this crap is nough to drive a priest to profanity!

[RichardM]

I'm not very good at this, so if anyone wants to make any suggestions before I send it, please do so.

 

To: NRA Leadership

 

I would like to thank the NRA leadership for the countless gun laws they have helped stop across the country.

 

I live in Illinois , one of only two states that does not allow its law abiding citizens the opportunity to legally conceal carry for protection and the only state that does not allow its law abiding citizens to carry for protection in some form, be it open or concealed. This is why I was shocked to find out last Friday that the NRA has taken a neutral position on Illinois House bill 2257 because it is a license to carry bill that is subject to home rule, rather than pre-emp.

 

I find it infuriating that the NRA lobbyists would not help us pass a bill that would allow the vast majority of Illinois residents to obtain the legal ability to protect themselves. You can not deny that such a law would be anything but a victory and a step in the right direction to our ultimate goal of every law abiding Illinois resident to obtain the right to bear arms.

 

I was wondering if you are aware that other states such as PA, NE and MO among others passed LTC bills that were "non pre-empt and now enjoy the right in every corner of their state. We now have the opportunity to do the same here in Illinois and you want to deminish our efforts by blocking it?

 

I work in and spend most of my time in a city that most likely will opt out of a home rule LTC law, but I am asking you to please reconsider your position on HB 2257 and let those folks outside of the home rule units have the opportunity to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Until the NRA leadership re-considers it's position on this issue I will withhold any further contributions, but I look forward to obtaining a life time membership if you help Illinois pass HB 2257. The choice is yours.....

 

Scott,

 

Dear Scott,

 

I quit reading when you said you were from Illinois. Your letter means nothing to us unless there is a sizable check enclosed with it. That is how we do things here, you should know how the game is played because you are from Illinois. The only reason I have responded to your letter is because you seem like a nice kid, Tell all your grassroots friends to pool up some money & send it in with a request of what you are wanting to accomplish. We will then look at the size of the contribution & see if we can help in any way.

 

Thank you

The NRA

[abolt243]

Scott,

 

Good letter. The only suggestion that I might make to you or anyone else writing is to not specifically support HB2257. Refer instead to support of the concept of a Subject to Home Rule law. 2257 is only the first attempt at writing STHR into a carry bill to be introduced here in IL. Your letter could refer to 2257 as an example of a bill containing STHR language, but our mission is to convince the NRA to back us in the pursuit of STHR. If that concept needs to be written into another bill, or if 2257 needs to be dramatically changed in other aspects to get the necessary votes, then so be it. Many of us here like many aspects of 2257, but the key to the bill is it's STHR provision to try to avoid the 71 vote rule, at least for initial passage.

 

If you've already sent it, no worry. It's a good letter and will get the job done!

 

UAB

[GNHNTN]

I agree Cuz, looks pretty good!

[mauserme]

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one.

 

Another business day has ended in Fairfax, VA. Another day without LTC in Illinois. Another day with nary a word from NRA HQ.

 

Are they deep within the war room hammering out a new strategy, or are we simply being ignored

[ilphil]

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one.

 

Another business day has ended in Fairfax, VA. Another day without LTC in Illinois. Another day with nary a word from NRA HQ.

 

Are they deep within the war room hammering out a new strategy, or are we simply being ignored

 

I don't doubt that they could care less about our outrage.

 

I wish the annual meeting was closer this year. Phoenix is a tad too far to drive. Would love the chance to have a face to face and hear their "strategy" explained.

[SmershAgent]

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one.

 

Another business day has ended in Fairfax, VA. Another day without LTC in Illinois. Another day with nary a word from NRA HQ.

 

Are they deep within the war room hammering out a new strategy, or are we simply being ignored

 

I'd give them some more time; it's only been a couple of days, and this is but one issue of many that they must address.

[GarandFan]

as for a response, I'm sure HQ will issue one.

 

Another business day has ended in Fairfax, VA. Another day without LTC in Illinois. Another day with nary a word from NRA HQ.

 

Are they deep within the war room hammering out a new strategy, or are we simply being ignored

 

Mauser ... you DO realize that the annual meeting is this week. Don't you?

[abolt243]

That, and the fact that there are many more letters, faxes and phone calls to come. Gun groups have yet to meet after hearing the news, and they will develop a method to get thier own members to contact the NRA. If this is to have any effect, they need to get correspondence from more than 2-3 dozen folks from an internet board!! Rifle clubs, pistol leagues, trapshooters, skeet shooters, hunters, and just plain gun owners need to make their voices heard!!

 

The NRA has had the letter for less than 48 business hours!!!

 

AB

[Thirdpower]

I'm going to the convention and will be there through Sun morning.

 

You can rest assured that any and all reps/administrators/lobbyists/bigwigs/etc. will be hearing about this and will be directed to these threads.

[mauserme]

Patience is not one of my strongest points but I'll try to exercise a little more of it.

[Ol'Coach]

Ya know, when feces hits the fan, it's immediately dispersed, but the results of the impact may take awhile to recognize.

 

It might even cause some flowers to grow in unexpected places!

 

My immediate response was, well, you don't wanna know my immediate response!

 

heck, I'll tell it to you anyway:

 

I'm too old to wait around for the NRA to attempt to pass a bill that they haven't been able to pass in the previous 16 or so years!

 

But, and here come the flowers...

 

just maybe, the stance of the NRA has awakened large numbers of folks in Illinois as to what has to be done!

 

Lookin' forward to a great flower garden!!!