Jump to content

What does "Rule 19(a) / Re-referred to Rules Committee" Mean


Newhunter1

Recommended Posts

right now, the speaker will rule 71 votes are needed. It's no secret that we don't have 71 votes for RTC.

 

And a lot of eyes are on McDonald and what the court does.

 

This week we had a good meeting with a law enforcement group and we are working on seeing if we can gain their support. Molly and Abolt are aware of what has been going on. And they are helping.

 

We also know that the senate did not want to deal with anything this year of substance. Not our call but they didn't even let the anti-gun bills out.

 

The good thing is that the bill we will end up with will be a good product that will be fair for everyone. I think we see the light at the end of the tunnel. McDonald will have some bearing on that.

 

But it has been fun watching the anti-gunners run around and argue aginst RTC when they don't even know what the final bill will look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So looks like CCw is dead another year?

 

It's never dead. It's a living, breathing animal that takes nuturing and grooming until it "comes of age". As Todd explained, the Speaker will rule that it takes 71 votes to pass instead of 60. McDonald may help with that. Negotiations over the summer with certain organizations may help that. Elections in November can certainly help with achieving the 71 or even eliminating the need for 71 votes.

 

CCW (or any other bill) doesn't just happen during the legislative session. They are worked on year 'round. CCW could be called out of Rules (don't expect it but could happen) if suddenly agreement was reached to pass it. We need to continue to petition our legislators about the importance of RTC, and we certainly need to concentrate on electing politicians more friendly to our cause. And, we need to remain vigilant that an anti-gun bill doesn't "rise from the dead" and get snuck through between now and the end of May.

 

Never fear Sigma, RTC in Illinois is coming. The tide is turning.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like "Fanny Pack Transport" is back being the order of the day for a while, but this was expected. I am glad Todd & Company was able to sent the current batch of anti gun bills to temporary oblivion. I have been involved in the legislative process on issues related to the Dept of Public Health for many years. I have seen the same North or South of I-80 issues from a thought prospective as RTC is having. Even though it seems maddeningly slow, progress really is made every session, and I think we really are getting close to a concealed carry bill in Illinois. Getting close does not mean next month, but if I had to bet, this time next year I think we will have a bill that both sides are mad at, but will allow us to carry in some form. The session after that, it will get better.

 

Until then, Maxpedition still makes fine gear that allows you to transport your firearm "unloaded and enclosed in a case".

 

Still a pain, but post Diggins, and soon post McDonald, there should be no more argument of violating any Illinois statutes in this method.

 

Thanks to the ISRA, and Todd's ceaseless work, and many at Illinoiscarry we really are getting closer to freedom.

 

On a side note, I was just trying to decipher how I am going to legally "transport" my LCP through NY, MA, and MD on my motorcycle for an upcoming trip. I thought Illinois was bad. I still don't know if I can under state laws. There is a federal law about interstate transport, but I can only hope the local LEO's understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain why the speaker can say that they need 71 votes?

 

Any bill that would infringe on the power of the home-rule cities requires a supermajority--71 votes. Madigan, as Speaker, has the power to decide which bills override home-rule, and he has always ruled that right-to-carry bills require that vote. Practically speaking, as long as we have a Governor who will veto the bill, it's a moot point because it takes the same supermajority to override a veto anyway. Essentially, as long as Madigan continues to play that game, we need enough votes to override a veto, and RTC has never had that many votes.

 

BUT . . . . again, tonight, people I know who have never had much interest before have asked me when Illinois will get concealed carry. People are curious, and they're talking about it. They're asking each other. There's "buzz." Our role is to keep the buzz building so that legislators start hearing from people who aren't members of any group, even a group as loose as IllinoisCarry. That's the next milestone on the road--taking the issue mainstream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don's close

 

you can override home rule with 60 votes -- I've done it. If the field of the subject matter i.e. firearms is regulated and controlled by the state. We argue that carrying a gun gets you a felony. There is nothing more a unit of local government could do. Hense the state occupies the field of regulation. And could have the Chair rule it takes a simple majority. in 2005, the senate ruled just that of a couple of preemption bills.

 

The speaker can rule that way becuase he is the speaker and has the final say and the consitution is vague on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a scant 61 years of living under the rule of law in Illinois.

 

Perhaps we could solve a chunk of our budget problems, local and in Springfield, by simple obsoleting the pretend legislatures and body politics?

 

NOTHING seems to ever get done unless it is deemed 'approved' by Mayor Daley, the Speakers of both houses and the Governor. All the rest of the folks beyond that mighty group of four almost seem to me to be "redundant"?

 

I would guess that eliminating all the other senators, representatives and alderpeople and their staffs and budgets would save tons of money and not really affect the passage of any laws or the daily true running of the State? Like all 'kingdoms' the other people all may have an expressed opinion, but only the tiny ruling class really gets a vote.

 

Or it may just be that the older I get, the more weary I become of the whole process? I may simply need to get one of the motorcycles out of the garage for a season opener? -lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the negativity and low morale, I felt the same when I had only been involved for several months and hadn't seen an advancement. Then I realized all we do is advance. The issue I mean, ya it hasn't come to a vote but that's the next to last step to happen. Now I have a completely different outlook. It's not a matter of if CCW is coming to Illinois it's a matter of will it be Jan of 2011 or Jan 2012.

Look at the progress we've made just since 2008

 

90+ counties passing Pro 2A resolutions

Heller Decision

Recommend Do Pass CCW from Illinois Farm Bureau

Recommend Do Pass CCW from Illinois Sheriffs Association

IGOLD participation increase by 50% every year

HB 182, carry on property or that property of another with permission

The People vs Diggins, console transport

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois is a tough place to fight for gun rights. Chicago makes it tough or we wouldn't be one of the last 2 states without any provision of carry. However, Drylock is right. It seems that the tide is definitely turning. With the supreme court supporting our rights and the decisions rendered being national news the fight is coming to the main stream. I think that the people we need to target are the ones who don't feel strongly about the issue one way or another. Using the facts to sway these middle ground people AGAINST gun control is much easier than getting them interested in actually going out and getting a carry permit. All we have to do is make it clear to the average taxpayer how much of his or her money is being spent on legal fees by Mayor Daley and his cronies to fight against the 2nd Amendment. National poles have already shown that more than 2/3 of Americans believe in the 2nd amendment and money and jobs are the big issue right now. We can post on this sight all our lives trying to convince each other that we deserve our rights but until we get the message out there to the average person about exactly what is going on in the fight, we will still be here posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illinois is a tough place to fight for gun rights. Chicago makes it tough or we wouldn't be one of the last 2 states without any provision of carry. However, Drylock is right. It seems that the tide is definitely turning. With the supreme court supporting our rights and the decisions rendered being national news the fight is coming to the main stream. I think that the people we need to target are the ones who don't feel strongly about the issue one way or another. Using the facts to sway these middle ground people AGAINST gun control is much easier than getting them interested in actually going out and getting a carry permit. All we have to do is make it clear to the average taxpayer how much of his or her money is being spent on legal fees by Mayor Daley and his cronies to fight against the 2nd Amendment. National poles have already shown that more than 2/3 of Americans believe in the 2nd amendment and money and jobs are the big issue right now. We can post on this sight all our lives trying to convince each other that we deserve our rights but until we get the message out there to the average person about exactly what is going on in the fight, we will still be here posting.

 

You're right aroseli2, welcome to the site. Education of the public about gun rights and concealed carry is EXACLTY the mission of Illinois Carry. That is being done by word of mouth, letters to the editor, appearances on talk radio programs, IGOLD, SAFR and town hall meetings! Hopefully, education of the public will lead indirectly to education of the "fence sitter" legislators which is the group that we really need to convince. As to the "anti" legislator, we just need to influcence the voters to replace them.

 

You're first point is well taken also. Were it not for the NE part of the state, I'm convinced that the rest of the state would have licensed concealed carry, open carry and pre-emption throughout. Unfortunately, that area can't be split out, so we've got to work with what we've got. We have made great strides in the last few years, and are poised to make even greater in the near future.

 

AB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education, reaching out to everyday Americans who, until now, have not been politically engaged is exactly why I am a 9-12er. AS Abolt was talking about the goals of this site and this group of people, so too is this the path of the 9-12 project. The only real difference is that the 9-12 project focuses and concentrates on individual Liberty itself, as opposed to a specific example of it.

 

Both avenues, and more, are required for success to be realized. This place is a great source of information to point people toward when sharing information about Second Amendment related rights. A wealth of knowledge blesses these pages. It is also a shining example of how political discourse can take place, especially in disagreement, without the all-to-easy flame game.

 

It is right and proper to discuss the "echo chamber" factor. That debate taking place in the open is an example in and of itself that such a scourge hasn't taken root here. Kudos to the administrative team for quality decisions avoiding that pitfall.

 

Firearms and the rights revolving around this topic are one of the few examples that cross "normal" political boundaries. In some ways, especially the self defense aspect, this arena serves as beacon of freedom that shines through the politically correct haze. Open discussion burns off the opaque fog and reveals a beautiful and fruitful way forward.

 

Exercising the First Amendment to advance and protect the Second Amendment is preferable to exercising the Second Amendment in order to defend the First. Without like minded folks participating in dedicated issue forums like this one, without leading by example, the risk of the latter increases. I can speak for no one else, but I will say with confidence that participating here in the former, in attempt to avoid the latter, demonstrates that loose cannon gun nuts we are not. This forum, and what takes place here, proves that true Patriotism abounds in the Second Amendment advocacy arena.

 

To have such proof at the tip of the fingers, in the form of a link, is a powerful tool available for the battles with gun control zealots. I thank everyone who participates here for making that possible. For that is exactly how we will win this fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a practical standpoint, IMO as long as Madigan is speaker we will not prevail. Even if Quinn loses, we still have Madigan to deal with. Cullerton is an irritant, but it appears Madigan is the one who controls what happens in Illinois, no dounbt under orders from his master in Chicago

 

 

Which is exactly why I keep beating the dead horse about how important it is to vote out Dems in the legislature. If they aren't the majority, Madigan isn't speaker of the house and Cullerton isn't senate president.headbang1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain why the speaker can say that they need 71 votes?

 

Any bill that would infringe on the power of the home-rule cities requires a supermajority--71 votes. Madigan, as Speaker, has the power to decide which bills override home-rule, and he has always ruled that right-to-carry bills require that vote. Practically speaking, as long as we have a Governor who will veto the bill, it's a moot point because it takes the same supermajority to override a veto anyway. Essentially, as long as Madigan continues to play that game, we need enough votes to override a veto, and RTC has never had that many votes.

 

BUT . . . . again, tonight, people I know who have never had much interest before have asked me when Illinois will get concealed carry. People are curious, and they're talking about it. They're asking each other. There's "buzz." Our role is to keep the buzz building so that legislators start hearing from people who aren't members of any group, even a group as loose as IllinoisCarry. That's the next milestone on the road--taking the issue mainstream.

 

So wouldn't an AWB overrule home rule and need to be 71 votes? Or does a super majority only apply to GOOD bills?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain why the speaker can say that they need 71 votes?

 

Any bill that would infringe on the power of the home-rule cities requires a supermajority--71 votes. Madigan, as Speaker, has the power to decide which bills override home-rule, and he has always ruled that right-to-carry bills require that vote. Practically speaking, as long as we have a Governor who will veto the bill, it's a moot point because it takes the same supermajority to override a veto anyway. Essentially, as long as Madigan continues to play that game, we need enough votes to override a veto, and RTC has never had that many votes.

 

BUT . . . . again, tonight, people I know who have never had much interest before have asked me when Illinois will get concealed carry. People are curious, and they're talking about it. They're asking each other. There's "buzz." Our role is to keep the buzz building so that legislators start hearing from people who aren't members of any group, even a group as loose as IllinoisCarry. That's the next milestone on the road--taking the issue mainstream.

 

So wouldn't an AWB overrule home rule and need to be 71 votes? Or does a super majority only apply to GOOD bills?

Well if there was a home rule city that required "a black rife" in every household or maybe in one household in each black maybe an AWB bill would require 71 votes. If it requires a manufacturer of firearms to move out of a home rule city, that wants to keep it, because of the wording of the bill it seems like it should require 71 votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as Chicago is in Illinois, We will not get ccw. It is a crying shame that ONE stupid politician can has so much power as to regulate the laws for the rest of the state. Madigan needs to be put in his place, at the end of the unemployment line. We the citizens of Illinois need to thumb our noses at the crooked politicians in this state and demand they follow the constitution of the United States and of Illinois. We do have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and we need to exercise that right. They seem to pass laws that go against the constitution therefore they should not be enforcable. Time to take the state back. run Chicago politicians out of office, and get some honest people in there for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...