mab22

That, and the idea that the IL Supreme Court would reject something like this is …….. Is anyone really “shocked”?

OR..... This is a "K RAZY" idea, but they could just bring it up for a vote in the senate, OR Thune could overrule them, but that wouldn't be in McConnell's playbook, and Thune hasn't the stones to make his own. OR they just don't like the "icky gun stuff" so hide behind the Parliamentarian thwarting the efforts to enact change, and say aw shucks we tried folks....

So they can just make a rule that says they forfeit all power vested in them and give their power to the executive branch?

Knew it! And Thune will probably NOT have it go to a separate vote, and he has the power to overrule the parliamentarian, but he won't. Just like Barry care, "Gosh! What can we do, We are powerless...." a non elected bureaucrat provides them cover so they can say it was in the Bill but the parliamentarian would not allow it... 🤷‍♂️

They can't be having all these constitutional issues when the fat SFB is announcing another run to finish trashing the state, that would be bad optics, so it has to get delayed! https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/26/gov-jb-pritzker-running-third-term/

The Illinois rules being broken are directly written in the constitution, 3 readings rule. For the senate, the parliamentarian is NOT in the constitution, and as I pointed out, use it as a scapegoat, like Mitch did with the Barry care tax. The Senate can overrule the parliamentarian, and even re-write a bill to make it comply with the rules. But "OH SHUCKS, what ever can we do about the parliamentarian not liking it.... we are just the senate...."

Not that I want to drift too far off topic. Mmmmmm no. as it states, (and this is congress? Senate has a president of the senate?) Our constitution was created in the late 1700’s, that states 1927, well after the constitution was established, not seeing the parliamentarian as an amendment ratified by the states either. Second, the article states According to the text of the constitution https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ Article 1, section 5…. (Not seeing parliamentarian)

There appears to be much consternation around the bill in general. Has anyone checked to see if the ATF tax stamp has made the cut or not? https://www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-gops-big-beautiful-bill-brink-tax-clashes-medicaid-cuts-and-parliamentarian-delays https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leftist-senate-parliamentarian-cuts-immigration-enforcement-other-items-gop-megabill

Updates. Read those audits here: Compliance audit summary - https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/FY24-ISP-Comp-Digest.pdf FOID Act follow up - https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/25-Perf-Follow-Up-Rpt-ISP-Admin-of-FOID-Card-Act.pdf CCL Act follow up - https://www.auditor.illinois.gov/Audit-Reports/Compliance-Agency-List/ISP/25-Perf-Follow-Up-Rpt-ISP-FOID-and-Conc-Carry-Programs.pdf

IL States attorneys call B.S. Will Eastercrook care, probably not.... IMO.

Agreed! And I think that is what made Paul Harrell a hit, he didn't tell you what to choose, he presented the evidence and then you could decide what was right for you.

Some of my my considerations for open carry are, 1. In nature sometimes things are a warning not to mess with it, if someone see's your armed in public they may move on to someone that isn't. They may also decide to give it a try. 2. As far as being "the first one" or "the target" if your at a concert or outdoor venue you could be first because you are closest, or just there. If same terrorist decides to do something they may go where they think people are unarmed, so if they see armed people, they may move on. Maybe not. Let's say there is more then one terrorist, and you get the surprise on 1, what if their partner see's you drawing on their partner, NOW your the target. I'm not trying to poo poo any thoughts, just share mine, but I think we have seen enough scenarios that the end game is.... Unpredictable and you need to do what you feel is best for you. And based on the scenarios you considered.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/big-beautiful-bill-scraps-al-capone-era-tax-sawed-shotguns-short-barreled-rifles One of the things that should annoy you is that there is the house, the president, and the senate and 1 other person, not listed in the constitution, standing in the way of your liberties. The "Parliamentarian", if they, the "Parliamentarian" don't like the language or if it doesn't pass the Byrd rule, or some other bull crap, it doesn't pass muster and can't be included. They pulled the same excuse with removing the Obamacare tax, "aww shucks the Parliamentarian said the language was not rite and gee wilikers we are just powerless to do anything... So until it's passed in the House and Senate, don't get too excited. Democrats are the cause of all of our problems, but the Republican's are not always the solution!

Leta take it up a notch….… . . FOID data is exempt from everything, not even the FOID holder can request their data, MAYBE it’s obtainable through a court order, but not FOIA. So you would have to FOIA the ISP to find out if there was a breach, then you would need a court order to identify what breached about who? Winging this, but I thought based on other threads that FOID data/info is protected and you need to jump through serious hoops to get at it, even if it your data. so it wouldn’t surprise me that the fat SFB Gov is using that as an excuse to not say anything… BTW You know the isp site for FOID stuff is not OWNED by the state, the domain name is held by someone else, it’s a .co m not state .IL site.

That could very well explain why: When I did my CCL renewal I got stupid SPAM emails. How they were able to identify that some fire firefighter's had CCL's. They had to take an outage, to fix what they discovered was broken with the site that had the data. Does a government entity in Illinois need to notify the people if there was a data breach, or are government entities exempt from that law as well?