Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   Illinois Glockers' Club (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=148)
-   -   IL House Bills week of 3/22/10 (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1199453)

CaptainXL 03-20-2010 09:02

IL House Bills week of 3/22/10
 
Please contact your State Representative by clicking here and politely encourage them to SUPPORT the following bills: <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
House Bill 462/House Bill 5221/House Bill 6249, introduced by State Representative Brandon Phelps (D-118)/State Representative John Bradley (D-117), are all Right-to-Carry bills.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
House Bill 5231, introduced by State Representative John Bradley (D-117), would remove the prohibition on having a firearm in a place where alcohol is served if it is possessed by the business owner, or by employees he has given permission to possess a firearm while on the premises.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Finally, House Bill 4835, introduced by State Representative David Reis (R-108), has passed the House and is now in the Senate. This bill would eliminate the waiting period requirement on firearm transfers if the transfer involves trading one operable firearm for another. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

Atraeu 03-25-2010 20:30

we need a iowa thread ; ;

SIUC4 03-25-2010 20:37

whats the chances gonna be that any of these would ever get signed by the gov. if they pass senate?

WarCry 03-27-2010 08:35

HB0462, HB5221 and HB6249 were legislatively round-filed this week (re-referred to Rules committee under rule 19(a).

Now, last year I thought this meant a bill was totally dead, but 462 was resurrected. I think the fight is done for the current session, though.

At this point, I'm still waiting for the Supreme Court to declare the states HAVE to offer some form of carry...

volsbear 03-28-2010 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIUC4 (Post 15009841)
whats the chances gonna be that any of these would ever get signed by the gov. if they pass senate?

At I-Gold last year, Governor Quinn said point blank that he would sign a CCW bill if it was passed by the legislature.

He can, of course, say this with complete confidence since the game has already been rigged by Cullerton and Madigan. He knows damn well he'll never be put in the position of having to sign a bill.

On a theoretical side note - do you realize that two sessions ago a deal was in place that would've authorized CCW in Illinois OTHER than in the City of Chicago? And the Chicago politicians backed out at the last second.

And now they're about to lose their whole ban. Morons.

WarCry 03-28-2010 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by volsbear (Post 15026869)
At I-Gold last year, Governor Quinn said point blank that he would sign a CCW bill if it was passed by the legislature.

I actually never heard that he said that. That's impressive, and if it's on record (say, video, etc), then that's as locked in as you can ask from a politician. Obviously, it's not a binding contract, but still a plus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by volsbear (Post 15026869)
He can, of course, say this with complete confidence since the game has already been rigged by Cullerton and Madigan. He knows damn well he'll never be put in the position of having to sign a bill.

You're dead on here. That's why for the last few years, I continue to try and get either of them to give me an answer to a question about if they'll let the other representatives speak for their constituents. I've even stated plainly I don't care if they support it, as long as they speak for their constituents and let the others do so for their own. So far I've gotten dead silence and one "Unable to Deliver" from an e-mail sent to Cullerton's website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by volsbear (Post 15026869)
On a theoretical side note - do you realize that two sessions ago a deal was in place that would've authorized CCW in Illinois OTHER than in the City of Chicago? And the Chicago politicians backed out at the last second.

Do you know what the deal was supposed to be? To be clear, I absolutely don't doubt you. I'm just a political junkie and actually DO care about how the sausage is made.

I tried to get my state Senator to offer a deal last year. Chicago was asking for state funding/assurance that if they got the Olympics, the state would help foot part of the bill. My suggestion was, since we "down-staters" had little to gain from the Olympics, I suggested a "You give me CCW, we'll sign off on the funds you want." In retrospect, I think it was an even BETTER plan, since there was 1) no guarantee of the Olympics, and 2) no guarantee they'd even need the funds if they did get them. Alas, I don't have an office in the statehouse.

volsbear 03-28-2010 20:41

That was the deal - The Olympics in exchange for CCW with an exemption for the City of Chicago since the sheeple want to continue to die. I heard it was under consideration but, as usual, Madigan wouldn't go along. I think a lot of the Chicago guys wanted it, though.

CaptainXL 04-16-2010 05:38

bills in committee
 
On 4/8/10 I attended the Kane County Town Hall Meeting held by Illinois Carry at Pheasant Run in St. Charles. One of the speakers was Todd Vandermyde, the NRA lobbyist for Illinois.

At the end to the meeting there was a question and answer session during which I asked why the bills went back to Committee. Todd Vandermyde basically stated that the BILLS ARE NOT DEAD. They were sent back to Committee for a couple of reasons which are actually positive for Illinois gun owners.

1. Because there are not currently enough votes to pass any of the CCW bills, the bill Sponsors wanted the bills to go back to Committee until they are sure that they have enough votes to get one of the CCW bills passed.

2. There is also the feeling that it would be better to wait until after the Supreme Court decision decides in favor of McDonald in the McDonals vs City of Chicago case that is pending in the Supreme Court.

Basically, we are not defeated. We have just pulled back some to pick the right time for the bills to actually be voted on.

According to Todd Vandermyde it is not enough to contact your State Reps and ask them to vote for the bill when it comes up for a vote. You must also tell your State Reps that you will actually work for their opponents should they not vote for the bills to pass.

In addition, Todd basically said that you must contact your State Reps and tell them that if they are "really" for gun owners rights that they sign on to the CCW bills as a Co-Sponsor if they are to expect your support in the forthcoming elections. The more Co-Sponsor that a bill has the better chance it has of passing.

volsbear 04-16-2010 06:18

Historically, we've had the votes for about 3-4 sessions now. The problem has not been the vote tally in a LONG time. The problem is that nobody can force Cullerton and Madigan to call a CCW bill for a vote. I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to understand LOL.

Outside of Chicago, Cook County, and maybe Lake and DuPage Counties, the state is supportive of a CCW bill. But we're playing on Chicago's playground right now for as long as Madigan and Cullerton hold their seats.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.