Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

IL Under the Gun.....

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by WarCry, May 13, 2011.

  1. Two separate lawsuits filed against the state today.

    The NRA has filed Shepard v. Madigan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois


    The Second Amendment Foundation filed on behalf of Michael Moore of Champaign and Charles Hooks of Percy against Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and State Police Superintendent Patrick Keen in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

    Last week, IL Rep Brandon Phelps warned on the floor that if HB0148 didn't pass, then it would be settled in the courts, where they would be less willing to compromise than he's been.

    The bill didn't pass (yet). Welcome to round two.
  2. tshadow6


    Jan 6, 2007
    What is the status of the IL CCW bill? The last I read, the bill failed to get a veto proof super majority by 6 votes. The bill was then pulled or shelved for some kind of reconsideration. Is there any new info? I'm hoping IL gets "Shall Issue" passed, just to tee off the gun grabbers.

  3. It's not just about a veto-proof majority. It DOES have that effect also, but the reason for the 3/5ths majority votes is because it's preempts home rule. That means that no city - even Chicago - can make more strict rules than what's in the bill. In the IL Constitution, if you preempt home rule, you're required to get 3/5ths. That means 71 votes in the house and 36 in the Senate.

    Last Thursday, the board was run up to 68 "Yea" votes, then, when it seemed it may not pass, some started pulling their votes. They "dumped the board" and requested Postponed Consideration. That means it's like the vote didn't happen at all. They now get to work on the members to try and wrangle the votes, and the deadline for action stands at 5/20/11 right now.
  4. rfb45colt

    rfb45colt safe-cracker

    Mar 1, 2002
    WI's Northwoods
    Just curious, and not suggesting this.... If the bill was re-written so it did not pre-empt home rule, could it then be passed with a simple majority? It seems like it's basically Chicago and Cook County that's holding up what the rest of the State wants. Only as a last resort, exclude them. Maybe when the rest of ILL gets rights that are withheld from Chicago residents, the sheeple there will wake up.
  5. I've suggested the same thing, and nearly had my head ripped off by those in Chicago. My suggestion of "Just move if you don't like it it" would be hypocritical, since the same could be said of everyone in the state.

    The other issue is, if you can't muster the votes to preempt Home Rule, you probably can't override the veto that the governor has promised, either.

    The two lawsuits, though, may scare the state into passing the bill so they have SOME restrictions rather than letting the lawsuits go through have something like a Constitutional Carry declared by the courts. While this would be a FANTASTIC outcome, either option gets me the right to carry outside of my house.
  6. JK-linux


    Mar 5, 2009
    Last edited: May 22, 2012
  7. KingWalleye


    Jan 6, 2011
    At this point we shouldn't give up anything. Constitutional Carry or having the FOID become our de facto ccw permit sounds good to me. (10 years, $10.00)
  8. That appears to be what the NRA's Shepard v. Madigan suit is going for.

    From the filed complaint:

    Brandon Phelps said they weren't going to be willing to negotiate. The state has about 1 week to get HB0148 passed if they want to try and avoid this...
  9. as400guy1


    Mar 26, 2009
    I agree and live in Chicago....will be escaping soon.

    The issue in Chicago is a frame of mind. In Chicago, once you make a decision, you stick to it no matter what. You see it not only in politics but in corporations and sports teams as well.
  10. madcitycop


    Dec 2, 2006
    But then there would be a lot of guns out on the streets :whistling::juggle:

    I hope it passes soon and we do see more shootings...of these coward armed robbers who prey on innocent people who have no legal means to protect themselves.
  11. cdog533

    cdog533 Zombie Killer

    Oct 11, 2001
    It HAS to pass with a SuperMajority to avoid a veto by the dumb ass liberal governor. So, while avoiding home rule is critical too, the real issue is the guaranteed veto.

    It would be awesome to shove this bill down Chicago's throat!
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
  12. wrangler5


    Oct 4, 2005
    The perhaps-facetious explanation is that Chicago is a wholly owned subsidiary of Organized Crime, and the last thing Organized Crime wants is armed victims.

    This is in fact what was behind New York's 1911 ban on concealed weapons, the (in)famous Sullivan Act (still on the books, BTW) - Sullivan was a mob boss in NYC and also a state senator. His minions, who robbed citizens passing through Sullivan's territory on the way to and from ships at the docks, were facing increasing instances where their victims armed themselves for protection. In order to protect his thugs, and the income they provided to him, Sullivan introduced the law that disarmed the victims.

    Now maybe Chicago is different. But their fanatic insistence on a disarmed populace, in the face of decades of overwhelming evidence from cities all over the country that armed, law abiding, citizens pose no threat to the peace, suggests that there are motives other than "public safety" behind Chicago's political stance.