PDA

View Full Version : NRA sabotaging grassroots effort for defensive handgun carry in Illinois?


tonb
05-08-2009, 10:51 PM
I searched first, hopefully not a dupe.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d8-NRA-sabotaging-grassroots-effort-for-defensive-handgun-carry-in-Illinois

NRA Lobbied Against License to Carry Bill in IL

A little background first. For the past decade and a half license-to-carry bills introduced in the IL General Assembly have become routine and hold little to no expectation of passing due to opposition from the Chicago/Cook Co. legislators. That opposition means every year the same old bills calling for statewide preemption which would force the carry law into Chicago guarantees the bill is dead on arrival. A bill or two may make the headlines but never to the floor for a vote largely due to the opposition of Mayor Daley and Cook County legislators. The likelihood of a statewide preemption bill being passed is greatly reduced by the fact that bills preempting home rule status require 71 votes for passage rather than a simple majority of 60. Double or triple that reduction by the fact that in Chicago it is illegal to even own a handgun let alone carry one for self-defense purposes. We find it somewhat ludicrous to even consider a statewide preemptive bill passing in the state of Illinois given those circumstances.

Other states like Ohio and Nebraska faced years of major opposition like this. They finally won their battle by passing a carry law which we in Illinois would call "subject to home rule". An imperfect bill that allowed major cities to opt out but did provide a means for license-to-carry to get a foothold in the state. Pro-Second Amendment groups in Ohio were then able to prove carrying firearms for self-defense works and they came back in just a few short years and successfully expanded the law to include everyone. Nebraska, just two short years after passing their license-to-carry bill now has statewide preemption according to their state's Attorney General and are now working to amend their law.

With those recent successes in mind many license-to-carry supporters in Illinois were very excited when down state Representative Brandon Phelps courageously decided it was time to try the same strategy in Illinois - how about a bill that would require only a simple majority of 60 votes, would provide an opportunity for license-to-carry to get a foot in the door, something similar to what has been so successful in Ohio and Nebraska . . . how about a "subject to home rule" bill which would allow home rule municipalities to opt out if they so chose but citizens in the vast majority of the state would be free to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms? The Citizens Self-defense Act, HB 2257, was born.

Keeping in mind a statewide preemptive law is the ultimate goal, IllinoisCarry members, including members residing in municipalities sure to ban the practice, have given their full support to the idea of subject to home rule carry and believe the premise behind it is the best hope of getting any kind of license-to-carry bill passed in the state of Illinois.

HB2257 started off with good promise, the sponsor reported he felt sure he could garner the 60 votes needed to pass it out of the House. So it came as a huge shock and disappointment to learn from legislators that the NRA was actually lobbying against it.

When contacted by lllinoisCarry the NRA-ILA lobbyist confirmed the NRA-ILA was indeed lobbying against the bill and vowed to kill it. The reason given for the opposition was that the bill did not include statewide preemption, that it would create a patchwork of ordinances all across the state which could be detrimental to license holders, and it would ultimately be vetoed by Gov. Quinn and still need 71 votes for a veto override. Therefore we should continue to wait and work toward a change in the political makeup of the IL legislature.

IllinoisCarry maintains that statewide preemption didn't pass even when we did have a more favorable party in office and continuing to wait for countless more years will only result in more defenseless victims being violently assaulted and murdered. Citizens in the rest of the state where license to carry is being welcomed should not be denied the right to defend themselves just because other municipalities choose to infringe on their citizens' rights.

Furthering the argument for a subject to home rule bill like HB2257, IllinoisCarry is confident it will lead to statewide preemption as it has in Ohio and Nebraska. IL firearm owners already have to work within a patchwork of city ordinances concerning firearms and a look at the listing of city ordinances on the Illinois State Police website would verify that fact. Although Gov. Quinn may very well veto the bill, we will never know that if every such bill is killed by the NRA-ILA without a good hard push for passage.

We need the NRA-ILA and their hardworking lobbyists on the IL Second Amendment team. But we differ greatly on this issue of denying an opportunity for a subject to home rule bill to come to a vote. The NRA-ILA lobbyist for Illinois is one of the best in the country and has been invaluable in the battle to curtail bad gun bills in the state of Illinois. We recognize a lobbyist must follow the bidding of the organization they represent. We have been assured by him that if the NRA-ILA changes their stance on the issue to one of support then he will support the issue also.

Now after weeks of conversation with the NRA-ILA, their leadership team has temporarily changed their position from opposition to neutral while they claim to study the issue. It is our opinion a subject to home rule license-to-carry bill will not advance in Illinois without the support of the NRA-ILA. We need the NRA to SUPPORT subject to home rule carry in Illinois.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? LOBBY THE NRA!

If you are an NRA member, resident of Illinois, visit Illinois, or even travel through Illinois please call the numbers below - REMEMBER BE POLITE BUT FIRM- and tell them you want their support for subject to home rule license-to-carry in Illinois. If you are a resident of Chicago or any other municipality that might exercise the right to "opt out" of concealed carry, assure the NRA-ILA that you know the most effective and expeditious way to get concealed carry into your area is to get it into the rest of the state first. Do not let them get caught up in HB2257 specifically - bills can be amended, it's the issue of subject to home rule we want them to support.

Contact the following NRA-ILA leadership team:

Chris Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA
1-800-392-8683
1-703-267-3973 fax
CCox@NRAhq.org

Scott Christman
Assist. Ex. Dir.
NRA-ILA
703-267-1140
SChristman@NRAhq.org

Randy Kozuch
Director
ILA-State and Local Affairs
703-267-1202
703-267-3976 fax
RKozuch@NRAhq.org

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 11:03 PM
Yea - that's how it is in NY took. You can CCW outside of NYC - but once you hit city limits, your state license is no good.
I agree with the NRA to some extent in that it's not perfect, but it's better then what they have now. Sometimes it's a matter of baby steps.

Get the rest of the state up to date, show that there's no dramatic rise in gun crime as a result, the allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves is not a danger to society - and you start winning over some people by showing that it's not nearly as bad as "they" say it is.

Much easier to take the incremental approach then an all or nothing approach.

ke6guj
05-08-2009, 11:23 PM
The NRA's darned if ithey do, darned if they don't.

If they don't compromise on the preemption issue, they get railed by one crowd. If they do compromise on the preemption issue, and take a watered-down CCW that isn't good statewide, they'll get raild by the other crowd.

Sinixstar
05-08-2009, 11:27 PM
The NRA's darned if ithey do, darned if they don't.

If they don't compromise on the preemption issue, they get railed by one crowd. If they do compromise on the preemption issue, and take a watered-down CCW that isn't good statewide, they'll get raild by the other crowd.


The thing is - I think in different areas you have to try different tactics. In a place like IL where the laws are extremely limiting, take what you can get - and start building upon those small successes. If you're talking about a state that's already "ok" - but could be better, sure - maybe take a hard-line approach.
You're not going to break down the Chicago political machine all in one shot with the rest of the state. At least get the people outside of Cook Co what you can, while you can - and use it as a basis to start chipping away at the rest. That seems to make sense. Even more so if there's already pending lawsuits against Chicago. If you can get preemption in the rest of the state, I think that adds some additional weight on Chicago's shoulders if the lawsuits come through.

DDT
05-08-2009, 11:51 PM
I suspect that the NRA's expectations wrt: NRA v. Chicago is directly related to their interest in killing this bill.

Gray Peterson
05-08-2009, 11:53 PM
Just to offer my perspective on this whole posting: As horrific as this seems, it's actually a good thing that this bill was scuttled.

First, it wouldn't have made it through the Senate anyway given the makeup of that particular body.

Second, by giving counties and cities "home rule" ability to ban general carry directly into the bill, it is a less clean situation because eventually, there will be a Sykes style challenge to Illinois UUW law (or at least there should be, from my perspective, the law is a flat out 100 percent ban.).

Gray Peterson
05-09-2009, 12:04 AM
without state preemption the license will be useless, as the localities will create local bans and makes it impossible for a carrier to drive from point A to point B without violating some sort of local ordinance. If that kind of power is given local political thugs SF's Prop H will be enforced as we speak.

That means that if things go our way with the McDonald case in Chicago, "The Right People (national chapter)" should file the case similar to Sykes in Illinois.

DDT
05-09-2009, 12:06 AM
forgot to mention in my other post. This also creates an undo liability on any handgun owner to know the laws of all cities in the state. If this were passed it is likely that Chicago and Oak Park would not be the only cities to "opt out." Is it possible for a gun owner to know which of the hundreds (thousands?) of Illinois cities didn't allow CCW?

This sounds like a honey pot that will turn lots of law abiding citizens into criminals.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 12:07 AM
without state preemption the license will be useless, as the localities will create local bans and makes it impossible for a carrier to drive from point A to point B without violating some sort of local ordinance. If that kind of power is given local political thugs SF's Prop H will be enforced as we speak.

My sympathy to the people in Illinois but being the state that produced BHO, they got a helluva fight on their hands. Perhaps a bigger NRA membership there would help rather than whining about NRA not supporting a bill that can get many gun owners in jail.


Yea - but if you look at the bigger-picture, home-rule is not terribly popular in IL from what I understand, and there is a movement to potentially do away with it.

1) pass state pre-emption with a home-rule exception
2) work behind the scenes to support those who are trying to get rid of home-rule all together.
3) you now have statewide pre-emption, no exceptions because there is no more home-rule.

not that bad of an idea.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 12:11 AM
forgot to mention in my other post. This also creates an undo liability on any handgun owner to know the laws of all cities in the state. If this were passed it is likely that Chicago and Oak Park would not be the only cities to "opt out." Is it possible for a gun owner to know which of the hundreds (thousands?) of Illinois cities didn't allow CCW?

This sounds like a honey pot that will turn lots of law abiding citizens into criminals.

There's 198 cities/municipalities that are "home-rule" in IL. Glancing through the list - the sizable majority appear to be immediate suburbs of Chicago.

http://www.iml.org/dbs/imllegal/dyncat.cfm?catid=77

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 12:13 AM
Oh - and here's one of the issues regarding problems with "home rule" that I mentioned. They make some good points:

http://www.celdf.org/HomeRule/DoesmyStatehaveHomeRule/IllinoisHomeRuleandMunicipalGovernment/IllinoisHomeRuleFixItorNixIt/tabid/292/Default.aspx

7x57
05-09-2009, 12:22 AM
It's hard for me to even guess how this should go, without understanding Illinois politics. The Illinois Carry strategy seems reasonable enough to me, but that's not good enough without real knowledge.

That said, I'm generally in favor of incrementalism. That's how we lost our rights, and it seems to be how we gain them back. Except when we can lob a couple of nuclear HellerBombs in their bunker, of course, that's fine if we have the opportunity.

I wonder how much of this is because of the incessant carping about the NRA being too willing to compromise? GOA basically raises money on that issue and that issue only. So now the NRA isn't compromising....

7x57

CCWFacts
05-09-2009, 12:24 AM
This kind of thing is a tough call. On the one hand, it would be great for non-Chicagoans to be able to carry. On the other, a bill that let the state be divided like that would make it even more impossible for Chicagoans to ever get support. All the non-Chicagoans would have little incentive to support CCW reform in Chicago after it passed.

I believe the same situation exists in NY, where they could probably pass a shall-issue bill if it exempted NYC. The same situation exists to some small degree here where the rural areas have less incentive to push for state-wide CCW reform, because they can already get their CCWs.

It's a tough call about what's the right approach in these "holdout" locations. You want all of Illinois to have CCW reform ASAP but at the same time you don't want to doom Chicago to never having it.

without state preemption the license will be useless, as the localities will create local bans and makes it impossible for a carrier to drive from point A to point B without violating some sort of local ordinance. If that kind of power is given local political thugs SF's Prop H will be enforced as we speak.

Right, I can imagine that if we didn't have state-wide preemption here, it would be impossible for me to drive to the shooting range because that could involve traversing a handful of cities with who-knows-what loony regulations.

My sympathy to the people in Illinois but being the state that produced BHO, they got a helluva fight on their hands. Perhaps a bigger NRA membership there would help rather than whining about NRA not supporting a bill that can get many gun owners in jail.

Yeah, the NRA's position on this seems reasonable. It's a tough call but if you let every municipality make its own rules on this, you end up with gun owners going to jail for having a revolver where the cylinder rotates clockwise.

Also, IL's current no-issue situation provides a much cleaner situation to challenge than if they had some bizarro patchwork-of-municipal-regs system.

I guess the people outside of Chicago should really focus on recruiting NRA members, putting heat on their reps, and hope for good legal challenges.

Unfortunately us in the holdout states (our state, IL, etc) are mainly going to have to rely on legal challenges at this point. I wish it wouldn't work that way, but that's what we've got.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 12:34 AM
It's hard for me to even guess how this should go, without understanding Illinois politics. The Illinois Carry strategy seems reasonable enough to me, but that's not good enough without real knowledge.

That said, I'm generally in favor of incrementalism. That's how we lost our rights, and it seems to be how we gain them back. Except when we can lob a couple of nuclear HellerBombs in their bunker, of course, that's find if we have the opportunity.

I wonder how much of this is because of the incessant carping about the NRA being too willing to compromise? GOA basically raises money on that issue and that issue only. So now the NRA isn't compromising....

7x57

Illinois politics is essentially Chicago politics. Much the way NY politics is essentially NYC politics, but to an even greater degree. The reason being is the population of the entire state is a little over 12 mil, and about 9.5mil of that is in the Chicago metro area. Once you get outside the City - the vast majority of the state is pretty rural. Headed west on I-80, once you get past Joliet - it's literally like you're in another world. You go from urban/suburban environment - to agriculture as far as the eye can see - and it happens pretty much as soon as you cross the city limits. This all means however, as a result - whatever Chicago wants, Chicago gets. People in Chicago don't mind this, but the rest of the state HATES IT.

That's why the home-rule exemption is not a terribly bad idea. It's a way of neutralizing the Chicago machine if you can get it through.

and for the record, i know a lot of this as I spent a good portion of my life in Indiana/Illinois. Have family out in one of those rural towns in the middle of nowhere.

7x57
05-09-2009, 12:43 AM
TAll the non-Chicagoans would have little incentive to support CCW reform in Chicago after it passed.


I am not sure that's true. I suspect for a lot of people the place they *most* want to carry is Chicago, on the frequent occasions when they're forced to visit. I know that if I were a student at U. Chicago by God I'd want to be able to carry, especially if I lived off campus and nearer the war zone.

Yes, I was small, but I have memories of the area generally around the U.


The same situation exists to some small degree here where the rural areas have less incentive to push for state-wide CCW reform, because they can already get their CCWs.


The difference is that here the permit is still good statewide, so if you live in Kern you can carry when you visit LA and *really* need it. I think we're talking about the situation where you can carry in your peaceful Southern Illinois agricultural town but not in Chicago.


It's a tough call about what's the right approach in these "holdout" locations. You want all of Illinois to have CCW reform ASAP but at the same time you don't want to doom Chicago to never having it.


As long as Daley is mayor, Chicago is already doomed anyway unless shall-issue is forced on them by repeated court orders.


Yeah, the NRA's position on this seems reasonable. It's a tough call but if you let every municipality make its own rules on this, you end up with gun owners going to jail for having a revolver where the cylinder rotates clockwise.


No doubt that's an unsafe handgun!


Also, IL's current no-issue situation provides a much cleaner situation to challenge than if they had some bizarro patchwork-of-municipal-regs system.


Are you sure? Equal Protection Under The Law sounds like a pretty good tool if you have an irrational patchwork.

Does Illinois have it's own set of Right People?


Unfortunately us in the holdout states (our state, IL, etc) are mainly going to have to rely on legal challenges at this point. I wish it wouldn't work that way, but that's what we've got.

On the bright side of that, there is the outside chance that one of the really hardcore Mandarins might "bravely resist" a federal order to the point of getting a visit from the federal marshals. The chance is minuscule, but I'd put up with a lot to see Daley being led away in handcuffs.

Unfortunately, he's not stupid enough. However, maybe someone on the DC council....

7x57

press1280
05-09-2009, 6:19 AM
Maybe the NRA has their mind made up that they're going through the courts to get this done through incorporation, and doesn't want anything else muddying up their efforts.
Assuming incorporation happens, it looks like they'd be looking at LOC first, because the rural areas haven't banned it but Chicago has.
The CC shall-issue may spring from either people OCing everywhere and forcing the issue, or, the state sees the writing on the wall and decides they'd rather have CC than OC.

ilbob
05-09-2009, 8:30 AM
Maybe the NRA has their mind made up that they're going through the courts to get this done through incorporation, and doesn't want anything else muddying up their efforts.
Assuming incorporation happens, it looks like they'd be looking at LOC first, because the rural areas haven't banned it but Chicago has.
The CC shall-issue may spring from either people OCing everywhere and forcing the issue, or, the state sees the writing on the wall and decides they'd rather have CC than OC.
LOC is banned by state law outside of unincorporated areas. Its pretty worthless at present. The LTC bill would not affect that situation.

I spent the better part of a half hour on the phone last night talking with an NRA/ILA official. I was kind of surprised that they called me.

I find it hard to find fault with their strategy from their point of view. It just leaves us Illinois citizens out in the cold for 5 or 10 or 20 years while they pursue in court what they cannot get legislatively.

bulgron
05-09-2009, 9:22 AM
I find it hard to find fault with their strategy from their point of view. It just leaves us Illinois citizens out in the cold for 5 or 10 or 20 years while they pursue in court what they cannot get legislatively.

The NRA is doing the best they can in those places where the political deck is stacked against them, so sometimes they have to adopt tactics that aren't going to please a lot of gun owners. I'm not surprised at all that they called you to explain the situation to you. The NRA is very much trying to keep those of us in the movement informed, when the lawyers and the strategists let them do it.

My entire experience with Illinois involves a 30 minute lay-over at Chicago International Airport, so I can't really hold an opinion on the NRA's activities in that state. Still, if it's anything like California (actually, it sounds worse), then relief through the courts seems likely to happen A LOT faster than relief through the legislature. But the NRA has the inside track on the strategies developing around the country, while most of the rest of us do not. I say trust them to do the right thing by Illinois, until and unless you have real, credible evidence that their strategy isn't going to work for Illinois.

In the meantime, keep an eye on what's going on here in California. If some of these cases makes it to SCOTUS, they're going to represent a red-hot poker for Chicago, New York, New Jersey, etc.

HunterJim
05-09-2009, 10:43 AM
The excellent is the enemy of the good. Works for laws and politics too.

jim

wildhawker
05-09-2009, 12:12 PM
The timing of Sykes leads me to believe that it will be the horse to ride into SCOTUS after the 7th rules and one of the incorporation cases is granted Cert.

That means that if things go our way with the McDonald case in Chicago, "The Right People (national chapter)" should file the case similar to Sykes in Illinois.

dwtt
05-09-2009, 6:33 PM
That article in the Examiner is misleading. It makes it sound like the NRA is working against gun rights.

If that bill passes in Illinois, it would end up hurting the effort to pass CCW laws. Remember Prop H in San Francisco that banned hand guns, all firearms sales, and ammunition sales? Remember how it was defeated because CA has a preemption law that says it's up to the state to regulate firearms, not the individual cities or counties? I'm not surprised the Examiner is misrepresenting things since Prop H failed in San Francisco because of preemption.
Fighting one battle at the state level is more effective in many cases than hundreds of small battles at the city level.

kermit315
05-09-2009, 7:06 PM
It is good that it got scuttled. Patchwork would do nothing but put people in a position to know the laws of the different cities more so than ISP would have to know them, just to stay legal.

I think a good, alternate course of action would be to use heller/nordyke to force a hearing in the circuit somehow. If they rule that RKBA isnt an individual right/doesnt incorporate, then we end up with circuit split and head back to the supremes. Once it is finalized, that will leave them with the problem of how people are going to bear those arms, much the same fight as is going on here. That is basically going to give them two options: LOC or a statewide CCW with firearms laws preemption.

Thats just the way this Illinois resident see's it.

tankerman
05-09-2009, 7:44 PM
Nice objective title.:rolleyes:

Easier to suggest sabotage, than to discuss the issue...:thumbsup:

The title reads like a tabloid magazine.

glbtrottr
05-09-2009, 8:27 PM
There is no scummier legislative body than that of the City of Chicago as a whole. It's difficult to understand unless you've lived in Chicago, or worst yet, been part of the "Machine" and know about the Chicago "Outfit". If there's an angle to make money for "Richard M. Daley, Mayor" as an organization, they find it, all under the color of improvements in the quality of life in the City.

Want a permit to get something done in the City? It's impossible, unless you pay "the vig" in whichever way possible. Aldermen are nothing more than glorified hoodlums looking for handouts from those who can afford to pay...discreetly.

You can't own a gun unless you pay for a "Firearms Owner ID Card" which will do nothing more than pay money to the State. Want to fly in Illinois? They charge for that too.

Daley shut down Meigs Field to "build a park" afoul of Federal regulators...and used FAA funds to do it. Why a park and a concert center? Well, to set the groundwork for a Casino between Soldier Field and Navy Pier, of course!

THe last thing the enforcement arm of the Mayor's office (The Chicago Police Department) is a bunch of armed citizens upholding their rights. No pistols allowed within City Limits (and a bunch of cities whose interests are tightly aligned with "Da Mare".

For an example of how Chicago Politics work, look no further than the recently indicted former Governor Blagojevich, who was nothing more than a small pawn in the Daley set - and a careless one at that. Obama was infinately more corrupt in his time there...

Enjoy the next 4 years - hopefully not the next 8. The only way to overcome the problem is by cleaning house, have the DOJ continue and expand their investigations, and hopefully a few SCOTUS rulings along the way.

Deadred7o7
05-09-2009, 11:11 PM
:hide: I didnt do it.

Sinixstar
05-09-2009, 11:24 PM
There is no scummier legislative body than that of the City of Chicago as a whole. It's difficult to understand unless you've lived in Chicago, or worst yet, been part of the "Machine" and know about the Chicago "Outfit". If there's an angle to make money for "Richard M. Daley, Mayor" as an organization, they find it, all under the color of improvements in the quality of life in the City.

Want a permit to get something done in the City? It's impossible, unless you pay "the vig" in whichever way possible. Aldermen are nothing more than glorified hoodlums looking for handouts from those who can afford to pay...discreetly.

You can't own a gun unless you pay for a "Firearms Owner ID Card" which will do nothing more than pay money to the State. Want to fly in Illinois? They charge for that too.

Daley shut down Meigs Field to "build a park" afoul of Federal regulators...and used FAA funds to do it. Why a park and a concert center? Well, to set the groundwork for a Casino between Soldier Field and Navy Pier, of course!

THe last thing the enforcement arm of the Mayor's office (The Chicago Police Department) is a bunch of armed citizens upholding their rights. No pistols allowed within City Limits (and a bunch of cities whose interests are tightly aligned with "Da Mare".

For an example of how Chicago Politics work, look no further than the recently indicted former Governor Blagojevich, who was nothing more than a small pawn in the Daley set - and a careless one at that. Obama was infinately more corrupt in his time there...

Enjoy the next 4 years - hopefully not the next 8. The only way to overcome the problem is by cleaning house, have the DOJ continue and expand their investigations, and hopefully a few SCOTUS rulings along the way.

Exactly.

Even the "home rule" thing was a ploy by the original Daly if i'm not mistaken. Was a way of getting around the state poking into his affairs and trying to tell him what he could or couldn't do. Was nothing more then a power grab.
It sounds great on paper - keep the state out of local city/town affairs - until you look at how it actually works. It's a recipe for mayors to set up individual little kingdoms, and nothing more.
A lot of people have slowly realized this over the years, and there is a bit of a backlash against it.

The problem is, you're not going to get state-wide preemption WITHOUT home-rule exemptions. It's just not going to happen. The Chicago machine has too much influence state-wide to let that happen without something in it for them. Figure out a way to make state-wide preemption profitable for Chicago, and they'll get behind it - until then, no way.

That's why I said a good back-door would be to pass it with the exemptions, and work grass-roots level to get as many areas as possible OFF of home rule. If you end up getting enough of 'em to abandon it - or if you can get it stricken down entirely for some reason, you have state-wide preemption by default. Can't happen unless you get your foot in the door though.
If you get the state-wide preemption, you could even challenge the constitutionality of the individual home-rule laws. Back door it through the courts to some extent. Normally I wouldn't suggest something so round-a-bout, but IL/Chicago is kind of a unique animal politically.

ilbob
05-10-2009, 8:52 AM
That's why I said a good back-door would be to pass it with the exemptions, and work grass-roots level to get as many areas as possible OFF of home rule. If you end up getting enough of 'em to abandon it - or if you can get it stricken down entirely for some reason, you have state-wide preemption by default.

It will be really hard to get municipalities or counties to give up home rule.

Chances are that most HR units would accept the LTC in any case.

It would be a mess though.