Illinois lawmakers approve CCW bill

[GaryV]

We won't see the effects of this (assuming it's all ironed out) until next year. The antis are so afraid of this for a big reason: Illinois is the crack in the dam to all the blue states with may-issue schemes. If a big, urban, densely-populated city like Chicago sees the benefits of shall-issue concealed carry, that changes the whole paradigm for making arguments against the current laws in NY and California. That's what this boils down to.

It probably won't make a difference there though. Most of the crime in Chicago is committed against poor people in poor neighborhoods. The training requirements, the cost, and especially the list of prohibited places all work to make it as difficult for such people to get a license or to use it effectively if they do. So while rich and middle-class people will be safer, those who make up 95% of the crime victims will still be left unarmed, and crime will continue to saturate those areas.

[Hoooper]

will take several years before the effects can really be measured. It will take some time for the number of permit holders to grow and also will take some time for the crime rate to reflect this change. Its not like criminals are going to wake up the day all the new permits are valid and give up their lifestyle. The new consequences for their actions will have to actually happen to some for them to take any notice. Id give it 3-5 years before considering any changes in crime to be related.

[Dr.Lou]

I thought Arkansas was going unrestricted in July.

[non sequitur]

[press1280]

She wants this extension not to file for cert but to give the municipalities more time to craft new laws, and to generally just stall this as long as possible. I also hope the 7th tells her to take a hike. They get serious about this 10 days before the end session, and now they want more time.
Unfortunately I wouldn't be shocked if she gets the extension.

EDIT: Illinois just got the 30 day extension. Justice delayed is justice denied, however, this doesn't apply to the government apparently.

[randian]

EDIT: Illinois just got the 30 day extension. Justice delayed is justice denied, however, this doesn't apply to the government apparently.

Government requests of this sort do seem to get rubber-stamped all too often, don't they? Certainly more than non-government requests do.

Unless you believe the legislature passed this bill without bothering to inform or consult with the governor as to its contents, something I do not believe, it's pretty obvious he doesn't really need an extension to go over it. He should already know what's in it. I think the real purpose is to screw over any appeals that may have been waiting to see what Madigan did. Now they must be done without the benefit of that knowledge.

[Paladin]

EDIT: Illinois just got the 30 day extension. Justice delayed is justice denied, however, this doesn't apply to the government apparently.

Okay, so now the governor has until July 9th to sign/veto/amend veto.

IIRC, the AG used the June 9th date as the reason she needed a 30 day extension for deciding re. asking for cert. since she wanted to see what the state would do. SCOTUS gave her one until June 24th.

Will she now be able to ask for and get another 30 day extension re. asking for cert. in case Quinn does not act before June 24th?

[kcbrown]

No not really, what it does is send a message to CA lawmakers and judges that the bar set for CA is not up to snuff. This could help both Richards and Peruta sitting with the ninth for some nudging on what they should or should not rule on.

No, it doesn't.

The bar in IL is being defined by the 7th Circuit.

We don't have the 7th Circuit here. We have the 9th Circuit. It is almost certainly going to rule against any right to keep and bear arms in public.

[kimber_ss]

Stall, delay and any other devious intentioned tactic...

"Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals seeking a 30-day delay of a mandate for the state to enact a concealed gun carry law. In a statement Monday, Madigan says she filed the motion in order to give Gov. Pat Quinn time to review the legislation passed last week."

[Knomad]

I'm a former Illinois resident and still work there often, so I've been watching this with interest. I will be there next week on business and will make it a point to check in with a couple of knowledgeable friends and see what their take is.

It's a step in the right direction. With reciprocity I can already carry in most of the surrounding states but since I base out of Chicago when I'm in the Midwest there has been no point. So in the long run this may fill a hole for me.

I'm a little baffled by the prohibition on carrying on mass transit or in parks, all that means is that 1) if I later get a non-resident license I would need to drive downtown for meetings and add to the already excessive gridlock, and 2) any criminal with half a brain will limit muggings to prohibited places.

[gr8dragon88]

cbs reported chicago has gone after gangs, and on track to bring down guns related deaths to 1964 level:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57587923/how-did-chicago-cut-gun-violence-after-deadly-year/

what a shocker!!!

[Rail]

Okay, so now the governor has until July 9th to sign/veto/amend veto.

IIRC, the AG used the June 9th date as the reason she needed a 30 day extension for deciding re. asking for cert. since she wanted to see what the state would do. SCOTUS gave her one until June 24th.

Will she now be able to ask for and get another 30 day extension re. asking for cert. in case Quinn does not act before June 24th?

She's not getting another extension.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/20546596-418/court-oks-30-day-extension-for-quinn-to-review-concealed-carry-legislation.html

This is most likely a play to get more home rule units to pass AWBs. They won't be able to do so 10 days after the bill becomes law. I won't be shocked if he signs it, but I also think that the extension increases the odds of an amendatory veto, meaning he'll send it back to the legislature with strings attached hoping they'll agree to the changes with a simple majority. We'd most likely override for the original bill by 3/5ths. Compromising further would jeopardize the whole bill and we'd most likely go over the cliff, meaning the issue would be taken to SCOTUS. The antis don't want that because given the efforts of the state legislature to pass a bill that had overwhelming majorities, rejecting it now for the courts to decide would NOT look good to some of the justices who MIGHT be on the fence on this issue (Roberts, Kennedy, and maybe Kagan).

[Rail]

More news.

http://www.illinoisobserver.net/2013/06/06/extra-special-session-on-illinois-pension-reform-could-include-guns-gays/

The legislature is coming back into special session on the 19th. If he vetoes, they will override.

[randian]

This is most likely a play to get more home rule units to pass AWBs. They won't be able to do so 10 days after the bill becomes law.

If they don't already have AWBs why would they pass one now?

I won't be shocked if he signs it, but I also think that the extension increases the odds of an amendatory veto, meaning he'll send it back to the legislature with strings attached hoping they'll agree to the changes with a simple majority.

How about going for a severe weakening of the bill? Do an amendatory veto stripping the home-rule override and making CHLs may-issue like CA. A straight veto risks the legislature balking and allowing the entire bill to expire, putting the issue back to the courts.

rejecting it now for the courts to decide would NOT look good to some of the justices who MIGHT be on the fence on this issue (Roberts, Kennedy, and maybe Kagan).

Kagan? She's a terribly doctrinaire progressive, why would you think she's anywhere near the fence?

[Paladin]

More news.

http://www.illinoisobserver.net/2013/06/06/extra-special-session-on-illinois-pension-reform-could-include-guns-gays/

The legislature is coming back into special session on the 19th. If he vetoes, they will override.

Additionally, the Democratic source said that a Quinn veto of the concealed carry legislation is expected within the next week to 10 days, forcing House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) and Cullerton to call their own special sessions either concurrent with Quinn’s or on a separate date to override such a veto, given that a federal court says Illinois must have a law in place by July 9.