Illinois close to passing CC (video)

I doubt very much CCW will become law in Illinois. The chicago cabal led by Rahmbo Emanual will fight to the death to prevent it. He is counter attacking with a LONG list of anti-gun measures introduced by his lackeys in the General Assembly.
 
What IL and Chicago need to do is promote the person need for self defence to the black community. Black acceptance of the right to carry (V gun control) is on the increase according to the latest Pew poll, but you need to get it above the 33% it is at now.

There are millions of black folk in Chicago that are hard working law abiding citizens, they need to know that being able to defend themselves is to their advantage. If you manage that, you can break that Chicago blocade..polititians know whta they have to do to keep their job, no matter how anti-gun they are.
 
I agree and I have a feeling that we are close in Illinois.

Here is a link to a progressive (liberal) talk show, where the host and the guests talk about a number of issues, including changing attitudes in the African American community (typically responsible for electing staunch anti-gun politicians), they talk about a lot of different things - they start talking about gun control at around 11:16 in the piece.

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-69.php

A lot has changed since the issue was debated last, Wisconsin passed their CCW law, and Illinois has become the only state that doesn't allow some sort of carry. The fact that Illinois is the last state is a huge factor in making politicians think twice about current Illinois gun law.

Another thing that happened is that La Shawn Ford apparently changed his vote. He voted against HB 148 when it came up for a vote last time, but has been leaning toward voting for some kind of carry law this time around. La Shawn represents the west side of Chicago/Austin and part of Oak Park (normally very anti-gun).

It may be that his constituency in Chicago has changed their attitudes on having guns - I don't think Oak Park has although its possible.
 
Further research reveals I was mistaken on the votes needed to override the governors veto - Countzero is correct it is 3/5 majority of both houses. So, in theory if the votes stayed the same, the same majority needed to pass it in the first place would be enough to override a veto.

Efforts have and are being made by grassroots activists to reach out and educate the African American community and just the general population in the Chicago-land area. And there has been some progress.

A republican governor could be elected in Illinois - in the last election the current governor barely won by just 19,000 odd votes. Or a pro-gun democratic governor could also be elected.

So, there is more hope than I thought. I agree that the statement - "Illinois is the only state without legal concealed carry" helps persuade some legislators as do the CCW court cases brought by Gura/SAF and the NRA.

It is hard to hold the old - "blood in the streets" Brady line when every other state has some form of legal carry. And many believe they see the handwriting on the wall given the pending court cases.
 
A republican governor could be elected in Illinois - in the last election the current governor barely won by just 19,000 odd votes. Or a pro-gun democratic governor could also be elected.
Click to expand...

As a former IL resident, I can tell you that the 'R' or 'D' next to someone's name doesn't really mean much, what's more important is what part of the state the politician in question is from. Generally speaking, the closer to Chicago the politician's home is, the more anti-gun he or she is.

The last governor of IL that I could see supporting CC was probably Jim Edgar, a Republican from Charleston. The following governor, the now-incarcerated George Ryan, was a Kankakee Republican and rabidly anti-gun as are his successors the also-incarcerated Rod Blagojevich and current Gov. Pat Quinn who are both Chicago Democrats.
 
My rep has already voted yes for it once, so I don't have to bug him too much this time.
Click to expand...

Mine is a sponsor. Nyeh-nyeh! :D

As a former IL resident, I can tell you that the 'R' or 'D' next to someone's name doesn't really mean much, what's more important is what part of the state the politician in question is from. Generally speaking, the closer to Chicago the politician's home is, the more anti-gun he or she is.
Click to expand...

Yup. Chicago or "downstate" is the big divide.

The last governor of IL that I could see supporting CC was probably Jim Edgar,
Click to expand...

I think Edgar actually vetoed a carry bill.
 
Only need a 3/5 majority (60%) to make it veto-proof and over ride home rule exclusion.

There are 118 members of the General Assembly, so we need 71 votes (70.8 actually).

So 71 is the magic number
Click to expand...

C0untZer0, you missed my point. A so-called "veto-proof" majority isn't really veto-proof. If the billed passed with the required 60% of votes, it still has to go to the Governor who will then veto it. The legislature can then attempt to override that veto, but this is a much bigger move politically than the original vote. As such, it's almost guaranteed that there are some reps who would vote to pass the bill originally, but not to override a veto.
 
Brady the repub who lost the last election by just 19,000 votes was verbally on record as supporting CCW legislation. Yes - R or D after the name does not mean as much in Illinois as Chicago area or downstate. Ryan the last republican governor was supported by the Chicago machine and was anti-gun and anti-ccw, whilst his opponent the democrat Poshard was generally pro-gun rights though I don't recall if he was pro-ccw. That lead to actual bumper stickers in that election that said "Democrats for Ryan" and "Republicans for Poshard."
There are good republicans that are electable such as Rutherford - who are pro-ccw and there are downstate democrats who are pro-ccw who could mount campaigns. That and given Brady's recent near election as governor - I find it well within the realm of possibility that a pro-ccw governor could be elected.

I also agree that an initial vote of a 3/5 majority in both houses is not the same as getting a 3/5 majority for a veto override. As we saw in Wisconsin previously under Doyle? - when all the chips ade on the table a vote can be bought or changed many times when the prsssure is on.

The current top dogs in Illinois when it comes to who runs the state are - Madigan first - the mayor second - and the governor third. The ruling party is at risk of fracture from the threes power struggles.

But I am more hopeful that a shall issue CCW law may be passed in Illinois fhan I have been in the last 20 yrs - dus to the hard work of grass roots activists in the gun rights community and due to the favorable court decisions or should I say landmark court decisions in recent years. If it does eventually happen - I have put my small shoulder to the wheel - but I will have a lot of people to thank. In the meantime the work goes on.
 
It would be amusing if Illinois were to have a pro-gun governor named Brady sign a bill allowing carry.

I don't care what party he is from, that would be funny.
 
C0untZer0, you missed my point. A so-called "veto-proof" majority isn't really veto-proof. If the billed passed with the required 60% of votes, it still has to go to the Governor who will then veto it. The legislature can then attempt to override that veto, but this is a much bigger move politically than the original vote. As such, it's almost guaranteed that there are some reps who would vote to pass the bill originally, but not to override a veto.
Click to expand...

Scimmia you're right, the bill would have to come back for another vote and there are two factors:

1) It gives antis time to work on getting back a few no votes. It doesn't take much, as has been said - some targeted spending in a legislator's district, some jobs.

2) Voting for something and voting to overturn a veto by a governor who is a member of your own party are two different things.

I think Phelps might have been a little optimistic as far as the timeline though. Last year they created the Firearm Public Awareness Task Force, to look into RTC in Illinois:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2811045/posts

Even if they do have the votes lined up, they haven't gotten the report back from that committee. The task force might complete it's report by next week, but I don't see the House voting on the report immediately upon recieving it.

So I don't think it's going to happen as soon as the news report indicates, but it's still an exciting story.
 
Hang in there. Even failure is success. In OH, it failed sevveral times, but we got more buy in with each attempt. Then the right political environment came along and it went through.

Ours got watered down to the point we were afraid to carry almost. Now much of that has gone by the wayside, signs are coming down, etc.

Now we need a push to make all the CCW mistakes misdemeanors instead of felonies like they are now.
 
While I'm not going to hold my breath, it would just be the bee's knees if IL not only made CC legal, but also entered into a reciprocity agreement with their neighbors to the east (I still have quite a bit of family in IL that I visit fairly regularly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top