Chicago CCW law

[returningliberty]

AP's take on the new Chicago ccw law, needless to say, it isn't exactly glowing.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-prepares-concealed-carry-gun-law-193704212.html

 

[JLouv]

I read in another article that the gov was going to veto it. In that article, it didn't mention that the law had passed with enough votes to override a gov veto.

My question is that the Supreme Court ordered the state to have the new law in the books on July 9. If the gov vetoes this law, and for some reason the legislature can't get a law into the books.....who goes to jail?

 

[returningliberty]

I read in another article that the gov was going to veto it. In that article, it didn't mention that the law had passed with enough votes to override a gov veto.

My question is that the Supreme Court ordered the state to have the new law in the books on July 9. If the gov vetoes this law, and for some reason the legislature can't get a law into the books.....who goes to jail?

My response would be nobody, most likely. The court would issue another ruling saying they Really have to do it this time.

 

[JLouv]

Come on! Where's your faith in politicians & the legal system?

/sarcasm

 

[Fred_G]

That is funny. They are worried that gang members might get a carry permit...

 

[JLouv]

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/02/breaking-illinois-gov-quinn-uses-amendatory-veto-power-rewrites-concealed-carry-bill-video/


Well.....the gov didn't veto it. But he did edit it.

Basically he penciled in the word "not" in front of every major provision thus turning it into one of the most sweeping anti gun measures ever.

I really feel sorry for the "good" people stuck in IL.

So now it goes back to a vote in the state senate, where it shouldn't even come close to passing....thus missing the SCOTUS deadline of july9 for the new law.

It could be interesting to see what happens next. A state governor basically just told the SCOTUS to f-off.

 

[JNieman]

It's not a matter of anyone going to jail. It's a window of time to pass a law or the standing law is ruled unconstitutional and there is no law; erego constitutional carry. The federal courts are giving them time to set their own law, so as to respect a State and it's ability to govern itself without too-heavy an application of Supremacy by the Fed. So they're being nice.

The governor is using some sort of rarely used and traditionally stagnant power to veto-amend the bill or some ****. What it boiled down to was "may-issue" no pre-emption so that cities and counties can pass laws going further than the State law if they wish, and limiting carrying to one gun, one mag, and 10 rounds on any person.

The whole thing is set up in a way that violates rules SCOTUS has already ruled on before, so Illinois is just having to wait a bit before the legislature and governor's office fully Effs themselves in the A, and they get constitutional carry before the governor finally signs off on a 'reasonable' carry bill.

 

[returningliberty]

Wow... I hope the Supreme Court brings the hammer down on the government for the "signage" part of the amended bill. That's ridiculous.

 

[JNieman]

Wow... I hope the Supreme Court brings the hammer down on the government for the "signage" part of the amended bill. That's ridiculous.

Oh yea, I forgot about that. That was some horse ****.

 

[03protege]

"You are going to see a lot more gun fights and you are going to see people using guns as their first line of defense when they are confronted. To think guns are suddenly going to be the answer to violence in the city or the state, it's absurd," Pfleger said.

Of course there will be more gun fights, both sides have to have a gun for it to be a gun fight otherwise it is just the gun slaughter that they are currently experiencing.

Would relaxing gun laws really put more guns in the hands of criminals? Going by the Chicago body count I would say that the criminals doing the killing might already have all the guns they need.

 

[oleheat]

Why in the world would they want that? Aren't things going pretty smoothly up there now without inviting the possibility of gun violence?

 

[JLouv]

My favorite part of the governors reply is where he says that it needs to be understood that the absence of a "no guns allowed" or "firearms free" sign means that the property is by default a no carry zone.

 

[JLouv]

So late last night, the IL senate AND reps voted on and subsequently issued a very public F.U. To the governor of their crime laden liberal utopia.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/springfield-showdown-concealed-carry-quinn-214723811.html


Maybe one day it'll be safe to live there.....

<<There is a better than average chance this post contains sarcasm>>

 

[rrussotwo]

Yep, Illinois will be a constitutional carry state very soon.

 

[JNieman]

Yep, Illinois will be a constitutional carry state very soon.

Wut?

No it won't.

The bill the House and Senate just passed today is a shall-issue bill, and they avoided the most retarded amendments the governor tried to veto-amend to it.

 

[rrussotwo]

Wut?

No it won't.

The bill the House and Senate just passed today is a shall-issue bill, and they avoided the most retarded amendments the governor tried to veto-amend to it.

I was in meetings today. Damned work interfering with my news time.

Thanks for the update.

 

[Coonie]

Haven't seen the bill directly, but it boils down to the ISP issuing training permits to qualified instructors within 150 days and those instructors then need to teach 16 hr classes to the masses at a cost of $150.00 per. It's like being charged the right to vote or plead the 5th. In addition to the violent crime tax of $25.00 charged per firearm in Crook co.

Whos says freedom isn't free.

That's why LA is in my future, a CCW permit, hunting and fishing license, and looking for farmers who are gonna need some help with hog and nutria removal.