5 days until court carry (article release: 3 days till)
In December of 2012, the 7th circuit ruled that Illinois' (Chicago's) ban on conceal carry was unconstitutional. The court gave the general assembly 180 days to implement a new law or face erasure of the unlawful use of a weapons clause.
If they erase more than that clause, so long as I don't get caught by the feds,
Chicago, from the beginning has not cooperated. They are anti-gun, pro-confiscation and anti-carry. The idea inside Chicago is to become the next nanny state- to force the people to rely on them for everything- food, jobs and police protection. It is the ultimate game of control. So long as Chicagoans like the free handouts, they are willing to sacrifice their Constitutional rights, and the rights of their fellow citizens- to do so.
Chicago attempted to ban guns in January 2013 in defiance. We have crushed their cajones hard enough to bring them to shall issue conceal carry with preemption for handguns and handgun accessories/magazines. The general assembly played games for approximately six months until the very end of the legislative session. It was then that a shall issue bill morphed from NRA drafted language with input from the ISRA and other gun rights advocates.
The turning point was when Cassidy's may-issue, de facto no-issue carry bill was defeated in the house with only 27% of the vote. The ruler of Illinois, Michael Madigan turned a complete 180 and threw his weight behind the pro-gun movement, with some exceptions. His move was strategic- he does not care about guns or gun owners, but does care about his daughter's chances of becoming the next governor.
A bill was drafted and passed the house with an overwhelming majority. It was stonewalled in the Senate, where a parallel bill was copy/pasted without the major gun control revocations. That bill passed the senate with overwhelming support (78%) and to save time, a parallel bill passed the house with overwhelming support. If two bills in two chambers are identical and they pass in that way, they merge and head to the governor's desk for signature.
The court deadline is June 9th, 2013 and Patrick Quinn has not yet signed the bill. Quinn has until July 30, 2013 to take action on the bill before it becomes law. Lisa Madigan, the attorney general (and daughter of Michael Madigan) has until June 24th to appeal to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Shepard v. Madigan. Quinn has not expressed any sincere comments about the legislation.
It is possible Quinn could play games with Madigan. He could allow court carry to happen and wait for Madigan to appeal to the Supreme Court. He could then sign the bill into office, mooting her entire case and pissing off the entire US Supreme Court. Another scenario is that since Quinn does not like carry period, and he does not like anything out of complete home rule control, he would refuse the bill, or not sign it- so that all home rule entities in Illinois can enact a patchwork of legal/illegal rules regarding the 2nd amendment and conceal carry. A third argument is that he just signs the bill and gets all of this over with within the next 5 days. A fourth argument is that he veto's the bill, but
evidence is clear that from the past votes, he will be overidden and the law will come into effect.
Lisa Madigan and Patrick Quinn will be at each other's throats to be elected governor in 2014- and with help from Michael Madigan, her father, this is all political gamesmanship to get himself, and his daughter- into the governor's mansion- where he can further affect Illinois policy through his daughter. The problem is that the majority of citizens in Illinois do not care what they do or they see no problem with the corruption. Thus, they have no right to
There are four main arguments to what Quinn will do. Let's re-list them and predict the chances of each.
1) Quinn plays games and signs the bill AFTER Madigan appeals to the Supreme Court.
2) Quinn does not sign the bill until July 30th, giving home rule units time to enact more gun control.
3) Quinn signs the bill and gets this mess put behind him.
4) Quinn vetoes the bill.
When understanding Illinois politics, we are diving into the minds of corrupt politicians who have no intentions of serving the people. Thus, we must think like them under the context of "what benefits me most" and "which option allows me to survive the longest/best chance". Notice that politicians aren't thinking about what's right or wrong. They are trying to save their own butts. That is all. Do not expect anything more out of Illinois' political leaders.
1) Quinn is the lone man standing now as Rahm has begrudgindly thrown his support behind the carry bill to save face. Chicago's opinion of gun owners is that they are disgusting and corrupt if they attempt to stop the state from enacting unconstitutional laws ( blog source on Plamotaku). Likewise, it is widely known that Gary McCarthy, the police superintendent said that the 2nd amendment only allows for citizens to own muskets.
This is contrary to what has been interpreted, AND if it were true, the internet is subject to censorship and immediate shutdown by the government, and is not protected by free speech. Chicago does not care about you as a gun owner. They have stated that gun ownership is a menace to society and is extremely dangerous. They have cultivated a generation of people to believe this garbage since the early 1990s nationwide, and in Chicago through the 70s and 80s.
The only reason Quinn would try to do this to Madigan is to make her look bad. However, with Madigan (Mike) having so much power, and Cullerton throwing his weight behind this bill, they can all point fingers and blame the governor.
Lisa would then have a tough decision- take the case to SCOTUS or wait it out until July 30th when/if Quinn delays and takes the route of inaction. If she takes Shepard v. Madigan to SCOTUS, and they accept, she will lose. Chicago's argument for the gun ban was that "it is a good moral cause". This did not meet the sniff test of the 7th circuit. Quinn could use that delay until July 30th to put pressure on Madigan and bring her down with him.
2) Quinn delays signing the bill until July 30th to give home rule units time to enact and pass gun control. This would allow home rule units to get in any kind of ban/confiscation bill they want, then Quinn passes the law, which grandfathers in any existing gun control ordinances not dealing with handguns.
3) Quinn signs the bill grudgingly and puts the mess behind him.
4) Quinn vetoes the bill. There is an almost certain chance that if he does this, he will be overidden by both chambers.
So... which option provides the best chance for survival and re-election. What do you think? I think option #3 gives him the most coverage and best chances for re-election. Hell he could be reading this- I know Kwame Raoul has
taken an idea of ours regarding calling in FOID card #s when we were speculating. If he chooses #1, he is going to get pounced. If he chooses #2, he will get pounced, but they can enact an entire host of laws to get more gun control in Illinois. #4 is bad for him also because he is the last man standing. They will override him, and already the general assembly (and the public) do not like Quinn. For re-election, his best option is #3, then #2, #4, then #1.
I firmly believe that he will sign the bill before the deadline. But this is Chicago politics... when you elect crazy, power hungry , corrupt politicians into power- they will do whatever they feel like doing, and break/create whatever rules they want to. To them, this isn't a Constitutional republic- and the Constitution to them is a piece of toilet paper. It's so infuriating and disgusting that I have to leave the state because I can't stand the rancor stench.