Gov. Pat Quinn courtesy watchdog.org

Illinois governor Pat Quinn has used his power to veto specific sections of the concealed carry bill (passed with bipartisan support in the legislature) and further restrict the ability Illinoisans to defend themselves outside of their homes. Make the jump for the list of changes . . .

  • Requires a person carrying a gun to have it completely concealed, rather than mostly.
  • Limits a person to carrying one magazine that is capable of holding 10 or fewer bullets.
  • Prohibits carrying in any establishment where alcohol is consumed, except for a private residence or private club. The original bill prohibited carrying in establishments where alcohol sales account for more than 50 percent of receipts.
  • Inverts the presumption of where a person can carry. Licensees can carry only in locations where the property owner has posted a sign indicating it’s OK to carry a gun on the property. Previously, the bill said property owners had to post signs if they wanted to prohibit carrying guns on their property.
  • Allows employers to prohibit guns on their properties, even inside vehicles on parking lots. Previously, the bill’s “safe harbor” provision allowed an employee to keep his or her firearm in the car while parked in the lot, even if the employer prohibited firearms on the property.
  • Requires a licensee to lock the gun in a case before exiting the vehicle when parked outside a location that prohibits guns. Previously, the bill allowed a licensee to carry an unloaded gun in the immediate area surrounding the car in order to store it or retrieve it from the trunk.
  • Completely removes the preemption against bans on so-called assault weapons, thereby restoring the authority of municipalities to enact bans on such weapons.

[via BND.com]

From the press release that the governor’s office put out, it looks like while Pat Quinn has stripped out the provisions of the bill that would have made state law supersede local legislation for “assault weapons,” the language still exists to eliminate Chicago’s ability to regulate the ownership and carrying of handguns. In short, even with help from Rahm’s buddy in the Governor’s office, they’re still having concealed carry forced down their throats.

Quinn’s words:

HB183 strips the authority of home-rule governments to enact future laws on assault weapons to protect their local communities. This NRA-inspired provision is not in the interest of public safety or local communities. In fact, these provisions have nothing to do with the right to carry a concealed gun and have no place in this bill. Local governments should always have the right to strengthen their own ordinances to protect the public safety of their communities.

His changes also, by default, make it ILLEGAL to carry a gun into a store UNLESS you are specifically permitted by a sign in the window. From the press release:

Under the bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children’s entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As a matter of property rights, the legal presumption should always be that a person is not allowed to carry a concealed, loaded gun onto private property unless given express permission.

In short, this sucks. But there’s still time for the Illinois legislature to overturn the veto, something that people are predicting will happen. Some see this as nothing more than Quinn polishing his pro gun control bona fides in preparation for his next election, knowing full well that the veto override will absolve him of all responsibility.

For more information:

132 Responses to BREAKING: Illinois Governor Guts Concealed Carry Bill

    • That was my reaction as well. Decent residents of Illinois should salt the fields on their way out.

    • Stop stealing my line!

      I’d like to hear from all the people who urged support for this bill with the lines “It’s not the bill we want, but it’s the bill we can get” and “If we don’t pass this, what we’ll get will be worse.” How do you feel about it now?

      This part is just effing ridiculous:

      Inverts the presumption of where a person can carry. Licensees can carry only in locations where the property owner has posted a sign indicating it’s OK to carry a gun on the property. Previously, the bill said property owners had to post signs if they wanted to prohibit carrying guns on their property.

      This means that properties whose owners have no particular opinion or are too apathetic to have a sign made are by default off limits to carry. Ridiculous.

      • Will not survive court challenge. More time wasted. How can the executive wholly rewrite legislation and then sign it?

      • As one of those people, I can honestly say, “meh.” What Quinn just did is pointless. Emperor Mike Madigan has spoken, and Quinn’s amendatory veto will just be overriden on Monday. If that does not happen, then I will begin preparing for my departure to Indiana. (I was going to do that anyways, but this would expedite the process.)

      • And how many business in the “OK with carry” camp will actually post a sign that says “concealed guns welcome” next to the door to their business? Maybe gun stores, but that’s about it. Even a pro 2-A business owner may reasonably be wary of freaking out the sheeple.

      • Second amendment rights, and property rights go hand in hand, in my opinion. While one private property, one must abide by the rules set by the owner. If you disagree with that, it (as far as I am concerned

        • and if one business says: Blacks no welcome, it is still property rights issue?

          Gun rights ARE Civil Rights too

      • Second amendment rights, and property rights go hand in hand, in my opinion. While one private property, one must abide by the rules set by the owner. If you disagree with that, it (as far as I am concerned) invalidates any claim of seconD-ammendment rights.

        • The SCOTUS has ruled the same way. If a property owner does not want guns on his property, then his property rights override your 2nd Amendment rights.

        • Then property owners post signs banning guns to that effect, like the other states do.

  1. At what point does the law actually matter, and when do the people take notice?
    I can’t help but keep thinking of a downward spiral that this country is slowly starting to slip into..not on gun control..but on what happens when individuals continue to ignore the Constitution, the people, and continue to push at division..I really think we are headed for some serious shit if they continue to act against the people. I hope that elections can clear this up.

    • At a local level I have some faith in people still but nationally they are all beholden to someone to get where they are so it’s over as far as getting enough people to actually understand what our rights are and then protect them.

    • I agree but the people need to start looking at other parties than Republican and Democrat. Politicialy active citizens may be aware of the Libertarian party but the majority of our population? Im not sure it is enough to make a difference.

      • The problem is the “other” parties like the Libertarian party is that it scares people. Hell, Bloomberg considers himself a Independent currently, would you vote for him because he’s a different party? They typically would do away or change alot of those social safety net programs that people are overly fond of. You know how people like stuff others pay for. Not that I disagree with that premise, stealing for redistribution to others is wrong no matter what. I would love to end social security now and keep the money I make and invest it. Overall strict constitutional guys like Ron Paul who scare the hell out of the current parties would probably never make it. Look how little air time he was given when he started campaigning. I voted for Gary Johnson in the most recent election, I think he got like 1,00,000 votes total, which was record breaking for the libertarian party, but a drop in the bucket. Of course you also have guys like Jesse Ventura which alot of people think is an absolute quack. Or how bout Ralph Nader, there’s one of those guys who likes to pick and choose what part of the constitution he supports. No people are pretty much gonna stay with their current affiliation because their comfortable.

        • Good point Derrick but I think it all boils down to the responsability of researching candidates. Personally, I dont think a lot of people do that.

        • As long as the “Libertarian Paty” consists substantially of potheads there will not be a “REAL” party. We do NOT want a UK/Erup style multi party nation.

      • Well, I hate to crash somebody else’s party…no pun intended, but there is absolutely zero chance that a third party can emerge from the mess we’ve built. You have to understand, who makes the rules for political party activities? Hmm, if you guessed Republicans and Democrats, you win the prize.

        The way the system runs now, there is no incentive for either party to budge from their position. Remember the Reform Party? And how quickly it has mostly petered out? The reason it even got any long term acknowledgement was because crazy man, Ross Perot, managed to garner the required percentage of votes for Presidential matching funds. By doing as well as he did, he opened some doors…but, because the Reform Party did not have a candidate that achieved the same level of success in the next Presidential election, they were no longer eligible for matching funds and the other ‘nice things.’ Only Perot was eligible the following election because he ran as an ‘independent’ the first time around. That was later amended somewhat, but the point remains the same.

        A third party, to be successful, has to have a significant impact for years, perhaps decades, to even begin to change the two party system…I don’t believe it’s even possible at this point. You have taken note how the old guard GOP looks at the Tea Party these days, right?

      • And what would that “other” party look like and do? Where would it’s power come from?
        If you don’t have a presence in Congress, a number of state houses, governorships, or even mayoral seats what good would a third party president do?
        Both parties would ransack the treasury, pass laws benefiting themselves and supporters, and come together only to thwart the president’s agenda.
        In short, nothing would change

    • Madigan. No question in my mind. Quinn doesn’t have machine support. He was a sort of activist they thought they could safely kick to the side as lieutenant governor. Then Blago self destructed.

  2. “… Licensees can carry only in locations where the property owner has posted a sign indicating it’s OK to carry a gun on the property…”

    This sucks. I can see businesses posting gun buster signs but how many will go out of there way to post guns welcome signs? That is also ignoring the fact that how many busineses will be aware of this?

  3. “If it does, that would mean that”

    What would it mean!?!

    Anyway, full text of the amendatory veto here: http://capitolfax.com/HB_183_Amendatory_Veto_Message.pdf

    You covered most of it — what’s missing are the changes to mental health reporting, an “immediate” duty to inform, and changing the definition of concealed from “mostly concealed” to “fully concealed” so they can nail people for ‘printing.’

  4. Cute, very cute. This means carrying anywhere is prohibited unless specifically allowed by the authority/property owner. So you get to carry I your home and while in your car–after that you have to lock it up, because all locations prohibit firearms unless they allow them.
    I smell veto override. That one provision alone is enough to kill the changes, because the changes kill the law. This will NOT play in southern Illinois.

    • He knows he is going to get overridden. He’s doing all of this in an effort to shore up his governor’s race next year against Madigan. He’s betting that the people of IL hate firearms and don’t want CCW. At this point, I expect Madigan to wait until the veto gets overridden, and then she won’t appeal to the Supreme court in order to win the Governor’s mansion with the 2A votes. My money is on Madigan at this point.

      • The presumption of no carry unless allowed will surely trigger an override. And it will doom his re-election. But it better be quick, because Madigan does not want to file for cert.

  5. I don’t live in Illinois, but this is why I give to gun rights groups..so they can continue to fight this crap.

    • When the moratorium on enforcing Illinois’ state ban on concealed carry goes into effect, any laws that home-rule (over a certain population) municipalities have will be where the buck stops. Some will say no way, ever; (Chicago) some will say sure, why not? (most of southern Illinois). Others (average suburb of Chicago) will be a hodgepodge. The places too small to have home rule won’t be allowed to have any say (constitutional carry).
      It’s just a mess.

  6. As a die-hard gun guy and advocate for property rights in general, I believe this aspect of the line-item veto was a good thing: “Allows employers to prohibit guns on their properties, even inside vehicles on parking lots. Previously, the bill’s ‘safe harbor’ provision allowed an employee to keep his or her firearm in the car while parked in the lot, even if the employer prohibited firearms on the property. ”

    I have guns at my house so that if people come onto my property with guns without my permission, I can defend myself. I should be able to set whatever conditions for entry I want for my own property, whether it is residential or commercial. This idea that the government should force private property owners to allow others onto their property even though they don’t want them there is ridiculous. Knowingly failing to comply with a condition for entry and entering anyway is called “trespassing.”

    • the proposed statute allowed private businesses to ban weapons already. It just had proscribed automatic prohibited places. Moreover, I doubt you search people’s vehicles when they come to visit you. So yes, you can tell me I cannot carry in your home. But I don’t see how you tell me I cannot have a gun in my car (of if it is any of your business) unless you somehow believe you have a right to search my vehicle, which defeats your private property/rights argument. Just like I may have a Bible in my car. . . Do you really think you can tell me I cannot have it if you are an atheist?

      • Yes, I should be able to set any conditions on entry to my property that I like. And yes, some of these would be difficult to enforce, especially silly ones. Just because something is difficult or impossible to enforce doesn’t mean that it can’t be just and correct. An atheist property owner should be able to say “no Bibles allowed on my property.” It would be a stupid rule, of course, and a fool and his money are soon parted. (I’m a born-again Christian, fwiw.)

        And no, asserting that I have the right to set as a condition of entry that I may search your vehicle does not abrogate your property rights. The freedom to set such a condition should be within the ambit of a real property owner. Of course, I do not think that it is very likely that many property owners seeking to attract business invitees will create such a condition of entry.

    • My car is my property, not yours. If you let my car into your property, you get no say in what’s in how I exercise my property rights.

      • If you want to bring your property onto my property, you should comply with the conditions I set for entering my property.

    • Then the company should provide armed security in their parking lots if they are not willing to provide a safe haven. It’s not the same situation as going over to a friend’s house who doesn’t like firearms. You have to work to earn money and should not be forced to disarm to do so.

      • If they provide armed security, fine. If they don’t, maybe you should evaluate whether or not it is safe for you to work there. If you choose to work their anyway, I would say that you are assuming that risk voluntarily and the employer shouldn’t owe you anything.

        Get a job the conditions of which better suit your needs then. You don’t have a “right” to force an employer to pay you even if you won’t abide by his instructions. If you don’t like the terms of your employment, quit. If you like getting paid more than you like carrying a gun to work in your car, you should (a) abide by the perfectly legitimate rules set by the person who owns that piece of earth, and possibly (depending on your level of conviction and your specific facts) (b) try to persuade the boss man that his policy is foolish.

        Saying that people have the right to come onto my property with guns and then collect a paycheck despite failing to comply with the rules I set is commie bullshit.

        • Pro-L
          I too am a libertarian and I can and should be able to set my conditions for that which is mine.
          We have the government involved in this situation prescribing how you communicate your preferences and conditions for entry to your property for you. What if you don’t care that I bring a gun on your property, who rights are being violated if my hip bulge is seen entering your establishment but no sign to be seen. I thought our interaction is voluntary and consensual but a third party (LE, GOV) is now allowed to arrest me for breaking the law and intervening in our consensual relationship. Should it not be up to you on the method of communicating your conditions?

      • So someone’s property rights do not extend to their real estate?

        If you don’t like the rules, park somewhere else. You can move your car. Your employer can’t move his real estate.

        • Except a lot of places don’t have parking except on site. Try parking off property when working at a steel mill or a factory. An employer has no more right to search my car than the government does.

        • The real-estate owner can choose whether or not to let a car onto his property.

          I may disapprove of dirty magazines, and I may prohibit someone from bringing them into my house, but I would not have the right to forbid him from having them in his car, which is his own property, which I’ve consented to allow onto my property. If I knew he had them and felt strongly enough about the issue, I could refuse him permission to drive onto my property.

        • Thankfully, I have the option to live in a state that feels the same way that I do when it comes to the contents of my vehicle and who’s business it isn’t.

        • I feel the parking lot safe haven is a necessity, and my state has that clause in place. I don’t think employers should be able to dictate how you live your life outside your job. If they don’t want firearms in their facilities fine, but you should be able to keep them in your car, otherwise they’re impacting your personal life to a great degree, especially considering most of the places I’ve seen with private parking need private parking for a reason, the very same reason you might want a firearm in the car. Could someone get their firearm out of their car and go crazy? Sure, but that’s no different than simply bringing it straight from home or disobeying the rules entirely. It just gives the employer too much power in my opinion to dictate how you live your life unless done for a concrete logical business reason (such as medical facilities refusing to hire personnel that smoke).

        • The issue of property rights is complex. I am libertarian, however I disagree w/the original poster on this. I think a private business should not be able to prohibit this.

          It’s like saying “do you have the property right to prevent an ambulance from coming onto your property if your friend is having a heart attack”. Most people would argue no. The ability for someone to, well, live, over-rides your property rights in that case. Deal with it. 🙂

          If I want to start a coffee shop and hire only hot scantly clad asian women and hot scantly clad sinewy black males, and exclude everyone else, should I have the right to do that? To keep certain races off my property or not hire them? Most people, even most libertarians, would likely argue no. I would argue that the concealed carry issue is an even more fundamental and important issue than this.

          Property rights aren’t more important, automatically, than other rights. They do not trump your right to, well, live and be safe and secure about your person.

          Some libertarians (and like I said, I am one) think that property rights trump all other rights. They often forget that someone’s body is their most fundamental property, and a person has a fundamental right to be able to protect that property. Being in someone else’s store or business does not change that.

      • Pro-Liberty wrote, “This idea that the government should force private property owners to allow others onto their property even though they don’t want them there is ridiculous.”

        In general I agree. There are conditions, however, where property rights take a back seat in a civil society. If an invited guest is having a heart attack and calls an ambulance, does the private property owner have the “right” to refuse to let the ambulance onto his/her property to save the life of the dying guest?

        Another example. A surveyor is working to establish survey markers and property boundaries. Can a private property owner refuse to allow the surveyor access for those purposes?

        The obvious answer is “no” in both cases. Why? In the first case our right to life takes precedence over property rights. In the second case legal and civil society must be able to establish property boundaries and that takes priority over property rights.

        Just as we cannot morally or legally use our free speech rights to slander (harm) another person, we cannot use our property rights to harm another person.

        • That’s true, and for business owners there are even more caveats. For instance, as a business owner, I can not force certain people to use a different entrance or water fountain based on their race, ethnic heritage, gender, etc. Property rights, like all other rights, are not absolute.

    • While I generally want to agree with you on the prohibition I have mixed feelings on the issue. If I am a permit holder and am not allowed to secure my firearm in my vehicle in the lot this opens up a potential lawsuit if something were to happen to me either in route to or from work.

      • No, I don’t think it should open up the possibility of a lawsuit for the harm resulting from acts of third parties (NB: I am saying I don’t think it _should_, not that it wouldn’t).

        If you know this is a condition of your employment, and you take the job or continue in the job anyway, I think you should be seen as assuming this risk. Now, if the boss is paying enough to compensate you for this risk, great. If not, quit..

        • I have to disagree. If I can make sacrifices in order to work for a company, they can just as easily make sacrifices in order to do business in a free state.

        • so then you don’t think that OSHA has the right to set rules for working conditions and if your employer can’t provide minimal working standards, we should shut up and take it or quit? Upton Sinclair would be proud . . .

        • The notion of banning guns in the workplace is quite standard. Since almost every US state is a “fire at will” state, you can also enforce your rule as an employment condition. If your employees are represented by a strong union, you will face more constraints. Banning guns in the workplace (or…former workplace) hasn’t apparently worked out so well for the Post Office, based on anecdotal evidence. I suppose they try, though.

          “Property Rights” has particular meanings, not one general meaning. The Rights are a package of traditional rights which vary from place to place. They are no where absolute. Even in Common Law you are “the king of your castle,” controller of your house, but that did not extend to your acreage, fields and forest.

          Banning the storage of a firearm within a car parked in a lot open to the public, without some special justification, seems unreasonable to me. I am certain it is impossible to enforce except incidentally and with an uneven hand.

    • Pro-L There is no dictate, but an assumption. There is a list of items in my pocket as I approach your door. What should I assume you don’t want in your house? The list may be inclusionary or exclusionary. Should I show you what is in my pocket or give you the list to check through or would it be more conveniant if there is only guns that you object to to anounce that fact with a sign or verbal message. Yes, guns are a very special item but if our society assumes self protection is a given then the burden to exclude guns is not great. Gov Quinn wants a property owner with no preference to
      have to draw attention to himself. Does this imply the OK sign is manditory, or can an owner verblally say or have it “known” that he is OK with guns. A complaint would still have to be made by the owner, correct.
      Will the store owner be charged with a violation if he allows carry with no sign?
      See how stupid crazy this all gets

    • Hilarious. Most of you Randians would not last half an hour if you ever achieved your libertarian “paradise.”

  7. So a bill that was palatable at best is now a downright stinker…saw this one coming though.

    Can someone who knows more about this stuff than me explain: is this it? Are the people of Chicago stuck with this until another legal challenge goes through, or does the “amended” bill go back to be approved by the State Congress?

    • As if the congress wouldnt approve this. The beauty (looking at it from their perspective) is it doesnt realy ban carry.

    • From my quick read, I think the author of the bill (not the speaker of the assembly) can call for either a vote to concur, or a vote to override. A vote to concur would need a simple majority, and the Governor sock puppet’s changes become law. I don’t think the bill’s authors would push for that. They will call for a vote to override, which requires a 2/3 majority. I don’t hear any firm predictions as to whether or not that would happen (I certainly don’t have any myself). Either way, if a vote to either concur or override fails, the bill fails, and they are back to the court deadline and continued delay tactics on that front.

      • Just read another source, that states that the vote to override is 3/5 not 2/3, some confusion on sources. The other source also didn’t mention that it must be the bill’s sponsor that calls for the vote. Can anyone clear that up? The second source also said that if the legislature does nothing (ignores the bill and neither calls for a vote to concur nor a vote to override), the bill dies.

  8. I would hope and expect a legislative override of Quinn’s “veto” within a week or so after the Independence Day holiday, along with several lawsuits. What an ideological punk.

  9. Did anyone really expect Quinn,trademarked property of the Chicago Machine ,to permit concealed carry in Illinois?

    That’s what I thought.

    It would be like expecting Hamas to collaborate with Israel for Middle East peace talks.Due to the political dynamic,Illinois is a soviet republic and will remain so for the duration,unless Chicago seceeds from the state.

  10. This is really all just a pony show to his anti-gun peeps, in preparation for election season next year. Veto will be overridden next Monday during a special session (there’s no chance the sponsor will allow changes to the bill, so it’s up or down). And in the 2% chance enough Dems flip and vote it down, CC baby. With all the local restrictions, not exactly a free-for-all, but rather a complete clusterf**k.

  11. Having followed this matter closely, this was expected by Todd and Molly – the NRA lobbyists working in IL (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39327). Given all that crap he added to the bill, the Governor did it just to win points with what he thinks will drive his base. Now the bill will go back to the sponsor, who we have been told by Todd and Molly will use the supermajority that passed this bill to override the governor’s veto, and pass the bill as voted on.

    Given the massive overreach by Quinn, once the veto gets overridden, I think that Madigan will not appeal to the Supremes in the hopes of getting all of the downstate votes that Quinn just flushed down the toilet. Unfortunately, these two donkeys (D) are just playing politics with the RKBA, and the citizens of IL and Chicago are paying for it.

    • He’s not writing legislation; he’s suggesting it. Illinois congress can agree with his suggestions, override them, or ignore them.

  12. This isn’t a concealed carry law that Illinois citizens can easily comply with – this is almost more restrictive than having none in the state. It’s BS and needs to be re-written to make it fair and equitable for all LAW ABIDING citizens. Again, the only people who will carry weapons are the druggies and gang bangers. The rest of us again, will remain unprotected. Just look to other states such as Arizona, Utah or Florida which have laws that are fairly uncomplicated and can easily be followed. Quinn is paid by the citizens of IL but not representative of us. Quinn needs to be looking for a new job next election.

  13. If the presumption is that it is illegal to CC in a place unless signage states the opposite, the law is absolutely pointless. For most of us, going about our daily activities means visiting different places of business, not just walking along the street, and if you can’t carry in the destination, then it is, practically speaking, impossible to carry on the walk to and from said destination too. Car carry is impracticable too, with the “locked case” provisions -if one assumes a business bans guns on the premises unless they state otherwise, then in order to remain in compliance with the law, a driver would have to have a locked case within easy reach of his driver’s seat, to store his gun pretty much every time he exits his vehicle. (And something tells me an ordinary glove box would not be considered adequate for the task, legally.)

    Frankly, I don’t see how this is legal in light of the Supreme Court rulings, and I expect there will be lawsuits. But lawsuits take time and money, and the rats just bought themselves some more months of unabated civilian disarmament, from the sound of it.

  14. TO: All
    RE: Sooooo…..

    ….if this governor has such authority to re-write legislation….

    ….why does this state even NEED a legislature?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out….only fools live in Illinois. Or the corrupt…..]

    • With Chuck on this one. The governor has this kind of authority? To basically rewrite legislation passed in the house and senate? Or am I missing something? I understand the line item veto, but to change provisions of the legislation?

      • I’ll wager dollars against donuts that Obama has wet-dreams about having that kind of authority.

        Indeed….he’s probably (1) inspired by it and (2) working towards achieving it at the federal level.

      • Apparently, it now goes back to the legislature for a vote to accept the changes or override them. If they override, the original goes on the books.

        The governor only gets to modify what legislation shows up in front of him, but his modifications still have to be approved by the legislature.

  15. A Chicago machine Democrat restricting citizens’ rights? Wow, I never saw that coming. Or going.

  16. Reading up on Illinois’ “amendatory veto” is interesting. According to one quote “An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies.”

    So, it’s unlikely that the Governor has the simple majority to accept this. Are we likely to end up back where we started, or with nothing?

    • So the best outcome might be for an override attempt to fail, because then the whole bill would go away and constitutional carry would be the default?

      • Yes. Well, to a certain extent. There would be no enforceable law barring the bearing of arms in public. Local laws on gun ownership would remain in effect, as well as Illinois FOID requirements for ownership/possession. I don’t know what this would do for out of staters, but I assume only the federal safe harbor provisions would apply–meaning if you don’t have a FOID you can’t carry, but may transport in a locked container.

        • They only issue FOID cards to residents. I’d have to think this would be seen as a de facto ban on non-residents carrying. Lots of luck in the years it would take before some court finally tossed the case though.

          This bill, at least the version the legislature approved, has a process for non-residents to get a license.

  17. As Hilary stated: “What difference does it make?”
    As a concealed Fl permit holder and a IL resident, this state is so corrupt and bankrupt that the real changes will occur in the next election cycle if enough people care. Otherwise, I’m making my Fl home my permanent place of residence.

    • And you’ll find, to your left and right, folks from NY, NJ, IL,and MA. They change their domicile for lower taxes, better weather, and freedom. Many of them still want their part-year former state enslaved, unfortunately. Indeed, many of them are living on IL, NJ, NY, and MA civil service pensions. Quite a few control businesses in those states. It’s laughable.

  18. From what I’m reading, the governor doesn’t have the legal authority to make changes to the bill. He can either veto it or accept it. What is the deal here? What does he think he’s doing?

  19. This “veto” will be overruled by the legislation. Madigan is going stuff Quinn’s changes up where the sun don’t shine.

    Oh, and don’t look now, but Nanny Bloomberg just endorsed Bill Daley for Gov. of Ill TODAY. As if Mayor Mike is going to play in Perioa… which he won’t.

    This is all a dog and pony show. The legislation that was negotiated will be passed and Quinny Poo will look even more weaker.

    If only the IL GOP had a Jim Edgar or Charles Percy to run… *sigh*

  20. Jeff. This is a dog and pony show. Madigan and Cullerton are going to overturn this amendatory veto and the original bill that was passed will be law.

    And all the Chicago dems will have to eat a big sh** burger.

  21. So, what can happen?

    (a) The General Assembly overrides the veto and original version of the bill becomes law.
    (b) There aren’t enough votes to override the veto, but also not enough to accept the amended version, so there’s no bill and the AG appeals to SCOTUS.
    (c) The legislators realize that some potential override votes have flipped and there aren’t enough votes now to override the veto. They look deep into their souls and realize that they just don’t have the nerve to have no law at all (version b above) and choose to accept Quinn’s version.

    Bets on the most likely outcome are accepted at this time. I am vacillating between (a) and (b), but I wish I felt more certain than I do that (c) won’t happen. We shall know soon enough though.

  22. Dave,

    I don’t think the votes are there for (C) and if (B) happens… then its Constitutional Carry time. Have FOID, will carry.

    • I (b) happens, the courts will most likely issue a stay during the appeal. And if not, localities will set their own rules. (C) would be the worst, but (b) would not be a great thing either.

  23. But (b) won’t be the outcome either because Daddy Madigan doesn’t want to put Lil’ Lisa in the position of bringing (and losing) a case before the SCOTUS that would institute constitutional carry, invalidate AWB’s, high mag caps and all the things we love to have happen.

    • Any SCOTUS ruling, even if favorable, would be narrow. And there’s no guarantee it will even be favorable.

      • The ONLY issue that will be addressed if Moore goes up is carry outside the home, nothing else. No other issues were raised or decided by the Circuit court opinion, and that is what defines the issues.

        • That’s why I’ve always thought it would be better for a “may issue” law to go to the Supremes instead of this case, which would really only impact the State of Illinois.

  24. What’s his phone #? I have some choice words for him.

    But hold the phone, if the legislature doesn’t do anything, the whole thing goes away and Illinois becomes Constitutional carry. They have to approve or override the veto before it becomes law in either version.

    Let the bill die. Die! Die! Die!

  25. Pro-L
    I posted this as a response to stuff above but maybe it will be missed if not a new post

    I too am a libertarian and I can and should be able to set my conditions for that which is mine.
    We have the government involved in this situation prescribing how you communicate your preferences and conditions for entry to your property for you. What if you don’t care that I bring a gun on your property, whos rights are being violated if my hip bulge is seen by a LE entering your establishment but no sign to be seen. I thought our interaction is voluntary and consensual but a third party (LE, GOV) is now allowed to arrest me for breaking the law and intervening in our consensual relationship. Should it not be up to you on the method of communicating your conditions
    So I think we are skipping over the core principal of choice. Lets not argue over inside ones car inside someone elses parking lot but the right to exercise ones rights as one sees fit. Don’t tell me how to give permission nor how to prohibit something.
    Did we miss this point?

    • Yes you missed the point. These amendments were a close as Quinn could get to re-establishing a carry ban without actually instituting a carry ban. Does it ignore the intent of the Seventh Circuit ruling? Sure it does. Does Quinn care? Not a whit.

      • I agree , If this isn’t one of the best “See how I can F**k with you” maneuvers I’ve ever seen.
        I was only addressing the signage requirement debate that Pro-Liberty’s comments engaged.

  26. Tired of the battle, every gun owner should prepare to depart Illinois
    Let Illinois implode. But Let me sell my house first. I’m headed to Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama or Mississippi. Let the Dem’s feed off of eachother..

  27. I hate Illinois and the corrupt politicans that run it. I am just treading water for 2 more years until my daughter graduates high school, then its see ya later. Quinn reminds me of Homer Simpson.

  28. How do you lock your gun before existing a vehicle while keeping it completely concealed? Pull a sheet up over yourself as you maneuver about the vehicle?

  29. The process:

    This amendatory veto goes back to the bill sponsors in the legislature.
    The sponsor decides
    a.) accept changes with simple majority vote
    b.) override veto with super majority
    If the votes fail in either case, the bill fails in totality.
    If the bill fails in totality, a few other choices open up
    1.) appeal to scotus, request 7th circuit for additionaly stay
    2.) emergency session to pass new legislation
    3.) do nothing and accept FOID/Court carry

    The sponsor of the bill is a solid pro-gun downstate Democrat. I give better then even odds that he will put the override to the legislature. There is an outside chance that the state democrat machine will push him to abandon the bill / accept the governors changes, but it seems doubtful at this point.

  30. Quinn will not get more time from Judge Posner. The Supremes will never take this case. Illinois is the only state that can not figure this out.

    My legal instinct tells me to just let the bill die procedurally and accept Constitutional Carry. It’s better than either of these bills.

  31. The bill sponsor has already filed for override. The one way ticket is punched.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=0183&GAID=12&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=69231&SessionID=85&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=98#actions

    Override fails = bill fails
    Override passes = immediately becomes law

    If override fails:
    1.) appeal to scotus, request 7th circuit for additional stay
    2.) emergency session to pass new legislation
    3.) do nothing and accept FOID/Court carry

    I give it very high odds the override will be delivered.

  32. I was under the impression that an obviously unconstitutional law is basically worthless and should not be followed?

    IL has attempted to ban the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms”. Good for them. The “law” is flat out unconstitutional, no two ways about it.

    This is my justification for carrying concealed in IL, which I do regularly. I have been pulled over once for speeding around Herrin, IL. I unholstered, dropped the mag, emptied the chamber, and removed the slide. Scattered the pieces between various compartments and the rear floorboard. The cop had nothing to say about it.

    What’s my plan if I have to use my CCW? Use it, holster it, and wait for the police. ThePEOPLE of IL are the ones who must exact change. You disobey unconstitutional laws, because they are not laws, they’re useless words written on ruined paper.

  33. So how about we change all measures such that it requires a majority of all possible voters in order to pass otherwise it fails? This logic seems reasonable enough to apply everywhere and the need for elected representatives is no longer a necessity

  34. Just yesterday, my sister (lives in a Chicago suburb) called the city to come pick up two dead birds that she found in her yard. That reliance on Big Gov to take care of her is what is wrong with many IL residents. BTW, she is absolutely anti-gun. She actually likes Bloomberg.

  35. I’m just so sick and freakin’ tired of playing games with these people, or more accurately, of these people playing games with the citizenry.

    It’s time for (legally) armed action, at the behest of the federal courts, to take over writing of this bill and impose it on these anti-Constitutionalists by force of federal arms. This is how Grant (one of the few things to his credit) shut down the post-Civil War KKK terrorist insurgency. This is how Eisenhower integrated the public schools post-Brown vs. Board of Education.

    Yes, I’m familiar with the PCA. This isn’t simple domestic law enforcement, however. This is a matter of defending the nation from all enemies, who in this case happen to be domestic public officials subverting the will of the Supreme Court.

  36. I think it amazing Quinn found a way to keep criminals from carrying weapons around in public places. He should be president.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *