Previous Post
Next Post

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (courtesy

Earlier today, Governor Pat Quinn did his best to take the teeth out of the Illinois concealed carry bill by using his amendatory veto powers to essentially re-write the legislation. In response, Representative Brandon W. Phelps has filed a motion to overturn the veto. What does that mean for the future of the bill? . . .

Option A: The veto override fails. In this scenario, Illinois law says the bill is scrapped. This would send Illinois over the cliff into constitutional carry territory until a new bill is proposed and presented to the governor. Again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Option B: The veto override succeeds. The bill is immediately passed as-is, without the changes made by the Governor. This is the most likely scenario. Even Democrats in the legislature would rather vote to override the governor and enact the bill than let the Land of Lincoln become a constitutional carry state.

It looks like this may have been staged in advance, the Governor using his powers to show his Chicago masters that he is reliably anti-gun before his re-election effort in the fall, while not actually doing anything to prevent the bill from becoming law. In other words, politics as usual for Illinois.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “The veto override fails. In this scenario, Illinois law says the bill is scrapped. This would send Illinois over the cliff into constitutional carry territory until a new bill is proposed and presented to the governor. Again. Lather, rinse, repeat.”

    Somehow, I can see the Dems failing to pass this legislation thinking they can pass something more anti-gun. It would be hilarious for Illinois to be constitutional carry, even for a little bit.

  2. More like to show Lakefront Liberals and North Shore elitests (like Tiny Dancer) he’s anti-gun. It’ll also allow the Street Light Assassin to say Gov. Potatohead tried.

    Come on Option A….

    Illustrating Chicago’s Murders, Homicides, Violence and Idiocy at

    • Northshore resident here, fully endorsing constitutional carry. Wish some of those flashmobs would take the trip up here, they could change a whole lot of minds. And yes, the only people up here more racist than the republicans are the democrats.

      • Breaking News (from the future). “In the months following the failure of Illinois to pass a CCW law and the state defaulting to FOID carry, the crime rate throughout most of the state has plummeted. In Chicago, muggings and attacks on commuters from the suburbs have fallen to zero.”

        • Breaking News from the future: Illinois goes over the ‘cliff’, every municipality north of I-80 with a population of 25,000 or more bans concealed carry.
          Nothing changes.

      • You wish the flashmobs came to your neighborhood? That is a sick attitude. I’m afraid you have become hyper-focused on what you think is your goal, and you should take some time to re-evaluate what you really want.

  3. Quinn is toast.

    Bill Daley picked up Bloomberg’s endorsement.

    Quinn will never — N-E-V-E-R — survive a primary challenge by Daley.

    Quinn’s base is in Chicago and Chicago will never elect anyone but a Daley, trust me.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to see Quinn announce his retirement pretty soon.


  4. So in other words his enemies and those that want conceal carry should try to get the veto override to fail. If Illinois became constitutional carry for even a little bit I think he would get blamed for that And make all the anti gun people really unhappy.

    (also wouldn’t there be an option C where the bill with the line item vetoes becomes law?)

    • “(also wouldn’t there be an option C where the bill with the line item vetoes becomes law?)”

      No, not unless the sponsor of the bill calls for a vote to accept the changed version. He has opted to call for an override instead.

      • What’s sad about CA is that everybody has given up, even the gun owners in the state. On gun forums, when new legislation is introduced, the first thought that comes to CA gun owners minds is “how will I get around this.” Instead of trying to challenge it (it is presumed to succeed), or, god forbid, stage civil disobedience such as what happened in CO, gun owners in this previously great state are more interesting in loopholes that let them live with it. There are exceptions of course, but it seems like the majority of CA gun owners are getting so used to the tyranny that they are no longer incited by it.

        The frog is reaching boiling point, and still hasn’t noticed…

  5. Here’s to hoping conservative legislators get a vote to override the veto and then vote “nay.” Kaboom! Instant Constitutional carry.

    Anyone care to speak to that possibility?

    • South of I-80, it would be constitutional carry in most places. With our home rule laws, however, there would be a hodgepodge of carry laws in the most populated counties and cities. It would be a mess in the northern third of the state, but freedom in most downstate locations with a few exceptions.

    • Yes… Mainly because its not constitutional carry. Every home rule unit (most cities) could eneact whatever they want. It would be a huge mess. Its something I dont want. Its not as great as it sounds. Cross over a city line and your an instant felon. North of I-80 and want to carry? Dream on.

      Plus you have the FOID card… Constitutional carry indeed.

      • Home rule cannot ever enact a felony penalty. Misdemeanor is the constitutional limit. [Misdemeanors are bad enough.]

  6. Nick – sorry, you missed one

    Option C does exist. Quinn’s amendatory changes to the bill are accepted by a simple majority and become the law of the land, subject to legal challenge as to whether or not it complies with the 7th Cir ruling.

    Option B requires super majorities (3/5ths) in both chambers, which is what they had before to go after the Home Rule provision. The real issue is what does House Speaker Mike Madigan want. His little girl Lisa really wants to be Governor. If IL goes constitutional carry, Lisa will have to file with SCOTUS for cert. That will kill her chances with downstate Dems and she won’t get the nomination. If Quinn’s veto is overruled, Quinn will suffer the wrath of the downstate Dems and Lisa has a shot (although with a Daley around, probably not). If they vote in Quinn’s changes, both will suffer.

    • Negative. Now that Phelps has filed his motion to override the veto, the only two possibilities left are to pass the override, and if it fails, then the entire bill is scrapped and the assembly would have to start over.

      • It is an unlikely thing to happen, but could Phelps withdraw his motion if he was somehow “persuaded” to do so?

        • I know he is a Dem, but Phelps has been a dedicated supporter of concealed carry for years and the point person for the NRA and ISRA. Not a chance in he11. Similarly, there is ZERO chance that the amendatory veto passes with a simple majority. It either gets overridden or the bill dies, in which case, the home rule/constitutional carry issue comes into play with a whole lot of litigation.

  7. Remember that these politicos have a serious problem. They are all about to be proven wrong.
    Every threat of blood in the streets, Wild West, and increased body counts will be demonstrated as an out and out lie.
    That is why they have to carve the CCW right to be barely workable. That is why they can’t allow constitutional carry. It is why they must use price discrimination to prevent people who live in violent areas to get the protection they need.

    Quinn knows his job is gone. He will face celebrity opponents like Madigan and Bill Daley. He’s a tool.

    • +1 I think far to little has been said about this. If concealed carry becomes practicable in Illinois even the MSM is going to have a hard time shielding the public from the fact that rather than a gunfight on every street corner the crime rate actually begins to fall, then just keeps falling. The level of propaganda that the MSM and politicians have engaged in will be difficult to reconcile with what virtually every reputable study and case study show will be the actual case.

      • They push 2 + 2 = 5 all the time. I’d like to think you were right, but I don’t think falling crime numbers would stop the Times, NBC, et al. from pushing their horsesh!t.

  8. this governor is really trying to solve his out of control crime in major cities, with his positions on gun ownership….he prefers law abiding gun owners to remain his responsibility and is concerned for their well being….as he remains true to his disdain for self defense…only he and the police can protect you from lawlessness……as he sits on his self proclaimed success…..he says by his actions that you are safer because of himand his policies…………good luck,with that…….imho

    • @ Dan –

      Funny post, brought LOLOLOL to me on this July 4. Quinn, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Obama, and Jerry Brown – note his dead silence in the aftermath of the Santa Monica shootings – are the “philosopher-kings” Charlton Heston skewered a few years ago. They sit back and do nothing.

  9. Illinois would never make it to constitutional carry, Madigan would file another injunction and get it and would take the matter all the way to SCOTUS where I believe she would be victorious (unfortunately).

    The bill, before Quinn’s veto, isnt too bad and is probably the best we Illini can hope for.

    Quinn held out as long as he did to give the Highland Parks and Oak Parks as much time as they needed to pass assault weapon bans as home rule on this issue would have been removed with the bill but grandfathering in those municipalities that already had it.

    • I would also be very wary of anything SCOTUS might do, but they’d have to agree to hear the case first, which they might or might not do.

  10. Sorry, but I smell Bu!!sh!t on all of this. I think this was the plan all of the time with Quinn’s veto and Phelps’ motion for an override. The congresscritters will pass the veto override, Quinn, L. Madigan and the dem’s will save face, and this abomination of CC will be law. Why did the pro gun democrats and republicans not just let this go past July 9TH and force a more acceptable CC law? They had the momentum with the ruling by the courts, why give in to all of the crap that’s in this?

  11. I’m not sure I understand Illinois’ version of a line-item veto. How do you strike a part of legislative language, and get to replace it with a modified, or even opposite, piece of language? That’s not a veto, its writing legislation.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here