SCOTUS gives Illinois AG second 30-day delay on gun bill
The U.S. Supreme Court granted an extension Tuesday for Illinois's attorney general to decide whether to appeal a court order permitting the state's gun owners to carry concealed firearms.
Justice Elena Kagan granted a delay until July 22, essentially a second 30 days of leeway that allows Attorney General Lisa Madigan time to craft a response. She could also scuttle the whole matter if Gov. Pat Quinn signs concealed-carry legislation awaiting his response.
That's a separate deadline than the one on July 9, by which time Quinn must decide whether to make it legal to carry concealed guns.
The Chicago Democrat's office said Tuesday that the governor has not decided what action he'll take on the legislation. The attorney general's office released Kagan's order but did not have an immediate comment.
Read More: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/illinois-concealed-carry-212083921.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If quinn does nothing by the 9th it passes without his signature
if he vetoes it is highly possible its overridden.
and you know mayor bloomberg and his crew don't want IL to appeal the base ruling for fear of an expansion of Shall issue.
It will be interesting to see what IL does. As of yet no local rule area has moved to enact local AWB bans. Many homerule cities/towns have already been threatened with lawsuits. It should be noted that IL and Chitown have paid over $2million in fee/fines plus atty costs not including city state defence costs.
I predict that Quinn signs the legislation without modification. But i could be wrong he could modify it and challenge the legislature to override him.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ceonupe
(597 posts)explain why bloomberg and co always want other state to have less strict rules than them
from pushing DC to drop the handgun ban to avoid court challenge (ultimately DC lost and we got heller decision)
THey dont want Chitown or IL to have May issue for fear the court challenge may strike down NYC own may issue practices.
They even pressured Maryland to reduce chance of challenge (still moving thru the courts but for now May issue is valid)
Hoyt have you noticed this or looked into it?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)c: explain why bloomberg and co always want other state to have less strict rules than them from pushing DC to drop the handgun ban to avoid court challenge (ultimately DC lost and we got heller decision) THey dont want Chitown or IL to have May issue for fear the court challenge may strike down NYC own may issue practices.
They even pressured Maryland to reduce chance of challenge..
What needs be answered? you answered your own concerns, ie heller result.
Except it's not 'always'.
I classify you as a brinksman - go to the brink but you don't get cocky & don't go whole hog pro gun - but it's there.
ceonupe
(597 posts)on another note I believe 3 things killed the BC bill.
1) the big gulp ban (illustrated the extremes of government control some authoritarians like bloomberg want and is about as traditonally un american to most people as you can get and reminds people of a Nanny/control state)
2) the desire by DiFi and even some republicans to amend the bill to add in the AWB/ national reciprocity (should have been a separate bill and made sure the first BC bill vote was just a check list for both sides to get their votes in for election season and was not serious) Both sides did this with amendments that should not have been attached if the goal from either side was to have a clean gun purchase background check system that was to be near universal
3) the lack of earmarks.
Number 3 is something I have learned alot about over the past 2-3 years as they have pretty much gone away. Earmarks used to be the way you could get difficult bills pasted and get the votes. I understand the reason to reform the system but just like in real life negotiating without money rarely leads to a good result. I could have seen 3-5 or more republicans not facing immediate re election vote for the BC bill had they had something to take home to their red states. An example from a senator " I voted with my conscience on the Universal background check bill voting for it and i brought home some federal money and programs and i saved the town military base."
I don't agree with the strategy and idea that things are good for one but not another solely because the risk the first person losing their benefit. In this case what i am saying is if Bloomberg supports MAy issue and the benefits he believes it provides in terms of safety then why not support those other states that want to model their rules after yours? Now me I am personally against all MAY issue laws not just on gun purchase/carry permits. I believe if people meet requirements they should be granted the lic. Too many games and violations of equal access happen when only the politically connected, celebrities and wealthy get access to what should be available to all that qualify. ( i know many in this group disagree and I respect that)
It just seams like if you aren't NY or CA you cant even dream about getting to the level of GC they have because of the new current GC movement are running risk analysis on other states laws and proposed laws based on what might happen to their own.
'
Lots of frustration in IL on how little help they got from MAIG and bloomberg during their recent situation with concealed carry. It seams like all the GC groups accept maybe cease fire left them out to dry. and let me say again not that i support MAY issue but if u asked me a year ago i would have bet IL would pass May issue just to settle the CCW case and move forward. But now it looks like IL will join the many Shall issue states and not the ranks of MAY issue (I believe only NY, CA, Maryland, and NJ are may issue).
Good luck with your activism and hopefully one day we will meet on subjects we have even more agreement in both in implementation and ultimate result. You have been very polite to me here as an outsider and i am glad we could discuss some things. I also am glad that their are some people over here that also notice the politics of it all.
billh58
(6,635 posts)(read recycled) breed of NRA-Gungeoneer "polite" gun huggers. They assume that we are all stupid enough not to see through their "cold dead hands" bullshit.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)where they will inflict maximum lethality.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)ceonupe: 1) the big gulp ban (illustrated the extremes of government control some authoritarians like bloomberg want and is about as traditonally un american to most people as you can get and reminds people of a Nanny/control state)
Are smoking bans unamerican? Bloomburg's 'biggulp' ban was attempt to limit the intake of excessive sugar, so as to counter obesity problem. To equate his measure as a nanny state is sophomoric & overlooks the health issue it addresses. Would in no way prevent a soda fan from purchasing more soda elsewhere, at a better price too. It's actually a fairly weak attempt to keep people from hurting themselves & overpaying for a commodity, hardly the criteria for a nanny state or authoritarianism.
Why do you oppose an assault rifle ban, or superclip ban? do you own an assault rifle with any superclips?
Why do you want to allow assault rifles, which were developed for soldiers in the late 20th century to maximize death & incapacitation on battlefields, to proliferate in american communities?
You say you are considering quitting the nra, that doesn't really cut it ceonupe, some of us think you're just trying to appease us gun control advocates. You either will or you won't quit nra, you should know by now. That you're only 'considering' it is actually a strike against you, since the nra appeals only to far rightwing americans & republican legislators who love nra campaign donations & the phony 2ndAmendment carnival atmosphere. If you belonged less than two years I'd cut you some slack cause you likely got suckered in, but over two no slack.
Wayne lapierre has been saying for 30 years now how if democrats get elected you can 'kiss your gun rights goodbye', yet it's never happened, & he will again next election year spout off the same nonsense. Why do you stay in such a far rightwing group of propagunda meisters?
Do you really truly think the nra is protecting your gun rights from the very democratic party you claim to belong to, by posting here on DU?
armueller2001
(609 posts)Why do you want to allow assault rifles, which were developed for soldiers in the late 20th century to maximize death & incapacitation on battlefields, to proliferate in american communities?
You're half right. Assault rifles were developed for soldiers, however the current debate (AR15 ban) is not about assault rifles. An assault rifle is, by definition, capable of select fire which is more than one bullet per trigger pull. They are commonly used by armies and are also referred to as "machine guns". Semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR15, fire one bullet per trigger pull just like grandpa's old wood stock hunting rifle. You won't find an army in the world that is using semi-automatic rifles.
Wayne lapierre has been saying for 30 years now how if democrats get elected you can 'kiss your gun rights goodbye', yet it's never happened
It has happened, at least partially. Remember the assault weapon ban of '94? Those who are interested in banning firearms know they can't take the whole loaf at once, it needs to be done slice by slice.
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
Janet Reno
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
Joseph Biden
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)armmueller: An assault rifle is, by definition, capable of select fire which is more than one bullet per trigger pull. They are commonly used by armies and are also referred to as "machine guns". Semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR15, fire one bullet per trigger pull just like grandpa's old wood stock hunting rifle. You won't find an army in the world that is using semi-automatic rifles.
How'd you get across the border fence? you sapper thru an underground tunnel?
I wrote: Wayne lapierre has been saying for 30 years now how if democrats get elected you can 'kiss your gun rights goodbye', yet it's never happened
armueller: It has happened, at least partially. Remember the assault weapon ban of '94?
Only about 2% of national gunstock was banned under 94 asslt rifle ban & it pertained to about the same 1 or 2% who'd even consider wanting one of the damn things. That's coincidently considered the lunatic fringe - about 2% milk. Nobody's 'gunrights' were taken away by awb, they coulda joined well reg'd militias like the army, marines, or nat gds.
armueller: Those who are interested in banning firearms know they can't take the whole loaf at once, it needs to be done slice by slice.
1 "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Janet Reno
You're not helping your progun argument one little bit by posting bogus quotes: The "B'nai B'rith" speech by "Janet Reno" "The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."---Falsely attributed to Janet Reno, ca.1991. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
2 "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." Joseph Biden ----- The Joe Biden quote is also bogus. That quote is nowhere to be found in the story from the AP dated Nov 18, 1993 (“Senate Move Would Ban 19 Types of Assault Arms Anti-Crime Bill Nears Passage”). In the article, Senator Biden simply stated that the Assault Weapons Ban was an idea “whose time has come.”
Maybe you were at the end of the whisper line? Your post was pro gun garbage armueller, & you deserve to be barred for this crap, so stay on your side of the fence please. Thanks.
ceonupe
(597 posts)It is the basic concept that it is the goal of government to control behavior in an attempt to create a Utopian society in the image of a set of people. It only works be forcing your way thru law on people.
People question the government getting involved at that level. Requiring posting of sugar and calorie content and people would have overwhelmingly supported that but the push to banning certain locations and types of soad size seams at is heart 100% un american.
About the NRA
Yes lots of democrats are members. Yes we prob only make up 10-15% of their membership at this time as they have started to not so subtly push us out. (NOBAMA stickers come on man) but yes. quite a few democrats own guns and are/were members of the nra. There are quite a few Democrat congress people who are/were NRA members. Yeah I dont like the non gun policy focus during election time the NRA dives into.
And wayne has spent time money and energy electing and keeping elected dems that support gun rights as well. Namely Harry Reid.
And no Being a member of the NRA is not against the rules i checked. And yes I was honest about my opinion on questioning renewal. And yes i remember 2008 and the very large number of NRA members who also were sportsmen (PC for Gun owners) for Obama. I was one of them