Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Robb

(39,665 posts)
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:14 PM Jul 2013

Illinois governor vetoes parts of concealed carry gun bill

Source: Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Illinois governor Pat Quinn on Tuesday vetoed parts of a gun bill that would have allowed people to carry more than one gun, carry guns into some places that serve alcohol, and carry a partly exposed gun.

Flanked by parents of gun violence victims, Democrat Quinn said at a press conference that he objected to at least nine provisions of the new Illinois concealed carry measure that was passed by the legislature.

"This is a flawed bill with serious safety problems that must be addressed," Quinn said.

(snip)

On Tuesday, Quinn vetoed a provision that would allow guns in some places that serve alcohol such as restaurants, one that would allow more than one gun to be concealed, and another that would allow any gun carried to be partly exposed outside clothing.

Quinn also said any ammunition clip carried with a concealed gun should hold no more than 10 bullets. The bill does not limit the number of bullets.


Read more: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96113520130702?irpc=932



Important quote:

If the state legislature votes to accept the changes proposed by Quinn, the revised measure would become law. If the legislature overrides Quinn's veto, the original version would become law. If the proposal becomes law it would be a victory for the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobby for gun owners.
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Illinois governor vetoes parts of concealed carry gun bill (Original Post) Robb Jul 2013 OP
Are these friggin' concealed-carry state laws all fuckin' ALEC boilerplate? If so, indepat Jul 2013 #1
Actually, a Democrat has filed to over-ride the veto. appal_jack Jul 2013 #3
D-Harrisburg Gidney N Cloyd Jul 2013 #7
Nice regional prejudice you've got going, there. appal_jack Jul 2013 #10
yup ...pretty much anything south of effingham.. madrchsod Jul 2013 #12
is that why you need to carry two guns? frylock Jul 2013 #8
Nothing in the bill says anything about gun-grabbing? mikeysnot Jul 2013 #14
What a Democrat he is! Robb Jul 2013 #17
Illinois was the last state in the country not to allow concealed carry. former9thward Jul 2013 #2
i still can't figure that shit out. mopinko Jul 2013 #16
He is defying a Democrat dominated legislature. hack89 Jul 2013 #4
Wonder what his problem with a BUG is??? ileus Jul 2013 #5
Good for our Governor! Gidney N Cloyd Jul 2013 #6
For Once, Quinn does something Chicago Dems want to see BlueEye Jul 2013 #9
one of the few things quinn has done that i agree with madrchsod Jul 2013 #11
The problem is the Governor can NOT re-write the law, he can only item veto parts of the law. happyslug Jul 2013 #13
Great. So now would-be criminals can continue to hide their weaons, but now it isn't illegal. bushisanidiot Jul 2013 #15
It will still be illegal kudzu22 Jul 2013 #18
"would-be" criminals aren't criminals.. yet. bushisanidiot Jul 2013 #19
If I were you, premium Jul 2013 #20

indepat

(20,899 posts)
1. Are these friggin' concealed-carry state laws all fuckin' ALEC boilerplate? If so,
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 06:24 PM
Jul 2013

would ALEC and all the legislatures passing such and all the state houses signing such into law please take a flying fuc* at yourselves.

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
3. Actually, a Democrat has filed to over-ride the veto.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:08 PM
Jul 2013

Actually, a Democrat has filed to over-ride the veto:

http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1806114516/Quinn-Concealed-carry-decision-is-imminent#ixzz2XuwtyH00

From the link:

Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, said he got a call from Quinn’s office Monday afternoon telling him to expect action on the bill Tuesday.
“I was told by governor’s staff that he is going to amendatorally veto the bill at the Thompson Center (in Chicago),” Phelps said. “They did not give me any speculation of what it would be.”
Quinn’s office did not respond to questions about Phelps’ statement.
At a bill signing on another gun measure earlier Monday, Quinn said action on the concealed-carry bill was “imminent.”
“I’ll act on it very shortly, so stay tuned,” the governor said.
Phelps said that if Quinn rewrites the bill, he will immediately file paperwork to override the amendatory veto.
“I’m going to file a motion to override,” Phelps said. “He’s playing politics with this with a lot of groups in Chicago. We had a compromise, we had a deal. We had a deal with both chambers. The governor’s office was fully aware of everything going on in those meetings. They got a lot of things they wanted in the bill as well.”


Read more: http://www.sj-r.com/breaking/x1806114516/Quinn-Concealed-carry-decision-is-imminent#ixzz2Xw7EEBVR


Again, the gun-grabber side tried to grab more than the public wanted them too. And again, they will fail.

-app
 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
10. Nice regional prejudice you've got going, there.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:15 PM
Jul 2013

Nice regional prejudice you've got going, there. Good thing there's Chicago-style "Democrats" like you to set us ignorant hicks straight... and like Rahm Emmanuel to call us "Fucking retarded" (his words, not mine)... and like Obama to sell-out any and all principles, repeatedly, to the highest corporate bidder...

But I've got good friends in Chicago who are all solid progressives and radicals, so I still won't condemn an entire region based upon your individual inanity (or the two other inane Chicago sellouts I mention).

Have fun waiting another year for your corporate pseudo-health care.

-app

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
12. yup ...pretty much anything south of effingham..
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:29 PM
Jul 2013

my best friend`s kin came from southern il.the sheriff of the county his kin lived did time in the state pen. his great grandmother though his mexican wife was an indian. yup they were no different than any hill folk from kentucky or tennessee.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
8. is that why you need to carry two guns?
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:52 PM
Jul 2013

in case you come across one of those dastardly gun grabbers?

Robb

(39,665 posts)
17. What a Democrat he is!
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:19 PM
Jul 2013

A+ rating from the NRA Victory Fund in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012.

Talk about being in the bag for the firearms manufacturers.

But wait, there's more.

Voted against legalizing MMJ. Voted against allowing citizens to record cops. Voted against a law prohibiting employers from asking employees for their Facebook passwords. Voted against requiring schools to establish anti-bullying policies. Etc, etc.

...And every one of those bills passed the House without him. This asshole's a real team player -- if you're Team NRA.

former9thward

(32,093 posts)
2. Illinois was the last state in the country not to allow concealed carry.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:37 PM
Jul 2013

The federal court of appeals ordered them to pass a law. Moore v Madigan (USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788)(2012)

mopinko

(70,261 posts)
16. i still can't figure that shit out.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:10 AM
Jul 2013

i'd like to see this one go all the way to the top. state's rights anyone?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
4. He is defying a Democrat dominated legislature.
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 08:46 PM
Jul 2013

and they are going to smack him down. A Dem has already filed a veto challenge.

BlueEye

(449 posts)
9. For Once, Quinn does something Chicago Dems want to see
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 11:10 PM
Jul 2013

But it won't save him from a Bill Daley primary challenge for 2014.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
13. The problem is the Governor can NOT re-write the law, he can only item veto parts of the law.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:27 AM
Jul 2013

Through it appears the Governor of Illinois can re-write parts of the law with his item veto for that is what the governor does:

Here is the Governor's Veto Message:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/09800HB0183gms.htm
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB0183gms&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=69231&DocNum=0183&GAID=12&Session=0

His proposes changes:

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, and re-affirmed by the People of the State of Illinois by popular referendum in 1974, and conforming to the standard articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex rel. Klinger v. Howlett, 50 Ill.2d 242 (1972), Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel, 78 Ill.2d 387 (1979), People ex rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill.2d 356 (1980), and County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill.2d 186 (1987), declaring that gubernatorial action be consistent with the fundamental purposes and the intent of the bill, I hereby return House Bill 183, entitled “AN ACT concerning regulation,” with my specific recommendations for change.


On page 1, by inserting immediately below line 6 the following:

““Ammunition feeding device” means a detachable magazine, clip, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device.”; and

on page 1, by replacing lines 10 through 13 with the following:

““Concealed firearm” means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely covered or not visible from the view of the public, or carried in a vehicle concealed, covered, or not visible from the view of the public.”; and

on page 3, by replacing lines 13 through 18 with the following: “permit the licensee to carry one loaded or unloaded concealed firearm and, whether attached to or detached from the firearm, one ammunition feeding device for that firearm with a capacity of 10 rounds of ammunition or less on or about his or her person. The licensee may not carry an ammunition feeding device with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”; and

on page 5, line 1, by inserting “immediately” after “shall”; and

on page 10, by deleting lines 19 through 21; and

on page 10, line 22, by replacing “(i)” with “(h)”; and

on page 22, by replacing lines 16 through 26 with the following:


“(9) Any building, real property, and parking area under the control of an establishment where alcohol may be consumed, other than a private residence or a club as defined in Section 1-3.24 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934.”; and

on page 25, by replacing lines 23 through 26 with the following:

“(a-10) A person shall not carry a concealed firearm onto the private real property of another without prior permission from the property owner. A property owner shall indicate permission to carry concealed firearms by posting a sign at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property, except this posting is not required if the property is a private residence. Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is allowed shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be at least 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection.”; and


on page 26, by replacing lines 1 and 2 with the following:

“(a-15) An employer, or his or her designee, may prohibit an employee from carrying a concealed firearm during any part of the employee's employment. An employer, or his or her designee, may prohibit an employee from bringing a firearm onto the employer's property.”; and


on page 26, by replacing lines 12 through 17 with “vehicle in the parking area. The firearm must remain within the vehicle at all times while within the parking area. For purposes of this”; and

on page 27, by deleting lines 4 through 11; and

on page 45, by replacing lines 18 through 20 with the following:

“(30) Deliberations regarding applicants under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act by the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board.”; and

on page 58, by replacing lines 16 through 18 with the following:

“(c-5) Any owner of an establishment where alcohol may be consumed, other than a private residence or club as defined in Section 1-3.24 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934,”; and

on page 106, by replacing lines 12 through 22 with the following:

“(d) If a person is determined to pose a clear and present danger to himself, herself, or to others:

(1) by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner, or is determined to be developmentally disabled by a physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner, whether employed by the State or privately, then the physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner shall, within 24 hours of making the determination, notify the Department of Human Services that the person poses a clear and present danger or is developmentally disabled; or
(2) by a law enforcement official or school administrator, then the law enforcement official or school administrator shall, within 24 hours of making the determination, notify the Department of State Police that the person poses a clear and present danger.
The Department of Human Services shall”; and

on page 122, line 23, by replacing “subsections (b) and (c)” with “subsection (b)”; and

on page 123, by deleting lines 21 through 26; and

on page 124, by deleting lines 1 through 15; and

on page 124, line 16, by replacing “(d)” with “(c)”; and

on page 124, line 19, by replacing “(e)” with “(d)”.

With these changes, House Bill 183 will have my approval. I respectfully request your concurrence.


Sincerely,



PAT QUINN


I believe this is the actual proposed law, as passed by the Illinois legislature, but it does not fit with the Governor's proposed changes so I may be wrong:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/98/HB/PDF/09800HB0183sam001.pdf

bushisanidiot

(8,064 posts)
15. Great. So now would-be criminals can continue to hide their weaons, but now it isn't illegal.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:32 AM
Jul 2013

sounds like a boon to the violent crime industry to me.

more guns = more crime = more guns = more crime

bushisanidiot

(8,064 posts)
19. "would-be" criminals aren't criminals.. yet.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:32 PM
Jul 2013

but this law makes it easier for them to get around legally with a gun
and plan out what they want to do and carry it out.

there's nothing the police can do to stop it.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
20. If I were you,
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:08 PM
Jul 2013

I wouldn't be getting to giddy about this, his amendatory veto is already doomed to fail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172126558

All the IL. Legislature needs for an override is 3/5ths of both the Senate and House, which they easily have.

The only thing that's going to happen is to hand an embarrassing defeat to Quinn, and it's going to piss of Chicago.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Illinois governor vetoes ...