Illinois has been granted an extra month to put a law on the books allowing qualified citizens to carry loaded weapons in public.

A pyrrhic victory? or a good omen?

I haven't been following this issue well, about illinois being turned from the only state to prohibit shall issue concealed carry (siccw), into one.
How does a state with a democrat governor, a democrat upper & lower house (I believe), get forced into succumbing to nra gunnuts? especially this year of all things?

Could somebody pls give a short explanation? or a link to one, short or long. Thanks.
I google but the articles come up too vague or not specific to reasons, as you can imagine.
Of course, heller & mcdonald scotus cases had to do, but why didn't they go may issue? something to do with allowing open carry also, some kind of 'either or' scenario, but why?

In this case I believe that NY and CA and other big May issue states don't want it being challenged. This was the safest way for IL to comply and not risk getting the other states May issue laws in trouble in a possible SC showdown. The maryland case went pretty far and i don't think the pro gun control advocates want to possibly have May issue laws tossed as arbitrary.

As far as why a dem state and senate did this the answer is the courts forced them to. But looking at the votes it seams outside of major urban centers the rest of the state has wanted concealed carry for a long time.

Thanks for the welcome. it good to see that some folks see the inside politics going on in IL.

The biggest thing is how this issue is providing political cover for both parties on their failure to fix the pension system yet again. But yeah in college we spent a semester studying state politics and I drew IL. Lets just say maybe even more so than the divide between the ultra urban and the suburban/rural than NY.

ceounpe: because the May issue states don't want to test the issue .. In this case I believe that NY and CA and other big May issue states don't want it being challenged. This was the safest way for IL to comply and not risk getting the other states May issue laws in trouble in a possible SC showdown.

That's it? so simple; Thanks, clears it up in a very short paragraph too.
I agree in hindsight, current supreme court would likely contend 'may issue' unconstitutional by some rightwing hocus pocus, even though in the past, states have put prohibitions to concealed carry in their constitutions, dating from 1800's.
.. even so I bet it's on the nra's 'future agenda' list to label may issue as such the horrible infringement of people's right to carry loaded pistols all over the place.

The maryland case went pretty far and i don't think the pro gun control advocates want to possibly have May issue laws tossed as arbitrary.

Arg, you've got me on this one too, what you refer to, a maryland ccw case where shall issue was ruled upon? dunno how these two got past me.

As far as why a dem state and senate did this the answer is the courts forced them to.

Of course (I see now), as some guncontrol efforts just prior to heller 2008 wanted the DC mayor to drop his appeal to supreme court about deciding whether their handgun ban was constitutional, for fear of exactly what happened.
Brady iirc, wanted DC mayor to lift it's ban & accept handguns in DC, for fear of scotus ruling for 'individual rkba'. Strange bedfellows politics makes.
.. so it seems my first thought was correct, doomed to be a pyrrhic victory.

But looking at the votes it seams outside of major urban centers the rest of the state has wanted concealed carry for a long time.

Sounds about right for rurals, but, no state in the past, prior to actually getting shall issue, has 'wanted' it, according to every reputable poll I've ever seen.
Shall issue implementation has only gotten support from about 30 - 45% of a state's residents, the larger majority not wanting it. Republican legislatures have generally been responsible for passage of shall issue ccw laws, against the majority desires of their constituents. I haven't seen any recent illinois polls about what illinoisans want, not that it really matters anymore.
Texas didn't even want it in 90's, & it was why gov anne richards claimed something like texas doesn't need a referendum on whether they want shall issue ccw, since she knew what texas polls told her - ~60-40 against. Her words then got distorted by the gun lobby as suppressing texas 'rkba', and this, accd'g to nra, helped get gwbush elected next gov of tex.

.. You've only 2 posts I notice, ceonupe, & so haven't been vetted; a lot of infiltrators appear out of thin air, but you get the initial benny of the doubt, so welcome & thanks.

Jimmy,

i want to be clear on a few things upfront
I am a gun owner and I hold a CCW. I have a unique skill-set that necessitated it right after college. In my current professional life a CCW is not required but sometimes I carry. My wife also has her CCW but after having our child she does not carry on her person any longer. We practice safety at all times and all weapons are always secured. Granted I had to go thru many background checks i did not find them bothersome and most of the waiting was on the human side of processing apps. I am a registered democrat but often find myself having more libertarian views on my personal and local situation. I worked for both 08 and 12 campaigns for Obama and was also very active in local and state races. Oh yeah my family is in elected state politics.


I look at all the horse trading that occurs and the coordination from Blomberg's MAIG and his purchase of many GC groups (direct and indirect) as both a benefit and hindrance to his goal of civilian disarmament. I support reasonable gun control but I don't support an ultra .0001% who I believe uses his power to enhance his pro business republican positions. He is going after vulnerable dems in vulnerable districts and that could cost democrats seats in the house and senate.

But yeah its cool to find a site where people can also see all the underhanded politics that corrupt supposedly straightforward initiatives like background checks.