The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

mack59 · January 7, 2013, 06:05 AM

The agreement has to do with two bills that dealt with mental health and gun ownership possession issues.

There were three gun control bills in the house - one was the so called assault weapon and magazine ban that would have by estimates banned 70 percent of all handguns and over half of all rifles. That was defeated.

The other two dealt with mental health restrictions - one focused on rules for police and the other for non-police. Some of the language was over-broad and different for police and non-police. There were concerns that people getting mental health care for everyday issues could be denied purchase or possession of a firearm. The agreement has to do with ironing out those issues so it is not a gun grab but does responsibly address the issue of the dangerously unstable mentally ill.

Also, this episode resulted in a lot of conversation on the gun issue between gun lobbyists and senators and house reps, which has built some bridges for paving the way to the ccw law. So Jim is correct that there has been a lot of discussion and feeling each other out behind the scenes.

Beyond that I don't know any specifics, which I wouldn't post if I did. The leadership of both house and senate are hostile to ccw as is the governor. So some house members and senators obviously don't want things out in public where they are exposed to the house speakers or senate presidents ire. There have been cracks in the Chicago front even before the court decision - with some Chicago reps responding to outreach from the rkba community. Despite some stereotypes some of the city reps have found that some of their constituency is receptive to ccw - given the high homicide rate in the city. Remember Otis McDonald is a black man from Chicago and it has been noticed in Chicago communities.

I find it hard to believe after 20 years of fighting for this, that a shall issue ccw law will happen in Illinois - but barring a court reversal it will.

Lisa Madigan has until Wednesday to file an appeal for a full enbanc hearing in the 7th circuit. If she does the court will respond within 10 days indicating if it the will accept the case for a full enbanc hearing. My guess is that she will appeal but the court will decline to rehear the case - for two reasons: one Posner the judge who wrote the majority decision is very respected in the circuit and two the court really doesn't want to pick up this hot potato and then reverse it.

If that is the case, then the only option for the state is to appeal to the USSC - which hasn't been too kind to Illinois on gun rights cases. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they try an appeal to the USSC. Meanwhile however the clock is still running on the deadline with the 7th circuit and the time runs out in mid-June (decision was in early Dec - add 180 days or about 6 months). So legislators are under the gun to get something done as there is no guarantee that the USSC will even hear the case and if they do the ruling could in all probability be upheld. Many gun control advocates don't want this case appealed for that reason as they feel it could result in a USSC decision that required shall issue nationwide and would overturn restrictive may issue laws in NY, HI, and such. I think the court will hear a may issue case sooner or later anyway.

If the USSC accepted the case then that could delay legislation as I don't doubt at that point the 7th would grant a stay on its order. However, waiting that long could leave the legislators in a tight bind (those that are not supportive of ccw) as if they wait too long and the USSC doesn't grant cert, then they will lose ever more negotiating and maneuvering time.

That leads me to believe that no ccw legislation will move forward until after it is determined if the 7th circuit will grant a full enbanc hearing. If that is denied then real negotiations will start and there may not be an appeal to the USSC. Interesting to say the least. Another attempt at the assault weapon ban and a magazine ban will be made later in the year. They would never agree to a seize fire on gun control legislation and any deal would be unenforceable anyway.

I doubt we (speaking of rkba movement) will try to bundle a lot of issues with the ccw law - though there will be preemption as part of the ccw law, no carve out for home rule in Chicago or anywhere. Foid will be dealt with separately. No gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois. Might be wrong, but hell just happy we beat them on the assault weapon and magazine bans this week.

January 7, 2013, 06:05 AM	#67
mack59 Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2004 Posts: 447	The agreement has to do with two bills that dealt with mental health and gun ownership possession issues. There were three gun control bills in the house - one was the so called assault weapon and magazine ban that would have by estimates banned 70 percent of all handguns and over half of all rifles. That was defeated. The other two dealt with mental health restrictions - one focused on rules for police and the other for non-police. Some of the language was over-broad and different for police and non-police. There were concerns that people getting mental health care for everyday issues could be denied purchase or possession of a firearm. The agreement has to do with ironing out those issues so it is not a gun grab but does responsibly address the issue of the dangerously unstable mentally ill. Also, this episode resulted in a lot of conversation on the gun issue between gun lobbyists and senators and house reps, which has built some bridges for paving the way to the ccw law. So Jim is correct that there has been a lot of discussion and feeling each other out behind the scenes. Beyond that I don't know any specifics, which I wouldn't post if I did. The leadership of both house and senate are hostile to ccw as is the governor. So some house members and senators obviously don't want things out in public where they are exposed to the house speakers or senate presidents ire. There have been cracks in the Chicago front even before the court decision - with some Chicago reps responding to outreach from the rkba community. Despite some stereotypes some of the city reps have found that some of their constituency is receptive to ccw - given the high homicide rate in the city. Remember Otis McDonald is a black man from Chicago and it has been noticed in Chicago communities. I find it hard to believe after 20 years of fighting for this, that a shall issue ccw law will happen in Illinois - but barring a court reversal it will. Lisa Madigan has until Wednesday to file an appeal for a full enbanc hearing in the 7th circuit. If she does the court will respond within 10 days indicating if it the will accept the case for a full enbanc hearing. My guess is that she will appeal but the court will decline to rehear the case - for two reasons: one Posner the judge who wrote the majority decision is very respected in the circuit and two the court really doesn't want to pick up this hot potato and then reverse it. If that is the case, then the only option for the state is to appeal to the USSC - which hasn't been too kind to Illinois on gun rights cases. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they try an appeal to the USSC. Meanwhile however the clock is still running on the deadline with the 7th circuit and the time runs out in mid-June (decision was in early Dec - add 180 days or about 6 months). So legislators are under the gun to get something done as there is no guarantee that the USSC will even hear the case and if they do the ruling could in all probability be upheld. Many gun control advocates don't want this case appealed for that reason as they feel it could result in a USSC decision that required shall issue nationwide and would overturn restrictive may issue laws in NY, HI, and such. I think the court will hear a may issue case sooner or later anyway. If the USSC accepted the case then that could delay legislation as I don't doubt at that point the 7th would grant a stay on its order. However, waiting that long could leave the legislators in a tight bind (those that are not supportive of ccw) as if they wait too long and the USSC doesn't grant cert, then they will lose ever more negotiating and maneuvering time. That leads me to believe that no ccw legislation will move forward until after it is determined if the 7th circuit will grant a full enbanc hearing. If that is denied then real negotiations will start and there may not be an appeal to the USSC. Interesting to say the least. Another attempt at the assault weapon ban and a magazine ban will be made later in the year. They would never agree to a seize fire on gun control legislation and any deal would be unenforceable anyway. I doubt we (speaking of rkba movement) will try to bundle a lot of issues with the ccw law - though there will be preemption as part of the ccw law, no carve out for home rule in Chicago or anywhere. Foid will be dealt with separately. No gun free zone deal in Illinois, at least with schools - though pushing for something like armed security at every school would be nice - I don't see it happening due to the financial mess in Illinois. Might be wrong, but hell just happy we beat them on the assault weapon and magazine bans this week.