By Jamey Dunn
The sponsor of a new bill to regulate the concealed carry of firearms in the state says he is confident that the measure will pass in the House.
Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, introduced Senate Bill 2193 this afternoon. After polling other lawmakers, he said he thinks the bill could receive as many as 80 votes in favor. The legislation would require 71 votes to pass because it will supersede the powers of home rule governments, such as Chicago and Springfield. House Speaker Michael Madigan publicly backed the bill today and predicted its passage in the House.
A federal court gave Illinois until early June to craft concealed carry legislation. Phelps and others believe that if there is no law after that deadline, Illinois will be a carry free-for-all. Phelps described such a scenario as “mayhem.” “I don’t want to go off the cliff. A lot of people that are pro-gun around this state, they think it would be best to go off the cliff. I just don’t because there’s too much uncertainty.” He said making sure that those with carry permits are qualified is in the best interest of carry supporters because one bad actor could spoil things for everyone. “It just takes that one person to go out and shoot themselves or shoot somebody accidentally and just lock this down for years to come,” he said. “Let’s get some certainty with a bill we can pass.”
Local officials throughout the state are considering passing restrictions if the General Assembly fails to approve a bill by the deadline, but the National Rifle Association has vowed to challenge all local ordinances in court.
Under the bill, applicants for a concealed carry license would have to be 21 or older and eligible for a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID). They would have to complete 18 hours of training, including passing a live fire range test and pay $150 licensing fee. The amount of training has doubled since Phelps’s previous bill, which failed in the House last month. Most of the fee would go toward implementing the new licensing system. However, $20 would go toward fixing the state’s seriously flawed mental health records reporting system, and $10 would go to state crime labs. A recent audit of the FOID system, which is administered by the Illinois State Police, found that the FOID division was not getting the mental health records from counties that it needed for screening FOID applicants and cardholders. Under SB 2193, the state police would also administer carry permits.
Any law enforcement official could object to applications for carry licenses. Objections and the documentation to back them up would come before a board that would be appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. The requirements for serving on that board would be high. The bill calls for a federal judge, department of justice attorneys, federal law enforcement agents, doctors and clinical psychologists as members. Applicants would also be able to submit information to the board, which would make the final ruling on the permit.
The proposal would ban guns in many places, including schools, colleges, government buildings, health care facilities, parks and bars. It would also ban them from public events that require a permit from local government, such as street festivals. The legislation bans the carry of guns on public transit. But Phelps said he intends to make a change that would allow for carry on transit, as long is the weapon is stowed in a bag and unloaded.
Phelps, who has worked with the NRA on all the carry bills he has presented to date, says he does not have the organization's support on this one. He said he thinks the association will take no position on the bill. An NRA spokesperson could not be reached for comment. “I don’t know if anybody is happy right now, to be honest with you. My main thing is to get something done,” Phelps said. “Do you get everything you want in this process when it’s two weeks to go? No. But you know what? I think this is a good concealed carry bill.”
Phelps conceded that the lack of NRA approval might help the plan’s chance for passage in the Senate, where many Democrats support a much more restrictive bill. Phelps' legislation appears to try to skate a thin line of avoiding excessively angering the NRA, thus pushing them to lobby against the bill, while also not giving them a reason to jump for joy, which might scare Senate votes off the plan. But the proposal does not allow Chicago or Cook County to be any more restrictive on licensing than the rest of the state, which some in the Senate may find tough to swallow.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Phelps. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Phelps. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Quinn nixes concealed carry as it moves in the House
By Lauren N. Johnson
A House committee voted today in favor of a proposal that would allow Illinois residents to carry loaded firearms, but Gov. Pat Quinn vowed to veto the measure if it ends up on his desk.
House Bill 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, would permit citizens to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, parks and rest stops. The bill would bar carrying a gun in most government buildings, including schools. “It’s called concealed carry, but what is concealed and hidden from the public is a loaded gun,” said Quinn, who campaigned against concealed carry of firearms during his run for governor last November.
The bill would require applicants for a concealed carry permit to pay a $100 application fee, have eight hours of classroom firearm training, including gun range training administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, and receive notice from the state about carry zones where individuals would be allowed to bring firearms.
Hiram Grau, director of the Illinois State Police, said that issuing concealed carry permits would require additional manpower from the department. “The demands of this proposed concealed law are going to put a huge burden on our antiquated FOID system. The applications are going to be coming in hot and heavy, and we’re just not prepared for that.”
Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her group commissioned a statewide survey in March done by The Mellman Group, a Washington D.C.-based research firm, that found that 65 percent of Illinois registered voters opposed the idea of an individual carrying a concealed loaded handgun. “Concealed carry does not stop crime,” said Daley.
Quinn agreed, “To allow concealed, loaded handguns in the possession of private citizens in public places will not enhance public safety in Illinois; it will not reduce violence. Indeed, it will increase violence.”
Illinois is one of only two states without a law permitting the concealed carry of firearms. “I mean 48 other states can’t be wrong, and that’s not the reason we’re trying to pass this. We just think that law-abiding gun owners ought to have the right, their constitutional right, to do this, and we have two court cases on our side,” Phelps said .
Quinn said he received letters from presidents of the state’s public universities in strong opposition to the bill. The proposal comes after the deaths of five students at Northern Illinois University in 2008, where a gunman used a legally purchased a firearm.
After much opposition from universities, Phelps removed college campuses from the legal carry zones listed in his bill. “We’ve worked with every group that wants to work with us,” Phelps said. “The only group that wouldn’t meet with us was the city of Chicago because they are always going to be against this.”
Steve Peterson, deputy superintendent for the Chicago Police Department, said allowing individuals to carry guns could turn what would have previously been a vocal altercation or a fistfight into a deadly exchange. “Now, when the aggression becomes more and one or two of those persons has a concealed carry permit, all that can do is lead is too more violence on the street,” Peterson said.
He added, “Then when a police officer arrives and he sees two citizens confronting each other with weapons, he or she has to make a split decision.” However, Phelps said his bill requires a person to declare that they have a weapon and show their gun license when confronted by an officer.
Phelps plans to call the bill for a floor vote later this week. The deadline for the House to vote on the proposal was extended until Friday. Phelps said he does not have enough votes to override a veto from Quinn, but he said support for the legislation continues to grow. “We haven’t gotten anything. This is one thing that we ask,” Phelps said, suggesting that passage of concealed carry might soothe some downstate voters who felt they lost the battle over recent bills that abolished the death penalty and legalized civil unions in the state.
A House committee voted today in favor of a proposal that would allow Illinois residents to carry loaded firearms, but Gov. Pat Quinn vowed to veto the measure if it ends up on his desk.
House Bill 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, would permit citizens to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public places, such as shopping malls, restaurants, parks and rest stops. The bill would bar carrying a gun in most government buildings, including schools. “It’s called concealed carry, but what is concealed and hidden from the public is a loaded gun,” said Quinn, who campaigned against concealed carry of firearms during his run for governor last November.
The bill would require applicants for a concealed carry permit to pay a $100 application fee, have eight hours of classroom firearm training, including gun range training administered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board, and receive notice from the state about carry zones where individuals would be allowed to bring firearms.
Hiram Grau, director of the Illinois State Police, said that issuing concealed carry permits would require additional manpower from the department. “The demands of this proposed concealed law are going to put a huge burden on our antiquated FOID system. The applications are going to be coming in hot and heavy, and we’re just not prepared for that.”
Colleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her group commissioned a statewide survey in March done by The Mellman Group, a Washington D.C.-based research firm, that found that 65 percent of Illinois registered voters opposed the idea of an individual carrying a concealed loaded handgun. “Concealed carry does not stop crime,” said Daley.
Quinn agreed, “To allow concealed, loaded handguns in the possession of private citizens in public places will not enhance public safety in Illinois; it will not reduce violence. Indeed, it will increase violence.”
Illinois is one of only two states without a law permitting the concealed carry of firearms. “I mean 48 other states can’t be wrong, and that’s not the reason we’re trying to pass this. We just think that law-abiding gun owners ought to have the right, their constitutional right, to do this, and we have two court cases on our side,” Phelps said .
Quinn said he received letters from presidents of the state’s public universities in strong opposition to the bill. The proposal comes after the deaths of five students at Northern Illinois University in 2008, where a gunman used a legally purchased a firearm.
After much opposition from universities, Phelps removed college campuses from the legal carry zones listed in his bill. “We’ve worked with every group that wants to work with us,” Phelps said. “The only group that wouldn’t meet with us was the city of Chicago because they are always going to be against this.”
Steve Peterson, deputy superintendent for the Chicago Police Department, said allowing individuals to carry guns could turn what would have previously been a vocal altercation or a fistfight into a deadly exchange. “Now, when the aggression becomes more and one or two of those persons has a concealed carry permit, all that can do is lead is too more violence on the street,” Peterson said.
He added, “Then when a police officer arrives and he sees two citizens confronting each other with weapons, he or she has to make a split decision.” However, Phelps said his bill requires a person to declare that they have a weapon and show their gun license when confronted by an officer.
Phelps plans to call the bill for a floor vote later this week. The deadline for the House to vote on the proposal was extended until Friday. Phelps said he does not have enough votes to override a veto from Quinn, but he said support for the legislation continues to grow. “We haven’t gotten anything. This is one thing that we ask,” Phelps said, suggesting that passage of concealed carry might soothe some downstate voters who felt they lost the battle over recent bills that abolished the death penalty and legalized civil unions in the state.
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
Lawmakers to take up Quinn's concealed carry veto on day of court deadline
By Jamey Dunn
Gov. Pat Quinn had harsh words for lawmakers today as he revealed his proposed changes to a compromise concealed-carry bill lawmakers approved in May.
“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. “Fortunately our Constitution — adopted by the people in a referendum — gives the governor an opportunity to propose important changes that protect the public safety.”
A federal court overturned the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave lawmakers until early June to pass a bill regulating carry in the state. Both legislative chambers approved House Bill 183 on the last day of the spring session. Attorney General Lisa Madigan sought an extension of the deadline to give Quinn time to review the bill. Illinois now has until July 9 to put a carry law in place.
House sponsor of the bill Rep. Brandon Phelps has moved to override Quinn’s changes, and the House plans to begin session at 11 a.m. on July 9 to consider the veto. “He just put one more hurdle in there before the July 9 deadline that we’re going to have to overcome,” Phelps said. Supporters of the original House Bill 183 will need the support of three-fifths of the members of both chambers to reject Quinn’s changes. If all those who voted in favor of the bill the first time around also vote to reject the veto, then HB 183 will become law without Quinn's changes.
“There are serious flaws in this bill that jeopardize public safety of the people of Illinois.” Quinn said today after he used his amendatory veto power to make multiple changes to HB 183. Quinn's administration also launched a website that describes his tweaks to the bill. He proposed removing a provision that would bar home rule governments from setting future restrictions on guns, such as assault weapons bans. “Home rule is a very important part of life in Illinois. It allows local communities to adopt laws and ordinances that benefit their community, and that principle ought to be upheld.” Quinn said the provision is unrelated to concealed carry. “This provision was inspired by the National Rifle Association; it has nothing to do with concealed carry. It’s part of their agenda, no doubt about it, but we don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in the state of Illinois and our local communities.”
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the prohibition on future ordinances is meant to keep local laws from springing up after carry goes into effect. He said that if that occurs, gun owners would likely not know what each locality had passed and might inadvertently break laws as the travel in Illinois. “We do not believe in a patchwork of laws when you are traveling from town to town in the state. The average, law-abiding gun owner is not going to know when driving through those towns what’s expected of him or her.”
Home rule units that do not have bans on assault weapons would have 10 days after the bill becomes law to enact such a ban. “Those home rule municipalities have had forever to pass some form of assault weapons ban,” Phelps said. He took issue with the governor characterizing the bill as a product of the policy desires of the NRA. Phelps has worked closely with the NRA on previous versions of concealed carry, even sponsoring legislation drafted by the organization in the past. But he says HB 183 is a compromise bill that was worked out by lawmakers without interest groups at the table. “The NRA was never in the meeting. They don’t necessarily like the bill. There’s some things they like in there, and there’s some things they don’t like. There’s some things the city of Chicago likes and some things they don’t like. That’s how you get a compromise.” The NRA was neutral on the legislation and avoided making public comments. However gun control advocates noted that the group is rarely mum on any legislation concerning firearms, let alone one of the most important gun-related measures in recent history.
Quinn’s changes would limit those with a carry license to carrying one gun and one ammunition clip that holds no more than 10 rounds. The bill as written would allow licensees to carry as many guns and rounds as they wanted. Under HB 183, business owners who do not wish to allow guns on their property would be required to post a sign. Quinn wants the law to be the other way around. “The presumption ought to be that no guns are allowed in these places, and if the [property] owner wants to have guns, then they should have to have a sign that says, ‘Guns are welcome here.’ It shouldn’t be a burden on private property owners to put a sign otherwise.” Quinn was critical of wording in the bill that allows for carrying guns that are “mostly” concealed. “This isn’t concealed at all,” he said. He proposed changing the wording to clarify that weapons must be fully hidden from view.
The governor also wants to strike a provision that would allow gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars if their employers do not allow guns on site. Quinn said that employers should be allowed to ban guns anywhere on their property to reduce the potential for workplace violence. Quinn’s rewrite would also ban the carry of guns in any establishment that serves alcohol. HB 183 only bans weapons in establishments where alcohol makes up half of the gross sales. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix, and I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” he said.
Both of the last two issues were provisions that gun control advocates vocally opposed in HB 183. They applauded Quinn’s move today. Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her organization accepted the court ruling and tried to work with lawmakers to get “comprehensive” carry regulation. But she said that the process did not result in a satisfactory bill. “A flawed bill was passed. Thankfully, our state’s top elected official, Gov. Quinn has our back.” She said that SB 183 “goes too far,” but Quinn’s proposed changes would alleviate most of her group’s concerns with the bill.
Phelps has already filed the paperwork to override Quinn’s veto, which he dismissed as a political move. “This is 100 percent political pandering to one area of this state, Cook County and Chicago. That’s all he’s doing. He’s totally disregarding the General Assembly.” He said the governor has refused to take his calls since the bill passed. “That just shows you how much he thinks of the General Assembly,” Phelps said. “I thought maybe out of respect of each of the bill’s sponsors [he would] to try to work something out.” Phelps said Quinn should have signed the bill and then presented his own legislation with any changes he thinks are needed.
Both Phelps, and Sen. Gary Forby, the Senate sponsor of the bill, are confident that lawmakers will vote to override Quinn’s veto next week. Quinn has also threatened to call lawmakers back for a special session to take up pension reform, so there may be more than one session day next week. “This doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. We knew this governor was going to make this political. If he had concerns about the bill, maybe he should have been more involved when lawmakers spent months working on it. Instead, he makes major changes to the bill after it passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Just doesn’t seem very democratic to me,” said Forby, a Benton Democrat.
Quinn today reiterated his opposition to allowing concealed carry in the state at all. “I felt that [court] ruling was wrong then; I still feel it’s wrong. It’s not been appealed.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan still has the option to appeal the ruling, but a statement from her office today said that she plans to wait to see what lawmakers do with the veto. “That's the last step in the legislative process after the governor amendatorily vetoes a bill. Our office will continue to monitor the progress on the legislative front before making a final decision about the state’s legal options.”
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on the negotiations surrounding concealed carry, said he supports many of the changes that Quinn proposed. However he said they were not politically possible. Raoul in particular supported a ban on guns in all places where alcohol is served, but during negotiations, he acknowledged that he might not be able to get all the components he wanted passed. “I wanted the provision that the governor is suggesting to add through amendatory veto, but it was a deal breaker with regards to negotiations.” He said he has not yet decided how he will vote if the veto override is called in the Senate. He voted "present" on HB 183.
“The governor has within his powers the ability to weigh in. I share some of the sentiment of the governor with regards to some of these public safety issues,” Raoul said. But he said that the end product approved by the legislature had some strong protections, especially when coupled with other gun safety legislation sponsored by Raoul. When lawmakers passed the carry bill, they also approved legislation that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons and gun sellers to confirm that purchasers in private sales can legally own firearms. “I don’t fault him, but we have to realize the reality of the circumstance of what a legislature is and how you negotiate within it,” Raoul said.
Quinn said today in response to critics who have accused him of swooping in with demands at the 11th hour after lawmakers spent months negotiating the bill: “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety.”
Gov. Pat Quinn had harsh words for lawmakers today as he revealed his proposed changes to a compromise concealed-carry bill lawmakers approved in May.
“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said today at a Chicago news conference. “Fortunately our Constitution — adopted by the people in a referendum — gives the governor an opportunity to propose important changes that protect the public safety.”
A federal court overturned the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave lawmakers until early June to pass a bill regulating carry in the state. Both legislative chambers approved House Bill 183 on the last day of the spring session. Attorney General Lisa Madigan sought an extension of the deadline to give Quinn time to review the bill. Illinois now has until July 9 to put a carry law in place.
House sponsor of the bill Rep. Brandon Phelps has moved to override Quinn’s changes, and the House plans to begin session at 11 a.m. on July 9 to consider the veto. “He just put one more hurdle in there before the July 9 deadline that we’re going to have to overcome,” Phelps said. Supporters of the original House Bill 183 will need the support of three-fifths of the members of both chambers to reject Quinn’s changes. If all those who voted in favor of the bill the first time around also vote to reject the veto, then HB 183 will become law without Quinn's changes.
“There are serious flaws in this bill that jeopardize public safety of the people of Illinois.” Quinn said today after he used his amendatory veto power to make multiple changes to HB 183. Quinn's administration also launched a website that describes his tweaks to the bill. He proposed removing a provision that would bar home rule governments from setting future restrictions on guns, such as assault weapons bans. “Home rule is a very important part of life in Illinois. It allows local communities to adopt laws and ordinances that benefit their community, and that principle ought to be upheld.” Quinn said the provision is unrelated to concealed carry. “This provision was inspired by the National Rifle Association; it has nothing to do with concealed carry. It’s part of their agenda, no doubt about it, but we don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in the state of Illinois and our local communities.”
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the prohibition on future ordinances is meant to keep local laws from springing up after carry goes into effect. He said that if that occurs, gun owners would likely not know what each locality had passed and might inadvertently break laws as the travel in Illinois. “We do not believe in a patchwork of laws when you are traveling from town to town in the state. The average, law-abiding gun owner is not going to know when driving through those towns what’s expected of him or her.”
Home rule units that do not have bans on assault weapons would have 10 days after the bill becomes law to enact such a ban. “Those home rule municipalities have had forever to pass some form of assault weapons ban,” Phelps said. He took issue with the governor characterizing the bill as a product of the policy desires of the NRA. Phelps has worked closely with the NRA on previous versions of concealed carry, even sponsoring legislation drafted by the organization in the past. But he says HB 183 is a compromise bill that was worked out by lawmakers without interest groups at the table. “The NRA was never in the meeting. They don’t necessarily like the bill. There’s some things they like in there, and there’s some things they don’t like. There’s some things the city of Chicago likes and some things they don’t like. That’s how you get a compromise.” The NRA was neutral on the legislation and avoided making public comments. However gun control advocates noted that the group is rarely mum on any legislation concerning firearms, let alone one of the most important gun-related measures in recent history.
Quinn’s changes would limit those with a carry license to carrying one gun and one ammunition clip that holds no more than 10 rounds. The bill as written would allow licensees to carry as many guns and rounds as they wanted. Under HB 183, business owners who do not wish to allow guns on their property would be required to post a sign. Quinn wants the law to be the other way around. “The presumption ought to be that no guns are allowed in these places, and if the [property] owner wants to have guns, then they should have to have a sign that says, ‘Guns are welcome here.’ It shouldn’t be a burden on private property owners to put a sign otherwise.” Quinn was critical of wording in the bill that allows for carrying guns that are “mostly” concealed. “This isn’t concealed at all,” he said. He proposed changing the wording to clarify that weapons must be fully hidden from view.
The governor also wants to strike a provision that would allow gun owners to keep their firearms locked in their cars if their employers do not allow guns on site. Quinn said that employers should be allowed to ban guns anywhere on their property to reduce the potential for workplace violence. Quinn’s rewrite would also ban the carry of guns in any establishment that serves alcohol. HB 183 only bans weapons in establishments where alcohol makes up half of the gross sales. “Guns and alcohol don’t mix, and I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” he said.
Both of the last two issues were provisions that gun control advocates vocally opposed in HB 183. They applauded Quinn’s move today. Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said her organization accepted the court ruling and tried to work with lawmakers to get “comprehensive” carry regulation. But she said that the process did not result in a satisfactory bill. “A flawed bill was passed. Thankfully, our state’s top elected official, Gov. Quinn has our back.” She said that SB 183 “goes too far,” but Quinn’s proposed changes would alleviate most of her group’s concerns with the bill.
Phelps has already filed the paperwork to override Quinn’s veto, which he dismissed as a political move. “This is 100 percent political pandering to one area of this state, Cook County and Chicago. That’s all he’s doing. He’s totally disregarding the General Assembly.” He said the governor has refused to take his calls since the bill passed. “That just shows you how much he thinks of the General Assembly,” Phelps said. “I thought maybe out of respect of each of the bill’s sponsors [he would] to try to work something out.” Phelps said Quinn should have signed the bill and then presented his own legislation with any changes he thinks are needed.
Both Phelps, and Sen. Gary Forby, the Senate sponsor of the bill, are confident that lawmakers will vote to override Quinn’s veto next week. Quinn has also threatened to call lawmakers back for a special session to take up pension reform, so there may be more than one session day next week. “This doesn’t come as a shock to anyone. We knew this governor was going to make this political. If he had concerns about the bill, maybe he should have been more involved when lawmakers spent months working on it. Instead, he makes major changes to the bill after it passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Just doesn’t seem very democratic to me,” said Forby, a Benton Democrat.
Quinn today reiterated his opposition to allowing concealed carry in the state at all. “I felt that [court] ruling was wrong then; I still feel it’s wrong. It’s not been appealed.”
Attorney General Lisa Madigan still has the option to appeal the ruling, but a statement from her office today said that she plans to wait to see what lawmakers do with the veto. “That's the last step in the legislative process after the governor amendatorily vetoes a bill. Our office will continue to monitor the progress on the legislative front before making a final decision about the state’s legal options.”
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on the negotiations surrounding concealed carry, said he supports many of the changes that Quinn proposed. However he said they were not politically possible. Raoul in particular supported a ban on guns in all places where alcohol is served, but during negotiations, he acknowledged that he might not be able to get all the components he wanted passed. “I wanted the provision that the governor is suggesting to add through amendatory veto, but it was a deal breaker with regards to negotiations.” He said he has not yet decided how he will vote if the veto override is called in the Senate. He voted "present" on HB 183.
“The governor has within his powers the ability to weigh in. I share some of the sentiment of the governor with regards to some of these public safety issues,” Raoul said. But he said that the end product approved by the legislature had some strong protections, especially when coupled with other gun safety legislation sponsored by Raoul. When lawmakers passed the carry bill, they also approved legislation that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons and gun sellers to confirm that purchasers in private sales can legally own firearms. “I don’t fault him, but we have to realize the reality of the circumstance of what a legislature is and how you negotiate within it,” Raoul said.
Quinn said today in response to critics who have accused him of swooping in with demands at the 11th hour after lawmakers spent months negotiating the bill: “I don’t believe in compromising public safety. I don’t believe in negotiating public safety.”
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Another concealed carry plan fails in the House
By Jamey Dunn
For the second time in two days, the Illinois House voted down a concealed carry bill.
A federal court struck down the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave the state a June 9 deadline to pass legislation to regulate carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.
House Bill 997 (Amendment 9) needed 71 votes to pass because it would supersede the control of local home rule governments. It received only 64 “yes” votes.
The measure is a “shall-issue” bill that would require the Illinois State Police to issue concealed carry licenses to all qualified applicants. However, the legislation would allow local law enforcement to contest an application if they can demonstrate that applicants are a danger to themselves or others.
“A lot of people probably don’t want to hear this, but this is probably the strictest shall-issue bill in the country,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsors the legislation. Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said he tried to compromise with those who are concerned about concealed carry by increasing the amount of time that permit applicants would have to spend in training and upping the fees of the permits. Under his proposal, $30 out of every $100 permit fee would be dedicated to fix the state’s troubled Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) system, which does not receive most mental health records from county officials. Phelps called the current system a “travesty.” The measure also would increase penalties for violating the restrictions in the legislation.
But those tweaks could not bridge the deep divides on gun issues, which many lawmakers acknowledge are driven by regional differences.
“Clearly, we do simply come at this from different perspectives,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy. On Wednesday, the House soundly rejected Cassidy’s more restrictive “may issue” bill, which would have required applicants for permits to demonstrate a need to carry a firearm. It also would have let sheriffs, who would issue the permits under her proposal, use their discretion when deciding who could and could not carry. Opponents of such a model say it allows for unequal treatment and could let some counties essential opt out of concealed carry by denying the bulk of applications received.
Cassidy said she respects the desires of people in more rural communities who view guns as tools for hunting and protection. But she said lawmakers must also consider gun violence in some parts of Chicago, where young people are shooting each other in the streets. “The only hunting that’s happen in my neighborhood is of young men. More guns are not the answer to our gun problem in Chicago. Please. Let’s get to the table. Let’s get a solution that respects the differences between our communities. There is a solution, and there is time. This isn’t soup yet.”
Proponents of Phelps' bill said concealed carry could help protect residents of high crime areas, where criminals already have guns. “Wouldn’t it be nice for them to wonder if everybody had a gun? That’s the real deterrent,” said Rep. David Reis. He said of criminals who already illegally use guns: “You’re never going to control them. You control them by having an armed society.” Reis, a Willow Hill Republican, said people in other parts of the state need to carry guns to ensure their safety when the police cannot come quickly enough. “For us in rural areas, [it is] 20 or 30 minutes before a sheriff can get to our house or to our fields where we’re working.”
When the bill failed Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted against it, called out a similar sentiment to Cassidy’s remarks. “It’s not soup yet; not yet,” he said, and was met by calls of “it’s close” from supporters.
But Phelps was not so optimistic. “It might be the last chance. I don’t know what else we can give on.” His bill would preempt local control, which would bar local governments from putting their own carry laws in place. He said he does not plan to compromise on that issue. “There should be one uniform law that everybody knows about,” he said. Phelps said it would be too much to ask traveling gun owners to keep track of different laws across counties and cities throughout the state. “We think that you could make law abiding gun owners criminals.”
Phelps said lawmakers need to wake up to the reality of the court ordered deadline. “It better get real here soon because that's June 9th,” he said. If he and others on his side decide to leave the negotiations, he said, there would not be enough votes to pass legislation in the House. “If we walk, there’s not going to be a bill.
For the second time in two days, the Illinois House voted down a concealed carry bill.
A federal court struck down the state’s ban on concealed carry of firearms and gave the state a June 9 deadline to pass legislation to regulate carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.
House Bill 997 (Amendment 9) needed 71 votes to pass because it would supersede the control of local home rule governments. It received only 64 “yes” votes.
The measure is a “shall-issue” bill that would require the Illinois State Police to issue concealed carry licenses to all qualified applicants. However, the legislation would allow local law enforcement to contest an application if they can demonstrate that applicants are a danger to themselves or others.
“A lot of people probably don’t want to hear this, but this is probably the strictest shall-issue bill in the country,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsors the legislation. Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said he tried to compromise with those who are concerned about concealed carry by increasing the amount of time that permit applicants would have to spend in training and upping the fees of the permits. Under his proposal, $30 out of every $100 permit fee would be dedicated to fix the state’s troubled Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) system, which does not receive most mental health records from county officials. Phelps called the current system a “travesty.” The measure also would increase penalties for violating the restrictions in the legislation.
But those tweaks could not bridge the deep divides on gun issues, which many lawmakers acknowledge are driven by regional differences.
“Clearly, we do simply come at this from different perspectives,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy. On Wednesday, the House soundly rejected Cassidy’s more restrictive “may issue” bill, which would have required applicants for permits to demonstrate a need to carry a firearm. It also would have let sheriffs, who would issue the permits under her proposal, use their discretion when deciding who could and could not carry. Opponents of such a model say it allows for unequal treatment and could let some counties essential opt out of concealed carry by denying the bulk of applications received.
Cassidy said she respects the desires of people in more rural communities who view guns as tools for hunting and protection. But she said lawmakers must also consider gun violence in some parts of Chicago, where young people are shooting each other in the streets. “The only hunting that’s happen in my neighborhood is of young men. More guns are not the answer to our gun problem in Chicago. Please. Let’s get to the table. Let’s get a solution that respects the differences between our communities. There is a solution, and there is time. This isn’t soup yet.”
Proponents of Phelps' bill said concealed carry could help protect residents of high crime areas, where criminals already have guns. “Wouldn’t it be nice for them to wonder if everybody had a gun? That’s the real deterrent,” said Rep. David Reis. He said of criminals who already illegally use guns: “You’re never going to control them. You control them by having an armed society.” Reis, a Willow Hill Republican, said people in other parts of the state need to carry guns to ensure their safety when the police cannot come quickly enough. “For us in rural areas, [it is] 20 or 30 minutes before a sheriff can get to our house or to our fields where we’re working.”
When the bill failed Rep. Will Davis, a Chicago Democrat who voted against it, called out a similar sentiment to Cassidy’s remarks. “It’s not soup yet; not yet,” he said, and was met by calls of “it’s close” from supporters.
But Phelps was not so optimistic. “It might be the last chance. I don’t know what else we can give on.” His bill would preempt local control, which would bar local governments from putting their own carry laws in place. He said he does not plan to compromise on that issue. “There should be one uniform law that everybody knows about,” he said. Phelps said it would be too much to ask traveling gun owners to keep track of different laws across counties and cities throughout the state. “We think that you could make law abiding gun owners criminals.”
Phelps said lawmakers need to wake up to the reality of the court ordered deadline. “It better get real here soon because that's June 9th,” he said. If he and others on his side decide to leave the negotiations, he said, there would not be enough votes to pass legislation in the House. “If we walk, there’s not going to be a bill.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
House feels out concealed carry proposals
By Jamey Dunn
Over the course of seven hours today, Illinois House members went on the record on various provisions that could make up a final plan to allow concealed carry of firearms. Pension changes may get the same treatment later this week.
In December, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. The court gave The General Assembly 180 days to pass a law to regulate carry. The court’s opinion said the state could set reasonable restrictions on carry, such as training requirements for licenses and banning guns in certain places.
Now, the House is trying to wade through the potential components of a plan. Lawmakers were faced with 31 amendments to House Bill 1155 today dealing with various components of concealed carry, including where guns would be allowed and what kind of licensing system that state might have. Debate lasted for about seven hours, and lawmakers voted in favor of 10 amendments. Amendments that were approved would:
Lawmakers rejected amendments that would have banned guns at places that dispense alcohol, public gatherings, such as fairs, and on university and community college campuses. Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored several concealed carry bills in recent years, said that the amendment that dealt with universities did not adhere to a previous compromise made with the universities. “We had a deal. A deal is a deal, especially in this General Assembly.”
Republicans complained about the unorthodox process, which called on the full House to vote on complex and controversial amendments. Typically, such amendments are first vetted and approved by a committee before reaching the floor. However, none of the votes cast today were final action, and HB 1155 might not be the final concealed carry bill. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to push them into votes that could later be used against them in future elections. “I don’t think this is going anywhere. I really don’t. We’re playing games,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. But others said they saw today’s events as a kickoff to the debate over carry. “People are going to get excited about some of these amendments, but I believe this is the beginning of a process. And I hope everybody understands that,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican.
House members approved an amendment that contains concealed carry legislation similar to HB 997, which Phelps introduced earlier this year. His proposal would require applicants to have training and a shooting test to obtain a license. The application fee for a license would be $85, and the Illinois State Police would be required to issue licenses to those applicants who were eligible. The proposal would ban guns from several locations, including schools and bars. It would also allow universities and community colleges to prohibit guns on campus. “We believe we have a reasonable bill that complies with the court’s decision and directions. We should have one standard for our state.”
Phelps said language that would allow the state police to use discretion when issuing licenses could lead to cases of discrimination. “We believe that a bureaucrat should not dictate who gets a permit or [does] not get a permit.” Phelps warned that if lawmakers cannot get concealed carry legislation passed, there would be no restrictions after the court’s deadline is up in June.
Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski of Riverside said that today’s session was useful for getting members to grasp the complexity of the issue and getting a feel for where their preferences lie. “I think we needed this particular day to ensure that people were aware of the issues that we face on this. Everyone assumes that we can just pass a bill and this will all figure itself out, but there’s so many ... factors that go into this and how we balance protecting public safety with the constitutional right to carry a weapon, so we needed this for people to start thinking about the issue.” He said the votes on the amendments banning guns were instructive about what proposals could receive support in a final bill. “We may not be able to put a restriction on what people do in a public way. We may only be able to regulate schools and mass transit and parks and things. So that’s my takeaway.”
As the hours ticked by, several amendments were passed over without a vote. Zalewski sponsored an amendment that would have allowed the police to use discretion when issuing licenses but did not call the provision for a vote. He said the arguments over more rigid language that the state “shall issue” concealed carry permits and his more permissive “may issue” language came up during debate over Phelps’ amendment. Phelps and other concealed carry supporters believe that “may issue” language would not meet the requirements in the federal court’s ruling. Zalewski disagrees. He said that just because 67 House members voted in favor of Phelps’ plan does not mean it will be the final language. “I think that it’s important to note that that bill didn’t get 71 votes. We’ve always operated under the assumption that we’re going to preempt home rule here. And if that’s the case, then it needs a 71 [to] 36 majority.”
During the debate, Republicans complained that Democratic leaders plan to address proposed changes to the pension systems for state employees in a similar way this week. Zalewski said he thinks the process could be even more useful for addressing pension reform. “Thursday, we’re doing the same thing on pensions so that will be instructive,” he said. “On pensions, everyone talks a really nice game, but no one’s actually had to vote for something [on the floor] yet. So we will find out if people are really wiling to raise contributions, and we will find out if people are really willing to limit [cost-of-living adjustments]. ... Forcing people to the table and forcing them to take hard votes, I think it’s helpful. We were bogged down, so we need to move the ball a little bit.”
Over the course of seven hours today, Illinois House members went on the record on various provisions that could make up a final plan to allow concealed carry of firearms. Pension changes may get the same treatment later this week.
In December, the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s ban on carrying firearms in public is unconstitutional. The court gave The General Assembly 180 days to pass a law to regulate carry. The court’s opinion said the state could set reasonable restrictions on carry, such as training requirements for licenses and banning guns in certain places.
Now, the House is trying to wade through the potential components of a plan. Lawmakers were faced with 31 amendments to House Bill 1155 today dealing with various components of concealed carry, including where guns would be allowed and what kind of licensing system that state might have. Debate lasted for about seven hours, and lawmakers voted in favor of 10 amendments. Amendments that were approved would:
- Prohibit concealed carry in schools, libraries, government buildings and on public mass transit.
- Bar guns from child care facilities, hospitals and mental health facilities.
- Ban carry in gaming facilities, at amusement parks and sporting events.
Lawmakers rejected amendments that would have banned guns at places that dispense alcohol, public gatherings, such as fairs, and on university and community college campuses. Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has sponsored several concealed carry bills in recent years, said that the amendment that dealt with universities did not adhere to a previous compromise made with the universities. “We had a deal. A deal is a deal, especially in this General Assembly.”
Republicans complained about the unorthodox process, which called on the full House to vote on complex and controversial amendments. Typically, such amendments are first vetted and approved by a committee before reaching the floor. However, none of the votes cast today were final action, and HB 1155 might not be the final concealed carry bill. Republicans accused Democrats of trying to push them into votes that could later be used against them in future elections. “I don’t think this is going anywhere. I really don’t. We’re playing games,” said Rep. Mike Bost, a Murphysboro Republican. But others said they saw today’s events as a kickoff to the debate over carry. “People are going to get excited about some of these amendments, but I believe this is the beginning of a process. And I hope everybody understands that,” said Rep. Jim Durkin, a Western Springs Republican.
House members approved an amendment that contains concealed carry legislation similar to HB 997, which Phelps introduced earlier this year. His proposal would require applicants to have training and a shooting test to obtain a license. The application fee for a license would be $85, and the Illinois State Police would be required to issue licenses to those applicants who were eligible. The proposal would ban guns from several locations, including schools and bars. It would also allow universities and community colleges to prohibit guns on campus. “We believe we have a reasonable bill that complies with the court’s decision and directions. We should have one standard for our state.”
Phelps said language that would allow the state police to use discretion when issuing licenses could lead to cases of discrimination. “We believe that a bureaucrat should not dictate who gets a permit or [does] not get a permit.” Phelps warned that if lawmakers cannot get concealed carry legislation passed, there would be no restrictions after the court’s deadline is up in June.
Democratic Rep. Michael Zalewski of Riverside said that today’s session was useful for getting members to grasp the complexity of the issue and getting a feel for where their preferences lie. “I think we needed this particular day to ensure that people were aware of the issues that we face on this. Everyone assumes that we can just pass a bill and this will all figure itself out, but there’s so many ... factors that go into this and how we balance protecting public safety with the constitutional right to carry a weapon, so we needed this for people to start thinking about the issue.” He said the votes on the amendments banning guns were instructive about what proposals could receive support in a final bill. “We may not be able to put a restriction on what people do in a public way. We may only be able to regulate schools and mass transit and parks and things. So that’s my takeaway.”
As the hours ticked by, several amendments were passed over without a vote. Zalewski sponsored an amendment that would have allowed the police to use discretion when issuing licenses but did not call the provision for a vote. He said the arguments over more rigid language that the state “shall issue” concealed carry permits and his more permissive “may issue” language came up during debate over Phelps’ amendment. Phelps and other concealed carry supporters believe that “may issue” language would not meet the requirements in the federal court’s ruling. Zalewski disagrees. He said that just because 67 House members voted in favor of Phelps’ plan does not mean it will be the final language. “I think that it’s important to note that that bill didn’t get 71 votes. We’ve always operated under the assumption that we’re going to preempt home rule here. And if that’s the case, then it needs a 71 [to] 36 majority.”
During the debate, Republicans complained that Democratic leaders plan to address proposed changes to the pension systems for state employees in a similar way this week. Zalewski said he thinks the process could be even more useful for addressing pension reform. “Thursday, we’re doing the same thing on pensions so that will be instructive,” he said. “On pensions, everyone talks a really nice game, but no one’s actually had to vote for something [on the floor] yet. So we will find out if people are really wiling to raise contributions, and we will find out if people are really willing to limit [cost-of-living adjustments]. ... Forcing people to the table and forcing them to take hard votes, I think it’s helpful. We were bogged down, so we need to move the ball a little bit.”
Friday, December 09, 2011
Federal bill would allow concealed carry in Illinois
By Jamey Dunn
After state legislation to allow concealed carry of guns in Illinois was shot down, some Illinois lawmakers are working at the federal level to open the door to concealed carry in the state.
U.S. Rep. Timothy Johnson is sponsoring a bill that would allow individuals who hold concealed carry licenses from other states to carry firearms in Illinois. “Overturning this prohibition in Illinois is long-overdue,” Rep. Johnson said. “Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves. Over 100 years of Supreme Court rulings and the 14th Amendment guarantee that no state can deny the rights and privileges of any citizen. The Second Amendment could not be more clear on this issue. Forty-nine other states understand this and have reasonable policies in place to ensure that only law-abiding people willing to go through authorized safety training are permitted this right. The only reason Illinois is the exception is Cook County. This is not acceptable,” Johnson said in a written statement.
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, a sponsor of legislation that would allow concealed carry in Illinois, said he supports Johnson’s bill. Phelps' bill to legalize concealed carry failed in the Illinois House earlier this year. He said Illinois residents currently hold licenses for concealed carry in other states, and those licenses should apply here. Illinois is the only state in the union that does not allow some form of concealed carry after Wisconsin legalized concealed carry earlier this year.
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said he is about “five or six” votes short of the supermajority he would need to pass his bill. Because the bill would overrule home rule authority, it requires more than a simple majority. He said if Illinois would allow concealed carry, as opposed to accepting licenses from out of state, it would mean more revenue in the form of fees associated with licensing. “This can bring in a lot of money, people don’t realize that.”
Phelps thinks it is “just a matter of time.” Before some form of legal concealed carry happens in Illinois. He points to several pending court cases on the issues. “If it goes through the courts…it will be wide open.” He said his bill is preferable, because it contains restrictions on eligibility and where weapons can be carried. He said if Johnsons’ bill becomes law, he would back a state plan that would add some restrictions.
“Forty other state’s are not wrong, I believe, and it’s not the Wild West anywhere else,” Phelps said.
However, opponents say that concealed carry would not make the state a safer place. “Public safety has been and continues to be one of Gov. [Pat] Quinn’s top priorities, which is why he is opposed to allowing people to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public places, such as college campuses, parks, malls and our city streets,” said a written statement from Quinn’s office. Quinn spoke out against Phelps' bill during the regular legislative session. He has vowed to veto any concealed carry legislation that comes to his desk. “We must ensure the safety of our neighborhoods and allowing concealed carry does not advance that goal. Our streets need to be safer, and a concealed carry law would put first responders and the public at risk by allowing more weapons – hidden weapons – in public places. Guns must not fall into the wrong hands and our current regulatory system is antiquated – there are large gaps when it comes to identifying individuals who should be prohibited from carrying weapons. We cannot allow those individuals to carry loaded, hidden weapons.”
After state legislation to allow concealed carry of guns in Illinois was shot down, some Illinois lawmakers are working at the federal level to open the door to concealed carry in the state.
U.S. Rep. Timothy Johnson is sponsoring a bill that would allow individuals who hold concealed carry licenses from other states to carry firearms in Illinois. “Overturning this prohibition in Illinois is long-overdue,” Rep. Johnson said. “Law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves. Over 100 years of Supreme Court rulings and the 14th Amendment guarantee that no state can deny the rights and privileges of any citizen. The Second Amendment could not be more clear on this issue. Forty-nine other states understand this and have reasonable policies in place to ensure that only law-abiding people willing to go through authorized safety training are permitted this right. The only reason Illinois is the exception is Cook County. This is not acceptable,” Johnson said in a written statement.
State Rep. Brandon Phelps, a sponsor of legislation that would allow concealed carry in Illinois, said he supports Johnson’s bill. Phelps' bill to legalize concealed carry failed in the Illinois House earlier this year. He said Illinois residents currently hold licenses for concealed carry in other states, and those licenses should apply here. Illinois is the only state in the union that does not allow some form of concealed carry after Wisconsin legalized concealed carry earlier this year.
Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said he is about “five or six” votes short of the supermajority he would need to pass his bill. Because the bill would overrule home rule authority, it requires more than a simple majority. He said if Illinois would allow concealed carry, as opposed to accepting licenses from out of state, it would mean more revenue in the form of fees associated with licensing. “This can bring in a lot of money, people don’t realize that.”
Phelps thinks it is “just a matter of time.” Before some form of legal concealed carry happens in Illinois. He points to several pending court cases on the issues. “If it goes through the courts…it will be wide open.” He said his bill is preferable, because it contains restrictions on eligibility and where weapons can be carried. He said if Johnsons’ bill becomes law, he would back a state plan that would add some restrictions.
“Forty other state’s are not wrong, I believe, and it’s not the Wild West anywhere else,” Phelps said.
However, opponents say that concealed carry would not make the state a safer place. “Public safety has been and continues to be one of Gov. [Pat] Quinn’s top priorities, which is why he is opposed to allowing people to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public places, such as college campuses, parks, malls and our city streets,” said a written statement from Quinn’s office. Quinn spoke out against Phelps' bill during the regular legislative session. He has vowed to veto any concealed carry legislation that comes to his desk. “We must ensure the safety of our neighborhoods and allowing concealed carry does not advance that goal. Our streets need to be safer, and a concealed carry law would put first responders and the public at risk by allowing more weapons – hidden weapons – in public places. Guns must not fall into the wrong hands and our current regulatory system is antiquated – there are large gaps when it comes to identifying individuals who should be prohibited from carrying weapons. We cannot allow those individuals to carry loaded, hidden weapons.”
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Concealed-carry supporters hope for vote on Thursday
By Jamey Dunn
Supporters of concealed carry of firearms hope to pass a bill on Thursday after the House today rejected a proposal similar to a more restrictive system used in New York state.
The chamber voted 31 to 76 today against adopting an amendment to House Bill 831 that would give local law enforcement officials discretion when issuing licenses to carry firearms in public. Supporters of concealed carry in Illinois are pushing for a “shall issue” licensing system that would require the state to give permits to applicants who meet the requirements set out in the law. But earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to New York’s “may issue” law. That statute allows law enforcement officials to deny applicants who may be qualified on paper for a license if they think the applicant presents a danger. Those who would like a stricter law took the court’s action as a sign that Illinois should go for a “may issue” model. But today’s vote encouraged gun rights advocates. “Now more than ever, the ‘may issue’ should be completely off the table because it was really evident that they are a long way from passing a ‘may issue,’” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat.
He said he plans to call legislation for a floor vote tomorrow that is similar to House Bill 997, a concealed carry bill he introduced earlier this legislative session. “We’ve got to have something done,” he said, citing the June deadline a federal court gave lawmakers to pass concealed carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.
The New York law also requires applicants to provide a reason for their need to carry in public. Such a provision was in the proposal voted down in the Illinois House today. “Our communities are different. Since you’re establishing danger distinct from other members of your community, it would be unique to your community,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the sponsor of HB831. Under the legislation, sheriffs would determine whether an applicant made the case for needing to carry a firearm. “In each community, the sheriff is going the have the best understanding of the questions of personal safety in the community.” After a sheriff signed off on an application, it would then go the Illinois State Police for another round of scrutiny.
Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat, said the bill was an effort to balance constitutional rights with public safety and recognize that geographic areas of the state have different issues with guns. Supporters agreed. “The court said that it was legitimate for us to impose a balancing act to set the rights of people to be safe from guns that are out of control against the rights of people to be able to protect themselves,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie. She said the measure that the House considered today “does exactly that.” Currie said during floor debate, “If you want Illinois to be the wild West, I invite you to vote against” the amendment.
But opponents say the proposal would be a way to effectively exempt Chicago from concealed carry. “Downstate will probably be more liberal with their concealed carry permit, versus Chicago and Cook County,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “I believe this is just really an end (run) around what the 7th Circuit [Court of Appeals] has stated we should do.”
Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”
Phelps said supporters of his plan believe it is a “last chance” to get a compromise before the deadline runs out. “I don’t know if there’s another chance to pass anything. I think that there’s a lot of people who are going to say, ‘Look, we tried. Let’s just go off the cliff. Let’s do constitutional carry.’” He said a lot of House members who have never voted in favor of a concealed-carry bill are afraid of that happening. “I’ve got a lot of people who are interested in voting for this that never have before because they don’t want constitutional carry.”
But gun control advocates cautioned not to read too much into today’s vote. They said they knew the support wasn’t there yet, but they think they can find backing for a bill that allows Chicago some local control. While lawmakers must get something done, they say, it isn’t crunch time yet.
“I don’t think we should just rush to do something because we’ve got a deadline,” said Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “We need to make sure that whatever we’re going to do will respect people’s 2nd Amendment rights, while also keeping people safe.” She said gun control groups have not had “true negotiations” in the House but are working with lawmakers in the Senate on a proposal. “I do think there’s promise that we’ll find something that will end up working,” she says. “We’ve been willing to negotiate from day one.”
Phelps said he would spend the evening lobbying House members. He thinks he is very close to having the 71 votes he needs to pass his bill tomorrow. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”
Supporters of concealed carry of firearms hope to pass a bill on Thursday after the House today rejected a proposal similar to a more restrictive system used in New York state.
The chamber voted 31 to 76 today against adopting an amendment to House Bill 831 that would give local law enforcement officials discretion when issuing licenses to carry firearms in public. Supporters of concealed carry in Illinois are pushing for a “shall issue” licensing system that would require the state to give permits to applicants who meet the requirements set out in the law. But earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a challenge to New York’s “may issue” law. That statute allows law enforcement officials to deny applicants who may be qualified on paper for a license if they think the applicant presents a danger. Those who would like a stricter law took the court’s action as a sign that Illinois should go for a “may issue” model. But today’s vote encouraged gun rights advocates. “Now more than ever, the ‘may issue’ should be completely off the table because it was really evident that they are a long way from passing a ‘may issue,’” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat.
He said he plans to call legislation for a floor vote tomorrow that is similar to House Bill 997, a concealed carry bill he introduced earlier this legislative session. “We’ve got to have something done,” he said, citing the June deadline a federal court gave lawmakers to pass concealed carry. If there is no law regulating carry when that deadline hits, the court could opt to allow what many are calling constitutional carry, which would let anyone with a Firearm Owners Identification Card carry a gun anywhere in the state.
The New York law also requires applicants to provide a reason for their need to carry in public. Such a provision was in the proposal voted down in the Illinois House today. “Our communities are different. Since you’re establishing danger distinct from other members of your community, it would be unique to your community,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, the sponsor of HB831. Under the legislation, sheriffs would determine whether an applicant made the case for needing to carry a firearm. “In each community, the sheriff is going the have the best understanding of the questions of personal safety in the community.” After a sheriff signed off on an application, it would then go the Illinois State Police for another round of scrutiny.
Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat, said the bill was an effort to balance constitutional rights with public safety and recognize that geographic areas of the state have different issues with guns. Supporters agreed. “The court said that it was legitimate for us to impose a balancing act to set the rights of people to be safe from guns that are out of control against the rights of people to be able to protect themselves,” said Chicago Democratic Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie. She said the measure that the House considered today “does exactly that.” Currie said during floor debate, “If you want Illinois to be the wild West, I invite you to vote against” the amendment.
But opponents say the proposal would be a way to effectively exempt Chicago from concealed carry. “Downstate will probably be more liberal with their concealed carry permit, versus Chicago and Cook County,” said Elmhurst Republican Rep. Dennis Reboletti. “I believe this is just really an end (run) around what the 7th Circuit [Court of Appeals] has stated we should do.”
Phelps said he has worked compromise into his legislation, which was being drafted late tonight. Under his previous proposal, the state police would issue concealed carry licenses, but sheriffs could contest applications. Phelps said he also plans to give that option to Chicago city police. Phelps said he also plans to increase the fee for licenses from the $25 fee in his first iteration of the plan to $100 and call for $30 from each license to go to a special fund dedicated to repairing the state’s troubled FOID card system and ensuring that county mental health records are reported to the state police. He said training requirements would also be increased from four hours in the original bill to 10 hours and would include a live ammunition test. “We’re offering a lot of things,” he said. “This version of what we’re going to try to run tomorrow is a combination of about four bills that we have had in the time that I have been here.”
Phelps said supporters of his plan believe it is a “last chance” to get a compromise before the deadline runs out. “I don’t know if there’s another chance to pass anything. I think that there’s a lot of people who are going to say, ‘Look, we tried. Let’s just go off the cliff. Let’s do constitutional carry.’” He said a lot of House members who have never voted in favor of a concealed-carry bill are afraid of that happening. “I’ve got a lot of people who are interested in voting for this that never have before because they don’t want constitutional carry.”
But gun control advocates cautioned not to read too much into today’s vote. They said they knew the support wasn’t there yet, but they think they can find backing for a bill that allows Chicago some local control. While lawmakers must get something done, they say, it isn’t crunch time yet.
“I don’t think we should just rush to do something because we’ve got a deadline,” said Coleen Daley, executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. “We need to make sure that whatever we’re going to do will respect people’s 2nd Amendment rights, while also keeping people safe.” She said gun control groups have not had “true negotiations” in the House but are working with lawmakers in the Senate on a proposal. “I do think there’s promise that we’ll find something that will end up working,” she says. “We’ve been willing to negotiate from day one.”
Phelps said he would spend the evening lobbying House members. He thinks he is very close to having the 71 votes he needs to pass his bill tomorrow. “This is the closest we’ve ever been.”
Thursday, May 05, 2011
House rejects concealed carry
By Lauren N. Johnson
A bill that would have allowed Illinois residents to carry concealed firearms fell just six votes shy of passage today after a heated debate on the House floor.
Proponents of the bill, HB 148, sponsored by Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said the measure would provide safety for those who obey the law and want to protect themselves and their families.
The bill would have required concealed carry permit applicants to own a Firearm Owner’s Identification card, go through eight hours of firearm education training, and have a background check done of mental illness and criminal records, prior to legally carrying a loaded firearm in the state.
Phelps said many of those who opposed the measure were against guns being carried on the streets. Yet, he said criminals are already carrying guns illegally. “What in the world is wrong with us to be able to defend ourselves and our families just in the split second if there is a confrontation,” said Phelps on the House floor.
Those in favor of the bill again noted that Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two states in the country that do not allow some form of concealed carry. Alton Republican Rep. Dan Beiser pointed to the fact that Illinoisans often travel into states with concealed carry laws likely without even thinking about the issue. "And for those that suggest that this would increase violence or that their safety would be put in harm’s way. I would just ask this question. When you've traveled to other states in this country, that all 48 other states [that have concealed carry] the minute you crossed that border, did you fear for your safety? And I would venture a guess that almost everyone to the men and women of this body would have to honestly say when I boarded that plane, crossed that border, or when I got in my car and crossed that border, I did not fear for my safety."
However, opponents of the measure voiced concern with what would be legal carry zones for gun owners in public places, such as parks and restaurants, and said the bill would have added to more gun violence, particularly in Cook County and the City of Chicago. The bill needed a supermajority of 71 votes to overrule Chicago’s home rule authority and allow concealed carry in the city, which had a ban on residents owning handguns until is was recently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Phelps said he worked with anyone who approached him to try and find compromise and that he limited the areas where people could carry guns — including college campuses — to ease opponents fears.
Mark Walsh, campaign director for the Illinois Campaign to Protect Gun Violence, a project of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence said, “The discretion that they claimed they worked on would still allow people to have weapons near schools and in the parking lots of universities.”
Rep. Edward Acevedo, a Chicago Democrat, said the bill would have put a burden on police officers and would have potentially endangered them. “Right now, if a police officer sees a person with a gun on the street they know immediately that the gun is illegal.”
He added, “But if the bill becomes law, anyone will be carrying a gun on the street and rather than moving swiftly to protect themselves and us, the officer’s response with a gun will have to delay — that delay can be fatal to that officer,” Acevedo said. Others said the bill would have also strained an out-of-date FOID system, a system run by the Illinois State Police that would have had to process an estimated 100,000 applications for the concealed carry permits in its first year.
Proponents said the bill’s failure was due in large part to strong opposition from some law enforcement agencies, Chicago-based advocates against gun violence and Gov. Pat Quinn, who vowed again today to veto the bill passed and whose administration strongly lobbied lawmakers against the legislation.
Phelps placed the bill on postponed consideration in hope of moving forward with the issue before the close of the session. “We’re willing to talk to anybody,” he said.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Concealed-carry bill introduced in the House
By Jamey Dunn
Rep. Brandon Phelps introduced a concealed-carry bill today and says he hopes to pass legislation before a court-imposed deadline requires the state to allow residents to carry firearms in public.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in December ruled the state’s ban on concealed-carry unconstitutional and gave the General Assembly 180 days to pass carry legislation. The court’s opinion said lawmakers have the right to put restrictions on carry, such as requiring training for a license and limiting the places that guns are allowed. The decision came from a panel of three judges, but Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the full court, 10 judges, to reconsider the case. So far, however, the 180-day deadline continues to stand. Phelps and others believe that if legislators do not get something passed by that deadline, there will be no restrictions on carrying firearms in the state. “Here’s the deal: The clock is still ticking,” Phelps said. “If I was an anti-gun group, I would want to hurry up and get something passed.”
Phelps, who has sponsored several versions of a concealed-carry bill throughout the years, said he introduced a bill this session because he wants to negotiate in good faith. “We filed a bill to show people that we do mean what we say about working on this issue.” Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said his new legislation, House Bill 997, is similar to House Bill 48, which failed to get the needed support to pass in the House in the spring of 2011. “Now’s not the time to reinvent the wheel,” he said.
Under the new proposal, applicants must be 21 years old and hold a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. They would be required to undergo four hours of training on topics including: “basic principles of marksmanship, care and cleaning of handguns and laws relating to the justifiable use of force.” They would also have to pass a live fire exercise with a certified instructor. A database of applicant information would be accessible to law enforcement officials. Statistical information about licenses issued by demographics, such as race, age gender or geographic location, would be available to the public. However, information about specific applicants would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
If an applicant met all the requirements in the bill, the legislation requires that the Illinois State Police issue a license within 30 days of receiving his or her application. The state police would be able to consider objections from local law enforcement when processing applications. Those applicants who were granted licenses would be able to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun either concealed or openly in public and while in a vehicle. The measure prohibits guns in certain areas, such as state and federal buildings, and bars firearms at college campuses and schools. Some of those places, such as schools and campuses, could opt to allow concealed-carry if approved by school authorities. Business owners could choose not to allow guns inside their establishments.
The bill would preempt home rule, so it would apply across the state, including in Chicago. The proposal would bar home rule units of government from limiting the number of guns a concealed-carry permit owner could have or requiring that they register the guns they own.
Meanwhile, a group of freshman lawmakers joined Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon today to announce a new working group that will focus on guns. “Issues about firearms often have regional rather than partisan splits, and your perspective as to where you come from in the state often has an influence on how you look at these issues, so that’s one of the reasons that I wanted to convene this group of folks from across the state to be able to learn what those regional perspectives are, to be able to be fully informed,” Simon said at a Chicago news conference.
Simon said the group plans to meet with mental health professionals, law enforcement officials, teachers, school administrators, victims of gun violence, gun rights activists and gun control supporters. Members of the group will also learn how to use a firearm at the Sparta World Shooting Complex and get a lesson on gun safety from the state police. She said the panel does not plan to produce legislation but to help create an informed dialogue on the issue. She said the group would especially focus on the subject of concealed carry. “It’s something that this group will likely have to vote on, and I think as a group we’ve decided that we want to contribute to a fully informed conversation on this issue. This is an issue where people often get driven into one side or another, and we miss some opportunity where we all have common interest,” Simon said. “We’re not targeting putting out a report. We’re not targeting putting out a bill. We’re targeting making the legislative process an effective one. We’re targeting making sure that people from different perspectives understand those other perspectives.”
Lawmakers from throughout the state have joined the diverse group. The panel includes a former federal prosecutor, former school board members, a veteran of the Iraq War, a former Illinois Department of Corrections employee, a conservationist and a mayor. Orland Hills Democrat Rep. Michael Hastings, who served in the United States Army and is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, said he has a FOID card and is a gun owner. “I know the detrimental effects that weapons can have when used improperly, and I want to ensure that the legislation that we pass provides for guidelines and rules for gun owners that provide for safe and effective use of firearms if and when conceal and carry is passed.”
Hillside Democratic Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch, who earlier this week stepped down as school board president for Proviso Township High School District 209, said he opposed concealed carry during his campaign for the General Assembly. “Being from Cook County, this is a very serious issue for us. The city of Chicago had over 500 murders last year. So I’m here willing to listen, but I’m also here willing to offer some ideas on how we can address some serious statistics that we are dealing with in the city of Chicago.”
Simon said she is targeting new lawmakers in part because they have yet to act on any legislation related to gun control. “I think you’re the perfect group to be working on this. None of you have cast a vote in the General Assembly on any kind of gun issue, and it’s a great opportunity to do that bipartisan work and to really be leaders.”
Phelps said he is interested to hear what Simon’s group has to offer on concealed carry, but he also said they should listen to lawmakers like him who have been trying to reach a compromise on the topic for years. “I just think they would want to hear from people like us who have been working on this bill for a long, long time,” he said. “We’ve had our own working groups for a long time. And we’ve got one now, but it’s not hers.”
For more on concealed carry, See Illinois Issues March 2012.
Rep. Brandon Phelps introduced a concealed-carry bill today and says he hopes to pass legislation before a court-imposed deadline requires the state to allow residents to carry firearms in public.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in December ruled the state’s ban on concealed-carry unconstitutional and gave the General Assembly 180 days to pass carry legislation. The court’s opinion said lawmakers have the right to put restrictions on carry, such as requiring training for a license and limiting the places that guns are allowed. The decision came from a panel of three judges, but Attorney General Lisa Madigan has asked the full court, 10 judges, to reconsider the case. So far, however, the 180-day deadline continues to stand. Phelps and others believe that if legislators do not get something passed by that deadline, there will be no restrictions on carrying firearms in the state. “Here’s the deal: The clock is still ticking,” Phelps said. “If I was an anti-gun group, I would want to hurry up and get something passed.”
Phelps, who has sponsored several versions of a concealed-carry bill throughout the years, said he introduced a bill this session because he wants to negotiate in good faith. “We filed a bill to show people that we do mean what we say about working on this issue.” Phelps, a Harrisburg Democrat, said his new legislation, House Bill 997, is similar to House Bill 48, which failed to get the needed support to pass in the House in the spring of 2011. “Now’s not the time to reinvent the wheel,” he said.
Under the new proposal, applicants must be 21 years old and hold a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. They would be required to undergo four hours of training on topics including: “basic principles of marksmanship, care and cleaning of handguns and laws relating to the justifiable use of force.” They would also have to pass a live fire exercise with a certified instructor. A database of applicant information would be accessible to law enforcement officials. Statistical information about licenses issued by demographics, such as race, age gender or geographic location, would be available to the public. However, information about specific applicants would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
If an applicant met all the requirements in the bill, the legislation requires that the Illinois State Police issue a license within 30 days of receiving his or her application. The state police would be able to consider objections from local law enforcement when processing applications. Those applicants who were granted licenses would be able to carry a loaded or unloaded handgun either concealed or openly in public and while in a vehicle. The measure prohibits guns in certain areas, such as state and federal buildings, and bars firearms at college campuses and schools. Some of those places, such as schools and campuses, could opt to allow concealed-carry if approved by school authorities. Business owners could choose not to allow guns inside their establishments.
The bill would preempt home rule, so it would apply across the state, including in Chicago. The proposal would bar home rule units of government from limiting the number of guns a concealed-carry permit owner could have or requiring that they register the guns they own.
Meanwhile, a group of freshman lawmakers joined Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon today to announce a new working group that will focus on guns. “Issues about firearms often have regional rather than partisan splits, and your perspective as to where you come from in the state often has an influence on how you look at these issues, so that’s one of the reasons that I wanted to convene this group of folks from across the state to be able to learn what those regional perspectives are, to be able to be fully informed,” Simon said at a Chicago news conference.
Simon said the group plans to meet with mental health professionals, law enforcement officials, teachers, school administrators, victims of gun violence, gun rights activists and gun control supporters. Members of the group will also learn how to use a firearm at the Sparta World Shooting Complex and get a lesson on gun safety from the state police. She said the panel does not plan to produce legislation but to help create an informed dialogue on the issue. She said the group would especially focus on the subject of concealed carry. “It’s something that this group will likely have to vote on, and I think as a group we’ve decided that we want to contribute to a fully informed conversation on this issue. This is an issue where people often get driven into one side or another, and we miss some opportunity where we all have common interest,” Simon said. “We’re not targeting putting out a report. We’re not targeting putting out a bill. We’re targeting making the legislative process an effective one. We’re targeting making sure that people from different perspectives understand those other perspectives.”
Lawmakers from throughout the state have joined the diverse group. The panel includes a former federal prosecutor, former school board members, a veteran of the Iraq War, a former Illinois Department of Corrections employee, a conservationist and a mayor. Orland Hills Democrat Rep. Michael Hastings, who served in the United States Army and is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, said he has a FOID card and is a gun owner. “I know the detrimental effects that weapons can have when used improperly, and I want to ensure that the legislation that we pass provides for guidelines and rules for gun owners that provide for safe and effective use of firearms if and when conceal and carry is passed.”
Hillside Democratic Rep. Emanuel “Chris” Welch, who earlier this week stepped down as school board president for Proviso Township High School District 209, said he opposed concealed carry during his campaign for the General Assembly. “Being from Cook County, this is a very serious issue for us. The city of Chicago had over 500 murders last year. So I’m here willing to listen, but I’m also here willing to offer some ideas on how we can address some serious statistics that we are dealing with in the city of Chicago.”
Simon said she is targeting new lawmakers in part because they have yet to act on any legislation related to gun control. “I think you’re the perfect group to be working on this. None of you have cast a vote in the General Assembly on any kind of gun issue, and it’s a great opportunity to do that bipartisan work and to really be leaders.”
Phelps said he is interested to hear what Simon’s group has to offer on concealed carry, but he also said they should listen to lawmakers like him who have been trying to reach a compromise on the topic for years. “I just think they would want to hear from people like us who have been working on this bill for a long, long time,” he said. “We’ve had our own working groups for a long time. And we’ve got one now, but it’s not hers.”
For more on concealed carry, See Illinois Issues March 2012.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Senate looks to tweak concealed-carry bill approved by House
By Jamey Dunn
State Sen. Kwame Raoul says he plans to craft a “compromise” bill similar to the concealed-carry legislation approved by the House today.
The Illinois House passed Senate Bill 2193 on a vote of 85 in favor and 30 opposed. Under the proposal, Illinois residents would be able to carry loaded handguns in public if they meet the licensing requirements prescribed by the bill, complete 18 hours of training and pay a fee of $150. The Illinois State Police would issue concealed-carry licenses, which would be good for five years.
A federal court ordered Illinois lawmakers to approve legislation regulating concealed carry by early June. House Speaker Michael Madigan said that ruling was a driving force behind today’s vote, but he said so were changing attitudes about concealed carry. He noted that a bill backed by gun control advocates received only 31 of the 60 “yes” votes it would have needed to pass in the House last month. A bill supported by gun rights activists was only defeated after Madigan lobbied against it. “That language, which required 71 votes, got 64. It got 64 after I had worked against the bill and where the proponent of the language felt that at a high water point, they had 75 votes,” he said on the House floor today. “Those vote counts are very telling. They tell the reason why I stand before you today changing a position which I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy.” He said that as public sentiment changes, so do lawmakers’ votes. “In a democracy, it’s not only OK to do that, it’s expected that there would be changes in thinking by people in legislatures consistent with how the people of the country feel.”
The measure approved today would wipe out all existing local gun laws, including requirements to report lost or stolen guns and Chicago’s ban on assault weapons. Senate President John Cullerton called this preemption of the powers of home rule units of government an “overreach” by the National Rifle Association. The NRA has not taken a position on the bill. However, Raoul, who sponsored a more restrictive plan in the Senate, says he doesn’t buy that. “You’ve never known the NRA to be quiet on a gun bill. I think that’s reflective of the NRA being in favor of this bill. There’s not question the NRA is in favor of this bill. I don’t think anybody is fooled by that.” A representative of the Illinois State Rifle Association told Illinois Issues yesterday that the group opposes the fee and the number of training hours required, but it remains neutral on the overall bill.
Supporters of SB 2193 say they want uniform laws throughout the state so that gun owners do not commit crimes just because they are unaware of a local ordinance. “I’m a home rule guy. I live in a home rule county. I live in a home rule municipality. I represent home rule municipalities,” said Rep. David Harris, a Republican from Arlington Heights. But Harris told a story about his wife getting a ticket for talking on her cell phone while driving in a city that bans it because she did not know it was illegal there. He said that if that happened under a carry law, she would potentially face criminal charges. “It’s rare that I stand up and support preemption. However, I think this is one time where preemption makes sense.”
Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored the bill, said, “No matter where you live, no matter what ZIP code you come from, you should have equal rights.” Raoul said that his compromise bill would preempt local government on the issue of concealed carry, so that the law is uniform across the state. But he said there is no reason to roll back local gun regulations that are not related to carry. “The 7th circuit [court] didn’t say pass a law that preempts home rule to do anything with regards to guns,” he said. “Any of the ordinances that exist right now, except for those that have to deal with concealed carry, we’d leave those in place.”
Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said many components of Phelps’ plan would make it into his own legislation. Under SB 2193, any law enforcement official could object to applications for carry licenses. Objections and the documentation to back them up would come before a board that would be appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. The requirements for serving on that board would be high. The bill calls for federal judges, department of justice attorneys, federal law enforcement agents, doctors and clinical psychologists as potential candidates for saving on the panel. Applicants for carry licenses who were flagged by a law enforcement objection would also be able to submit information to the board, which would make the final ruling on the permit. Raoul’s previous bill would have given Chicago’s police commission veto power over applications from people who want to carry in the city, but he said he is comfortable with including Phelps’ review board instead of his Chicago-specific idea. Raoul said he also plans to call for banning concealed carry anywhere alcohol is served. Phelps’ bill only bans guns in establishments where alcohol sales make up half of the take.
Gov. Pat Quinn issued a scathing statement after the House vote today. “This legislation is wrong for Illinois. It was wrong yesterday in committee, it’s wrong today and it’s wrong for the future of public safety in our state. The principle of home rule is an important one. As written, this legislation is a massive overreach that would repeal critical gun safety ordinances in Chicago, Cook County, and across Illinois. We need strong gun safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk. I will not support this bill, and I will work with members of the Illinois Senate to stop it in its tracks," he said. The city of Chicago also opposes the bill.
But Phelps said he is concerned that if the state misses the deadline set by the courts, then carry would be allowed without statewide restrictions, and the result would be chaotic. “We have a court ruling to deal with, so I would find it appalling [if] the governor and the powers that be want to go off the cliff because there’s way too much uncertainty in that. So why would you want to put the people in the state of Illinois in jeopardy by going off the cliff?” He asked during floor debate of his bill.
Cullerton said he might call Phelps’ legislation for a vote. However, he said that decision would be made after Senate Democrats caucus on the issue when they return to Springfield for session on Monday. “Maybe our caucus doesn’t want to go forward with it. Maybe we’ll have a caucus, and we’ll see that there’s no support and go a head with an alternative,” Cullerton said.
State Sen. Kwame Raoul says he plans to craft a “compromise” bill similar to the concealed-carry legislation approved by the House today.
The Illinois House passed Senate Bill 2193 on a vote of 85 in favor and 30 opposed. Under the proposal, Illinois residents would be able to carry loaded handguns in public if they meet the licensing requirements prescribed by the bill, complete 18 hours of training and pay a fee of $150. The Illinois State Police would issue concealed-carry licenses, which would be good for five years.
A federal court ordered Illinois lawmakers to approve legislation regulating concealed carry by early June. House Speaker Michael Madigan said that ruling was a driving force behind today’s vote, but he said so were changing attitudes about concealed carry. He noted that a bill backed by gun control advocates received only 31 of the 60 “yes” votes it would have needed to pass in the House last month. A bill supported by gun rights activists was only defeated after Madigan lobbied against it. “That language, which required 71 votes, got 64. It got 64 after I had worked against the bill and where the proponent of the language felt that at a high water point, they had 75 votes,” he said on the House floor today. “Those vote counts are very telling. They tell the reason why I stand before you today changing a position which I’ve advocated for well over 20 years. But that’s what happens in a democracy.” He said that as public sentiment changes, so do lawmakers’ votes. “In a democracy, it’s not only OK to do that, it’s expected that there would be changes in thinking by people in legislatures consistent with how the people of the country feel.”
The measure approved today would wipe out all existing local gun laws, including requirements to report lost or stolen guns and Chicago’s ban on assault weapons. Senate President John Cullerton called this preemption of the powers of home rule units of government an “overreach” by the National Rifle Association. The NRA has not taken a position on the bill. However, Raoul, who sponsored a more restrictive plan in the Senate, says he doesn’t buy that. “You’ve never known the NRA to be quiet on a gun bill. I think that’s reflective of the NRA being in favor of this bill. There’s not question the NRA is in favor of this bill. I don’t think anybody is fooled by that.” A representative of the Illinois State Rifle Association told Illinois Issues yesterday that the group opposes the fee and the number of training hours required, but it remains neutral on the overall bill.
Supporters of SB 2193 say they want uniform laws throughout the state so that gun owners do not commit crimes just because they are unaware of a local ordinance. “I’m a home rule guy. I live in a home rule county. I live in a home rule municipality. I represent home rule municipalities,” said Rep. David Harris, a Republican from Arlington Heights. But Harris told a story about his wife getting a ticket for talking on her cell phone while driving in a city that bans it because she did not know it was illegal there. He said that if that happened under a carry law, she would potentially face criminal charges. “It’s rare that I stand up and support preemption. However, I think this is one time where preemption makes sense.”
Harrisburg Democratic Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored the bill, said, “No matter where you live, no matter what ZIP code you come from, you should have equal rights.” Raoul said that his compromise bill would preempt local government on the issue of concealed carry, so that the law is uniform across the state. But he said there is no reason to roll back local gun regulations that are not related to carry. “The 7th circuit [court] didn’t say pass a law that preempts home rule to do anything with regards to guns,” he said. “Any of the ordinances that exist right now, except for those that have to deal with concealed carry, we’d leave those in place.”
Raoul, a Chicago Democrat, said many components of Phelps’ plan would make it into his own legislation. Under SB 2193, any law enforcement official could object to applications for carry licenses. Objections and the documentation to back them up would come before a board that would be appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate. The requirements for serving on that board would be high. The bill calls for federal judges, department of justice attorneys, federal law enforcement agents, doctors and clinical psychologists as potential candidates for saving on the panel. Applicants for carry licenses who were flagged by a law enforcement objection would also be able to submit information to the board, which would make the final ruling on the permit. Raoul’s previous bill would have given Chicago’s police commission veto power over applications from people who want to carry in the city, but he said he is comfortable with including Phelps’ review board instead of his Chicago-specific idea. Raoul said he also plans to call for banning concealed carry anywhere alcohol is served. Phelps’ bill only bans guns in establishments where alcohol sales make up half of the take.
Gov. Pat Quinn issued a scathing statement after the House vote today. “This legislation is wrong for Illinois. It was wrong yesterday in committee, it’s wrong today and it’s wrong for the future of public safety in our state. The principle of home rule is an important one. As written, this legislation is a massive overreach that would repeal critical gun safety ordinances in Chicago, Cook County, and across Illinois. We need strong gun safety laws that protect the people of our state. Instead, this measure puts public safety at risk. I will not support this bill, and I will work with members of the Illinois Senate to stop it in its tracks," he said. The city of Chicago also opposes the bill.
But Phelps said he is concerned that if the state misses the deadline set by the courts, then carry would be allowed without statewide restrictions, and the result would be chaotic. “We have a court ruling to deal with, so I would find it appalling [if] the governor and the powers that be want to go off the cliff because there’s way too much uncertainty in that. So why would you want to put the people in the state of Illinois in jeopardy by going off the cliff?” He asked during floor debate of his bill.
Cullerton said he might call Phelps’ legislation for a vote. However, he said that decision would be made after Senate Democrats caucus on the issue when they return to Springfield for session on Monday. “Maybe our caucus doesn’t want to go forward with it. Maybe we’ll have a caucus, and we’ll see that there’s no support and go a head with an alternative,” Cullerton said.
Wednesday, February 06, 2013
Quinn lays out challenging legislative agenda in State of the State address
By Jamey Dunn and Meredith Colias
Illinois lawmakers hope to tackle a number of complicated and controversial issues in the new legislative session. In today’s State of the State address, Gov. Pat Quinn weighed in on several of the topics on their agenda.
Gun issues
Quinn renewed his call for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. “Today, we all weep over the senseless violence in our communities. But as elected officials, we’re in a position to do something about it. We have life-saving work to do. We cannot wait for another tragedy to happen before we take action,” he said. While the governor did not describe all the provisions he would like to see in a concealed-carry bill, he did make it clear that he wants limits on where residents carry guns. “We must ensure that guns are kept out of everyday public places because guns don’t belong in our schools, shopping malls or sports stadiums. And we must make Illinois safer by strengthening background checks and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.”
In December, a federal court gave Illinois 180 days to approve concealed-carry legislation. Attorney General Lisa Madigan appealed the ruling, but for now the deadline looms. “He does want a limited bill. But he needs to start getting specific because the clock is still ticking on the 180 days,” Rep. Brandon Phelps said of Quinn. Phelps introduced House Bill 997 last week. His legislation would bar guns from certain places, such as government buildings and schools. But he said Quinn’s limitations go to far. “I just don’t see us agreeing to just a sidewalk-carry bill as he wants. I just don’t see that.”
Quinn called on counties to submit mental health records to the Illinois State Police for Firearm Owner Identification Card background checks. “For years, counties across our state have not been reporting their mental health records to the Illinois State Police. This year, we need every county to step up and do its part to ensure mental health records are updated in real time.” A recent audit found that the state police were struggling with issuing FOID cards in a timely manner. Phelps said that the FOID system must be repaired to properly administer concealed-carry in the state. “They need to get that corrected, and we need to help with that.” Under his bill, those wishing to carry would apply for a permit that would cost $25. However, he said the permit fee may increase to help cover the costs of the permitting system. “We started somewhere because we didn’t want anybody not to be able to afford it because of their Second Amendment right to carry. but we can negotiate that. I think it will be moved up. I really do.”
Phelps is working with Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul to try to negotiate a concealed-carry proposal that can pass through both legislative chambers. “We’ve agreed to gather parties in the room and have a discussion where we can have a respect for the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the [U.S.] Supreme Court and other courts below it, and at the same time recognize that we have a problem with gun violence,” Raoul said. “I think the two things are not inconsistent: wanting to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, who mean no harm to anybody [and] who want to participate in sportsmen activities or own a weapon for self protection, and trying to stop a flow of guns to people who we all know will do harm with them.” Raoul said that polarizing rhetoric has stood in the way of compromise on gun issues in the past, but he said that he and Phelps hope to “start the discussion without vilifying anybody on either side of the debate.”
Chicago Democratic Rep. Edward Acevedo, who sponsors a ban on assault weapons, said that he hopes to link concealed carry and an assault weapons ban into an overarching approach to gun control. But both Phelps and Raoul said they are not interested in taking that approach. “Those are two separate issues, and that’s what we want to treat them like,” Phelps said. Quinn and Acevedo share similar views on assault weapons. “Of course, we must abide with the Second Amendment. But there is no place in our state for military-style assault weapons designed for rapid fire at human targets at close range,” Quinn said in his speech today. “It’s not about hurting the average sportsman or hunter, or its not about trying to take away the Second Amendment; it’s an issue of public safety,” Acevedo said. “These are weapons that are made for war.”
Minimum wage increase
Quinn urged lawmakers to increase the minimum wage from the current $8.25 hourly rate to $10 an hour over the next four years. Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford, who sponsored a bill last session to increase the minimum wage, said she has been in talks with supporters and opponents since last spring. She said she hopes to bring a bill to a Senate committee next month. “We have a lot of new members, so I’ll be sitting down talking to my colleagues and finding out what they can support,” she said.
Lightford said she is glad that Quinn highlighted the issue in his address. “It’s wonderful to have the governor’s support. Hopefully, that can also help our efforts.” But business groups are adamantly opposed to the increase and vow to rally a strong opposition effort. “We think it’s just a disastrous proposal,” said Todd Maisch, vice president of government relations for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. He said that a minimum wage increase could hurt job growth in the state. “They’re two issues that are really related. Employers simply don’t have stashes of cash that they have got in the back of a vault somewhere that they’re ready to hand out to people. This is more money that goes to wages for employees they now have and make[s] it that much harder to add any more employees or reinvest in the business and create more jobs on down the road.”
Both Quinn and Lightford argued that those working full-time jobs should make enough to support themselves. “We need this because we need families to thrive. We need to not have people work 40 hours a week and still live in poverty,” Lightford said.
Same-sex marriage
“Today, civil unions are the law of our state. And nearly 5,200 couples across 94 counties have joined in a civil union. Now, it’s time to take that next step in achieving full equality. Marriage equality is coming to Illinois,” Quinn said.
Of all the issues the governor mentioned in his speech, this one has the most momentum. A Senate Committee approved same-sex marriage Tuesday, and supporters hope to pass it in the chamber by Valentine's Day. “The time for marriage is now,” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois.
Pension costs
Quinn called pension reform the “toughest of issues” and called on lawmakers to pass pension changes to keep the costs from cutting into other areas of spending, such as education. “The pension squeeze is draining our ability to teach our students. Our children are being shortchanged. And in the end, that shortchanges our economy, too.” Union leaders said Quinn was presenting a false choice between pension costs and other state services. They argue that there are other options for addressing the state’s unfunded liability than the current plans up for debate, which they believe are unconstitutional. “The governor's claim that the choice is pensions-or-pencils is deeply unfair. We must work together to adequately fund public education and solve the state’s funding crisis. Teachers and other education professionals share no fault in the problem but are willing to share in the sacrifice, and to simply balance the budget on their backs is wrong. Finding a fair and constitutional solution will take courage from everyone involved, including the governor,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
Quinn again threw his support behind Senate Bill 1, which is sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton. “I urge all of you to be part of the solution. And while refinements may come, Senate Bill 1 is the best vehicle to get the job done. Hard is not impossible,” Quinn said. Cullerton believes that some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. A plan that passed in the Senate would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state-subsidized retiree health care. SB 1 contains a version of a pension reform plan that was up for consideration in the House during the lame-duck session at the end of the last General Assembly and the measure that passed in the Senate. Cullerton has said he wants the Senate plan tacked on in case the Illinois Supreme Court rejects the House proposal, which he believes is unconstitutional. If that happened, the court could instead consider the Senate proposal.
House members on both sides of the aisle voiced concerns about the SB 1. Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz, who has sponsored several pension reform bills in the House, said that the savings are uncertain under that proposal, which allows employees a choice, because there is no way to know which they will pick. “The pension problem is driven by math and by numbers, and a solution has to also be driven by math or by numbers,” she said. Nekritz called for an actuarial analysis of the potential savings under the measure. “I think members deserve that before they would vote on something.” House Republican Leader Tom Cross brushed off Quinn’s backing of SB 1. “He’s endorsed, I think, just about every pension bill that’s been out there. He’s been pretty outspoken on the need to do pension reform. ... The fact that he’s talking about that [bill] doesn’t mean that other ideas are not on the table because he’s embraced a bunch of different ideas.” Cross is working with Nekritz to try to find a compromise that can pass in the House. He said it is the job of lawmakers to pass the plan they think is best instead of sending multiple options to the courts. “[Our] first obligation ought to be: Pass a bill that [we] think solves the problem, and then the courts will decide.”
Some lawmakers said they were not impressed with Quinn’s speech. They said it lacked details and did not place enough emphasis on the state’s budget problems. “He didn’t even hardly mention the budget. He needs to get focused. We’re in a fiscal crisis,” said Rep. John Bradley, a Marion Democrat. “I don’t think his speech was very well-received, but we’ll see.” A House committee chaired by Bradley has already begun the process of creating revenue estimates. The House has based its budget on those types of estimates in recent years. “We’re not talking about it. We’re actually doing it. So we’re going to continue down that process. To the extent that to the governor’s office wants to take part in our bipartisan efforts to do that, then we welcome the help. But we’re moving forward.” Several legislators accused Quinn of using the State of the State as an informal launch for a 2014 reelection bid. “You can tell he’s running for governor again because that was nothing but a political speech,” Phelps said.
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno agreed. “By and large, I think it was more of a campaign kick-off speech than anything else.” But in a news conference after the address, Cross and Radogno demurred on several issues, including gun control and same-sex marriage. “There are going to be some things in here you like; there are going to be some things you don’t like,” Cross said of Quinn’s speech. “I think we need to focus on the big issues like the pensions so we have a vibrant — someday — a vibrant economy and businesses that want to stay here and come here and expand here. The elephant in the room, the only issue that matters right now -- everything flows from it -- is the pension debate.”
Other legislators said Quinn did well, giving what is basically a ceremonial speech meant to set the tone for the session, but they hope he will provide more decisive leadership in the coming months. “I thought the governor spoke well and from the heart about a lot of issues that are on his mind,” said Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang. “I’m not sure I heard a lot of specifics. I’m not sure we heard a lot of specific plans on how he proposes to move Illinois forward in these areas. And I am not sure that he provided the leadership in this speech that I hope he will later provide. I do know this: He’s and honest man. His heart is in the right place. He wants to succeed. But he’s going to have to grab on a little stronger to the reins of government if he wants to lead this General Assembly to where he wants us to go.”
Illinois lawmakers hope to tackle a number of complicated and controversial issues in the new legislative session. In today’s State of the State address, Gov. Pat Quinn weighed in on several of the topics on their agenda.
Gun issues
Quinn renewed his call for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. “Today, we all weep over the senseless violence in our communities. But as elected officials, we’re in a position to do something about it. We have life-saving work to do. We cannot wait for another tragedy to happen before we take action,” he said. While the governor did not describe all the provisions he would like to see in a concealed-carry bill, he did make it clear that he wants limits on where residents carry guns. “We must ensure that guns are kept out of everyday public places because guns don’t belong in our schools, shopping malls or sports stadiums. And we must make Illinois safer by strengthening background checks and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns.”
In December, a federal court gave Illinois 180 days to approve concealed-carry legislation. Attorney General Lisa Madigan appealed the ruling, but for now the deadline looms. “He does want a limited bill. But he needs to start getting specific because the clock is still ticking on the 180 days,” Rep. Brandon Phelps said of Quinn. Phelps introduced House Bill 997 last week. His legislation would bar guns from certain places, such as government buildings and schools. But he said Quinn’s limitations go to far. “I just don’t see us agreeing to just a sidewalk-carry bill as he wants. I just don’t see that.”
Quinn called on counties to submit mental health records to the Illinois State Police for Firearm Owner Identification Card background checks. “For years, counties across our state have not been reporting their mental health records to the Illinois State Police. This year, we need every county to step up and do its part to ensure mental health records are updated in real time.” A recent audit found that the state police were struggling with issuing FOID cards in a timely manner. Phelps said that the FOID system must be repaired to properly administer concealed-carry in the state. “They need to get that corrected, and we need to help with that.” Under his bill, those wishing to carry would apply for a permit that would cost $25. However, he said the permit fee may increase to help cover the costs of the permitting system. “We started somewhere because we didn’t want anybody not to be able to afford it because of their Second Amendment right to carry. but we can negotiate that. I think it will be moved up. I really do.”
Phelps is working with Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul to try to negotiate a concealed-carry proposal that can pass through both legislative chambers. “We’ve agreed to gather parties in the room and have a discussion where we can have a respect for the Second Amendment as it has been interpreted by the [U.S.] Supreme Court and other courts below it, and at the same time recognize that we have a problem with gun violence,” Raoul said. “I think the two things are not inconsistent: wanting to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, who mean no harm to anybody [and] who want to participate in sportsmen activities or own a weapon for self protection, and trying to stop a flow of guns to people who we all know will do harm with them.” Raoul said that polarizing rhetoric has stood in the way of compromise on gun issues in the past, but he said that he and Phelps hope to “start the discussion without vilifying anybody on either side of the debate.”
Chicago Democratic Rep. Edward Acevedo, who sponsors a ban on assault weapons, said that he hopes to link concealed carry and an assault weapons ban into an overarching approach to gun control. But both Phelps and Raoul said they are not interested in taking that approach. “Those are two separate issues, and that’s what we want to treat them like,” Phelps said. Quinn and Acevedo share similar views on assault weapons. “Of course, we must abide with the Second Amendment. But there is no place in our state for military-style assault weapons designed for rapid fire at human targets at close range,” Quinn said in his speech today. “It’s not about hurting the average sportsman or hunter, or its not about trying to take away the Second Amendment; it’s an issue of public safety,” Acevedo said. “These are weapons that are made for war.”
Minimum wage increase
Quinn urged lawmakers to increase the minimum wage from the current $8.25 hourly rate to $10 an hour over the next four years. Maywood Democratic Sen. Kimberly Lightford, who sponsored a bill last session to increase the minimum wage, said she has been in talks with supporters and opponents since last spring. She said she hopes to bring a bill to a Senate committee next month. “We have a lot of new members, so I’ll be sitting down talking to my colleagues and finding out what they can support,” she said.
Lightford said she is glad that Quinn highlighted the issue in his address. “It’s wonderful to have the governor’s support. Hopefully, that can also help our efforts.” But business groups are adamantly opposed to the increase and vow to rally a strong opposition effort. “We think it’s just a disastrous proposal,” said Todd Maisch, vice president of government relations for the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. He said that a minimum wage increase could hurt job growth in the state. “They’re two issues that are really related. Employers simply don’t have stashes of cash that they have got in the back of a vault somewhere that they’re ready to hand out to people. This is more money that goes to wages for employees they now have and make[s] it that much harder to add any more employees or reinvest in the business and create more jobs on down the road.”
Both Quinn and Lightford argued that those working full-time jobs should make enough to support themselves. “We need this because we need families to thrive. We need to not have people work 40 hours a week and still live in poverty,” Lightford said.
Same-sex marriage
“Today, civil unions are the law of our state. And nearly 5,200 couples across 94 counties have joined in a civil union. Now, it’s time to take that next step in achieving full equality. Marriage equality is coming to Illinois,” Quinn said.
Of all the issues the governor mentioned in his speech, this one has the most momentum. A Senate Committee approved same-sex marriage Tuesday, and supporters hope to pass it in the chamber by Valentine's Day. “The time for marriage is now,” said Bernard Cherkasov, chief executive officer of Equality Illinois.
Pension costs
Quinn called pension reform the “toughest of issues” and called on lawmakers to pass pension changes to keep the costs from cutting into other areas of spending, such as education. “The pension squeeze is draining our ability to teach our students. Our children are being shortchanged. And in the end, that shortchanges our economy, too.” Union leaders said Quinn was presenting a false choice between pension costs and other state services. They argue that there are other options for addressing the state’s unfunded liability than the current plans up for debate, which they believe are unconstitutional. “The governor's claim that the choice is pensions-or-pencils is deeply unfair. We must work together to adequately fund public education and solve the state’s funding crisis. Teachers and other education professionals share no fault in the problem but are willing to share in the sacrifice, and to simply balance the budget on their backs is wrong. Finding a fair and constitutional solution will take courage from everyone involved, including the governor,” said Dan Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers.
Quinn again threw his support behind Senate Bill 1, which is sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton. “I urge all of you to be part of the solution. And while refinements may come, Senate Bill 1 is the best vehicle to get the job done. Hard is not impossible,” Quinn said. Cullerton believes that some consideration must be given to workers for any reduction in their benefits. A plan that passed in the Senate would have asked employees to choose between their compounded-interest cost-of-living adjustments or state-subsidized retiree health care. SB 1 contains a version of a pension reform plan that was up for consideration in the House during the lame-duck session at the end of the last General Assembly and the measure that passed in the Senate. Cullerton has said he wants the Senate plan tacked on in case the Illinois Supreme Court rejects the House proposal, which he believes is unconstitutional. If that happened, the court could instead consider the Senate proposal.
House members on both sides of the aisle voiced concerns about the SB 1. Northbrook Democratic Rep. Elaine Nekrtiz, who has sponsored several pension reform bills in the House, said that the savings are uncertain under that proposal, which allows employees a choice, because there is no way to know which they will pick. “The pension problem is driven by math and by numbers, and a solution has to also be driven by math or by numbers,” she said. Nekritz called for an actuarial analysis of the potential savings under the measure. “I think members deserve that before they would vote on something.” House Republican Leader Tom Cross brushed off Quinn’s backing of SB 1. “He’s endorsed, I think, just about every pension bill that’s been out there. He’s been pretty outspoken on the need to do pension reform. ... The fact that he’s talking about that [bill] doesn’t mean that other ideas are not on the table because he’s embraced a bunch of different ideas.” Cross is working with Nekritz to try to find a compromise that can pass in the House. He said it is the job of lawmakers to pass the plan they think is best instead of sending multiple options to the courts. “[Our] first obligation ought to be: Pass a bill that [we] think solves the problem, and then the courts will decide.”
Some lawmakers said they were not impressed with Quinn’s speech. They said it lacked details and did not place enough emphasis on the state’s budget problems. “He didn’t even hardly mention the budget. He needs to get focused. We’re in a fiscal crisis,” said Rep. John Bradley, a Marion Democrat. “I don’t think his speech was very well-received, but we’ll see.” A House committee chaired by Bradley has already begun the process of creating revenue estimates. The House has based its budget on those types of estimates in recent years. “We’re not talking about it. We’re actually doing it. So we’re going to continue down that process. To the extent that to the governor’s office wants to take part in our bipartisan efforts to do that, then we welcome the help. But we’re moving forward.” Several legislators accused Quinn of using the State of the State as an informal launch for a 2014 reelection bid. “You can tell he’s running for governor again because that was nothing but a political speech,” Phelps said.
Senate Republican Leader Christine Radogno agreed. “By and large, I think it was more of a campaign kick-off speech than anything else.” But in a news conference after the address, Cross and Radogno demurred on several issues, including gun control and same-sex marriage. “There are going to be some things in here you like; there are going to be some things you don’t like,” Cross said of Quinn’s speech. “I think we need to focus on the big issues like the pensions so we have a vibrant — someday — a vibrant economy and businesses that want to stay here and come here and expand here. The elephant in the room, the only issue that matters right now -- everything flows from it -- is the pension debate.”
Other legislators said Quinn did well, giving what is basically a ceremonial speech meant to set the tone for the session, but they hope he will provide more decisive leadership in the coming months. “I thought the governor spoke well and from the heart about a lot of issues that are on his mind,” said Skokie Democratic Rep. Lou Lang. “I’m not sure I heard a lot of specifics. I’m not sure we heard a lot of specific plans on how he proposes to move Illinois forward in these areas. And I am not sure that he provided the leadership in this speech that I hope he will later provide. I do know this: He’s and honest man. His heart is in the right place. He wants to succeed. But he’s going to have to grab on a little stronger to the reins of government if he wants to lead this General Assembly to where he wants us to go.”
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
Quinn strikes out on concealed carry and pensions
By Jamey Dunn
Illinois became the 50th state to legalize carrying concealed firearms after lawmakers voted to override Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of legislation today.
Things got off to a quick start this morning as the House voted 77 to 31 to override the veto with no debate. But the Senate took its time, considering a bill that contained some of the provisions Quinn added to House Bill 183 with his veto pen. Quinn called for several changes to the bill, including banning guns in any establishment that serves alcohol, eliminating a provision that prevents home rule governments from setting future gun laws and limiting licensees to carrying one gun.
The Senate approved a bill with some of the less controversial aspects of Quinn’s veto. HB1453 would have allowed schools and other places that are listed in the bill as no-carry zones the option to forgo posting signs letting the public know that guns are not allowed. It also would have required that concealed carry licensees immediately notify police officers if they are carrying a weapon during a traffic stop or other interaction and streamlined reporting of some mental health records. Supporters called the changes reasonable. Senate President John Cullerton said that as the sponsor of the bill, he chose suggestions from Quinn that could find broad support in order to reach the three-fifths vote threshold they would need to go into effect immediately. “I wanted to see if we could make these corrections today ... and hope that we can continue to have dialogue,” he said.
However, the House rejected that bill. The sticking point seemed to be the provision that would relax the posting requirements for areas where guns are banned. Opponents argued that licensees might forget when they enter an off limits area that guns are banned there. They said a reminder in the form of a sign would help keep them from inadvertently breaking the law. “I think we’re setting up our constituents to fail” if signs are not posted, said Mundelein Republican Rep. Ed Sullivan.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on carry negotiations and pushed for many of the changes Quinn proposed in his veto, backed the override today. “ I support the elements offered by the governor’s amendatory veto,” he said. But he said as negotiations over the bill went on, those ideas were rejected. And he said because a federal appellate court set a deadline for lawmakers to pass a carry law, he had to accept that. “The 7th Circuit [Court] has made clear that there is no more time. We are here on July 9th [the day of the court’s deadline], and if the members of this chamber have the interest of public safety at their heart[s], they would vote to override. Because if we do not override today, at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow, July 10th, there are no restrictions upon people who want to carry handguns in the public way.” Raoul laid out one of the most extreme possible scenarios if a law were not in place. “Somebody could walk into a school tomorrow, if we don’t override, at three [or] four times the intoxication level that we bar people from driving with a handgun with a 20 bullet-magazine in it and it will not be in violation of the law.”
Other proponents of an override urged lawmakers to stick to the deal that was struck on the compromise bill they approved during the spring legislative session. “It’s a very very difficult issue; people genuinely disagree on how this should be handled. I think the bill that passed respects Second Amendment rights, but it also has very reasonable restrictions in it,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno.
Lawmakers who support stricter gun laws said that allowing people to carry guns in places that serve alcohol is in appropriate and dangerous. “We train and we test people when they get a driver’s license and we expect them to be exemplary drivers,” said Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat. “But let’s look at the statistics of how many DUIs there are, and how many people are killed because of DUI. I don’t think that was their intent when they went and got educated and trained to get that license. But it happened because alcohol and driving don’t mix.”
Others raised concerns that licensees will be able to carry as many guns and ammunition magazines as they want. “I think it’s unnecessary for an individual to have four, five six, seven unlimited weapons on them at any time,’ said Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat.
Those in the pro-carry camp were in a celebratory mood today. “It's just a huge victory for Illinois gun owners and law-abiding gun owners,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored HB 183. “It’s been a long time coming. ... This is just a good day for the law abiding gun owners being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
But Illinois gun owners cannot celebrate by carrying their firearms in public tomorrow. The Illinois State Police have 180 days to put a system in place and begin accepting carry applications. The standard application process is set at 90 days. A five-year license will cost $150, and licensees will be required to pass a background check and undergo 16 hours of instruction, including live-fire training at a gun range. Licensees will have to take a two- to three-hour refresher training course when they renew their licenses. Law enforcement officials have the option to object to concealed-carry applications. If in application is contested, it will go before a review board.
Phelps said today that he wants to remind everyone in the state that they must go through the legal process to carry. Despite the law, he said that people are likely already carrying weapons in Illinois. State’s attorneys in several counties across Illinois have said that they will not prosecute people with valid Firearm Owner Identification cards, who carry guns in public. “There are going to be people in Illinois ... in some of those counties that the state’s attorneys said they aren’t going to prosecute, that will be carrying — that will be carrying as of probably right now. I’ve had phone calls already [and they] said, ‘Guess what? I’m carrying.’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s illegal. You’ve got to have a license.’ But they’re actually doing it.” Phelps said that the state police need the time to get the carry licensing system going, especially since the FOID card system has experienced long wait times in recent years.
While it was a good day for gun rights advocates, as Phelps put it, “It’s not a good day for the governor.” Quinn issued his veto last week and pushed for it at several high-profile events since. He has been bashing lawmakers for producing a bill that he says put politics above public safety and claiming that the public is on his side when it comes to gun control. He was clearly frustrated at a news conference after both chambers adjourned today. “Well, today was a bad day for public safety in Illinois,” he said. He said of HB 182: “It’s very, very important that we protect the people. I think the legislation ... does not do that. It has shortcomings that will lead to tragedy. That’s why I acted on the amendatory veto.” Quinn said he plans to continue to push for the changes that he put forth as separate follow-up bills.
Phelps, who does not support any of the governor’s proposals, said Quinn may have had more luck if he would have tried to pass follow-up legislation in the first place instead of issuing a veto that drastically changed a bill, which was the product of months of negotiations. “The governor grandstanded on this. He went around the whole last week trying to grandstand politically on this issue. He was wrong. He should have signed it. I think he’s probably embarrassed right now because he looks weak and he looks irrelevant.”
Quinn took another hit today as lawmakers completely ignored the deadline he had set to change public employee pension systems. Quinn gave a conference committee three weeks to work out a compromise bill, which he wanted lawmakers to vote on today. The committee did not produce a bill. Members said they needed more time to get cost savings projections from actuaries working with the state’s public employee pension systems. Quinn has been making public threats that lawmakers would face “consequences” if they did not do something “comprehensive” on pensions today. “When you don’t have your work done on time, that’s a situation where there are consequences, and there will be,” Quinn said in Chicago over the weekend. Even after both legislative chambers adjourned and members hit the road today without passing pension legislation, Quinn would not divulge what those consequences might be. “We’ll give them until midnight. I think it’s important that they have the full amount of time.”
Cullerton, who appointed three members of the committee, said today that he does not know when the group will produce legislation. “It’s going to take awhile. You have actuarial studies that you have to get back on any proposed change to a bill. And they take weeks to get, and the governor knows that. So as soon as we get an agreement, we’ll come back in, and we’ll try to pass a bill.” Rumors have been circulating around the Statehouse for days that Quinn might use his veto pen to cut money for legislative salaries out of a budget bill he has yet to sign. Quinn has approved all the other budget bills for the new fiscal year, which began on July 1. His representatives refuse to comment on the rumor, saying only that the bill is “under review.” Raoul, who is chair of the committee, dismissed Quinn’s threats today. “If he’s going to do that, he ought to look at the line item that pays his salary, as well, because he didn’t come to the conference committee meeting to participate.” Raoul invited Quinn to a committee hearing yesterday, but the governor sent a member of his staff in his place. “I think that’s a childish game of tit for tat, particularly when you know that the deadline you set is impractical.”
Illinois became the 50th state to legalize carrying concealed firearms after lawmakers voted to override Gov. Pat Quinn’s veto of legislation today.
Things got off to a quick start this morning as the House voted 77 to 31 to override the veto with no debate. But the Senate took its time, considering a bill that contained some of the provisions Quinn added to House Bill 183 with his veto pen. Quinn called for several changes to the bill, including banning guns in any establishment that serves alcohol, eliminating a provision that prevents home rule governments from setting future gun laws and limiting licensees to carrying one gun.
The Senate approved a bill with some of the less controversial aspects of Quinn’s veto. HB1453 would have allowed schools and other places that are listed in the bill as no-carry zones the option to forgo posting signs letting the public know that guns are not allowed. It also would have required that concealed carry licensees immediately notify police officers if they are carrying a weapon during a traffic stop or other interaction and streamlined reporting of some mental health records. Supporters called the changes reasonable. Senate President John Cullerton said that as the sponsor of the bill, he chose suggestions from Quinn that could find broad support in order to reach the three-fifths vote threshold they would need to go into effect immediately. “I wanted to see if we could make these corrections today ... and hope that we can continue to have dialogue,” he said.
However, the House rejected that bill. The sticking point seemed to be the provision that would relax the posting requirements for areas where guns are banned. Opponents argued that licensees might forget when they enter an off limits area that guns are banned there. They said a reminder in the form of a sign would help keep them from inadvertently breaking the law. “I think we’re setting up our constituents to fail” if signs are not posted, said Mundelein Republican Rep. Ed Sullivan.
Chicago Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who worked on carry negotiations and pushed for many of the changes Quinn proposed in his veto, backed the override today. “ I support the elements offered by the governor’s amendatory veto,” he said. But he said as negotiations over the bill went on, those ideas were rejected. And he said because a federal appellate court set a deadline for lawmakers to pass a carry law, he had to accept that. “The 7th Circuit [Court] has made clear that there is no more time. We are here on July 9th [the day of the court’s deadline], and if the members of this chamber have the interest of public safety at their heart[s], they would vote to override. Because if we do not override today, at 12:01 a.m. tomorrow, July 10th, there are no restrictions upon people who want to carry handguns in the public way.” Raoul laid out one of the most extreme possible scenarios if a law were not in place. “Somebody could walk into a school tomorrow, if we don’t override, at three [or] four times the intoxication level that we bar people from driving with a handgun with a 20 bullet-magazine in it and it will not be in violation of the law.”
Other proponents of an override urged lawmakers to stick to the deal that was struck on the compromise bill they approved during the spring legislative session. “It’s a very very difficult issue; people genuinely disagree on how this should be handled. I think the bill that passed respects Second Amendment rights, but it also has very reasonable restrictions in it,” said Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno.
Lawmakers who support stricter gun laws said that allowing people to carry guns in places that serve alcohol is in appropriate and dangerous. “We train and we test people when they get a driver’s license and we expect them to be exemplary drivers,” said Sen. Terry Link, a Waukegan Democrat. “But let’s look at the statistics of how many DUIs there are, and how many people are killed because of DUI. I don’t think that was their intent when they went and got educated and trained to get that license. But it happened because alcohol and driving don’t mix.”
Others raised concerns that licensees will be able to carry as many guns and ammunition magazines as they want. “I think it’s unnecessary for an individual to have four, five six, seven unlimited weapons on them at any time,’ said Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat.
Those in the pro-carry camp were in a celebratory mood today. “It's just a huge victory for Illinois gun owners and law-abiding gun owners,” said Rep. Brandon Phelps, who sponsored HB 183. “It’s been a long time coming. ... This is just a good day for the law abiding gun owners being able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
But Illinois gun owners cannot celebrate by carrying their firearms in public tomorrow. The Illinois State Police have 180 days to put a system in place and begin accepting carry applications. The standard application process is set at 90 days. A five-year license will cost $150, and licensees will be required to pass a background check and undergo 16 hours of instruction, including live-fire training at a gun range. Licensees will have to take a two- to three-hour refresher training course when they renew their licenses. Law enforcement officials have the option to object to concealed-carry applications. If in application is contested, it will go before a review board.
Phelps said today that he wants to remind everyone in the state that they must go through the legal process to carry. Despite the law, he said that people are likely already carrying weapons in Illinois. State’s attorneys in several counties across Illinois have said that they will not prosecute people with valid Firearm Owner Identification cards, who carry guns in public. “There are going to be people in Illinois ... in some of those counties that the state’s attorneys said they aren’t going to prosecute, that will be carrying — that will be carrying as of probably right now. I’ve had phone calls already [and they] said, ‘Guess what? I’m carrying.’ And I said, ‘Well, it’s illegal. You’ve got to have a license.’ But they’re actually doing it.” Phelps said that the state police need the time to get the carry licensing system going, especially since the FOID card system has experienced long wait times in recent years.
While it was a good day for gun rights advocates, as Phelps put it, “It’s not a good day for the governor.” Quinn issued his veto last week and pushed for it at several high-profile events since. He has been bashing lawmakers for producing a bill that he says put politics above public safety and claiming that the public is on his side when it comes to gun control. He was clearly frustrated at a news conference after both chambers adjourned today. “Well, today was a bad day for public safety in Illinois,” he said. He said of HB 182: “It’s very, very important that we protect the people. I think the legislation ... does not do that. It has shortcomings that will lead to tragedy. That’s why I acted on the amendatory veto.” Quinn said he plans to continue to push for the changes that he put forth as separate follow-up bills.
Phelps, who does not support any of the governor’s proposals, said Quinn may have had more luck if he would have tried to pass follow-up legislation in the first place instead of issuing a veto that drastically changed a bill, which was the product of months of negotiations. “The governor grandstanded on this. He went around the whole last week trying to grandstand politically on this issue. He was wrong. He should have signed it. I think he’s probably embarrassed right now because he looks weak and he looks irrelevant.”
Quinn took another hit today as lawmakers completely ignored the deadline he had set to change public employee pension systems. Quinn gave a conference committee three weeks to work out a compromise bill, which he wanted lawmakers to vote on today. The committee did not produce a bill. Members said they needed more time to get cost savings projections from actuaries working with the state’s public employee pension systems. Quinn has been making public threats that lawmakers would face “consequences” if they did not do something “comprehensive” on pensions today. “When you don’t have your work done on time, that’s a situation where there are consequences, and there will be,” Quinn said in Chicago over the weekend. Even after both legislative chambers adjourned and members hit the road today without passing pension legislation, Quinn would not divulge what those consequences might be. “We’ll give them until midnight. I think it’s important that they have the full amount of time.”
Cullerton, who appointed three members of the committee, said today that he does not know when the group will produce legislation. “It’s going to take awhile. You have actuarial studies that you have to get back on any proposed change to a bill. And they take weeks to get, and the governor knows that. So as soon as we get an agreement, we’ll come back in, and we’ll try to pass a bill.” Rumors have been circulating around the Statehouse for days that Quinn might use his veto pen to cut money for legislative salaries out of a budget bill he has yet to sign. Quinn has approved all the other budget bills for the new fiscal year, which began on July 1. His representatives refuse to comment on the rumor, saying only that the bill is “under review.” Raoul, who is chair of the committee, dismissed Quinn’s threats today. “If he’s going to do that, he ought to look at the line item that pays his salary, as well, because he didn’t come to the conference committee meeting to participate.” Raoul invited Quinn to a committee hearing yesterday, but the governor sent a member of his staff in his place. “I think that’s a childish game of tit for tat, particularly when you know that the deadline you set is impractical.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
