|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#801
|
||||
|
||||
If they do nothing, the bill dies.
|
#802
|
|||
|
|||
The inversion of carry zones WILL cause a problem in the 7th.
|
#804
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A property owner has the right to allow or restrict guns on his or her property. He generally does this by posting a sign. Why would it matter to the court whether that sign that says "yes" or "no"?
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler |
#805
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/glossary.asp#V Quote:
|
#806
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The legislature has to pass on the amended bill (50 votes +1 to make the amended bill law, 60 votes to over-ride the amendatory veto.) If the legislature does nothing the amended bill, which replaced the original bill, fails. Under those conditions there is no bill and Illinois has FOID carry. |
#807
|
|||
|
|||
they had the votes but it'd be interesting to see what kind of fly on the wall conversations are occurring in madigans office..... her extension is growing short
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc |
#808
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#809
|
||||
|
||||
All right, F*** him. Let's find out how he likes FOID carry.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#810
|
||||
|
||||
This will be interesting.
The amendments the governor added effectively gut the carry bill.
The Legislature actually fought really hard on this bill and IMHO, even the bill they did vote on may have some issues with the 7th circuit. Still, I believe the 7th circuit would cut them some slack and make minor changes if any to what they sent to the Governor. If Illinois politics live up to their reputation, there is going to be major fireworks here. If the legislature does nothing, the state becomes "court ordered constitutional carry". If "Illinois" becomes "constitutional carry" for any length of time, is there the possibility that they could find themselves in a situation to where they can't pass any type of carry licensing law that would pass court scrutiny? Seems to me that the 7th may be getting tired of the game playing from Chicago, because at this point, their authority is being challenged and it seems to me, judges do not like people ignoring their rulings. Who knows, then the US Supreme court may actually get to hear the "Moore case" after all. Nicki |
#811
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In any case, I don't see the legislature allowing FOID carry to happen. Look at the urgency with which they made sure to meet the deadline last time. We ended up with a vote count that would have been unimaginable a year prior.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#812
|
|||
|
|||
See above. 51 votes to pass the amended bill, 60 votes to pass the original bill, otherwise the bill fails entirely.
|
#814
|
|||
|
|||
On budgets I actually like the idea of a "line item" veto. You can cut some of the garbage - although in practice I'm not so sure it works that well.
But an amendatory veto? I can understand it but I don't think I could come to think of it as a good idea. Maybe it makes good sense, but I agree that it seems to me to give unwarranted power to the governor.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#815
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#816
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There's no extra power there. If the legislature doesn't want to pass what the governor sends back, they can either accept the veto (bill fails), or override it. Or change it to something else entirely, and try again. But this is going pretty far off-topic. |
#817
|
|||
|
|||
It does allow certain parliamentary shenanigans, if you think about it.
|
#818
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
When you have a whole bunch of edits dumped into a law which has already gone through the whole political and legislative process and are then asked to again look at the bill as a whole (which it may no longer be) and again approve or deny it - you end up with a distortion of what should be a rational consideration process. You either have to muster either 50%+1 to now approve what is effectively a brand new bill without the same level of scrutiny being applied to the new bill - or you have to muster 60% to over-ride the amendments. Net effect is that the governor gets to gut the committee consideration process. And I know that there will probably be a rule to discuss the governor's amendments, but the allotted time will likely be on the order of minutes to hours instead of the weeks to months that were spent crafting the original bill. I can understand where others will disagree with me, but I think this is a power which a governor should not have. They should be able to exercise an executive prerogative not to spend money by vetoing a line item. The over-ride for that veto should be a simple majority for each individual item. Beyond that? I think they should have to veto or sign the entire bill. And I don't think they should be able to have a mechanism for letting a bill rot or to go into effect without either signing the thing or explicitly vetoing it. They should have to go on the record. JMHO.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#819
|
||||
|
||||
Not much, though. The deadline is imposed by the *court*, so any games played will default to the FOID carry or Madigan having to file for cert.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#820
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Look at Colorado - a simple majority and a major headache. When the tables are turned, we can expect the same to happen to what's near and dear to D-s, just to make a point. This is really bad for all the people in the center who just want to live their lives without anyone bugging them.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#821
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Why do you people who view "FOID carry" as a good thing insist on ignoring that? Quote:
This means that, in practice, such laws will remain in place for at least a year after they are passed, if not substantially longer. Such laws have to be challenged in the anti-rights jurisdictions in which they are in place, which means the district courts in question will almost certainly Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#822
|
|||
|
|||
I mostly agree with you on this, but I'm not sure that is the best or only way to look at what happens in the case of an amendatory veto in Illinois.
In this case, the amendatory veto power of the governor makes it very easy for the governor to create bad new law. It is now difficult for the legislature to create good law. Another way of saying it? The amendatory veto doesn't make it difficult to create new law. It makes it difficult for the legislature (which is supposed to create the laws) to create laws - and easy for the governor (who is usually supposed to be the executor of the laws) to create new law. I'd rather it be impossible for the governor to create new law - and difficult for the legislature to create new law.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#823
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#825
|
||||
|
||||
I haven't read through the actual decision by the court, but I wonder about KCBrown's point regarding "home rule" in which cities and such could create their own ordinances.
__________________
"You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." John Quincy Adams "You will never know how little my generation has traded away our freedoms and rights for. I'm sorry and ashamed for what we've left to the following generations." voiceofreason |
#826
|
||||
|
||||
In Illinois, as I understand it, state legislation must pass by a certain percentage to preempt local jurisdictions from creating more restrictive laws. If no state law is passed, then localities are obviously preempted from nothing. Therefore, without a preemptive statewide concealed-carry law, Illinois will get a confusing patchwork of local regulations, ranging from very permissive to dangerously restrictive.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#827
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Either way, there is a veto-proof majority in the legislature with enough votes to preempt home rule. |
#828
|
||||
|
||||
In the home-rule scenario, Chicago would simply enact a restrictive may-issue licensing law, which would presumably satisfy the Seventh Circuit’s order. Only total bans are off the table at this point.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA |
#829
|
||||
|
||||
I would rather have that tested quickly with the current Moore panel than roll the dice with a different panel in another Circuit (like Kachalsky).
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|