The crap sandwich that is SB2193 is expected to be voted on in the House today. Unsurprisingly people are pissed and are willing to sacrifice the forest for a few trees. Unfortunately that pissy-ness has translated into angry phone calls to the point that it may be causing problems on some of the votes needed for it to pass veto-proof.
Yeah, I hate the CCW portion of the bill but it's better (marginally) than the Kwame turd w/o bread that we'll get if 2193 doesn't pass.
Update: Watching live.
Most of the pro-bill discussions seem scripted, detailing some of the wording.
Then the anti, Rep Cassidy, stands up and makes an ass out of herself. She uses stats from the VPC but can't even get the name of them right. She states the ISP is opposed but they officially changed their position to 'Neutral' yesterday. She's also unable to distinguish the difference between a 'bar' and a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol.
Rep Williams stand up and calls for New York style discrimination because Chicago is 'diverse'. IOW, keep those brown people disarmed. She also doesn't know the difference between a bar and a restaurant. Claiming you can get drunk and carry.
Rep Bost then calls out the previous two for their ignorant statements.
Rep Mitchell compares carrying in a prohibited place to drunk driving. Basically gets pissed that all Chicago's gun bans are gone. Then he ups the BS by claiming the bill allows school/workplace shootings and gun smuggling. What an ass.
Rep Ford. "Are there increased penalties?" Phelps: There can't be 'increased penalties' because we don't have CCW now. Ford: "Does this bill provide support for areas where gun crime is high?" Phelps: Yes, it allows people to protect themselves. And then Ford adds w/ the 'increased guns on the street' bit and something about how many guns a police officer can carry. While it shouldn't, it still surprises me how absolutely stupid some of these elected reps are.
Rep Drury uses Pulp Fiction as his reference for CCW "It's fiction but reality" and license holders possibly shooting up kids playing w/ cap guns. See statement above.
Line of the Day: Rep. Cloonen "I cannot imaging going to college for 4 years and having them 'may' issue a diploma"
Rep Acevedo says dueling will become commonplace and calls out some 'net commenter to 'come find him'. BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!
Rep Welch pulls the race card. "how many hispanic representatives have you spoken to?" "Only white people want concealed carry"
Madigan says he changed his optionion because the anti-gunner bill got 31 votes , vs 997 which got 64 AFTER he worked against it, he says it had 75 votes before he worked against it.
6 comments:
The preemption portion is huge. It puts us on a whole new plane where we can now pass our bills with a simple majority, which we've had no trouble reaching in the past.
Quick nit. There is no such thing as "veto proof". It could pass the house 118-0-0 and be vetoed.
So, say the Senate passes it by June 9 (which, frankly, would quite surprise me). Quinn will veto--does Illinois' carry ban go away June 10 (because I certainly don't see a veto override in both houses before then)?
Also, does Madigan's support for this bill indicate that the other Madigan won't appeal the 7th Circuit Court's ruling to SCOTUS, if SB 2193 makes it into law?
No idea. Sort of all depends on whether Madigan has any 'sauna' pics of Cullerton. :)
I'm just patiently waiting for the other shoe to drop on how they're going to try and screw us royally w/ all this.
Good Lord--it's going to take me a while to forgive you for that mental image ;-).
I'm trying to figure out the math on an amendatory veto. Say Cullerton and Quinn agree that they'll "clean up" the bill, so Cullerton lets it pass in the Senate with a veto-proof majority. If Cullerton is confident that he and Quinn can peel off enough votes to get it below a supermajority (3/5), then he can afford to send it on to Quinn.
Then Quinn amends the bill to remove the broad preemption, limiting it to preemption on carry license issuance only. Or he removes preemption altogether, if they're feeling froggy enough, or makes it may-issue, or carves out Chicago, or simply replaces the whole bill with Raoul's language . . . you get the picture.
After that, the bill goes back to the legislature. If they override the veto with a 3/5 majority in BOTH houses, then Quinn's changes fail and the original bill goes into effect. BUT if Cullerton strips off enough to bring it down below a supermajority, even if Madigan can do his 85-vote strongman feat again (the man really is our Putin) the bill will have been re-passed by simple majority, and thus all Quinn's changes will stick.
And all that starts from the presumption that Madigan actually wants the bill the way he passed it, and would fight to keep preemption and statewide shall-issue. If we redo the assumptions and start with Madigan writing and passing the bill in the House simply to get it into this amendatory veto process, all he has to do is have a change of heart and take hands off, and it might not even get the supermajority in the House to fix it, because he made the original bill distasteful to the pro-gun legislators who we'd have to rally to override the veto once Madigan's support is gone.
This is the kind of thing that keeps me from celebrating, which is a shame, because this is a real milestone. It's been 20 years since RTC passed the IL House; I was in high school the last time it happened, and my sons are seniors this year. But . . . the reason we didn't get RTC that time was that a Governor vetoed it and there was no will to override.
I'm not saying we should give up, but that we should remember that we're still in a desperate fight and a precarious position here.
You're right Don, that's just one of the many versions of a dry rape we could receive that I've heard so far.
Post a Comment