search
top

Concealed Carry Comes Up Short in Illinois

We came very close, with a 65-32 vote. In Illinois, a supermajority is required to be able to overcome home rule and make a state wide law. So we came up six votes short of what was needed. That’s not a bad showing. It’s amazing to me that Chicago has stacked things so much in their favor that they can effectively control the politics of a state with this strange supermajority requirement.

8 Responses to “Concealed Carry Comes Up Short in Illinois”

  1. chiefjaybob says:

    Chicago isn’t the only home-rule city. Other larger cities like Aurora and Rockford and some smaller ones like DeKalb are home-rule, and had the ISRA and the NRA not pursued this course, any of these cities could’ve passed ordinances outlawing carrying in their little serfdoms. It was the right thing to do. Still, hugely disappointing. I hate it here.

  2. Garrett Lee says:

    Much as I hate to say it, wouldn’t it be wiser to accept only getting concealed carry for part of the state, let a couple of years of experience build up, and then go for the whole state again, once there’s more proof? (Yes, I know there’s proof in almost every other state out there – but having it in Illinois might help.)

    Please tell me why this is naive and foolish – for I would bet strongly that it is, but I just can’t see why.

  3. David says:

    This is the same tactic that is being used in PA under the guise of shrinking the legislative bodies to save money. It’s all about giving Pittsburgh and Philly Dems far more control at the state level and screwing the conservative middle T and it’s 7 million residents.

  4. CC says:

    In response to Garrett Lee,

    It was appropriate to try and get CC passed for ALL of Illinois;

    1. Consider NY State; NYC has had a “carve out” for decades with NO chance of getting them the (very limited) CC rights the rest of NY State has. The same would happen in Chicago.

    2. It would not be right to throw Otis McDonald “under the bus” and carve out Chicago. Otis bravely fought for us – and now we must bravely fight for HIS rights as well.

    Just my view of things.

  5. Harold says:

    Garrett Lee: If the rule was just “avoid the Chicago city limits” it would be one thing, but it sounds like there are enough cities that it could be edging into “minefield” territory. Look at the Nebraska CCW mess where ambiguity in the law kept things in quite a bit of confusion for a long time.

  6. Weer'd Beard says:

    I’m with you Sebastian. I see “Losses” like this more encouraging than discouraging as they did get so close in what was considered a lost cause not long ago.

    Much like the recent good showing National Conceal Carry Reciprocity has received.

  7. David Lawson says:

    The vote was actually much closer than that. The tally was a 68 when it became clear it wasn’t going to pass, 3 jumped off.

    We had 3 Republicans vote against the bill and 2 downstate Democrats vote against it.

    We had 3 turncoats, include Rep. Davis (Otis’ Rep) who promised a vote but rolled over due to pressure from Chicago. It is useful to note that many Chicago area legislators are also part-time City workers.

    As for pre-emption, we aren’t going to accept a Jim Crow RTC law. That is so 1870s.

  8. Garrett Lee says:

    In response to CC:

    Agreed that doing this first was right; my apologies for not being clear. I was saying “should we try this tack now, of getting some carry in Illinois and then forcing the whole-state issue later?”

    Harold:

    Thanks – that does help give a good counterpoint.

    Sorry for my naivete.

top