The Chicago Media is upset because the Illinois State Rifle Association commissioned a loaded poll that shows people support carry reform in Illinois.
The word â€œconcealedâ€ is not mentioned â€” odd, considering that this is a fight over â€œconcealedâ€ carry. Yet, the association claimed in a press release that the answers to the question showed support for concealed carry. Also, how did the association know that the pollâ€™s respondents were law-abiders?
I’ve watched our opponents use this tactic time and time again, so I have little or no sympathy that our opponents are whining that we’re doing it. Truth is, I can’t confirm we are doing it, because I don’t have access to the poll results. Presumably the politicians do as well. Even if somehow we managed to get concealed carry passed out of the legislature, it’s almost certainly going to be vetoed by the Governor, even though polls show his numbers are currently in the toilet.
4 thoughts on “What’s Good for the Goose …”
I believe the language of Illinois’ bill regards “carry”, and not specifically “concealed carry.”
Don’t be so sure that the Quinnmeister will veto this. He’s more likely going to let it sit on his desk for 29 days and then either sign it or return it with some changes. If he vetos this after the showing we had at IGOLD this year and the fact that we have wider bi-partisan support this year than before, he’ll get hung by his own party.
In this case, the governor’s veto may not be a critical issue.
Illinois law is written so that any law affecting “home rule” must almost always get a two-thirds supermajority, the same as a veto override (not to mention other procedural stuff requiring the same 67%).
Therefore, if it passes those earlier hurdles, the governor’s veto could well be overrideable by the same supermajority.
That, barring gubernatorial arm-twisting as was seen on the other side of the cheese curtain when former Wisconsin Governor Doyle dislocated a number of elbows and shoulders preventing an override of his carry-bill veto. It missed by a single vote…
The question that had Rich so annoyed was phrased like this:
â€œWould you support a law that would allow trained, law-abiding citizens like yourself to carry a firearm to protect yourself and your family from harm?â€
He’s just mad because he thinks it would have polled lower if the phrase “concealed carry” were in it. The fact that he’s reframing the issue himself in every post he makes about how bad it was for the ISRA to frame the issue as “carry” instead of concealed carry has escaped him, as has the entire open carry movement. I also mentioned to him that I’ve never seen him object to:
Saturday Night Special
pistol grips “for spray firing from the hip”
cop killer bullets
. . . . and I told him so, but didn’t get an answer before he closed the comments. I also don’t recall him getting this irritated when Rep. Kathy Ryg, for instance, was sending out mailers a couple of years ago promising to do something about “these assault weapons,” over a photograph of a Browning M2 .50 caliber machine gun on a tripod surrounded by brass at a depth of 6-12″.
(In other words, not an assault weapon by any stretch of the imagination, but also already illegal in Illinois to the tune of ten federal years.)
Comments are closed.