A lot of folks are upset that a deal has been reached over the CCW issue in Illinois. It would seem neither side likes the deal. But the leadership of the Illinois Legislature has essentially signaled this is as far as they’ll go, and if we walk away, they’ll shove a may-issue bill with gun bans down our throats. Note the GSL source:
There is no June 9th cliff.
We donâ€™t have enough votes willing to go over the cliff.Â Not even close.
We do have the latest bill submitted by Brandon Phelps.
Put your drink down and take a deep breath.
Go ahead and start your deep breathing relaxation exercises.Â Seriously.
In fact, you might want to pour yourself about three fingers of your favorite adult beverage and get a good start on it before reading further.
Read the whole thing. A lot of people didn’t understand why there was even negotiation over a shall-issue bill, believing constitutional carry was in the cards if Illinois defied the court. That was always a pipe dream. If they had passed a may-issue bill, a lot of the issues would have had to be re-litigated, and Madigan would have been in a more comfortable position. I also think the deal sets us up for long-term success. Also from GSL:
It also has across the board pre-emption on all local firearm regulations and restrictions.
Chicagoâ€™s gun registration regime?Â Gone.
Chicagoâ€™s ban on mags, lasers, etc.?Â Buh bye.
Cook Countyâ€™s black gun ban?Â History.
Local â€œsafe storageâ€ ordinances?Â Into the dustbin of history.
It also means we only need a simple majority to tweak it in coming years, not a 3/5ths majority.
Yes, weâ€™re actually REPEALING so-called assault weapons bans and gun registration programs in post-Sandy Hook America.Â Â Heck, weâ€™re doing it in one of the bluest states in the nation.
Getting rid of the supermajority requirement will be a big deal, because that’s been the primary obstacle to getting shall-issue in Illinois. My only concern would be, as I understand it, whether a supermajority is required is really at the discretion of the leadership. What’s to prevent them from imposing it anyway? I can’t find anything in the rather lengthy bill stipulating that for future amendments.
My feeling is that it’s a shall-issue bill, with preemption. It’s the final offer from the leadership. I’d take the deal and then work to improve the bill through legislation, and I’d re-litigate over the steep fees and argue that many of the places you’re prohibited from carrying are not “sensitive places” per the Heller decision. I’m also guessing this will mean that the Moore/Shepherd case will not be appealed to the Supreme Court, which begs the question, will the Court take a carry case? Maybe not.