SB2193, the House Speaker Michael Madigan-crafted and endorsed carry bill introduced by Brian Phelps, clears its House committee with a vote of 13-3.

We’re expecting a vote on it tomorrow in the House.

It’s expected to get about 80 votes, way more than 71 needed to over-ride Gov. Quinn’s likely veto.

There’s some stories on the wires about it this morning.

Here’s a link to one from the Pantagraph.

And another from the State Journal-Register.

Illinois legislation allowing public possession of concealed guns has passed the House Judiciary Committee. It was a compromise backed by Speaker Michael Madigan.

The measure was endorsed Thursday 13-3 and goes to the full House Friday. It comes two weeks before a June 9 deadline set by a federal appeals court for Illinois to abandon its prohibition on the public possession of weapons.

Again, if you haven’t read the genesis of this from yesterday, it can be had here.

If I had to summarize my thoughts on this bill in a nutshell:

It’s a huge win for the 40% of Illinoisans who live in Cook County.  Not only do they get a shall-issue carry law, but we’re rolling back all sorts of local gun restrictions that have kept them disarmed and at the mercy of thugs and predators for decades now.

Think about it, folks.  In post-Sandy Hook America, where else are we rolling back so-called black gun bans, gun registration schemes and all sorts of other rules and regulations that keep guns out of the hands of good people?

It’s a huge win for Chicago residents.

For Mayor “Little Ballerina” Rahm and Toni “My son gets arrested” Preckwinkle, they’re feeling the bus tires rolling across them as the crown jewels of leftist gun control are on the conveyor belt into the chipper.

For the rest of us, eh, it’s not such a hot deal.  It’s an onerous bill.

But, making lemonade out of these lemons, it’s a heckuva lot better than what we’ve got right now as I’m sitting here with an unloaded gun in a fanny pack…  and most of you are reluctant to even do that.

Yeah, it’s expensive.  Yeah, there’s a 180 day delay in implementation.  Yeah, it’s a pain in the butt.  Yeah, there are quite a few prohibited locations.

But it’s a major win in that we’re liberalizing gun laws in a liberal state after Sandy Hook.

That is a big win.

I’ve taken a couple of hot calls this morning.  Folks, you can’t blame the NRA or anyone else except the politicians who got weak kneed and wouldn’t stand by us in order for us to be in a strong negotiating place.

And frankly, if you haven’t been making phone calls and writing letters, you need to look into the mirror on why we’re at where we are at with said politicians.

You can make up for that by contacting your legislator, RIGHT NOW, and ask them to vote NO on any magazine bans or gun bans.  Do it.

And if you didn’t vote last election?  Well, there’s a chance to redeem yourself by voting in the next election and the one after that.


22 thoughts on “The bus pulls out: Illinois’ new carry bill passes out of committee Legislative update”
  1. A house divided will not stand. Yes, downstate could have sold out and left Chicago residents hanging. But that would have been a shallow victory indeed. We are all residents of Illinois and under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. We must all stand together. Who knows, maybe our Northern neighbors will realize that those who live south of I 80 aren’t so bad after all.

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. This is a start. Hopefully next March 10,000+ gun rights advocates will turn out for IGOLD and support the changes which will turn this compromise carry bill into a true powerhouse. Perhaps also the politicians who went back on their agreements or began to waver making this compromise necessary will be replaced.

    In the mean time, a ‘big thank’ you to all those legislators, advocates and behind the scenes workers who have helped bring us to this point!

  2. Why this assumption there is no cliff? I’m about done with this state. I’m so close to Indiana that I considered moving there. I’m leaving this state one way or another, and this kind of thing is the reason. No accountability, and taxes from hell. I never wanted to live in the state of Chicago.

    1. Why talk about it? GIT-R-DUN! May God be with you and good luck! Many of us have long established ties and are not able to leave the Chi-comunistic state of Ill-annoy and must remain, but I wish all that are able to leave to better pastures well.

  3. Getting all of us to move to another state has got to be Madigan’s dream scenario.

    Remember, the libs in Urbana bemoan that this is an NRA stronghold. I’m going to stick around. We didn’t lose our rights overnight. It’s going to take a while to get them fully restored.

    I’m not happy with this new carry bill. If it is the one we end up with, are there any changes we can make before it gets through? Are there any last second amendments the other side might try to attach to ban magazines?

  4. Imagining possibilities…
    Scenario #1: CC to train station. Fanny on train downtown. CC for walk to work. Rerverse and repeat at 5:00 PM daily.
    Scenario #2: Saddlebag carry for riding horse on trails in CC FPD. Or, will it have to be fanny pack carry?

    1. You must be reading a different bill. Good luck whipping that unloaded CCW out of that fanny pack or saddle bag when you need it to save yourself. The bill specifically states no firearm on public transportation or in CC FPD. Nothing about loaded or unloaded just no firearm allowed in restricted areas. I wish people would quit making this stuff up and stop assuming anything because if your assumption is not specifically written out in the law you and other misinformed will be going to jail.

  5. Call today and tell them no mag bans.

    If we start trying to amend this at the last minute, they can too. They might try to slip in a mag ban.

    Tell your pol, if they put in a mag ban, vote no.

    The antis always tell their own people that any gun control they implement is a “first step” It’s time to turn that around on them. As it stands now, unless they slip in a mag ban, this is a first step towards a good carry law.

    Let’s take that step.

  6. There will be only technical amendments and few and far between.

    Madigan’s settled all that’s to be settled.

    This bill is as good as passed.


    1. How soon after veto and then overturn the veto can we start changing the prohibited locations. Next thing we need to do is find a sturdy conservative pro 2nd Amendment Republican who will run for governor. It would be nice to get rid of king Madigan, but I don’t see that happening any time soon. Need to find deep pocket conservatives. Until then make pesky phone calls.

  7. How soon after veto overrule can we work on reducing the prohibited locations. Next action taken is find a good republican backed by the NRA and deep pocket republicans to run for governor. Once Chicago area folks realize the protection they have been denied for so long and crime rate goes down, they can “hopefully” vote out dictator Madigan. A lot of hoping going on. Until then, pesky phone calls to state legislature.

  8. Sorry about the double post. I kept getting hit with the site spam filter message. Didn’t think the comment posted.

  9. Can anybody tell me what Phelps submitted as Amendment 2 today. I have search for it and can only find amendment 1. Thanks much

  10. So how did we get to this bill when for months the Pros have been saying, “we have all the cards”?? “A good bill or the cliff” my sweet petute’. Pathetic how restrictive this is and they want us to be happy with it because it’s at least a shall-issue, best we can get from Madigan, and helps out Chicago? As a down-stater who already has 2 other CCWs from other states, not happy at all. All the restricted areas, high cost, training requirements.
    On the restricted areas…I remember watching the debates back when Jakobsen was trying to defend Madigan’s University opt-out amendment when the pro rep was asking her about walking down the sidewalk or street “adjacent-to” university property and if that would be legal. Jakobsen was saying, “yes the university doesn’t own the street.” Actually, in the case of the U of I, they DO own the streets. Long story how I found that out.
    John, can you clarify your understanding of the training requirements? Does previously taking the GSL 2-day PPITH class qualify or does the wording about only 8-hrs of previous training carrying over mean another 8-hr class shooting their specific target type.

    1. We got this bill because all the “Pros” including NRA’s Todd V. and the ILRA just found out how powerful Madigan really is and they all caved in. Wait until Madigan and the Chicago politicians jam a State assault weapons and magazine ban down their throats in the future. Then all the “Pros” will be wishing they had home rule and preemption back.

  11. the debate is being streamed live.

    most of the Chicago reps are asking some really stupid questions. Most recent one: “would this bill allow someone to open a gun shop next to an elementary school in Chicago?” Apparently he thinks this is a zoning law?

  12. Just speaking with Brandon Phelps office. Staff sais the Senate will pass the concur and pass the bill. If they do not then we WILL have constitutional carry BUT with HOME RULE. not a good thing.

  13. The author needs to proofread better. It’s Brandon Phelps, NOT Brian Phelps.

Comments are closed.