Welcome to GSL

This login is for the website administrators.

Please use the member login link in the main navigation bar to access the members sections.

Member Login
Lost your password?

TEMPERS FLARE: “May issue” went down hard

April 18, 2013

Illinois Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, argues gun legislation while on the House floor during session at the Illinois State Capitol Wednesday, April 17, 2013, in Springfield Ill. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman) Caption by State Journal-Register.

Tempers flared in the Illinois General Assembly yesterday as die-hard leftists tried one last time to push through a highly-restrictive “may issue” carry bill and met with a humiliating and overwhelming defeat.

It was a smack-down of epic proportions, in fact.

The “may issue” proposal was hailed by the Chicago media and so-called “moderate” Illinois House members as a “great compromise” to all Illinois to comply with the Seventh Circuit decision requiring Illinois to join 49 other states with carry laws, while at the same time offering a de facto means for local authorities to deny licensing people for arbitrary or capricious reasons – and allowing these same local municipalities to ban carry in their cities, creating a massive patchwork of laws and rendering the bill effectively worthless.

So, what happened?

As we mentioned, tempers flared and the Illinois House sounded a lot like the British Parliament’s House of Commons for a while.

Springfield (Watchdog.org) – …Tempers raged in the Illinois House Thursday as lawmakers debated a last-minute plan to have the state adopt “may issue” concealed carry permits.

“All of this nonsense and two-facedness from the other side of the aisle,” Democratic state Rep. Scott Drury declared after listening to Republicans argue against a plan to let the state and local police decide if someone should be allowed to carry a gun. “It’s nonsense.”

That touched off a torrent of yelling and screaming from Republicans, most notably state Rep. Mike Bost, R-Murphysboro, an adamant gun rights supporter.

To which Drury added “We don’t want someone like that carrying a concealed weapon.”

House Republicans then bellowed out a chorus of boos and catcalls.

The scene bordered on getting out of control. State Rep. Al Riley, D-Hazel Crest, who was moderating the floor debate, threatened to call in House doorkeepers to clear the chamber or restore order.

 

In the end, the “May Issue” bill received just 31 votes, barely half of what it needed for passage.  As we mentioned, it was a monumental failure for leftists who favor gun control.

Debate continues this morning and into this afternoon over a shall-issue bill.  We’ll keep you up to speed as we can.

 

7 Responses to TEMPERS FLARE: “May issue” went down hard

  1. Randy on April 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Time is on our side… June is coming… let the clock run out!

  2. George Irick on April 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Great news, enjoy your site. Very timly news on local issues. Down with Chicago tyranny..

    • jim on April 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm

      Join Guns Save Life, you won’t be disappointed

  3. Bill on April 18, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    I agree let the clock run out. Force constitutional carry in the state.

    Once we have CC then the next battle needs to be the repeal of the FOID!

  4. Jim L on April 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    I’m sorry, but we don’t need the OTHER guy (the gun grabber) with a CC. Control freaks love power and they should have none of it.

  5. bossmanham on April 18, 2013 at 6:43 pm

    The court has said you can’t read anything into cases they choose to hear and choose not to. Typical dem being dishonest as hell.

  6. Nick on April 18, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Perhaps Rep. Drury should read some SC cases before he declares them to be constitutional scholars. How about The Dread Scott Decision for one. I could probably name hundreds wherein the court’s decisions were without any merit. And if the representative wants to go by SC decisions, how about going by the ones where they declared the current tax code not to be enforced as a direct tax upon the individual.
    More to the point of scholarship, how many decisons are made unanimously? In recent times I can think of only one, but the vast majority are done so along political lines and wind up as a 5to4 decision. Who is the scholar? Is it the majority opinion, or the dessenters.
    Obviously, the SC has never sat a day as was envisioned by our founders who expected the court to rule on constitutional tenor, and not the text of the law.