Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/27/2006 6:00:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 6:13:17 PM EDT
That is good news, but as you say, keep the pressure on.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 8:29:14 PM EDT
Thought it would be best to put the whole article up.


Assault weapons ban hits snag

By Kurt Erickson
kurt.erickson@lee.net
Advertisement
SPRINGFIELD -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s renewed push for a statewide ban on assault weapons may not be called for a vote this spring.

On Monday, one of his top allies in the General Assembly said the issue might be just too contentious to move forward before lawmakers are scheduled to adjourn for the spring on April 7.

"I don’t think anything will happen with that," said Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, who is co-chairman of the governor’s re-election effort. "It would be very difficult to pass that over here."

That assessment comes just five weeks after Blagojevich made the assault weapons ban a cornerstone of his State of the State speech.

A federal ban on the weapons expired in September 2004 and Blagojevich wants Illinois lawmakers to approve legislation to ban the manufacture, possession and delivery of semiautomatic assault weapons, assault weapons attachments, large capacity ammunition feeding devices and the .50 caliber rifle.

An attempt to pass a state version of the federal law in May 2005 fell short in the Illinois House by three votes.

Since then, supporters have been working to craft amendments to the legislation aimed at securing votes for the proposal. Steve Brown, a spokesman for House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, said backers of the ban want to make sure they have enough support before it is called for another vote.

"It’s going to be a close vote either way," said Brown.

Gun rights advocates have argued that the federal assault weapons ban didn’t have any effect on national crime rates. They also have argued that such a ban would hurt hunters, sportsmen and gun collectors.

But Blagojevich and many Chicago-area lawmakers say the guns affected by the ban are better suited for military combat, not hunting.

Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch said Monday that the governor continues to play an active role in promoting the ban.

"We’re doing everything we can to pass it," Rausch said. "We feel very strongly about the ban."

Jones said his belief that the measure will not come up for a vote this spring was not because it is an election year. But, he acknowledged, "You’ve got some members who... are against any gun control."

State Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who has been an avid supporter of the ban, said the legislation may be better suited to be voted on in the fall veto session or next spring, when it is not an election year.

"I’m predicting that as a result of the election there will be more people willing to vote for reasonable gun control measures, so that next year we will have a better chance to pass it," said Cullerton.

Kurt Erickson can be reached at kurt.Erickson@lee.net or 217-782-1249
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:50:53 AM EDT
I know that applying common sense to politics isn't a good idea, but...


If these guys are worried about doing this in an election year for fear of losing their jobs, then doesn't that mean that their constituents are against it?

Following that logic, if they are there to represent the people of the state, then shouldn't they forget about this bill, election year or otherwise?

I know, I know, logic doesn't apply to politicians, but I can't be the only one that sees this.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 3:56:50 AM EDT


State Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, who has been an avid supporter of the ban, said the legislation may be better suited to be voted on in the fall veto session or next spring, when it is not an election year.

"I’m predicting that as a result of the election there will be more people willing to vote for reasonable gun control measures, so that next year we will have a better chance to pass it," said Cullerton.



Exactly H, That slapped me across the face as I read it. It's a big F you from the moronic liberal dems. We know what's best for you and even if we have to do it against the will of the majority of our voters and despite empirical evidence that it will have zero effect on crime, take your 2nd amendment and shove it!

What a messed up state this is. F Daley and his idiotic chronies. All in all though, the article was not badly written.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:59:18 AM EDT
Logic and the tenets of democracy are not operative here. The sooner everyone recognizes that, the better off we'll all be. Logic, statictics, and John Lott tell us that gun control does not reduce the incidence of crime...quite the contrary. There has not been a murder in Illinois with a weapon which is defined by the bill as an "assault weapon" since 1930. And your "representatives" are not interested in the will of the majority. If they were, we would have a statewide referendum on gun issues. That would allow the state's population to express their views personally. The governor and his ilk are interested in perverting our legislative system for personal reasons. Why do you think we have 3 anti-gun shell bills sitting on the floor right now? Why do you think these House votes are so carefully timed to coincide with elections? I'll tell you why. The shell bills are there so that they may be implemented at the drop of a hat, with little discussion and no public review at an instant when the gun grabbers might have a majority present to vote. Our government officials know that popular opinion is against these bills. They know these bills would not survive a public referendum.

I've read that Diane Feinstein (D-California), the anti-gun spearhead has a CCW. So does her husband, apparently. Jane Fonda, another big anti-gunner, has a gun collection I wish I could afford. Rosie O'Donnell, the loud-mouthed, talentless actress (and I use the term loosely) stirred up anti-gun sentiment for years while being protected by armed bodyguards. And our own governor and Richie Daley are protected by armies of weapons-laden bodyguards (as are ALL state and federal officials). So, you see, they have no need for weapons. And they have no respect for those who do have a need. Our politicians are elitists who have no understanding of or contact with their constituencies. And THAT is the problem. That we see gun-grabbing bills in this state year after year after year should be no surprise. We are "represented" by politicians who enjoy perks and privileges WE don't have. The highest ranking officials are entitled to free security services for life. They also retire with nice fat pensions and don't need to care about social security.

This is nothing more than a gun grab for someone's personal edification. Logic is not part of the equation.
Top Top