Some people wish Ryan, Blagojevich could just fade off into the sunset

Some people are just determined not to wither away into anonymity – no matter how much the ideologically-inclined of our society desire it.

RYAN: Beginning 'elder' statesman niche

Because I’m not as bothered as some by the fact that our former governors George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich both popped back into the news columns in recent days.

I ACTUALLY FOUND Ryan’s weekend appearance at the South Side church that calls Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., its pastor to be intriguing in the way that George H. was capable of calling on international ties that usually wouldn't be associated with a state official to get something done.

And as for Blagojevich’s attorneys appearing in court on Friday to argue the merits of why his convictions should be overturned (or at the very least, his 14-year prison sentence should be lessened), well, that’s part of the legal process.

He gets to appeal. For those who’d rather not allow him the opportunity to challenge the merits of his conviction, I’d argue that’s an “un-American” thought to have.

I make such a statement because I notice that the Internet commentary on both of these stories is so overwhelmingly negative. People use the anonymity of such comments to make racist comments about Ryan, while claiming that one-time first lady Patti Blagojevich and the attorneys all ought to be silenced.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT one thinks of the gubernatorial stints of both of these men, such attitudes may be more despicable than anything either man did. And let’s not forget that Blagojevich is in the early years of serving that 14-year sentence.

While Ryan wound up doing six-plus years in a federal Bureau of Prisons work camp for his acts.

In the case of Ryan, he made what is being considered his first public appearance since being released from prison earlier this year.

BLAGOJEVICH: "Free Milorod?"

It was a memorial service on the South Side for one-time activist and South Africa President Nelson Mandela, and Ryan recalled the time he got to meet with the man.

ACCORDING TO THE Chicago Sun-Times, Mandela’s minions initially rejected Ryan on the grounds that he was not a national leader or other world-renowned figure.

But Ryan did make that trip back in the autumn of 1999 to Cuba and had met with Fidel Castro. Which meant that Ryan’s people were able to contact Castro’s people, who then contacted Mandela’s people to put in a good word.

That resulted in the initial meeting, and the fact that later when Ryan was seriously contemplating clearing Death Row of its 160-some inmates because Illinois’ capital crimes statutes were so flawed, Mandela was able to get through directly to the governor to put in his thoughts (which were in line with doing away with the death penalty).

Let’s be honest. That is a key part of why many of Ryan’s critics oppose him. Internet comments were more than willing to tie Ryan to Castro, the Mandela that was considered a “Communist” and the Bobby Rush of the Black Panther Party of old.

AN UNPLEASANT REMINDER that some people in our society are determined to live in their own little world, and wish they could force the rest of us to live in it with them – under their subjugation.

Those same people were upset that Blagojevich is able to appeal his case – in which arguments were heard before a Court of Appeals panel on Friday.

Some got all worked up over the fact that some judges on the panel were more than willing to ask questions implying that perhaps the sentence was excessive. Or that maybe the former governor’s conduct wasn’t really criminal – and that politics itself isn’t automatically bribery.

Personally, I’m inclined to think those questions came from judges who wanted to see if the attorneys would come up with a pompous or otherwise-stupid statement that would then be used to reject Blagojevich’s desire for freedom sometime before he turns 67.

BUT SOME PEOPLE are just determined to rant and rage that their desires to go overboard on Blagojevich aren’t being blindly followed.

Blagojevich may wind up spending more time in prison (even if he gets the sentenced lessened slightly). But we’re going to have to accept that Ryan is destined to become that political elder statesman with a colorful past (just like one-time Congressman Dan Rostenkowski).

This was just the first of many such public appearances he’s likely to make.

Which means I need to stock up on Tylenol for the Internet-induced comments I’m going to have to endure as a result.

  -30-

30 more days for ‘concealed carry’ not big deal, no matter what ‘gun nuts’ say

The Court of Appeals that ordered Illinois to have a “concealed carry” law in place by Sunday is managing to offend the conservative interests that want the law – for reasons that go a long way toward showing their motivations in the first place.

A judicial panel issued a stay of its Sunday deadline (180 days from when it issued its original order that the Illinois Legislature enact something resembling a “concealed carry” law), saying the state can now have another 30 days.

ALTHOUGH THE COURT made a point of saying, “no further extensions” will be granted. So July 9 is IT in terms of the deadline.

This bothers the firearms advocates, who probably already were planning the parties to celebrate the enactment of the law they have long desired – even if it is a compromise measure that doesn’t come close to the mentality they wanted enacted into Illinois law against the will of the majority of the state’s population.

I’ve been reading a lot of Internet commentary (all anonymous, of course) from people who say that 180 days was enough time, and that they just want something imposed now!

Not that it means anything – except that some people really don’t understand the way government works. Either that, or they want government to be some sort of authoritarian state that always rules in their favor – or more accurately, against anyone who disagrees with them.

THAT’S JUST UN-AMERICAN. Which is why the appeals court didn’t think twice before issuing the extension this week that was requested by the Illinois attorney general’s office.

The reason that it is not ridiculous to grant the extension is because the heavy lifting of the legislative process has been completed – the state Senate and Illinois House of Representatives have both passed a bill.

They did so in the final hours of the spring legislative session that ended on Friday, along with hundreds of other bills that same day.

In short, that’s quite a backlog. There was not a legislative aide who had to load up a wheelbarrow with bills and run them over to the governor’s office that same day. It takes time for the bills to work their way to the governor – who then gets 60 days to consider what to do.

WITHOUT AN EXTENSION, there’s a very good chance that the bill would have just been sent to Gov. Pat Quinn for consideration. So he wouldn’t have had much of a chance to review it before signing it into law.

Does it really sound right that Quinn would be expected to sign into law a measure immediately upon its receipt? Only to the social conservatives who want this issue enacted into law as a gesture of the majority having to accept something that they detest.

So now, the process can play itself out, and Quinn can consider the issue in due time; just like it will on the issue of “gay marriage” where the bill is still pending because a political suicide vote was not taken last week. On firearms, Quinn’s still going to be rushed, since he likely would have until mid-August to consider the issue – except that the court has now set July 9 as a deadline.

And for those who are arguing that Quinn ought to know what the bill is about, keep in mind that our political people really do trust each other so little that the governor’s staff will be reading through the bill to ensure that legislators didn’t slip something unexpected into the measure.

SO AS FAR as people trying to predict what Quinn will do, the governor probably is being honest by refusing to say much of anything.

Because even though it would make a certain amount of sense for him to just sign the measure into law (and claim the courts pressured him into it), Quinn is just contrarian enough to use his “veto” power to try to make a few changes.

Of course, an amendatory veto would mean the Legislature’s return in November to consider whether gubernatorial changes should be accepted, or not! Which would really infuriate the firearms proponents, since it would mean they’d have to wait even a few more months before their precious gun law letting them carry holstered pistols in public for alleged self-protection could take effect.

Considering how many years (if not decades) it takes for issues such as expanded gambling, a new Chicago-area airport or pension funding reform to get a serious debate, it still sounds like the equivalent of a legislative rush-job that will end up in their favor.

  -30-

Is Ill. equivalent of college student who perpetually asks for extensions?

Thinking back to college, I can recall certain fellow students of mine who never could manage to make a deadline when it came to submitting papers for class. They were the ones who thought nothing of asking for extensions – and thinking that it was their right to have the additional time.

Everything always goes to the last minute

Which has me wondering if Illinois state government shares the same mentality!

I COULDN’T HELP but have that thought pop into my head when I learned Monday about the Illinois attorney general’s office asking for an extension of the June 9 deadline for coming up with a new law that permits certain people to carry pistols on their persons in public for self-defense purposes.

A Chicago-based Court of Appeals for the Midwestern U.S. set a 180-day timeline early this year for the General Assembly to act. But as of now, with just under 40 days remaining, the Illinois Legislature isn’t anywhere close to agreement on what should be done.

That is why the Capitol Fax newsletter in Springfield reported that the attorney general’s office wants something resembling an extension.

The General Assembly would still be expected to do something before the June 9 deadline (actually before the May 31 date that the Legislature is scheduled to adjourn for the summer).

BUT IT IS pretty certain that no matter what action the General Assembly takes, there will be legal action in response. That is what the attorney general’s office wants to be able to account for in their own filing.

For without an extension (30 days is what the attorney general is asking for), the deadline for the state to file all its petitions in any case would come before the end of session (by three days, to be exact).

So maybe there is some cause to think this might be reason to grant something resembling an extension of time. Although I wonder if the Supreme Court of the United States will view this as some sort of partisan effort and decide to play the role of the hard-assed college professor.

No extension. No quarter! No Mercy!!!

ALL I KNOW about this particular issue is that regardless of what happens (or perhaps if nothing happens and we wind up reaching June 9 with nothing put in place by the General Assembly), there won’t be any serious attempt at movement until the absolute last minute.

Just like the lazy ol’ college student.

I recently spoke to an Illinois House member (who voted for the “may issue” and against the “shall issue” attempts that came up earlier this year) who says he’s convinced nothing will happen until May 31 proper.

It will be one of those notorious last-day deals, perhaps pushed through in the final hours of the 2013 spring session of the Illinois Legislature.

IN FACT, THIS particular legislator says he expects the same fate for gay marriage, expanded casino gambling and approval of a state budget with pension funding reform measures.

“Concealed carry” may well be so controversial that it will be the absolute last vote taken by the Legislature. As though gay marriage or gambling isn’t controversial enough.

A part of me wonders if the hard-liners on firearms issues will be even more hard-headed about wanting to carry a pistol if they feel “forced” to accept anything going along with gay marriage. I’m talking about those individuals who often appear as though the reason they’re pushing for “concealed carry” so vehemently is because they want their view imposed on the majority (the urban part) of Illinois.

As sorry as that might sound, there is a degree to which issues become intertwined with each other when they’re all considered under the Statehouse dome.

WHICH MIGHT MEAN that asking for a few days more time to handle the inevitable legal appeal may be the most rational course of action!

It might also be the only bit of rational action that occurs related to state government this year.

  -30-

Testing the Lege for firearms

I wish I were in Springfield on Tuesday, when legislators were put through a series of votes to determine the degree to which the actual members of the General Assembly support the idea of firearms in public.

A busy place Tuesday, and later this spring, for gun control measures

It would be comical to see our legislators have to think for themselves – since the whole point of Tuesday’s exercise was for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, to figure out just how restrictive a bill could he craft for consideration this spring. Instead of waiting for Madigan to give them "hints" about how they're supposed to vote.

FOR WE HAVE the issue of “concealed carry,” by which people could carry a pistol on their person in public out of a sense of being able to “protect” themselves from potential violent outbursts.

We have a Court of Appeals based in Chicago telling the state Legislature that they have until June to come up with some sort of law permitting such firearms possession. But they’re not telling the state just how open (or restrictive) such a measure needs to be.

Because for all the cheap rhetoric about how Illinois is the only state that does not permit “concealed carry” in public, it really is wrong to claim that our state is some sort of “lone wolf” objector when it comes to firearms use in public.

While there are a few states that take the concept of a person’s right to bear arms everywhere to the extreme, most states have restrictions on who can actually gain the permits that would make the pistols tucked in their shoulder holster or purse legal – and not automatic reason for their arrest.

OFFICIALS IN CALIFORNIA and New York have laws that are so restrictive of who can gain a permit that you could argue that they might as well have an “outright” ban. That certainly is the spirit of their laws.

And we in Illinois have more in common with those states than we do places like Mississippi or Texas.

So for those firearms proponents who think the Illinois Legislature is about to craft a bill that would make it easy for just about everyone to carry that pistol of theirs in public, it’s not likely.

We have state officials who might like to impose every restriction they could think of. While a few others might want absolute minimalist restrictions -- and some of those on Tuesday tried their best to be obstructionists to the process, since they claim they want just an "up" or "down" vote on a single bill; preferably one that gives them everything they want and tells the opposition to "shut up" and get over their opposition.

TUESDAY WAS ABOUT trying to figure out which restrictions would be approved by legislators, and which ones would be absolutely despised.

Those people who are determined to be able to carry pistols when they get on board a bus? To me, and to anyone who actually uses mass transportation on a regular or semi-regular basis, the idea is ludicrous.

The same with the idea that some people have a problem with already existing bans that prevent firearms from being possessed anywhere on property belonging to public universities.

But the firearms rights people seem to want the idea – although I suspect it is more out of a sense of principal that they want something resembling an absolute “right” to have that pistol on their person at all times.

EVEN WHILE INSIDE the grounds of a sports stadium? Perhaps they think they can pull out their pistol and shoot the nitwit sitting in front of them who thinks he can stand all game and block the views of those behind them.

Or perhaps losing quarterbacks will now face the option of a hail of gunfire from the stands when they make a bad pass?

That’s a bit over the top. I doubt anyone would want that to happen – although sports fans have been known to let themselves get caught up in the emotion of the event. Which is why many people would not want minimal-to-no restriction. Life has too many opportunities for people to get caught up in themselves and over-react.

And we’re going to learn how supportive our legislators are of the concept as they practice their way towards voting at some point this spring on a real bill.

  -30-

The ugly mood of firearms becomes more and more intense in Illinois

These cheery faces ultimately will decide Illinois' firearms laws. Photograph provided by Supreme Court of the United States

Where do we start?

Probably with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which on Friday rejected the request of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to have the court meet en banc to consider the issue of whether Illinois must approve a law that permits at least some people to carry firearms concealed on their persons.

IT WAS A three-judge panel of that appeals court that ruled earlier this year (by a 2-1 vote) that Illinois ought to create some sort of “concealed carry” law – and set a 180-day deadline (ending in June) for the Illinois General Assembly to act.

The hope by people who detest the idea was that the entire appeals court would come in, review the case, and overturn the panel’s ruling. Thereby eliminating any legal pressure to have to act.

But the court isn’t going to do that. Which means the next step is taking the issue to the Supreme Court of the United States, where justices such as Scalia and Thomas are likely to not be sympathetic to the interests of Chicago-oriented government that would prefer to have tough restrictions on firearms within the community and don’t want the sparsely populated rural parts of Illinois to prevail.

So I’m sure there are some people who are convinced that this issue is over, and that the Legislature will now get on with the business of trying to pass something resembling concealed carry so that the guy who’s convinced he will be able to protect the world from the “bad guys” with that pistol tucked in his waistband will no longer be a criminal every time he sets foot outside his house.

FAT CHANCE!!!!

I still believe the will of the majority of the General Assembly will be something equivalent to “contempt of court.” I really believe our state’s Legislature will ignore the so-called 180-day deadline and do nothing with regards to “concealed carry.”

After all, there are more important issues such as pension funding reform that need to be addressed. Or at least that’s what the conservative ideologues tried claiming when the Illinois Senate considered (and approved) gay marriage just last week.

ALVAREZ: Her office not willing to give in

Let’s be honest. It was Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez has a policy director who told legislators they could ignore the deadline – on the grounds that only the Supreme Court of Illinois could strike down an Illinois law.

WHICH, FOR ALL I know, will be the sentiment that will further encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to take this case on and rule in a way hostile to the beliefs of the many of Illinoisans.

Because that is another factor that is going to have to be taken into account. I honestly believe a majority of Illinoisans have little or no problem with the restrictions our state now has, and that the ideologues who shout from the rooftops are being given too much credit for the volume of their views.

How else does New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg get away without much of any criticism whatsoever for his political action committee’s meddling in a Chicago-area election for Congress?

Because many of us agree that the National Rifle Association has way too much influence in political matters and needs to be put in check.

SO AT A time when the firearms proponents are convinced that the will of law is determined to give them their way across Illinois (and impose their will on Chicagoans), they’re eventually going to find out how radical and offensive a thought that is to the bulk of us.

Because too many of us realize how realistic is a description put forth in a dissent to the appeals court rejection of the en banc hearing – a situation in which police in New York were within the letter of the law last year when they shot and killed a gunman who was a public threat.

But in that incident, nine other people who happened to be in the area also got shot by stray gunfire from police.

Somehow, I don’t believe that the people who most want to be able to “pack heat” are as good of shots as the NYPD. Or as knowledgable of the law about when it is appropriate to "open fire" in public.

  -30-