Friday, May 31, 2013

EXTRA: Perhaps Illinois legislators need a lesson on how to cast a vote

Both the Illinois Senate and House of Representatives gave overwhelming votes of support on Friday for a measure permitting “concealed carry” – the practice of carrying a pistol on one’s person in public for self-defense.

JONES: Meant to vote "yes"
Yet it seems that some legislators don’t want to have to take criticism for how the official record will record their stance. In the Illinois House, the final vote was 89-28.

ONE OF THE people who did not vote was state Rep. Thaddeus Jones, D-Calumet City. Is he really position-less on the matter?

Or is he telling the truth when, as he explained after the vote was taken, he meant to vote “yes” but that the device on his desk that allows him to vote on bills did not function.

Did someone really “turn off” his device to prevent him from being vote number 90? Who’s to say!

Although his explanation bothers me less than that of state Rep. Edward Acevedo, D-Chicago, who is recorded as voting “yes” for the bill, but says he wants to be thought of as having voted “present.”

NOT THE BOLDEST of actions – although it prevents the National Rifle Association-types from being able to criticize him on the issue.

So now, the issue goes to Gov. Pat Quinn – who likely will sign it to avoid legal catastrophe from being imposed by the federal appeals courts. Although this is a man who has been willing to say “no” to the gambling interests who dream of more and more casinos across Illinois.

ACEVEDO: Pushed the wrong button
And we may soon have a law that allows those people in rural parts of the state to carry pistols for use against anyone they feel threatens them – although the larger municipalities with Home Rule powers will have the ability to push their own restrictions on firearms.

Which will tick off the rural interests; for whom a large part of this whole issue was imposing their perspective on firearms onto Chicago and the whole state.

SO FOR THOSE who are upset that Illinois won’t be in a group with California and New York (states that give their local police great authority to reject applications for firearms permits), keep in mind that the law could have wound up much worse!

Although I’m still waiting for the first incident where someone who is armed gets crocked in a restaurant that serves liquor, then feels threatened by the presence of another patron in the booth two seats away.


No comments: