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-
No comments:
Post a Comment