Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Veto’

… I Wonder [#JASTA]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,October 3rd,2016

.. if JASTA [Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act] is such a great idea ? ..

.. given our litigious environment , allowing another form of lawsuit is not a great idea . Our country has become notorious for the legal form of warfare , or lawfare . Are you sure that you want to unleash these sharks on a foreign nation ? ..

.. [h/t — Newsmax.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the obvious interests are national security and the national interest . We need to protect our nation ‘ s interests , and our nation ‘ s security in this day and age is absolutely critical . The biggest problem is retaliation by another nation ..

.. that potential for retaliation is not limited to the Saudis . Any other nation could pull this stunt , and prosecute legal action in their courts against our interests …

Advertisements

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… The ObamaCraps are a Disgrace [#Palestinians at the U.N.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,April 14th,2016

.. what should the ObamaCraps have done with the Palestinians ‘ draft resolution ? …

.. they should have vetoed it , straight out . No dilly dallying around …

.. just voting no is not enough . Especially rewarding the Palestinians for their obstinacy …

.. [h/t — theRightScoop.com]..
.. [link] to the blog news ..

.. the P.A. upped the ante by petitioning to join the International Criminal Court . They are not just acting to pressure the U.S. : their target is Israel . His Lordship is , unfortunately , a possibly willing accomplice …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earl Tomblin must have a Death Wish …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,April 4th,2014

.. Earl Ray Tomblin is the current Governor of West Virginia . How long he wants to remain in that job is really open to question ..

.. When Election Day comes this fall , no state is likely to get hit by the ” Red ” tide (relatively speaking) more than West Virginia . It has been forever since either chamber of the West VA legislature has been in GOP hands . This fall , that is likely to change . the West VA House is currently narrowly in DemoCrap control . That will likely flip to Red . The West Va Senate is a little more delicate . Iff it gets close enough , some of the Dems could be persauded to switch sides . Then , most likely , both chambers will be in GOP hands …

.. Tomblin will have to wipe his own fanny the next time out . West Virginia is almost suredly to be Red in the next Presidential election , so the topof the ticket will be no help . That candidate and Tomblin will both be wrapped around the failed policies of His Lordship , so it will be interesting to see whether he runs for re – election , or not . There will be no U.S. Senate race the next time , so Joe Manchin will not be able to save his fanny , either …

.. Bye , Bye , Earl !!

.. [h/t — m.NationalReview]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

Posted in personal opinion, policy disaster, political blunder, political strategy | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A BiPartisan Bill is Dangerous [Iran Nuclear Sanctions] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,December 21st,2013

.. Why , may you ask ?

.. with good reasons :

[-] a truly bipartisan bill will attract much more support from the senior levels of both parties , ..
[-] a bill with that much support will make it as an amendment onto any relevant bill , ..
[-] that support will put Dingy Harry Reid in a spot ; he will have to let the bill come to the floor , ..
[-] it will put POTUS in an impossible situation ; he will want to veto the bill , but the votes will be there to override , and by plenty , ..
[-] such a bill will piss off Iran , and give it the excuse it needs to walk away from the so – called nuclear talks in Geneva , Switzerland .

.. I support the bill . The Iran nuclear deal is an obscene joke ; It does not slow down Iran ‘ s nuclear program one bit . The ObamaCraps have issued a veto threat , but , I hope , someone in there is telling His Lordship that the votes are there , or will be there by plenty to pass the bill in both Houses of Congress by veto – proof margins .

Posted in intelligence, military affairs, national security opinion, personal opinion, political strategy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… These Cities should try Studying Constitutional Law [Washington , D.C.] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,September 12th,2013

.. at least , for now , our nation ‘ s capital has come to its senses .

.. The Mayor of Washington , D.C. , Vincent Grey , has vetoed the so — called “living wage” bill . Thanks be to God for that . At least someone around the capital has tried to study basic economics , as well as constitutional law .

.. Wal-mart is a corporation , yes . However , under the law , it is considered a person . What that means is that these “persons” also have constitutional rights , as well as real flesh-and-blood people . In this case , besides the protections for the private obligation of contract , is what is known as a “bill of attainder . ”

.. In our constitution , you cannot punish someone (a person , or a corporation) without due process [procedural and substantive] of law . The use of a Bill of Attainder denies a person that right . The D.C. living wage law is a Bill of Attainder , because it is specifically targeted at one company .

.. The D.C. City Council may want to override . They may even have the votes to override . But , are they that crazy to do so ? Do they want to waste tax money on the damage verdict that will result from a court case . WalMart has the resources to fight , and Mayor Grey is willing to help them .

.. from the Washington ComPost …

Mayor Gray vetoes ‘living wage’ bill aimed at Wal-Mart, setting up decisive council vote

By , Updated: Thursday, September 12, 11:25 AM

District Mayor Vincent C. Gray vetoed legislation Thursday that would force the city’s largest retailers to pay a super-minimum wage to their workers, ending two months of uncertainty over the controversial bill’s fate and setting up a decisive override vote at the D.C. Council as early as Tuesday.

The debate over the bill, the Large Retailer Accountability Act, has polarized local leaders while garnering national attention and putting focus on the low wages many retail chains pay their workers.

Gray (D) announced his veto in a letter to Council Chairman Phil Mendelson delivered Thursday morning that explained his opposition to the bill and disclosed his intention to seek a minimum-wage hike for all employers, not just large retailers.

(Make your case: Do you support the mayor’s decision?)

Mendelson said he was “disappointed” by the mayor’s decision, which he said is “not good for workers.”

In the letter, Gray said the bill was “not a true living-wage bill, because it would raise the minimum wage only for a small fraction of the District’s workforce.” He added the bill is a “job-killer,” citing threats from Wal-Mart and other retailers that they will not locate to the city if the bill becomes law.

“If I were to sign this bill into law, it would do nothing but hinder our ability to create jobs, drive away retailers, and set us back on the path to prosperity for all,” he said.

Gray did not say what minimum wage he would seek except that there should be a “reasonable increase.”

The bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating District stores of at least 75,000 square feet to pay their employees a “living wage” — no less than $12.50 an hour in combined wages and benefits. The proposal includes an exception for employers who collectively bargain with their employees, and existing employers have four years to come into compliance under the law.

The city’s existing minimum wage is $8.25 an hour. The bill would raise the annual earnings of a full-time employee making the lowest legally permissible wage from about $17,000 to $26,000.

While the bill’s supporters repeatedly insisted it was not targeted at Wal-Mart, the debate was inextricably tied to the retail giant’s plans, announced in late 2010, to open as many as six stores in the city in the coming months and years.

The union exemption and square-footage requirement rankled Wal-Mart officials, who said those provisions created an uneven playing field — particularly with respect to the unionized grocery chains they plan to compete with in the city.

A day ahead of the bill’s final passage last month, Wal-Mart told council members and the public that it would abandon plans for three of the six stores and explore options for withdrawing from the others should legislators proceed. The ultimatum changed no votes on the council.

Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo called the veto “good news for D.C. residents,” saying Gray chose “jobs, economic development and common sense over special interests.”

Restivo said the company will move forward with its first stores in the District: “We look forward to finishing the work we started in the city almost three years ago.”

Wal-Mart’s entry into the city has prompted a political identity crisis for many elected officials, forced to reconcile their liberal, pro-union sentiments with the desire to create jobs and better retail options for their constituents.

Key council members, including Mendelson (D) and Business Affairs Committee chair Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large), were unabashed in support of the bill, giving it momentum that similar measures had lacked in prior council terms.

But Gray made no secret in recent months that, for him, jobs and retail took priority.

Wal-Mart’s entry into the city was an early political coup for Gray, and he personally lobbied — some say threatened — top company executives to commit to a store at the Skyland Town Center development not far from Gray’s home in Ward 7.

The Skyland store is among those Wal-Mart has threatened to abandon should the living-wage bill become law. The developer of the project, Gary D. Rappaport, has said the project cannot move forward at this time without Wal-Mart’s commitment.

If the council fails to override the veto, Restivo said, “all stores are back on.”

Gray gave little indication in recent weeks that he was seriously entertaining signing the bill. His deputy mayor for planning and economic development, Victor L. Hoskins, warned after the council vote that the bill would devastate the city’s retail development efforts, and his communications staff shared letters urging a veto — and none encouraging him to sign it. In interviews, Gray was quick to cite arguments against the bill but rarely acknowledged supporters’ point of view.

The coalition of labor unions, city clergy and progressive political activists backing the bill have over the past six weeks canvassed neighborhoods and held media events in hopes of pressuring Gray into signing the bill. Wal-Mart and other large retailers, they argued, could pay their workers better wages without significantly harming their bottom lines.

Some said they considered Wal-Mart’s ultimatum a bluff; others said they would rather see the retailer walk away than accept its “poverty wages.” Wal-Mart has pushed back on the notion that its wages are considerably less than other retailers, saying its pay would be “competitive” and accusing the grocery workers’ union of signing a contract that pays some of its members wages that would not comply with the living-wage law.

Business groups, other retailers and even former mayor Anthony A. Williams urged Gray to veto the bill, citing the potential job losses, the effect on grocery access, “retail leakage” to the suburbs and potential harm to the city’s business reputation.

Gray’s decision sets up a final political showdown with the council, which can override the veto with a two-thirds vote within 30 days. Mendelson told his colleagues Thursday that the override vote will take place Tuesday, at the council’s first legislative meeting since giving the bill final passage in July.

An override would require the approval of nine of the council’s 13 members. The bill passed last month by an 8-5 margin, and no member has acknowledged since that their vote could change.

The District’s living wage measure has followed a nearly identical trajectory to a similar bill taken up by the Chicago city council in 2006. With Wal-Mart planning its first stores there, lawmakers passed the bill, sending it to Mayor Richard M. Daley, who vetoed it. An override vote narrowly failed.

Wal-Mart now operates 10 Chicago stores.

Posted in legal info, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Does Dingy Harry Have a Death Wish (Again ?!?!?) …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,July 10th,2013

.. Well , it is july , and the United States Senate has returned to session . There are judicial nominations that are pending before the body . Even more so , there are Executive Nominations pending before the body . And , Dingy Harry Reid is presented with a quandry ?

.. for the United States Senate to function , there must be collegiality . Comity and civility would also be helpful . An all – out pissing match power struggle in the body would not be a great idea . Yet , that is what could well happen , say , likely will happen if Dingy Harry sets off the so – called ” nuclear option . ”

.. I call it “so – called , ” because the rules of the body are very specific . It takes a 2/3rd majority of all senators (or , 67 senators) to change what are the Standing Rules of the Senate . Reid wants to “nuke” it , and effect a change in the rules with only 51 votes , or , if need be , 50+VPOTUS . If he does , it will make things right now look like a garden party , by comparison .

.. It will be next to impossible to get anything done , at all .

.. The proximate cause is nominations to federal positions. Republicans have approved more than 1,500 of Obama’s nominees , but are holding up a handful of the most controversial ones , and for good reason . There have been several radical and out-of-line ones , such as nominees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The NLRB under Obama has become a radical tool in the firm grip of Big Labor. The CFPB is a new creature spawned in the ill-advised Dodd-Frank legislation. The nation is just fine without either one operating at full capacity.

.. The actual cause is that the Democrats want one-party rule by fiat . Obama has tested the waters on that front several times, both by issuing recess appointments when Congress was not even in recess, and most recently by declaring that ObamaCare’s employer mandate will not be enforced when the law he signed requires it, on January 1, 2014. That move was entirely political, to avoid the pain that enforcement would inflict during the 2014 mid-term elections. It was also flagrantly illegal, as the language of the law leaves no room for this maneuver. The Republican-controlled House is investigating, but of course the Democrat-controlled Senate doesn’t care. Congress in control of either party once defended its institutional powers, but under Reid, the Senate puts the Democratic Party’s prerogatives above all.

Posted in immigration, Investigative, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Nicely Done , Illinois [Gun Bill passes]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 9th,2013

.. the Legislature , that is .

.. and to you , Governor Patrick Quinn . Up yours ! ..

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois became the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature voted to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued it was better to approve something rather than risk the courts allowing virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate voted 41-17 in favor of the override Tuesday afternoon after the House voted 77-31, margins that met the three-fifths threshold needed to set aside the amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democrat from southern Illinois, predicted a history-making day in which lawmakers would dismiss Quinn’s changes as politically motivated.

The law as approved by the Legislature permits anyone with a Firearm Owner’s Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours – longest of any state – to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150.

The Illinois State Police would have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that it’s unconstitutional for Illinois to ban concealed carry. The court gave state officials until June 9 to rectify the shortfall, and later extended that by a month.

.. Opinions varied about what would have happened had a law not taken effect. Gun supporters said it would have meant with no law governing gun possession, any type of firearm could be carried anywhere, at any time. Those supporting stricter gun control said local communities would have been able to set up tough restrictions.

.. Gun –  Rights advocates got the permissive law they wanted . They could well have gotten instead a New York-style plan that gives law enforcement authorities wide discretion over who gets permits . In exchange, Chicago Democrats repulsed by gun violence got a long list of places deemed off limits to guns, including schools, libraries, parks and mass transit buses and trains.

LEC here — I believe that the Federal Appeals Court will sign off on this bill . It may not be everything that they want . But the Illinois Legislature went through one hell of a fight to get to this point .

.. Even so , Moore v. Madigan will still be hanging over the heads and hands of Quinn and the Legislature . If there is any backsliding , any at all , the plaintiffs and / or the Court could re – open the case . If that were to happen , then God in Heaven help the people of the State of Illinois .

.. As to the above , and it could still happen if the Court rejects the bill , it would be anything , anywhere , at anytime , for anyone . The  court case would mean no restrictions would be allowed , period . Only if they were done state – wide would they be allowed at all .

.. I wonder . Will the court allow the F.O.I.D. process ,  or force the state to allow citizens to produce just legal id [driver license , passport , or state id] ? I will check the decision to see …

Posted in personal opinion, political opinion, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Concealed Carry is Coming , Govenor Quinn — Get Over It …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,July 9th,2013

Concealed Carry is Coming , Patrick

Get Over It

.. today is the day .

.. and , the Illinois Legislature should fully reject Governor Pat Quinn ’ s gun bill changes

.. today , the General Assembly will convene in Springfield. Its first action should be a swift override of Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of the concealed carry bill.

.. the short porch is this — the U. S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has found Illinois longstanding and outright ban on firearm being carried by civilians unconstitutional . This ban applies completely to any guns , at all , period . Not just to concealed – carry , contrary to news reports . The carry ban in public is gone , period . End of Story .

.. The Appeals Court has given the State of Illinois until July 9th [today] to come up with a full solution . This state is , at this moment , remains the last state in the union with no provision for firearm carry by ordinary citizens.

.. State Rep. Brandon Phelps , D-Harrisburg, a longtime Second Amendment defender, is one of the sponsors and was one of the lead downstate negotiators on legislation that finally got enough Chicago Democrats — including House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton — on board.

.. Amazingly enough , a fairly neutral bill made its way through the Illinois Legislature .  A bill hardly light on background checks , carry restrictions , no – gun zones , training , and other serious matters easily cleared both chambers with impressive super-majority votes in both chambers: 89-28 in the House and 45-12 in the Senate. The final bill was no sweetheart of the National Rifle Association or the Illinois State Rifle Association, which both backed up and took a formal positions of “neutral.” Some of those groups own members, as well as other pro – gun groups, ripped the potential law as too restrictive, vague and open to abuse by police.

.. Incredibly enough , Governor Quinn did not want to call it a day . He wanted a stronger bill . One which may not meet the requirements of the Appeals Court . A week before the court-imposed deadline for action, Quinn used his amendatory veto powers to issue a broad rewrite of the carry bill . Quinn ’ s rewrite would make permits even tougher to get , and it would further reduce the already-restricted places the public could carry. If not overridden, his veto effectively guts the bill.

.. Whether his actions were spurred by deep conviction , or they were motivated by practical politics, the governor’s broad amendatory veto overreached.

.. Quinn , for all his traits, seem to have waved a dismissive hand at everyone outside the city limits of Chicago, not to mention some well-informed people there who can strongly argue that guns are not the cause of Chicago’s horrendous homicide problem.

.. The Appeals Court , and the people of the State of Illinois have spoken . They have acted through their elected representatives , and they support concealed carry. Quinn’s attempt to gut the bill seems to speak volumes of his disregard for citizens other than those from his own shrinking fan club.

.. State Representative Phelps has already filed his motion to override, and he believes the bill as originally sent to Quinn has the support of both the membership numbers and the legislative leadership.

.. Quinn’s amendatory veto is bad law and bad politics.

.. The General Assembly needs to override Quinn’s veto in its entirety and send him a clear message: This political fight is over .

.. then , and only then , will the Appeals Court act , and then they may accept this bill , and think about it . They may not . Moore v. Madigan would then go into full effect . Then all hell would break loose in Illinois . Even POTUS may well be drawn into the fray .

.. The old carry ban would be gone . Not only that , the concealed – carry ban would be gone , as well . The Illinois Legislature would then have to step in , somehow .

It would turn the streets and woodlands of the state into the Wild West .

.. to be honest , that may not be such a bad idea . The bad guys and gals would have to be afraid . Very afraid . The people that they would be trying to pick on would finally be able to legally defend themselves . It is about damn time !

== Update [July 9th,2013] ==

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois was poised to become the last state in the nation to allow public possession of concealed guns as lawmakers rushed Tuesday to finalize a proposal ahead of a federal court’s deadline.

Both chambers of the Legislature were convening to try to override changes Gov. Pat Quinn made to the bill they approved more than a month ago. Even some critics of the law argued approving something was better than letting the courts allow virtually unregulated concealed weapons in Chicago, which has endured severe gun violence in recent months.

The Senate planned to take up the measure Tuesday, after the House voted 77-31 to override the Democratic governor’s amendatory veto. Quinn had used his veto authority to suggest changes such as prohibiting guns in restaurants that serve alcohol and limiting gun-toting citizens to one firearm at a time.

LEC here — the Illinois House has now voted . It is now time for the Illinois Senate to do likewise …

Posted in Investigative, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Illinois Will Have Concealed – Carry , Whether Governor Quinn Likes It or Not …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 4th,2013

Also , the Gun Grabber crowd is scared [bleep]less to appeal Moore v Madigan to the United States Supreme Court

.. Concealed Carry law is coming to Illinois . Their legilature may not be wild about it . I will guarantee you that their current governor , Pat Quinn , does not like the idea one bit . It explains some of his recent actions , described below …

Quinn writes stricter rules into concealed carry bill

Ray Long and Monique Garcia

11:05 PM CDT, July 2, 2013

Gov. Pat Quinn on Tuesday made sweeping changes to a bill that would allow concealed guns to be carried in public, writing in tougher regulations he deemed “common sense” amid staunch criticism from lawmakers who say they are poised to overturn his efforts when they return to Springfield next week.

Flanked by gun control advocates during a veto ceremony, Quinn argued the legislation lawmakers sent him would harm public safety by letting people carry as many guns as they wanted in places they shouldn’t be allowed.

“I think this is an example of a situation in Illinois where the legislature passed a bill in a hurried way at the inspiration of the National Rifle Association, contrary to the safety of the people of Illinois,” Quinn said after announcing the changes. “We don’t need the NRA telling us how to keep people safe in Illinois.”

The move sets up a showdown in Springfield between the Democratic governor and state lawmakers who overwhelmingly backed a rare and carefully constructed compromise on the often volatile issue of gun regulations despite ideological, cultural and geographic divisions. Lawmakers were trying to beat a federal appeals court deadline to set up rules allowing people to carry concealed weapons after judges tossed out Illinois’ last-in-the-nation ban in December.

It took sponsoring Rep. Brandon Phelps less than an hour to file a motion to override the governor’s changes. Phelps said Quinn’s actions were more about politics than policy, contending Quinn is seeking to build support among anti-gun voters in the Chicago area ahead of what could be a tough re-election bid next year.

“This puts us in a very precarious situation where those who choose to override him so that we’re compliant with the (7th) Circuit Court of Appeals reject some of the things he pointed out that are legitimate concerns,” said Rep. Andre Thapedi, D-Chicago, who said he supports an override. “Had he raised some of these issues earlier, they could have been incorporated into the bill.”

Quinn’s office argued that the governor fought for a number of changes while the bill was being drafted, only to be hampered by negotiators friendly with gun rights advocates.

Looking ahead, lawmakers return to the Capitol on July 9 and Quinn faces a tough fight given the overwhelming support the legislation received in both chambers. To override Quinn’s changes, the effort would need the support of three-fifths of lawmakers in both chambers. That’s 71 members in the House and 36 in the Senate.

The measure passed with 89 votes in the House and 45 in the Senate, meaning as many as 18 House legislators and nine senators could choose to stand with Quinn and his changes to the bill still would be rejected. That’s a tough feat for any governor, not to mention one that has routinely been criticized for issuing demands to lawmakers without working to first build support.

Lawmakers also could move to accept the governor’s suggestions, but that seems unlikely to happen, even though it puts some legislators in the position of taking a tough vote against what gun control groups say are needed public safety changes to the bill.

“He might have had some good ideas,” said Rep. Jack Franks, D-Marengo. “But if he doesn’t engage in the process, he’s not relevant.”

Quinn appealed to the public for help, encouraging people to reach out to their lawmakers over the Independence Day weekend to demand they support his plan.Last fall, Quinn launched a similar effort when he asked the public to talk about public employee pension reform during Thanksgiving dinner. A pension reform bill has yet to reach the governor’s desk.

“I think it is important in the coming week that people across our state have the opportunity to look carefully at what the legislature has proposed, and what I have changed in this bill to make it safer for the people,” Quinn said. “We ask the people of Illinois to tell their legislators, ‘please support the common sense changes that I have made in this bill.'”

Specifically, Quinn recommended that citizens be allowed to carry only one concealed weapon that can carry a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition — a major change from the legislation which puts in place no limits on how many guns or rounds could be carried.

Quinn also wants to ban guns from all places that serve alcohol, not just businesses in which booze makes up the majority of sales, as is currently written in the bill. He also wants to clarify language to make sure guns be completely concealed instead of partially, saying a gun peeking out of a pocket or purse could incite chaos.

In addition, the governor wants to give store and business owners more authority to ban guns from being carried on their property. Under the measure passed by lawmakers, guns would be allowed on the private property unless a sign was posted prohibiting them. Quinn wants to reverse that and ban guns from being carried on the private property unless an owner posts a sign giving “express permission.”

Quinn also wants employers to have more leeway to stop guns from being carried into the workplace and to require those carrying guns to immediately inform police they are carrying a gun if questioned. And he wants to strip out a provision that would give cities only 10 days after the state law takes effect to enact a local assault weapons ban, saying local officials shouldn’t have their hands tied when determining public safety needs.

The Illinois State Rifle Association ripped Quinn, saying he is attempting to severely restrict how and where citizens may carry firearms.

“Self defense isn’t some sort of carnival game where the house stacks the odds against the good guy,” said Richard Pearson, the group’s executive director, in a statement. “We’re talking about defending the lives of everyday Illinoisans here. The new restrictions appearing in Quinn’s amendatory veto encumber good citizens to the point where carrying concealed becomes pointless — which is exactly the intention of the governor and his friends in the gun control movement.”

 

[-] amendatory veto

an amendatory veto is an unusual bird . Most vetoes are the bill itself , line items , or budget items . this one allows a governor (in 7 states , matter of fact)

to amend bill , with veto protection . It could drastically overhaul a bill , and if the governor has protection , then his / her veto would be upheld , and the bill would be adopted , as amended .

Where things can be confusing , is that in Illinois , you cannot legally carry a gun on the streets , outside of your own home . That is the essence of what the court case (Moore) seeks to overhaul . The bill does allow guns to be finally carried on the streets , but the debate is over concealment , and concealed – carry .

[-] limits on guns

[-] limits on rounds

these 2 together — Quinn in essence wants to change the law , when the gun has

then been concealed , and relieve people , or limit their rights .

[-] where a gun can be taken

related to booze , and where booze is sold

[-] local assault weapon ban(s)

what an assault weapon is

He is taking off the limits on ” assault weapon ” bans on localities . It is supposed to be state-wide policy , one way or the other .

[-] concealment

none

partial

total

[-] gun possession on private property

allowed , unless banned

quinn reverses [banned , unless allowed]

LEC here — right now , this battle is over the bill . It is a carefully crafted compromise . The Democrats are not wild about the subject , but , pun intended , they have a “gun  to their head . ” They have found out that the 7th Federal Circuit court is not kidding around . Neither is Pat Quinn .

.. A veto override is likely , reinstating the original legislation , and negating Governor Quinn ‘ s proposed changes . Even with the likely override , the big question is , will the Appeals Court be O.K. with it ? They may not .

.. Also , the gun – grabbing crowd is scared to death over a possible appeal to the United States Supreme Court . If Moore v Madigan were to be appealed , and it would be upheld (by 6 to 3 , as is likely) , that type of precedent would do all sorts of damage to gun restrictions at the state level (such as Illinois ‘) . New York ‘ s Williams Act , and its recent S.A.F.E. law would , in all likelyhood , be swept away .

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… the ” Go Around ” …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,August 27th,2012

… about any President ‘ s desire to ” go around Congress ” …

… {from Article 2 , Section 1 , Clause 6} , … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed …

laws — those passed by Congress , and signed by the President ; or those enacted over his Veto …

faithfully — in basic , from any dictionary , adhering firmly and devotely …

Posted in legal opinion, national security, personal opinion, political opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »