A constitutional debate? Or a business out-of-touch w/ its community?

The arrival of a new Mariano’s supermarket within a neighborhood or community these days is usually an occasion for local celebration.

Wasn't posted on Mariano's Opening Day in Northbrook

The chain of markets that offer a somewhat upscale shopping experience for food (they stock some items that the local Jewel finds to be a tad esoteric) is usually seen as a reason to celebrate.

YET UP IN suburban Northbrook, people were picketing because the new Mariano’s had management that wouldn’t take up their pet cause – concealed carry of firearms on one’s person.

Activists said they would be at the store when it opened for business Tuesday morning because they want the store to post those stickers that depict a red slash though a silhouette of a pistol.

Making it clear that people who feel the need to carry a firearm are not welcome in the store. As in they ought to leave the gun inside their cars while they shop inside for groceries.

Now insofar as the law in Illinois is concerned, people can get permits that allow them to carry a pistol in a shoulder holster or a purse (open-carry is a separate issue). Which means a shopper with a permit could have his pistol on his person while picking out a piece of trout or grabbing a gallon of milk.

STATE LAW DOES permit businesses that don’t wish to have firearms on their premises to post the stickers on their doors that the activists desire. In short, they want their new Mariano’s to make a political statement!

One that the Mariano’s management indicates they’re not willing to make.

WBBM-AM radio reported that Mariano’s parent company justified its actions by saying it is in compliance with Illinois law. They say their Chicago-based locations do post such stickers, because city ordinances require them in the stores that also sell alcoholic beverages.

It's not exactly Georgia

Short of a state law that would require the stickers in all their stores in Illinois, they’re not about to go any farther than they have to.

WHICH MAKES SOME sense. Mariano’s is in the business of selling groceries and some prepared-food items. It isn’t a social organization out to make statements on anything.

So the idea that it doesn’t want to tick off anyone by bringing up what it wants to regard as an irrelevant issue is to be expected.

But it also makes a certain amount of sense that a business doesn’t want to needlessly tick off its customer base. Which in the case of this new supermarket is the north suburban area in and around Northbrook.

It’s not exactly a rural community filled with people who think they’re about to take their shotgun out and kill their dinner tonight. If anything, it is a community inclined to be sympathetic to rules and restrictions intended to reduce the potential for crime.

THOSE WOULD INCLUDE restricting the access to weapons by people who aren’t the police. It’s not one of those communities filled with people who think they’re going to be called upon to shoot someone else to defend themselves against a would-be mugger.

Let’s not forget that Northbrook is just a couple of towns from Morton Grove – which was once the first community in the nation to ban the sale and ownership of firearms.

It makes me wonder if Mariano’s management is that out-of-touch with who their customers are. It’s not like this is a store in Kennesaw or Nelson in Georgia – the communities that require their adult residents to own firearms.

Of course, if Mariano’s were to now decide to add the desired stickers, they’ll wind up attracting the attention of the National Rifle Association and every other gun group.

THEY MAY EVEN wind up like those Starbuck’s franchises in certain states where gun owners make a point of bringing their weapons into the stores and making sure everybody knows they’re armed while they buy a cup of overpriced coffee.

Which puts Mariano’s in a very awkward position – one they may not be able to escape from. Unless people decide that the novelty of the exotic food items they can get from a Mariano’s makes them overcome any concern they have about firearms.

If people get hungry enough, that may become a very real possibility.

  -30-

Dart the enemy? Or the only one showing sense on concealed carry?

I have no doubt that Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart has become the new “enemy,” so to speak, amongst the people who are proponents of more firearms amongst the populace.

DART: Watching out for firearms?

For years, the man that those people tried to demonize was Richard M. Daley. But he’s gone now, so they need a new public official whom they will claim is trying to take away their weapons.

IT PROBABLY WILL be Dart, whose agency, it turns out, is challenging significantly more applications for concealed carry permits than any other law enforcement entity. Permits that likely will actually be issued beginning in March.

Yet when one looks at the numbers realistically, it isn’t so much that Dart is trying to deny people their right-wing judge-given “right” to carry a firearm in public, as that other law enforcement entities are making little effort to deny anyone the state-issued permit that is required for someone to carry a pistol on their person in public for alleged self-defense purposes.

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, some 33,631 applications for concealed carry permits are now pending. Of those, only 236 are facing objections by a law enforcement entity on grounds that the applicant has a significant criminal record or a history of mental illness.

Dart will get trashed by some because of those 236 pending objections (which a special panel created by Gov. Pat Quinn will now rule on), 120 of them are from the Cook County Sheriff’s police.

BY COMPARISON, ONLY seven objections were filed by the Chicago Police Department. Twenty five more were filed by suburban police departments in Cook County – with nine coming from the southwestern municipality of Oak Lawn.

Which means the other 84 objections were filed in the other 101 counties across Illinois, although 49 of those were filed in the surrounding counties that make up the outer suburbs.

So yes, the phenomenon of law enforcement being skeptical about who should be allowed a permit that gives them permission to carry a pistol in a shoulder holster or in a purse seems to be an urban one.

DALEY: The old "enemy" for firearms

Although when one considers that some 7,974 permit applications were filed in Cook County, the fact that local law enforcement is only challenging 152 (not quite 2 percent), it really can’t be argued that our law enforcement is running amok over anyone’s alleged constitutional right.

PARTICULARLY, SINCE ONLY about one-quarter of the applications across the state came from Cook County (which accounts for about 45 percent of the state’s population overall).

It just really can’t be argued that Tom Dart is behaving like some sort of tyrant when it comes to wanting to make sure that people who shouldn’t be having firearms don’t somehow get them with the consent of the state.

Of course, when it comes to the type of rhetoric used by the firearms advocates, I have no doubt they will try to blast the sheriff for not kissing up to their attitude when it comes to pistols.

Not that Dart – who isn’t a career law enforcement-type – isn’t all that different from Chicago police-types on this issue.

I HAVE ENCOUNTERED many police officers who were more than supportive of the ordinances the city had in place for three-plus decades that made it a criminal offense for most people to even have a firearm within the city limits.

Nobody is hunting within the city (unless they’re going out in search of other people, which is most definitely something we should discourage). There really isn’t a need for another pistol around 63^rd and Halsted streets.

And for those people who are insecure enough that they can’t venture outside without carrying a weapon, I’d wonder what worse will occur if, by chance, you feel threatened and fire – only to miss your target and hit someone else who just happened to be nearby!

In fact, about the worst thing I can think of to say about Dart these days is that he identifies as a Chicago Cubs fan. Which, in the overall scheme of things, is something that can be forgiven, since it's a self-inflicted form of agony.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): We have to watch where we are

A week from Monday is when the new process kicks in that theoretically allows people to start carrying pistols on their person for self-protection

And as is to be expected, everybody seems confused.

I STUMBLED ACROSS a pair of news reports (the Chicago Tribune and the Bloomington Pantagraph) that makes it seem as though nobody knows what to expect from the new law.

 
All the exemptions for the Chicago area create conditions where someone can ride his bike through a public park or forest preserve property while carrying a pistol. But the instant that person gets off the bike, that person becomes an offender who could face jail time.

But the confusion in the rest of the state seems to stem from the fact that the Illinois State Police (who will issue the “concealed carry” permits) will have 90 days to act on applications (120 days if someone chooses not to submit fingerprints with their application).

Why would it take so long? And why bother to submit fingerprints – as though they’re some sort of criminal? Although the fingerprints are part of the background check to ensure that people with criminal records don’t get the permits.

WHICH IS SOMETHING that nobody of any sense ought to have an objection from.

Although I thought the Chicago Tribune came up with the perfect example of the chaos that will be created by the new law. Someone walking along Western Avenue during the South Side Irish parade who is trying to get to his car is not violating the law. But he is if he stops to try to enjoy the parade festivities.

How many drunken parade-goers will now try to claim they were trying to walk home, and just happened to wander into the parade?

What else is of note along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan on this final weekend of 2013?

DOUBLE LAWSUITS, WHO’S RIGHT?:  Ninth Ward Alderman Anthony Beale filed a lawsuit this week against a former school principal whom he claims is trying to defame his public reputation.

BEALE: Victim? Or oppressor?

Of course, that principal, Dushon Brown of Gwendolyn Brooks College Preparatory school in Beale’s Far South Side ward, claims the alderman tried several years ago to get her fired after she refused to give him sex.

Beale says his retaliatory lawsuit is in response to Brown’s attorneys sending him letters asking for $1 million in order to settle her claims against the alderman. Who’s to say who is actually at fault in this case!

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Beale tried ignoring the former principal’s claims for as long as he could, while the newspaper was not able to contact Brown or her attorneys.

TAINTED MONEY? EXCUSES, EXCUSES:  Nobody seems to want to take a $3,000 charitable donation because the money was raised by a suburban Morton Grove man who is an atheist.

The Chicago Tribune has written about how he tried donating the money to his local park district. Then, to the local public library. Both of them turned it down – the first said it could create a “First Amendment issue” they didn’t want to deal with, while the latter had a board member who called the atheist and his web site “a hate group.”

Now, he says he wants to give it to a food pantry that benefits people in the northwest suburbs of Niles Township. Which would be of significant benefit to area communities. You’d think all would be willing to accept such a donation.

How often do people claim that “tainted” money winds up being cleansed, so to speak, by putting it to charitable use. Even if you really find atheism to be so abhorrent, you’d think somebody would want to use this as a way of benefitting the public good!

  -30-

Everything takes its sweet ol’ time in world of Ill. government operations

In a quarter-century of watching up-close government in operation, the lasting impression I have gained is that nothing is done in a timely fashion.

Relying on government agencies for something (regardless of what level the agency in question is at) ensures you will ultimately get the benefit in question. As far as how quickly, it will come whenever it comes.

PEOPLE WHO ARE capable of doing things on deadline (such as myself) are often the most frustrated with the endless delays – some of which were due to bureaucratic bumbling while others were due to politically-partisan delays.

Sometimes, people who desperately oppose something count delays in its implementation as being a political victory.

Take the whole matter of health care reform – which is in law and which in theory should start showing benefits next year. But Republicans in the House of Representatives (at least the most ideologically-motivated ones) are engaging in any actions they can to cause delays.

Although their blatantly-partisan efforts will be aided by those efforts by the state governments that will encounter their own delays in helping people enroll in the efforts meant to provide some form of health insurance coverage for all.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS reported this weekend that while Illinois expects to eventually have 1,200 workers in place to help people with questions as they decide exactly what health coverage plan best suits their needs, there are only about 100 such workers currently in place who are fully certified.

Considering that the six-month period in which people have to get themselves some sort of health insurance begins Tuesday, it would appear obvious that many people will have to figure out things on their own.

Perhaps the state figures that many of us are inherently procrastinators, and that the need for all those people trained and certified to help on this issue will not be needed until later in the process – perhaps around March when the sign-up period is coming to an end.

Will we get an ugly rush of people by the end of March seeking health insurance; similar to the ugly rush we get every year around April 15 when the masses decide to finally break down and file their income tax returns?

OR WILL THERE be early applicants who will become so frustrated with the lack of help that some may wind up erroneously deciding that those Republican ideologues may have been on to something with all their rhetoric about how health care reform was some sort of messed-up scam?

All I can say at this point is that I hope people are patient as they work their way through the intricacies of GetCoveredIllinois.gov – the site that people are supposed to use to sign up for help with health insurance.

But health insurance isn’t the only issue where the state is lagging behind in offering help. Take “concealed carry,” the matter of people being allowed to carry a pistol on their person in public for self-defense.

People wishing to have their firearm holstered (or tucked away in a purse or duffle bag) will have to gain permits from the Illinois State Police, who will require them to complete 16 hours of training from state-approved instructors. The process for applying to take such training will begin Jan 5.

BUT IT SEEMS that thus far, the state police only have 54 instructors approved to offer such training – and most of them are in the more urban six-counties of the Chicago metro area.

Some downstate Illinois counties don’t have any instructor yet, and it’s not clear when they will.

I’m sure from the perspective of the people who wanted to start carrying a pistol in a shoulder-holster the very day that the General Assembly overrode Gov. Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto of the issue, this is an unconscionable delay. Plus the fact that they won’t be able to go to a local office and may have to make a trip to a distant county to get the permit is scandalous to them!

I’m not as offended by that concept, because I realize it can take time to get people into place – just as it will take time to get all those workers certified to help people gain health insurance.

I ONLY HOPE that the delays for both of those groups of people can be resolved in a timely manner – and not with one significantly taking longer to fix than the other.

Because I’d hate to think that sometime in the near future, someone who could not get some sort of health insurance coverage would wind up dying from gunshot wounds inflicted by someone who was too quick on the draw because they thought their personal safety was being threatened!

  -30-

Trying to ban the un-banable

It will be interesting to hear the debate that comes up Wednesday when the City Council takes up the cause of amending the ordinances that restrict firearm ownership and usage within the city limits.

The City Council will be Windier than usual on Wednesday. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

 

The outcome is already known. These ordinances are the casualties of the Illinois government effort earlier this year to bring the concept of “concealed carry” to the state – a concept that goes contrary to what the city was trying to accomplish all these years.

SO THE ACTIONS to be taken by all the aldermen (and which were recommended Monday by the council’s Public Safety Committee) on Wednesday will be to repeal much of what has passed for local law in recent decades.

But will we get a collection of aldermen who want to rant and rage and whine and complain about the horrid act they are about to do – but will still do anyway because, in a sense, it’s already done!

The council will merely go along and create an ordinance that complies with state law.

All the rhetoric we’re going to hear on Wednesday is going to be a complete waste of time – except to the political people who just enjoy hearing themselves speak! Almost as if they think they’ll die if they don’t engage in endless debate.

I DO FIND it interesting to learn that the National Rifle Association has its objections to what the City Council plans to pass. Because it seems the Chicago response to having a “concealed carry” measure being rammed down our collective throat is to ensure that the people who feel completely insecure if they can’t have a pistol tucked in their waistband or in a shoulder holster under their jacket don’t get any more use of their weapons in public than the state law requires.

It seems that NRA officials are determined to find ways in which the city ordinance is not as lax as the state law that became official this summer following Gov. Pat Quinn’s unsuccessful attempt to impose tougher restrictions on firearms use.

So we’re still going to get NRA “trash talk” about Chicago not fitting their vision of what our society ought to be like – which probably says more about their vision than it does our desires.

It also was interesting to learn of the council’s actions last week that were meant to ensure that Chicago’s legal attitude toward firearms was more restrictive than the rest of Illinois.

THE STATE LAW approved this year included provisions that require restaurants doing at least half of their business in alcohol sales to post signs saying that firearms are banned from the premises.

Even for those people who manage to get the police-issued permits that say someone can carry a pistol on their person.

The idea is to keep firearms out of taverns – which makes a lot of sense. Although the firearms advocates seem to feel so threatened about life that they even want their pistols on them while becoming steadily intoxicated.

It seems the council is trying to make sure that provision of state law gets strictly enforced by working on a measure that says businesses that get lax about enforcing such a ban WILL lose their liquor licenses!

NRA-TYPES ACTUALLY HAVE their objections to strict enforcement of such a measure – trying to claim that it results in circumvention of state law. “Two classes of citizens” is what they claim is being created.

The bottom line about all this is that everybody is going to be determined to spew their rhetoric. Everybody is going to keep a hard line viewpoint on this issue.

Which might be why it is ludicrous to think that we can ever have a single stance on firearms within Illinois – a state that has quite the urban, suburban and rural mixture of societal elements.

The sooner we can realize we need to agree to disagree, so to speak, the better off we all will be.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Is Dillard done? Hinting at a hike in gas prices could mean the answer's "yes"

I take it that Republican gubernatorial hopeful Kirk Dillard doesn’t care much about getting votes from anyone who lives anywhere near the borders Illinois shares with Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri or Kentucky.

DILLARD: Higher gas prices?!?

Why else would he suggest implementing a second state tax on gasoline to try to raise money for road maintenance? Particularly as an alternative to more gambling opportunities?

DILLARD WAS AMONG the gubernatorial dreamers who attended Conservative Summit Conference held in Burr Ridge this weekend. It was the chance for the GOP candidates to reach out to the ideologically-inclined amongst the electorate; and it worked because the group backed his campaign over that of challenger William Brady.

That was because the state senator from Hinsdale and chief of staff to former Gov. Jim Edgar (whom he felt the need to point out he’s more conservative than) took his stance – amongst many – according to the Illinois Review website that actually covered the event.

He tried to portray it as a view against gambling. He hinted he’d like to scale back the number of casinos and other gambling opportunities – rather than be pushing for a measure to expand the number of casinos. That may get the backing of the moralists who want to rant about people losing their souls (and money) at the casinos.

But I can’t think of any combination of stances that would kill his campaign chances than these two. Paying more at the gas pump? And having to drive further to get to the casino?

NOT ONLY DOES it cost him the support of everybody who wants to have a casino nearby, it will kill his chances for people who make a point of driving over the state line to put gasoline in their cars.

When one considers the south suburbs where many officials want a casino in their area AND hate the gasoline prices they pay locally compared to Indiana-based stations, Dillard becomes the guy who will finish dead-last amongst the gubernatorial dreamers.

Dillard probably figures he’s not getting much support there anyway (it’s a region where Pat Quinn gets taken seriously, largely because everybody else comes across as pathetic), so what does he have to lose? Just the respect of anybody sick of paying $4 or more for gasoline!

What else is notable these days along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan?

TURNING GRAFFITI INTO ART?: Epifanio Monarrez is taking on a task that some people are going to find pleasing and others will be bothering about – he’s trying to undermine the street-gang related graffiti that exists in his home Little Village neighborhood.

Epifanio Monarrez is trying to clean up his neighborhood, in his own way

 

Monarrez, according to the Hispanically Speaking News website, goes about altering the graffiti in his neighborhood to try to turn it into art – which also undermines the whole purpose of graffiti in that gang members use it to “mark” their territory.

However, Monarrez said he does not get hassled by the gangs for his activity – although I’m sure his biggest critics are those people who would prefer that the graffiti be erased altogether; and not treated as though it could be legitimized in any way!

For the record, Monarrez says he gets a property owner’s permission before he does anything, and he asks the owner to kick in for the cost of the paint.

THEY DON’T WANT NO STINKIN’ PERMITS: The firearms advocates are still upset that they couldn’t start “packin’ heat” the exact day that the General Assembly voted to approve a “concealed carry” measure for Illinois.

For those who need instruction

They now have their case before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Chicago, but they’re upset that arguments won’t be heard until Oct. 3 – and that it is uncertain how long it will take the court to reach a decision.

Despite the fact that they were able to pressure the General Assembly into giving them their legal concept, and also dump on Gov. Pat Quinn’s attempts to moderate the measure (I suspect the Legislature would have dumped on Quinn just for kicks), they are still looking for something to complain about.

For the record, the Illinois State Police says it needs some time to put together the process by which they will grant the “concealed carry” permits. What really bothers the advocates is that there has to be a process at all.

  -30-

A mad dash for the firearms finish line

It has been a series of outbursts by local governments all across the Chicago metro area – various village boards and city councils are contemplating whether or not to impose their own laws restricting firearms ownership and storage.


City Halls across the area are addressing firearms

That issue got its big boost on Wednesday when both the City Council and the Cook County Board gave approval to resolutions that make it clear assault weapons (those that fire off multiple rounds of ammunition at a time) are not legal within their boundaries.

IN THE CASE of the county-wide ban, it applies to all 129 municipalities in Cook County – except for those communities that decide to impose their own even-more restrictive measures into law.

Which is an issue several communities are doing – although not every community is feeling the need to take on the issue. Although they’re definitely debating it here – even if the rest of Illinois is ignoring the issue.

The National Rifle Association has tried to counter such talk with their own propaganda. They have issued lists of municipalities that they claim have either rejected the idea, or have failed to act.

As though there is an overwhelming majority of people who are deciding not to take on this issue. The reality, however, is that their lists are incomplete.

THERE ARE JUST as many communities that put the rush on to approve this issue. We literally will have a patchwork of communities, and people are going to have to be very aware of where they are at any given moment when they have a firearm on them.

Just as an example, one NRA list pointed out that the south suburb of Flossmoor failed to approve restrictions on firearms.

Yet the neighboring municipalities of Homewood and Hazel Crest were among the first to approve the idea of firearms restrictions. That kind of split is going to be reality throughout the Chicago area, particularly as other communities spend the next few days taking up the issue.

Not everybody agrees w/ Lege's action

 

But whether they make the “deadline” is another question.

THAT DEADLINE IS the key to this rush of governmental activity.

For when the Illinois General Assembly took its vote July 9 to override Gov. Pat Quinn’s efforts to impose tougher firearms restrictions than the Legislature intended, their “concealed carry” law created a 10-day time period for local governments with home rule powers (those communities of more than 25,000 people) to create their own tougher laws.

That 10-day period, which had some people confused whether that meant working days or calendar days, ends Friday at midnight.

If a municipality does not act by then, state law theoretically would pre-empt them from ever taking on the issue.

HENCE, THE RUSH, and the number of municipal bodies (including the City Council in Chicago) that held special meetings to approve quickly-crafted assault weapons bans.

Although the reality is that many of those resolutions bear a strong resemblance to each other. They include lengthy lists of specific types of weapons that are now banned in those communities – even though the firearms advocates often say that it is too easy to convert other types of weapons into so-called assault weapons, thereby rendering specific lists as worthless.

Which has some local governments hoping that the inevitable NRA-inspired lawsuit focuses on Chicago’s law – making them clear of having to pay significant legal expenses to defend their intentions that do reflect the local will on the issue.

The people who are most eager to oppose stricter local laws on firearms also make their arguments that the gang members (which is how they want to think of too many people who aren’t exactly like themselves) aren’t going to follow any laws – making it necessary for them to have their own weapons for self-protection.

THAT ALWAYS STRIKES me as sounding like certain people being a little too anxious to shoot another human being. Besides, it could be argued that every law will have someone who chooses to ignore it. That doesn't make the law flawed in concept.

Although regardless of which side of this question one comes down upon, this legal rush of activity will come to an end soon. That deadline is approaching.

Unless we get a successful lawsuit against the state contending the Legislature’s actions were improper. If that were to happen, then the real political confusion would set in.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): 10 days to decide on firearms limits

The new law allowing people in Illinois to have permits letting them carry pistols on their person creates an option in which local governments can pass their own laws imposing tougher restrictions on firearms – but only if they act within the next 10 days.

Meaning, we might see a rush of local officials deciding to take up the issue.

ACTUALLY, “RUSH” MIGHT be the wrong word. A “drizzle,” perhaps?

There will be some. The City Council already has said it will take up the issue at a special meeting Wednesday, while several suburbs (Homewood, Highland Park and Elmwood Park, to name a few) are taking on the matter – even though some have considered it and decided to hold off on acting.

The one defining characteristic of this issue is that it is entirely a Chicago-area issue. If there is a municipality in the rural part of Illinois that is considering the issue, their officials are keeping quiet about it.

This actually was one of the issues that Gov. Pat Quinn tried to alter with his amendatory veto. He hated the idea of a 10-day limit on local governments being able to decide this for themselves.

BUT HIS REMOVAL of that time limit was one of the changes that legislators snubbed when they overrode his veto on Tuesday, and set the clock in motion.

Not that there’s going to be any rush of people legally carrying their pistols in public. Cook County Sheriff’s Police officials have said they expect it will take them until early in 2014 to set up the process by which “concealed carry” permits could be issued.

Which also is why I found it amusing that a woman from Whiting, Ind., was arrested last week at the Daley Center courthouse. She tried entering the building with a loaded 9 mm pistol in her purse – and thought her Indiana-issued permit covered it

At least we know now those metal detectors at the courthouse actually work! What else is notable about this glorious metropolis on the shores of Lake Michigan?

WHO GETS THE TOWER?:  Tribune Co. officials said Wednesday they are officially splitting into two divisions. Tribune Co. will now be a company that owns more television stations than any other entity in the United States, while Tribune Publishing Co. will operate newspapers.

Tribune Co. will continue to try to expand and be Chicago-based. While Tribune Publishing is the entity that Tribune Co. will try to sell off.

Nothing really new here. Although it got me to thinking about what happens when the sale takes place. Should we start calling the corporate headquarters on Michigan Avenue the “WGN Tower?”

Because the day will come when Chicago Tribune and WGN (both television and radio) will be separate entities. How long until we get tacky divorce-type jokes about who gets to keep the “house?”

RAMADAN NOW UNDERWAY FOR ALL:  We’re now in that month-long period of Ramadan – the holiest of all times of the year for Muslims. Some 400,000 Chicago-area residents are now in that period by which they fast from sunrise to sunset.

Although it seems there was some dispute as to when Ramadan began this year. Some persisted in beginning Tuesday, while many went along with the ruling of the Chicago Hilal Committee that said Ramadan this year actually began the following day.

Ramadan is set by a lunar calendar, and the Chicago committee was determined to have an actual physical observation of a new moon before declaring the holiday to begin. Although the Fiqh Council of North America said calculations are sufficient, and they calculated a new moon for Tuesday.

Although some Muslims told the Chicago Tribune they think the holiday should not devolve into mathematical calculations and ought to focus on spiritual and mental purification.

SETTING STANDARDS:  Mayor Rahm Emanuel says he’s not disqualifying state Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago, for a vacancy in the City Council – just because the opening is for her father’s seat.

But if she gets that post, it will be interesting to see if Mell’s own views about replacing her in the Legislature are respected. Mell, who went to Iowa to marry her partner, says she’d like to see another lesbian chosen to replace her. She doesn’t want the General Assembly to be left without anyone who openly identifies with the gay community.

Will political officials really be willing to enforce that guideline in picking a new legislator?

Although it should be noted that if a new legislator has to be chosen, it is the committeemen (and not Emanuel) who makes the pick. And it would be Mell’s father, Richard, who would be the committeeman with the most say in the matter.

  -30-

I’m pleased I’m not Pat Quinn

QUINN: Stinks to be him these days

The problem confronting Illinois government of adequately funding the pension programs the state oversees is ongoing – nothing happened Tuesday on that front, largely because the General Assembly was more concerned about dumping on Gov. Pat Quinn than they were about reaching a resolution.

Tuesday was the day the Illinois Legislature spent its time trying to override the governor so that he’d have to accept as law their version of allowing people to carry a concealed firearm on their person for self-protection.

AN ACT THAT the Democrats will surely be campaigning against come the 2014 election cycle – even many of those who voted for the idea on Tuesday.

Because this is more about letting the governor know who’s boss than anything else. Which may well be the real problem with our government – and not any of the partisan rhetoric that the ideologues of either side will claim it to be!

Even the Chicago Tribune (whose editorial page is on record as supporting the Legislature’s override of Quinn’s amendatory veto, unlike the Chicago Sun-Times which supports the governor) got into the act on Tuesday; coming up with a story that used quotes from state Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, to make it seem that a rural candidate will get into the Democratic primary for governor.

After all, the two candidates thus far (Quinn and William Daley) are both Chicagoans who are going to spend the primary election cycle trying to claim to be more anti-gun than each other.

AND THE POSSIBLE candidacy of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan likely wouldn’t give the firearms fanatics crowd (the people whom Quinn would say are, “genuflect(ing) before the National Rifle Association”) anyone they would want to support.

Not that it’s likely the rural parts of Illinois will produce a credible candidate for governor in the Democratic primary. Not unless someone out there is desperately eager to repeat the 1998 campaign of Glenn Poshard – whose stronger-than-usual Democratic support in rural Illinois was totally outweighed by Chicago voter apathy; thereby giving us the concept of “Gov. George Ryan” for a four-year time period.

It’s more likely that the voters who have this firearms-related concern are going to gravitate to the Republican primary – and this could become an issue where the gun control proponents who are peeved that this issue has become so prominent will wind up backing the Democratic opponent.

Unless, that is, some other issue becomes even more prominent in the voters’ minds.

I’D LIKE TO think that could be the case. Although I suspect that if an issue comes up, it will be one in which the partisans are convinced they can bash Quinn about.

I’m even at the point where I’m starting to wonder if the people who say that the major reason the Legislature has been willing to postpone acting upon pension funding problems is that they don’t want it to happen during the administration of a “Gov. Pat Quinn.”

They don’t want him to be able to get credit for a problem fix – a mentality that is a little too reminiscent of the “Council Wars” of old and the Vrdolyak 29; the Harold Washington opposition that was willing to let problems fester for the short-term because they thought dumping Harold was better for Chicago’s long-term.

I’m not ready to proclaim a direct parallel – largely because I don’t know whom I’d say fills the Vrdolyak role. Then again, “Fast Eddie” was such a unique character that no one could ever compare.

BUT MORE IMPORTANT, in my mind, is the fact that we still don’t have a resolution to funding the state-overseen pension programs. Keep that in mind if you think that Tuesday was some sort of political victory.

And it really makes me grateful that I’m not Pat Quinn these days. While he’s not blameless by any means, the amount of abuse he gets these days to prevent him from accomplishing much is more nerve-wracking than anything I endure.

Although his annoyances also are ours, since we Illinoisans are going to suffer due to the partisan-motivated inactivity.

  -30-

Quinn pleads for Legislature to support his amendatory veto. Will they listen?

I found it amusing that Gov. Pat Quinn would use the humble abode of one Elwood J. Blues to make his statement in support of the changes he wants to make to a “concealed carry” law now pending before the General Assembly.



QUINN: Will anybody listen?

For Elwood is a fictional character created by actor Dan Aykroyd for The Blues Brothers film and sketches – about as real as the chances that the Illinois Legislature will willingly go along with Quinn’s desires on Friday to uphold his amendatory veto when they convene next week.

 

TUESDAY IS THE day that the Legislature is supposed to meet in a special session. It was the date that Quinn had set for a deadline to approve something that he could sign into law to address the financial problems caused by inadequate funding of pension programs the state oversees.

But the conference committee that was supposed to be dealing with the issue in recent weeks has done little, and legislators openly say nothing will happen on that issue.

Instead, legislators are expecting the 11 a.m. session at the Statehouse in Springfield to turn into a “concealed carry” session.

And the same legislators who have no political respect for Quinn are likely to use that date to strike him down in some way.

I’M NOT ABOUT to predict what, exactly, the Legislature will do on Tuesday, or what the vote will turn out to be. About the only sense I do get is that our Legislature is hostile enough to want to ignore the governor – and probably resents that he has any say on, or oversight of, what they do!

So whatever it was that Quinn chose to say on Friday while gathering at Clark and Addison streets (he chose the area because of the large number of taverns and clubs in the area around Wrigley Field – meaning that Quinn’s take on “concealed carry” would make it next to impossible to legally carry a firearm in the area) isn’t likely to have much sway.

Even though the sad part is that Quinn’s comments were really so straight-forward that only the hardest-core ideologue could possibly find fault with them. Then again, the problem on this issue is that we’re giving those ideologues too much credibility at the expense of the true majority of our society.

AYKROYD (as BLUES): More credible?

“Public safety should never be negotiated away or compromised, and I will never support a flawed concealed carry bill that puts public safety at risk,” Quinn said, in a prepared statement. “The common-sense changes I outlined this week make this a better law and I encourage people to visit KeepIllinoisSafe.org, contact their state legislators and urge them to support these important changes.”

WHAT REALLY IS so radical about that statement!

Except that legislators who feel that this issue is being forced down their throat by a federal appeals court ruling that many don’t truly comprehend probably don’t want to feel that Quinn is also telling them what to do.

Insofar as Tuesday is concerned, the process says that for any kind of law to take effect, the Legislature has to agree, in some way, with Quinn.

Either they have to reach a 60 percent supermajority in favor of a motion to accept Quinn’s changes, or they have to reach that same 60 percent vote level on a motion to reject the changes – in which case, the bill as approved by the Legislature becomes law.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS if they make the motion to reject Quinn, and only get a 57 or 58 percent majority – which is a very real possibility?

Then, we’re in nowhere-land. No law. The whole issue will come tumbling down. Who’s to say what winds up happening if the federal courts wind up resolving the issue? All because this issue has turned our state government officials into nothing more than an ego trip.

The fact that our state government – the same one, in theory, that let the fictional Elwood falsify his driver’s license renewal with a phony home address – has come down to that factor is truly the sad aspect of it all.

  -30-

Our state’s Legislature is good on any issue when it comes to delaying tactics

I think it’s now a safe bet, 100 percent guaranteed, to say that the Illinois General Assembly will not resolve the problem of how it funds pension programs it oversees anytime soon.

Because now, with Gov. Pat Quinn having used his amendatory veto powers to alter the concealed carry bill, the state Legislature’s membership is going to consider that issue to be a higher priority.

THEY MOST LIKELY will consider it their duty to push aside the pension funding issue – in part because Quinn has now given them a new issue with which to spite him.

Which is what is the real problem with our government today – way too many actions are dictated by someone’s spite for somebody else!

For the record, the Legislature was given a deadline of Tuesday by Quinn with which to resolve the pension funding problem. A conference committee of Illinois House and state Senate members theoretically is working to resolve differences and pass a single bill that Quinn can sign into law.

But Tuesday is also the date that the Court of Appeals for Chicago has given to Illinois to have a law on its books that permits people to carry pistols on their person for self-defense.

THE LEGISLATURE ONLY reluctantly passed such a law (at the insistence of the appellate court) at the end of their spring session (literally on its final day).

So for Quinn to act on this bill now (even though state law gave him until mid-August) means he put some priority on it. He did NOT drag his feet on the issue.

But while normal legislative procedure would have the General Assembly address the issue during their fall session (which is known as the veto session because it is for dealing with the bills that the governor vetoes, or alters), I really suspect we’re going to see the Legislature feel the need to call themselves into action much sooner.

Like perhaps turning the Tuesday get-together at the Statehouse in Springfield from a pension funding reform day to a dump-on-the-governor’s concealed carry alterations day!

THERE WILL BE arguments that the July 9 deadline set by the Court of Appeals is still in place, and that it would be irresponsible for the new concealed carry law to have to remain in legal limbo until November.

To do the legislative maneuvering that would be required to turn the special legislative day from pension funding to concealed carry is going to take a lot of time and focus. Which is why I’m convinced they can’t do both in the same day.

Particularly since as of now, the two sides aren’t any closer to agreement on pension funding than they were previously. Just this week, I overheard a state legislator making mocking comments about Quinn for expecting anyone to resolve the issue so soon.

Having an urgent need to deal with concealed carry will be the excuse needed to avoid dealing with the pension issue.

IT REALLY IS ridiculous for all this partisan rhetoric to thwart these issues. Particularly with concealed carry, which Quinn used his authority on Tuesday to try to make more strict against firearms than it was previously.

The biggest change was that the bill passed by the Legislature imposed standards by which restaurants serving alcohol would have to study how much of their business came from the sales of drinks – to determine if firearms could be banned from the premises.

Under Quinn’s vision, any alcohol sale is now sufficient for a firearms ban.

There also was a measure that said municipalities with home rule powers would only have 10 days from the date the law took effect to try to pass their own local bans. While Quinn would take away the ability of the state to restrict municipalities on this issue.

THERE ARE MORE provisions that Quinn altered, although the general tone of them is emphasized by the governor’s statement that, “there are too many provisions in this bill that are inspired by the National Rifle Association, not the common good.”

Which may be the problem. The “common good” is probably the last thing anyone in our state government cares about these days!

  -30-