"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -- Otto von Bismarck, 1st Chancellor of the German Empire (1815-1898)
The Democrats certainly know this and they didn't want the ingredients known to the public before serving it up less than half-baked. This is not the way that laws should be made and our government representatives know better. There was such a rush to get this passed that the 1073 page bill was delivered, still unfinished, at midnight Thursday. At 2:24 pm, the House Democrats passed it. At 5:29, Senate Democrats passed it.
14 hours to read a 1073 page package, presented with hand written notes, insertions scrawled in the margins, and other interesting markings and immediately voting on it. My guess is that not even one House or Senate member read the entire completed bill before voting for it.
To further conceal the recipe, it was only made publicly available as a pdf file, which doesn't allow text search, making it even harder to directly access particular topics which are sprinkled and hidden throughout.
Here are the links to the sausage recipe that now is on our table, do you dare to read it?
The Democrat Stimulus Bill.
Porkulus Bill, part 1
Porkulus Bill, part 2
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, Division A
Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, Division B
"All applicable provisions in the Act are designated as an emergency for purposes of pay-as-you-go principles."
This is how our Illinois Reps and Senators voted.
Yea IL-1 Rush, Bobby [D] Yea IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D] Present IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel [D] Yea IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D] Nay IL-6 Roskam, Peter [R] Yea IL-7 Davis, Danny [D] Yea IL-8 Bean, Melissa [D] Yea IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D] Nay IL-10 Kirk, Mark [R] Yea IL-11 Halvorson, Deborah [D] Yea IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D] Nay IL-13 Biggert, Judy [R] Yea IL-14 Foster, Bill [D] Nay IL-15 Johnson, Timothy [R] Nay IL-16 Manzullo, Donald [R] Yea IL-17 Hare, Phil [D] Nay IL-18 Schock, Aaron [R] Nay IL-19 Shimkus, John [R]
Yea IL Burris, Roland [D] Yea IL Durbin, Richard [D]
Monday, February 16, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Family and Personal Protection Act - 2009
Well, it's another session, the 96th General Assembly, and we have to try again. As far as I can tell, there are three similar "conceal carry" bills introduced in the Illinois House, each being called the "Family and Personal Protection Act".
I will note all three, and try to sort out the basic differences as I see them.
HB 245, introduced by John E. Bradley (D) 117th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 1/20/2009.
HB 367, introduced by Bill Mitchell (R) 87th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 1/30/2009.
HB 462, introduced by Brandon Phelps (D) 118th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 2/4/2009.
Here are some of the main differences I see so far.
Rep. Bradley's bill vests in the Department of State Police the authority to issue concealed firearms permits to qualified applicants.
Rep. Mitchell's bill vests that authority in each county's Sheriff, and creates the funding to reimburse the County Sheriff and administer the act.
Rep. Phelps' bill, like Mitchell's, vests the authority of administration with the County Sheriff, with different training requirements developed by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board. I'm not sure about the funding on this bill yet.
I spoke with a well informed person in Rep. Mitchell's office today to ask about the bills and got good information and a call back from Rep. Mitchell with more details.
I personally prefer HB 367 and HB 462 over HB245, with the administration of the act being done by local County Sheriffs rather than the Illinois State Police. The Sheriffs are closer and more responsive to the citizens than a state bureaucracy can be. That said, any one of these, if passed, would finally allow Illinois citizens to be safer, becoming state number 49 to allow conceal carry. Let Wisconsin be the last state to recognize the safety of their citizens.
Any suggestions?
more to come on this...
related...
Illinois Sheriffs Association supports concealed-carry handgun law
I will note all three, and try to sort out the basic differences as I see them.
HB 245, introduced by John E. Bradley (D) 117th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 1/20/2009.
HB 367, introduced by Bill Mitchell (R) 87th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 1/30/2009.
HB 462, introduced by Brandon Phelps (D) 118th District, and referred to the Rules Committee on 2/4/2009.
Here are some of the main differences I see so far.
Rep. Bradley's bill vests in the Department of State Police the authority to issue concealed firearms permits to qualified applicants.
Rep. Mitchell's bill vests that authority in each county's Sheriff, and creates the funding to reimburse the County Sheriff and administer the act.
Rep. Phelps' bill, like Mitchell's, vests the authority of administration with the County Sheriff, with different training requirements developed by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board. I'm not sure about the funding on this bill yet.
I spoke with a well informed person in Rep. Mitchell's office today to ask about the bills and got good information and a call back from Rep. Mitchell with more details.
I personally prefer HB 367 and HB 462 over HB245, with the administration of the act being done by local County Sheriffs rather than the Illinois State Police. The Sheriffs are closer and more responsive to the citizens than a state bureaucracy can be. That said, any one of these, if passed, would finally allow Illinois citizens to be safer, becoming state number 49 to allow conceal carry. Let Wisconsin be the last state to recognize the safety of their citizens.
Any suggestions?
more to come on this...
related...
Illinois Sheriffs Association supports concealed-carry handgun law
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)