Jump to content

Pro 2A resolution - Archive

Ashdump

By Ashdump
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

Federal Farmer Member

Federal Farmer

Posted
Posted

Agreed.

 

How about a color for those counties that haven't passed the 2nd Amendment Resolution but have passed Resolutions opposed to Cook County Gun Control Laws?

 

If that's the case then you better remove Livingston, Shelby, Brown and Henry because Livingston, Shelby and Brown are worded different than our resolution and Henry has nothing else pending on any committee agenda or full board agenda.

 

You can't expect all counties to pass identically worded resolutions, but as long as it is based on a core principle it would be acceptable.

 

The core value of the resolution accepted should contain: Acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the U.S. Constitution and that no further regulation is necessary effecting law-abiding firearm owners.

 

That gives the counties a lot of wiggle room and still be a pro 2a resolution.

 

All other factors are secondary and can be stated, omitted or modified to suite the counties comfort level.

 

Some counties may feel repeal of most gun laws is desirable with others believing what we have now is just fine.

GarandFan Member

GarandFan

Posted
Posted
Agreed.

 

How about a color for those counties that haven't passed the 2nd Amendment Resolution but have passed Resolutions opposed to Cook County Gun Control Laws?

 

Not a bad idea....but IMHO, I think that might make the map too confusing. We need the green, and green only, to stand out.

Ocellairs Member

Ocellairs

Posted
Posted

Each country is going to have some sort of economic impact. Henry county is no different than the others. It shoud be green, and the only colors we should be using is white (not on the agenda yet) yellow (on the agenda) green (passed the agenda) red (didn't pass the agenda)

 

This is not the rainbow push collation!

Ol'Coach Member

Ol'Coach

Posted
Posted
This is not the rainbow push collation!
:thumbsup:

 

" 26. Member John Sovanski, Executive Committee Chairman, moved to adopt Resolution 07-03 opposing Senate Bill 0016, which would ban the production and possession of many firearms in the State of Illinois. Member James Eccher seconded the motion.

 

I think this statement made in the motion to adopt the Reolution speaks loudly in reference to the 2nd Amendment.

 

If the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, would any of these resolutions make any sense?

 

Maybe I'm searching, but IMO, Henry oughta go green!

ishmo Member

ishmo

Posted
Posted
If that's the case then you better remove Livingston, Shelby, Brown and Henry because Livingston, Shelby and Brown are worded different than our resolution and Henry has nothing else pending on any committee agenda or full board agenda.

 

You can't expect all counties to pass identically worded resolutions, but as long as it is based on a core principle it would be acceptable.

 

The core value of the resolution accepted should contain: Acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the U.S. Constitution and that no further regulation is necessary effecting law-abiding firearm owners.

 

That gives the counties a lot of wiggle room and still be a pro 2a resolution.

 

All other factors are secondary and can be stated, omitted or modified to suite the counties comfort level.

 

Some counties may feel repeal of most gun laws is desirable with others believing what we have now is just fine.

My earlier post was predicated on the assumption we were trying to pass the resolution "as written" statewide. What I didn't take into consideration was the fact that it might have to be modified to pass in some counties but I can accept any resolution that affirms the importance of the 2A and imho the Henry Co. resolution does that so I think it should go green.

Ol'Coach Member

Ol'Coach

Posted
Posted
Acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by the U.S. Constitution and that no further regulation is necessary effecting law-abiding firearm owners.

 

Great evaluation! It's short and on target!

 

I think we should use that as the guideline from here out!

 

Have to show you the full-size pic of my latest avatar: (Maybe that's what our gov't really oughta be doin'?...a little reflecting?)

post-139-1188584628.jpg

bob Member

bob

Posted
Posted
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2007

PER: R. OLSON TIME: 5:45 PM

LOCATION: 8TH FLOOR, CONFERENCE RM.

WINNEBAGO COUNTY COURTHOUSE

ROCKFORD, IL

AGENDA: A. Roll Call

B. Resolution Opposing Current Gun Legislation Pending in

Springfield, Illinois

C. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Intergovernmental

Cooperation Agreement Durand C.U.S.D. 322.

C. Other Matters

D. Adjournment

 

This was on the calendar for the Winnebago County Board executive committee. Did it pass? If so, when will it be going to the board.

raiven Member

raiven

Posted
Posted
no bob it did not pass yet they took the resoultion for furhter review i should hear something on it the first thursday of sept i belive its the 6 yep the 6 of sept they vote finally on it. mclean passed someone should mark it green.
RacerDave6 Member

RacerDave6

Posted
Posted

I'm gonna try to get to some county board members here on Sunday (Repub picnic). I've got the map and resolution, but the talking points are all in my head. Anyone have them printed that they could send to me so I don't miss anything.

RacerDave6@comcast.net

Thanks

Ol'Coach Member

Ol'Coach

Posted
Posted
I checked the McClean County Board minutes for the past meeting and it was not on the agenda, nor has it yet appeared on the administrative committee agenda.
Federal Farmer Member

Federal Farmer

Posted
Posted
no bob it did not pass yet they took the resoultion for furhter review i should hear something on it the first thursday of sept i belive its the 6 yep the 6 of sept they vote finally on it. mclean passed someone should mark it green.

 

The resolution has NOT been addressed by McLean as of yet. We are currently building a base of grass roots support via petitions, letters of support, and phone calls.

 

The news story was simply incorrect.

Ol'Coach Member

Ol'Coach

Posted
Posted

I will notify WCID of the error:

 

"There are now 33 counties that have passed a resolution, but McClean isn't one of them."

I'll give them an updated map.

 

(Maybe they'll mention it on the news...give us one more mention!)

Federal Farmer Member

Federal Farmer

Posted
Posted
I will notify WCID of the error:

 

"There are now 33 counties that have passed a resolution, but McClean isn't one of them."

I'll give them an updated map.

 

(Maybe they'll mention it on the news...give us one more mention!)

 

Heh heh..McClean...heh :turned:

Blaster Member

Blaster

Posted
Posted

This morning after much discussion. The Montgomery county committee that held the 2nd Amendment resolution voted to pass the Resolution to the full board for discussion.

 

They have some concerns about the language of the Resolution. Mainly the part about enactment of any legislation that would infringe on the rights of gun owners. They are saying that if it is passed as worded they would be saying that they are against "any" legislation such as background checks, waiting periods.

 

Anyway, on to the full board. Montgomery county is Yellow.

abolt243 Member

abolt243

Posted
Posted
Montgomery = yellow

Champaign = white

post-139-1189102909.jpg

 

Hey Coach, how come back to white on Champaign Co?? Did I miss something, or are you waiting till the amended res is formally introduced??

 

AB

Ol'Coach Member

Ol'Coach

Posted
Posted

Sorry 'bout that! Should haave posted this earlier:

 

The amended resolution is not being sent to the full board! 4-3, no!

 

The dem that supported it went the other way this time.

 

The only reason given by any of them..."not a county issue!"

 

Please don't write here what a bunch of B.S. that is! I told them that at the meeting (not in those exact words.) I told them that if they chose not to passe this resolution to the full board, it was simply because they know that either it would pass, and this liberal board would be very upset, or it would be defeated, in which case the CC Board would be the first county to do so after 33 others had passed it, and would have aligned itself with cook county! I reminded them that evidently those 33 three others had thought is WAS a county by county issue!

 

I asked if this were a 15th Amendment issue, would they still consider it NOT a county issue? (1 of the members of the committee is black)

 

I asked if it were a 19th Amendment issue (women's suffrage- 3 of the 7 committee members present are females) and Chicago had denied the ladies of Cook County the right to vote and was trying to pass legislation in the General Assembly that would accomplih the same thing in the other 101 counties, would they still not consider it to be a county x county issue? I added, "Think it's not possible? Home Rule ya know! ...and they did it with the 2nd Amendment!"

 

Thing is, public speakers are practically the 1st thing on the agenda. When the 2A res came up on the agenda and one of the members stated that she thought the CC Board had no business promoting the GSL, ISRA, NRA agenda, my hand immediately went up. I wanted to refute that and explain one more time that this was a pure grass roots movement that had nothing to do with those three organizations. When I wasn't recognized, I just blurted out "May I respond?" I got a veary quick, short, "NO" from the chair! I did get it on the Channel 15 news, if they choose to use it. I'll let you know!

 

Next on the agenda was to be a discussion on a "New Committee Rule on Issues/Topics for Consideration by the Committee."

I'm sure that this is an attempt to define "Issues/Topics" that won't be allowed on the Policy Committee's agenda, let alone be voted on to pass to the full Board! You know what's happening: Since the 2A Res is no longer on any agenda, if they formulate a standard by which it can't get back on even the Policy Committee, they're home free!

 

Sorry, folks! I haven't been able to get the job done! Not used to losing! I am really, really p*****! Maybe "distraught" would be a better term.

 

Edit: Hmmm!...on 2nd thought, I'm gonna look at this as just the 1st half! There's gotta be a way!

 

I HATE TO LOSE!

MARKHOLSTRUM Member

MARKHOLSTRUM

Posted
Posted

Thanks for all the hard work coach! You do alot for the cause and I guess we cant win all the time.

 

I had concerns that the CC board would wuss out or vote it down with U of I and everything. Dont let it get you down too much, there are plenty more counties we can get and then put pressure on CC. Besides CC was pretty high profile for this sort of thing too.

 

I say just take the commitee members that voted it down to the cleaners come election time :P

MARKHOLSTRUM Member

MARKHOLSTRUM

Posted
Posted
The color should not be white, because there stance is not "unkown".

 

No, I think it should be white, they decided not to VOTE on the resolution. They did not vote it down.

 

This was last minute political panic either that or some of the committee that may in truth support it thought it would not pass the board and decided to keep us from getting dinged (although I think that is VERY unlikely).

GarandFan Member

GarandFan

Posted
Posted

My take is that Champaign remains white...it was on the board agenda (Yellow), but has not been voted on and is now removed from the agenda (White).

 

Green = voted and passed

Yellow = on board agenda

White = not on board agenda

Red = voted and failed

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...