Sanctuary Counties 2.0

[Molly B.]

And states attorneys.

[357]

Sheriffs are all well and good, but that doesn't address the problem of local police departments. My local county sheriff may not agree to enforce unconstitutional laws, but that doesn't mean the unelected police chief is going to follow his lead. Not everyone wants to move out of town. There needs to be an effort to get police chiefs on board.

Unfortunately the chiefs have forgotten their oaths and are under Bloomberg's influence and actively oppose people's Constitutional right.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/19/nations-police-chiefs-implore-congress-not-to-pass-concealed-carry-reciprocity-gun-law/

 

https://www.lepartnership.org/

[evilbrownrifle]

This seems pretty grim. Living in Cook County I'm SOL unless I move, and if I move the county I live in will be in WI or IN.

[steveTA84]

 

Sheriffs are all well and good, but that doesn't address the problem of local police departments. My local county sheriff may not agree to enforce unconstitutional laws, but that doesn't mean the unelected police chief is going to follow his lead. Not everyone wants to move out of town. There needs to be an effort to get police chiefs on board.

Unfortunately the chiefs have forgotten their oaths and are under Bloomberg's influence and actively oppose people's Constitutional right. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/true-crime/wp/2018/04/19/nations-police-chiefs-implore-congress-not-to-pass-concealed-carry-reciprocity-gun-law/https://www.lepartnership.org/

Going to dig on that 2nd link

[steveTA84]

Yep, just another pocket filling scam

 

http://i.imgur.com/dCPDh1F.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6wUhHOi.jpg

[speedbump]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/01/29/resist-washington-state-sheriffs-vow-to-oppose-new-gun-control-laws-n2540348

[steveTA84]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/01/29/resist-washington-state-sheriffs-vow-to-oppose-new-gun-control-laws-n2540348

Yep, its not all of them. And this comment in that article NAILS IT

 

http://i.imgur.com/P1DauFh.jpg

 

Which brings us here

 

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=70970

[357]

Yep, just another pocket filling scam

 

http://i.imgur.com/dCPDh1F.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6wUhHOi.jpg

Looks like they are getting paid $3.9 million a year to push Bloomberg's agenda.

 

Can you do some digging into the president of Everytown John Feinblatt? Looks like Bloomberg was behind the push of gay marriage down people's throats too.

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/mazel-tov-new-york-s-first-gay-jewish-marriage-1.25646

 

https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/bloomberg-in-albany-to-push-gay-marriage-bill/

[steveTA84]

 

Yep, just another pocket filling scam http://i.imgur.com/dCPDh1F.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/6wUhHOi.jpg

Looks like they are getting paid $3.9 million a year to push Bloomberg's agenda.

Can you do some digging into the president of Everytown John Feinblatt? Looks like Bloomberg was behind the push of gay marriage down people's throats too. https://www.thejc.com/news/world/mazel-tov-new-york-s-first-gay-jewish-marriage-1.25646https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/bloomberg-in-albany-to-push-gay-marriage-bill/

What do you want to know about Feinblatt?

[357]

 

 

Yep, just another pocket filling scam http://i.imgur.com/dCPDh1F.jpghttp://i.imgur.com/6wUhHOi.jpg

Looks like they are getting paid $3.9 million a year to push Bloomberg's agenda.

Can you do some digging into the president of Everytown John Feinblatt? Looks like Bloomberg was behind the push of gay marriage down people's throats too. https://www.thejc.com/news/world/mazel-tov-new-york-s-first-gay-jewish-marriage-1.25646https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/bloomberg-in-albany-to-push-gay-marriage-bill/

What do you want to know about Feinblatt?

He is Bloomberg's right hand man and not many people know what he is doing to take our rights away.

[steveTA84]

He’s the President of the former Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, now Everytown. His salary isn’t disclosed in the tax forms either

[junebugs95]

Sanctuary Counties 2.0

 

Some time ago 2A activists around the state began a campaign of urging county boards to pass resolutions and make themselves “sanctuary counties” where they would not abide by gun laws that violate the Second Amendment.

 

Gun guys likened it to the sanctuary counties/cities for illegal immigrants; if they could flaunt the federal laws, then why should our local government follow the laws these liberals put down on our rights?

 

Rep. Willis introduced a resolution last fall denouncing these scofflaw counties and how dare they flaunt the law and it’s not their ability to pick and choose which laws they will follow saying:

“WHEREAS, These so-called "gun sanctuary counties" are nothing more than scofflaw counties, usurping the judiciary and role of separation of powers in our government, while openly encouraging criminal behavior; therefore, be it…”

 

A lot of people and counties received lots of attention for this to the point that over 30 counties in Illinois say they will not follow unconstitutional laws when it comes to the Second Amendment. Not a bad start for an uncoordinated attempt to send a message to the higher ups in state government and Chicago.

 

Since then a few things have happened. One is Representative Willis' resolution. Her stomping of her feet that those little people in the counties would not abide by her superior judgement and knowledge of what we need. Oh, her condemnation surely rattled us to our marrow.

 

Second was the election that literally swept away the republican party in Illinois. Democrats now hold super majorities in both chambers, and not with a great number of downstate democrats.

 

Third is an anti-gun governor who in the first week signed a new draconian bill to run gun dealers out of business.

 

Fourth, the filing of just the few anti-gun bills we have seen so far starting with SB-107 – one of the most broad semi-auto bans we have ever seen.

 

Fifth, look at the Mayor of Pittsburgh, where despite a state law saying they can't pass a semi-auto ban in their city, he has said I don't care. Arrest me. So where they mock us for using the term law abiding gun owners, and then taunt us when we tell them we will not comply and follow their rights infringing statist attitude -- you are no longer the good law abiding gun owner. Yet at the same time, they can flout court rulings, precedence, advisories from local prosecutors thinking they are Rosa Parks when in fact they are channeling their inner Bull Connor.

 

Now the State feels they can buck the federal government again and legalize pot, thumbing their nose at federal drug laws. Again, the liberals seem to feel its ok for them to pick and choose the laws they want to follow at differing levels of government, but should counties and gun owners do the same, that is verboten.

 

So what is Sanctuary Counties 2.0 (SC2.0)? It is taking the original premise to the next step to show the statist gun grabbers at the capitol that the counties and elected officials will not comply. It no longer is just the individual gun owners saying we will not comply, but now local elected officials and their governmental entities are saying it too -- and going beyond the mere resolutions that were passed.

 

So, if the Mayor of Pittsburgh can flaunt the law and constitution, if the City of Chicago can ignore state law on carry, guns and preemption, then it’s time we do the same. They set the rules, they set the tone and two can play by that game. Here is where we need to start:

 

1. Your Sheriff is the highest locally elected law enforcement officer. It is now time to start meeting with them, explaining all these types of bills and laws he will be asked to enforce with his deputies and get his commitment not to.

 

2. A resolution from the County Board directing the Sheriff not to enforce any of these laws if passed. Now I know the Sheriff is a separately independently elected official who is accountable to the people and not necessarily the Board on this but, they can make their feelings well known. After all, does he have the jail space for everyone? Remember that if 10% of FOID card holders don't comply, they have to find space for potential 250,000 people in jail or Dept. of Corrections.

 

3. An amendment to the County Budget when passed this year preventing any use of funds for the enforcement of any of these laws passed.

 

4. Start the same process with the States Attorney. Again, he is a separately duly elected official in an independent office, but if the SA won't charge, there is no reason for the Sheriff or local law enforcement to arrest.

 

Oh sure the antis are going to wet their pants. They will introduce more resolutions denouncing the actions of these rebel gun owners and counties. They may hold press conferences and stamp their feet. But the difference is this fight is going to be that you now have local units of government telling the State we will not comply, we will not enforce in a manner more symbolic than just the first set of resolutions.

 

Beyond that, talk to your local city or town council. Do they have the manpower to enforce this? And they too can join the voices and chorus telling the County Board they will not be supporting or enforcing these new laws. The more Chiefs and Mayors that sign on the better.

 

The more resolutions forwarded to the leaders of the General Assembly the better. All four leaders need to be put on notice that this is what they are doing, they are fracturing our state over a feel good pieces of legislation that trample of the rights of gun owners, ranges, clubs and lawful business'. The anti-gunners have moved from just being anti-gun to trying to destroy a way of life or a culture. Remember last year when they wanted to prevent minors from being able to participate in the shooting sports? That was some “safety” piece of legislation that was aimed at keeping kids out of the shooting sports. No new kids, the shooting sports die on the vine. Hence no new shooters growing up doing this things their dads did.

 

The hypocrisy runs deep with the anti-gunners this year. They want to tell us that we must suffer all the intrusions they can dream up just to exercise our right to own a firearms for lawful purposes, yet they don't do that when handing out driver licenses to illegals.

 

We need to have an ID just to own a gun but you don't need one to vote.

 

They can restrict our ability to travel with a firearm, but gang bangers can't be stopped and frisked.

 

Gang-bangers and felons carry guns in “gun free zones”, but we are prohibited by law from doing so after getting 16 hours of training and a carry license.

 

The message from our County Boards, Sheriffs, States Attorneys, Mayors and Chiefs denouncing these pieces of legislation and infringements on our rights needs to be loud and clear;

 

We will not do this to our residents,

,

We will not do this to our neighbors;

We will not do this to the people we go to church with;

We will not do this to the people we invite over for beers and BBQ;

We will not do this to the coaches of our kids’ sports teams;

We will not register our firearms;

We will not turn them in;

We will not surrender our free speech and be muffled;

We will not enforce your BS laws;

We will not comply.

 

That is the message that needs to ring loud and clear in the halls -- that other levels of government are willing to rebel, that if the anti-gunners can flaunt the law -- to pick and choose the rights and things they will enforce, so can those of us not under the thumb of the Chicago Democratic Machine still have a voice.

 

Will be working on a draft set of resolutions for people to be taking to their County Boards. But session calls and the anti-gunners have been a bit busy. More later.

 

 

This is good. Todd when I get my draft ordinance done, I'll send to you

[TomKoz]

Sanctuary Counties 2.0

 

Some time ago 2A activists around the state began a campaign of urging county boards to pass resolutions and make themselves “sanctuary counties” where they would not abide by gun laws that violate the Second Amendment.

 

Gun guys likened it to the sanctuary counties/cities for illegal immigrants; if they could flaunt the federal laws, then why should our local government follow the laws these liberals put down on our rights?

 

Rep. Willis introduced a resolution last fall denouncing these scofflaw counties and how dare they flaunt the law and it’s not their ability to pick and choose which laws they will follow saying:

“WHEREAS, These so-called "gun sanctuary counties" are nothing more than scofflaw counties, usurping the judiciary and role of separation of powers in our government, while openly encouraging criminal behavior; therefore, be it…”

 

A lot of people and counties received lots of attention for this to the point that over 30 counties in Illinois say they will not follow unconstitutional laws when it comes to the Second Amendment. Not a bad start for an uncoordinated attempt to send a message to the higher ups in state government and Chicago.

 

Since then a few things have happened. One is Representative Willis' resolution. Her stomping of her feet that those little people in the counties would not abide by her superior judgement and knowledge of what we need. Oh, her condemnation surely rattled us to our marrow.

 

Second was the election that literally swept away the republican party in Illinois. Democrats now hold super majorities in both chambers, and not with a great number of downstate democrats.

 

Third is an anti-gun governor who in the first week signed a new draconian bill to run gun dealers out of business.

 

Fourth, the filing of just the few anti-gun bills we have seen so far starting with SB-107 – one of the most broad semi-auto bans we have ever seen.

 

Fifth, look at the Mayor of Pittsburgh, where despite a state law saying they can't pass a semi-auto ban in their city, he has said I don't care. Arrest me. So where they mock us for using the term law abiding gun owners, and then taunt us when we tell them we will not comply and follow their rights infringing statist attitude -- you are no longer the good law abiding gun owner. Yet at the same time, they can flout court rulings, precedence, advisories from local prosecutors thinking they are Rosa Parks when in fact they are channeling their inner Bull Connor.

 

Now the State feels they can buck the federal government again and legalize pot, thumbing their nose at federal drug laws. Again, the liberals seem to feel its ok for them to pick and choose the laws they want to follow at differing levels of government, but should counties and gun owners do the same, that is verboten.

 

So what is Sanctuary Counties 2.0 (SC2.0)? It is taking the original premise to the next step to show the statist gun grabbers at the capitol that the counties and elected officials will not comply. It no longer is just the individual gun owners saying we will not comply, but now local elected officials and their governmental entities are saying it too -- and going beyond the mere resolutions that were passed.

 

So, if the Mayor of Pittsburgh can flaunt the law and constitution, if the City of Chicago can ignore state law on carry, guns and preemption, then it’s time we do the same. They set the rules, they set the tone and two can play by that game. Here is where we need to start:

 

1. Your Sheriff is the highest locally elected law enforcement officer. It is now time to start meeting with them, explaining all these types of bills and laws he will be asked to enforce with his deputies and get his commitment not to.

 

2. A resolution from the County Board directing the Sheriff not to enforce any of these laws if passed. Now I know the Sheriff is a separately independently elected official who is accountable to the people and not necessarily the Board on this but, they can make their feelings well known. After all, does he have the jail space for everyone? Remember that if 10% of FOID card holders don't comply, they have to find space for potential 250,000 people in jail or Dept. of Corrections.

 

3. An amendment to the County Budget when passed this year preventing any use of funds for the enforcement of any of these laws passed.

 

4. Start the same process with the States Attorney. Again, he is a separately duly elected official in an independent office, but if the SA won't charge, there is no reason for the Sheriff or local law enforcement to arrest.

 

Oh sure the antis are going to wet their pants. They will introduce more resolutions denouncing the actions of these rebel gun owners and counties. They may hold press conferences and stamp their feet. But the difference is this fight is going to be that you now have local units of government telling the State we will not comply, we will not enforce in a manner more symbolic than just the first set of resolutions.

 

Beyond that, talk to your local city or town council. Do they have the manpower to enforce this? And they too can join the voices and chorus telling the County Board they will not be supporting or enforcing these new laws. The more Chiefs and Mayors that sign on the better.

 

The more resolutions forwarded to the leaders of the General Assembly the better. All four leaders need to be put on notice that this is what they are doing, they are fracturing our state over a feel good pieces of legislation that trample of the rights of gun owners, ranges, clubs and lawful business'. The anti-gunners have moved from just being anti-gun to trying to destroy a way of life or a culture. Remember last year when they wanted to prevent minors from being able to participate in the shooting sports? That was some “safety” piece of legislation that was aimed at keeping kids out of the shooting sports. No new kids, the shooting sports die on the vine. Hence no new shooters growing up doing this things their dads did.

 

The hypocrisy runs deep with the anti-gunners this year. They want to tell us that we must suffer all the intrusions they can dream up just to exercise our right to own a firearms for lawful purposes, yet they don't do that when handing out driver licenses to illegals.

 

We need to have an ID just to own a gun but you don't need one to vote.

 

They can restrict our ability to travel with a firearm, but gang bangers can't be stopped and frisked.

 

Gang-bangers and felons carry guns in “gun free zones”, but we are prohibited by law from doing so after getting 16 hours of training and a carry license.

 

The message from our County Boards, Sheriffs, States Attorneys, Mayors and Chiefs denouncing these pieces of legislation and infringements on our rights needs to be loud and clear;

 

We will not do this to our residents,

,

We will not do this to our neighbors;

We will not do this to the people we go to church with;

We will not do this to the people we invite over for beers and BBQ;

We will not do this to the coaches of our kids’ sports teams;

We will not register our firearms;

We will not turn them in;

We will not surrender our free speech and be muffled;

We will not enforce your BS laws;

We will not comply.

 

That is the message that needs to ring loud and clear in the halls -- that other levels of government are willing to rebel, that if the anti-gunners can flaunt the law -- to pick and choose the rights and things they will enforce, so can those of us not under the thumb of the Chicago Democratic Machine still have a voice.

 

Will be working on a draft set of resolutions for people to be taking to their County Boards. But session calls and the anti-gunners have been a bit busy. More later.

 

Todd / IC : do we have your permission to use and share all of the above ??

[20jlr]

I live in will county. While far from a public speaker I would be more than happy to go with and speak publicly as well as my son who recently returned home after his five years in the Army. Maybe a few speakers would be better than one

[steveTA84]

I live in will county. While far from a public speaker I would be more than happy to go with and speak publicly as well as my son who recently returned home after his five years in the Army. Maybe a few speakers would be better than one

Take after Pittsburgh. The more the better

[urbantrainer]

I was going to respond to a comment and then a correction SteveT made concerning Democrats but I don’t see it in the thread anymore(?) I agree with most of what’s being discussed in this thread but would like to add/reinforce some of it with my own thoughts.

 

We push a lot of supporters of the 2A to stay under the radar because of unrelated political differences. Politicians in both parties know this and use it to their advantage...

 

We've allowed guns to be politicized... Even the NRA nationally, and the ISRA in this state, play their part in this political segregation. If gun owners are only Reps, then we have long and currently losing battle to fight. Politicizing any issue always works for politicians, not the people. When the founding father wrote the Constitution, it was meant for the people to keep the politicians in check, not the other way around, as it gets used now, by both parties.

 

50% of the country (based on the last presidential election) doesn't care for either of the only two (realistically) party's we've been given to vote for. They don’t trust politicians so they are not likely to believe that unethical (or un-Constitutional) politicians should be the ones to decide ethical or Constitutional issues for citizens. That’s where this argument belongs. This should not be a party issue, it is a Constitutional issue.

 

I would argue, that THAT 50% of the “undecided” population (the same people politicians target) is who we need to engage, and not politically, but Constitutionally. If we could show that size of population supports the Constitution and thus the 2nd Amendment, it would show politicians, Republicans and Democrats, the platform of the voters they would need to support, for them to get elected. It is why Dems for years, and now Reps are starting to fold, they don't see the pro-2A numbers that get them elected in this state. Real simple, politicians pretend to lead, when what they really do is pander.

 

So how to change that? As Todd V. and others have said, engage. But engaging alone is not going to change the tide. Changing the tide requires changing the social narrative… lawful gun owners need to take back control of the narrative.

 

We allow anti-2A people to use phrases like "gun safety", "parents who care" and "protect our children" as if they are exclusive to them, and "gun owners have blood on their hands" to demonize those that don’t agree with their ideas for solutions. Have we forgotten, the NRA wrote the book on gun safety. Are we not all caring parents, and who doesn't want to protect children? They use highly inclusive terminology to define and broaden their platform. We use "support our 2A rights" and “Don’t Tread on Me”. Their offensive marketing message hits a wide demographic target, while ours comes across as a self-serving, defensive 'say and spray' of divisive (often political) retorts, that have little to no impact on changing hearts or minds. Don’t we agree with most of what they say they want to accomplish, minimizing violence and protecting children? We should, which is why they lead with such statements and name organizations the same. Isn’t it their solutions that we primarily oppose? So shouldn’t our messages start the same way, to gain the widest consensus first, then present our solutions to the issues. This is where we need to push the narrative because at this point in time, their (mostly "feel good") solutions have a historic record of producing few tangible, much less effective, results. And the data is on our side.

 

I agree with what has been said above, it's beyond time that we stop defending what we haven't done, and start presenting our own solutions to these social issues that don't criminalize otherwise law-abiding people. This isn't about more guns, or less guns, it is not about what type of guns, it is about lawful and responsible citizens having the right to own guns and our political representatives stepping up to defend us, instead of making criminals of us.

It's time to break down irrational and non-sensical arguments and show them for what they are with reasonable alternative, many which have nothing to do with guns.

 

'Moms Demand Actions' or 'Citizens Against Gun Violence' could just as easily be the names of a pro Constitutional, 2A groups, and I would argue, should be. What’s wrong with “sensible gun regulations”? Let’s join the vocal majority and embrace it... then define “sensible” based on reality and data. It’s time we take the ball, and the narrative, and run with it offensively and pro-actively, to borrow a couple of liberally used terms.

 

Einstein once said something to the effect of:

 

America will not be invaded by a military army,

it will be invaded by men with their own agenda

making laws that lawful men will have to follow.

[Lou]

^^^. Good first post ^^^. Welcome to I C

[Flynn]

'Moms Demand Actions' or 'Citizens Against Gun Violence' could just as easily be the names of a pro Constitutional, 2A groups, and I would argue, should be.

 

I just had a so-called conversation with a 'Moms Demand Action' member she insists they are in fact a pro 2A group because they start every meeting by saying so...

 

 

 

What’s wrong with “sensible gun regulations”? Let’s join the vocal majority and embrace it... then define “sensible” based on reality and data.

 

Sorry, I don't believe the 2nd should be infringed upon except in extreme cases, 'sensible' doesn't reach that standard. The 2nd should be treated like religion, speech and even voting rights with essentially no restrictions until the exercising of that right infringes upon another individuals right. In other words, my ownership and use of ANY firearm should be almost entirely restriction free until and only if my actions or ownership somehow infringe upon another's rights, 'sensible' is nowhere near the level of scrutiny that I believe is applicable to any right.

[jkdkaliman101]

I live in will county. While far from a public speaker I would be more than happy to go with and speak publicly as well as my son who recently returned home after his five years in the Army. Maybe a few speakers would be better than one

please do! The sooner the better. Would love to see Will county get on board. I seen on the map that they are in the "progress" phase but don't know exactly what that means. Anyone?

[Looper]

urbantrainer very well said. OK so I am a little dense, WHY can we not have these politicians and police chief's, sheriff's etc. removed from office simply for not upholding their OATH to support and defend the CONSTITUTION ??? There is really no lack of proof / evidence.

[Flynn]

OK so I am a little dense, WHY can we not have these politicians and police chief's, sheriff's etc. removed from office simply for not upholding their OATH to support and defend the CONSTITUTION ??? There is really no lack of proof / evidence.

 

Besides the recently passed IL Constitutional change that allows the recall of the Illinois Governor, there is no recall laws/procedure for elected officials in IL, except in the city of Buffalo Grove where only one official has been removed, the likely only elected official in the state ever removed.

[Bird76Mojo]

 

OK so I am a little dense, WHY can we not have these politicians and police chief's, sheriff's etc. removed from office simply for not upholding their OATH to support and defend the CONSTITUTION ??? There is really no lack of proof / evidence.

 

Besides the recently passed IL Constitutional change that allows the recall of the Illinois Governor, there is no recall laws/procedure for elected officials in IL, except in the city of Buffalo Grove where only one official has been removed, the likely only elected official in the state ever removed.

 

So the oath they take is simply a meaningless gesture and holds no value?

 

I find it hard to believe that there are no OLD laws still on the books that state something about breaking that oath, otherwise there'd be no oath to begin with..

[Honeybee42]

 

'Moms Demand Actions' or 'Citizens Against Gun Violence' could just as easily be the names of a pro Constitutional, 2A groups, and I would argue, should be.

 

I just had a so-called conversation with a 'Moms Demand Action' member she insists they are in fact a pro 2A group because they start every meeting by saying so...

 

 

 

What’s wrong with “sensible gun regulations”? Let’s join the vocal majority and embrace it... then define “sensible” based on reality and data.

 

Sorry, I don't believe the 2nd should be infringed upon except in extreme cases, 'sensible' doesn't reach that standard. The 2nd should be treated like religion, speech and even voting rights with essentially no restrictions until the exercising of that right infringes upon another individuals right. In other words, my ownership and use of ANY firearm should be almost entirely restriction free until and only if my actions or ownership somehow infringe upon another's rights, 'sensible' is nowhere near the level of scrutiny that I believe is applicable to any right.

 

I think the point is to get "sensible" back to its actual definition, rather than allow gun grabbers to define "sensible". For example, magazine capacity restrictions aren't sensible, they're arbitrary and cannot do what they purport to do. "Gun Free Zones" aren't sensible, as they don't restrict criminal behavior and contribute to guns being stored in less-safe conditions (a safe inside my locked car is still vulnerable to a thief with a cutter that can cut through the safety cable--my gun in an IWB holster on my body is considerably less vulnerable to thieves). So, instead let's look at what would be sensible--what will actually address the problem--maybe make use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (and here, crime is defined in a way that is truly common sense--murder, rape, robbery, assault/battery, and other such actual crimes that have always been recognized as criminal activity) an element which *cannot* be plea-bargained away and for which the sentence is *not* allowed to have reductions by "credit for good behavior". Sensible would be passing hearing protection legislation.

[speedbump]

We'll said, Honeybee.

[Looper]

 

OK so I am a little dense, WHY can we not have these politicians and police chief's, sheriff's etc. removed from office simply for not upholding their OATH to support and defend the CONSTITUTION ??? There is really no lack of proof / evidence.

 

Besides the recently passed IL Constitutional change that allows the recall of the Illinois Governor, there is no recall laws/procedure for elected officials in IL, except in the city of Buffalo Grove where only one official has been removed, the likely only elected official in the state ever removed.

 

Thanks, but I was thinking Legal action not political, Theft of service or breach of contract ? something.

[Flynn]

So, instead let's look at what would be sensible--what will actually address the problem--maybe make use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (and here, crime is defined in a way that is truly common sense--murder, rape, robbery, assault/battery, and other such actual crimes that have always been recognized as criminal activity) an element which *cannot* be plea-bargained away and for which the sentence is *not* allowed to have reductions by "credit for good behavior".

 

All fine and dandy in theory, but people are innocent until proven guilty in the US, you can't author a law that once charged you can't plea, have your charges reduced or have your charges dropped, because at that point in time the accused is still a legally innocent person, any law doing so would be unconstitutional and would be mooted in no time! As for the mandatory sentencing that is fine on the surface, but there is a plethora of evidence to support the fact that the prosecutors won't levy those charges and pleas will be taken for lesser crimes before trial and we circle back to the previous sentence.

 

Truth is if the anti-gunners want guns gone and your right to have them diminished regardless of any criminal intent or acts, telling them you are willing to negotiate with stricter sentences for gun crimes isn't going to find any common ground with them, in fact it's very likely to be met with resistance.

 

 

Sensible would be passing hearing protection legislation.

I would say the sensible way would be revoking laws any existing laws that prevent that from happening, it's not sensible to pass new laws to enable something that a previous law that is still on the book outlaws. But. the truth is these are not the kind of 'gun laws' the antis desire so it's a negotiating moot point.

[Flynn]

Thanks, but I was thinking Legal action not political, Theft of service or breach of contract ? something.

 

 

They have qualified immunity for their official actions while in office, plus since there is still no recall procedure even if you were to penetrate that immunity and prevail legally, they would likely continue to hold office unless they chose to resign.

[Tvandermyde]

Looks like my little piece has struck a nerve with someone. . . .

 

HB3553

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Counties Code and the Illinois Municipal Code. Provides that a county or municipality may not pass an ordinance or resolution restricting enforcement of any State law or regulation concerning the ownership or use of firearms unless permitted to do so under the express provisions of the law or regulation. Defines "firearm". Limits home rule powers.

 

 

http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=3553&GAID=15&SessionID=108&LegID=120227

[Flynn]

Looks like my little piece has struck a nerve with someone. . . .

 

HB3553

Synopsis As Introduced

Amends the Counties Code and the Illinois Municipal Code. Provides that a county or municipality may not pass an ordinance or resolution restricting enforcement of any State law or regulation concerning the ownership or use of firearms unless permitted to do so under the express provisions of the law or regulation. Defines "firearm". Limits home rule powers.

 

 

http://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=3553&GAID=15&SessionID=108&LegID=120227

 

Someone should remind these State lawmakers in IL and certain municipalities about the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution when they choose to enact laws that ignore Federal Law.

[TomKoz]

Is Bloomberg colluding with Russia to disarm the citizens of the US ?