Jump to content


Photo

Pike man aims to pass weapons carry initiative


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
268 replies to this topic

#31 Chris

    Furthering our cause through information overload.

  • Members
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 08

Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:07 PM

The attorney general could press charges and the arrest would be under the uuw laws and all they have to do is bring in the state police to make the arrest.
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
- Edmund Burke

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Posted Image

#32 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,385 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 21 August 2011 - 08:10 PM

The attorney general could press charges and the arrest would be under the uuw laws and all they have to do is bring in the state police to make the arrest.


and the national guards.

#33 THE KING

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,375 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 09

Posted 22 August 2011 - 09:18 AM

Dr. Dan

First off, welcome to the site. It is kind of refreshing to see someone take a different perspective on this.

Instead of the people asking permission and continually compromising, I like your approach.

Pass the ordinance, make it Pike County law and force the all high and mighty Lisa Madigan to prove that your in the wrong. :thumbsup:

I wish you all the luck in the world and I hope the anti-gun people start to realize that this is a FUNDAMENTAL right and not a privelege they can infringe on.

As I have said before, either it is a constitutional right or it isn't. :yes1: B) :headbang1:

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
NRA Certified Basic Pistol Instructor
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
ISP Certified Illinois Conceal Carry Instructor
Retired Professional Firefighter / Paramedic


#34 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 22 August 2011 - 12:24 PM

I too agree that it is refreshing to see people going after what is right with or without the NRA There is a few states that went forward without the NRA support and have succeded. Ohio being one of them. Sure it took them awhile to move from patchwork to state wide premptive shall issue, but they got it done. I am of the opinion now though that untill we see how these court cases are decided then it should be united we stand because we do stand a chance for state wide premptive law if we stick together and dont bow under the pressure of the Chitcago machine, because you and I both know that they will do just like they did with the hand gun ban and the gun range ban. When it's all but over they will strike first with a basterdized version of something they will aprove that gets us no where!
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#35 w00dc4ip

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 855 posts
  • Joined: 17-July 07

Posted 22 August 2011 - 01:20 PM

What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to beg ask for the privilege to carry. After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.

Please take everything I say and suggest in this post as hypothetical, because the real-world ramifications could be very traumatic. That said, not to get too plainly philosophical, but just what do you think you're doing by putting this on a ballot, other than "begging for the privilege" and/or "asking for permission". I'm not advocating anything illegal, but if it is your fundamental right to carry a firearm, why are you waiting for the ILGA, or a county board, or someone in a black robe to tell you it's ok? What you're doing seems silly to me because you're claiming that you can't stand the concept of "asking for permission" to exercise a right, but taken to its logical end, what your doing is asking for permission.

Before you get too defensive, I agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. There shouldn't be a permit required, there shouldn't be fingerprints required, and the government shouldn't be allowed to charge a fee. The problem is, at least in regards to Illinois laws, we aren't going to get there from here without going through some interim steps. If you can't bring yourself to go through whatever process is in place to get a permit (once one is in place that is), then don't. It's your choice to live by the rules of society or ignore them, but make your choice fully aware of the potential consequences. If you're here looking for advice, what you're trying has been tried before, and the results ranged from no-effect to very bad consequences (never let people put rights to a popular vote). If you absolutely think this ballot initiative is the right move toward restoring the true meaning of the Second Amendment in IL, nobody here is going to be able to talk you out of it, as much as they may try.
When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir. - Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world - "No, you move." - Captain America

#36 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,385 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 22 August 2011 - 01:31 PM

What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to beg ask for the privilege to carry. After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.

Please take everything I say and suggest in this post as hypothetical, because the real-world ramifications could be very traumatic. That said, not to get too plainly philosophical, but just what do you think you're doing by putting this on a ballot, other than "begging for the privilege" and/or "asking for permission". I'm not advocating anything illegal, but if it is your fundamental right to carry a firearm, why are you waiting for the ILGA, or a county board, or someone in a black robe to tell you it's ok? What you're doing seems silly to me because you're claiming that you can't stand the concept of "asking for permission" to exercise a right, but taken to its logical end, what your doing is asking for permission.

Before you get too defensive, I agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. There shouldn't be a permit required, there shouldn't be fingerprints required, and the government shouldn't be allowed to charge a fee. The problem is, at least in regards to Illinois laws, we aren't going to get there from here without going through some interim steps. If you can't bring yourself to go through whatever process is in place to get a permit (once one is in place that is), then don't. It's your choice to live by the rules of society or ignore them, but make your choice fully aware of the potential consequences. If you're here looking for advice, what you're trying has been tried before, and the results ranged from no-effect to very bad consequences (never let people put rights to a popular vote). If you absolutely think this ballot initiative is the right move toward restoring the true meaning of the Second Amendment in IL, nobody here is going to be able to talk you out of it, as much as they may try.


i agree.

#37 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 22 August 2011 - 09:04 PM

What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to beg ask for the privilege to carry. After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.

Please take everything I say and suggest in this post as hypothetical, because the real-world ramifications could be very traumatic. That said, not to get too plainly philosophical, but just what do you think you're doing by putting this on a ballot, other than "begging for the privilege" and/or "asking for permission". I'm not advocating anything illegal, but if it is your fundamental right to carry a firearm, why are you waiting for the ILGA, or a county board, or someone in a black robe to tell you it's ok? What you're doing seems silly to me because you're claiming that you can't stand the concept of "asking for permission" to exercise a right, but taken to its logical end, what your doing is asking for permission.

Before you get too defensive, I agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. There shouldn't be a permit required, there shouldn't be fingerprints required, and the government shouldn't be allowed to charge a fee. The problem is, at least in regards to Illinois laws, we aren't going to get there from here without going through some interim steps. If you can't bring yourself to go through whatever process is in place to get a permit (once one is in place that is), then don't. It's your choice to live by the rules of society or ignore them, but make your choice fully aware of the potential consequences. If you're here looking for advice, what you're trying has been tried before, and the results ranged from no-effect to very bad consequences (never let people put rights to a popular vote). If you absolutely think this ballot initiative is the right move toward restoring the true meaning of the Second Amendment in IL, nobody here is going to be able to talk you out of it, as much as they may try.


This is a great response. Actually, if understand it right, in Pike County we can carry right now openly (not in a vehicle). To my knowledge there is no law preventing open carry of an arm codified within Pike County. That changes when you have the firearm or like device covered/concealed. Except on your own land, home business etc... I do carry openly from time to time on horse back. I have carried openly in town this way. Friends and I have conducted mock shoot outs with blanks, in which we have robbed a bank (mock remember) on our square in Pittsfield and other towns within Pike County. We have had people on the roofs of buildings including the old sheriff's office using shotguns with blank poppers. It has probably been close to 10 years since the last time we did one of these. Lots of fun....

Now, as to "begging for the privilege," to borrow the phrase you borrowed from me, :Crying. =-(: you will notice if you read my complete post with full explanations of each portion of the new ordinance that there is nothing new. The ordinance is simply adoption of the 2A with some clarification. The 2A is the law of the land. It wasn't until the "new" Illinois Constitution came about in around 1970 (someone feel free to chime in) wherein it states those infamous words, "Subject to the police power...." they dared foist the FOID card off on the People. Our feeling, our hope, our dream, is that the current run of court cases will force this state to leave its draconian laws in the dirt and recognize a fundamental RTKBA. In the mean time we will have codified the 2A to our County with appropriate "clarification" of the meaning of "shall not be infringed."

There is no begging. It is restatement the 2A period with clarification. Now, will the sheriff, the States Attorney abide by the new ordinance? I think so. However they are not the danger. The danger will be orders from on high to the State Police to arrest and prosecute to the full extent of the unconstitutional law of the UUW. Now if you read Ezzel it is possible that the case could be started moving through the courts without any arrests. In Ezzel vs. Chicago, the court held that jeopardy of the potential loss of liberty by arrest could grant standing without anyone having to actually be arrested.

So as I have said repeatedly the courts will decide this case. Our present states attorney is about to run for judge. If you could ask a judge candidate a question what would it be?
  • "Without mention any specific law or statute, could you please contrast and compare the meaning of the phrase, "shall not be infringed," with the phrase, "shall not be infringed very much?"
  • How 'bout, 'Where do you stand on constitutional carry of arms?, or,
  • ........
The judges try to get out of answering specific questions by claiming special rules prevent them from answering any questions about current cases, potential future cases, and current law etc... however you could ask them to contrast and compare what would be meant the phrase, "shall not be infringed," with "shall not be infringed very much." Never hurts to ask....

The same questions can be asked of the candidates running for the vacated states attorney's spot....... So this could get interesting.

Beg? I don't think so.

So while we are doing hypotheticals and / or brainstorming....... (Twilight Zone music plays in the background) Our ordinance states "...free of infringement by any local, state, or federal government;" Potentially any state official or agent that 'infringes' the right is breaking the ordinance..... They will obviously say, 'who cares?' Because there are no listed penalties or language authorizing the anyone to create penalties pursuant to the ordinance.... So just some thoughts.......

Probably the most true thing you said is..... " the real-world ramifications could be very traumatic." To that I say, "Amen."

Alea iacta est... **

Regards, Dr. Dan

**We know from [Caesar's journals] that Caesar is not taking this lightly. He knows that if he marches on Rome with his armies, then he is a public enemy, and that he will either have to win, or die. For a Roman patrician like Julius Caesar there is no life without military service; there is no life without service to the state. He cannot simply 'go native' and stay in Gaul, and he does realize that if he goes back to Rome, he would be killed. At this time the northernmost border of the Roman territory in Italy is the river Rubicon. Once someone crosses the river Rubicon, he's in Roman territory. A general must not cross that boundary with his army - he must do what the Romans call lay down his command, which means surrender his right to order troops, and certainly not be carrying weapons. Caesar and his armies hesitate quite awhile at this river while Caesar decides what to do, and Caesar tells us that he informs his soldiers that it's a little tiny bridge across the river, but once they cross it they'll have to fight their way all the way to Rome, and Caesar is well aware that he's risking not just his own life, but those of his loyal soldiers, and he might not win. Pompey is a formidable enemy. It's also impossible to avoid the fact that Caesar was attacking the state, and as a patrician Roman this would have been very difficult for him, equivalent to beating up your father. He wouldn't have done any of this lightly. Finally he makes a decision, it's time to go, and he uses a gambling metaphor and he says 'Roll the dice', 'Alea jacta esto' . Once the dice start rolling they cannot be controlled, even though we don't know what it is as the dice roll and tumble. Julius and his men swiftly cross the river and they march double time toward Rome, where they almost beat the messengers sent to inform the Senate of their arrival.

The phrase is still used today to mean that events have passed a point of no return.
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#38 Chris

    Furthering our cause through information overload.

  • Members
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 08

Posted 22 August 2011 - 09:14 PM

Dan,

Have you read the entire Foid Act?

http://www.ilga.gov/...ation+Card+Act.

Have you read the entire UUW?

http://www.ilga.gov/...SeqEnd=65800000

The way you answer these questions really makes me wonder if you have or if you've researched how these things would move through the court systems with appeals.

I really don't understand if your behavior is really that of someone who is an anti that is posing to hurt us or it is just plain ignorance.
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
- Edmund Burke

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Posted Image

#39 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 23 August 2011 - 04:04 PM

Dan,

Have you read the entire Foid Act?

http://www.ilga.gov/...2BCard%2BAct%2E

Have you read the entire UUW?

http://www.ilga.gov/...SeqEnd=65800000

The way you answer these questions really makes me wonder if you have or if you've researched how these things would move through the court systems with appeals.

I really don't understand if your behavior is really that of someone who is an anti that is posing to hurt us or it is just plain ignorance.


Perhaps you could clarify...... I have read the FOID act. It has been a while.....

I have not read UUW in its entirety. Certain ones think the Wildlife Code creates more of restriction than UUW....
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#40 Chris

    Furthering our cause through information overload.

  • Members
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 15-January 08

Posted 23 August 2011 - 04:38 PM

Dan,

I just really don't get the feeling that you're prepared for what you will have to do if this passes. This will surely result in litigation if this passes and I can't imagine that Pike County will have the money to properly fight the state or will have the proper lawyers for this. By having the county loose the case it will likely set very bad precedence for all gun owners in the Country.
Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.
- Edmund Burke

It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.

Posted Image

#41 PPK

    Innocent Bystander

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 08

Posted 24 August 2011 - 06:11 AM

If your county resolution passes I really can't see it trumping state law. Concealed carry will still be a felony weapons charge and your guinea pig carrier could lose their 2A rights. I think you should have a sign ready for whoever you find willing to challenge state law with your resolution.

here\'s your sign.jpg


The best approach is probably to change state law through court fights, which I guess your resolution could become but a little late in the game, elections, legislature, and public opinion. We're making ground on all these fronts.

Best regards,
Ken
It's a wonderful day in the hood...

#42 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 07:36 AM

Chris,

If this is the law of Pike County who or what entity has the responsibility to support or defend it legally?

If it was a law against dumping trash, who would take on the fight if the law was challenged?

Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#43 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 07:45 AM

If your county resolution passes I really can't see it trumping state law. Concealed carry will still be a felony weapons charge and your guinea pig carrier could lose their 2A rights. I think you should have a sign ready for whoever you find willing to challenge state law with your resolution.

here\'s your sign.jpg


The best approach is probably to change state law through court fights, which I guess your resolution could become but a little late in the game, elections, legislature, and public opinion. We're making ground on all these fronts.

Best regards,
Ken


Ken, You say best regards while sticking a knife in my back. I think you are calling me stupid........ Others here have questioned my methods but not my intelligence or my dedication.... I will give you a quote from another much smarter than I...

Goldwater may have said it best:

  • I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
  • Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate. Variants and derivatives of this that are often quoted include:
    Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
    Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#44 GarandFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 11,772 posts
  • Joined: 06-February 07

Posted 24 August 2011 - 11:58 AM

Welcome, Dan.

What I don't understand about all this is that regardless of what a county government does, individuals remain subject to state law. And it's the state that prohibits the bearing of arms.

I am with you on the "fundamental right" and the "shall not be infringed" aspects. Believe me. Given that, I don't understand why you don't just carry? You will be subject to the same state prohibitions regardless of what Pike does.

Why not just exercise your "God-given right" and if you get into trouble with state law, let the courts decide if a prohibition on peaceably borne arms is constitutional?

How deep are your convictions? If you don't need the state's permission to carry, why go through the trouble of seeking Pike county's permission?
"It takes all the running you can do just to keep in the same place."
Lewis Carroll, 1872

#45 colt-45

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,385 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 12:19 PM

Welcome, Dan.

What I don't understand about all this is that regardless of what a county government does, individuals remain subject to state law. And it's the state that prohibits the bearing of arms.

I am with you on the "fundamental right" and the "shall not be infringed stuff." Believe me. Given that, I don't understand why you don't just carry? You will be subject to the same state prohibitions regardless of what Pike does.

Why not just exercise your "God-given right" and if you get into trouble with state law, let the courts decide if a prohibition on peaceably borne arms is constitutional?

How deep are your convictions? If you don't need the state's permission to carry, why would you need Pike county's permission?


doesn't want to ask permission from the state, but asking permission from the Pike county. the state laws will over see county laws anyway and don't we already have a law suit on uuw and aguuw?

#46 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 24 August 2011 - 12:45 PM

Chris,

If this is the law of Pike County who or what entity has the responsibility to support or defend it legally?

If it was a law against dumping trash, who would take on the fight if the law was challenged?

Regards, Dan

Are you saying that if there was an arrest the County would defend its ordinance against the State, sort of on the basis of sovereignty, and in doing so end up defending you as well?

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#47 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 12:52 PM

Let me change tactics a little.........

First of all I don't want to go to jail either. Many folks out there are not even sure what a fundamental right is. Therefore they think the state CAN do this. The state has passed these horrible laws and enforces them. Now the courts may catch up to the unconstitutionality of this but it takes a long time.

What we are passing, or attempting to pass, is nothing new, but includes clarification........ The US passed a bill of rights, why would a state need a bill of rights? The states all passed some form of a bill of rights anyway. Now Pike County is passing a single law that re-emphasizes the one component of the bill of rights. It could be done at the precinct level.

Now the change in tactical reasoning process..... I have heard several times that this simple little ordinance in simple little ol' Pike County could disrupt the whole firearm progress....... Now it is your turn to tell me how it could possibly disrupt the process. Spell out your reasons and give a some detail and help me understand what could be so bad. I have tried explain our thought process in detail. There is no new law. Only an adoption of the 2A with clarification. I have only heard generalizations, that is it... I will listen.

Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#48 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 24 August 2011 - 01:01 PM

Its more than thinking the State can do this - the State is doing it.

My question, though, is simply about wondering if I read your post correctly.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#49 Uncle Harley

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,044 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 01:37 PM

Let me change tactics a little.........

First of all I don't want to go to jail either. Many folks out there are not even sure what a fundamental right is. Therefore they think the state CAN do this. The state has passed these horrible laws and enforces them. Now the courts may catch up to the unconstitutionality of this but it takes a long time.

What we are passing, or attempting to pass, is nothing new, but includes clarification........ The US passed a bill of rights, why would a state need a bill of rights? The states all passed some form of a bill of rights anyway. Now Pike County is passing a single law that re-emphasizes the one component of the bill of rights. It could be done at the precinct level.

Now the change in tactical reasoning process..... I have heard several times that this simple little ordinance in simple little ol' Pike County could disrupt the whole firearm progress....... Now it is your turn to tell me how it could possibly disrupt the process. Spell out your reasons and give a some detail and help me understand what could be so bad. I have tried explain our thought process in detail. There is no new law. Only an adoption of the 2A with clarification. I have only heard generalizations, that is it... I will listen.

Regards, Dan


about the only idea I can think of is if the state passes a patchwork system and your ballot vote gets turned down. YOu may have just screwed yourself out of being able to carry if your sherriff thinks the majority doesn't want it. The other thing would be Chicago could use it and say see they don't want it down there either.
"A river cuts through a rock not because of its power but its persistence." - Jim Watkins


" Never argue with an idiot, passers by won't be able to tell you apart "- Grandpa

#50 PPK

    Innocent Bystander

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 08

Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:26 PM

I think everyone on here agrees with you that the law in IL is wrong. That's why we're trying to change it. Right or wrong concealed carry is against the law in IL. You can pass your resolution and it will still be against the law. It's unlikely that you'll find much support on here for what is still concidered a criminal act. That said, concealed carry is done everyday in IL. Some people have done it for years and have never been caught. You can join them with or without your resolution. If a situation arose where you had to use a firearm in public I doubt that you'd be prosecuted. On the other hand, getting caught carrying concealed IS likely to put you in jail and cost a lot of time and money to defend yourself. Illinois has jailed and prosecuted a few people for legally transporting their firearm. I'm sure you're aware of what happened to CK Morley & Sean *******.

Do I think risking jail time, a bunch of money, and probably your future 2A rights is stupid? Yes!
It's a wonderful day in the hood...

#51 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:18 PM

As to the patchwork deal........ The first anyone heard about this was one week ago today. Today we have tabulated over the required number of signatures to put it on the ballot. Many people haven't even read the paper yet. We should have a thousand in the next week. Those same people will take anyone and everyone to the polls next March. At worst if it didn't pass the 2A still rules. Remember this is just a simple restatement of the 2A with clarification. There is no NEW law.

No one has given any other reason than patchwork that would have any negative legal effect. It just didn't pass that is all. Everything remains the same.

Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#52 PPK

    Innocent Bystander

  • Members
  • 1,555 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 08

Posted 24 August 2011 - 08:21 PM

As to the patchwork deal........ The first anyone heard about this was one week ago today. Today we have tabulated over the required number of signatures to put it on the ballot. Many people haven't even read the paper yet. We should have a thousand in the next week. Those same people will take anyone and everyone to the polls next March. At worst if it didn't pass the 2A still rules. Remember this is just a simple restatement of the 2A with clarification. There is no NEW law.

No one has given any other reason than patchwork that would have any negative legal effect. It just didn't pass that is all. Everything remains the same.

Regards, Dan


You're right, it won't change anything. Concealed carry will still be illegal until the law against it is overturned by the courts or the legislature. Your resolution will make a positive statement and hopefully educate some of the public.

Good Luck Posted Image
It's a wonderful day in the hood...

#53 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 24 August 2011 - 10:51 PM

You're right, it won't change anything. Concealed carry will still be illegal until the law against it is overturned by the courts or the legislature. Your resolution will make a positive statement and hopefully educate some of the public.

Good Luck Posted Image


That is exactly how I was quoted by Greg Olson in the opening post to this thread. . . .

From the opening post in the Jacksonville Journal Courier

If the initiative makes the ballot and passes, Mefford said the courts will decide if it is constitutional.

The good thing about all the back and forth is that the defense of the petition hones and refines the reasoning process... I feel like I can defend it line by line and have seen nothing other than generalities that have done nothing to change my mind. I will say that if it doesn't pass in Pike County it might not pass anywhere. Although there are some where it could pass anyway...

Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#54 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 25 August 2011 - 09:59 PM

Chris,

If this is the law of Pike County who or what entity has the responsibility to support or defend it legally?

If it was a law against dumping trash, who would take on the fight if the law was challenged?

Regards, Dan

Are you saying that if there was an arrest the County would defend its ordinance against the State, sort of on the basis of sovereignty, and in doing so end up defending you as well?


I am sorry. Somehow I overlooked this post and didn't get it responded to.

It seems reasonable to me that the States Attorney would need to defend the ordinance..... That doesn't mean they would do it with enthusiasm. Just a lot needs to be seen. We are about to have a change. Our states Attorney is now running for resident judge. He will probably get it. We will need a new States Attorney. So it remains to be seen.... The SA or the County Board could ask for an AG opinion on this as well. That would be interesting. I can't imagine what Madigan would say. Especially with the "big" courts on the verge of giving some opinions. :lol:

Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#55 junglebob

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,996 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 04

Posted 26 August 2011 - 09:48 AM

You're right, it won't change anything. Concealed carry will still be illegal until the law against it is overturned by the courts or the legislature. Your resolution will make a positive statement and hopefully educate some of the public.

Good Luck Posted Image


That is exactly how I was quoted by Greg Olson in the opening post to this thread. . . .

From the opening post in the Jacksonville Journal Courier

If the initiative makes the ballot and passes, Mefford said the courts will decide if it is constitutional.

The good thing about all the back and forth is that the defense of the petition hones and refines the reasoning process... I feel like I can defend it line by line and have seen nothing other than generalities that have done nothing to change my mind. I will say that if it doesn't pass in Pike County it might not pass anywhere. Although there are some where it could pass anyway...

Regards, Dan

I don't know about it not passing anywhere if it doesn't pass in Pike County, I'm guessing there are a number of Southern Illinois Counties (south of I64) where it would pass. If it didn't pass in Pope county I'd be surprised, of course it might be a money thing. If the county had to pay for lawyers to defend their ordinance Pope County with a population of 3991 in 1999, and I expect being the poorest county in Illinois, they would have trouble defending it. City data info says 61% voted Republican in 2008. I'm sure a lot of folks in Pope county don't depend entirely on 911 if there is a home breakin and there would be a majority of support for LTC.

Disarming the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them. George Mason

Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrong doers should dominate just men.  -  Augustine

Three school masacres have been stopped by civilians with firearms. Two with handguns and the third by a guy with a shotgun. (Pearl, Ms; Appalacian School of Law; Edinboro,Pa)


#56 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 18,972 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 26 August 2011 - 06:13 PM

Chris,

If this is the law of Pike County who or what entity has the responsibility to support or defend it legally?

If it was a law against dumping trash, who would take on the fight if the law was challenged?

Regards, Dan

Are you saying that if there was an arrest the County would defend its ordinance against the State, sort of on the basis of sovereignty, and in doing so end up defending you as well?


I am sorry. Somehow I overlooked this post and didn't get it responded to.

It seems reasonable to me that the States Attorney would need to defend the ordinance..... That doesn't mean they would do it with enthusiasm. Just a lot needs to be seen. We are about to have a change. Our states Attorney is now running for resident judge. He will probably get it. We will need a new States Attorney. So it remains to be seen.... The SA or the County Board could ask for an AG opinion on this as well. That would be interesting. I can't imagine what Madigan would say. Especially with the "big" courts on the verge of giving some opinions. Posted Image

Regards, Dan

Thanks or doubling back to answer my question.

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from this becaue you obviously won't be disuaded. Besides, Chris put forth better reasons that I could ever hope to add to.

The only thing is, I don't know if this really remedies the problem you identified in you first post - having to "ask for the 'privilege' of exercising a right endowed by our Creator". The reason I say that is this method seems to rely on the good graces of a state's attorney who might, or might not, choose to defend an ordinance that possibly can't be defended since the county's powers derive from the state, and also perhaps relying on a judge sympathetic to our cause. The point being that, alhough the asking might be easier when you're asking someone who agrees, it is still asking and the answer might change when the people in those positions change.

So, I do wish you luck but ask you to please tread lightly - do no harm to the other efforts in this state. A great deal of work has preceeded you and it would be a terrible shame to take any backward steps. If you can, delay any actions for a few months to see where Moore, Shepard, Williams, etc lead and how that might effect the legislative outloook at the state level.

.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.


#57 hardtoearn

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • Joined: 12-August 11

Posted 29 August 2011 - 11:29 AM

http://politics.gath...281474980078751

#58 cih8920

  • Members
  • 21 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 11

Posted 09 December 2011 - 08:12 PM

UPDATE


Pittsfield men files petition to put constitutional carry measure on March 20 ballot


Posted: Dec 07, 2011 7:41 AM CST Updated: Dec 07, 2011 8:47 AM CST




By DEBORAH GERTZ HUSAR
Herald-Whig Staff Writer

PITTSFIELD, Ill. -- Pittsfield chiropractor Dan Mefford has done all he can to put a constitutional carry initiative on the March 20 ballot.

Now he has to wait and see if the people will have a say on the issue.

Mefford and Rick Rodhouse of Pleasant Hill filed a petition last week for a "constitutional carry of arms" ordinance with Pike County Clerk Donnie Apps. The petition will be available for public review in the clerk's office, and any objections must be filed by Dec. 27.

"If nobody files an objection, it should go on the ballot as a question of public policy," Apps said.

"We don't really expect any objections," Mefford said. "That's just a wait-and-see-type thing."

Organizers gathered more than 1,300 signatures on the petition, well above the 528 required to put the issue on the ballot.

"It's pretty gratifying when you initiate something that's very popular. You kind of find out the will of the people," Mefford said.

"What these people seem to have in common is the desire to have the same rights as the founding fathers had and that criminals have today. That is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, friends and property," he said. "The founders intended that there be no infringement of the people to carry arms ... the founders did not choose to say ‘shall not be infringed very much.'"

If the issue gets on the primary ballot, Mefford expects it will promote itself.

"There's only about 6,500 registered voters in Pike County. We have 1,300 that signed on in just a few weeks," he said. "I have an idea that most of the people that signed onto the petition will be right here at the voting booth."

Interest in the effort has spread well beyond Pike County.

"I've had unbelievable numbers of people call me or email me, encouraging me to keep this thing going," Mefford said. "Any number of counties have contacted me to get something rolling for their county. I sent them information, but where they've gone with that, I don't know. They're probably going to wait and see what Pike County does."

Mefford hopes to see the issue spread statewide and expects that will have to happen county by county.

"My feeling is that in Illinois there's not as much argument between the Republicans and the Democrats in general as there is between the downstate people and the Chicago machine," he said. "Many downstaters feel like their views on liberty and spending are not reflected by current state policy."

The petition followed rulings in two U.S. Supreme Court cases. Washington D.C. vs. Heller confirms the Second Amendment secures the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms, while McDonald vs. Chicago stated the Second Amendment applies to the states.

"This is important legal precedent since it now clears the way to challenge the Illinois Constitution at Article 1 Section 22 which states: ‘Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The term ‘police power' refers to the power of legally constituted governments to make laws to preserve public safety and health," Mefford said.

The effort follows a 2009 drive, spearheaded by then-Pike County Board member Mark Mountain, against new gun laws and for a conceal-carry law in Illinois. Dubbed Pro2A, it swept through the state, winning support from 90 of the state's 102 counties. In May, the County Board endorsed a Brown County push for a conceal-carry law in Illinois.

The effort taps into a growing frustration with what many consider encroachment on constitutional rights, especially Second Amendment rights.

Forty-nine states have legal carry of some sort, Mefford said, and eight have constitutional-carry allowing people to carry in any manner or method as long as they don't intimidate another person.

"We just have to wait and see," Mefford said. "It's hurry up and wait in many areas of life. This is another one."

#59 Buzzard

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 9,246 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 09 December 2011 - 08:22 PM

"The founders intended that there be no infringement of the people to carry arms ... the founders did not choose to say 'shall not be infringed very much.'"


....pretty much sums it up.

#60 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 23 December 2011 - 10:59 PM

Buzzard,

I love your tags. Especially this one:

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority,
keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --- Samuel Adams

That is what our attempt to do in Pike County is all about. We are setting brushfires in the minds of our citizens and our constabulary. We are bringing the 2A closer to home. I have read the above mentioned transcript in its entirety. What a great education we have with these transcripts. Thank God for the internet.

The "opposition" states that Heller only deals with firearms in the home. What Alan Gura, at the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference in Chicago, made clear with Heller is that they defined their case very narrowly on purpose. He called it, more or less baby steps in judicial review. In other words a man's home is his castle and he should be safe there and should be able to defend himself there if nowhere else. Try that fact and don't worry about his front yard. IOW don't cloud the issue by making it too broad. We will decide the "front yard" later and front sidewalk after that, and crossing the street after that etc.

A particularly poignant phrase (page 41, lines 2-9) brought up by "our" attorney, Jensen, in the Moore case went like this.........:
  • "The reality of the situation is that the court's role is simply to declare whether or not what the state has done satisfies constitutional requirements. If what the state has done does not satisfy constitutional requirements, then the Court's duty is to say so. And it then becomes incumbent on the state to adopt a regulatory process that satisfies the constitutional requirements."
It doesn't get much simpler than that. It doesn't really matter about how many stupid laws get knocked out with a stroke of the court's pen. What matters is that a fundamental right, in this case the RKBA, be preserved. It will take balls by the judge to lay it out that simple. I wouldn't hold my breath or get my hopes to high. However we may get something because it would look pretty darn ignorant on the part of the judge to maintain a total ban on the RKBA in public. I will be watching with interest. In the mean time I will continue to encourage the lighting of brushfires on every front by the People whose hearts burn for Liberty.

Regards, Dan

Edited by dmefford, 18 May 2012 - 07:04 AM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819