94 replies to this topic

[Buzzard]

I am repeating what I posted [url="http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=11049&view=findpost&p=107078"]here[/url] concerning the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Proposition_B_in_Missouri"]1999 Proposition B in Missouri[/url], which was a FAILED 1999 ballot measure that would have authorized the issuing of concealed weapons permits to eligible citizens.

[quote]The (Missouri) General Assembly approved the following ballot language:

"Shall state or local law enforcement agencies be authorized to issue permits to law-abiding citizens at least twenty-one years of age to carry concealed firearms outside their home for personal protection after having passed a state and federal criminal background check and having completed a firearms safety training course approved by the Missouri Department of Public Safety? "

After a lawsuit filed by the opponents of the measure, the language was changed. The final text read:

"Shall sheriffs, or in the case of St. Louis County, the chief of police, be required to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to citizens who apply if various statutory requirements are satisfied?" Because of the discretion given to local law enforcement to verify the accuracy of applications, the costs are uncertain. Application fees are estimated to cover most costs for the first three years. Subsequently, local governments, as a whole, may incur costs from $500,000 to $1,000,000 annually, not covered by fees."[/quote]

The measure FAILED in Missouri. Concealed carry was not enacted there until four years later in 2003.

So as I understand it, we submitted the following:
[quote]“Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to license citizens to carry firearms for self defense and other lawful purposes?” (such as 48 other states have already done?')[/quote]
And what we got was this:
[quote]"Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to permit the carrying of concealed firearms?"[/quote]
I just have to ask here.....what happened?

[quote]Turns out the Chairman is out of town on business but I have talked to other board members and they agree, we need to change this or do one hell of a job explaining it over the next 50 days.[/quote]

I just spoke to my board member here in Ogle county and he said that he thought Ogle copied the ballot language exactly as Winnebago had it written.

If that's the case, there's even MORE explaining that needs to be done!

Which makes me want to ask again...

WHAT HAPPENED?

[Kenny]

Quote

"Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to permit the carrying of concealed firearms?"

This is the question as it stands we are trying to get the question changed to:

Quote

“Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to license citizens to carry firearms for self defense and other lawful purposes?” (such as 48 other states have already done?')

You should call your board members & see if they can change the wording also.

[Buzzard]

I was told by my county board member, that the deadline for resolutions to be placed on the November ballot has already come and gone. As you may remember, Ogle voted on their resolution weeks ago. So that train has left the station.

What puzzles me is this. A number of board members are in agreement that the question needs to be changed, revised or rewritten. Otherwise they feel that the present wording will doom the measure. How did this come to pass? The subject of concealed carry in Winnebago county didn't just come up at the last board meeting. So who submitted the ballot language and how did it come to be such a brief and vaguely worded question?

[Kenny]

Buzzard, on Sep 16 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I was told by my county board member, that the deadline for resolutions to be placed on the November ballot has already come and gone. As you may remember, Ogle voted on their resolution weeks ago. So that train has left the station.

What puzzles me is this. A number of board members are in agreement that the question needs to be changed, revised or rewritten. Otherwise they feel that the present wording will doom the measure. How did this come to pass? The subject of concealed carry in Winnebago county didn't just come up at the last board meeting. So who submitted the ballot language and how did it come to be such a brief and vaguely worded question?

I was told they had to ramrod it through one Thursday morning so the full board could vote on it that evening so they had time to send it to all the other counties. I didn't know about it until they already did it. They had so much going on at once I think even they were confused.

[Buzzard]

polhms1, on Sep 16 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

Buzzard, on Sep 16 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

I was told by my county board member, that the deadline for resolutions to be placed on the November ballot has already come and gone. As you may remember, Ogle voted on their resolution weeks ago. So that train has left the station.

What puzzles me is this. A number of board members are in agreement that the question needs to be changed, revised or rewritten. Otherwise they feel that the present wording will doom the measure. How did this come to pass? The subject of concealed carry in Winnebago county didn't just come up at the last board meeting. So who submitted the ballot language and how did it come to be such a brief and vaguely worded question?

I was told they had to ramrod it through one Thursday morning so the full board could vote on it that evening so they had time to send it to all the other counties. I didn't know about it until they already did it. They had so much going on at once I think even they were confused.

I know that you, Kenny, did all you possibly could by attending all the meetings, and I thank you for all your considerable personal effort and investment!!

That being said, I am disgusted that the sub-committee procrastinated until the last possible moment, only to produce something which shows not one ounce of effort. Couldn't they have taken your submission and at least created the illusion that they put some effort forth? Thirteen words. that's the best they could do? Thirteen words?! Are they thinking we may get lucky?

I see this as a certain defeat, the way it is worded! And the full board voted to pass this lame effort on to the 102 counties? I don't care how busy they were! If they weren't going to treat this thing seriously, then they should not have undertaken it! They should have produced something worthwhile and then worked to improve it. Not wait till the last minute to throw something together and "ramrod" it through!

I strongly suggest, that we now strive to somehow pull it from the ballot, before it's too late! If the anti's get a victory with this failing, it could set us back years!!!

[Kenny]

It's not over yet!!! We have a meeting this coming Tuesday that will hopefully be the last sub-committee meeting. Then it will go to the executive committee to get passed & then on to the full board to vote on. When it goes to the full board we will need a lot of people to show up for that meeting. The fence sitters are more apt to vote in our favor if we have a strong showing at the meeting. As soon as I know when the full board meeting is I will let everybody here know & probably have Valinda send out an e-mail alert to everyone.

[Buzzard]

polhms1, on Sep 17 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

It's not over yet!!! We have a meeting this coming Tuesday that will hopefully be the last sub-committee meeting. Then it will go to the executive committee to get passed & then on to the full board to vote on. When it goes to the full board we will need a lot of people to show up for that meeting. The fence sitters are more apt to vote in our favor if we have a strong showing at the meeting. As soon as I know when the full board meeting is I will let everybody here know & probably have Valinda send out an e-mail alert to everyone.

Then exactly when is the deadline that these have to be submitted by to get on the ballot? And in your last post you said the full board had already voted on it and it had been sent to the other counties. Which resolution are we alking about? The General Assembly advisory or the Winnebago county concealed carry?

Quote

I was told they had to ramrod it through one Thursday morning so the full board could vote on it that evening so they had time to send it to all the other counties. I didn't know about it until they already did it. They had so much going on at once I think even they were confused.

[Buzzard]

Buzzard, on Sep 17 2008, 08:46 AM, said:

Then exactly when is the deadline that these have to be submitted by to get on the ballot?

This is off subject but it discusses the November ballot deadline

Link

Peoria may restore primary
Ballot referendum would allow city to circumvent state law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By By John Sharp
of the Journal Star
Posted Aug 21, 2008 @ 11:36 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEORIA — A state law enacted last year will greatly reduce the number of Feb. 24 primary races, allowing most of the contested municipal elections in 2009 to be determined during the April general election.

But the Peoria City Council wants to keep the primary as it has been. The City Council votes on Tuesday on placing a referendum on the November ballot asking the public if it should keep Peoria's municipal primary elections the same as they always have been.

"I want the idea of having primaries," 3rd District Councilman Bob Manning said Thursday. "It gives the voters more choice."

If endorsed by the council, the referendum will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters if a primary for the offices of mayor, district council members, city clerk and treasurer should be held if more than two candidates file to run. For at-large council races, a primary would occur if more than 10 candidates file to run, if the referendum is approved.

A change in state law requires all non-partisan municipal elections to have more than four candidates filed to run for an office before a primary occurs. For instance, if four or fewer candidates file to run for mayor, then there would be no primary and the contest would be determined in April. There is a Peoria mayoral election in 2009.

For at-large council races, a primary only occurs if 21 candidates file to run for one of five seats. The primary would be held to whittle the field down to 20. If fewer than that number of candidates are running, then there would be no primary.

Cris Cray, director of legislation at the Illinois State Board of Elections, said the reason behind the change was to "eliminate unnecessary and costly primaries where possible."

Tom Bride, executive director with the Peoria Elections Commission, said the estimated savings of not having a primary is $75,000. That number, he said, is based on the "ball park" cost of the February 2007 primary.

A majority of council members favor having the voters decide if the primary system should revert to the way it has always been run, although some admit to not knowing much about the change in the state law.

"I think there is some value to letting voters have a primary," 5th District Councilman Patrick Nichting said.

At-large Councilman George Jacob agrees.

"(The primary) gives an opportunity for people to look at the candidates," he said.

The proposed referendum was added to Tuesday's agenda by Mayor Jim Ardis, who said one of the concerns he has about eliminating the primary is "a person could be elected to represent an area of the city without a majority of votes." For example, the winner of a four-candidate race in April could assume the office with well below 50 percent of voter support.

Not everyone agrees with changing the new law.

"You tie up a lot of money and time, etc.," at-large Councilman Eric Turner said about primary elections. "Go and do a general election and you either win or lose it."

Peoria, as a home rule city, is one of a few communities in the region with the authority to ask voters to change the state law and revert to having a primary to the way as it once was.

Pekin is another non-partisan home rule city and, when contacted Thursday, Mayor David Tebben said city officials could add the issue to the council's agenda for Monday. The deadline for governmental units approving referendums for the November ballot is Sept. 2.

John Sharp can be reached at 686-3282 or jsharp@pjstar.com.

[Ol'Coach]

polhms1, on Sep 17 2008, 07:04 AM, said:

It's not over yet!!! We have a meeting this coming Tuesday that will hopefully be the last sub-committee meeting. Then it will go to the executive committee to get passed & then on to the full board to vote on. When it goes to the full board we will need a lot of people to show up for that meeting. The fence sitters are more apt to vote in our favor if we have a strong showing at the meeting. As soon as I know when the full board meeting is I will let everybody here know & probably have Valinda send out an e-mail alert to everyone.

At this point, what is, "...in our favor"?

Change the wording?

Have it voted down (not placed on the ballot)?

[abolt243]

Buzzard, on Sep 17 2008, 09:27 AM, said:

Buzz, check your PM's.
AB

[Kaeghl]

First of all, I am extremely gratefull that Kenny and the rest of you that attended the meetings have done all that you could. I only wish that I wasn't on nightshift and could be one more face/warm body in the meeting room, watching everything closely.

But, with the way this resolution is worded, my first thought was "Ohmigawd, what is this, a poison pill?" Was one of the sub-comittee members a quiet Anti, delaying this all the way through and then shoving this "Certain to fail" resolution up to the board at the last possible moment? I would guess that I'm not the only one that had that thought for a moment or two.

Okay, let's all take off the tin-foil hats for now,  but still......

So far, I hadn't noticed a lot of 'Anti' rhetoric and GFW sputtering going on, and actually thought this was a slam-dunk. We had weeks to get this tweaked and suggestions were supposed to be presented to the sub-committee for discussion and research, and zip got done. Now it looks for all the world that basically, we got screwed.

With the way it's worded and how the local paper would talk it down with their distortion/spin, it's a lost cause. I'm with Buzzard. IF it can't be corrected or changed to at least the way Kenny suggested before the ballots are printed, and that change taken into each and every other county that 'copied Winnebago County's resolution", PULL IT!!!! Getting this defeated in Winnebago County (where this latest round of CCW aggitation started in IL) would set LTC laws in IL back until years after Daley decides to retire to Tahiti.

I was so torqued off yesterday reading this that I couldn't call my board members without chancing that I'd lose my cool. I waited until today to make my calls.

[Buzzard]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only questioning what is going on with the board.

I also want to say that Polhms1, Kenny, has made a HUGE effort towards this Winnebago thing and has invested a great amount of time and money. We are very fortunate to have him here.

I think we now need to question if the board is taking our help and assistance seriously or are they just going through the motions.

I intend to make the next meeting that Kenny needs us at and show him some support.

[Board9]

Buzzard, on Sep 17 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only questioning what is going on with the board.

I also want to say that Polhms1, Kenny, has made a HUGE effort towards this Winnebago thing and has invested a great amount of time and money. We are very fortunate to have him here.

I think we now need to question if the board is taking our help and assistance seriously or are they just going through the motions.

I intend to make the next meeting that Kenny needs us at and show him some support.

I am very frustrated trying to get someone to return my calls from the election office on the deadline. One minute I am told the 3rd was the deadline yet we got sample ballots to proof read last Friday for any needed changes. I may be ignorant of the process but if you can change a name now then why cant the question be changed as well. PLEASE understand, the Chairman is on board with all of us on this issue. As I said before, if it cant be changed, we need to kick it in gear and get this passed on merit alone. An informed public is a safe public. I wish I had more answers for you. The sub committee consists of 4 members, I am not on the committee but wish like hell I was. WE CAN DO THIS if we just don't give up now. Defeat will only come from tossing in the towel now.

[Buzzard]

Board9, on Sep 17 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

I am very frustrated trying to get someone to return my calls from the election office on the deadline. One minute I am told the 3rd was the deadline yet we got sample ballots to proof read last Friday for any needed changes. I may be ignorant of the process but if you can change a name now then why cant the question be changed as well. PLEASE understand, the Chairman is on board with all of us on this issue. As I said before, if it cant be changed, we need to kick it in gear and get this passed on merit alone. An informed public is a safe public. I wish I had more answers for you. The sub committee consists of 4 members, I am not on the committee but wish like hell I was. WE CAN DO THIS if we just don't give up now. Defeat will only come from tossing in the towel now.

Board9, I'm sure you and at least some of the members of the board will agree, this thing has been debated and discussed long enough. A ballot question with language that satifies all should not be that difficult to draft, and yet the sub-committee has failed miserably in my opinion. Basically, what we got was a very lame effort at best. I'm sure most everyone on this forum also feels this way.

I would strongly suggest that wording of the ballot language answer as many voter questions as possible.

"Shall state or local law enforcement agencies be authorized to issue permits to law-abiding citizens at least twenty-one years of age to carry concealed firearms outside their home for personal protection after having passed a state and federal criminal background check and having completed an approved firearms safety training course?"

The gun control groups, such as the Brady campaign, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, and others will be pulling all stops to sway public opinion against this and will spread whatever propaganda and falsehoods necessary to do so. Therefore, ballot language that solidly deflects any possible misconceptions or misinformation is not only prudent, it is imperative to the ballot measures success.

At the very least, ALL of Kenny's submission should be used as it explains that not just anybody will be able to carry concealed firearms:

“Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to license citizens to carry firearms for self defense and other lawful purposes, such as 48 other states have already done?"

Perhaps we need to remind those on the board that are less passionate about this issue, that the Winnebago county board took it upon itself to lead this effort for THE ENTIRE STATE right from the start! So if a couple people want to pass off a half-hearted effort, it will still reflect upon the entire board. That's the way every gun owner and every law-abiding citizen in Illinois is now going to see it.

I hope we can see a greatly improved ballot question soon!

[Kaeghl]

Board9, on Sep 17 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

Buzzard, on Sep 17 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only questioning what is going on with the board.

I also want to say that Polhms1, Kenny, has made a HUGE effort towards this Winnebago thing and has invested a great amount of time and money. We are very fortunate to have him here.

I think we now need to question if the board is taking our help and assistance seriously or are they just going through the motions.

I intend to make the next meeting that Kenny needs us at and show him some support.

I am very frustrated trying to get someone to return my calls from the election office on the deadline. One minute I am told the 3rd was the deadline yet we got sample ballots to proof read last Friday for any needed changes. I may be ignorant of the process but if you can change a name now then why cant the question be changed as well. PLEASE understand, the Chairman is on board with all of us on this issue. As I said before, if it cant be changed, we need to kick it in gear and get this passed on merit alone. An informed public is a safe public. I wish I had more answers for you. The sub committee consists of 4 members, I am not on the committee but wish like hell I was. WE CAN DO THIS if we just don't give up now. Defeat will only come from tossing in the towel now.

An informed public is a safe public, I can buy that. Even if the resolution is put to the public as it seems to stand right now, there is a chance of it passing IF the public is informed and educated. In other words, all the lies and distortions that could (and probably would) be spread by the Anti's need to be countered with facts and references that are rock solid. Like I'd mentioned a while ago on another thread, "In bite sized pieces that stick in the public's mind."

So, any ideas about the best way to do this?

[Mike]

Kaeghl, on Sep 18 2008, 01:23 AM, said:

Board9, on Sep 17 2008, 07:58 PM, said:

Buzzard, on Sep 17 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only questioning what is going on with the board.

I also want to say that Polhms1, Kenny, has made a HUGE effort towards this Winnebago thing and has invested a great amount of time and money. We are very fortunate to have him here.

I think we now need to question if the board is taking our help and assistance seriously or are they just going through the motions.

I intend to make the next meeting that Kenny needs us at and show him some support.

I am very frustrated trying to get someone to return my calls from the election office on the deadline. One minute I am told the 3rd was the deadline yet we got sample ballots to proof read last Friday for any needed changes. I may be ignorant of the process but if you can change a name now then why cant the question be changed as well. PLEASE understand, the Chairman is on board with all of us on this issue. As I said before, if it cant be changed, we need to kick it in gear and get this passed on merit alone. An informed public is a safe public. I wish I had more answers for you. The sub committee consists of 4 members, I am not on the committee but wish like hell I was. WE CAN DO THIS if we just don't give up now. Defeat will only come from tossing in the towel now.

An informed public is a safe public, I can buy that. Even if the resolution is put to the public as it seems to stand right now, there is a chance of it passing IF the public is informed and educated. In other words, all the lies and distortions that could (and probably would) be spread by the Anti's need to be countered with facts and references that are rock solid. Like I'd mentioned a while ago on another thread, "In bite sized pieces that stick in the public's mind."

So, any ideas about the best way to do this?

I would be amazed if any concealed carry referendum passed on the first go around.  What we need to do now is simply raise the issue.  Most Illinois voters don't think about this at all and probably tune most of the rhetoric out.  They can't conceive of it being legal to carry in other states, let alone here.  Remember, Illinois has virtually no gun culture.

This go around is simply to get their attention.  Even if it doesn't pass it will now be seen as an issue that is seriously being considered.  That will cause voters to start paying attention to what they hear about concealed carry.  And that is when we can begin the education process.  We need to be ready with the advertising for after this referendum fails, that's when people will start paying attention to it.  We don't have time to convince enough people between now and November anyway.

That's not to say that the referendum results don't matter this time.  The stronger showing we have in the referendum the more seriously people will start following the issue.  But our focus really needs to be on the follow up, both locally and in Springfield.

[cberan]

An informed public is a safe public, I can buy that. Even if the resolution is put to the public as it seems to stand right now, there is a chance of it passing IF the public is informed and educated. In other words, all the lies and distortions that could (and probably would) be spread by the Anti's need to be countered with facts and references that are rock solid. Like I'd mentioned a while ago on another thread, "In bite sized pieces that stick in the public's mind."

So, any ideas about the best way to do this?
[/quote]

We don't have the time or the money to do this right now.  Its a little over a month away.

[Kaeghl]

It was the time or money aspect I was thinking about in my post, #45. We know that anyone in a gun shop can understand the idea of LTC , but it's the other parts of the public that vote also, and won't know the facts. How best to convey the knowledge, given limited time and money?

Grassroots activists are, by definition, non-professionals with limited means but a lot of drive and determination. We have to rely on brainpower and squeaking out a couple of hours/day or week to get things done while making a living and tending to other responsibilities.

IF the resolution is properly tweaked and corrected to something NOT designed to be shot down in flames, it would be easier, yes. If it presented to the voters as is, that would make it easier for the Anti's to scare the GFW's and uninformed people in the voting booth. About the only way to counter that is putting out facts and the truth like voting, do it early and often,

Today's task is education of the general public. Given what we have to work with, it's not an insurmountable task, just mildly difficult. Just to start the mental juices flowing, might we consider the notion that people will go with 'what is familiar' over something that is brand new to them?

It might be best to get the wording of the resolution in print and in the public eye BEFORE the the election. That way, in the voting booth, when the citizen sees the resolution on the back side of the sheet, they can mentally say "Oh yeah, I've seen that before, it made sense.", and mark that box or poke that chad.

Comments? Ideas? C'mon folks, we have this on the table, let's see if we can get a good showing for this time around and use it build a bigger groundswell.

[Chris]

I'm willing to speak in front of groups on this, how ever I'm really not going to have the time to set it up.

Also it would have to be after 5:00 pm as I'd be driving from Saint Charles.

[Buzzard]

I just don't see any way to educate all the uniformed citizens in Illinois within a time period of just 48 days. That is why it's so important to include as much information in the question as possible. A fact that, obviously, the concealed carry sub-committee failed to recognize. Overall, we've been doing an outstanding job of educating the public already. The Winnebago county fair booth was a stroke of genius I thought. Perhaps something similar could be done in other public venues such as shopping malls. But I must regress.

Quote

It might be best to get the wording of the resolution in print and in the public eye BEFORE the the election. That way, in the voting booth, when the citizen sees the resolution on the back side of the sheet, they can mentally say "Oh yeah, I've seen that before, it made sense.", and mark that box or poke that chad.

Kaeghl has a good idea here. This would be the seed we need to sow. But at this point, no one knows what the language is, aside from the abbreviated question that has been passed off by the sub-committee. We won't even know if it CAN be changed until NEXT tuesday, unless 'Board9' can get an answer from the election office, and it appears they're not returning his calls. So we are hamstrung again and loosing time.

Quote

I would be amazed if any concealed carry referendum passed on the first go around. What we need to do now is simply raise the issue. Most Illinois voters don't think about this at all and probably tune most of the rhetoric out. They can't conceive of it being legal to carry in other states, let alone here. Remember, Illinois has virtually no gun culture.

I agree, given the present stir over guns in Chicago, and our governor in Springfield, we face an uphill battle. And most citizens do not know the difference between concealed carry and illegally carrying (UUW) But, I can assure you, there is a gun presence in Illinois. Most gun owners just don't discuss them other than amongst friends.

Quote

That's not to say that the referendum results don't matter this time. The stronger showing we have in the referendum the more seriously people will start following the issue.

Here I strongly agree, which is why we need to get the ballot language changed. If that's not possible, we should perhaps pull it off the ballot. We don't want to get trounced here. And the current ballot language is an open invitation to a resounding defeat. Mark my words! But if it has already been sent out to the other 101 counties, then God help us. What we really need is answers to several questions.

And time is short.

[Don Gwinn]

I don't want to sound uncaring, but I think a deep breath would be a good idea at this point.

The wording as it stands is not negative.  It simply isn't weighted as heavily to our side as we might have wanted.  It sounds like some of us have already concluded that it's time to give up just because we don't have language about "as 48 states have already done."  That would be a pretty uncommon sight on a ballot referendum.  By all means, Kenny and Fred should be trying to get that changed, but there's no need to panic.

[Buzzard]

I'm not in a panic, and I certainly am not trying to incite panic. But I do wish to express my disappointment in what the sub-committee has produced. Which I have done. I do agree that the "48 states" is leading, but I didn't feel it was my place to critique anyone's submission. I gave my suggestion and feel it accurately conveys the intent of the resolution, without being overly wordy.

We just need to know has the deadline for changes passed.

[Ol'Coach]

Don Gwinn, on Sep 18 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

I don't want to sound uncaring, but I think a deep breath would be a good idea at this point.

The wording as it stands is not negative.  It simply isn't weighted as heavily to our side as we might have wanted.  It sounds like some of us have already concluded that it's time to give up just because we don't have language about "as 48 states have already done."  That would be a pretty uncommon sight on a ballot referendum.  By all means, Kenny and Fred should be trying to get that changed, but there's no need to panic.

Agreed.  IMO, that part of the wording has no merit; but, IMO, the referendum definitely needs rewording.

I know, one shouldn't assume, but is this a fair assumption?

As worded:
1.  a pro-rights vote for it.
2.  an anti-rights vote against it.
3.  an uneducated vote against it.
4.  a "no vote" ...doesn't understand what the hell it's about, so doesn't vote on it.

If reworded:
1.  a pro-rights vote for it
2.  an anti-rights vote against it
3.  goes to either 1 or 2.
4..  a "no  vote" ...doesn't understand what the hell it's about, so doesn't vote on it.

IMO:
scenario 1, we lose.
scenario 2, 2 questions...
1.  Will "enough #3's go to #1?
2.  Can enough #4's be educated so that they will vote #1?

I believe there is no chance in #1.  Sorry, but that's my belief.
I believe there is a chance in #2...slim, but a chance.

I'm a firm believer in that old adage, "You can't win if you don't take the court."
However, in this case, I think it's more a case of, the game won't even be played if you don't get on the court.

1/2 empty, 1/2 full.

[Board9]

Ok Folks...here is the final answer on the ballot wording....according to "Nancy" at the city board of elections, this wording CANNOT be changed. The only changes that can be made are names that have been misspelled or otherwise not as the candidate worded them. I still believe that a new resolution can be brought forth but I am told I am wrong. We must do this in a manner that we prevail on election day. We need to get a 1/2 sheet post card printed with no more the 10 bullet points so not to overwhelm the public but give them enough to feed on. I feel this will be our means of getting out the message. I will do the talk show circuit, you need letters to the editors, call in to the radio and try to get TV time. Hit the streets with all we got, it is our only way.

[Don Gwinn]

Quote

I know, one shouldn't assume, but is this a fair assumption?

As worded:
1. a pro-rights vote for it.
2. an anti-rights vote against it.
3. an uneducated vote against it.
4. a "no vote" ...doesn't understand what the hell it's about, so doesn't vote on it.

I don't see how you can assume that, no.  Besides, trying to "educate" the "uneducated" in the voting booth with the text of the ballot is doomed to fail.  I educate people for a living, and I can't think of a way that could work.  
We need educated voters no matter what--and even then, we're hoping that when they're educated, they break our way.

So the question is, what are we going to do to accomplish that education, keeping in mind that we've got less than two months left to do whatever we can?

[Buzzard]

Alright, here is the official wording on the ballot for the November 4th election.

Question Of Enacting
Concealed Carry
Shall the General Assembly enact
legislation to permit the carrying of
concealed firearms?

This is what appears on the Winnebago county ballot.

My next question is, was this official wording mailed out to the other 101 counties in Illinois as a model for those counties to follow? Or is this just the Winnebago version?

[Ol'Coach]

Don Gwinn, on Sep 18 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

Quote

I know, one shouldn't assume, but is this a fair assumption?

As worded:
1. a pro-rights vote for it.
2. an anti-rights vote against it.
3. an uneducated vote against it.
4. a "no vote" ...doesn't understand what the hell it's about, so doesn't vote on it.

I don't see how you can assume that, no.  Besides, trying to "educate" the "uneducated" in the voting booth with the text of the ballot is doomed to fail.      I educate people for a living, and I can't think of a way that could work.
We need educated voters no matter what--and even then, we're hoping that when they're educated, they break our way.

So the question is, what are we going to do to accomplish that education, keeping in mind that we've got less than two months left to do whatever we can?

Well, yeah!  I did that for 37 yrs!  And I most certainly agree with you.  I reckon I "assumed" too much, that being it would be understand that the "uneducated" in scenario #1 would be educated by election time...or at least the attempt would be made.

I will stand by my assumption that the uneducated, out of fear, and not understanding what is involved with "CC", will vote against the referendum, or not vote at all.  I would think that FOID card holderswould be among the educated, but consider that 10.4% of the population in Winnebago are FOID card holders; and as we well know, not all hunters, trap/clay shooters probably a higher percentage of those FOID card holders, will support CC

Not that all non-FOID card holders are firearms-ignorant, but it's certainly likely they know less about the requirements for CC than do FOID card holders.

So, there are a heckova lot of people in Winnebago that need educatin' between now and election time.
And that's exactly the point I was tryin' to make.  

OK??

[Buzzard]

Perhaps we should not call it "voter booth education." I'd call it effective ballot language.

Example:

Some states have passed laws that allow people to drive on through a red light after stopping and waiting for a certain length of time. The reason being sometimes the sensors under the pavement fail to detect the vehicle. Let's imagine this was put on the ballot to gather public opinion.

Version one:

"Should the General Assembly allow motorists to drive through a red traffic light?"

Version two:

"Should the General Assembly allow motorists to drive through a red traffic light that has not cycled for a period of two minutes and only when it is safe to continue with no cross traffic?"

I think you can see the difference here.

[Board9]

Buzzard, on Sep 18 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Perhaps we should not call it "voter booth education." I'd call it effective ballot language.

Example:

Some states have passed laws that allow people to drive on through a red light after stopping and waiting for a certain length of time. The reason being sometimes the sensors under the pavement fail to detect the vehicle. Let's imagine this was put on the ballot to gather public opinion.

Version one:

"Should the General Assembly allow motorists to drive through a red traffic light?"

Version two:

"Should the General Assembly allow motorists to drive through a red traffic light that has not cycled for a period of two minutes and only when it is safe to continue with no cross traffic?"

I think you can see the difference here.

Why dont we just put all our heads together and win by educating the electorate instead of looking at all the ways we can lose this battle. The postcard idea will be our best tool or maybe a so called "palm card" that can be handed out to folks in the super market, on the street, door to door or however we get it to the people. This is too important to sit here and complain about what has already been done and can't be changed. I will do my part. Letters to the editor will be our best weapon (no pun intended) by you out of towners. Here is the link. Mention my name in the letter as a contact by voters. Fred Wescott, Winnebago County Board, District 9 815-708-6006
RRSTAR Letters To The Editor

[Kaeghl]

A quick question;

What's the resolution going to be called on the ballot? Something like "Resolution #4", or "The LTC/CCW Resolution"? How is it going to be marked on the front of back of the ballot sheet? In it's own box? As it's own paragraph?

The reason I ask is, if it has a 'handle' of some sort, it makes it easier to remind people on the flyers, posters and handouts to

"Vote for Lower Crime Rates and Personal Safety.....Vote YES on Resolution "C"!!
          

This also gives us a way to identify the resolution when the LTE's start getting sent into the paper.

Yeah, it's late at night, but I just got off work and I've been thinking about this for most of the shift.