mack69 Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:15 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:15 PM Air Commando wrote:It would be funny to see the map filled in with green except for Cook County and then it would llook like the CCW map of the US with everyone being shall issue except for Illinois. In essence you would see that 1 county is holding up a whole state from moving on with CCW. Seeing as I live in cook county and have been a law abiding gun owner all my life I don't find any humor in the statement above.... :lips sealed: We all know who is holding this state hostage....chicago....and of course...cook county! :Angry!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Commando Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:35 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:35 PM Well I certainly wasn't saying it to be a comedian but hopefully all of your elected reps will take a good hard look at this and see how the state really feels about it. I don't know how they feel but if a majority of the counties pass resolution regarding this then maybe the reps will vote the right way in the future and then Illinois can catch up with everyone else regarding ccw. At this rate it wouldn't shock me to see the state be the last to give in just to say they were the last and they did everything they could to stop or slow it down from happening. It will happen here, I do have faith in that and this great grassroots organization here is going to be one of the reasons it does. Keep charging hard; showing the facts and pressing your officials and you'll get what you're fighting for. I am so glad to see how not just you guys but so many people this year are pushing their elected officials through hard work and diligence with all of these grassroots organizations and groups. This is how government is supposed to work and it's great to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack69 Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:50 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 01:50 PM No hard feeling Air....it's a misaerable state of affairs....I live on the far south western edge of cook. Cross the street and I'm in DuPage (not that that is all that much better). My rep and senate members though carrying high NRA ranking seem to be more concerned about the soccer moms and dads than us gun owners lately. As far as cook county board commissioners...most of those were handed their positions by Stroeger (chicago machine) himself and would not even dare to breath without him or the machine saying it's ok. We keep trying...but the idiot voters of chicago and chicago cook county keep these buttheads in their positions until death..... :Angry!: :lips sealed: We keep working on them....but..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 12, 2007 at 03:15 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 03:15 PM Now on to Hamilton, Wayne, Wabash, Edwards. Richland, and Lawrence.I just updated a packet of Pro 2A Resolution information which I've gathered from this forum; had to change the status of White county. Will place it in the mail tomorrow en route to the principal board member of the local gun club, explaining the situation, & requesting his assistance in presenting a resolution to the Wayne County Board. As I explained to him my reason for choosing him, was that as a representative of the Fairfield Gun Club, he might be more successful at presenting this idea to the Wayne County Board & getting them to place it on their agenda for a vote. Hopefully his response will be positive. Fantastic - I consider Wayne to be nearly a done deal. Hope they don't disappoint us! Molly B. p.s. had a gentleman contact me requesting info for doing same in Kane Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted June 12, 2007 at 03:19 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 03:19 PM p.s. had a gentleman contact me requesting info for doing same in Kane Co.I'm just guessing here, but I'm thinking that Kane will be a pretty tough nut to crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 12, 2007 at 05:25 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 05:25 PM It could be but I'm thinking it's gonna make things pretty tough for some folks who are up for relection - how they gonna look voting against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? They'll have to think mighty hard on that one and if they do vote against it we need to replace them. Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted June 12, 2007 at 07:43 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 07:43 PM I want to be the one to ask for such at the cook county board meeting. :lips sealed: I'd like to be there when that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted June 12, 2007 at 10:57 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 10:57 PM I like it. Leaving off Champaign and Madison is a good idea, too--I get the impression that the other five are a lot further along than those two.45 superman: Pulaski County sheriff met with me today. I gave him the resolution that Madison County came up with. He looked it over and stated that he did think it was a good idea. He aalso told me that the board was meeting today and said that he would drop it off at the meeting. That was some pretty good timing. I will let you know when I hear from this. Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted June 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 11:02 PM Your doing great work, Mac :lips sealed: ! Thanks for the updates, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted June 12, 2007 at 11:50 PM Share Posted June 12, 2007 at 11:50 PM White County is in the news (and so are the Rowes, again)! White County Board passes largely symbolic anti-gun control resolution The White County Board passed a largely symbolic resolution Monday declaring its support of the Second Amendment and its intent to oppose the enactment of state laws infringing upon the amendment and the rights it gives Illinois citizens. The last line of the proposed resolution says "consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative authority." Board Chairman Ron Wooten said the board's legal counsel had advised against approving this line of the resolution, saying the board lacks authority to declare a state law unconstitutional. The resolution was presented by Mike and Valinda Rowe, who were featured in a front page story last week in The Times. They are spending their retirement fighting for gun rights in Illinois and are seeking the passage of a concealed carry law in Illinois, one of two states that do not allow private citizens to carry a concealed firearm. The Rowes have a personal stake in the fight. A mentally ill family member burned his own house down some years ago and promised to also burn the Rowes up in their home. The Rowes could arm themselves inside their own home to protect themselves from this threat, but, under the law, could not arm themselves outside their home. The Times story or links to the story have circulated widely on the internet, including a link appearing on the NRA's legislative action website. The resolution passed by the board read as follows: "Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and; "Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people of White County, Illinois, and; "Whereas, the people of White County, Illinois, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within White County using all types of firearms allowable under the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, (the) White County Board being elected to represent the people of White County and being duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, the Illinois House of Representatives and the Illinois Senate, being elected by the people of the State of Illinois and being duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, proposed legislation under consideration by the (Legislature) would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed by the individual citizens of White County, Illinois, for defense of life, liberty and property and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within White County, Illinois; "Now, therefore, it be and is hereby resolved that the people of White County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms." White County joins Pike, Brown, Hancock, Schuyler, Randolph and Johnson counties in passing this resolution. Many others, according to the Rowes, are considering the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted June 13, 2007 at 01:47 AM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 01:47 AM The resolution passed by the board read as follows: "Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed as an individual right under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and; "Whereas, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people of White County, Illinois, and; "Whereas, the people of White County, Illinois, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within White County using all types of firearms allowable under the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, (the) White County Board being elected to represent the people of White County and being duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, the Illinois House of Representatives and the Illinois Senate, being elected by the people of the State of Illinois and being duly sworn by their oath of office to uphold the U.S. Constitution . . . "Whereas, proposed legislation under consideration by the (Legislature) would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed by the individual citizens of White County, Illinois, for defense of life, liberty and property and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting and shooting conducted within White County, Illinois; "Now, therefore, it be and is hereby resolved that the people of White County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms." White County joins Pike, Brown, Hancock, Schuyler, Randolph and Johnson counties in passing this resolution. Many others, according to the Rowes, are considering the resolution. I've got the original Pike county resolution, now this one. I've not compared word for word. Is there any difference, and if so, which is the preferred version?? Or does it not really make any difference. Any other versions out there? Abolt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted June 13, 2007 at 02:18 AM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 02:18 AM I've got the original Pike county resolution, now this one. I've not compared word for word. Is there any difference, and if so, which is the preferred version?The White County version, on advice of legal counsel, dropped the following phrase from the last sentence: . . . and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority! In other words, the Pike County version (adopted by several other counties) ends with this sentence: Now, therefore, it be and is hereby resolved that the people of [Pike, or whichever] County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority! The White County version ends with this: Now, therefore, it be and is hereby resolved that the people of White County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I think the original version is stronger, and kind of implies that such laws will not be enforced by the cops and courts of the counties that adopt that version, while the White County version merely expresses disapproval--but White County's is still well worth having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaster Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:10 AM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:10 AM . . . and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority! We need to find out if a county can legally say this in a resolution and have a response to it if it comes up again. Whats the problem with calling a law unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:24 AM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:24 AM Our comment to the board was that the anti-gun folks have no qualms whatsoever in deciding what is constitutional or ignoring what is constitutional. If you can pass the stronger of the two versions - go for the stronger!! Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaster Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:32 AM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 03:32 AM Our comment to the board was that the anti-gun folks have no qualms whatsoever in deciding what is constitutional or ignoring what is constitutional. If you can pass the stronger of the two versions - go for the stronger!! Molly B. It's in and you make a good point. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac Posted June 13, 2007 at 04:51 PM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 04:51 PM . . . and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority! We need to find out if a county can legally say this in a resolution and have a response to it if it comes up again. Whats the problem with calling a law unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority?Blaster; The S.A. of Johnson County did not have a problem with calling a law unconstitutional and beyond legislative authority! Why would any other S.A. It seems to me that the law for one should be the same for the other. Junst fyi Mac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted June 13, 2007 at 07:19 PM Share Posted June 13, 2007 at 07:19 PM See later update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 14, 2007 at 12:39 AM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 12:39 AM I have someone asking if anyone is working on Morgan County - I think it's around Jacksonville. Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaster Posted June 14, 2007 at 02:18 AM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 02:18 AM I have someone asking if anyone is working on Morgan County - I think it's around Jacksonville. Molly B. Send me there contact info. If there is no one working on it. I will help them get it going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaster Posted June 14, 2007 at 02:51 AM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 02:51 AM Seems like the this is not the first time something like this has happened. In Canada, several provincial governments flatly refused to enforce revisions to the country's firearms registry. The provincial governments said the changers were not only ill advised, but unenforceable. Eventually their resistance became a major political factor, turning out the liberal ruling party and electing a conservative government that has systematically dismantled the registry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted June 14, 2007 at 03:42 AM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 03:42 AM Mark Mountain reports someone is working on Morgan and Adams counties. Molly B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted June 14, 2007 at 03:03 PM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 03:03 PM Ashdump and I talked about Vermillion Co the other eve, wondering if someone might contact that co. board. Wasn't 5 minutes later we learned that Danville, by home rule, some time ago banned fanny pack carrying. I will try to verify that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted June 14, 2007 at 05:42 PM Share Posted June 14, 2007 at 05:42 PM I had forgotten about this...might be useful info for the county board packets, letters to editors. Link:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=55288 Posted: April 19, 20071:52 p.m. Eastern© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. (emphasis mine) The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law. Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.Link to Kennesaw Police Crime Report page: http://www.kennesaw-ga.gov/index.asp?NID=137 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted June 18, 2007 at 05:16 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 05:16 PM Another Green!!!! Did some research and found that Shelby County actually passed a resolution in 2003 affirming the Second amendment in response to Senate Bill 1195 and other legislation of the time. Although the resolution is not the same language as has been passed in the other counties (there are different versions of it too I think), and it may contain a phrase or two I'd rather not see in there, the basic premise is the same. Sorry for two pages, I can't seem to get them scanned and condensed into one. Also adding the press release made at the time, it explains the goal and the thinking of the board. This resolution was also re-introduced and affirmed unanimously by the board this spring, when Pike, et. al. were doing thier thing. I report that Shelby County has "passed a resolution affirming and upholding the second amendment at the county level" and respectfully propose that Shelby County be colored "GREEN" on the official map!! Abolt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45superman Posted June 18, 2007 at 05:32 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 05:32 PM Great find, Abolt! I see what you mean about a couple passages that would have been better left out, but I also agree that it's good enough to warrant "green" status on the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Mountain Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:01 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:01 PM Great find, Abolt! I see what you mean about a couple passages that would have been better left out, but I also agree that it's good enough to warrant "green" status on the map.Add Green County, It passed last Friday night. 6-15-2007 by an unanimous vote, Also I have been asked to be on Cam and Company NRA nation wide radio Tuesday night. I think it's on at 8:30 pm or 9:30pm. If there is any more news out there I need to know about it. email me at m5mountain@yahoo.com thankyou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:02 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:02 PM Yesssss! Update, p.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:03 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:03 PM Great find, Abolt! I see what you mean about a couple passages that would have been better left out, but I also agree that it's good enough to warrant "green" status on the map. Superman,,, the best part is in the paper article and the quotes from the board chairman and the sheriff. Thankfully that chairman is still on the board and Jim W. reports that the board is VERY pro-gun. Unfortunately that sheriff has retired, but I think the new one is also just as pro-gun and would be on our side in a tussle (legally speaking). Glad to report this. Trying to think of someone in the neighboring counties that I can get to present to their board!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ocellairs Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:22 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 06:22 PM I've started to work on my county...Jasper. I've made the first call moments ago to a city councel official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ol'Coach Posted June 18, 2007 at 08:22 PM Share Posted June 18, 2007 at 08:22 PM This went as LTE to C/U N-G today: One by one, the county boards of Illinois are insisting they will not support any state legislation that would infringe upon their citizens' rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. On June 11, 2003, the Shelby County Board adopted a resolution stating that the constitutional rights of its citizens “…shall not be restricted,” and the rights of the individual “…to own, possess and lawfully use firearms shall not be abridged.” (1) This year, on April 4 and 11, Brown and Pike Counties, tired of the continued attempts of Chicago Mayor Daley to restrict the rights of the law-abiding citizens of Illinois to “…keep and bear arms…” also passed 2nd Amendment Resolutions”: “NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE AND IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the People of (Pike) County, Illinois, do hereby oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and consider such laws to be unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.” (2) About that same time, Shelby County reaffirmed its resolution. As of June 15th, Hancock, Schuyler, Johnson, Randolph, White, and Green Counties have passed like resolutions. Six counties have the “2nd Amendment Resolution” on their agendas. At least twelve other counties are being asked to place it on their agendas. Chicago, beware: recently in Washington D.C. a panel of the Washington D.C. Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the Washington D.C. firearms ban to be unconstitutional (3). The city appealed to the full Appellate Court, but the Court refused to hear the appeal. D.C. now must either appeal to the United States Supreme Court, or rewrite the D.C. city code. The Champaign County Board will be asked to place the 2nd Amendment Resolution on its agenda in the near future. (1)Shelby Co Res 03-21, passed 06-11-2003(2)Pike Co Res 26070424, passed 06-14-2007 (3 http://www.saf.org/dc.lawsuit/parker.decision.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.