268 replies to this topic

[milq]

Oh, I agree she can't fight everything and I also think this is a great step that will bring the issue to a larger audience when she flips her wig about it. I'm mostly curious about the reactions it receives while they try to figure out if they can find a way to rain on Pike's parade.

Give em hell, I say.

[vezpa]

Uncle Harley, on 20 March 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

vezpa, on 20 March 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

I don't want it on the ballot here in Chicago so they can skew what CCW actually, lie and rig the voting. I could see their negative campaign adds for it now. Also it may be good but it also sends a message that individual counties can do what they want. That is very bad here in Cook county. Its either the whole state or nothing. Constitution rights don't change within the same state because of a zip code, for that matter they shouldn't change anywhere in the USA but that is a whole other fight.

Really? You don't want to do it there ( I don't blame you BTW ) not yet anyways. But you gripe that the rights don't stop at zip codes? So you really think that Pike county shouldn't be able to do this because they had the ballz and the drive to get real results just because you don't have the courage to do the same? Why can't you just be happy for pike county and support the idea maybe this idea will spread like wildfire. What will Cook county do when it's the last county standing?

I'm glad Pike County did what they did, I'm just saying it could be good and bad for the rest of us, and I don't think Chicago is ready for a ballot vote on it.

Edited by vezpa, 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[Davey]

I don't understand.  What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

[dmefford]

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't understand. What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

Getting a jury to convict!

Regards, Drd

[Davey]

Hmm.  So how do we do this in Kane county?

[Buzzard]

dmefford, on 21 March 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't understand. What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

Getting a jury to convict!

Regards, Drd

Who is going to pay for the lawyer fees?

I think this is where it will come to a head. Lisa Madigan will hear about it. Then, she'll dial someone's cell phone number and cry, "Daddy, they're carrying guns in Pike county!! What do you want me to do??" And THAT's when it will start getting interesting because Mike Madigan is NOT going to like a bunch of Pike county "downstate, country bumpkins" totin' guns around! Maybe the sheriff won't be making arrests, but I imagine District 20 ISP troopers will.

ABATE had a similar problem with their state rendezvous parties. The city of Altamont welcomed the bikers with open arms. So did the county. But the ISP sent in a trooper that was making arrests for everything he could find. I hope you don't have the same problem. But I'm just afraid that you will.

Good luck with your plan,
Buzz

[dmefford]

Time will tell...

No one knows.....

For now we are attempting to give the thieves of Liberty a poke in the eye...

Buzz, check out your tag line re Samuel Adams... Believe it!!

Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 21 March 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[dmefford]

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Hmm. So how do we do this in Kane county?

I will help you. And if you need me to come and speak I will do that as well. I am already scheduled in Quincy. It is not that hard if you have country folk... The Big Cities...? I don't know yet..... They scare me....

Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 21 March 2012 - 01:02 AM.

[Buzzard]

I've said before that you downstate Dems hold the key to this thing! The Chicago Dems have passed many Liberal "wish list" items since the last election. Civil unions, abolishing the death penalty, a massive tax increase....and all the southern "Blue Dog" reps were begging the Chicago reps to "give us SOMETHING to give to OUR voters.....give us concealed carry." Yet Chicago Dems once again turned a deaf ear and served only themselves. I really think that you should cement a southern coalition of "Blue Dogs" and tell Chicago that NOT ONE MORE Chicago bill passes until Illinois passes concealed carry!

[TFC]

Can we combine this thread into the one in "Illinois Politics?"
Same discussion. Waste of space.

[snubjob]

Congrats on the HUGE win in Pike county Dr Dan! I hope that it sends as strong of a message as i think it will. From what i've read, it appears that you've put a lot of effort into this and it paid off. It will definitely be interesting to see how it all plays out. I suspect that your states attorney will shortly be receiving correspondence from Miss Lisa. I'm not far from Pike county, and hope that this "catches on". The will of the people will eventually win out. And i've known the people of Pike county to be strong willed, as can be said for most downstate counties.

[zukeeper]

congrats to pike county for standing up for themselves !! hopefully they just opened the door to other counties doing the same

[milq]

I really expected to wake up to headlines about this today...maybe I'll append that prediction to a noon deadline. I'm guessing the AG's office isn't up and running yet this morning.

[Yas]

Wonder what kind of tip toeing Lisa and daddy will attempt with legislation to block this if at all possible. After all if was a referendum that got the Cook County ban started.  The Infamous

Quote

Section 1.     The following question of public policy shall be submitted to the voters of this county as an advisory referendum at the general election scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2006, consistent with the applicable provisions of the Illinois Election Code; to wit;
 
 
“For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?”
 

If they try to stop they Pike county referendum somehow, will they adversely affect Cooks B/S ?

Sorry guys  I can only hope.  And Congratulations to Pike County!

[ishmo]

milq, on 21 March 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

I really expected to wake up to headlines about this today...maybe I'll append that prediction to a noon deadline. I'm guessing the AG's office isn't up and running yet this morning.

Well somebody noticed it Pike County voters overwhelmingly approve conceal-carry ordinance

Pike County no matter how the law suits work out.

[zukeeper]

Its in the news down here in Richland county. There was a county down here talking about doing this last year , maybe they will move forward, along with peoria

[Tvandermyde]

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't understand.  What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

Nothing. Actually, if she wanted to, she could file for an injunction against the County ordinance and would likely win.

This also creates a SNAFU situation. IF the Chicago guys buy into this, then they will say no need for a statewide carry law, pass your own county by county. And we then have 101 different carry ordinances. a giant CF. This is another example of someone wanting it in their backyard and willing to throw everyone else under the bus for their shortsighted self interests.

This doesn't help the cause it creates more problems for it. I can think of a dozen ways for the antis to use this against HB-148 to try and kill the bill. It also lays into the hands of the Chicago/Cook County types wanting a carve out.

[dmefford]

Tvandermyde, on 21 March 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't understand. What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

Nothing. Actually, if she wanted to, she could file for an injunction against the County ordinance and would likely win.

This also creates a SNAFU situation. IF the Chicago guys buy into this, then they will say no need for a statewide carry law, pass your own county by county. And we then have 101 different carry ordinances. a giant CF. This is another example of someone wanting it in their backyard and willing to throw everyone else under the bus for their shortsighted self interests.

This doesn't help the cause it creates more problems for it. I can think of a dozen ways for the antis to use this against HB-148 to try and kill the bill. It also lays into the hands of the Chicago/Cook County types wanting a carve out.

If she does something drastic like that she will do nothing in this county but make enemies.....

Shepard still has to come in yet. Moore is on the way to the 7th...... We will just have to see. This gives the sentiment of the People and it will not fly in Pike!

You need to think positive........

Regards, Drd......

[TyGuy]

Does this only apply to Pike county residents in Pike county, or could out of towners come enjoy some freedom in Pike county?

[citrix_guy]

Federal Farmer, on 20 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

TFC, on 20 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

It may not be binding (at the moment,) but it does send a strong message.
Would make for an interesting court challenge to home rule... for good or bad...

The only challenge to home rule possible is if the County actually implements it and gets sued for violating home rule.  Home rule doesn't allow a County to supercede the authority of the State.  Frankly, I don't see how it is possible for a County or municipality to do so since all their powers flow from the State.

I guess I am just a stupid hick then as I cant understand home rule at all...

So maybe one of you guys that spent the time in law school can help a fella out?

So home rule DOES allow places like Chicago (or any other City) or the Cook County (or any other County) to Ban specific weapons, require permits and fees and additional items to own a firearm... But it does NOT allow a county to reduce the requirements?

For an instant this sounds logical to me, then I start to think... HUH? Wait a minute. Chicago could BAN hand guns, and register long guns and create all types of rules... but they couldn't reduce the rule set from the state? what type of F'ing home rule is that? that not HOME RULE, that YOU GET TO ADD RULES.... It only makes sense if you are a politician or fail to believe in self government.

[Drylok]

citrix_guy, on 21 March 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 20 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

TFC, on 20 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

It may not be binding (at the moment,) but it does send a strong message.
Would make for an interesting court challenge to home rule... for good or bad...

The only challenge to home rule possible is if the County actually implements it and gets sued for violating home rule.  Home rule doesn't allow a County to supercede the authority of the State.  Frankly, I don't see how it is possible for a County or municipality to do so since all their powers flow from the State.

I guess I am just a stupid hick then as I cant understand home rule at all...

So maybe one of you guys that spent the time in law school can help a fella out?

So home rule DOES allow places like Chicago (or any other City) or the Cook County (or any other County) to Ban specific weapons, require permits and fees and additional items to own a firearm... But it does NOT allow a county to reduce the requirements?

For an instant this sounds logical to me, then I start to think... HUH? Wait a minute. Chicago could BAN hand guns, and register long guns and create all types of rules... but they couldn't reduce the rule set from the state? what type of F'ing home rule is that? that not HOME RULE, that YOU GET TO ADD RULES.... It only makes sense if you are a politician or fail to believe in self government.

That's why our carry bill is going to be state wide pre-empt and after we get that done we're going to get state wide pre-empt on all firearm laws. No more of this patch work crap.

[kurt555gs]

I think Pike County's initiative sends a big wake up call to both sides on gun rights. It shows the "people" are tired of being controlled by self serving politicians. It also send a message to the pro gun groups that they are tired of waiting to exercise the the right to keep and bear arms that they have read in the constitution since they were little. I am glad they are stirring the pot. I imagine there are some lively discussions in Lisa Madigans office this morning. I think Lisa Madigan is going to have a difficult time sending the State police to pike county in order to arrest some one for carrying. Even if the State Police arrests some one, they have to bring them to the Pike County Sheriff, where they will be promptly released.

The best thing about this is that both pro and anti large organized 2A groups will be throwing fits, because this action is out of their control!

Some times a little anarchy is a good thing. My guess is the powers that be on both sides or the 2nd amendment issue will now have to act to keep control of what is going on, and pass HB5745. If they wait, this will spiral out of control, and Illinois will end up with Constitutional Carry. There is just too much pent up frustration in Illinois residents from being made criminals by the Chicago controlled Illinois legislature, and the foot dragging on the other side.

There. I feel better.

[zukeeper]

kurt555gs, on 21 March 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I think Pike County's initiative sends a big wake up call to both sides on gun rights. It shows the "people" are tired of being controlled by self serving politicians. It also send a message to the pro gun groups that they are tired of waiting to exercise the the right to keep and bear arms that they have read in the constitution since they were little. I am glad they are stirring the pot. I imagine there are some lively discussions in Lisa Madigans office this morning. I think Lisa Madigan is going to have a difficult time sending the State police to pike county in order to arrest some one for carrying. Even if the State Police arrests some one, they have to bring them to the Pike County Sheriff, where they will be promptly released.

The best thing about this is that both pro and anti large organized 2A groups will be throwing fits, because this action is out of their control!

Some times a little anarchy is a good thing. My guess is the powers that be on both sides or the 2nd amendment issue will now have to act to keep control of what is going on, and pass HB5745. If they wait, this will spiral out of control, and Illinois will end up with Constitutional Carry. There is just too much pent up frustration in Illinois residents from being made criminals by the Chicago controlled Illinois legislature, and the foot dragging on the other side.

There. I feel better.

somethings goint to have to give sooner or later , maybe its a start

[zukeeper]

Tvandermyde, on 21 March 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

Davey, on 21 March 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't understand.  What would stop IL state police from arresting someone and Madigan going after a prosecution?

Nothing. Actually, if she wanted to, she could file for an injunction against the County ordinance and would likely win.

This also creates a SNAFU situation. IF the Chicago guys buy into this, then they will say no need for a statewide carry law, pass your own county by county. And we then have 101 different carry ordinances. a giant CF. This is another example of someone wanting it in their backyard and willing to throw everyone else under the bus for their shortsighted self interests.

This doesn't help the cause it creates more problems for it. I can think of a dozen ways for the antis to use this against HB-148 to try and kill the bill. It also lays into the hands of the Chicago/Cook County types wanting a carve out.

I think you would be surprised at the amount of people that would accept county by county at this point. I'm pretty sure they would have the ablility to allign their laws together so it wouldn't be a patchwork. I'd hate to think some people would throw Illinois under that same bus for the sake of Chicago

Edited by zukeeper, 21 March 2012 - 09:36 AM.

[Patriots & Tyrants]

Uncle Harley, on 20 March 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 20 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

TFC, on 20 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

It may not be binding (at the moment,) but it does send a strong message.
Would make for an interesting court challenge to home rule... for good or bad...

The only challenge to home rule possible is if the County actually implements it and gets sued for violating home rule. Home rule doesn't allow a County to supercede the authority of the State. Frankly, I don't see how it is possible for a County or municipality to do so since all their powers flow from the State.

Did you see the other thread? The sheriff expects people to start carrying tommorow and him nor the states attorney for that county plan to do anything about it. What are they going to do lock up 85% of their county? This is grass roots taking back govt as good as it gets!

Problem is what happens if an ISP trooper pulls you over? I doubt they would be so forgiving as the fine local/county LEO's of Pike county.



This is a positive message though, I can't wait to have CC passed in this state. I will try to be first in line for my CC permit application here in Cook County, the day it comes into effect.

Edited by Patriots & Tyrants, 21 March 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[pyre400]

zukeeper, on 21 March 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

I think you would be surprised at the amount of people that would accept county by county at this point.

There's no doubt that people have had enough. Still, what Todd is trying to convey as that doing so would sacrifice much of the longer term.
So you have carry in your county, what's next? There is less to leverage - and God help you if you live in Cook county.

At the lowest level, county carry could be a victory - while considering the 2A as a whole, county carry may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.

As Dr D says, though, there is a positive aspect to this. I'm waiting to see what pans out. There's no doubt he's worked hard, and faced opposition on both sides.
Still, there's no denying that a huge compromise has been forced upon the road map. ...hang together, or hang separately.

[colt-45]

i think this will open some eyes up north, bring it on Lisa.IMO

[TyGuy]

I see the county by county approach (supplementing the work going on in the GA and in the courts) as valid.  What if this time next year it was every county but 2 or 3 in Illinois that had CCW?  That's an even stronger statement about it than "49 states can't be wrong" as it would be "49 and 7/8th states can't be wrong."  Then when Cook finally sees the proverbial writting on the wall the GA could fix the patchwork system by making a statewide preemptive law.

IDK, I am not any sort of expert in this stuff, but I applaud the people of Pike County for passing something that the overwhelming majority of them want.

[kurt555gs]

This is not so much about Pike county as it is a wake up call to both the anti gun Chicago forces and the NRA/ISRA to either pass HB5745 or lose control of the whole situation.  That is something neither organization wants.

I hope they will see this and stop the foot dragging on both sides.

* Carthago delenda est *

[Chris]

citrix_guy, on 21 March 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

Federal Farmer, on 20 March 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

TFC, on 20 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

It may not be binding (at the moment,) but it does send a strong message.
Would make for an interesting court challenge to home rule... for good or bad...

The only challenge to home rule possible is if the County actually implements it and gets sued for violating home rule.  Home rule doesn't allow a County to supercede the authority of the State.  Frankly, I don't see how it is possible for a County or municipality to do so since all their powers flow from the State.

I guess I am just a stupid hick then as I cant understand home rule at all...

So maybe one of you guys that spent the time in law school can help a fella out?

So home rule DOES allow places like Chicago (or any other City) or the Cook County (or any other County) to Ban specific weapons, require permits and fees and additional items to own a firearm... But it does NOT allow a county to reduce the requirements?

For an instant this sounds logical to me, then I start to think... HUH? Wait a minute. Chicago could BAN hand guns, and register long guns and create all types of rules... but they couldn't reduce the rule set from the state? what type of F'ing home rule is that? that not HOME RULE, that YOU GET TO ADD RULES.... It only makes sense if you are a politician or fail to believe in self government.

You pretty much summed it up. You can make laws stricter but you can not make lesser. Since your user name says Citrix guy lets put it this way. Think of it like parent and child permissions, with home rule you automatically inherit the parent permission but your child permissions can not remove any parent permissions only add more restrictive permissions the parent does not have in place.