scough Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:23 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:23 PM This should be interesting wilessiuc. As long as it doesn't say, "at least equal to", because that has already been settled in court. I want to see stricter, or more stringent, or more restrictive. Have fun. * Carthago delenda est * Kurt, all you have to do is look towards what Chicago is doing RE the 2A. Whether it eventually gets whittled away over the years or not is irrelevant. The point is, they CAN make things tougher locally and absolutely have, and I'm sure every single Chicago member will attest to that. Is it right - No! Is it even legal - I Dunno? Does it happen - YES! So, what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:25 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:25 PM This should be interesting wilessiuc. As long as it doesn't say, "at least equal to", because that has already been settled in court. I want to see stricter, or more stringent, or more restrictive. Have fun. * Carthago delenda est * "We likewise find no basis for concluding that the two acts on which plaintiffs rely leave no room for more restrictive local laws ..." incase you couldn't find it before. It's from the Supreme Court in Kalidmos. The Morton Grove handgun ban. Your wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:30 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:30 PM b. A home rule unit by referendum may elect not to be ahome rule unit. We need to push this in Chicago! Who in their right mind wouldn't vote to pass a refferendum that would not allow the City or County to pass stricter laws than the state??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilessiuc Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:31 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:31 PM This should be interesting wilessiuc. As long as it doesn't say, "at least equal to", because that has already been settled in court. I want to see stricter, or more stringent, or more restrictive. Have fun. * Carthago delenda est * I didn't see that Todd already posted one case on point: "In the absence of any indication that the legislature meant to bestow an affirmative right on all persons in the State not mentioned in the statute to possess handguns that do not melt at 800 degrees, these provisions do not prevent **277 governmental units which would otherwise be able to regulate the possession of firearms from enacting regulations with a broader scope." This was an Illinois Supreme Court case. How about also: "While municipal ordinances must be in harmony with the general laws of the state, and in case of a conflict the ordinance must give way, the mere fact that the state has legislated upon a subject does not necessarily deprive a city of power to deal with the subject by ordinance. Police regulations enacted by a city under a general grant of power may differ from those of the state upon the same subject, provided they are not inconsistent therewith." This is also an Illinois Supreme Court case. To break down. As long as a local law is not in direct conflict with the broader law (State or Federal), and as long as the local unit of government is not infringing upon a Constitutional right, they can absolutely make a more restrictive law. This is also assuming that the broader law does not specifically prempt the local unit of governments from doing so (which is also made even more complicated when we start talking about home rule). For example: The legislature passed a bill involving video poker/cherry machines in bars a couple of years ago (which I have no idea what happened to it). A county or city can absolutely prevent their bars from installing these through an ordinance. Why? Because the state law does not take away that authority from the local jurisdictions, and because we have no constitutional right to gamble in bars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:35 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:35 PM The point is that maybe all of the brain trust lawyers never thought of challenging local firearms laws on this basis because they assumed a unit of local government could make a law more restrictive than state law. I may be wrong on this. I am not a lawyer. There may be a statute that allows this. But if the enabling statute says "at least equal to" then they have NO legal authority to make any law that is stricter, or more restrictive, or more stringent than state law, and there is a court finding that specifically says so. * Carthago delenda est * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:56 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 02:56 PM The point is that maybe all of the brain trust lawyers never thought of challenging local firearms laws on this basis because they assumed a unit of local government could make a law more restrictive than state law. I may be wrong on this. I am not a lawyer. There may be a statute that allows this. But if the enabling statute says "at least equal to" then they have NO legal authority to make any law that is stricter, or more restrictive, or more stringent than state law, and there is a court finding that specifically says so. * Carthago delenda est * There's no maybe about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted March 23, 2012 at 03:14 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 03:14 PM The point is that maybe all of the brain trust lawyers never thought of challenging local firearms laws on this basis because they assumed a unit of local government could make a law more restrictive than state law. I may be wrong on this. I am not a lawyer. There may be a statute that allows this. But if the enabling statute says "at least equal to" then they have NO legal authority to make any law that is stricter, or more restrictive, or more stringent than state law, and there is a court finding that specifically says so. * Carthago delenda est * There's no maybe about it.Maybe. * Carthago delenda est * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted March 23, 2012 at 07:47 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 07:47 PM The point is that maybe all of the brain trust lawyers never thought of challenging local firearms laws on this basis because they assumed a unit of local government could make a law more restrictive than state law. I may be wrong on this. I am not a lawyer. There may be a statute that allows this. But if the enabling statute says "at least equal to" then they have NO legal authority to make any law that is stricter, or more restrictive, or more stringent than state law, and there is a court finding that specifically says so. * Carthago delenda est * There's no maybe about it.Maybe. * Carthago delenda est * I tend to operate on the premise that if it's not specifically prohibited, then it must be lawful. So, you keep hollering for an "enabling clause" in spite of the fact that Todd and WILESSIUC have provided two Supreme Court opinions that DO allow more stringent laws. Why don't you come up with the statute, the clause in the Constitution or the Supreme Court opinion that PROHIBITS a Home Rule unit from enacting ordinances stricter than state law? Nothing in Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois prescribes those limits. Where are they?? Cite????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Gwinn Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:07 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:07 PM The point is that maybe all of the brain trust lawyers never thought of challenging local firearms laws on this basis because they assumed a unit of local government could make a law more restrictive than state law.I may be wrong on this. I am not a lawyer. There may be a statute that allows this. There's no maybe about it. Maybe. RABBIT SEASON! Sorry, I get a little caught up in the moment sometimes. Kurt, you asked for the statute that allows local ordinances to be more restrictive than state statutes. You were provided with several concrete examples, including clear language in the state's constitution. You still insist that those examples are somehow invalid. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, and I don't think you're going to change mine. But I do have a question. It seems to me that if your interpretation of state law were correct, then gun laws would be the tip of the iceberg--zoning laws, noise ordinances, all kinds of local ordinances would be ripe to be overturned. In my mind, the question then is not why the "brain trust lawyers" have not taken action to overturn these laws by arguing that local governments simply have no authority to make any of them. The question is why you have not taken that action. Why haven't you filed a lawsuit alleging that the local firearm ordinance you hate the most is invalid because your local government overstepped its authority by creating an ordinance more restrictive than state law? In the meantime, I'm interested in the case you've been referring to, the one in which "at least equal to" was legally defined as "equal to, but no more." Could you please post the name of that case so I can read it? I don't really have a hard time believing that a court decided to wreck the English language that way, but as a math and English teacher, it drives me nuts. In the real world (outside legal circles, in other words) "at least" and "equal to" both have clear mathematical meanings. The phrase "at least equal to" clearly means the same thing as "greater than or equal to." Only a lawyer or a judge (or worse, a few putting their heads together) could reliably be counted on to decide that it actually means the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:21 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:21 PM Don. I am probably wrong about gun laws. I read the supreme court ruling about low melting point guns. I will try to find the nursing home decision for you. I'm having breakfast with the gentleman that I was involved with in our long time legal battle with IDPH that I referred to in a previous post. In our case it did apply. Maybe it is somehow limited to Public Health laws? My partner in this is lawyer and a lobbyist. I am neither. I will try to find the case, and PM you the details. Cheers * Carthago delenda est * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:26 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:26 PM I will try to find the case, and PM you the details. Cheers * Carthago delenda est * I'm interested in reading it too, please post it for us. New angles are always good to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:38 PM Share Posted March 23, 2012 at 08:38 PM Ok Chris, I will. My friend that has this info is an old guard Chicago machine guy and about a pro 2a as Mayor Daley. So, I have to ask him to dig out that old file to find the case name/docket # without mentioning guns. I'll get it though. * Carthago delenda est * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted March 24, 2012 at 11:39 PM Share Posted March 24, 2012 at 11:39 PM I know I said I'm just going to keep quiet and let things run their course - but I can't. Those of us that have been here for awhile remember what happened up in Winnebago county. And from what I've seen so far, there is a definite parallel between what Pike county is doing and Winnebago has done. Please bear with me while I explain. Back in October of 2008, the Winnebago county board advanced an idea on how to enable their citizens to carry concealed. That idea was to "deputize" any citizen that filed an application with the county to carry a concealed weapon. This idea and plan was crafted without the sheriff's blessing. A public forum on concealed carry was also held and all the area news crews were there. At the next meeting, board members voted 21-5 to put the concealed carry legislation before Winnebago County voters in an advisory referendum. Board member Pearl Hawks was one of the five who opposed the resolution. "I'm totally against concealed carry because we already have the right to bear arms, so we don't need to have concealed carry," Hawks said. It was somewhere about this time that board members also decided to mail a letter to all the 102 counties in Illinois asking each county to include this question on their fall ballot to be voted on:"Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to permit the carrying of concealed firearms?" Please understand that prior to this, the board had invited members of IllinoisCarry to sub committee meeting and welcomed our input. In spite of this prior collaboration, no one from this forum was given any hint that they planned to mail all the other counties or asked for input on the wording of the ballot question. Let it just be said many here were not happy with the board's decision to do this. There was also some confusion here between this referendum and the 2A Resolution that was circulating through the state and several members here worked to advance. But that's another discussion for another time. A map of the fourteen counties that DID include the question on their county ballots can be found here. And of those fourteen, I believe in five counties it DID NOT PASS. A tremendous amount of time and effort was put forth by the members here - not only tracking the ballot question, but also putting together Town Hall Meetings in an effort to educate the public prior to election day. Many people, completely unaware that concealed carry is legal in many states, voiced negative opinions. And why shouldn't they? The only time they'd previously heard mention of carrying a concealed weapon was in the daily and weekly arrest reports. Honest, law-abiding citizens just didn't carry guns. Or so they thought. Please don't construe this as an attack upon the good doctor or the folks of Pike county. I extend my congratulations on the success of their referendum. My intention here is to warn those that want to advance concealed carry is this: As you travel closer to Chicago, most people have no idea what legal concealed carry entails. And putting a poorly worded question on a ballot without any previous discussion of FOID cards, background checks, or even that criminals are excluded, can have disastrous results. We have already been through that once here in Illinois. I hope that we can learn from the past mistakes of others. For additional research or reading: http://illinoiscarry...ndpost&p=102725 http://illinoiscarry...ndpost&p=108969 http://illinoiscarry...ndpost&p=117950 http://illinoiscarry...hp?showforum=14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted March 26, 2012 at 02:17 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 02:17 AM No doubt I was overenthusiastic in the early post election yak; however the results at 85% in favor says that at least some counties are ready for drastic change... Pike County folks do not like being ruled by the Chicago machine... Now please be aware that this referendum tells us a few things that we didn't know before... This vote was essentially supported just as much by Democrats as Republicans... It crossed party lines with no problem. The Rs and Ds do not have any problem in our County supporting Constitutional Carry..... Now what would it take to beat Chicago on a state wide referendum similar to ours to create an amendment to our Constitution. I would say it should be constitutional carry similar to ours with an age 18 limit and language to dump the FOID and any other crap like that. If the downstate Counties could average 70% in favor would that be enough to beat Chicago if there was only 35% in favor there. I am just thinking about the gun clubs in each county getting signatures on the petition... Just some more brainstorming....... Regards, Drd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted March 26, 2012 at 02:42 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 02:42 AM No doubt I was overenthusiastic in the early post election yak; however the results at 85% in favor says that at least some counties are ready for drastic change... Pike County folks do not like being ruled by the Chicago machine... Now please be aware that this referendum tells us a few things that we didn't know before... This vote was essentially supported just as much my Democrats as Republicans... It crossed party lines with no problem. The Rs and Ds do not have any problem in our County supporting Constitutional Carry..... Now what would it take to beat Chicago on a state wide referendum similar to ours to create an amendment to our Constitution. I would say it should be constitutional carry similar to ours with an age 18 limit and language to dump the FOID and any other crap like that. If the downstate Counties could average 70% in favor would that be enough to beat Chicago if there was only 35% in favor there. Just some more brainstorming....... Regards, DrdI have no doubt some counties are ready for a change in the state's gun laws, Drd. At the recent Winnebago Town Hall Meeting, both the mayor of Rockford and the Winnebago county states attorney expressed their support for concealed carry. But I'm relatively sure they were not thinking of Constitutional carry, as we know it. I also doubt that they would support any measure to drop the FOID card. But support for a concealed carry law in Illinois does cross party lines. That was confirmed by the first vote of HB148. In regards to amending the state's constitution, first let me say this - I am by no means a constitutional scholar. But I believe it takes more than a ballot referendum to amend the state's constitution. It requires a state constitutional convention - which we just voted on during on the 2008 election. And it failed. These opportunities to vote for a state constitutional convention only come along once every twenty years. So that option won't be available to us for quite a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:04 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:04 AM [i have no doubt some counties are ready for a change in the state's gun laws, Drd. At the recent Winnebago Town Hall Meeting, both the mayor of Rockford and the Winnebago county states attorney expressed their support for concealed carry. But I'm relatively sure they were not thinking of Constitutional carry, as we know it. I also doubt that they would support any measure to drop the FOID card. But support for a concealed carry law in Illinois does cross party lines. That was confirmed by the first vote of HB148. In regards to amending the state's constitution, first let me say this - I am by no means a constitutional scholar. But I believe it takes more than a ballot referendum to amend the state's constitution. It requires a state constitutional convention - which we just voted on during on the 2008 election. And it failed. These opportunities to vote for a state constitutional convention only come along once every twenty years. So that option won't be available to us for quite a while. Buzz, you're thinking of a complete constitutional convention. I think that an amendment must be passed by a 3/5 vote in both chambers of the legislature, then put to a vote in a general election. If it receives a majority of the total vote or 3/5 of the votes of those voting on the question, it goes into effect. The constitutional scholars will fix that if I screwed it up. I do hope that Dr. Mefford realizes that 14 counties voted on a CC referendum back in 2008. I can't recall the exact results except that it passed in a majority of the counties, but not by 70%+. I still maintain that we should NOT be putting our unalienable rights to a popular vote. AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:17 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:17 AM No doubt I was overenthusiastic in the early post election yak; however the results at 85% in favor says that at least some counties are ready for drastic change... Pike County folks do not like being ruled by the Chicago machine... Now please be aware that this referendum tells us a few things that we didn't know before... This vote was essentially supported just as much my Democrats as Republicans... It crossed party lines with no problem. The Rs and Ds do not have any problem in our County supporting Constitutional Carry..... Now what would it take to beat Chicago on a state wide referendum similar to ours to create an amendment to our Constitution. I would say it should be constitutional carry similar to ours with an age 18 limit and language to dump the FOID and any other crap like that. If the downstate Counties could average 70% in favor would that be enough to beat Chicago if there was only 35% in favor there. Just some more brainstorming....... Regards, DrdI have no doubt some counties are ready for a change in the state's gun laws, Drd. At the recent Winnebago Town Hall Meeting, both the mayor of Rockford and the Winnebago county states attorney expressed their support for concealed carry. But I'm relatively sure they were not thinking of Constitutional carry, as we know it. I also doubt that they would support any measure to drop the FOID card. But support for a concealed carry law in Illinois does cross party lines. That was confirmed by the first vote of HB148. In regards to amending the state's constitution, first let me say this - I am by no means a constitutional scholar. But I believe it takes more than a ballot referendum to amend the state's constitution. It requires a state constitutional convention - which we just voted on during on the 2008 election. And it failed. These opportunities to vote for a state constitutional convention only come along once every twenty years. So that option won't be available to us for quite a while. You are apparently right for the most part... The citizens are allowed only to make changes to Article 4 The Legislature. Any thing else and you are screwed..... Illinois Constitution 1970Article 14 Constitutional RevisionSECTION 3. CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE FOR LEGISLATIVE ARTICLEAmendments to Article IV of this Constitution may be proposed by a petitionsigned by a number of electors equal in number to at least eight percent of the totalvotes cast for candidates for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election. Amendmentsshall be limited to structural and procedural subjects contained in Article IV. Apetition shall contain the text of the proposed amendment and the date of the generalelection at which the proposed amendment is to be submitted, shall have been signedby the petitioning electors not more than twenty-four months preceding that generalelection and shall be filed with the Secretary of State at least six months before thatgeneral election. The procedure for determining the validity and sufficiency of a petitionshall be provided by law. If the petition is valid and sufficient, the proposed amendmentshall be submitted to the electors at that general election and shall become effective ifapproved by either three-fifths of those voting on the amendment or a majority of thosevoting in the election. Regards, Drd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly B. Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:28 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 03:28 AM Buzz, you're thinking of a complete constitutional convention. I think that an amendment must be passed by a 3/5 vote in both chambers of the legislature, then put to a vote in a general election. If it receives a majority of the total vote or 3/5 of the votes of those voting on the question, it goes into effect. The constitutional scholars will fix that if I screwed it up. I do hope that Dr. Mefford realizes that 14 counties voted on a CC referendum back in 2008. I can't recall the exact results except that it passed in a majority of the counties, but not by 70%+. I still maintain that we should NOT be putting our unalienable rights to a popular vote. ABCounty RTC Referendum results PassedPope Co. 90%Woodford 55%Ogle 53%Crawford 59%Jasper 61%Jefferson 63%Franklin 71%Saline 71%Greene 63%Union 72%Effingham Johnson 84.4% LostMcDonough 45%LaSalle 47%Kendall 44%Winnebago 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted March 26, 2012 at 04:06 AM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 04:06 AM Abolt and Drd - Thanks for correcting me. That's why I added the disclaimer! MollyB - Thanks for posting the results! I was able to find the map that Chris made of the counties that put the question on the ballot, but that was about it before I was called away from the computer. I was kinda bittersweet reading the posts from Gene, AKA 'ol Coach! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted March 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 04:18 PM I still maintain that we should NOT be putting our unalienable rights to a popular vote. AB +1. Through all of this, I cannot get past the idea of a popular vote on a Constitutional right - especially when things are heading in the right direction as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted March 26, 2012 at 05:41 PM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 05:41 PM It is interesting that we can debate about the right of a county to pass an ordinance allowing their citizens the right to bear arms in a state that prohibits it even though it is guaranteed in the U.S. constitution, a right that "shall not be infringed"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted March 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 06:08 PM Apparently I was wrong about home rule cases. The "at least equal to" statue is in Public Health law and limited to public health regulations and nothing more. I will get the nursing home case as soon as I can, but unless it is concerning a public health department it's not relevant. Oops. * Carthago delenda est * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 26, 2012 at 06:13 PM Share Posted March 26, 2012 at 06:13 PM Apparently I was wrong about home rule cases. The "at least equal to" statue is in Public Health law and limited to public health regulations and nothing more. I will get the nursing home case as soon as I can, but unless it is concerning a public health department it's not relevant. Oops. * Carthago delenda est * Thanks Kurt, it will be interesting to see that then for non-pro2a things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterdale Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:16 PM Share Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:16 PM Just got this in an email. Seems they are looking at it from a different perspective than what was explained by DrD. Just read through the entire thread, my take on it was the Sherriff is on the RTC side. I didn't see this posted anyplace. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/sheriff-overturns-constitutional-carry/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:24 PM Share Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:24 PM Just got this in an email. Seems they are looking at it from a different perspective than what was explained by DrD. Just read through the entire thread, my take on it was the Sherriff is on the RTC side. I didn't see this posted anyplace. http://www.nationalg...tutional-carry/ DrD sent Brown a letter explaining how he got his facts wrong. The sherrif is for it, but wants to protect his people so he told them to hold off because the ISP WILL arrest and prosecute. ( in a nutshell) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:36 PM Share Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:36 PM Just got this in an email. Seems they are looking at it from a different perspective than what was explained by DrD. Just read through the entire thread, my take on it was the Sherriff is on the RTC side. I didn't see this posted anyplace. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/sheriff-overturns-constitutional-carry/ NAGR cares more about fundraising than facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:38 PM Share Posted April 5, 2012 at 05:38 PM Just got this in an email. Seems they are looking at it from a different perspective than what was explained by DrD. Just read through the entire thread, my take on it was the Sherriff is on the RTC side. I didn't see this posted anyplace. http://www.nationalgunrights.org/sheriff-overturns-constitutional-carry/ Then you didn't read far enough. The NAGR has been discussed thoroughly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:25 AM Share Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:25 AM Hi all, here is my letter to Dudley Brown from NAGR... It will clear up how we feel about our sheriff... I would like folks here to know our, or at least my response to this. I wish NAGR would have contacted me first... Regards, Drd ____________________________________________________ Dear Dudley, My name is Dan Mefford, and I was the one who initiated the referendum with some huge assistance from other volunteers. We were able to pass this Constitutional Carry referendum by a whopping 85%. I appreciate the enthusiasm for the getting the word out but we need to make a correction to some of your information. I have appreciated your organization and it is doing a great work as we spread the message of the true meaning and interpretation of the 2A across this great nation. Our Sheriff is not the bad guy that it appears from his press release. Sheriff Petty signed our petition and we do not think of Paul as the enemy in any way shape or form. He has met with his officers and is prepared to help people understand that while there is this conflict between the state law, and now our County initiative, and the Second Amendment, the People are at risk of being charged with, at the very least, a misdemeanor and possibly a felony. The Illinois State Police (ISP) have made it clear that they are under direct orders from the state to arrest the People who violate state law until a court case changes things or the legislature. The problem is, if the sheriff allowed it, it would still put the People at risk from the ISP. So he is in a rock and a hard place here. Since he has been a great supporter of our referendum we feel that your article, while enthusiastic and heartfelt doesn’t portray our sheriff in the correct light. In my opinion all officers should act in accordance with the 2A and should look the other way, however that is just not going to happen. Therefore it is important the Sheriff make it clear what the consequences could be if something went really wrong… I would never say the Paul Petty is “spineless.” He served his country honorably in the military and is a patriot. I feel that he is short on true in depth knowledge of the Constitution but he has treated me and our whole movement with the utmost respect and has shown that he is willing to learn, and I believe, fully supports the Constitution as he has been led to understand it. I have seen Paul on his hands and knees working in the dirt with the rest of us (us? I shouldn’t say us, I wasn’t able to work on that project) to build a memorial to our men and women in the military. There is no job too dirty for Paul to jump in and do. He is the type of person who would never ask someone to do a job that he would not do. So while he had to take an official stance to keep the public from getting in some serious legal trouble I would never portray him as a tyrant. Thanks for listening, and feel free to call me and visit about this at your convenience. Regards, Dr. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmefford Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:33 AM Share Posted April 6, 2012 at 03:33 AM I should add that as soon as I received this "Press Release" from NAGR, I let the Sheriff know what kind BS storm was coming along... I also immediately responded to the NAGR piece with my letter... I doubt that it will do any good but at least they received a quick response explaining the real truth... In wildest dreams, I would wish that we could have made it our referendum more than it can be for the moment... But that just isn't to be for the moment... The sheriff is OK with the response and he will weather it just fine.... (I hope)... Anybody that really knows Paul would never call him "spineless..." Regards, Drd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.