101 replies to this topic

[abolt243]

[quote name='Big Chris' post='99121' date='Jun 27 2008, 03:53 PM'][quote name='Ol' post='99056' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:40 PM'][quote name='Big Chris' post='99052' date='Jun 27 2008, 01:31 PM'][quote name='Slappy' post='98894' date='Jun 27 2008, 07:34 AM']Where is Macon county? if I can get down there for meetings I will... I'll bring some of the CCW buttons we are using from winnebago...[/quote]

Looks like a 3 hour drive from Naperville, road trip?
[/quote]

Decatur.
[/quote]

If there was a really large meeting that you needed bodies for I'd do my best to make a trip.
[/quote]

Guys, this is Tplane's party, but he has this thing called work that requires his presence everyday so I'll say this and he can jump in when he gets home.

As I understand it, this will be a preliminary meeting between us and the Pro RTC SA for the county.  I think it is his (SA) goal to put together a "Universal" ordinance that can be taken from county to county.  I appreciate your willingness to burn $4.00 gas for the cause, but right now it's not necessary.  If we need a crowd, you'll be the first to know.

As for reinventing the wheel, our intent is to take the infrastructure we have in place now and add some simple components to come up with a RTC license that will work.  And yes, $20 per year is too high.  How about $50 for 10 years, concurrent with the FOID??  That's just a suggestion.  And don't rant about the FOID and getting rid of it.  Let's get RTC first, then we'll work on the FOID.   We are well aware of RTC laws in other states and will use the best of all of them to craft our proposal.

Macon County is in Central IL, Decatur is the county seat, about 40 miles straight East of Springfield.  Tplane has good relationships with the county Sheriff, SA and the local state Representative.  He and I both are on the 2A advisory board that Rep Flider has set up.  For the time being, we've got it covered.  You guys concentrate on Winnebago and SAFR!!  Together, we'll get the whole state on board!!!

Thanks again for the support and offers.  We'll report any progress or roadblocks that we encounter as well as post the ordinance when it's written.

Later,
AB

[GWBH]

Buzzard, on Jun 27 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

WOW! Are these ever exciting times!!

+100...
Let's keep this thread going - or make a permanent locked thread.
I'll head up Hardin County down south. I spoke with Mac and he said he's be glad to pursue it in his county.
I'll need to do this soon, as my employment may take me out of the country for a while...

[johnyt101]

I love the open carry provision too! Great job, keep it up...

[tplane37]

Sorry it took so long to post a reply y'all, and thank you AB for jumping in here. There is still a lot of discussion to be done here to ensure we get this done and that it is accepted by the majority. This is why I have enlisted the people I requested. While Abolt and Mac are very knowledgeable in many areas concerning CCW and Firearm Safety, they are also fairly close by. (And that reminds me Abolt, we need to get a hold of Bob Flider and see if we can use his Mt. Zion office to meet up at, I'll give that a shot on Monday during one of my breaks.)

The $20 fee is agreed that it is to high. When I started this thread, I was tossing ideas out there to gather input. But that's the whole idea, I need input from everyone, because if everything goes well our County Ordinance (being universal) may end up being the guideline for a statewide permit when the time comes. So, even if you find it highly unlikely that your county will approve of something like this, it would be beneficial to add your concerns. You may end up being affected in the near future by the state law when it comes through.

And Abolt...I refuse to take full credit for the County CCW Ordinance...First off, it was started in Winni County, they deserve a lot of respect for being able and willing to take the steps to get us started down here. Also, you and Mac (Mac is in on this, right?) are playing large rolls in getting this written. The folks from IllinoisCarry putting their $.02 in will be very helpful. Me? I'm just the guy who ain't afraid to ask how to get it done. I'm not afraid of taking the risk to stand up in front of a bunch of anti-gunners and convince them to try to prove me wrong with references and facts. I am willing to go up to an individual who can most likely make my life a living h3ll if he/she doesn't like my point of view.

I am just the one who can go up to a complete stranger in a gas station or the local Walmart and get their opinion and be willing to take it into consideration when I voice my opinions. And by not asking closed-ended questions (like "Do you believe we should have CCW in Macon County/Illinois?"), I'll ask open-ended questions (like "What would you like to see in a law/ordinance that would permit you and I, as law-abiding citizens, to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense?") By doing this, even anti-gunners have a bit of a "pro-gun" stance if you ask them the right questions.

So long and short, input from anyone who has an opinion will be beneficial to this movement. There is still much discussion to be had before anything is written. Once we have an agreeable draft, I am wanting to TRY to post it here to gather input prior to presenting it to be enacted. The credit will go to the folks here at IllinoisCarry.com as a whole, though some will naturally be providing more input than others, Unity is what has given us our success thus far, so if it works....go with it! And additional credit will go to those elected officials who, in some cases, may be placing their chances of being re-elected on the line (but we know that they are probably INCREASING their chances of serving another term   ). Their will be a fee for these permits...for now. We are looking to incorperate law/rules that have been successful in other states. Again, if it works, use it. I am hoping that if you are able to own a gun in the U.S., and have a FOID card, you should be able to get proof of firearm safety training and get your CCW Permit or License.

Their will most likely be a point where more assistance will be requested. That time will probably be once the ordinance is written in order to gain public support. In addition, should the state choose to challenge a county in court, support will be requested. If the NRA or ISRA is to be involved (which they probably will be), I would like to see this site be well informed of their actions so we aren't countering anything they are trying to do (keeping it organized).

That's all I have for now, and again, no need to knock the FOID Act at the moment, we are using it as part of our foundation for the "Right To Carry in Illinois...One County At a Time."

Thank you all in advance. And keep the thoughts coming, regardless of how pertinent you believe they are. Many of us know how much replacing words "and" and "or" could be can mean in the difference between Freedom and Regulation. So even the small stuff matters at this point.

[lockman]

As far as places off limits to concealed carry I suggest the following: NONE

Of course that won't happen so here is my second choices:

No private property should be by statute off limits. Owners of private property should have the right to allow or disallow carry. Example: Many proposals ban carry at churches, this takes away the choice of the church to protect their flock. Does Jean Assam ring a bell?

No prohibitions on any public land or property other than buildings.

Keep the prohibition in public buildings to an absolute minimum and only in those areas where weapon screening  and armed security is present. For example: the public lobby area of a police station should not be off limits.

And by all means printing or inadvertent display should not be an offense.

How about that for starters (hey don't burst my bubble).

[abolt243]

lockman, on Jun 28 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

As far as places off limits to concealed carry I suggest the following: NONE

Of course that won't happen so here is my second choices:

No private property should be by statute off limits. Owners of private property should have the right to allow or disallow carry. Example: Many proposals ban carry at churches, this takes away the choice of the church to protect their flock. Does Jean Assam ring a bell?

No prohibitions on any public land or property other than buildings.

Keep the prohibition in public buildings to an absolute minimum and only in those areas where weapon screening  and armed security is present. For example: the public lobby area of a police station should not be off limits.

And by all means printing or inadvertent display should not be an offense.

How about that for starters (hey don't burst my bubble).

My suggestions on the above points were:  Only those places prohibited by FEDERAL law, with the option for the authorities of said places to allow CC if the so choose.  That probably won't fly, but it's a good placed to start!

We're trying to write if to allow open, semi-concealed or mostly concealed firearms.

AB

[tplane37]

abolt243, on Jun 28 2008, 09:43 PM, said:

lockman, on Jun 28 2008, 09:02 PM, said:

As far as places off limits to concealed carry I suggest the following: NONE

Of course that won't happen so here is my second choices:

No private property should be by statute off limits. Owners of private property should have the right to allow or disallow carry. Example: Many proposals ban carry at churches, this takes away the choice of the church to protect their flock. Does Jean Assam ring a bell?

No prohibitions on any public land or property other than buildings.

Keep the prohibition in public buildings to an absolute minimum and only in those areas where weapon screening  and armed security is present. For example: the public lobby area of a police station should not be off limits.

And by all means printing or inadvertent display should not be an offense.

How about that for starters (hey don't burst my bubble).

My suggestions on the above points were:  Only those places prohibited by FEDERAL law, with the option for the authorities of said places to allow CC if the so choose.  That probably won't fly, but it's a good placed to start!

We're trying to write if to allow open, semi-concealed or mostly concealed firearms.

AB

still not sure about the "taping to forehead" type of carry....could cause a neck strain over an extended period of time, and I never have liked the idea of a .45 against my forehead anyway!

But on the serious note, Abolt is right. Aiming to be authorized to carry, PERIOD. Leaving the method of carry to a personal choice by each individual. Open Carry is not always the best answer, concealed does not always remain that way (ever gone into a gas station and had to grab that gallon of milk off the bottom shelf? Shirt tends to come up right there at the pistol.) So, yes. We are trying to ensure that a person may carry a firearm anywhere that is not prohibited by Federal law. I do think that we should refrain from quoting the restrictions if at all possible. Because I have a feeling that Federal law on prohibition will likely change in the near future.

I also agree with the "No guns" signs on businesses being up to the owner of said business. Same feeling I have with the smoking ban...not the government's place to tell a business owner what he/she can and cannot allow in/on their property.

Okay, off to read more of the 157 page Heller "Brief." To see what all we can reference.

One arguement I was thinking of tonight once everything is written is to inform the County Boards that it is likely that based on the SCOTUS Ruling that all Americans will most likely have the right to carry declared federally fairly soon....they might as well take what income they can get by authorizing CCW/RTCL now, because that chance may come up again.

Also, what do we want to call these permits/licenses? CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon Permit), RTCL (Right To Carry License), CCF (Carry Concealed Firearm License), FCP/FCL (Firearm Carry Permit/License), and other ideas? I am leaning towards the RTC License since we are trying to include all Carry options.

[papa]

I like the RTC license name... 2nd would go to CCW  My $.02

[Buzzard]

tplane37, on Jun 28 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

...I refuse to take full credit for the County CCW Ordinance...First off, it was started in Winne[bago] County, they deserve a lot of respect for being able and willing to take the steps to get us started down here.

I thought this might be a good place to give credit where credit is due. At least the way I see it. As you said, a lot of credit goes to Randy Olson and Doug Aurand, of the Winnebago county board for having the courage to propose such a resolution. And credit should go to Fred Wescott and the rest of the Winnebago county board for giving it the opportunity to be discussed and debated. Credit should also be given to Polhms1 and those of us that have been deeply involved right from the start of the Winnebago effort. And to all the people that came to the public forum to show support for concealed carry.

I truly do believe though, that if not for Illinois Carry, this may not be happening at all. So some of the credit goes to Blaster, SmershAgent, Mack69, and Molly B. Credit should also go to 45superman, Ocellairs, Ol Coach, FST Kent, Ashdump, Garandfan, Abolt243, Lou and c-rock because they have distinguished this forum as a place of inspiration and accomplishment.

Keep in mind, that an integral part of the Winnebago county board's plan right from the start was to encourage other counties to join the concealed carry movement. They believed that if one county stepped forward others would follow. They also passed a resolution encouraging the state legislature to pass concealed carry state wide, as it should be. And that's where you, Tplane and Abolt, Jack Aloha, and the Macon county sheriff come in. Concealed carry will come to Illinois through the efforts of many, many people.

Concealed carry is coming to Illinois. It cannot be stopped, the momentum is now in our favor. And once we have it, it will not easily be taken away.

[tplane37]

Well spoken Buzz!

[Buzzard]

Thank you. And I don't wish to diminish what you gentlemen are doing in Macon county! To have another county jumping in right away is outstanding! While other counties sit on the sidelines, you folks have rolled up your sleeves and joined the fight. This is why I say, It's gonna happen!

Eighty two counties in Illinois have said enough is enough!

The SUPREME COURT has spoken! It is OUR RIGHT!

NOW TWO STRONG COUNTIES ARE LEADING THE CHARGE!

ILLINOIS, IT IS TIME WE RALLY!!

[tplane37]

This is my only concern with doing this County RTC Permits. By doing so, would we not be infringing on the very right that we fight to protect every day we wake up?

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania

No. 480

Argued March 10, 11, 1943

Decided May 3, 1943*

319 U.S. 105

Though the specific case pertains to the First Amendment

Quote

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

...

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

[tplane37]

Okay y'all, tomorrow (Thursday) is the day we go into write up/work on the Macon County Right To Carry Ordinance. We are making final preperations for the meeting.

While looking over the Constitution of the State of Illinois, I came across a couple of interesting things. Some are frequently mentioned here...others are not.

My question that remains unanswered is this: Do the Poilice belong to the Judicial, Legislative, or Executive Banch of the Illinois Government?

I would believe that they are Judicial, being that they enforce the laws. Also, with the State's Attorney being a member of the Judicial Branch, and being the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the County in some counties, one would be compelled to believe the police are also part of the Judicial Branch.

Here's where I am going with this:

Article I, Section 22

Quote

Article II, Section 1[/url]
SECTION 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS
    The legislative, executive and judicial branches are
separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging
to another.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Article VI, Section 19

Quote

SECTION 19. STATE'S ATTORNEYS - SELECTION, SALARY
    A State's Attorney shall be elected in each county in
1972 and every fourth year thereafter for a four year term.
One State's Attorney may be elected to serve two or more
counties if the governing boards of such counties so provide
and a majority of the electors of each county voting on the
issue approve. A person shall not be eligible for the office
of State's Attorney unless he is a United States citizen and
a licensed attorney-at-law of this State. His salary shall be
provided by law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

And then there is another view that the Police are part of the Executive Branch.

Relation to Judicial Branch

Quote

The Legislature makes decisions and the Judiciary and the Executive Branch enforce its decisions with the help of the forces funded by the Legislature to enforce its laws (e.g. police force, prison service).

Either way, they do not seem to be part of the Legislative branch. Therefore, the General Assembly cannot (according to the Constitution of the State of Illinois) create legislation pertaining to/infringe on the "Right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms." It is up to the individual police jurisdictions to dictate the policies and procedures used in conjunction with Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

Am I right in this? Please prove me wrong with references.

[lockman]

[quote name='tplane37' post='102377' date='Jul 9 2008, 08:53 PM']Okay y'all, tomorrow (Thursday) is the day we go into write up/work on the Macon County Right To Carry Ordinance. We are making final preperations for the meeting.

While looking over the [url="http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm"]Constitution of the State of Illinois[/url], I came across a couple of interesting things. Some are frequently mentioned here...others are not.

My question that remains unanswered is this: Do the Poilice belong to the Judicial, Legislative, or Executive Banch of the Illinois Government?

I would believe that they are Judicial, being that they enforce the laws. Also, with the State's Attorney being a member of the Judicial Branch, and being the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the County in some counties, one would be compelled to believe the police are also part of the Judicial Branch.

Here's where I am going with this:

[url="http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm"]Article I, Section 22[/url]
[quote]Article II, Section 1[/url]
SECTION 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS
    The legislative, executive and judicial branches are
separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging
to another.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)[/quote]

[url="http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con6.htm"]Article VI, Section 19[/url]
[quote]SECTION 19. STATE'S ATTORNEYS - SELECTION, SALARY
    A State's Attorney shall be elected in each county in
1972 and every fourth year thereafter for a four year term.
One State's Attorney may be elected to serve two or more
counties if the governing boards of such counties so provide
and a majority of the electors of each county voting on the
issue approve. A person shall not be eligible for the office
of State's Attorney unless he is a United States citizen and
a licensed attorney-at-law of this State. His salary shall be
provided by law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)[/quote]

And then there is another view that the Police are part of the Executive Branch.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_(government)"]Relation to Judicial Branch[/url]
[quote]The Legislature makes decisions and the Judiciary and the Executive Branch enforce its decisions with the help of the forces funded by the Legislature to enforce its laws (e.g. police force, prison service).[/quote]

Either way, they do not seem to be part of the Legislative branch. Therefore, the General Assembly cannot (according to the Constitution of the State of Illinois) create legislation pertaining to/infringe on the "Right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms." It is up to the individual police jurisdictions to dictate the policies and procedures used in conjunction with Article I, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

Am I right in this? Please prove me wrong with references.
[/quote]

Any authority for the police to act must come from laws enacted by the legislature. The police powers emanate from the legislature and the police are just the mechanism that enforce compliance. The police fall under the executive branch authority.

[abolt243]

IMHO and IANAL, the police are not a branch of government but an agency set up by the legislature to enforce the laws that the legislature creates.  The ISP is just like the Secretary of State, or the Department of Corrections.  The legislature has provided for the ISP and has the ISP director appointed by the Governor.  A mistake in my opinion.  I would like to see us get away from "appointed" heads of departments, ISP, Corrections, IDNR, etc. and go to a small panel of directors or board members serving staggered terms so that some continuity in plans and policy can be maintained.

Anyway, as I remember many years ago in Civics class (Mrs. Kiley!) the Legislative branch is the House and Senate, the Judicial is the court system from local municipal courts to the State Supreme and the Executive Branch is the Governor.  The rest is just fluff!!!

If I'm wrong, tell me and show me why.  I'm always open to learning something.

Later,

AB

[BobbyT]

Regarding an annual cost, I agree with everyone else that the $20/yr is overpriced, but more important than the cost is the yearly renewal.

I'd say make it at LEAST 5 years.  10 would be huge, or just lifetime.  I don't see why lifetime would be a deal breaker for anyone who'd vote for it, so why not try that with 10 years as a fallback?  $20 for 10 years or lifetime would be a GREAT model for other counties...what a good precedent it would set.

[w00dc4ip]

tplane37, on Jun 30 2008, 09:33 PM, said:

This is my only concern with doing this County RTC Permits. By doing so, would we not be infringing on the very right that we fight to protect every day we wake up?

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
No. 480
Argued March 10, 11, 1943
Decided May 3, 1943*
319 U.S. 105

Though the specific case pertains to the First Amendment

Quote

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.
...
8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

Tplane,
After careful review of the entire Heller decision, you'll see that previous rulings have indicated that there is no "right" to concealed carry.  This is my opinion and I am not a lawyer, but it's there in the Heller decision, previous rulings have struck down concealed carry.  That said, the Heller ruling also points out that several other courts, and now the SCOUTS have held that Open Carry = Bear Arms, so Open Carry is therefore a right and can't be taxed, suppressed, charged for, etc.  

What I'm trying to get at here is my opinion that according to the SCOTUS, concealed carry is a privelage that can be charged a fee, licensed, and even revoked, so we are not giving anything up by licensing, background checking, requiring training, and even charging a small fee for RTC.  However, you should have somewhere in the county resolution that anyone legally able to own a handgun has the right to legally Open Carry without a license.  So, at least until the FOID system or the Illinois firearm transportation laws (unloaded, encased) are challenged in the future, maybe the universal county ordinance you're writing should include language to the effect of: FOID=Open Carry, RTC license=Concealed Carry.  If you need me to look up the references I'm referring to from the Heller decision that explain this (which you could then cite to your SA friend) PM me.

Now, I want concealed carry as much as everyone else here, but CC isn't a right we can claim.  However, I'm pretty sure, like Ohio, Illinois legislators, Mayors and other government leaders would rather have CC than OC, so if nothing else, OC might end up leading to CC.  That said, I've been casually talking to a lawyer friend about filing a federal challenge to the Illinois transportation laws as they are in violation of the Heller decision, and therefore violate the Second Amendment (according to my reading, Open Carry= Bear Arms).  We haven't agreed on anything yet, but the idea is there and my lawyer buddy agrees with my interpretation of the law.  I'll be sure to let people on this board know if it goes anywhere before anything is done officially.

Just my $.02,
w00dc4ip

P.S. - Also, and I may be completely wrong here, but for some reason I think that police fall under executive.  No source for that but I'm almost sure I remember that from a government class I took in High School or College.

[tplane37]

Okay, sorry I didn't get any info in here Thursday or Friday night, but here's your update from our meeting on Thursday with the Macon SA.

There's no doubt in my mind that Our State's Attorney wants this CCW as bad as, if not more than, many of us on this site. The Assistant SA as well. One of the other lawyer's in the room with us was not only in favor of CCW, he also is in possession of a FL Non-Resident permit. The County Board member who was with us was the father of the Committee Chairman for the Macon County Board who played a large role in getting the 10-9 vote in our favor with the 2A Res...and he remembered talking to me in the past. And then this crazy ol' walking encyclopedia who goes by the name "ABolt" was there and very helpful. Thanks again AB.

Now that the introduction are out of the way, let's get on with it. The biggest thing we are trying to figure out is the legality of a county intentionally conflicting with state law in favor of the People. There was very little concern as to the city of county LEO's posing any sort of problem as to arrests and such with the ordinance. The concerns to the citizens who would be in possession of a RTCF permit was the ever-famous Illinois State Police...How do we keep them from arresting a permit holder? And while they would take the said citizens to the local county jail house, the SA would refuse to prosecute for UUW. Which lead us to the next issue. If the SA refuses to prosecute, who would then prosecute him? Would it be Lisa Madigan? Or would the Feds come into the picture? And if the Feds come in, how would they perceive a rights loving population with a SA who will actually stands by his oath (defend the US Constitution) and do his job (Promote public safety)? Once we know who would come knocking on the State's Attorney's door, we can figure out where they stand on the issue....now the next question.

If the person who prosecutes the SA refuses to prosecute based on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and based on the Shall issue interpretation of the Heller ruling (even though that was only specific to in the home). Who would prosecute the person who is to prosecute the SA? Where do they stand? and the repetition continues up the ladder.

Mr. Ahola agreed that we should keep this as simple as possible. And liked the idea of Open Carry being a back up plan to get Concealed Carry...Or was the the Assistant SA? Help me out here AB. Home Rule looks like a possible venue to get the legality. But there are other unforeseen problems with becoming a home rule county (Look at Cook County). What other options are available to override the authority of a state? What about if we can get 3/5 of the SA's in Illinois to come on board? Then would the rule of Majority come into play? I am sure there are safeguards in place to keep a state in check just as there are to keep our County's government in check....but where are these safeguards? And how do we blow the dust off the cover of the book and pull the cobwebs off the lamps in that room of secrets?? (might even have to find some oil for these lamps...these books may not have been opened since the invention of the light bulb.) I think we are going to have to look on the Federal level to find these answers.

All in all, we have to find a clear and definitive way of telling the State of Illinois (Legally) "Up Yours! We are going to have the Right to carry a firearm anyway we want to, and there's nothing you can do about it!" and "You will not Tread on MY Rights, or those of my neighbor!" We as Americans deserve to be free and deserve to be secure in the streets of this state just as much...if not more than...in our own homes. Can anyone write up a questionnaire to present to every SA and Sheriff in the state for their stance in the matter?Do we want to try and cordinate with the counties in Wisconsin and take this country by storm? I believe that the best way to be successful in this matter is to get as many counties as possible to jump on the band wagon at the same time as possible. If we can get at least 50%+ of the counties involved to get an ordinance passed with in a couple of months, what option would there be for the state to refuse to listen?

That's all I have for now. We need to find the legal writings, and then we will be GTG (Good To Go).

[tplane37]

Also, I found an answer to my own question regarding which the Branch of Government the Police are.

Quote

The Illinois State Police is a department in the executive branch of state government, consisting of operational divisions (Administration, Forensic Services, Human Resource, Information & Technology, Internal Investigation and Operations), direct accountability of which is assigned through eight programs: Agency Support, Communication, Forensics, Human Resource, Information and Technology, Investigation, Integrity and Patrol. Following is an overview of the these programs.

Source: ISP Website

Now that that is know, the next question is:

Can the General Assembly make laws pertaining to the Right of Individuals to keep and bear arms based on Article II, Section 1? If it is questionable, can we convince the county boards that this is in fact where we have the authority to let the LEO's decide if we can have RTCF or not?

[Lou]

Tplane - you are my hero.

I would love to see a county pass a CCW law just for the pleasure of telling the Shitcago politicians that run this state: UP YOURS BUDDY!!!!!!

[tplane37]

Here's what I have drafted up as an FYI to anyone requesting how the Supreme Court ruled in June 2008. This is mainly directed at pursuing RTCF ordinances.

Quote

The United States Supreme Court defines (described in order from the Ruling):

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The Right of the People":
    -As in the First, Fourth, and understood in the Ninth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, "The Right of the People...these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." Same with the Second Amendment.
    -"[I]n all six other provisions in the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not a specified subset."
    -""[T]herefore with a strong presumptions that the Second Amendment is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."

"Keep and bear Arms."
    -"Arms": "The most natural reading of [in] the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."

    -"Keep":"[T]he right to "keep Arms"...an individual right unconnected with militia service."
    -Own, have in one's possession.
  
    -"Bear": "At the time of the Founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry."
    -"[T]he most familiar meaning is, as the ...Second Amendment...indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry...upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." (In regards to defense of one's self, property, community, or other life.)

-"Keep and bear Arms": "calling as a "right" (singular) rather than "rights" (plural)." (i.e. To keep and to bear is one right, not two separate rights.)

"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation...the Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed."

"Well-Regulated Militia"
    -"All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
    -"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create and regulate (Article I Section 8-US Constitution), the militia is assumed to have already been in existence." Congress may call forth the militia, but may not regulate the militia.

"Security of a Free State."
    -"[M]eant "security of a free polity," not security of the several states."
    -"[T]he word 'state' is used in various senses...it means the people composing a particular nation or community"

"[T]he purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia."

In closing, the Second Amendment is an individual right to possess and carry weapons for the common defense of the people in a particular community. This right was preexisting and was not 'granted' by the Bill of Rights, but 'guaranteed' by it. The state in the Bill of Rights is not a geographical description, but a group of individual Americans. The militia is comprised of all able bodied male citizens and is not to be regulated nor restricted by Congress, though Congress may call on the militia for the common defense of the community.

Let me know if there are any requested additions or omissions. Please provide reference to the page number and paragraph if possible, as these are direct quotes from the SCOTUS opinion. Feel free to use this information as you see fit.

[BobbyT]

What about having the county simply recognize the right of anyone with a FOID card to bear arms?  Then they wouldn't need to develop a new card, citizens wouldn't have to jump through another regulatory hoop to exercise their rights, and we wouldn't end up having a grab bag of various country cards & concerns over reciprocation down the road.

In fact, they could even word it to accept a FOID card or any states' CCW/RTC card, to automatically reciprocate with every state's carry laws.

A couple years from now we don't want people having to look up individual county lines to figure out exactly where their particular "right" ends if they drive a couple miles too far, etc, so setting the standard this way would avoid a lot of problems.

[drdoom]

I've been thinking about this draft ordinance and how about this:

1. Open Carry for those who possess a FOID card an example:

"A person may carry openly, on or about his person, a pistol or revolver provided he
she has

a) a valid FOID card as defined the the FOID Act of 1968

Loaded is defined by a cocked hammer (for a revolver) and a bullet in the chamber (for autoloading pistols).

A person may discharge a loaded pistol if he she has reason to believe their own person, persons or possessions are in danger.

2. A person may carry a concealed weapon on or about his/her person provided that they

a) Demonstrate the basic cleaning and function of both a revolver and autoloading pistol

Under the supervision of an instructor, an applicant must demonstrate how to engage and kill a target at a distance of less than 10 ft.

c) Memorize and Recite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

An exact fee of $1 per Concealed weapons permit shall be collected

[w00dc4ip]

tplane37, on Jul 12 2008, 06:19 PM, said:

Also, I found an answer to my own question regarding which the Branch of Government the Police are.

Hey now TP, you may have found the official source but at least I guessed right three days before you got the source, that has to count for something...

Thanks for all the work, really like where this is going and would love to personally deliver the resolution to the Cook County offices when we get to that point.
w00dc4ip

[lockman]

drdoom, on Jul 15 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

I've been thinking about this draft ordinance and how about this:

1. Open Carry for those who possess a FOID card an example:

"A person may carry openly, on or about his person, a pistol or revolver provided he
she has

a) a valid FOID card as defined the the FOID Act of 1968

Loaded is defined by a cocked hammer (for a revolver) and a bullet in the chamber (for autoloading pistols).

A person may discharge a loaded pistol if he she has reason to believe their own person, persons or possessions are in danger.

2. A person may carry a concealed weapon on or about his/her person provided that they

a) Demonstrate the basic cleaning and function of both a revolver and autoloading pistol

Under the supervision of an instructor, an applicant must demonstrate how to engage and kill a target at a distance of less than 10 ft.

c) Memorize and Recite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

An exact fee of $1 per Concealed weapons permit shall be collected

Not a very safe way to carry a revolver. Maybe defined as: a cartridge(s) loaded in one or more chambers of the revolver cylinder.

[tplane37]

Not looking to have to demonstrate anything other than providing proof of the completion of a hunter's safety course. We are looking for Right to Carry...period. And wanting to ensure that those who are authorized to carry may carry in the manor they choose while within the county and in possession of the permit.

When referring to "Carry" these means "cocked, locked, and ready to rock" (i.e. one in the pipe, 15 in the mag, and easily accessible) will be acceptable. Besides, what good is a firearm for self defense if you have to load your magazine, insert into pistol, rack slide, aim and fire.....by that time, you're already dead! So once again...The K.I.S.S. method is the preferred method in this matter...at least for Macon County, and I am sure many others would agree. 90% of the text in the ordinance is to state the legality (the how and why). 7% to state where the revenue will go to (the who and where). 2% for definitions. 1% to be actually pertaining to the carrying of a firearm for self defense (the what portion).

But once again, we are still trying to figure out the legality of a state's attorney refusing to prosecute for an ordinance with in the county he/she represents. Who prosecutes the State's Attorney, and what repercussions can the citizens look to face for obeying an ordinance that disregards a state's law?

[eric2281]

drdoom, on Jul 15 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

I've been thinking about this draft ordinance and how about this:

1. Open Carry for those who possess a FOID card an example:

"A person may carry openly, on or about his person, a pistol or revolver provided he
she has

a) a valid FOID card as defined the the FOID Act of 1968

Loaded is defined by a cocked hammer (for a revolver) and a bullet in the chamber (for autoloading pistols).

A person may discharge a loaded pistol if he she has reason to believe their own person, persons or possessions are in danger.

2. A person may carry a concealed weapon on or about his/her person provided that they

a) Demonstrate the basic cleaning and function of both a revolver and autoloading pistol

Under the supervision of an instructor, an applicant must demonstrate how to engage and kill a target at a distance of less than 10 ft.

c) Memorize and Recite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

An exact fee of $1 per Concealed weapons permit shall be collected

You might want to ditch the highlighted red part. Last time I checked, you cannot use lethal force to protect/defend material goods. (unless you can convince the jury that the robber was going to bash you over the head with your plasma tv)   Thats not to say you cannot draw down on the dirtbag, just not kill 'em. (ie. NO DISCHARGE)


I also dislike the cocked hammer part for revolvers. I dont see the extra hassle of an uncocked hammer of a loaded wheelgun.

EDIT: One more suggestion if I may. Change the 10 ft requirement to 25ft or 7yds (21ft). If you can't put a round in the kill zone at these distances, you'll have other things to worry about.

[Johnnybgood]

I will head up Christian County. When you have the template done let me know. Thanks for all your hard work guys and gals. Let the wildfire spread!

[abolt243]

eric2281, on Jul 22 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

drdoom, on Jul 15 2008, 07:42 PM, said:

I've been thinking about this draft ordinance and how about this:

1. Open Carry for those who possess a FOID card an example:

"A person may carry openly, on or about his person, a pistol or revolver provided he
she has

a) a valid FOID card as defined the the FOID Act of 1968

Loaded is defined by a cocked hammer (for a revolver) and a bullet in the chamber (for autoloading pistols).

A person may discharge a loaded pistol if he she has reason to believe their own person, persons or possessions are in danger.

2. A person may carry a concealed weapon on or about his/her person provided that they

a) Demonstrate the basic cleaning and function of both a revolver and autoloading pistol

Under the supervision of an instructor, an applicant must demonstrate how to engage and kill a target at a distance of less than 10 ft.

c) Memorize and Recite the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

An exact fee of $1 per Concealed weapons permit shall be collected

You might want to ditch the highlighted red part. Last time I checked, you cannot use lethal force to protect/defend material goods. (unless you can convince the jury that the robber was going to bash you over the head with your plasma tv)   Thats not to say you cannot draw down on the dirtbag, just not kill 'em. (ie. NO DISCHARGE)


I also dislike the cocked hammer part for revolvers. I dont see the extra hassle of an uncocked hammer of a loaded wheelgun.

EDIT: One more suggestion if I may. Change the 10 ft requirement to 25ft or 7yds (21ft). If you can't put a round in the kill zone at these distances, you'll have other things to worry about.

If you haven't already, please read the actual statute and use that language in any "ordinance".  Re: use of force to defend posessions, see Sect 7.3:
(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
    Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
    (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.  

Also, under B., please reconsider the use of the word "kill".  Perhaps you could use "disable" or "neutralize".  

I also see no need for the demonstration of the way to clean a pistol, nor to memorize and recite the 2A.  To put it in perspective, do you have to be able to work on a car or recite the vehicle code word for word to get a driver's license??  

Just my thoughts.
AB

[tplane37]

Well said AB. Wording is vital, as most gun owners in Illinois know from previous statutes. We are not looking to rewrite existing laws on Justifiable use of Force...at least not with this ordinance. 720 ILCS 5/7 already provides provisions for the use of force, what we are asking for is a viable means to exercise our right to use force.

From what I gather of 720 ILCS 5/7, a person is Justified in the use of force to prevent/cease a forcible felony at home or in public, therefore already stating that a firearm may be used in public (i.e. your driving to work, you're at a stop light, a BG is trying to high jack the guy in the car next to you. Since the BG has a firearm pointed at the victim, you would be justified in use of force against the BG to protect the victim because you feared for the victim's life...I'm not a lawyer, but this is my interpretation). Now, I did not see anywhere in 720 ILCS 5/7, nor any other statute I have read, that your/our right to self defense ceases at the edge of our property. So long and short, the laws for self defense and use of force are already in existence, it is only logical to provide a dependable method to exercise the rights provided by these laws. (I know, preaching to the choir here.)

And JohnnyB, thank you for being willing to take up the effort in your county. At the moment we are still trying to figure out the legality more than anything. Once everything is read to go, I will be asking Blaster about posting a Sticky for resources for this. It will include the ordinance, resolution (if required), and other document similar to how the Pro2AR was done. Also a list of members who are the contacts for their counties. I would like to start compiling a list of people who want to take charge of the RTCF County Ordinance in their counties so that when the time comes, we will be ready to hit the ground running. My thought is to overwhelm the State (who ever would be the prosecuting party against the State's Attorneys) with multiple counties passing this ordinance back-to-back-to-back...hopefully resulting in state legislation for state wide RTCF permits.

Those who would like to take up the challenge in their county, post it here and I will begin compiling a list.

I have Macon County
JohnnyBGood has Cristian County
Abolt has Shelby County (or was it Moultrie County?)