72 replies to this topic

[Chris]

Looks like I'm having some editing issues I'll have to look at later.

[templar223]

Chris, on 22 January 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

Looks like I'm having some editing issues I'll have to look at later.

NICE job up there.

And the press release was great!

John

[moparcardave]

ilphil, on 22 January 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

lockman, on Jan 22 2010, 07:39 AM, said:

I knew the Sheriff stepped in it when he added his concerns after reading the Sheriffs Associations resolution.


On the Drivers license proposal I was thinking it would be a shame if non LTC holders are dragged from their vehicles and searched for weapons because they do not have an LTC endorsement. Remember, LEO's approach everybody as if they are armed, right? After all, if you have the endorsement on your DL then the officer knows you have been trained, vetted and approved by the state for carry just like him/her.

Several commentators did remind the Sheriff that right to carry is a right, not a privilege. The Sheriff then answered that his officers will not give up their "right" to defend themselves after a comment about them "flashing" during traffic stops. I was always under the impression that carrying a gun for official duties was an exercise of granted powers, or in other words "privilege" and a citizen carrying for self defense was the "right". Where did I go wrong?

Overall I was amazed at the turnout and my thanks go out to all those that put in the time and effort to make it happen. I truly believe an era of change is at hand.

McHenry County yesterday, Kane?, DuPage? Lake? Tomorrow?

I found it quite telling and rather arrogant that the Sheriff obviously feels that his deputies have more of a "right" to defend themselves than us peons do.
My guess is that in his world anyone with that carry holder designation on their driver's license can count on being treated VERY differently than other drivers. And not in a positive way, either.
If I lived in McHenry County it would be very difficult to justify voting for him.

Always amazes me that some of the police in Illinois think of legal law abiding citizens here have less of a right then those in 48 other states where citizens are given the right.  Yes, LTC is a right, being a police officer is not a right but a privilage, well unless in Chicago where now anyone can apply now since there is no testin any more.

[Molly B.]

moparcardave, on 26 January 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

ilphil, on 22 January 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

I found it quite telling and rather arrogant that the Sheriff obviously feels that his deputies have more of a "right" to defend themselves than us peons do.
My guess is that in his world anyone with that carry holder designation on their driver's license can count on being treated VERY differently than other drivers. And not in a positive way, either.
If I lived in McHenry County it would be very difficult to justify voting for him.

Always amazes me that some of the police in Illinois think of legal law abiding citizens here have less of a right then those in 48 other states where citizens are given the right.  Yes, LTC is a right, being a police officer is not a right but a privilage, well unless in Chicago where now anyone can apply now since there is no testin any more.

I wish Sheriff Nygren had presented the Sheriff's resolution more clearly - my local sheriff was actually on the committee
which wrote and presented the resolution to the IL Sheriff's Association.  It might have seemed the IL Sheriff Assoc. supported a "may issue"
type law but the committee voiced just the opposite and maintained the sheriffs definitely
do not want to be the final say in who could or could not obtain a license to carry because that could be open to abuse.

The sheriffs were interested in some sort of process of informing the state issuing agency if an applicant was under investigation
for a disqualifying offense - and only if the applicant whose license was delayed or denied had ample opportunity to appeal such
a decision before a judge and the sheriff would have to be able to justify a wish to delay or deny -

As for a designation on a driver's license that too was not presented clearly - the committee was more in line with a person's RTC license info
being entered into the LEED's system just like the FOID card is.  They were not supportive of a designation which would be visible to the public
or on a driver's license which folks use for ID purposes.

[ilphil]

Molly B., on 26 January 2010 - 01:46 PM, said:

moparcardave, on 26 January 2010 - 01:24 PM, said:

ilphil, on 22 January 2010 - 09:45 AM, said:

I found it quite telling and rather arrogant that the Sheriff obviously feels that his deputies have more of a "right" to defend themselves than us peons do.
My guess is that in his world anyone with that carry holder designation on their driver's license can count on being treated VERY differently than other drivers. And not in a positive way, either.
If I lived in McHenry County it would be very difficult to justify voting for him.

Always amazes me that some of the police in Illinois think of legal law abiding citizens here have less of a right then those in 48 other states where citizens are given the right.  Yes, LTC is a right, being a police officer is not a right but a privilage, well unless in Chicago where now anyone can apply now since there is no testin any more.

I wish Sheriff Nygren had presented the Sheriff's resolution more clearly - my local sheriff was actually on the committee
which wrote and presented the resolution to the IL Sheriff's Association.  It might have seemed the IL Sheriff Assoc. supported a "may issue"
type law but the committee voiced just the opposite and maintained the sheriffs definitely
do not want to be the final say in who could or could not obtain a license to carry because that could be open to abuse.

The sheriffs were interested in some sort of process of informing the state issuing agency if an applicant was under investigation
for a disqualifying offense - and only if the applicant whose license was delayed or denied had ample opportunity to appeal such
a decision before a judge and the sheriff would have to be able to justify a wish to delay or deny -

As for a designation on a driver's license that too was not presented clearly - the committee was more in line with a person's RTC license info
being entered into the LEED's system just like the FOID card is.  They were not supportive of a designation which would be visible to the public
or on a driver's license which folks use for ID purposes.

Thank you for the explanation Molly. That certainly sounds a whole lot different than how the sheriff presented things at the meeting.
I can only assume he was inserting HIS feelings into the presentation.
I can also understand his statement that he wants his deputies to go home safely at night. I have the same wishes for MY family and friends.

[Drylok]

A few words to desribe what it's like to have this kind of support from up N.
Refreshing
Encouraging
Liberating
Exciting

Way to GO Folks!

[Chris]

Took me forever to get to some of this but here are some more videos, some may be processing still:

[Chris]

[Chris]

[Chris]

[Chris]

Here's the first two videos:

[Chris]

Click here to watch all the videos as a playlist:

[CSpark]

This was a great town hall meeting. I wish we could have another one here in McHenry County. I live in the Woodstock area and was impressed with the amount of people that were there in support. It is a step in the right direction and a sigh of relief. Thank you and hope to see you soon!! I can't make it to the Chicago event dur to my work schedule. but when the Kane County meeting gets set up I will try to make it.