268 replies to this topic

[mauserme]

http://www.myjournal...apons-gets.html

Quote

Pike man aims to pass weapons carry initiative

August 19, 2011 4:57 AM

GREG OLSON

If a Pittsfield chiropractor gets his way, his neighbors will be allowed to be armed in public.

Dan Mefford is spearheading a petition drive to have an initiative addressing the weapons issue placed on the March primary ballot.

"The initiative essentially bypasses the Chicago Machine that is currently ruling Illinois," Mefford said. "I recommend that each county in Illinois get on board and pass the same gutsy version for the constitutional carry of arms."

An initiative is a process that enables a specified number of voters by petition to propose a law and submit it to voters in a general election.

Still, there are hurdles to clear before carrying weapons in Pike County is legal.

If the initiative makes the ballot and passes, Mefford said the courts will decide if it is constitutional.

"The time has come to stand up and be counted instead of imploring and begging and pleading with our Chicago Machine rulers to pass a concealed carry law full of unconstitutional garbage just to get a toe in the door so we can carry a weapon for defense of ourselves, our families, our friends and property," Mefford said.

He does not believe such things as Firearm Owner's Identification Cards are needed to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

"The Second Amendment states 'shall not be infringed.' How hard is that to comprehend? The Second Amendment does not say shall not be infringed very much," Mefford said.

While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed-carry permits, 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from state or local law enforcement. Illinois will be the only state without such a provision, once Wisconsin's new shall-issue law takes effect this fall.

"Our goal is to see that our constitutional rights are observed," Mefford said. "People have rallied around this issue and are pitching in to get signatures for the petition."

The petition, which requires 530 signatures before it can be placed on the ballot, will be submitted to the Pike County clerk late this year but is not guaranteed to be on the ballot.

"As long as there are no errors in the petitioning process, it should go on the ballot," Mefford said. "We think it will be scrutinized by legal authorities within the state."

The Illinois House on May 5 narrowly voted down a measure that would allow people to carry concealed weapons in public places. The vote was 65-52-1, but failed because it needed a supermajority to pass. Supermajorities are necessary for measures that would limit the regulatory powers of municipalities.

If approved, the plan would have allowed people to carry a gun after passing a background check and completing eight hours of training. Licensed gun holders would be prohibited from taking guns to certain public places, such as government buildings, airports and schools.

Critics of the concealed-carry plan often cite fears of increased violence and added stress to an already overloaded FOID card system. Illinois State Police estimates about 325,000 more people would sign up for concealed carry permits if the law were changed.

[Mr. Fife]

Is this just for Pike County? Regardless, I think it's wishful thinking to believe he can get more votes in favor than against.

[drdoom]

your more likely to win the lottery than accomplish that

[Tvandermyde]

right now this kind of stuff is not helpful

[Drylok]

Tvandermyde, on 19 August 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

right now this kind of stuff is not helpful

Chew his ass Todd!

[abolt243]

Drylok, on 19 August 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 19 August 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

right now this kind of stuff is not helpful

Chew his ass Todd!

Anybody on this board from Pike County that could visit with Dr. Mefford?? Explain to him that we're working in the courts and in the legislature to get it passed statewide??  A county by county effort at this time would NOT be helpful to our cause.

Anybody got connections to this part of the state??

AB

[pyre400]

Drylok, on 19 August 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 19 August 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

right now this kind of stuff is not helpful

Chew his ass Todd!

Someone should STRAIGHTEN that chiropractor out...

[Uncle Harley]

pyre400, on 19 August 2011 - 10:46 AM, said:

Drylok, on 19 August 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 19 August 2011 - 09:22 AM, said:

right now this kind of stuff is not helpful

Chew his ass Todd!

Someone should STRAIGHTEN that chiropractor out...

good luck with that,  pike county is southern IL right?   Them boys down there could care less if chicago gets it, even more so than  us here in the central part of the stae.   Everybody I know  says  they are pushing for this new patchwork bill, and  I have to educate them on the court cases.  But I understand where they are coming from.  It was the hope from Ezel that  changed my heart on the whole throw chicago under the buss thing.

[pyre400]

Uncle Harley, on 19 August 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

good luck with that, pike county is southern IL right? Them boys down there could care less if chicago gets it, even more so than us here in the central part of the stae. Everybody I know says they are pushing for this new patchwork bill, and I have to educate them on the court cases. But I understand where they are coming from. It was the hope from Ezel that changed my heart on the whole throw chicago under the buss thing.

Here's our battles:



I agree with AB, someone should let this guy know that there are many battles going on that will yield better results than what he proposes. To ignore this would be damaging. This is a statewide effort, but I see a lot of red in that chicago area. They're pulling their weight, and their officials are the only ones stupid enough to make the challenges they are making.

I believe the sonsab1ches in chicago's political machine are actually a blessing for our cause - it will be through their foolishness that we will get RTC.

[Uncle Harley]

pyre400, on 19 August 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

I agree with AB, someone should let this guy know that there are many battles going on that will yield better results than what he proposes. To ignore this would be damaging. This is a statewide effort, but I see a lot of red in that chicago area. They're pulling their weight, and their officials are the only ones stupid enough to make the challenges they are making.

I believe the sonsab1ches in chicago's political machine are actually a blessing for our cause - it will be through their foolishness that we will get RTC.

Oh I complety get that now,  and  most of the court cases should be in chicago, they have been the anchor holding us back for yrs.  That is about the only block that needs to fall and the rest will follow like dominoes.  But what I'm saying is fat chance explaining that to someone that isn't up to speed on the court cases and what's been happening.   If it wasn't for this site, we wouldn't even know there was a battle going on.  It's not in the media,  I haven't seen one local  newspaper or station mention a word of it. Not to many of us common folk read chicago news ;0)

[Skorpius]

I support the right to arm with pikes!

[abolt243]

Uncle Harley, on 19 August 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

good luck with that,  pike county is southern IL right?   Them boys down there could care less if chicago gets it, even more so than  us here in the central part of the stae.   Everybody I know  says  they are pushing for this new patchwork bill, and  I have to educate them on the court cases.  But I understand where they are coming from.  It was the hope from Ezel that  changed my heart on the whole throw chicago under the buss thing.

Pike County is Western IL, straight west of Springfield between the IL and Mississippi rivers.  I-72 cuts right across the middle of the county.  Pittsfield is the county seat and largest town, Hannibal, MO is right across the river.  In my mind, they're not Southern IL, but I'm sure they hold Chicago politics in disdain as much as most of us here do!!  

AB

[Uncle Harley]

i knew they were west, but thought they were further south than that, but yeah I agree they probably do LOL

[Beezil]

pyre400, on 19 August 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

Uncle Harley, on 19 August 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

good luck with that, pike county is southern IL right? Them boys down there could care less if chicago gets it, even more so than us here in the central part of the stae. Everybody I know says they are pushing for this new patchwork bill, and I have to educate them on the court cases. But I understand where they are coming from. It was the hope from Ezel that changed my heart on the whole throw chicago under the buss thing.

Here's our battles:

thanks for the new screen saver!

[pyre400]

Beezil, on 19 August 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:

thanks for the new screen saver!

I shamelssly took it from Molly, who apparently snagged it from Mr. B and Dale Mangum

It is a beaut...

[markthesignguy]

Here is a link to his bio page for the West Central Illinois 9/12 Group


http://www.meetup.co...mbers/12130040/

and his practice's number is easily google-fu'd....

Perhaps somebody with some titles after their name in this fight could POLITELY invite him to start using Illinoiscarry.com as an information resource - so he doesn't feel as isolated.

The benefit is great, an almost direct link to the NRA's lobbyist for Illinois, and an information resource that's right AT the tip of the spear.

[hotpig27]

I live just a little south and east of the Pike County line. They are jealous that we passed concealed carry back in 2008.

[dmefford]

Hi all,

My first post....  I was just looking at the join dates from all the "interesting" posts above.  They range from 2006 to fairly recent.  I have been a member of another forum since 2006 and in the firearms issues for many years before that.  I am not a big participator in the other forum either but they are like this bunch, concerned about the theft of a natural RTKBA.  My time is such that I cannot be on every forum out there, unfortunate but fact.  As to the active ongoing cases I think that I am aware of most of them their meanings, goals and implications.  I would be happy to be further apprised where I fall short.  And I do fall short in many ways.  As to the somewhat snide comments above I won't take them personally.  Everyone is a little on edge and concerned over the theft of our Constitutionally secured rights by government.  Remember I am not stealing your rights.  None of us want somebody screwing it up!  I am also aware that the 'big boys' don't like the little 'know nuthin' country boys to get in their way.  

We (the gun rights movement and culture if you will) are making head way on several fronts in the courts with some good decisions.  However my/our (I am not acting completely alone) concern is with the approach being taken by the those who are leading at the state level.  It would appear to us that the NRA/ISRA (I am a member in good standing, my Dad a lifer NRA) etc would be happy with a CCW bill that would 'allow' us poor peasant subjects to petition and plead with TPTB to ask for the 'privilege' of exercising a right endowed by our Creator (or insert whoever or whatever you prefer) to keep and bear an arm (I prefer 'arm(s)' to the limiting term of firearm).  How do you really feel about that?  Are you folks from the crowd that would prefer to "get your toe in the door?" Are you willing give TPTB your DNA, fingerprints, perform a shooting test, pass a class, jump through hoop after hoop just to exercise a right that you already have?

I am sorry, I don't think I can bring myself to the point where I am willing to do all that to exercise my RTKBA.  Now before you start jumping down my throat, you might want to read what our "initiative" is and then think about and realize that I and my friends are not the enemy.  Then respond to this little nobody Pike County country boy from the sticks where the hoot owls have to carry daylight in a bucket so they can see.    

CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY OF ARMS
WHEREAS: the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states “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;”

WHEREAS: Article 1 Section 24, of the Illinois Constitution states “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State;”

WHEREAS: the Supreme Court of the United States has held in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, that the “right to keep and bear arms” is an individual and fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;

AND WHEREAS: the Supreme Court of the United States has held in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED as the law of Pike County, Illinois, that the people have an individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms free of infringement by any local, state, or federal government; AND FURTHER, that the method or manner of possessing, carrying, or transporting said arms shall not be infringed. THIS ORDINANCE SHALL EXCLUDE: all individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms under the laws of the United States, prohibited minors, and those under any intoxicating influence exceeding the standards of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code. Upon passage this ordinance shall be in full force and effect.

I will tear this thing apart for you so you can see the reasoning process used... then I will try to respond to your comments as I get time.

First nothing you find in this ordinance is new......!  For an initiative to have legal effect, in other words become an enforceable law, it must have authority either from statute or the constitution (per state law).  As you know there is no authorizing statute.  Therefore the authorization must come from the Constitution.  Keep this in mind.

WHEREAS: the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states “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;”

This first "where as" takes the US 2A as an authority (See Heller and McDonald).  Meets the state law requirement.  More in a little bit.

WHEREAS: Article 1 Section 24, of the Illinois Constitution states “The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the individual citizens of the State;”

The second "where as" takes authority from the Illinois Const. Art. 1, Sec 24 Rights Retained.  Now rights retained are many and numerous. The un-enumerated rights referred to are natural rights such as right to travel, right procreate, right hold property, the right to self defense, defense of family and friends and property, and you can list natural rights for hours...  We, of course claim the RTKBA includes the right to defense of one's self, etc...

WHEREAS: the Supreme Court of the United States has held in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, that the “right to keep and bear arms” is an individual and fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;

In this case, as you know the key finding is the finding the RKBA is an individual and fundamental right.  Now everyone makes comments about "reasonable regulation."  Fair enough let's talk about "reasonable regulation."  

What is reasonable?  Let's look at other natural rights.  Free speech- is a natural and fundamental right... now should it be subject to reasonable regulation?  Do we need permission from .gov to have this conversation?  NO  However there is a limit to about any natural right for instance in this case the classic, you cannot yell FIRE! or BOMB! in a crowded auditorium. So a reasonable regulation might be; Do not yell fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire.  

Free Press... do we need permission of .gov to print speech.  NO but there is a natural limit... you cannot print defamatory or libelous talk or lies. A reasonable regulation might be; no libel.

Free exercise of religion.....  Do we need permission of .gov to practice our beliefs?  NO! However if your "Sun God" 'tells' you to sacrifice your first born you will run into a natural limit.  Just because "your kid" is under your care and custody does not mean that you have a right to steal your child's life (murder).  Your child's life is his property. A reasonable regulation might be; don't steal from others while practicing your religion.

Now Right To Keep and Bear Arms..... Do I need permission of .gov to exercise my natural, God given "RIGHT" to keep and bear/carry an arm?  NO...!  Heck NO! IT IS a NATURAL RIGHT the same as the others.  Is there a natural limit to the exercise of this right?  Of course there is... we cannot exercise our right by irresponsibly placing other individuals at risk and reducing/stealing their right to enjoyment of life by waving, brandishing, intimidating with an "arm."  The key; does .gov have the any more ability to "regulate" the keeping and bearing/carrying of arms than it does free speech, free press, free exercise of religion, etc.?  NO. But guess what, the government does try to regulate it in the name of necessity and safety.  We call the excess regulation "usurpation" of power.  Now we the People have been ignorant and allowed it to happen but somewhere it must stop....  So yes it can be regulated in some ways.  Let's think about it...  We can regulate Free speech by passing a law against hollering FIRE! or another one against falsely defaming a person in the paper or No sacrificing of children to the Sun God, etc.. So we can regulate Arms in the following manner; no brandishing and intimidating people with an arm, etc.

AND WHEREAS: the Supreme Court of the United States has held in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al., that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states;

Now this "Whereas" is simple.....  This case, as this crowd would know, "incorporates," or "applies," the 2A to the states via the 14th Amendment.......  You could say that means the US 2A is now Illinois Law!  How does that compare to:  "Subject to the police power...?"  

On to the fun stuff.......  

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ENACTED as the law of Pike County, Illinois, that the people have an individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms free of infringement

Nothing new here.... just simple restatement of the 2A and made it the law in Pike County...  The 2A is law of the land in US and Now State of Illinois (McDonald) and NOW codified in Pike County (assuming it passes)......  Exciting? Interested?

by any local, state, or federal government;

What does "shall not be infringed mean?  Does it mean "shall not be infringed very much" or does it simply mean what it says, "shall not be infringed?"  We simply elaborated and made it clear that it means shall not be infringed by .gov...  It is possible that if the founders had done that we would not be having this conversation.....

AND FURTHER, that the method or manner of possessing, carrying, or transporting said arms shall not be infringed.

More elaboration and clarification lingo...  we are just describing the possible ways in which an infringement might occur...  it SAYS, "shall not be infringed!"  Nothing new, just clarification.....

THIS ORDINANCE SHALL EXCLUDE: all individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms under the laws of the United States, prohibited minors, and those under any intoxicating influence exceeding the standards of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code.

We could leave this out and it would make no difference in the effect any of the forgoing.  When you commit certain crimes under the laws of the United States you will forfeit your some of your natural, God given rights.  Some of the rights that you forfeit might be some liberty (while in jail) perhaps it is a felony and its associated penalties, etc...  We put it in for the people who do not understand and are concerned, thinking that this would allow criminals to legally have a firearm.  It is a statement that just 'recognizes' the penalties adjudicated by juries and judges.

prohibited minors,

Let's talk about this.  We discussed this up one side and down another.  Do we make age an issue 21, 19 or 18 or what?  How do I tell a young man who carries an M16 in the service of his country, having potentially faced the enemy, that he cannot carry at home...? Therefore we went with the terminology "prohibited minors,' which in essence is the same as a "prohibited adult."  Comments?

and those under any intoxicating influence exceeding the standards of the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code.

Do I need to say anything here?  Some hold their 'likker' better than others...  I dislike the potential nose under the tent here but .......  There is a natural limit.  Is it .08? I don't know. Comments?

Upon passage this ordinance shall be in full force and effect.

No comment necessary.....

I hope that you folks will realize that the spirit in which our ordinance has been developed and is coming about is simply clarifying and adopting the 2A at the county level.  Nothing new.  I hope that you don't see us as the enemy.  Our hearts and our intent are in the right place.  Some would say that we are well meaning fools.  I say they have right to their opinion and I pray they are wrong.  You should know that, while I initiated it, and take responsibility for pushing it, the final 'lingo' had substantial input by a scholar who taught Constitutional Law at Cornell for years and persons from other states who write firearms law.  Regardless we are going with it, there is really no turning back now.  While I do not want to be a horse's behind, and I prefer to be the good guy, and I like to please people and have lots of friends, I say either get behind it and start pushing this everywhere or get the hell out of the way!  It is too late to back off!  Remember the legislature cannot make law contrary to the State or Federal Constitution and make it stick long term (I hope, or we are in real trouble).

Your comments are appreciated either way.  I will respond as time is available.  Could be a while... I do apologize for possible misspellings and typos but I have not had time to do the word by word etc...

Kindest regards, Dr. Dan

[dmefford]

hotpig27, on 19 August 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

I live just a little south and east of the Pike County line. They are jealous that we passed concealed carry back in 2008.

Sorry.  I don't know what you are talking about.....

Regards, Dr. Dan

[mauserme]

Since I originated this thread I'm happy to be the first to welcome you to the forum, Dr. Dan.  My purpose in posting the article was simply to share information I found interesting.  Things did take some turns I didn't anicipate but, as you say, emotions are high right now.  

Thank you for coming here to share your thoughts and explain your purpose.  I, for one, am glad to have you.

[Chris]

Dan,

Welcome to the forum, I thought I'd make you aware of some reading to do about people's attempts to what you are attempting from the past.

First take a look at what happened back in 2008 in Winnebago County where they attempted to do the same.

http://illinoiscarry...hp?showforum=14

Winnebago county spurred some action by other counties as well, in the end they discovered that the county could not make the state's laws less restrictive. To shorten it up Counties and Cities can make local laws more restrictive but could not supersede the state.

Next up make sure you're aware of what happened in 1999 in Missouri and how it set them back by several years - http://en.wikipedia....osition_B_(1999)

While I admire your desire to act and better the county but I strongly do not believe in putting my constitutional rights up to a vote by the general public. I believe the only way to correct this errors is to act on a state and national level like we have with legislation and litigation. Make sure to familiarize yourself with all the current cases that are happening and you will see we are closer than ever and possibly only a few months away.

-Chris

[pyre400]

Welcome dmefford.

I apologize for my corny joke - glad you didnt take it personally.

I dont have anything to comment on - Chris pretty much says it all.

Thanks for posting the details

[dmefford]

It would be easier for me if someone would just do a quick synopsis of Winnebago County.  I do not have time to search the thread.  I started but I have to sleep sometime.

What did they try to pass?  Referendum, initiative, CCW.  How did it read...?

Also thanks for the welcome.  As to "straightening out the Chiropractor," hmmmm that would probably do me some good right now pyre400.  No offense taken, I thought it funny as well...  

What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to beg ask for the privilege to carry.  After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.  That is besides giving up your finger prints like a common criminal.  IOW, just how many are gonna rush out and do this when it passes?

How many here would expect Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, and Mason and the rest of our founding fathers (FFs) to jump right in line to ask permission of these Chicago Hoodlums that are running this state to KBAs?

If the FFs wouldn't do it, why would we do it?

I would really like to know who is going to jump in and do this?  I have trouble comprehending this. I don't want to offend, I want to understand.  As it stands in my thoughts you can count me out for jumping through all those hoops.  I took the Utah carry and paid my $125 or whatever it was, but refused the finger print process.  I called the state of Utah and talked to the nice lady that is in charge of the whole program and asked what happens to the finger prints?  Are they expunged when the background check comes up clean? What is the deal?  She said they send them straight to the FBI where, her understanding is, they are placed in a database for CCW people.  She said I could call and ask them myself.  I didn't bother because I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine the FBI expunging them from the computer even after they come up clean (Tinfoil hat is on :-)).  

Quote

"the county could not make the state's laws less restrictive" from Chris

Let's adopt the 2A to our Counties....  If you believe the "law of the land" is the constitution, then what is the issue?  Chris are you saying that the 2A is not effective?

Regards, Dr. Dan

[Chris]

Dan,

Back in 2008 a number of us got our start trying many different methods to start to get carry on a county by county basis. We had almost all the county officials in our support including the sheriff and then the newly elected county's states attorney. Lots and lots and lots of research was done as to how we could get this passed, no matter what we did it came back to the UUW and wildlife codes that the state has. If the county were to issue permits the Attorney general would then sue the county for violating the UUW act and other parts of the FOID act, at that point after the county board and decided along with us that we could not go by this method they decided to pass a resolution urging the state to pass a carry bill.

Many of us that worked on the Winnebago County issue then refocused our efforts to help on working our carry bills which I believe you know the history of HB148 and how that is the closest we have gotten since the 90s. Since that failed you now see the litigation that we are currently waiting for rulings on which you can see here:

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=26176

http://illinoiscarry...showtopic=26175

Also we did have quite the movement for resolutions a few years ago getting well over 90% of the counties to pass the pro 2a resolution:

http://illinoiscarry...?showtopic=7140

[PPK]

Welcome aboard, Dr. Dan.

I really can't see IL going from a right denied state to constitutional carry in one jump. Hopefully, we'll get there someday. The Heller decision was good for us but it also left plenty of room for states to regulate concealed carry and you can bet that IL will regulate the heck out of it. I guess there are some true patriots in IL now willing to take a stand and ignore the laws against concealed carry. The street gangs are full of them. As far as fingerprints go, mine are on file for my FL permit which has yet to cause a problem, but also with my TWIC card (Transportation Worker Identification Credential). The government already has so much information on me that they're not likely to learn anything new when I apply for an IL LTC. As a Doctor, they probably have, or can retrieve, more information about you than you can posibly imagine. Better stock up on tin-foil.

[mauserme]

dmefford, on 20 August 2011 - 10:32 PM, said:

What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to beg ask for the privilege to carry.  After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.  That is besides giving up your finger prints like a common criminal.  IOW, just how many are gonna rush out and do this when it passes?

How many here would expect Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, and Mason and the rest of our founding fathers (FFs) to jump right in line to ask permission of these Chicago Hoodlums that are running this state to KBAs?

If the FFs wouldn't do it, why would we do it?

Dan, I don't think anyone here is allowing the conversion of our rights into privileges.  That process began before most of us were born, or at least before most of us were old enough to resist.  That is the reality we (including you) are trying to change, not trying to prevent.

Like you , I wonder about the private thoughts of the Founding Fathers and what drove them to risk so much to gain freedom.  The best answer I find is that they did it for themselves, of course but, beyond that, they did it for their children.  They were willing to tolerate more, in different ways than us, than they hoped future generations would have to tolerate.  If you find a moment to look through these pages you will see it stated often that HB148 is imperfect, that our hope is to push this as far as possible now while recognizing that improvement will likely be needed in the future.  It's one battle in the larger war, not final victory.  

I believe the Founders would be proud that so many of us are fighting a peaceful revolution to regain what's been lost but also that they were practical men and women who understood the need, when possible, to engage in battles that could be won as steps toward winning the war.  I believe they also understood that a co-ordinated, joint effort would yield greater success.

[dmefford]

[quote name='Chris' date='20 August 2011 - 10:47 PM' timestamp='1313902037' post='287732']
Dan,

Back in 2008 a number of us got our start trying many different methods to start to get carry on a county by county basis. We had almost all the county officials in our support including the sheriff and then the newly elected county's states attorney. Lots and lots and lots of research was done as to how we could get this passed, no matter what we did it came back to the UUW and wildlife codes that the state has. If the county were to issue permits the Attorney general would then sue the county for violating the UUW act and other parts of the FOID act, at that point after the county board and decided along with us that we could not go by this method they decided to pass a resolution urging the state to pass a carry bill.

Many of us that worked on the Winnebago County issue then refocused our efforts to help on working our carry bills which I believe you know the history of HB148 and how that is the closest we have gotten since the 90s. Since that failed you now see the litigation that we are currently waiting for rulings on which you can see here:
[/quote]

Thanks Chris.  That helped me understand the history.  The "Resolution" was started in Pike County by Mark Mountain, who was on the Pike County Board at the time.  It caught fire and went around the state. He was the main individual who got that rolling around the state.  I met him this afternoon at a 2A rally held in Brown County today.  He signed our petition today along with quite a few others.


[quote name='PPK' date='21 August 2011 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1313934586' post='287745']
Welcome aboard, Dr. Dan.

I really can't see IL going from a right denied state to constitutional carry in one jump. Hopefully, we'll get there someday. The Heller decision was good for us but it also left plenty of room for states to regulate concealed carry and you can bet that IL will regulate the heck out of it.
[/quote]

Actually it can happen (Dreaming again?).  It depends on the very court cases that are working through the courts right now.  Please reread my comments above... I will just requote them...  Think about it there could be a small time frame between the time a favorable decision comes out and the Chicago Machine getting in high gear to come out with some kind of draconian CCW.  Just like the machine has attempted to do with the gun range issue in Cook County.  Our feeling and judgment says that Pike will have codified and in place a simple restatement of the 2A with some "clarification" (See above discussion).  

[quote]In this case, as you know the key finding is the finding the RKBA is an individual and fundamental right. Now everyone makes comments about "reasonable regulation." Fair enough let's talk about "reasonable regulation."

What is reasonable? Let's look at other natural rights. Free speech- is a natural and fundamental right... now should it be subject to reasonable regulation? Do we need permission from .gov to have this conversation? NO However there is a limit to about any natural right for instance in this case the classic, you cannot yell FIRE! or BOMB! in a crowded auditorium. So a reasonable regulation might be; Do not yell fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire.

Free Press... do we need permission of .gov to print speech. NO but there is a natural limit... you cannot print defamatory or libelous talk or lies. A reasonable regulation might be; no libel.

Free exercise of religion..... Do we need permission of .gov to practice our beliefs? NO! However if your "Sun God" 'tells' you to sacrifice your first born you will run into a natural limit. Just because "your kid" is under your care and custody does not mean that you have a right to steal your child's life (murder). Your child's life is his property. A reasonable regulation might be; don't steal from others while practicing your religion.

Now Right To Keep and Bear Arms..... Do I need permission of .gov to exercise my natural, God given "RIGHT" to keep and bear/carry an arm? NO...! Heck NO! IT IS a NATURAL RIGHT the same as the others. Is there a natural limit to the exercise of this right? Of course there is... we cannot exercise our right by irresponsibly placing other individuals at risk and reducing/stealing their right to enjoyment of life by waving, brandishing, intimidating with an "arm." The key; does .gov have the any more ability to "regulate" the keeping and bearing/carrying of arms than it does free speech, free press, free exercise of religion, etc.? NO. But guess what, the government does try to regulate it in the name of necessity and safety. We call the excess regulation "usurpation" of power. Now we the People have been ignorant and allowed it to happen but somewhere it must stop.... So yes it can be regulated in some ways. Let's think about it... We can regulate Free speech by passing a law against hollering FIRE! or another one against falsely defaming a person in the paper or No sacrificing of children to the Sun God, etc.. So we can regulate Arms in the following manner; no brandishing and intimidating people with an arm, etc.[/quote]

I realize that the SCOTUS is not necessarily on the same page with us... However about any natural right can be regulated.  The question remains can/will 'they' try to force us to get permission from .gov to keep and carry an arm?  Or will they recognize that the only thing that can be regulated would be, "misbehavior" with an arm.  My objection is to interference from .gov by having to get permission from .gov for obtaining, keeping and bearing an arm in the manner I choose. This is the same as objecting to getting permission from .gov to exercise free speech, print a paper, to worship as I wish, eat what I wish, marry who I wish... ad nauseum.  I realize that you all probably agree with my reasoning and philosophy but are trying, perhaps, to tell me to wake up, quit dreaming and smell the coffee.  After all the court is peppered with libs.  You may be right...  They may not make the subtle distinction between getting permission to exercise the right and regulating the "misbehavior" or inappropriate exercising of the right.

Nevertheless, I think Pike Countians will pass this...  As Mark said today if somehow they doesn't pass here then it will probably not pass anywhere else in the state.  However our Democratic Sheriff and Democratic States Attorney thing it will pass by landslide.  We have Democrats coming in picking up petitions and working like dogs to get petitions signed.  We feel that this is an issue whose time has come, at least in our County.  So cross your fingers....

[quote name='mauserme' date='21 August 2011 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1313934756' post='287746']
[quote name='dmefford' date='20 August 2011 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1313901169' post='287730']
What I would like to hear from many here in this forum is how far are you willing to go to [s]beg[/s] ask for the privilege to carry.  After all if you have to ask, at least in this case, you (IMO)have allowed the government to convert your fundamental RTKBA into privilege and charge you a tax for it.  That is besides giving up your finger prints like a common criminal.  IOW, just how many are gonna rush out and do this when it passes?

How many here would expect Samuel Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, and Mason and the rest of our founding fathers (FFs) to jump right in line to ask permission of these Chicago Hoodlums that are running this state to KBAs?

If the FFs wouldn't do it, why would we do it?

[/quote]
Dan, I don't think anyone here is allowing the conversion of our rights into privileges.  That process began before most of us were born, or at least before most of us were old enough to resist.  That is the reality we (including you) are trying to change, not trying to prevent.

Like you , I wonder about the private thoughts of the Founding Fathers and what drove them to risk so much to gain freedom.  The best answer I find is that they did it for themselves, of course but, beyond that, they did it for their children.  They were willing to tolerate more, in different ways than us, than they hoped future generations would have to tolerate.  If you find a moment to look through these pages you will see it stated often that HB148 is imperfect, that our hope is to push this as far as possible now while recognizing that improvement will likely be needed in the future.  It's one battle in the larger war, not final victory.  

I believe the Founders would be proud that so many of us are fighting a peaceful revolution to regain what's been lost but also that they were practical men and women who understood the need, when possible, to engage in battles that could be won as steps toward winning the war.  I believe they also understood that a co-ordinated, joint effort would yield greater success.
[/quote]

I "over expressed" the implication that this group might allow the conversion of our rights into a privilege.  Sorry...  Let me rephrase... Our Illinois folks have in the past allowed our legiscritters to convert certain of rights in to privileges.  It is easy to do because they put wonderful names on these things...  "Know your neighbor" bank deal.  "Its for the children."  "It promote peace and safety."  How can you not go along with these things...  The problem is every time we allow .gov to regulate something new that is one less 'thing' that is open for free choice....

I will help as I am able here on the forum.  Let me express thanks for the warm reception.  I realize that we all have the same goal, just a number of different ways to get there....  We don't want anyone going off half cocked....

Regards, Dr. Dan

[Chris]

Dan,

What has your states attorney had to say about this effort?

If it passes will they press charges for individuals carrying?

If not how do they plan on dealing with the attorney general?

[dmefford]

Chris,

>>>What has your states attorney had to say about this effort?
If it passes will they press charges for individuals carrying?
If not how do they plan on dealing with the attorney general?<<<

He states that it will pass... The sheriff sat in my office for over an hour while we discussed this a few days ago.  The sheriff said that he and SA have kicked it around trying to decide how they should respond when it passes.  The SA is about to run for judge, so he may be out of the picture and off the hook.  The sheriff will probably go along with the ordinance unless otherwise directed by Atty Gen opinion.  They may request an Atty General opinion as to how to proceed.   They are not the enemy, but will try to follow the correct procedure.  The ones to fear are the State police, however the States Attorney is the one who decides whether to prosecute, so guess what....... they are scratching their heads.  Both officials are Pike County boys... so who knows...?

That is the nice thing about making it local.  You can throw the local bums out!    Much harder to throw out the Chicago Machine....  Gotcha...

I have wondered..... Can the Atty General take charge over the elected SA and prosecute a case anyway?????

Isn't life grand!!!  

Regards, Dr Dan

[colt-45]

dmefford, on 21 August 2011 - 07:40 PM, said:

Chris,

>>>What has your states attorney had to say about this effort?
If it passes will they press charges for individuals carrying?
If not how do they plan on dealing with the attorney general?<<<

He states that it will pass... The sheriff sat in my office for over an hour while we discussed this a few days ago.  The sheriff said that he and SA have kicked it around trying to decide how they should respond when it passes.  The SA is about to run for judge, so he may be out of the picture and off the hook.  The sheriff will probably go along with the ordinance unless otherwise directed by Atty Gen opinion.  They may request an Atty General opinion as to how to proceed.   They are not the enemy, but will try to follow the correct procedure.  The ones to fear are the State police, however the States Attorney is the one who decides whether to prosecute, so guess what....... they are scratching their heads.  Both officials are Pike County boys... so who knows...?

That is the nice thing about making it local.  You can throw the local bums out!    Much harder to throw out the Chicago Machine....  Gotcha...

I have wondered..... Can the Atty General take charge over the elected SA and prosecute a case anyway?????

Isn't life grand!!!  

Regards, Dr Dan

wow really.