Jump to content

Pro 2A resolution - Archive

Ashdump

By Ashdump
in Illinois Politics

Recommended Posts

Ashdump Member

Ashdump

Posted
Posted

Saw this over at AR15.com

 

 

 

PRO-GUN RESOLUTION

 

The County Board of Pike County, Illinois, has called a public

meeting to consider a resolution which would state that the

people of Pike County, Illinois, consider any legislation passed

by the Illinois State Legislature that would infringe upon the

Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms to be unconstitutional

and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.

 

Such a resolution, if enacted by a County Government, would be

unprecedented in the history of the United States.

 

The resolution has strong support among members of the Pike

County Board. The resolution states that it is being enacted

because, "The Pike County Board being elected by the People of

Pike County is duly sworn by Oath of Office to uphold the United

States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of

Illinois."

 

The members of the Pike County Board ask all interested citizens

to attend this Public Meeting and demonstrate their support for

the enactment of this resolution.

 

The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday evening, April 24th, at

7:00pm, in the 1st Floor courtroom of the Pike County Courthouse

in Pittsfield, Illinois.

 

All members of PASA, whether Pike County residents or not, are

urged to attend this historic event, and express their support

for the courageous action of the members of the Pike County

Board.

 

I hope to see you there. With everybody you can bring.

 

P.R. Metcalf

President

Pike-Adams Sportsmen's Alliance

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dorvinion Member

dorvinion

Posted
Posted

Non-binding I would expect

 

 

 

I'd kinda like to see an ordinance requiring each household to possess a firearm of a kind described in SB16. No enforcement necessary though, just to pass it to screw with the Chicago delagation.

 

 

It would be great to hear Rep Black the Chicago delegation that their bill requires 3/5 to pass because it overrules a home rule ordinance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
junglebob Member

junglebob

Posted
Posted
What if they made a resolution that nobody would be arrested for carrying in Pike county if they had a FOID card, or better yet a resolution that you only had to be 18 with no criminal record. Pike county could be kind of a "sanctuary county" for gun owners, like San Francisco is an "illegal alien sancturary" . What if the LEO's and the states attorney in Pike county refused to enforce anti-carry laws?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashdump Member

Ashdump

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Someone left a comment on my blog saying that it passed, with only two "No" votes (out of I don't know how many board members).

 

Here is an exerpt from your blog...

 

"straightarrow said...

Actually they have more power than you might realize. The county sheriff is the most powerful law enforcement entity in the county, no matter who else is there. He can arrest State Police, FBI, any and all. No one is more powerful in the law enforcement community than a sheriff. Political machinations make it easier for sheriff's to go along to get along, but legally, no agency can usurp or avoid his authority. Most sheriffs do not know this and most of those that do, have not the courage to stand against state and federal agencies. Which if one thinks about it, is understandable since the courts are for sale."

 

A retired deputy friend of mine said that the coroner has the authority to superceed and arrest the sherriff if need be. Maybe that only applies to one county, maybe all? Does anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mack69 Member

mack69

Posted
Posted

As I understand it...."County Coroners" typically have the same power as the sheriff.

Usually the law reads something like this:

 

The coroner shall perform the duties of the county sheriff only in cases in which the sheriff:

(1) is interested or incapacitated from serving; and

(2) has no chief deputy who may perform his duties.

 

Service of warrant for arrest of county sheriff; custody of jail and prisoners

A warrant for the arrest of the county sheriff shall be served by the coroner or any other person to whom it may be legally directed. The coroner, who shall commit the sheriff to the county jail, has custody of the jail and its prisoners during the imprisonment of the sheriff.

 

I would venture to guess that these duties differ greatly among the different states and counties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1957Human Member

1957Human

Posted
Posted
I'll bet we won't hear a peep about it in the news :thumbsup:

I'm hoping that at least the Pike Press will carry it. From the look of it, there seems to be plenty of room for news there :yes: .

We call it the Pike Wipe, and, yes, it was in today's paper. (The paper is a weekly, issued on Wednesday.) I couldn't make the meeting either, but according to what I was told, at the meeting, the chairman of the Brown County county board proffered that Brown County recently (perhaps in the past week or so) adopted the same resolution.

 

I believe there are nine members on the county board, but I'm not certain of that.

 

None of the board members are anywhere close to be "radicals" of any stripe, least of all militia. However, hunting has become a major "industry" in the county, so perhaps that has led to the perceived need for the county to take a stand. Either that, or everyone south of Chicago so sick to death of being treated like children by Oberführer Dick and Uberführer Rod they just had to do something to get someone's attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
45superman Member

45superman

Posted
Posted

Here you go.

 

Gun control laws not welcome in Pike County

 

 

PITTSFIELD, Ill. — The Pike County Board adopted a resolution Tuesday opposing any legislation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

"What we are trying to do here is protect rights we already have," board member Robert Kenady said.

 

A standing-room-only crowd of mostly gun enthusiasts applauded several speakers and the 7-2 vote on the resolution, which will be forwarded to state legislators and all other counties in Illinois. Neighboring Brown County already has adopted a similar resolution.

 

"We have to stand up," said board member Mark Mountain, who proposed the resolution. "We have to voice our opinion. As an individual, it doesn't mean much. As a county, it means more. As three or four counties, it means a lot."

 

"You gentleman have just made history here," said Pike-Adams Sportsmen's Alliance President Richard Metcalf.

 

Resolution supporters claim that pending state legislation would ban many common firearms used for hunting and threaten rights guaranteed under the Constitution, the enjoyment of safe forms of firearms recreation and its economic benefits to the county.

 

"This is about freedom," Metcalf said. "This is not a political issue. I'm not here as a conservative, a liberal. You're not here as a Republican, a Democrat. We're here as Americans."

 

Others questioned whether the issue of gun control reached beyond what the county should address.

 

"I've carried a weapon 30 years of my life, ... but I'm not sure there's a time and place to address this issue on a county level," said board member Mike Lord, who voted against the resolution.

 

Board Chairman Scott Syrcle said the county level "is where it starts." He said county officials are "elected to voice our opinion to legislators for change or to keep things from happening." He usually votes only in the case of a tie, but wanted his vote in favor of the resolution on the record.

 

"You're going to ban a lot of guns if this thing happens," county resident Lee Ator said. "Definitely, the people of Pike County are interested in this. Everybody's here because they're opposed to gun legislation."

 

Board member Don Peebles said the county should be focusing on other issues instead of the "hot-button, politically divisive" issue of gun control.

 

"I've spent a lot of time in the last month reading House bills, Senate bills and shell bills. Some of them I agree with. Some I disagree with. I would have a difficult time with an across-the-board resolution," said Peebles, who voted against the resolution.

 

"I've hunted all my life. I enjoy firearms, ... but there are things that need to be controlled."

 

Two counties rebelling against Chicago rule--this is getting good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashdump Member

Ashdump

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Board member Don Peebles said the county should be focusing on other issues instead of the "hot-button, politically divisive" issue of gun control.

 

"I've spent a lot of time in the last month reading House bills, Senate bills and shell bills. Some of them I agree with. Some I disagree with. I would have a difficult time with an across-the-board resolution," said Peebles, who voted against the resolution.

 

"I've hunted all my life. I enjoy firearms, ... but there are things that need to be controlled."

 

 

Typical fudd mentality. "as long as they don't take my 870 or my mossie....." :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashdump Member

Ashdump

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Mike Lord is the former chief of police for the city of Pittsfield.

 

Gee... a cop opposed to the "common citizen's" rights ... what a surprise he's against the resolution, huh?

Yep, it's ok if he's carried a weapon for over 30 years, but don't you do it :thumbsup:

 

If I could vote in that county, I'd tell you of 2 that ain't gettin' back on the board if I could help it! Come next election, I hope they get burnt for their crappy attitudes :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1957Human Member

1957Human

Posted
Posted

I just really noticed this part: "I've carried a weapon 30 years of my life, ... but I'm not sure there's a time and place to address this issue on a county level," said board member Mike Lord..."

 

Control of gun ownership isn't a county issue? Uh, does that include COOK COUNTY? Not only do the gun banners in Cook think that it's OK for the county to impose restrictions on one's Second Amendment rights, over and above what the state has already done, but the General Assembly has had the chance to specifically say (via preemption) a county CAN'T impose restrictions different from those of the state and refused to do so. Doesn't that mean that even the General Assembly thinks "there's a time and place to address this issue on a county level"? Or is it just OK for a county to restrict one's rights under the Constitution, but not to affirm those same rights?

 

And for land's sakes, this is just a resolution. Cook County's is actually an ordinance. Hard to believe that some politicians can't even bring themselves simply to agree with the principle that a state shouldn't violate an individual's constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...