speedbump

My local gun club just got a request for more donations from the ISRA. After a brief discussion, their reply will be: "In light of recent events, we are taking a NEUTRAL stance on your request for more money at this time."

If y'all haven't read the amicus brief by Zanotti, Umholtz, et al, you should. Is a powerful presentation.

Fine work Kevin - as always!! Are there any motivated activists in the non sanctuary counties who want to take up the cause? If so, shoot a PM and we'll get you started. JJW

They are getting rightfully FLAMED in the comments.

Agreed. And it is stunning to behold.

No, it's completely spontaneous, and up to folks living in or near there. Once word starts spreading it usually grows rapidly.

For those inquiring what a sanctuary represents, I hope this clarifies some things. SteveTA posted it in the Backroom, but this will allow open access in a related topic thread: https://www.mom-at-arms.com/post/gun-sanctuaries-what-they-are-aren-t-and-will-be?fbclid=IwAR0SIyVI00jNei_7yws1VDrTDs5W3lAMA1WoTqKqKJW659FvjADQmwqOujU

I have seen cases of expired FOID = REVOKED CCL. I have not seen any cases of expired FOID = REVOKED CCL = RETROACTIVELY REVOKED FOID. I would very much like to see the specifics if you can share in a private message. Will do. I'll try to get copies and email them to you.

If the ISRA hadn't been asleep *for five YEARS* the revelations of $28,000,000 missing from the FOID/CCL/FSF would have been a pertinent inclusion to the case, plus the outrageous scheme of expired FOID = REVOKED CCL = RETROACTIVELY REVOKED FOID!!!

It's beginning to heat up again, my inboxes have been busy with info requests. I hope the Virginians are a catalyst, and they seem to be: two counties each in Kentucky and Tennessee passed theirs this week already.

This mornings's count in Virginia: 103 86% of counties, cities, and towns in the state.

Obviously it's not in the form of a question, but it's just worded fancier than the rough draft/template my county board is starting from. The board members will discuss/debate the exact final wording and then vote on the final version that will appear on the ballot. The state's attorney liked that wording more than the other versions he'd seen, and recommended it be adopted without modification. It was best (IMHO) kept simple and to the point. Some versions get confusing about whether the YES or NO choice is in support or opposition of the "Whereas-es". Most of those I borrowed &/or modified from elsewhere when I wrote it. The resolution had already been approved months before. That was modified from the Madison County version, since they were reluctant to use the term "sanctuary." It was edited out, but I relied on stronger focus on oaths and Constitutionality.

After all the "Whereas-es", the last line of the White County version reads: "The People of White County, Illinois are OPPOSED to all attempts by the Illinois General Assembly, in violation of their Oath of Office, to infringe upon the Constitutional Right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms." Emphasis in original.

Outstanding! I have the language from White County if you need it. Shoot me a PM if you'd like. 18 Illinois counties did this last year, all 18 passed by an average of nearly 80% of voters...who also represent the jury pool.