GSDlady

This is making the rounds: https://twitter.com/i/status/1696551846976860594

Done x2

I would like to second the motion. Good job!

The vote:

Will be there!

Board meeting is Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Agenda: https://pub-countyofmchenry.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=be6a3930-4f78-40d2-90d9-66cc811f41d8&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English

With some of the anit-gun idiots being on the county board. Wasn't able to make the meeting but did listen to some of it later. The ignorance coming out of almost all of the women on the board who spoke was embarrassing.

Brian Sager, Democrat. Former mayor of Woodstock. Received a response back from him Monday night before the meeting. Do have to say one thing for him. He responded back both times I emailed him. "As you are aware, HB 5471 was passed by the State Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. I appreciate your intent, but the question is now out of the political branch of government and into the judicial system as opposition has already been filed in State and Federal Courts. Further, the McHenry County State’s Attorney filed a lawsuit in the circuit court in opposition to the law on the basis of unconstitutionality. With all due respect, a resolution on behalf of the County Board would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the Courts’ decisions. I believe, however, the law will be found unconstitutional and the rights of the people will be upheld. It is not my practice to announce my position or vote on any topic before it is on an agenda. However, I forthrightly share my concerns. Thank you again for sharing your position. Brian Sager McHenry County Board Member District 7" His comments from the minutes of the 1/3/23 committee meeting: Brian Sager stated he appreciates the commentary of the current meeting and the last County Board meeting, but he thinks they have to focus on and be open to dialogue and discussion. Therefore the request by Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Kunkle to put it on a future agenda is most appropriate because he thinks they need the chance to dialogue with each other on behalf of the residents that they serve. However, he believes the decision of the State Legislator is well-cast, stating he thinks the Bill is likely to pass but similar to other Bills it will come back and be amended as well as go through the court process. He stated their democratic responsibility is to create a dialogue and express their positions.

Because one committee member was absent both votes ended in a 3 - 3 tie. The voting was on how it would go to the full board meeting: recommended by committee, in original form or changed, new business/unfinished business, under consent agenda. Final outcome: It goes to the board in original form under new/unfinished business.

They were saying that State's Attorney Kenneally had taken issue with it. My impression from the way they (lawyers & most of the committee members) were talking was it was more on how money is budgeted/allocated/used rather than we want/don't want money going to the gun ban. The resolution: McHenry County resolution.pdf

She voted yes for making changes to the resolution. I believe her main concern was the last two paragraphs that deal with funding. The lawyers were saying there may be a problem with it. She voted no for leaving the resolution as is.

OK. Did hear her say guns aren't for her but because it was hard to hear at times didn't catch everything. Did she have the hearing protection on the kid the whole meeting? I could swear she did not have it on when they walked up to the front or when they walked back. I feel sorry for that kid if her mother actually does that. She will not know how to cope when hearing an opposing view or something she doesn't like.

Just wondering what she said that seemed 2A friendly or sympathetic. I never heard her say anything to give that impression. However, I went in there knowing what she was all about and they had no speaker system set up for the meeting so sometimes it was hard to hear.

One speaker that didn't come across on the video as well as in person was the gentlemen who was asking for a show of hands as he asked questions of the attendees. When he asked who believed the Highland Park ban was effective in preventing the act nobody raised their hand. When he asked who believes this new ban will be any more effective against evil than the Highland Park ban all the red shirts raised their hands. His next question should have been to define insanity.

Was at the meeting. When you look up useful idiot in the dictionary there is a picture of the red shirts that were there. Do they really believe the drivel that comes out of their mouths or are they just trying to get others to believe it?