Pike man aims to pass weapons carry initiative

[Chris]

I'm confused, Is this an advisory referendum?

 

If it is how could any new ordinances be created from it, let alone any court cases from an advisory referendum?

[Buzzard]

I'm confused, Is this an advisory referendum?

 

If it is how could any new ordinances be created from it, let alone any court cases from an advisory referendum?

 

I want to know what everybody down there is celebrating about? What did this vote change?

 

What do you have today - that you didn't have yesterday??

[Bud]

I'm confused, Is this an advisory referendum?

 

If it is how could any new ordinances be created from it, let alone any court cases from an advisory referendum?

 

I want to know what everybody down there is celebrating about? What did this vote change?

 

What do you have today - that you didn't have yesterday??

 

Seriously what has changed is that an Illinois County, as ordered by an overwhelming majority of resident-voters, has approved Constitutional Carry of Firearms for its citizens.

 

What does that mean? While no blood was shed, you just saw the exact parellel of Lexington and Concord (April 18, 1775) that led to the Declaration of Independence.

 

When those shots were fired at lexington and Concord, the entire country found out that the British could be beaten by an aroused and motivated citizenry. Once that happened, insurrection broke out in all the British North American colonies. Watch the neighboring counties now.

 

 

 

As far as celebrating, I spent a bunch of time in Pike County during the 1993 floods. Believe me, those folks are party animals and they don't need much of a reason to start either.

 

But this could be HUGE.

 

"Doctor D, fighting for liberty!"

 

(One of my better poetic inspirations)

[dmefford]

 

 

I want to know what everybody down there is celebrating about? What did this vote change?

 

What do you have today - that you didn't have yesterday??

 

I will tell you why we are happy.... You have never seen a bunch of People gather for anything like we have here... These young people and old people are MAD! And that is good!!!!!!!!

 

We have a judgeship coming up and a states attorney race! We will now know where everybody stands......

 

We aren't done yet!!!!

 

Regards, Drd

[dmefford]

Any day that you can figuratively poke Lisa Madigan in the eye with a sharp stick, is a good day.

 

Oh yes...... Just stay the course and keep rallying the troops..... We have just begun to fight!

 

Samuel Adams said that lighting brushfires of Liberty in the minds of the people will get it done... Keep lighting those fires.....

 

Regards, Drd

[dmefford]

 

Seriously what has changed is that an Illinois County, as ordered by an overwhelming majority of resident-voters, has approved Constitutional Carry of Firearms for its citizens.

 

What does that mean? While no blood was shed, you just saw the exact parellel of Lexington and Concord (April 18, 1775) that led to the Declaration of Independence.

 

When those shots were fired at lexington and Concord, the entire country found out that the British could be beaten by an aroused and motivated citizenry. Once that happened, insurrection broke out in all the British North American colonies. Watch the neighboring counties now.

 

 

 

As far as celebrating, I spent a bunch of time in Pike County during the 1993 floods. Believe me, those folks are party animals and they don't need much of a reason to start either.

 

But this could be HUGE.

 

"Doctor D, fighting for liberty!"

 

(One of my better poetic inspirations)

 

Thanks..... we must persist...... Drd Gotta go now.... haven't eaten today, just a little bowl of cold cereal... A world of excitement...

[Chris]

I'm confused, Is this an advisory referendum?

 

If it is how could any new ordinances be created from it, let alone any court cases from an advisory referendum?

 

I want to know what everybody down there is celebrating about? What did this vote change?

 

What do you have today - that you didn't have yesterday??

 

Seriously what has changed is that an Illinois County, as ordered by an overwhelming majority of resident-voters, has approved Constitutional Carry of Firearms for its citizens.

 

 

 

I still haven't heard anything but this being an advisory referendum still which to me has no binding affect on any laws.

 

I think this is just the exact same thing as Winnebago and all the other counties in 2008 - http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=14

[Buzzard]

I'm confused, Is this an advisory referendum?

 

If it is how could any new ordinances be created from it, let alone any court cases from an advisory referendum?

 

I want to know what everybody down there is celebrating about? What did this vote change?

 

What do you have today - that you didn't have yesterday??

 

Seriously what has changed is that an Illinois County, as ordered by an overwhelming majority of resident-voters, has approved Constitutional Carry of Firearms for its citizens.

 

What does that mean? While no blood was shed, you just saw the exact parellel of Lexington and Concord (April 18, 1775) that led to the Declaration of Independence.

 

When those shots were fired at lexington and Concord, the entire country found out that the British could be beaten by an aroused and motivated citizenry. Once that happened, insurrection broke out in all the British North American colonies. Watch the neighboring counties now.

 

 

 

As far as celebrating, I spent a bunch of time in Pike County during the 1993 floods. Believe me, those folks are party animals and they don't need much of a reason to start either.

 

But this could be HUGE.

 

"Doctor D, fighting for liberty!"

 

(One of my better poetic inspirations)

Yes, Budman, this COULD be huge. But I fear that this could well be a repeat of the Winnebago county concealed carry voter referendum - which was a HUGE MISTAKE!! What followed was a near defeat of concealed carry for a unforeseen time to come. WE SHOULD NOT BE PUTTING OUR RIGHTS UP FOR A VOTE!!

[Bud]

 

 

I still haven't heard anything but this being an advisory referendum still which to me has no binding affect on any laws.

 

I think this is just the exact same thing as Winnebago and all the other counties in 2008 - http://illinoiscarry...hp?showforum=14

 

No, the Winnebago county et al were advsory referendums. The voters were asked if they were in favor of concealed carry.

 

This was flat out "do you approve of constitutional carry in Pike County". Not a referedum but a statement of fact.

 

Now they can't over rule State lawe so in effect, it becomes an advisory referendum but in this case, Pike County can take it to court to argue the nmerits and cause the State to argue in favor of denying constitutional carry.

 

Seriously, if you stop and think what could come from this, (at the very least another attack from still another direction) you would be partying too.

 

Everyone should be forming Committees of Correspondence in their own Counties and starting the same process.

 

Committees of Correspondence

 

 

[Chris]

I still haven't heard anything but this being an advisory referendum still which to me has no binding affect on any laws.

 

I think this is just the exact same thing as Winnebago and all the other counties in 2008 - http://illinoiscarry...hp?showforum=14

 

No, the Winnebago county et al were advsory referendums. The voters were asked if they were in favor of concealed carry.

 

This was flat out "do you approve of constitutional carry in Pike County". Not a referedum but a statement of fact.

 

Now they can't over rule State lawe so in effect, it becomes an advisory referendum but in this case, Pike County can take it to court to argue the nmerits and cause the State to argue in favor of denying constitutional carry.

 

Seriously, if you stop and think what could come from this, (at the very least another attack from still another direction) you would be partying too.

 

Everyone should be forming Committees of Correspondence in their own Counties and starting the same process.

 

Committees of Correspondence

 

 

 

So it sounds like to me we now have a third case besides the Moore and Shepard cases. That means to me we get a whole new chance to set bad case precedence with a group that probably doesn't have the funding to fight the state like the SAF or NRA.

[Bud]

So it sounds like to me we now have a third case besides the Moore and Shepard cases. That means to me we get a whole new chance to set bad case precedence with a group that probably doesn't have the funding to fight the state like the SAF or NRA.

 

So are you speaking for Illinois Carry? Your screen name shows Staff and you posted no disclaimer.

 

Are you actually stating that the current fight can only be completed by the SAF and the NRA? That anyone else that gets involved (or decides to stand up on their own two legs) is trespassing? doesn't have the expertise to fight? or maybe doesn't have the right to fight?

 

Marking your turf or just a poorly worded response?

[Chris]

So it sounds like to me we now have a third case besides the Moore and Shepard cases. That means to me we get a whole new chance to set bad case precedence with a group that probably doesn't have the funding to fight the state like the SAF or NRA.

 

So are you speaking for Illinois Carry? Your screen name shows Staff and you posted no disclaimer.

 

Are you actually stating that the current fight can only be completed by the SAF and the NRA? That anyone else that gets involved (or decides to stand up on their own two legs) is trespassing? doesn't have the expertise to fight? or maybe doesn't have the right to fight?

 

Marking your turf or just a poorly worded response?

 

I speak for myself, I just think it's risky starting court cases where corporations or governments can just keep drowning you in legal requests and their experts. It gets very expensive very very fast.

[TomKoz]

(One of my better poetic inspirations)

Yes, Budman, this COULD be huge. But I fear that this could well be a repeat of the Winnebago county concealed carry voter referendum - which was a HUGE MISTAKE!! What followed was a near defeat of concealed carry for a unforeseen time to come. WE SHOULD NOT BE PUTTING OUR RIGHTS UP FOR A VOTE!!

 

 

NO we shouldn't be putting our Rights up for a vote, BUT UNTIL such time that we have and get enough people, scratch that, PATRIOTS, to risk their life and fortunes to not only resist but also NOT abide by "their" UN-Constitutional laws - I guess this is the what we have. I'm guessing that many back in the late 1700's were suggesting the colonies try working with the King, or try to change things through other (King's Laws') lawful means!!

[Uncle Harley]

Pike County would be a good place to see the Per IL ch 20 xxxxxxx I hearby authorize anyone legal to do so to carry on these premises. If the whole town posted them you could essentially carry from property to property as long as you stayed on private ground. I'm on my google tv so I can't post an image, but someone here has it. Abolt maybe????

[Bud]

I speak for myself, I just think it's risky starting court cases where corporations or governments can just keep drowning you in legal requests and their experts. It gets very expensive very very fast.

 

okay, good enough for me

[Buzzard]

I see where all this is going so I'm just going to sit back and be quiet. I need to heal up from my accident, anyway.

 

So I guess I'll just leave this to the experts......scratch that, PATRIOTS.

[Federal Farmer]

 

 

I still haven't heard anything but this being an advisory referendum still which to me has no binding affect on any laws.

 

I think this is just the exact same thing as Winnebago and all the other counties in 2008 - http://illinoiscarry...hp?showforum=14

 

No, the Winnebago county et al were advsory referendums. The voters were asked if they were in favor of concealed carry.

 

This was flat out "do you approve of constitutional carry in Pike County". Not a referedum but a statement of fact.

 

Now they can't over rule State lawe so in effect, it becomes an advisory referendum but in this case, Pike County can take it to court to argue the nmerits and cause the State to argue in favor of denying constitutional carry.

 

Seriously, if you stop and think what could come from this, (at the very least another attack from still another direction) you would be partying too.

 

Everyone should be forming Committees of Correspondence in their own Counties and starting the same process.

 

Committees of Correspondence

 

 

 

Budman, this was an advisory referendum just like Winnebago.

[citrix_guy]

 

You pretty much summed it up. You can make laws stricter but you can not make lesser. Since your user name says Citrix guy lets put it this way. Think of it like parent and child permissions, with home rule you automatically inherit the parent permission but your child permissions can not remove any parent permissions only add more restrictive permissions the parent does not have in place.

 

Ahhh. Using Windows ACL rules to explain home rule. love it.

 

God am I tired of this state. I need to get to Texas.

[citrix_guy]

Fellas we are only 3 votes shy from state wide pre-empt, just sit tight. You know how much of a CF it is just traveling from state to state and keeping track of reciprocity, where you can or can't carry depending on the state, duty to inform or not depending on the state. Now imagine that all varrying from county to county in one state. EPIC CF, we're almost there just be patient.

 

But will that stand up to a Veto... Wisconsin passed a concealed weapons law several times only to have it veto'd multiple times and then "lose" a couple of votes each veto session. just enough to fail to override the veto.

 

My guess. we pass the law in the house, it gets moved up to the current Gov and we start all over next year after a veto this year.

[kurt555gs]

You pretty much summed it up. You can make laws stricter but you can not make lesser. Since your user name says Citrix guy lets put it this way. Think of it like parent and child permissions, with home rule you automatically inherit the parent permission but your child permissions can not remove any parent permissions only add more restrictive permissions the parent does not have in place.

 

Ahhh. Using Windows ACL rules to explain home rule. love it.

 

God am I tired of this state. I need to get to Texas.

 

And, Chris was and is wrong. There is no law in Illinois that allows a unit of local government to make any law "stricter" than state law. The only thing they can do is make a law "at least equal to". NOT stricter. This issue has been tken to court in Illinois and the finding was "at least equal to" is "equal to". No more and no less.

[Federal Farmer]

You pretty much summed it up. You can make laws stricter but you can not make lesser. Since your user name says Citrix guy lets put it this way. Think of it like parent and child permissions, with home rule you automatically inherit the parent permission but your child permissions can not remove any parent permissions only add more restrictive permissions the parent does not have in place.

 

Ahhh. Using Windows ACL rules to explain home rule. love it.

 

God am I tired of this state. I need to get to Texas.

 

And, Chris was and is wrong. There is no law in Illinois that allows a unit of local government to make any law "stricter" than state law. The only thing they can do is make a law "at least equal to". NOT stricter. This issue has been tken to court in Illinois and the finding was "at least equal to" is "equal to". No more and no less.

 

I think that depends on what you mean by 'scricter'. Certainly home rule units can create much more strict firearms transportation laws, ban ownership of firearms that are legal under state law, etc.

 

They are less strict in that they can't charge a felony or, I think, any punishment longer than a year minus 1 day.

[kurt555gs]

Please show me the Illinois statute that allows a unit of local government to pass a law "stricter" than state law. I say there is none. Prove me wrong.

[pyre400]

Please show me the Illinois statute that allows a unit of local government to pass a law "stricter" than state law. I say there is none. Prove me wrong.

 

I would agree with Chris on "more restrictive". Take your pick on Chicago gun laws.

[abolt243]

Ahhh. Using Windows ACL rules to explain home rule. love it.

 

God am I tired of this state. I need to get to Texas.

 

And, Chris was and is wrong. There is no law in Illinois that allows a unit of local government to make any law "stricter" than state law. The only thing they can do is make a law "at least equal to". NOT stricter. This issue has been tken to court in Illinois and the finding was "at least equal to" is "equal to". No more and no less.

 

I think that depends on what you mean by 'scricter'. Certainly home rule units can create much more strict firearms transportation laws, ban ownership of firearms that are legal under state law, etc.

 

They are less strict in that they can't charge a felony or, I think, any punishment longer than a year minus 1 day.

 

I believe you have it there FF, the law can be more restrictive, but the penalty cannot be a felony offense. However, the hassle and financial burden can be such that you don't want to run afoul of the law.

 

Here, you guys read it and figure it out: From the Illinois Constitution

 

SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS

(a) A County which has a chief executive officer elected

by the electors of the county and any municipality which has

a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. Other

municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule

units. Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit

may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to

its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the

power to regulate for the protection of the public health,

safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur

debt.

b. A home rule unit by referendum may elect not to be a

home rule unit.

c. If a home rule county ordinance conflicts with an

ordinance of a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall

prevail within its jurisdiction.

(d) A home rule unit does not have the power (1) to

incur debt payable from ad valorem property tax receipts

maturing more than 40 years from the time it is incurred or

(2) to define and provide for the punishment of a felony.

(e) A home rule unit shall have only the power that the

General Assembly may provide by law (1) to punish by

imprisonment for more than six months or (2) to license for

revenue or impose taxes upon or measured by income or

earnings or upon occupations.

(f) A home rule unit shall have the power subject to

approval by referendum to adopt, alter or repeal a form of

government provided by law, except that the form of

government of Cook County shall be subject to the provisions

of Section 3 of this Article. A home rule municipality shall

have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of

selection and terms of office only as approved by referendum

or as otherwise authorized by law. A home rule county shall

have the power to provide for its officers, their manner of

selection and terms of office in the manner set forth in

Section 4 of this Article.

(g) The General Assembly by a law approved by the vote

of three-fifths of the members elected to each house may deny

or limit the power to tax and any other power or function of

a home rule unit not exercised or performed by the State

other than a power or function specified in subsection (l) of

this section.

(h) The General Assembly may provide specifically by law

for the exclusive exercise by the State of any power or

function of a home rule unit other than a taxing power or a

power or function specified in subsection (l) of this

Section.

(i) Home rule units may exercise and perform

concurrently with the State any power or function of a home

rule unit to the extent that the General Assembly by law does

not specifically limit the concurrent exercise or

specifically declare the State's exercise to be exclusive.

(j) The General Assembly may limit by law the amount of

debt which home rule counties may incur and may limit by law

approved by three-fifths of the members elected to each house

the amount of debt, other than debt payable from ad valorem

property tax receipts, which home rule municipalities may

incur.

(k) The General Assembly may limit by law the amount and

require referendum approval of debt to be incurred by home

rule municipalities, payable from ad valorem property tax

receipts, only in excess of the following percentages of the

assessed value of its taxable property: (1) if its population

is 500,000 or more, an aggregate of three percent; (2) if its

population is more than 25,000 and less than 500,000, an

aggregate of one percent; and (3) if its population is 25,000

or less, an aggregate of one-half percent. Indebtedness which

is outstanding on the effective date of this Constitution or

which is thereafter approved by referendum or assumed from

another unit of local government shall not be included in the

foregoing percentage amounts.

(l) The General Assembly may not deny or limit the power

of home rule units (1) to make local improvements by special

assessment and to exercise this power jointly with other

counties and municipalities, and other classes of units of

local government having that power on the effective date of

this Constitution unless that power is subsequently denied by

law to any such other units of local government or (2) to

levy or impose additional taxes upon areas within their

boundaries in the manner provided by law for the provision of

special services to those areas and for the payment of debt

incurred in order to provide those special services.

(m) Powers and functions of home rule units shall be

construed liberally.

(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

[Tvandermyde]

Please show me the Illinois statute that allows a unit of local government to pass a law "stricter" than state law. I say there is none. Prove me wrong.

 

 

I will do you one better, it's inthe Consitution:

 

SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS

(a) A County which has a chief executive officer elected

by the electors of the county and any municipality which has

a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units. Other

municipalities may elect by referendum to become home rule

units. Except as limited by this Section, a home rule unit

may exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to

its government and affairs including, but not limited to, the

power to regulate for the protection of the public health,

safety, morals and welfare; to license; to tax; and to incur

debt.

 

If that isn't enough try a Illinois Supreme Court ruling:

 

"We likewise find no basis for concluding that the two acts on which plaintiffs rely leave no room for more restrictive local laws or are contradicted in any way by Morton Grove's ordinance. In passing, we state that we are not impressed by the fact, relied on by plaintiffs, that section 24-3(h) of the Criminal Code of 1961 outlaws the sale or delivery of only those handguns which melt or deform at less than 800 degrees Fahrenheit (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 38, par. 24-3(h)) and stops short of criminalizing the possession of all pistols and revolvers by all persons. In the absence of any indication that the legislature meant to bestow an affirmative right on all persons in the State not mentioned in the statute to possess handguns that do not melt at 800 degrees, these provisions do not prevent **277 governmental units which would otherwise be able to regulate the possession of firearms from enacting regulations with a broader scope. See Brown v. City of Chicago "

 

 

We therefore conclude that the ordinance is a permissible exercise of Morton Grove's home rule powers.

 

If you were right, then Chicago would have never been able to enact their bans, Cook could not do theirs as well as many others.

[wilessiuc]

Let me throw in my 2 cents. I think this whole vote was a waste of time, that has done nothing but confuse the heck out of the Pike County residents. If Grandpa Bob carries and is arrested for a Felony UUW, how will anyone responsible for this feel?? And as an Assistant State's Attorney myself, I think it is ludicrous to try to hold the State's Attorney, the Sheriff, or the I.S.P. liable for enforcing the law. You're going to threaten to vote them out of office because they are enforcing the law. . . come on! I agree that we undoubtedly have a 2nd Amendment right to carry, but as it stands now, it is still UNLAWFUL to do so in Illinois. The only people that can change that are our judiciary or our legislature. We are so close to making carry possible through the legislature in Spfld. Let's work towards getting that done.

[colt-45]

Let me throw in my 2 cents. I think this whole vote was a waste of time, that has done nothing but confuse the heck out of the Pike County residents. If Grandpa Bob carries and is arrested for a Felony UUW, how will anyone responsible for this feel?? And as an Assistant State's Attorney myself, I think it is ludicrous to try to hold the State's Attorney, the Sheriff, or the I.S.P. liable for enforcing the law. You're going to threaten to vote them out of office because they are enforcing the law. . . come on! I agree that we undoubtedly have a 2nd Amendment right to carry, but as it stands now, it is still UNLAWFUL to do so in Illinois. The only people that can change that are our judiciary or our legislature. We are so close to making carry possible through the legislature in Spfld. Let's work towards getting that done.

+1

[kurt555gs]

Sorry abolt. Not specific enough. I know I am right on this one. The only thing that a unit of local government can do is make a law "at least equal to state regulation". Many local entities assume that "at least equal to" means stricter. It doesn't. The only obscure court case I ever found on this was from a nursing home in a home rule community sued because they claimed that the local "stricter" legislation was not legal because it wasn't "at least equal" to the state law. The nursing home won, and the court found that "at least equal to" meant "equal to". The unit of local government could not leave out any part or make a law "more stringent" than the state law.

 

If a unit of local government is making laws "stricter" than state law, they are doing it on their own and without legal authority.

 

IANAL, but I was involved in a 5 year legal battle with IDPH over this very issue.

[wilessiuc]

Sorry abolt. Not specific enough. I know I am right on this one. The only thing that a unit of local government can do is make a law "at least equal to state regulation". Many local entities assume that "at least equal to" means stricter. It doesn't. The only obscure court case I ever found on this was from a nursing home in a home rule community sued because they claimed that the local "stricter" legislation was not legal because it wasn't "at least equal" to the state law. The nursing home won, and the court found that "at least equal to" meant "equal to". The unit of local government could not leave out any part or make a law "more stringent" than the state law.

 

If a unit of local government is making laws "stricter" than state law, they are doing it on their own and without legal authority.

 

IANAL, but I was involved in a 5 year legal battle with IDPH over this very issue.

 

Wrong. Local units of government CAN make laws more restrictive. I will post authority shortly.

[kurt555gs]

This should be interesting wilessiuc. As long as it doesn't say, "at least equal to", because that has already been settled in court. I want to see stricter, or more stringent, or more restrictive. Have fun.

 

* Carthago delenda est *