DHan Posted October 28, 2012 at 05:45 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 05:45 PM The Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 edition of The Peoria Journal Star has a interesting article on the several Concealed Carry referendums upcoming in a few Illinois counties. http://www.pjstar.com/news/luciano/x1224699295/Luciano-Concealed-carry-takes-shot-at-ballot-box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevepk Posted October 28, 2012 at 06:10 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 06:10 PM Bond county has it on our ballot also. I don't get to the board meetings due to my work schedule. When I found out about it I expressed my displeasure of putting up our rights to a popular vote...... To late. Hope these don't get voted down, embaressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 28, 2012 at 08:00 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 08:00 PM Civil Disobedience... Guilty as Charged, your Honor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted October 28, 2012 at 08:53 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 08:53 PM The more the better. Illinois needs to see people want Right to Carry from a wider range of people other than the NRA et al. Save your Ayn Rand babbling about "don't put rights to a vote". Not everyone respects her views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 28, 2012 at 09:45 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 09:45 PM The more the better. Illinois needs to see people want Right to Carry from a wider range of people other than the NRA et al. Save your Ayn Rand babbling about "don't put rights to a vote". Not everyone respects her views. Alright Kurt, that does it, you have to go to Wisconsin and Open Carry again. Get a Breath of freash air and come back when you are not acting like da grumpy plumber! Ha Ha, just kiddin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 10:53 PM The more the better. Illinois needs to see people want Right to Carry from a wider range of people other than the NRA et al. Save your Ayn Rand babbling about "don't put rights to a vote". Not everyone respects her views. May I very respectfully ask you a couple questions, Kurt? What happens when Illinois, and especially anti-gun politicians, see a referendum returned whereas the voters have voted to OPPOSE concealed carry? What happens when this vote takes place not in a rural part of Illinois, but in a major metropolitan, highly populated area such as Winnebago county? How do we counter act the crowing of the liberal news media when they report "voters reject concealed carry"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted October 28, 2012 at 11:45 PM Share Posted October 28, 2012 at 11:45 PM I don't think the anti's yelling to the rafters that carry was rejected would change a single vote in the legislature. I do think it would bring carry in front of more people either way, and that is a good thing. There is no way to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM I don't think the anti's yelling to the rafters that carry was rejected would change a single vote in the legislature. I do think it would bring carry in front of more people either way, and that is a good thing. There is no way to lose. I agree with Kurt on his stance that "there is no way to lose". Either we fight tooth and nail or we go home. Enough of the quiet talk in the corner of the Diner, it's time for action's like this and other's. We lost, over 50 years ago, because people wanted to be quiet and sensible about this oppression, I say, raise the issue... EVERYWHERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:45 AM The more the better. Illinois needs to see people want Right to Carry from a wider range of people other than the NRA et al. Save your Ayn Rand babbling about "don't put rights to a vote". Not everyone respects her views. May I very respectfully ask you a couple questions, Kurt? What happens when Illinois, and especially anti-gun politicians, see a referendum returned whereas the voters have voted to OPPOSE concealed carry? What happens when this vote takes place not in a rural part of Illinois, but in a major metropolitan, highly populated area such as Winnebago county? How do we counter act the crowing of the liberal news media when they report "voters reject concealed carry"? The Liberal Media has shut us out, downplayed our victory's and made us look negative as possible, every chance they have gotten. We need to have a clear understanding of who is against us and who is for us. Your own Banner say's it all... Get Involved, it's time to take back America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM I don't think the anti's yelling to the rafters that carry was rejected would change a single vote in the legislature. I do think it would bring carry in front of more people either way, and that is a good thing. There is no way to lose.You don't think it will change a single vote in the legislature. But you do think it will introduce more people to concealed carry. Please, let me inform you that there certainly is a way to lose! Proposition B in Missouri was a failed 1999 ballot measure that would have required local police authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to eligible citizens. It was a contentious issue and was narrowly rejected at the time by the electorate, but the legislature later approved similar legislation in 2003. So one could say that this referendum DELAYED Missouri from passing a carry law for four years. if the people are not informed that a concealed carry law would exclude criminals from carrying, why would they change their mind? They certainly don't want the legislature to legalize the carrying of concealed weapons by criminals! They don't know that a concealed carry law would require the local sheriff's approval and background checks and proper training. They don't know that concealed carry is working in 49 other states. The voting public just isn't educated in how a concealed carry law works. And none of this is explained on the ballot in these county referendums. Kurt, I have seen how these questions will worded on the ballots. Have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:07 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:07 AM Illinois is not Missouri. First we don't have a method for a state wide popular referendum, These county initiatives are only advisory. Not the same weight. Secondly, Missouri never had anything like our Molly B, and her statewide townhall meetings to educate and win hearts and minds. I have been to several of them and watched regular people, not gun enthousiasts listen to her calm and passionate voice about why we need carry for everyone. The Missouri analogy just doesn't apply here. We are long past that. No harm can be done. Win or lose the vote, we win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:24 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:24 AM I'm sorry, but we are going to pay dearly for the first county ballot referendum that we lose. Every anti across America will be all over it like flies on $hit, no matter the legal weight it carries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM There are more people out there that support us, than those against us. The Anti-Gunnners are very organized and know through Training, how to be effective and vocal. Evanston was a wake-up call and I see how they work. It is much different than our strategy, they are active, motivated and cohesive in their work. If we emulated their strategy for our cause, it would be very effective. The Town Hall Meeting's are great and Molly B., Valinda Rowe and the rest of the active members of illinoiscarry.com could do more, with more support. The Break-out session's at Evanston, with follow-up discussion of what was decide by each group, as an effective mean's to an end result, were fantastic. They did not want me there and resented my presense, because I was learning from them, how they operate and their best idea was the Break-out Session. It get's people personally involved, no pressure, just a small group, sharing idea's, bonding and making new friend's. That was a crucial part of their Meeting and it got every single person there to put their name, address, phone # and E-Mail down on a list, for future contact. That list is GOLDEN, it is your future supporters, activist's and Voter's. We need to be more visable and vocal, we need to really get out there and drum up more support. I meet people everyday that are just neutral, because they do not hear any support for our cause and they do not want to cause trouble, sometime's the squeeky wheel get's the oil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 29, 2012 at 02:15 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 02:15 PM I can see there are those that cannot be moved and no matter what is said their minds are made up. I will not speak out on IllinoisCarry's behalf - so I am just going to disengage from the discussion. Let me just say that I have seen the wording on Ogle's ballot and I'm lead to believe that it's similar, if not the exact wording of other counties' referendum question. And it is the same, poor wording which caused us here so much grief years ago. I find it sad that after one counties' poorly planned and executed campaign to advance concealed carry that certain people are compelled to make the very same mistakes all over again and then it is up to MollyB and Blaster and others here to clean up the mess. If this push for concealed carry referendums does not cause any damage, it will be because of the enormous efforts of MollyB and Blaster - you can be sure of that! I hope this all ends well and does not hurt the cause. Unlike others here, I believe that is very possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:03 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:03 PM You'll win some, you'll lose some. If/when we lose a counties ballot, put up all the others that were won. Let's see where our record is after all counties have voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:09 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:09 PM not all counties are doing this and thats the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:48 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:48 PM You'll win some, you'll lose some. If/when we lose a counties ballot, put up all the others that were won. Let's see where our record is after all counties have voted. Which is what happened last time. As I remember, fourteen counties ran the question: "Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to permit the carrying of concealed firearms?" Talk about your vague, easily misunderstood language. Does this mean criminals can legally carry if passed? What about people with mental problems? And could someone who doesn't really understand how firearms work also carry a gun ? Would there be any background checks? I mean come on! Are we suddenly afraid that a referendum might be "a bit too wordy"? Are we afraid of using up too much ink? I believe nine approved it - in spite of the poorly crafted question. Five of the counties rejected the measure. One of which ironically was Winnebago county, the very county that initiated the campaign and crafted the language. To this day Chuck Jefferson uses it as an excuse to vote against concealed carry. Now I ask you, is this not a prime example of a voter referendum causing harm to the movement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scots Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:54 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 03:54 PM My humble opinion is this: It is blind and naive to think that the first ballot we lose will not be utilized to the MAX to propose that the citizens of IL don't really want concealed carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:16 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:16 PM My humble opinion is this: It is blind and naive to think that the first ballot we lose will not be utilized to the MAX to propose that the citizens of IL don't really want concealed carry. Thank you, Dnielson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:22 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 04:22 PM My humble opinion is this: It is blind and naive to think that the first ballot we lose will not be utilized to the MAX to propose that the citizens of IL don't really want concealed carry. Thank you, Dnielson.I too agree, but we can all agree that we can't lose any more than we already have in respect to CCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:42 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:42 PM My humble opinion is this: It is blind and naive to think that the first ballot we lose will not be utilized to the MAX to propose that the citizens of IL don't really want concealed carry. Thank you, Dnielson.I too agree, but we can all agree that we can't lose any more than we already have in respect to CCW.really, how about if these counties lose on the ballet and Quinn and his people jump in and start ads and pound it back into there head's that no one want's ccw in this state and he would have the proof by the votes. not all counties are doing this. only the ones they think will fell to pass is on the ballet. but than again if it does pass we will never here about it. the media will not report on it at all. we need more town hall meetings not these so called referendum that are not going to do nothing for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Johnson Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:04 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:04 PM Madigan and his cook county cronies control the legislative process in Springfield. Why would he care if individual counties pass a referendum?My opinion, the referendums are at best meaningless and have the potential to backfire on us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:17 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:17 PM Madigan and his cook county cronies control the legislative process in Springfield. Why would he care if individual counties pass a referendum?My opinion, the referendums are at best meaningless and have the potential to backfire on us.see thats the think they don't care if it passes, but if it don't they will use it against us. like they are trying to do with rep fords task force report. just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:41 PM Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 08:41 PM Madigan and his cook county cronies control the legislative process in Springfield. Why would he care if individual counties pass a referendum?My opinion, the referendums are at best meaningless and have the potential to backfire on us. You're exactly right. We already have concealed carry in the news. We have bills waiting in the Legislature. And we have court cases that will, hopefully, be settled soon. So it's not like concealed carry is being shaded from the public's eye. But when Winnebago county decided to put a referendum on the county's ballot it was bad enough. But then they decided to carpet bomb Illinois with letters to all 102 counties, asking them to do the same. Most, if not all, used Winnebago's question right down to the letter: "Shall the General Assembly enact legislation to permit the carrying of concealed firearms?" No mention of the local sheriff's approval, No mention of background checks, no mention of anything. Compare the above question to the wording used in the first draft of Missouri's Proposition B: "Shall state or local law enforcement agencies be authorized to issue permits to law-abiding citizens at least twenty-one years of age to carry concealed firearms outside their home for personal protection after having passed a state and federal criminal background check and having completed a firearms safety training course approved by the Missouri Department of Public Safety? " Now I ask you, which example would you rather have on the ballot? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that it's all ready been decided by many county boards to use the lame example first used by Winnebago county. And once again, Molly and Blaster are racing from county to county to control as much damage as they can. Thanks again Winnebago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmHand357 Posted October 30, 2012 at 01:39 AM Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 01:39 AM Madigan and his cook county cronies control the legislative process in Springfield. Why would he care if individual counties pass a referendum?My opinion, the referendums are at best meaningless and have the potential to backfire on us. I have to agree. This is intuitively logical. Kurt, I cannot see how your statement that "No harm can be done. Win or lose the vote, we win" could be true. I'm not as experienced as so many others here, but It makes more sense to me that much harm can be done with a no vote that would be trumpeted to the high heavens that Illinois citizens don't want concealed carry. You may be tired of hearing it, but our rights to freedom of speech or the press should no more be put to a public vote than our right to keep and bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daplumber Posted October 30, 2012 at 02:07 AM Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 02:07 AM If you do not ever ask the Girl out, because your afraid that she will think that you sound dumb, you will never get a Date. Craft the Referendum wording, do the work and get on with the mission. We can talk and talk and talk, but we have been doing that for over 50 years! Look at the Political Campaign Mail, it is full of Anti-Gun non sense. It is assumed, that if you say nothing and do nothing, that you accept the oppression by your silience. Anybody that knows me, knows that I will never accept oppression. Civil Disobedience, that is my new Mantra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stm Posted October 30, 2012 at 06:07 PM Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 06:07 PM The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to protect the rights of the people. It does not take a simple majority vote to amend the Constitution and remove these protections. It takes extraordinary measures to amend the Constitution. In many cases, the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the passing whims of the majority. While these county referendums may help send a strong signal to Springfield, we run the risk of having it backfire on us. WE are the minority here. How many people in Illinois will apply for a RTC permit when they become available? If we follow the example set by other states who have enacted shall-issue RTC systems, probably less than five percent of Illinoisans will get a RTC permit. We are hoping that an additional 45-50% of the electorate will agree with us and vote in favor of these referendums. While I do think that we have a great deal of public support, I'm not willing to risk my Constitutionally-protected rights to the fickle fancy of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Hate Gunlaws Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:27 PM Share Posted November 1, 2012 at 11:27 PM Randolph County ballot: "Shall any individual who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under the law be allowed to conceal, possess, carry and or transport firearms in any manner free from infringement?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted November 2, 2012 at 02:04 AM Share Posted November 2, 2012 at 02:04 AM Randolph County ballot: "Shall any individual who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under the law be allowed to conceal, possess, carry and or transport firearms in any manner free from infringement?"So they want to know if the citizenry would approve of 'constitutional carry'? The question mentions nothing of a background checks, training, age limits, but they DO, at least, mention that the person must not be prohibited from possessing firearms. That's a start, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Hate Gunlaws Posted November 2, 2012 at 02:42 AM Share Posted November 2, 2012 at 02:42 AM Randolph County ballot: "Shall any individual who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under the law be allowed to conceal, possess, carry and or transport firearms in any manner free from infringement?"So they want to know if the citizenry would approve of 'constitutional carry'? The question mentions nothing of a background checks, training, age limits, but they DO, at least, mention that the person must not be prohibited from possessing firearms. That's a start, anyway.Seems to be what they're getting at, but my guess would be this is simply poorly worded (as are most that I've seen), as opposed to gauging the waters for constitutional carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.