Sangamon County passes voting on anti-gun control measure

Despite having a total handgun ban in place since the early 1980's, Chicago police still confiscate more than 10,000 of them every year from criminals on the street. Bans simply don't work to keep firearms out of the cities.
Despite having some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation Illinois ranks second in gun violence (Washington D.C. ranks first and it, too, has a total ban on all functional firearms). Illinois ranked number 1 in murders in 2003. It just doesn't work. Gun-control makes us "feel" safe, but it doesn't allow us to "be" safe. If gun-control truly makes us safe then politicians should practice what they preach by giving up their armed security guards. Obviously, they won't because they know they are safer with guns than without. Not only that, but they feel Chicago cops need more powerful guns than they currently use! It's time for something different.
Wisconsin allows open-carry while 48 other states allow concealed-carry of a weapon. All of the other states enjoy a safer society as a result. Illinois is the ONLY remaining state which continues to infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of citizens. Thousands of those citizens have permits from other states which allow them to carry a firearm in dozens of other states, but not in Illinois.
While a handful of counties have resisted the resolution a full 81% of all Illinois counties have supported it. The tide is changing in Illinois and it is time for the state to join the rest of the nation who fully support the Second Amendment.
The governor recently said he wanted to give Illinois citizens the tools they need to protect themselves against identity theft. Is not a life more important than an identity? It is time the same governor to give citizens the tools they need to protect themselves against being a victim of violent crime. A full 84% of Illinois citizens WILL be a victim of violent crime in their lifetime.
The emotional argument cannot stand that gun-control protects children, for many of them are still dying every weekend despite forty years of gun-control in this state. It's just not working. Denying 3,744 rape victims (every weekend) the right to defend themselves is not working either. It's time to stand up and speak out. The rest of the nation has already done so...a supermajority of Illinois counties have already done so...it's time that you help in doing so too. Your life is important and worth defending, regardless of what some elected officials want you to believe. It is time...now...call your elected officials and demand to be heard.

I think you don't get the idea of what it's all about: Crime pays.

That really can be the only logical answer as to why one state continues to oppose the citizen's rights.

"Ryan McCrady is the board's administrator. He says no members of the board want to sponsor the resolution because they have no jurisdiction over gun-rights questions."

This is a very poor excuse for Mr. McCrady's lack of action on this issue, because it is testament to his inadequate understanding of the IL state constitituion and home rule powers of municipal government.

Counties and cities indeed have jurisdiction over gun-rights questions. An IL Supreme Court decision regarding a legal challenge of Morton Grove's handgun ban established this as case-law. There is no state preemption of gun laws. Thus, the municipalities of Chicago, Winnetka, Wilmette, Morton Grove, Evanston, and Oak Park maintain outright bans on the most effective defensive firearms (handguns), and Highland Park requires a need-based permit to possess handguns. Moreover, the municipality of Cook bans myriad semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. These municipalities are lawfully able to do this because of the state constitution, and because of legal precedent.

Thus in Illinois at this time, cities and counties MOST DEFINATELY have jurisdiction over "gun-rights" questions. Their jurisdiction extends to matters and rules infringing the right to lawfully possess firearms, and likewise, to matters and rules of protecting those rights.

Mr. McCrady is sorely incorrect in his assessment of the situation in Sangamon county.

Gee, Here is THE MAP showing the current status of the vote--the OVERWHELMING majority of IL counties have voted PRO-GUN rights--WHY DOES THE TRIB NOT REPORT THIS???!!!

Here's the link:

http://www.pro2aresolution.com/id12.html

Non, you have noticed that the Libune shows a strong anti-gun bias? 81 of 102 counties have passed the Pro-Second Amendment resolution and what does the Libune print? That one did not. No mention of the other 81. This drive has been going on for over a year and the Libune has totally ignored it until now when it can report a failure after 81 successes. Anti-gun bias? Yup!

I agree with the previous posts.

Criminal activity is a problem in Chicago. Taking away the guns from the law abiding or making the law abiding go through more "hoops" won't stop criminals.

We need prosecution of legislators that violate the US Constitution, there needs to be criminal penalities for those in government.

1. We need 3-strikes law to put criminals with 3 felony convictions in prision for life, no parole.

2. We need capital punishment in 6 months for convicted murders.

There is the whole other problem of multi-generational criminal gangs.

The Second Amendment is a statement that the people’s Right to keep and bear arms, a Right that pre-existed the Constitution, can not be infringed in any way. The Amendment is a statement of the Supreme Law of the Land that no federal, state or local “law” may be enacted that will deprive the citizens of their Right to Keep and Bear arms.

The only argument required to substantiate this and to overrule all gun laws written anywhere in the United States is:
1. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme Law of the Land.
2. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a part of the supreme Law of the Land.
3. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or
ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.
4. Therefore, all laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the Right of the
people to keep and bear Arms are unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.

There is written authority in the Constitution for each statement above and the Courts of the United States have upheld each.

I. The Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land.”
Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

II. The Second Amendment is a written part of the supreme Law of the Land. The Second Amendment and the other Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in 1791.

III. The Congress and no state or lower jurisdiction may enact and/or enforce any law or ordinance that is contrary to the Constitution.

Authority: Article VI of the Constitution of the United States also prescribes: That everything that the Constitution pertains to, including the Amendments, overrules all state constitutions, laws, and ordinances and all lower jurisdictions’ laws and ordinances that are contrary to this “Law of the Land.”
Court Upheld: U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote on Monday, 21 May 2007, that an Anti-Immigrant Law passed by the community of Farmers Branch, Texas, is invalid and writes that the community can not “pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law." citing the Supremacy Clause of The Constitution of the United States as the grounds.
Court Upheld: U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 591-592 (1875). The United States Supreme Court has stated that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not constitutional in nature, but a right that ensures the citizens because it existed before the Constitution.

Therefore, as specified in the Constitution of the United States and upheld by the Courts, All gun laws written anywhere in the United States restricting the right of the people to keep and bear Arms are null and void.

Some will continue to argue that all statutes and ordinances written regarding gun control are valid and the law of the land.

A general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. This is not true. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement with the Constitution. Any statute not in agreement with the Constitution is unconstitutional. An unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void.
Court Upheld: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S.(Cranch) 137, 174,176

In summary, all laws written anywhere in the United States that restrict the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms are contrary to the Second Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional and null and void.

The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.—
JOHN F. KENNEDY

FInally some common sense in Illinois. As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that America wasn't won with a registered gun. And that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!

http://www.pro2aresolution.com/

It looks like so far there are over 80 counties that have decided to make a stand against the government and their foolish feel good legislation that doesn't work. As long as high crime areas keep blaming social issues on a piece of metal, things will continue to go down hill. People should take responsibility for their actions and practice good parenting skills. That and a dose of church on Sunday, and things will get much better. Guns are just tools like hammers, wrenches, screw drivers, and other things that can hurt people when in the wrong hands. Wake up Folks, fooling around trying to restrict good and honest people from having firearms instead of focusing on the real problems is sending this state to Hell in a hand basket in short order.
Randy Joe Hobbs

Ryan McCrady is incorrect in his
claim of non-jurisdiction and likely
disingenuous as well.

Roberts has snorted a little too much gun powder.

Gun nuts need to step outside of the paranoid balloon they have built and start counting the bodies. Guns owners aren't saving anyone, they are taking the lives of innocent people with their insistence on their rights.

The rest of us unarmed pedestrians have rights which should include being safe in a classroom, a bus, a fast food restaurant, a store...not from criminals but from all the angry people who are aiming those pistols these days. The crazier they are, the more guns they have.

Enough already. And don't quote me the 2nd amendment if that's the best you can do. We all recognize it for the advertising gun industry jingle it now represents.

frank wrote:

Roberts has snorted a little too much gun powder.
Gun nuts need to step outside of the paranoid balloon they have built and start counting the bodies. Guns owners aren't saving anyone, they are taking the lives of innocent people with their insistence on their rights.
The rest of us unarmed pedestrians have rights which should include being safe in a classroom, a bus, a fast food restaurant, a store...not from criminals but from all the angry people who are aiming those pistols these days. The crazier they are, the more guns they have.
Enough already. And don't quote me the 2nd amendment if that's the best you can do. We all recognize it for the advertising gun industry jingle it now represents.

What a pile of crap, frank!!

And let what Frank desires and believes for Frank be reserved.

The rest of us will keep our guns and deny the seeds of hollocausts to come to take root HERE.

frank wrote:

Roberts has snorted a little too much gun powder.
Gun nuts need to step outside of the paranoid balloon they have built and start counting the bodies. Guns owners aren't saving anyone, they are taking the lives of innocent people with their insistence on their rights.
The rest of us unarmed pedestrians have rights which should include being safe in a classroom, a bus, a fast food restaurant, a store...not from criminals but from all the angry people who are aiming those pistols these days. The crazier they are, the more guns they have.
Enough already. And don't quote me the 2nd amendment if that's the best you can do. We all recognize it for the advertising gun industry jingle it now represents.

SO..you think taking guns for law abbiding citizens makes you safer???
How?
no really how?
are you so naive that you think another "law" will keep guns form the criminal??
do you?
How's that working with drugs!? it's not!!
How's the current gun laws working??? hmmm there not!!!
So, what are you thinking?
your not!!!

My father was in Kracow when the Nazi's introduced a complete gun ban in Poland during WWII. Let's not repeat that here.

frank wrote:

Gun nuts need to step outside of the paranoid balloon they have built and start counting the bodies. Guns owners aren't saving anyone, they are taking the lives of innocent people with their insistence on their rights.
The rest of us unarmed pedestrians have rights which should include being safe in a classroom, a bus, a fast food restaurant, a store...not from criminals but from all the angry people who are aiming those pistols these days. The crazier they are, the more guns they have.
Enough already. And don't quote me the 2nd amendment if that's the best you can do. We all recognize it for the advertising gun industry jingle it now represents.

Bzzzt. Sorry, as the kids say today, FAIL.

The vast majority of murders committed are by criminals already prohibited from owning the firearm. There are 100's of thousands of firearms collectors who have never committed a crime. There are an estimated 250 million firearms in the USA & only a tiny fraction are every used in the commission of a crime, yet it is the legal gun owner's fault?

You should also look up the Supreme Court case Castle Rock v. Gonzales where it is affirmed that the government is under no obligation to protect you as an individual from crime.

Check out http://gunfacts.info/ if you're willing to open your mind to opposing views.