Pike County, Illinois Votes "No"

Pilgrim

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
16,008
Likes
1,261
Location
RETIRED, at home or wherever I want to be
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Pike County, Illinois Votes "No"

Pike County is renowned for some of the best whitetail and wild turkey hunting in Illinois. That deserved reputation has turned hunting into a significant revenue source for the county and its residents.

A threat to that revenue may cause Pittsfield, the county seat, to someday be known as the spot where a quiet groundswell of protest against the growing proliferation of firearms restrictions finally erupted into grassroots action.

On Tuesday evening the Pike County Board citing the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, passed a resolution saying no to any state legislation limiting the right to keep and bear arms would be recognized in Pike County.

Their resolution minces no words:

"Now, Therefore, It Be And Is Hereby Resolved, that the people of Pike County, Illinois, do oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and deem such laws to be Unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority."

In short, no state law placing any limitations on firearms will be valid in Pike County.

This action is aimed squarely at a measure currently being proposed by the state legislature. This proposed state legislation would outlaw semiautomatic firearms and ban .50 caliber firearms (including muzzleloaders). It is being championed by two Chicago residents: Mayor Richard M. Daley and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It may be popular in Chicago political circles, but it's not going to win Blagojevich any votes in Pike County.

One of the two Pike County Board Members who sponsored the Resolution, Robert Kenedy, says he hopes the measure would "be the spark that lights a cannon heard all across the United States."

Co-sponsor Mark Mountain said: "We have to stand up. We have to voice our opinion. As an individual, it doesn't mean much. As a county, it means more. As three or four counties, it means a lot."

In recognition of the resolution's importance, the Tuesday meeting was reportedly the most heavily attended public meeting in county history. Residents overflowed the courtroom, spilling out into the courthouse rotunda.

The measure also had extensive public discussion. At one point, a reluctant commissioner raised concerns that perhaps the measure was a "political hot button" and not something in which a county government should involve itself.

That drew an emotional response from one resident:

"This proposed legislation would greatly harm the citizens of this county, and we believe the members of our County Board are bound by the oaths of office to speak for us on this issue.

"The issue here is not politics, the issue is freedom. Freedom began in this nation more than 200 years ago, when small groups of people like us, in towns even smaller than ours, gathered together to tell the King who tried to rule them from a huge city an ocean away, 'Enough is enough!' Freedom will only survive today if we have the courage to do the same."

In closing, he offered: "In this room tonight we are not conservatives; we are not liberals. In this room tonight we are not Democrats; we are not Republicans. In this room tonight we are Americans."

The standing ovation he received was apparently enough to convince the Commission to overwhelmingly pass the measure.

Pike County's resolution may, indeed, be unprecedented in modern history. Our research (albeit brief at this point) has yet to produce another instance of a county government having voted to refuse to enforce proposed state statutes it viewed to be in conflict with federal law.

And the Pike County Resolution minces no words as to why they felt the action necessary: "the People of Pike County, Illinois, derive great economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Pike County using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois."

The resolution also cites the Commission's sworn duty to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, saying the proposed legislation currently under consideration by the Illinois State Legislature would "infringe the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed by individual citizens in Pike County, Illinois, for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property, and would ban the possession and use of firearms now employed for safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Pike County, Illinois.

In Canada, several provincial governments flatly refused to enforce revisions to the country's firearms registry. The provincial governments said the changers were not only ill advised, but unenforceable. Eventually their resistance became a major political factor, turning out the liberal ruling party and electing a conservative government that has systematically dismantled the registry.

The decision in Pike County was not one that was lightly made, nor considered. Officials had carried on quiet talks with outside Illinois before Tuesday evening's vote. We have learned those talks have led other local governments to begin considering similar measures as a means of expressing their displeasure with attempts to legislate firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Individuals involved in those conversations speak of the frustration of a large, and formerly quiet group of citizens who feel the will of the majority of the people is being ignored by legislators.

Should Pike County's resolution catch on across Illinois and correspondingly across America, this single action taken by a small county government may, indeed, ignite a chain of similar actions across the country that serve notice that the majority opinion of Americans heartland regarding firearms will no longer be ignored.

Lets hope this will be the beginning of a country wide stand up and be heard.
 
There isn't a county official nor a county commission in the state of Massachusetts that has a pair of balls big enough to even mention a resolution like that, let alone pass one.

More power to them if they make it stick. Could well be the start of a second revolutionary war if the state moves in on them and the shooting starts.
 
Good for them!
If the state moves in on them, and a revolution starts, I think you would see real Americans coming to their aid!

ROAD TRIP!
 
Good for them, Illinois is in need of some non-Chicago ideas.

Just another reason why I support the "County System" of government. For this to work for them they will need the Sheriff to use his power to stop the state and federal LEOs. Never happen in mass.
 
We can add Pike County Illinois to the pro-gun areas to live! [rockon]
The libtards haven't taken over yet.

Well, why we can support the sentiment, I wouldn't put a down payment on a Pike County house yet.

Two problems. First, regardless of how it is interpreted to apply vis-a-vis the federal government, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies only to as a limitation on the federal government. In order to have any force against state action, the Second Amendment would have to be judicially "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment, and that could be a bit of a stretch.

Second, while I know zilch about the law of Illinois, in Massachusetts a county has dubious, if any, standing to contest the validity of a state statute on federal constitutional grounds. Except as might be implicated by the state constitution (such as the "Home Rule Amendment"), a county is a creature of the state and has no legally enforceable rights against the state.
 
a county is a creature of the state and has no legally enforceable rights against the state.


The colonist had no legally enforceable rights either, it is a “revolution” that could happen especially if the Sheriff of the county is on their side. I believe he can legally keep out any other LEOs that would want to come and enforce the state’s tyrant rule.
 
I believe he can legally keep out any other LEOs that would want to come and enforce the state’s tyrant rule.

Not even close.

Again, I'm not an Illinois lawyer, but I'd bet the price of a decent cup of coffee: (a) that the Sheriff is legally obliged to enforce state law, (b) that the Governor can remove him from office if he refuses, and (c) that the State Police have the power to displace any county or local law enforcement with respect to any matter as to which they choose to assert jurisdiction.
 
I think even MA has a 2nd-amendment type phrase in it... of course it's been ignored!


"The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. "
- --Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, part I, article XVII

And that's it, as far as mentioning any right to keep and bear arms in the MA Constitution. All other provisions regarding the militia have been repealed. I don't even think the above paragraph has any legal standing anymore, esp. since Commonwealth v. Davis (1976), but I'm not a lawyer.


Why no personal guarantee was included in the founding years of the Commonwealth is open to debate, depending on which scholar you ask. Some say the constitutional convention feared armed mobs and criminals, others say banning individually-owned guns would have not occurred to these veterans of the Revolutionary War.
 
Not even close.

Again, I'm not an Illinois lawyer, but I'd bet the price of a decent cup of coffee: (a) that the Sheriff is legally obliged to enforce state law, (b) that the Governor can remove him from office if he refuses, and (c) that the State Police have the power to displace any county or local law enforcement with respect to any matter as to which they choose to assert jurisdiction.

You maybe correct about the Governor being able to remove the Sheriff but you are wrong about the State police, the sheriff of any county is by law the highest ranking LEO in that county and has authority of any and all LEOs working in their county.

So ya I am at least a little close.
 
How could the governer remove the sheriff? The sheriff is an elected official, elected by the residents of the county.
 
Also RKG what you are saying is that if a state creates laws that are unconstitutional then “too bad live with it”. How can you be a gun owner and not support this coming together of people to fight against what they feel is wrong? By your view any law that the state makes must be followed without resistance from the people of that state. This is an entirely un-American viewpoint.

I am not talking about taking up arms and going to war against Chicago but a peaceful resistance by the people who are being effected by the unfair and unconstitutional laws of a moonbat capital city.

IMHO the founding fathers would be more then happy and supportive of these counties fighting for what is right.

Don’t be a lamb and throw these people to the wolves.

Two problems. First, regardless of how it is interpreted to apply vis-a-vis the federal government, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies only to as a limitation on the federal government. In order to have any force against state action, the Second Amendment would have to be judicially "incorporated" into the Fourteenth Amendment, and that could be a bit of a stretch.

And lastly, so what you are saying here is that the states can deny people their rights b/c the constitution only applies to the Federal government? But isn’t it the Federal governments job to make sure nobody even state government is restricting the rights of American citizens? No state is above the Constitution.
 
Also RKG what you are saying is that if a state creates laws that are unconstitutional then “too bad live with it”. How can you be a gun owner and not support this coming together of people to fight against what they feel is wrong? By your view any law that the state makes must be followed without resistance from the people of that state. This is an entirely un-American viewpoint.

1. That isn't what I am saying (or did say). In order to challenge a state statute as unconstitutional, you must go to court and you must have "standing." A citizen threatened with prosecution for violating a statute that unconstitutionally regulates free speech, for instance, has standing to seek a court ruling on the constitutionality of the statute. (Actually, I've overstated the case a bit, but assume for simplicity that this is correct.) A state, municipal or county official, however, in most states does not have standing to challenge an enactment of the legislature to which he is subordinate.

2. Please remember that a lawyer's views on what the law is or isn't are not the same as a lawyer's views on what the law should or shouldn't be. Judgments on the former are based on reading the law, not whether or not one is a gun-owner or gun-hater. Lawyers who don't recognize the distinction are (a) bad lawyers and (b) easy opponents to defeat.

3. As a matter of philosophy (and history), the notion that one should obey enactments of the legislature unless and until they have been judicially declared invalid is not un-American. Remember, even the Declaration of Independence was based on the notion that a tyranical government denied the people any legal means of challenging regal fiats -- as well as lacked any enforceable constitution against which such fiats could be measured. The theme of the Declaration is that anarchy and rebellion are tools of last resort, not first resort.
 
And lastly, so what you are saying here is that the states can deny people their rights b/c the constitution only applies to the Federal government? But isn’t it the Federal governments job to make sure nobody even state government is restricting the rights of American citizens? No state is above the Constitution.


See below.
 
Last edited:
And lastly, so what you are saying here is that the states can deny people their rights b/c the constitution only applies to the Federal government? But isn’t it the Federal governments job to make sure nobody even state government is restricting the rights of American citizens? No state is above the Constitution.

No state may be "above the constitution," but that begs the question of what the Constitution demands of the state. The first nine Amendments to the United States Constitution are limitations only on the power of the Federal government. The First Amendment, for instance, does not limit the power of the states to regulate "free speech;" that is achieved, to the extent it is, by the much-later-adopted Fourteenth Amendment.

Whether something other than the Second Amendment (and it would pretty much have to be the Fourteenth Amendment) limits the power of the states to deny their citizens the right to keep and bear arms remains to be adjudicated.

It is worth recalling that, at the time the first ten amendments were enacted, the fear was overreaching by the Federal government, not the state governments.
 
I guess I would just like to know what their recourse is if the courts tell them to go screw?

If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they still don’t get their way then what?

Would it not then be okay for them to peacefully protest and ignore these laws until the state decided to change them?

And what if the State decides to enforce the new laws inside the county?

At what point can a group of people (like a county) stand up and just say “NO”.



RKG please take no offense if I come off like an ass, most people say I am, but I really am a nice guy, and you seem like you might be a lawyer so who knows maybe I need help someday.
 
Posted on other forums?

Pilgrim, this was a very good post. Have you, or are you considering, posting this to other forums (packing.org, combatcarry.com, etc.)?

It's refreshing to see the spirit of Freedom alive and well. For those of us in MA, the liberal Riviera of the eastern seaboard, it seems so far away. I grew up in Indiana - I miss it greatly sometimes.
 
I guess I would just like to know what their recourse is if the courts tell them to go screw?

If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they still don’t get their way then what?

Would it not then be okay for them to peacefully protest and ignore these laws until the state decided to change them?

And what if the State decides to enforce the new laws inside the county?

At what point can a group of people (like a county) stand up and just say “NO”.



RKG please take no offense if I come off like an ass, most people say I am, but I really am a nice guy, and you seem like you might be a lawyer so who knows maybe I need help someday.

"Would it not then be okay for them to peacefully protest and ignore these laws until the state decided to change them?" Absolutely OK.


"And what if the State decides to enforce the new laws inside the county?" Like any law the validity of which has finally been upheld by the Court (or, more precisely, like any law unless or until the Courts have declared it unenforceable), you obey it or pay the consequences.

"At what point can a group of people (like a county) stand up and just say `NO'." At the point at which they are prepared to be outlaws.

I take no offense. Putting aside the fact that I'm pretty thick-skinned (result of occupation), your questions are fair enough for someone who is frustrated by a political system driven by a set of values you (and I) do not share, and who isn't schooled in the fine points of constitutional law. The only time I get a little frustrated is when someone who has sought legal advice and then receives an answer he doesn't like begins to berate the lawyer for giving a "bad" answer.

One final observation, which is a matter of history, not law: the American Revolution was not commenced over any of the fine principles used to defend it; it was commenced and directed by business forces who were unhappy with the economic consequences of British royal rule. For those interested, there is a fine (if a bit dated) book called "E Pluribus Unum" by Prof. Forrest McDonald that is worth reading.
 
Last edited:
Not even close.

Again, I'm not an Illinois lawyer, but I'd bet the price of a decent cup of coffee: (a) that the Sheriff is legally obliged to enforce state law, (b) that the Governor can remove him from office if he refuses, and (c) that the State Police have the power to displace any county or local law enforcement with respect to any matter as to which they choose to assert jurisdiction.
You are definitely wrong about (b) and (c) in Ohio, and very likely about (a).

We don't even have a state police.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. I did only a quick bit of research, and learned as follows:

1. The Ohio state police organization is called the "Ohio State Patrol."

2. Organized shortly after WWI, the State Patrol has routinely been denied general statewide law enforcement powers, apparently as a result of political lobbying by trade unions.

3. While the Governor may override this limitation -- and dispatch the State Patrol for general law enforcement -- "n the event of riot, civil disorder, or insurrection, or the reasonable threat of riot, civil disorder, or insurrection," this can only be done on request of a local official.

4. Specifically: "In cities in which the sheriff is under contract to provide exclusive police services pursuant to section 311.29 of the Revised Code, in villages, and in the unincorporated areas of the county, the sheriff has exclusive authority to request the use of the patrol. In cities in which the sheriff does not exclusively provide police services, the mayor, or other chief executive performing the duties of mayor, has exclusive authority to request the use of the patrol." ORC sec. 5503.02(B).

5. While I continue to doubt that the Governor would be powerless to deal with a county sheriff who announced that, not approving of a statute enacted by the legislature, he wasn't going to enforce it, I am nonetheless willing to ask:

DD or Starbucks? (Might be cold when it got there.)
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I did only a quick bit of research, and learned as follows:

1. The Ohio state police organization is called the "Ohio State Patrol."

2. Organized shortly after WWI, the State Patrol has routinely been denied general statewide law enforcement powers, apparently as a result of political lobbying by trade unions.

3. While the Governor may override this limitation -- and dispatch the State Patrol for general law enforcement -- "n the event of riot, civil disorder, or insurrection, or the reasonable threat of riot, civil disorder, or insurrection," this can only be done on request of a local official.

4. Specifically: "In cities in which the sheriff is under contract to provide exclusive police services pursuant to section 311.29 of the Revised Code, in villages, and in the unincorporated areas of the county, the sheriff has exclusive authority to request the use of the patrol. In cities in which the sheriff does not exclusively provide police services, the mayor, or other chief executive performing the duties of mayor, has exclusive authority to request the use of the patrol." ORC sec. 5503.02(B).

5. While I continue to doubt that the Governor would be powerless to deal with a county sheriff who announced that, not approving of a statute enacted by the legislature, he wasn't going to enforce it, I am nonetheless willing to ask:

DD or Starbucks? (Might be cold when it got there.)


The Ohio State HIGHWAY Patrol can not walk in and start enforcing state laws unrelated to HIGHWAYS unless asked by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of a jurisdiction.

And while you may continue to doubt that the Governor is powerless to send the Patrol to do his bidding, the ORC says he can't. Maybe you just can't shake the concept that most states are NOT organized along the severely statist lines of your Commonwealth.
 
DD or Starbucks? (Might be cold when it got there.)
The Ohio State HIGHWAY Patrol can not walk in and start enforcing state laws unrelated to HIGHWAYS unless asked by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of a jurisdiction.

And while you may continue to doubt that the Governor is powerless to send the Patrol to do his bidding, the ORC says he can't. Maybe you just can't shake the concept that most states are NOT organized along the severely statist lines of your Commonwealth.
Some free advice, don't be a sore winner.
 
Illinois County Says NO To Gun Control

KEEP FIGHTING BROTHERS!!!

http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=8156_0_1_0_M

Illinois County Says NO To Gun Control

By Warner Todd Huston on May 08, 07


The Media was all a frenzy on the debate about gun control right after the VT killings cynically attempting to push their Constitutionally illegal gun banning ideas on a grieving public. But one Illinois County has bravely decided to make moves to protect their 2nd Amendment rights with action by the County Board.



The Pike County Board has adopted a resolution that will oppose any sort of gun control measures that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms adopted by the state of Illinois. A brave move in a state controlled by a gun grabbing, extreme left leaning Democrat Party orchestrated by a Mafia infested Chicago mayor who lately moves the State legislature around like a chess player.


Mayor Daley has been trying to manufacture gun banning laws for decades, but had been stymied by a state legislature with enough Republicans in it to throw a monkey wrench into his anti-Constitutional plans. But, since the 2006 election, the state has fallen under the spell of the Democrat Party that easily controls all aspects of the state. And Daley controls the Democrat Party, for the most part, as nearly all the members of state government in key positions are from Daley’s old Chicago cabal.


Pike County is apparently afraid of what this Democrat controlled government will try to do now that the state GOP has made themselves utterly ineffective. In a 7 to 2 vote, the County Board passed the resolution that will be forwarded onto the state government in Springfield and the rest of Illinois’ County governments.


Perhaps it is catching on as neighboring Brown County has already adopted a similar resolution.


The Board overwhelmingly stated that they had become afraid that new gun grabbing legislation being proposed in the state capital would threaten their Constitutional rights. And in a County that depends on the hunting industry to bring in a much needed stream of revenue, the new ideas floating about the state legislature is a danger to the County. Not to mention the sheer unconstitutionality of it all.


“What we are trying to do here is protect rights we already have,” said board member Robert Kenady.


Pike-Adams Sportsmen’s Alliance President Richard Metcalf said, “This is about freedom. This is not a political issue. I’m not here as a conservative, a liberal. You’re not here as a Republican, a Democrat. We’re here as Americans.”


So, good for Pike County. Let’s hope that enough other Illinois Counties stand up for their Constitutional and natural rights that Mayor Daley is stymied in his illicit efforts once again.


Such a resolution is a perfect way to let the gun grabbers in the state legislature know how the grass roots, common citizens are feeling about their efforts. It is a great thing that Pike County isn’t just rolling over and allowing the state boys push them around.
 
Not even close.

Again, I'm not an Illinois lawyer, but I'd bet the price of a decent cup of coffee: (a) that the Sheriff is legally obliged to enforce state law, (b) that the Governor can remove him from office if he refuses, and (c) that the State Police have the power to displace any county or local law enforcement with respect to any matter as to which they choose to assert jurisdiction.

Negative Ghost Writer, the sheriff is only mandated to provide security to the courts and maintain the jail. The Sheriff is the highest law enforcement officer within the county, et al.
 
Back
Top Bottom