Illinois Members, vote yes for a Constitutional Convention in November

Status
Not open for further replies.
But how do we keep the Chicagoons from dominating a new constitutional convention?

By making certain that the delegates from outside the Chicago area have a no prisoners, no quarter, no compromise position on the important issues, and by engaging the media to keep the pressure on. The media is as fed up with the way things are going as we are. Besides that fights in the convention would make great copy.

Jeff
 
I'm president of a 300-member local sportsmen's club. I'll mention the con con at the meetings each month between now and November. We also have shooting matches starting the first week in October and running through the Winter --- so I'll have the PA system cooking with the same notice so everyone has a heads-up to look for it on the ballot. Admittedly population-wise, it'll only be a drop in the bucket -- and I don't know how else we could inexpensively get the word out to raise awareness.
 
While 300 people may not seem like much if only half of them talk to others and get the word out you'd be surprised how far the word can spread, the idea is to get each person to convince one or two more people to spread the word and watch the fire spread.
 
I'd like to see everything from Springfield, south, as the 51st star on our Nation's flag. But, if nothing else, living downstate helps one understand how folks felt below the Mason-Dixon line in 1861...
Really, most of Illinois outside of cook county is not that awful.

Maybe we could sell Cook County to Canada.
 
And that's not all...

All of Cook county is not bad either, consider that most of NW Cook county is now seriously considering succeeding from Cook county. Led by Hoffman Estates, Schaumburg, Barrington, Arlington Heights, Wheeling Township all are considering the pros and cons. The recent tax hike and fiascos in Cook county board elections (Stroger appointing his son as board president:banghead:) have been building to a climax. The recent failure of the legislature to enact the recall question have added fuel to the raging fire in politics here (not to metion the trial of A. Rezko, Blago's bagman in Federal Court) I am strongly considering being a delegate and will keep you advised, as always.:cuss:
 
Separating Chicago from Illinois would be a good thing, provided you can get it passed. Section three requires the consent of the state legislatures, which would be hard to do considering the situation. They might be bribed by being told that they no longer have to deal with the country folk, but I'm sure they'd realize that they need the rest of the state to help fund stuff.

The separation would free the south from the Chicago machine, but would also change the national scene. Here's how it stands now:
Illinois: 2(maybe one)liberal senators, x many reps.

Afterwards, it would look like this:
Chicagoland: 2 liberal senators, y many reps
Illinois: 2 conservative senators(rural areas), z many reps

conservatives would gain two senators, and the liberals none, since because Chicago controls with population, they can overwhelm the southern areas. Once free, the southern areas would elect conservative senators. Reps, which are divided by population, would stay the same.
 
Anyone have some quick links on the numbers behind ratification IF and a big IF the voters send us in this direction?
 
This is some scary stuff man; I am not sure about it.
I agree with the next guy, Chicago controls too much of the state. living in the lower half of the state, i can attest to how all the money goes there... they have too much influence over everything that happens in our state. But, separating Chicago from the rest of the state is never going to happen...

anyway, what worries me is that by enabling change (convention), the chances for more rights to be taken away increases. I don't think we have enough people on our side.
maybe i am too pessimistic...
 
The question for many of you is: How important is your RKBA versus all of your other issues.
That implies that we feel as though the state government is doing some things right. RKBA is one of my lesser issues with our state government's performance and I suspect many here would say the same. There are risks but things are bad. I'm going for drastic change and not taking corrupt stagnation.
 
What do we have to lose?

Excepting Cook County, Magazines with more than 10 rounds, Firearms that can hold more than 10 rounds, handgun possesion.

For all of Illnois, .50 calibre firearms, semiautomic firearms (remember Obama ) Registration, Mandated Safety Checks prior to purchasing a firearm, a state wide AWB, bullet imprinting, etc.........

Sorry Jeff but I think we have a lot to lose. Outside of Cook County and no CCW we do not have it too bad.

Would I like to see CCW? Oh yeah, I have to go through the South side of Chicago at all hours of the night and day. I would pay $10,000 for LEGAL permit to CCW. But given the political clout and votes Chicagoland has we (firearms owners) could get hosed big time.

NukemJim
 
Sorry Jeff but I think we have a lot to lose. Outside of Cook County and no CCW we do not have it too bad.

Jim,
This is what the Illinois constitution has to say about our right to keep and bear arms:
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con1.htm
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

Subject only to the police power means that gun bans, magazine bans, restrictive licensing, storage of your firearms in a police approved arsenal and any other restriction you can think of is constitutional under the state constitution. We lost RKBA in Illinois in 1970. The only thing that keeps Daley's anti-gun agenda and worse from being passed into state law is the downstate Democrats. If any of those draconian measures were to pass, they would pass constitutional muster in Illinois.

In a constitutional convention we can delete 'Subject to the police power" from the state bill of rights and we can have the state senate seats selected by geographic location, as they are in the US senate, not by congressional district as they are now. That would break the stranglehold Chicago has on the rest of the state.

I think a constitutional convention is our best chance to make meaningful change to state government in our lifetimes.

Jeff
 
I wholeheartedly agree that "Subject to police power" should be deleted by the con-con. Heck, if they adopted Idaho's constitutional provision on the subject, it would pretty good. Not sure though it would pass through the con con or the voters that strongly though.

You continue pushing for geographic representation rather than proportional. Again, Reynolds v. Sims makes that unconstitutional.
 
You continue pushing for geographic representation rather than proportional. Again, Reynolds v. Sims makes that unconstitutional.

Last I heard the US Senate which is geographic representation is still in operation.

Jeff
 
Jeff you are correct in that there is no RKBA in Ill Constitution :mad:

You are correct in that all of the restrictions that are placed on firearm ownership are constitutional under the current constitution.

But if we have a Con-Con could'nt they write it in the constituiton no handguns/AWB/Magazine capacity limits etc.....

My concern is that a Con-Con could not only give us RKBA it could if dominated by Chicago take away a lot of firearm ownership capabilities that we have now.

How do we stop Chi from dominating the convention or the approval process?:confused:

Given current attitudes towards firearms, recent mass shootings and Daley's hatred of firearm ownership, I would be very worried.

Again Jeff I hate to disagree with you. You have been an excellent source of data and commonsense on this board and I respect your service as an LEO. But just as Chi dominates the legislature I am concerned they would do the same for a Con-Con.

NukemJim
 
But if we have a Con-Con could'nt they write it in the constituiton no handguns/AWB/Magazine capacity limits etc.....

They could, but the USSC will rule on Heller before con-con even comes up with a vote. A favorable ruling from the USSC will go a long way towards making those fears unfounded.

My concern is that a Con-Con could not only give us RKBA it could if dominated by Chicago take away a lot of firearm ownership capabilities that we have now.

It's a risk, but I think a small one, especially given the impending USSC decision. Of course if the USSC surprises everyone and issues an unfavorable ruling all bets are off.

How do we stop Chi from dominating the convention or the approval process?

By electing delegates who are not willing to cave in and by pounding the criminal Chicago machine and everything they propose in the press and online. The convention won't happen in a vacuum.

Given current attitudes towards firearms, recent mass shootings and Daley's hatred of firearm ownership, I would be very worried.

Where you see reason to worry, I see reason for hope.

But just as Chi dominates the legislature I am concerned they would do the same for a Con-Con.

A very real concern. But I feel it's better to go down fighting then to sit back and do nothing. I just read Reynolds v. Sims and in 1964 the USSC disenfranchised rural America at the state level. In the 44 years since that decision urban and rural interests have gotten so far apart that we're reaching the boiling point. I am more convinced then ever that the country will eventually divide on urban/rural lines. The mess that is Illinois is a perfect example of what Reynolds v. Sims has wrought.

Jeff
 
How do we stop Chi from dominating the convention or the approval process?

Given current attitudes towards firearms, recent mass shootings and Daley's hatred of firearm ownership, I would be very worried.
I would also say that if chicago could have that strangehold, why haven't we seen the antigun bills in the legislature moving forward? I think if chicago had the pull to be really ruining the rkba's day they'd be doing it now.
 
Quote:
But if we have a Con-Con could'nt they write it in the constituiton no handguns/AWB/Magazine capacity limits etc.....

They could, but the USSC will rule on Heller before con-con even comes up with a vote. A favorable ruling from the USSC will go a long way towards making those fears unfounded.

Very good point, I would expect a favorable ruling but the level of scrutiny is going to be the interesting part.

I would also say that if chicago could have that strangehold, why haven't we seen the antigun bills in the legislature moving forward? I think if chicago had the pull to be really ruining the rkba's day they'd be doing it now.

Another good point.

I've just Read reynolds Vs Sims (Thank you Jeff for giving names so I can look it up) Very interesting. Will have to cogitate for a while.

NukemJim
 
I would love to see senate seats apportioned one per county, something like the way US senate seats are apportioned 2 per state.

It used to be that way. The U.S. Supreme Court killed that idea in the '60s.

Warren Court decisions

In various reapportionment cases decided by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, notably Wesberry v. Sanders, Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, the court ruled that districts for the United States House of Representatives and for the legislative districts of both houses of state legislatures had to contain roughly equal populations. (The US Senate was not affected by these rulings, as its makeup was explicitly established in the US Constitution).[1] The cases concerning malapportionment ended the pattern of gross rural overrepresentation and urban underrepresentation in the US House and state legislatures. Eventually the rulings were extended over local (city) districts as well, as in Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris
 
After reading Reynolds v. Sims, I have no doubt the Warren Court would have changed 2 Senators to a state to apportioning them by population if it hadn't been specifically written into the constitution. If they had their way instead of Wyoming having equal representation in the senate, Wyoming probably wouldn't have any....I guess they never heard of tyranny of the majority...

Jeff
 
Lonnie has it right about the apportionment of representatives.

I would also caution you that a change in the constitution would probably not help as much as you think.

The Michigan Constitution states:

Bearing of arms.
Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

However, several MI Supreme Court decisions have ruled that this right is still subject to the State's police power. So what you have explicitly in the Illinois Constitution exists implicitly in Michigan.

The state Constitution then, becomes merely a default provision, and the legislature may pass laws that only have to meet a rational basis test to be constitutional.

Sorry, but the only real way to effect change in your state is to change the hearts and minds of the voters of Illinois.
 
Comparitive constitutional theory is a forte of mine.

What's see what Michigan had and has now.

Michigan required safety inspection/registration, and the state Supreme court ruled that constitutional. Michigan had may issue concealed carry, and that was declared constitutional because open carry was available as an option and that was "bearing arms" in their definition.

The language has to be strong enough to keep AWB's and other assorted bans from passing. Perhaps borrow some elements.

New Mexico:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Idaho:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
 
So with Heller on our side and the road to incorporation ahead, do you all feel that a con-con is still as necessary? Well at least necessary as regarding gun rights, Illinois could still use a legislative enema no matter what.
 
So with Heller on our side and the road to incorporation ahead, do you all feel that a con-con is still as necessary?

Yes.

Now that we have Heller I would like to vote for a Con-Con.

Well at least necessary as regarding gun rights, Illinois could still use a legislative enema no matter what

Agreed whole heartedly. Illinois needs what used to be called a "Triple H" enema. High, Hot and a Hell of a lot.:eek::what::evil:

NukemJim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top