" What a good use of the county board's time. I'm sure this is the most pressing problem in Coles county. As was suggested a few weeks ago, they should take on an additional constitutional amendment each meeting. After that they can solve the illegal immigration problems or give Al Gore a hand with solving the global warming problem. Another courageous stand by the local newspaper's editorial board. "

" With all due respect, I don't see these county measures as redundant. Indeed, the Second Amendment guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (at least that's what the words say). However, the Second is not yet incorporated, meaning that it protects against federal infringement only...it doesn't protect against state infringement. The IL constitution likewise protects this right, and is more explicit than the federal guarantee: "...the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." HOWEVER, at the 1970 IL constitutional convention, this phrase was inserted: "Subject only to the police power,..." As I understand, a strong Chicago contingent (generally favorable to gun control measures) pushed for this phrase to be added. What this means, for Illinoians, is that WE HAVE NO GUARANTEE of our right to keep and bear arms. "Subject only to police power" effectively means that the state legislature may enact any laws they pass that would regulate the possession of firearms, including outright firearm bans. That IL counties pass Second Amendment resolutions is anything but redundant...they are simply telling the state legislature that the people at their local (county) levels oppose laws that infringe on their citizens' rights to keep and bear firearms. The state of Illinois is not constitutionally bound to respect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. It is precisely because of that fact that these issues ARE county issues. "

" So when are you running for a spot the board to ensure they spend their time more productively? "

" In a free and open society, one has the right as well as an obligation to speak out both for and when they disagree with their government. Evidently people like RAK have a problem with that concept. RAK's smug and sarcastic remark sort of reminds me of the old retort: "America love it or leave it". I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't utter that a time or two. His comment may not have the same meaning but it certainly reflects the same mentality. "

" And more personal attacks by Early Bird. What you're saying is that you'll complain all day long about how inefficient the board is but won't do anything about it. Just like you wouldn't even look up the facts of firearm laws when given the links to it. "

" I just love it when someone posts a sarcastic and snide statement, then seems to get bent out of shape when they get called for it. Well...duh...What in the hell did you expect? "

" Early Bird's right to speak freely and express himself, protected by the 1st Amendment, is worthless without the protective measure guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. All things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are left to the States and the People. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is specifically addressed in the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting. It's the protection clause of the Constitution guarding against overreaching Governments and guaranteeing the rights protected by the remainder of the Constitution. The People of Counties reminding States of the limitations imposed by the Federal Government, is a fine idea. A State may not make law that violates the protections of the U.S. Constitution. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government." "

" Carl says we have no guarantee to keep arms in Illinois. I could be wrong Carl, but I have always been under the impression that the US constitution takes precedence over the state constitution. If my assumption is correct his argument would be fallacious. I think the subject only to police power wording was, just like the county board's vote, a feel good measure to satisfy a certain group of advocates, and in reality means nothing. And for my fan, RAK, I don't complain all day long, usually just in the early hours of the day. "

" Early Bird: The US Constitution applies to the Federal Gov't except for the concept of "selective incorporation" and the Bill of Rights. Here's another link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm "

" Thanks for pointing out my ignorance to me, RAK. I didn't realize that states could pass legislation that violates the US Constitution. This is a wonderful forum for people like you to educate us dummies. I guess every one of those cases that the Supreme Court has ruled on, and struck down a particular law, by saying it violated the US constitution, was just wrong. Perhaps you need to explain to the Supreme Court justices how it all works, as they seem to have it all wrong. I'm sure you could find a web site or two to direct them to, that would prove your position. Really now, RAK, I think you have been reading too much of that paranoid NRA type literature. As you are no doubt aware, another letter has been written about this subject today, and I sure you can straighten him out too. Like me, he seems to be woefully misinformed and could use some of your factual and well based wisdom on this topic. Go get em Tiger, and be sure to back your arguments up with some of your unbiased web sites too. "

" I've written a letter along w/ sources and references, something you seem to be lacking in your unending personal attacks. Perhaps you should actually do some research before you spout off in the morning. "

" Early Bird, with all respect due, it's clear that you're woefully ignorant on matters of constitutional law and provision, 14th amendment and incorporation, and on the history, gravity, and reality of Section 22 of the Illinois constitution. Again, the 2A is not incorporated, and Section 22 is subject to police power. The police are subject to the state legislature. Thus, Illinoisans have no legal protection of their right to bear arms; the state is not constitutionally bound from infringing that right. These facts are as straighforward as they are unacceptable. Please don't substitute sarcasm for substance - it doesn't wear well. "

" Woefully ignorant? I'm sure that you are going to upset RAK with that remark. Would that be a personal attack, RAK? I'm pretty sure that it would only be a personal attack if it is disagreement with your line of thinking, right? Your absolutely right about the state of Illinois not guaranteeing anyone the right to bear arms, Carl. That was never a point I was trying to make. I am saying the US constitution does guarantee us that right, and if the state did try to take away that right, I would think the Supreme Court would over rule any such legislation as being unconstitutional. If I'm wrong about that, tell me why. And please do it with your own words, and don't refer me to some web site. I am not impressed with anyone who has to resort to that tactic because they lack the ability to support their argument with their own words. I think where you and I probably disagree is that people like you and RAK want absolutely no rules concerning firearms. As I have stated on here before, I have no problem with people keeping a weapon for the purpose of hunting, home protection and things like target practice or competitive shooting. Honestly Carl, and I'm serious about this, should a person be allowed to own any weapon they choose, even a machine gun, in your opinion? What is it you want, the complete removal of any laws regard the ownership and use of weapons in the state of Illinois? What laws, or would be laws, are acceptable to you? "

" Now come on, Carl in Chicago. Are you trying to tell us we are in danger of the state of Illinois banning guns all together? You gun-nuts need to cut back on the caffeine a little. "

" Earlybird: Once again, SCOTUS has not incorporated the 2A as applying to the states. That is well documented in numerous court cases, that, had you bothered to look at the references I provided, were listed and linked to. Heller v DC is up for priori on that matter as we type. You need to continue w/ the personal insults and exaggerations because you have nothing to support your argument with. "

" It's about 7 AM Saturday morning, so I'm sure this will get shown sometime late Sunday night, or Monday morning. Anyway, for my friend RAK: I'm sure you're right, and the Supreme has never overturned any regulations that violated a person's rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. I have to bow to your superior knowledge of the constitution and the laws of the land. Sarcasm aside, and speaking of laws, it looks like maybe Carl isn't going to answer my question, so I'll pose it to you. What gun laws do you find acceptable? Allow me to clarify my argument for you. While I'm sure the Supreme Court doesn't want to get bogged down with every issue that comes down the pike over gun regulations, I'll bet that if any state tried to completely outlaw guns, they would step in and over turn such legislation. Now, without trying to steer me to one of your web sites and using our own words, and not a bunch of legalese, tell me where my argument is flawed. "

" One: Once again, you are throwing out red herrings. I'm not talking about the other amendments. Some have been incorporated, some haven't. The 2A has not been incorporated therefore all gun bans (Chicago, DC, NY, CA, etc.) have been found constitutional. These include complete bans on handguns and various types of rifles and shotguns. Several of them (NY & NJ) have also not been grandfathered so what you owned legally before you had to dispose of. As for "gun laws" that I support, I support the NICS and those stating felons can't own firearms to name some. The ones I oppose are those banning firearms based on cosmetic features or on media scare-mongering along w/ registration and mandatory storage laws to name some. Basically, those that put the onus of crime onto the legal owners and not the criminals. Now I've shown evidence supporting my arguments. You don't like that apparently since you don't have any to support yours. Put up or shut up. "

" Early Bird: I'm not avoiding your question, and will respond, hoping I am not merely talking to myself. I am glad that you agree that responsible people should [be able to] own firearms for protection, hunting, and/or recreation (i.e. for lawful purposes). Remeber too that defense, even use of lethal force, is lawful in Illinois when justified (read the IL Crim. Code). I am sure that we also agree that violent crime needs to be dealt with immediately and strictly. But perhaps where we part agreement is in the degree to which we believe that gun control legislation acts to reduce crime. Sure, waiting periods, one-gun-a-month, and magazine capacity restrictions just intuitively seem like they should decrease violence by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, etc. But do they? Has their efficacy to reduce crime been demonstrated? The research I read, such as that done by the National Academy of Sciences panel, and the Department of Justice, indicate that these laws don't significantly decrease the prevalence or intensity of violent crime. Because of these and other indications, I am strongly inclined to believe that reducing crime involves a more different approach, that is admittedly more expensive and more difficult to do. The roots of violent behavior need to be tackled...things like lack of education, legitimate economic opportunities, effective parenting, positive male role models, positive community involvement, hope for a better future, and, finally, mandating personal responsibility for decisions and actions. I believe that all but those really out of touch with reality simply know, deep down, that irresponsible decisions of individual people are to blame for violence committed. Thus and per your question, I am hesitant to support any of the gun control laws on the books. This is because it's been shown that these laws are a wash...they don't decrease, nor increase, violent crime. Faced with that, I support repeal of laws that are ineffective, largely because such laws DO affect those of us that follow the law and live responsibly. If these myriad laws actually passed scrutiny...that is, if there were objective data and analyses that unambiguously demonstrated that waiting periods, FOID cards, and all such restrictions actually reduced crime, I'd be willing to consider them. But what I am not willing to do is sacrifice my freedom (rights), and the freedom of others, for more and more restrictions that have never been demonstrated to be effective. Best regards Sir. Carl "