Illinois county declares itself a sanctuary for gun owners

When will an Australian local government district do the same?

Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine. This article first appeared at The Free Thought Project.

Amid political buzzwords of “sanctuary cities” and “gun bans,” one Illinois county decided to wade into the fray by declaring itself a sanctuary for gun owners. The Effingham County board voted this past week, 8-1, to order its employees not to enforce any laws that would “unconstitutionally restrict the Second Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution.

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler said the measure is meant to act as a warning shot to tell the state legislature that the county does not want unnecessary gun control measures, or for the sale of firearms to be jeopardized. The resolution states:

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is guaranteed as an Individual Right under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and under the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and; the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms for defense of Life, Liberty, and Property is regarded as an Inalienable Right by the People of Effingham County, Illinois, and the People of Effingham County, Illinois, derive economic benefit from all safe forms of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting conducted within Effingham County using all types of firearms allowable under the United States Constitution.

Board member David Campbell told Fox News that the county “decided it’s time for someone to take a hard stand.” He said the board modeled their resolution on other counties which have adopted similar measures.

The US Second Amendment allows citizens to bear arms even against out-of-control government. Australia desperately needs such an amendment before the people do it in any case.

The resolution, which Kibler said is “largely symbolic,” was drafted by the board as a response to what it perceives as an attack on the Second Amendment by the State of Illinois and its General Assembly.

“So we thought … why don’t we just make this a sanctuary county like they would for undocumented immigrants? So we did flip the script on it,” Kibler told Fox and Friends, noting that the goal of the resolution is to make it known “to the Illinois general assembly that if they keep on this path of stripping away Second Amendment rights [from gun owners] there’s going to be blowback from Southern Illinois.”

Ever since the resolution passed in Effingham, Kibler said the county has had numerous requests for a draft of the resolution to be passed in other counties in the state. The attorney pointed to bills being considered by the Illinois General Assembly that would restrict the purchase of ammunition to those aged 21 and older as proof that the state is slowly chipping away at individual freedoms.

Kibler said that when the county chose to use the word “sanctuary” in their resolution they received the attention they were seeking. “The Chicago legislation comes up with new… proposals every year which take away our Second Amendment rights,” he said. “So we can send a kid off to war…when he comes home…it’s going to be illegal for him to buy a gun with more than 10 rounds in it.”

Effingham County’s “sanctuary” resolution echoes Iroquois County’s similar resolution adopted in March, decrying the consideration of numerous gun control bills inside the Illinois General Assembly. In a statement, the Iroquois County said the current gun control measures being considered by the state legislature will infringe on their citizens’ rights to be able to defend themselves, engage in recreational hunting and shooting, and it will make instant felons out of any citizen under 21 who fails to surrender their weapons under the new proposed laws.

Similarly, Iroquois also denounced the state General Assembly’s gun control plans, saying they would effectively ban all private and club owned gun ranges and make it nearly impossible for individuals who work late at night and in dangerous jobs to wear body armor for protection, which would conceivably include motorcyclists who wear body armor for personal protection while cycling.

Board member David Campbell told Fox News that the county “decided it’s time for someone to take a hard stand.” He said the board modeled their resolution on other counties which have adopted similar measures.

The resolution, which Kibler said is “largely symbolic,” was drafted by the board as a response to what it perceives as an attack on the Second Amendment by the State of Illinois and its General Assembly.

“So we thought … why don’t we just make this a sanctuary county like they would for undocumented immigrants? So we did flip the script on it,” Kibler told Fox and Friends, noting that the goal of the resolution is to make it known “to the Illinois general assembly that if they keep on this path of stripping away Second Amendment rights [from gun owners] there’s going to be blowback from Southern Illinois.”

Ever since the resolution passed in Effingham, Kibler said the county has had numerous requests for a draft of the resolution to be passed in other counties in the state. The attorney pointed to bills being considered by the Illinois General Assembly that would restrict the purchase of ammunition to those aged 21 and older as proof that the state is slowly chipping away at individual freedoms.

Kibler said that when the county chose to use the word “sanctuary” in their resolution they received the attention they were seeking. “The Chicago legislation comes up with new… proposals every year which take away our Second Amendment rights,” he said. “So we can send a kid off to war…when he comes home…it’s going to be illegal for him to buy a gun with more than 10 rounds in it.”

Effingham County’s “sanctuary” resolution echoes Iroquois County’s similar resolution adopted in March, decrying the consideration of numerous gun control bills inside the Illinois General Assembly. In a statement, the Iroquois County said the current gun control measures being considered by the state legislature will infringe on their citizens’ rights to be able to defend themselves, engage in recreational hunting and shooting, and it will make instant felons out of any citizen under 21 who fails to surrender their weapons under the new proposed laws.

Similarly, Iroquois also denounced the state General Assembly’s gun control plans, saying they would effectively ban all private and club owned gun ranges and make it nearly impossible for individuals who work late at night and in dangerous jobs to wear body armor for protection, which would conceivably include motorcyclists who wear body armor for personal protection while cycling.

The resolution in Effingham County comes just weeks after Deerfield, Illinois, voted to ban nearly all modern weapons. While Deerfield’s ban is not symbolic, Effingham County’s resolution really does not have any teeth to it. Kibler noted that if the state decides to ban weapons as Chicago has done, there is really nothing a county or local law enforcement can do.

Residents in Deerfield were given 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun. Upon careful reading of the ordinance, it appears that residents will be left with only revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could not care less about the law.

Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance. While a fine may seem reasonable to some, as TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, failure to pay fines always results in police action. It is not far-fetched to predict major turmoil and arrests in the event of non-compliance.- Activist Post

Advertisements

About Editor, cairnsnews

One of the few patriots left who understand the system and how it has been totally subverted under every citizen's nose. If we can help to turn it around we will otherwise our children will have nothing. Our investigations show there is no 'government' of the people for the people of Australia. The removal of the Crown from Australian Parliaments, followed by the incorporation of Parliaments aided by the Australia Act 1987 has left us with corporate government with policies not laws, that apply only to members of political parties and the public service. There is no law, other than the Common Law. This fact will be borne out in the near future as numerous legal challenges in place now, come to a head this year.

Posted on April 24, 2018, in ALP, Bob Brown. Tasmania, Deep State, gun control, Gun Control Australia, guns, PETA, Roland Browne and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Absolutely it’s about time to come out of the dark and into the light this should of happened a long time ago.

  2. Dear Editor, we effectively have the 2nd amendment here at law.
    It is hidden well, but it overrides little johnnys pretended laws that came from the Port Arthur scam of which poor Martin Bryant is still suffering.
    I’m not going to publish we’re this is written because I also have a moral obligation to the community to keep dickheads from having access the guns (and I am in no-way directing that statement at you being the editor or your readers) but I don’t think I should put it out in The public domain like that, however if you want to know where it’s written call me and I will point you right to the legislation you need and if you wish to publish it then that is your call.

    Kind Regards,
    Benny.

  3. I think that its up to we the people to decide on this issue give me the tools and I can create and maintain my own security , mate if you’re sitting on the info I say put it out there for all to see you see the dickheads as you describe have no trouble getting any guns they want they are called the criminal element . If more decent people could under law defend themselves then those dickheads would be far and fewer in between.

    • Yes i hear you freedomman and it could just be the indoctrination in me that’s pointing out my moral obligation to the community, however i will be sending ed* the info as requested and you are right, We need a revolution in this country, (I just got robbed by the establishment) and i’m done!! Send me an e-mail to bananasandapples@icloud.com ill tell you where to look and you can use the tools as you see fit.

    • Hi freedomman I have responded to your email and just for everyone else:
      The right to bear arms is written into our constitution of Australia 1900,

      The opening line of the constitution is:
      Whereas the people.

      So we the people approved the creation and recognised the constitution,
      In fact the first one that was being framed was knocked back and they brought another one to us to see what WE the people thought and if we would approve of it and in a majority of states we did.

      The constitution can only be altered by section 128 – Referendum.

      The constitution states we have the RIGHT to bear arms,
      Not the privilege to SUBMIT an APPLICATION (At law this is synonymous to bend to another’s will, pleading or begging).
      (And you really need to check out the assumptions and presumptions at law that go with that!!

      So if we the people are the source of the authority, and we give our consent for the creation of a document which is clearly the manual on how to control governance and in it contains a section that states this constitution SHALL ONLY be changed by way of REFERENDUM,
      Our constitution also states that any: bill, statute, act of parliament or proposed law is SUBJECT to this constitution and any proposed bill, act, statute or proposed law CANNOT be made if it is repugnant (inconsistent or conflicting) with our commonwealth constitution and if such is made then it is invalid to the full extent of the inconsistency.
      And since it dictates that we have the right to bear arms and according to this quick google search I did at the time of writing this about referendum results in Australia then I would have to suggest that a.) any proposed gun law at the least is unconstitutional as it’s inconsistent with our constitution, it purports to alter the constitution by removing our right to bear arms and replace it with a privilege to submit to apply for their approval to bear arms without doing so via Section 128 referendum.
      Furthermore if you need more evidence get a copy of the firearm act and send me an email to bananasandapples@icloud.com and I’ll show you where in that to look so you can prove it yourself as invalid.

      Keep up the good fight fellow aussies,
      It’s time to take back this country from the tyranny of an evil de facto corporate/parliament/government system.

      Cheers,
      Benny.

      • I can’t post pic here so just google Australian referendum results and you will see the last one was 1966 I think off hand so if no referendum had been held and after the people voted was never held than there is no such law,

        Chief Justice Murray Gleeson of Australia in 1942 said “pretended laws made in excess of power never were laws at all and were void Ab initio from the beginning.

        Furthermore exercising a right CANNOT be turned into a crime or criminal offence.
        (There are Supreme Court precedents on this)

        Kind Regards,
        Benny.

      • Thank you Benny, our point entirely.Ed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s