Liberty; It’s a Matter of Choice

 

The world in which we live has become cluttered with some people trying to rule other people. This is done through passing law after law that restricts certain behaviors. It is done in the name of saving the children, or the helpless or in the name of the public safety; in some cases with religious fervor.  The problem is so many of these laws, rules, mandates or regulations prohibit behaviors which are victimless crimes.

If we define breaking the law as a crime then: not wearing a seat belt in a moving motor vehicle is now a crime. Buying too much of a certain cold remedy is now a crime. Carrying a certain weapon for self defense is a crime. Opening an eating establishment without government blessing is now a crime in Pike County, for example a sidewalk lemonade stand. In New York City selling certain drinks in excess of 16ozs is now a crime. Having an excess of lights on a running board of a vehicle is a crime. The list is essentially endless. How ‘bout someone willing to take a job for $6 per hour instead of $8.25, the so called government mandated amount.

Libertarians, on the other hand, attempt to make it clear that fiscal responsibility is imperative and essential to Liberty. “That government governs best which governs least,” being the rally cry. The most fuss from the so called mainstream is that, “those Libertarians are in favor of vice and drugs and all sorts socially unacceptable behaviors.” That really isn’t correct. What the Libertarian would prefer to say is we are in favor of choice. Choice is the difference between a free man and a slave. I personally would prefer that my kids choose not to sample alcohol, or mind altering substances or get entangled in the behaviors which I consider to be bad choices, but remain victimless crimes.

The slave has no choice, he is ruled by his master and must ask permission before he commits any act. In my opinion, while I personally would not condone poor choices for anyone, and especially for my family, I do not feel that once my child has reached an age where he should be able to make ‘right’ choices, that it is my business or “right” to able to pass a law against him or anyone making a poor choice. I consider it a poor choice to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, but my wife has made that choice 7 times. It is not my business to rule my wife or my neighbors via government decree, at least for victimless behaviors.

It cannot be the job of my neighbor to inflict his beliefs on me nor mine on him until, and unless, his bad choices affect me. At the point his poor choice affects me then I might have cause to pursue a remedy in law, but until then I have no call to rule my neighbor. For instance if my neighbor lies in his house in an intoxicated stupor then what is that to me. If he gets in his car and begins to drive it while not in control of his faculties and endanger me and mine, then things change. Till then it is none of my business.

There is no end to passing laws that prohibit behaviors of various types. Some of these behaviors are disgusting to any average person, however part of the price of Liberty is that if we are to be free then we must allow all to be free to make choices. Some of those choices may be repugnant to people who are of common social morals. Anything less leads to really bad crime. There was no “organized” crime until prohibition. Prohibited victimless behaviors lead to crime. Crime leads to injury and lack of safety, which requires more Law Enforcement Officers and more laws prohibiting more behaviors which need more monitoring of bank accounts, phone calls and texts and on and on.

So the Libertarian philosophy is not one that encourages poor social choices, rather it is a philosophy that says government must remain neutral on victimless issues because that is necessary to maintain Liberty. Where there is no choice, there is no Liberty.

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.

Pass A Law Against Stupid. . .

I recently returned from a trip to Wyoming. I was in the backcountry, out of reach by cell phone and did not use or listen to the radio for days at a time. While in Wyoming I exercised my fundamental right as a Citizen of a free country and carried a 9mm handgun most places. However when we came out of the backcountry to go visit a museum one day and we caught up on the news of the day only to discover that 12 people had been killed and many others wounded at a Colorado movie theater.

While ‘carrying’ in Wyoming I ran into three places that disallowed the carrying of weapons for personal defense, a national forest service office, a hospital and the museum we visited. You could say that there were 3 victim rich environments where the People were unable to defend themselves against a determined well armed attacker.

The amazing thing is, apparently the Colorado attacker could not read, or perhaps never heard of laws which prohibited him from obtaining weapons for use with mal‐intent, or never read the sign at the theater which did not allow weapons. Apparently the only people who followed the law and posted signs were the hundreds of law abiding citizens who made up the victim rich environment that this deranged individual used to kill his victims. It is also amazing to me that in a state where open carry of firearms is legal and concealed carry with a permit is legal, that this could happen.

It just, at least in my mind, shows that the law abiding will continue to be law abiding and those with a diabolic intent will continue to act out IN SPITE of all the laws on the books. What is even more remarkable is the Politicians continue to think that passing more laws, which only the law abiding will continue to obey, will actually fix the problem.

Now if weapons for personal self defense are not allowed it would appear to me that the business or entity which disallows the People the ability to defend themselves have now assumed the responsibility to defend their patrons against the crazies of the world. Passing a law against being crazy or deranged is the same as passing a law against stupid; it just isn’t going to work.

I have to suggest that you view this neat video along with reading this blog entry... 

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217‐285‐2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Judges are human too...

Judges are human too, subject to prejudice, mistakes and flaws of the human condition.  Well taking it a step further, have you ever wondered if the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) could get it wrong?  Well wonder no more.  The case known as the Dred Scott decision has been studied for years by both the law school types and by those of us who have a nonprofessional vested interest in preserving Liberty.  It is called the learning process.  You fall down, you get back up.  You make a mistake, you fix it.

SCOTUS issued a ruling in 1857 that forever changed the course of human history.  The Court ruled that states that outlawed slavery could not forbid slaveowners from bringing slaves into their states, the so called Free States, and holding them as slaves there. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that blacks were,

“beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

One has to wonder at what point the Feds feel that, in their so called superior wisdom (more like educated idiots), they can rule over the People and expect to win long term.  Their hope obviously, would appear to be that they can keep their legislative agenda alive long enough the People will get hooked and fully dependent on “Free Health Care.” 

I received a comment the other day online from someone who stated, “All I know is “it” (Obamatax) will benefit me.  My comment was, “the Signers (of the Declaration of Independence) pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred Honor, to help us escape the tyranny of King George.  Can we do less?  Or will we go for short term benefit of a “free” trip to the doctor.

Our men and women who serve aren’t out there to preserve your “free” trip to the doctor; they are out there to preserve your ability to choose.  I have stated previously that a free man has choices; a slave has no choice but to do that which the “massa” bids.  Will the military become the tool to enforce the “massa’s” bidding?  The very essence of Liberty must include the ability to make a choice, even if it is a destructive choice to you personally.  It has very little to do with safety and security.  If you want to sample safety and security at its finest and most intense, try jail.

I resort once again to the eloquence of one of the Founder’s, Patrick Henry, when he said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Where Did the Constitution Go?

Where did the constitution go?  Long time passing…  The constitution was written in non-legalese of the day so that the average individual could understand it.  The language has the appearance to those of us in the 21rst century of being somewhat arcane.  However arcane it may be, it is still relatively easy to read to those who are willing to read it.  

I am struggling to find authority in there to force the People to do anything.  Article 1, Section 8, authorizes certain powers be granted to the government, however I can see nothing in there about forcing the People to participate in commerce so the government can regulate it and in turn penalize the People with Obamatax if they don’t comply.  Convoluted?  No more so than Justice John Roberts convoluted reasoning process to arrive at the decision that forces the People to buy health coverage or else...

I have heard of folks who are so “heavenly minded” that they are of no earthly good.  Now I can see that there are definitely people sitting on the Supreme Court who are so convoluted and “governmently minded” that they imagine that the government edicts are next to Godliness.  Government knows best!  You must obey!  You have no choice!  You will comply!   

Does that mean if I refuse to participate in the scheme, and further refuse to pay the Obamatax to the IRS, they will throw me in jail?  If I refuse to go politely to jail and resist with all resources available to me, that they will kill me?  I suppose that would save the government money for my health care.  If you don’t believe that can happen just refuse to obey an order of the court, see who comes to get you.  And if you continue to resist to the full extent, ask yourself what the authorities will do to you to make you comply.

I suppose Obama will want to force me to eat oysters because they are so healthful for me, which in turn will reduce health care costs.  Well Mr. Obama, you just as well line up the death squad, because for me to eat an oyster that is what it will take!  Maybe we should pass a ban on smoking for Presidents, or else face your own squads.  After all government now has a “compelling interest” in reducing healthcare costs from people making bad choices.

Wednesday we celebrate Independence Day which began with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on, July 4^th, 1776.  This year on, July 4^th, 2012, I suggest that everyone keep their powder dry.

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

A Time for Thanksgiving

Our country is currently under siege by those who would steal our Liberty through gradual, and sometimes not so gradual encroachment.  However even though the siege continues unabated we can take encouragement from the many things that remain "right" about our country and in particular, the County of Pike.

Recently my bride of 18 years, Anita, was injured in a freak accident that left her back broken in 3 places.  She must wear a large "turtle shell" back brace for several weeks to help her recover in a proper manner.  The good news is she will likely recover with minimal disability long term.  It is just a matter of "jumping" through the hoops of time and therapy to get back to some semblance of normalcy.

We find ourselves, not discouraged, but rather encouraged due to the fact the injury could have been so much worse.  Since the accident many friends and family have rallied to our side in this family's time of need.  An attitude of gratitude has actually been more common here than "woe is me."  So I have taken a brief respite from the world of, "fight theft of Liberty by subtle encroachment," to assume a higher priority responsibility of attending to my family's immediate needs.

Thanks to all those who have been so supportive of my family in this time of our need by bringing in food, assisting with chores, and in general lifting our spirits with cards and letters to Anita.  What a very special county full of kind and generous folks who express the very essence neighborliness.

I am reminded of our Lord when he was asked, who is my neighbor?"  His response essentially was, those around us in need.  Not necessarily just the person next door.  I think the People of Pike are the very epitome of, and definition of Neighbors, at least in my experience.  I thank the People and admire the People and respect the People of Pike.  I believe the People will continue to exhibit the nature of the "neighbor" and at the same time will right the ship of Liberty in her time of need as well.

Regards, Dr. Dan

Ted Nugent on the Ropes... at the Hands of the Feds...

Ted Nugent is the outspoken Rocker who is a truly famous figure in the Fight for Liberty.  Due to his outspoken no holds barred speech he has incurred the wrath of the Almighty Federales of America...  They will go to every end that they must to try to "crucify" this hero of Liberty...

It is important that we stand behind him in every way that we can.  Check out this must see segment from GBTV.COM. 

Public Safety vs. Liberty

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

I enjoy the study of history.  It gives us the clues that should help us avoid making the same mistakes that have been made over and over.  The old saying is, “those who fail to study history will repeat it.”  EVERY TIME!

One of my favorite and most amazing stories occurs in the early days of our country; the story of the Pilgrims.  By looking at the motivations of these early pioneers, we can begin to see what they valued more than life itself.  Let’s start by looking at what they didn’t move for.  The Pilgrims did not move for the purpose of increasing public safety, public health, education, health insurance, public welfare benefits, etc.

They were dropped on a distant shore after a hard and discouraging voyage with much sickness across the Atlantic.  Safety did not exist.  They had no shelter.  There was no way to get rich, and if they did get rich where would they spend it?  There was a shortage of food supplies and other material goods and bad weather was not far off.  There was no security.  There were wild beasts, “wild” Indians, dangers from starvation and the potential for many unknown calamities. 

So back to our question, why did these folks take their families on this arduous, hazardous voyage to an unknown continent, this land of, essentially no opportunity?  What was this most precious “thing” that would drive them into the unknown fraught with peril?  The driving force was the possibility of finding a measure of Liberty; enough Liberty to practice their faith as their conscience dictated, and not as their government demanded. 

My question then becomes, “How much of the currency of Liberty are you willing to spend for some imaginary perceived safety, security, public health insurance, public welfare, etc?  It is essential that we understand that for just about every new rule, law, ordinance and regulation that is passed we have a proportionally decreasing measure of Liberty.  Founding Father, Ben Franklin, said it best, “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

My final questions, to which I have no good answer:  “What are you willing to do to prevent a government, even our own county government, from inadvertently, and perhaps though meaning well, robbing you of any more Liberty?”  Will you get out and vote? Will you go to committee meetings, even though it is possible those you have elected to represent you will ignore you?  Or, will you just complain as the government throws off the chains of the constitution and in turn binds We the People with regulations for: the children, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor, so called public safety, and the ‘you-name-it.’ 

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”  (Samuel Adams, Founding Father)

One hundred percent Public Safety is an illusion.  This illusion requires a Ruler, who is human with the normal motivations of humans, which include greed, compassion, and all the like feelings and temptations humans have, to oversee We the People.  My opinion is that the People are the best Rulers of themselves.  There is too much temptation for the average person to resist in the process of Ruling.  One look at the history of Illinois governors makes it clear.  The classic Illinois joke is our governors serve two terms, one in the State house, and one in the “Penhouse.”  As Citizens do not be lulled into approving well meaning rules by well meaning rulers, that ultimately steal your Liberty.

In addition to the Chicago Machine, I have been hard on our local officials recently.  I don’t believe for one instant that our county board has one bad intention.  I do believe they have good intentions.  They work hard for no significant pay going to, many times boring, committee meetings.  Attending other functions; answering many phone calls with complaints about all types of things.  However, I believe that inadvertently We the People and our local leaders can get in a trap that continues to try to get government to fix every issue.  The real truth is every issue cannot be fixed by government.  The People have to roll up their sleeves and fix it themselves or accept some risk, such as bad lettuce, a faulty cooler door seal, a trashy neighbor, or any of a number of other issues.  If We the People continue to say, “There ought to be a law;” then we will pay the price of being overburdened by government.

Just for fun, ‘google’ “dumb laws in Illinois.”  You will find a lot of laws that are truly stupid.  Laws like the City of Normal, “It is against the law to make faces at dogs.”  Or, Ottawa, “Spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal offense.”  And many others…  Remember though, that while these are funny, all laws are enforceable at the point of a gun.  That is not funny.  Therefore maybe we ought to have a law against enforcing ignorant laws…  (grin).  You can legislate against stupid, but that ain’t gonna fix stupid.

For comments feel free to contact me at: editorials@pike912.org.

The War on Food Borne Illness

The Pike County Board, over the objection of every citizen who spoke, that was not directly associated with the Pike County Health Department (PCHD), passed the licensure requirement for restaurants, etc.  I kind of wonder, “Why bother with the hearings?” 

I thought the PCHD officials did a great job of presenting their own case for why it WASN’T ‘necessary’ for a food licensure law.  They stated that statistically there are approximately 3.5 million meals served per year in Pike County.  Out of those meals there were, statistically calculated, 15 food borne illnesses (FBI).  I inquired what the actual number was, since I am under the impression that FBI is a reportable condition – the Citizens present heard that the actual number of FBIs was 2.  Regardless, the point they were trying to make is that we need licensure to be able ENFORCE compliance with the Rules. 

Now my impression is that new laws are to address a real need, or correct an imminent real problem.  Somehow I found myself impressed with what a great job that the PCHD is doing with the tools (I think “tools” has nicer sound than hammers, chains, steel pry bars, guns, etc) already at their disposal.  I failed to see how adding a new law, another layer of bureaucracy, an additional theft of just a little bit more Liberty, was going to make any meaningful improvement to public safety.

I would remind the board that all laws, even this simple little law, is ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun.  Imagine if you will a restaurateur who has a little flaw in his refrigerator door seal.  The inspector says, “correct it or else.”  The owner says, “it is insignificant.”  The war is on.  If the owner continues in non-compliance long enough, and resists enough that he would rather die than close the business, then eventually there will be a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) or SWAT team who will be dispatched to take care of the “problem.”  All of this over a door seal.

Now I realize that this example might be considered extreme, but I would argue that it is no more extreme than trying to eliminate 2 FBIs out of 3.5 million meals served.  That is like sweeping up a pile of 3.5 million grains of sand but somehow 2 grains escaped us so we need to pass a law to eliminate 2 grains of sand.  In the case of FBIs, it could happen from lettuce that came from outside the county and all the licenses in the world will not stop that.

My hope is for a reconsideration of this additional encroachment upon that “Jewel of Liberty,” as our Founders would term it.  Where does government stop?  Liberty by its very nature has an element of risk.  The Declaration of Independence made the purpose of government clear, “…[We] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights… that to SECURE these RIGHTs governments are instituted among men…” (emphasis mine).   I didn’t see a thing about “public safety” there.  Preserving our rights to Liberty exceeds public safety.  I don’t think anybody objects to reasonable regulation; however 2 grains of sand out of 3.5 million just isn’t reasonable, in my opinion.

I am convinced that the PCHD means well.  I am convinced that their purpose is NOT to steal our Liberty; I believe that they are trying to gain tools to do their job more efficiently and to meet their mission of increased public safety.  I commend them on a job well done, however there is a logical limit, and I think this new licensure law exceeds the logical limit for the whole People.  In the process the new law fails to add real and meaningful increased public safety, while it encroaches on Liberty.  The county board, comprised of our elected officials, is a guard to our Liberty and should pass only necessary laws. 

If you would like to correspond with me, Dan A. Mefford, D.C., on this topic contact me at:  pike912.blogspot.com/ or editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134.

This article written by Robert Ringer got my attention…

It may seem a little gloomish and doomish, but he has a point.  He states the following:

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason we have come this far down the road to serfdom — be it in healthcare or any other aspect of our lives — is because most of us want redistribution of wealth.

That’s right, when push comes to shove, the majority of Americans are more than happy to ignore the Constitution and live in a redistribution-of-wealth society — so long as they believe they are getting the better of the swindle.”

What do you folks thinks of this?  Is he right have the People lost the will to rebel?  Are the People more interested in redistributing the wealth of others as long as they are on the receiving end?  I wonder??

 

Read the whole article below…  Regards, Dr. Dan

 

 

Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare: Does the Supreme Court’s Decision on Healthcare Really Matter?

By Robert Ringer - Wednesday, March 28, 2012

As the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of Obamacare plays out, I’m probably one of the few people who is not biting his nails over the outcome.  In fact, I’m dismayed that a majority of Americans are actually taking this media-hyped event so seriously.

First of all, as Thomas Woods has often pointed out, the whole idea of an arm of the federal government ruling in a case where states are suing that same federal government is perverse.  Let us not be naïve.  The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch are all part of the same team.  It’s true that the Court may occasionally rule against the government, but, nevertheless, there is an inherent conflict of interest.

Second, the nine judges who rule on major issues such as the constitutionality of government-run healthcare are lifetime presidential appointees.  When a true conservative is in the Oval Office (which is rare), he may get to appoint one or two conservative judges.  And when a progressive or socialist president is in the White House, it is a 100 percent certainty that he will appoint far-left judges when vacancies occur.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s decisions have nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral, or just or unjust.  We all know how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade.  Did that make it right … or moral … or just?  Nevertheless, if the court says something is so — e.g., that killing unborn babies is legal — it becomes accepted as a legal fact of life that only “extremists” would dare challenge.

So in this game of judicial musical chairs, it all gets down to who happens to be on the Supreme Court when any given case is heard.  To underscore this point, it’s ridiculous that one man — Justice Anthony Kennedy — is going to decide whether or not to allow the president and Congress to ignore the Constitution.  And once Justice Kennedy casts his vote, no matter how immoral or how anti-constitutional it may be, U.S. judges will forever refer to the outcome as “case law.”

Third, while the media crowd is all atwitter talking about what the Supreme Court’s decision might ultimately be, the truth is that it doesn’t matter.  Many readers will not like my saying this, but the reason it doesn’t matter is because government-run healthcare, even if Obamacare is overturned, is our future.

In fact, we already have lots of government-run healthcare.  It’s called Medicare, Medicaid, and free emergency-room services.  And more — much more — is on the way, no matter how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare.  Like all other insidious government programs, government-run healthcare only gets bigger with time.

While it’s true that a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court might buy us a little time, the long-term result is inevitable:  government control of every aspect of America’s healthcare system.

If the Dirty Dems lose the current battle, I can promise you that they will immediately roll up their sleeves and implement the Alinsky strategy yet again — meaning they will resort to even more audacious, illegal tactics to institute additional government-run healthcare services without regard to the Supreme Court ruling.

Further, if Obama wins next November, look for a slew of “executive orders” to give new life to Obamacare.  But what if a Republican wins?  Do I really need to answer that question?  Wasn’t it a Republican president that gave us No Child Left Behind, TARP, and, yes, more government-run healthcare in the form of a prescription-drug benefit?

And what about that long-forgotten “conservative,” Richard Nixon, who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970?  Or the most popular conservative hero of our time, Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in 1986?

Most Republicans, even those who want to repeal Obamacare, are talking about a better way to “reform healthcare.”  Other than Ron Paul, who has had the courage to step forward and point out that it is not the government’s job to become involved in healthcare in any way, shape, or form?  Healthcare reform is a euphemism for more government involvement in healthcare.

For those of us who still believe in the Constitution — and, even more important, in Natural Law and natural rights — the fact that Obamacare was allowed to come into existence in the first place shows just how far we have moved away from our founding principles.  The sleight of hand with which it was forced into law is more proof of how corrupt our politicians are, how unafraid they are of usurping the Constitution, and how unwilling we, the people, are to rebel.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason we have come this far down the road to serfdom — be it in healthcare or any other aspect of our lives — is because most of us want redistribution of wealth.

That’s right, when push comes to shove, the majority of Americans are more than happy to ignore the Constitution and live in a redistribution-of-wealth society — so long as they believe they are getting the better of the swindle.

To end on a positive note, I do believe there are some constitutional saints among us, but you have to look long and hard to find them.  And the first place each of us should look is in the mirror.  If you don’t see a constitutional saint staring back at you, you know what you can do right away to start helping the cause of freedom.

The awful truth that few people are willing to come to grips with is that the choice is between servitude and all-out revolution.  Understanding this reality is far more important than what the Supreme Court decides about Obamacare.  Count on it, universal healthcare is coming — unless enough Americans are willing to resort to all-out rebellion.

You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.

A Matter of Presumption…

The Legislators of the State of Illinois have made two (2) presumptions, at least when it comes to the Firearms Owners ID card (FOID). 
Presumption:

1. All Illinois Citizens are untrustworthy.
2. All other Americans are trustworthy.

The State, or in reality, the Chicago Machine, in my opinion, has presumed that if you reside in Illinois you are so untrustworthy that to increase public safety you must be vetted and approved by the State to bear an arm or to buy ammunition or armament.
The State has further presumed that if you are an American who resides outside the borders of the State of Illinois, then you are a perfectly honorable upstanding Citizen and need no vetting process to determine if you are upstanding enough to carry an arm, or purchase an arm or ammunition.  It is enough that you are NOT an  Illinois Citizen.
Senator Sam McCann has proposed a law to repeal the FOID card SB3340 – he needs others sponsors to help carry this repeal process forward.  I would encourage the People to call their Senators ASAP to request that they get on board as cosponsors of this.  This is your opportunity to ask them why they DIS-trust the People of Illinois, but TRUST all Americans from other states and territories.
A similar proposal is in the Illinois House of Representatives, so while you are calling your legislators, call your Illinois Representative and discuss your concerns about this with them.
All have my express permission to spread this far and wide.  If you would like to use it and send to your own newspaper, as a Letter to the Editor, over your own name you have my express permission to do so.  Just get it out there and get the pressure going!
I may be contacted at: carry@pike912.org, for further discussion.
Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.