Pro2AResolution SJR Article

With the recent article in The State Journal Register we have received several questions concerning the comments by Richard Logan, Chairman of the Logan County Board. When we first learned of the article we were at work and needless to say were on the phone immediately with each other. We knew who we had received the information from, concerning the passage of the resolution in Logan County and were confident that they were a reliable source. But we were trying to remember if we had actually received a signed copy of the resolution. Since we were at work at the time we were unable to immediately verify this. We have tried to get a copy of every county's signed resolution but after dealing with 81 counties we couldn't remember for sure but were pretty sure we had a signed copy of Logan County's resolution. As soon as I walked in the door of my home, you can bet what I did, immediately went to our web site and to our original copies of the resolutions we had on file. We are happy to report that we have a signed copy of the resolution on file and interesting enough is the fact that it has been posted on the documents tab of our web-site since we received the copy in the mail. Apparently the lady who wrote the article, Mr. Logan and the people who commented on it didn't do much research, or they would have found the copy of the resolution on our web-site. We do have to admit we originally, erroneously posted the passage date of the resolution as the date we received the copy and not as the actual passage date of the resolution. We have corrected that date to August 21st as it should be, sorry for any inconvenience that may have caused. Additionally we find the comments of Mr. Logan interesting given the fact that the resolution passed by a unanimous vote in Logan County and also that Mr. Logan's signature is on the resolution as Chairman Of the Logan County Board. We would hate to speculate why Mr. Logan's comments differ so much from what actually happened, but rest assured we will be in contact with Ms. Milstead to clear this up along with several other issues we have with the article. In closing we would like to thank everyone for their concern and efforts in this matter.

Best Regards,
Mark, Jim & Steve
Pro2AResolution.com

Click on this post' title to go directly to the SJR article

State high court shoots down S.F. handgun ban

(04-09) 17:19 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court dealt a final blow Wednesday to San Francisco's voter-approved ban on handguns, rejecting the city's appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The court's unanimous order was a victory for the National Rifle Association, which sued on behalf of gun owners, advocates and dealers a day after the measure passed with 58 percent of the vote in November 2005. The initiative has never taken effect.

The ordinance, Proposition H, would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, exempting only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes. It would have also prohibited the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco.

Lower courts ruled that the measure interfered with a statewide system of gun regulation, which bars certain types of weapons and allows others. The rulings did not address the scope of the constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the focus of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case involving a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.

The state courts recognized that "law-abiding citizens are part of the solution, not part of the problem of violent crime," said Chuck Michel, lawyer for the plaintiffs in the NRA suit. "The authority of local cities to over-regulate firearms is very limited."

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the court's action was disappointing.

"As violence continues to be a pervasive problem in our city, we hope that we can explore other ways to abate the prevalence of handguns on our streets," she said.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Herrera's office urged the justices to declare that "local governments retain significant, meaningful ... power to protect their residents against gun violence."

The city's lawyers said the use of guns in San Francisco homicides is rising, accounting for 61 percent of all killings in 2001 and 83 percent in 2005, and is particularly high in poor and minority neighborhoods. Gun violence costs San Francisco at least $31.2 million a year for hospital care, police and fire response and jail expenses, the city said.

But the courts said the ordinance was beyond the powers of local government.

Upholding a judge's June 2006 ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said state law left room for some municipal gun control - such as bans on the sale or possession of firearms on public fairgrounds - but "when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly."

The court relied on its own 1982 ruling striking down a San Francisco ordinance that would have prohibited handgun possession by anyone in the city limits. Prop. H drafters sought to comply with the ruling by limiting the ban to city residents.

In a 3-0 ruling Jan. 9, the appeals court said state law allows law-abiding Californians to possess handguns in their homes and businesses and lets them request a concealed-weapons permit or a judge's permission to carry guns in public - authority that leaves no room for a local handgun ban.

The court also said a 1999 state law banning the sale of the cheap pistols known as Saturday night specials, and setting safety standards for legal firearms, implicitly prohibited local governments from outlawing all handguns.

The appeals judges also refused San Francisco's request to allow enforcement of Prop. H's ban on the manufacture or sale of rifles and shotguns, saying the city must first rewrite the measure to narrow its scope.

Maryland’s Encoded Ammunition Bill Fails

Sure wish Illinois legislators would see the truth like the Maryland legislators did.
Two bogus bills defeated in two weeks.
1. HB517: The ‘Encoded Ammunition’ Bill
2. ‘Minimum Age Hunting License’ Bill

(click on the link above for the full story)

Major Victory for Hunters and Gun Owners

Annapolis, Maryland – Maryland’s sportsmen and gun owners are heartened by back-to-back victories in the Maryland Legislature. A House of Representatives bill that would have required all handgun and several calibers of rifle ammunition sold in Maryland to be microscopically engraved with serial numbers by the manufacturers has failed.

The Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus backed by the Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation strongly represented the rights of hunters and shooters as it made its case to the House Judiciary Committee considering the bill. A representative from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), its state affiliate - the Maryland Association of Firearms Retailers - and a score of sportsmen’s and pro-firearms organizations testified at the Tuesday hearing of the bill. This victory comes on the heels of the failed ‘Minimum Age Hunting License’ bill withdrawn only one week earlier.

Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution

This movement was born on the road to IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day) this past March 2007. While traveling to Springfield Mark Mountain (Pike County Board Member) and Jim Logsdon (Brown County Board Member) were discussing current anti-gun legislation facing Illinois gun owners, when they decided something needed to be done on a local level to support our constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. Something that would send a strong message to our legislators in Springfield that Illinois gun owners have had ENOUGH of the anti-gun legislation coming mostly out of Chicago and Cook County. They along with the help of a few others composed a resolution to present to their local county boards. The Pro Second Amendment Resolution was first passed in Brown County on April 9th 2007 with Pike taking up the torch shortly thereafter. This Pro 2nd Amendment Resolution which affirms the law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms as well as viewing any new laws passed by the Illinois Government which restricts or denies the 2nd Amendment Rights as being unconstitutional and beyond lawful legislative authority. Since then we have had an overwhelming response with a total 66 counties and one township passing this resolution.