IL gun ban pushback
In the wake of Illinois’ blatantly unconstitutional assault weapons bill (OK, let’s be honest – it’s more a semi-auto rifles ban) multiple sheriffs around the state have announced they will not enforce it:
The Illinois Sheriff’s Association was avidly opposed to the law before it passed. At least 74 sheriff’s offices have publicly stated their opposition to the law, calling it unconstitutional, according to reports.
“Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution,” Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe said on Facebook.
Maybe they do things differently in Illinois – most places I have lived in, there is one (1) sheriff per county, and usually a mess of deputies etc. working for him. So if that is so there, too, then there are 104 counties, hence 104 sheriffs in the state. 74 out of 104 is a pretty healthy percentage – like over 71%, or in simple English, closing in on three quarters of ’em. In an election, 71% is a landslide.
Predictably, the ‘media’ in the state is losing its collective little mind over this. A great example is from an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, which has never seen a gun ban it didn’t like:
The passage of the Protect Illinois Communities Act makes the state safer by banning high-powered firearms, and magazines with more than 10 rounds for long guns and more than 15 rounds for handguns.
You don’t get to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. You and every other sheriff, police chief, officer and prosecutor took an oath to uphold the law. And violating that oath carries consequences.
Pritzker has said sheriffs or any other law enforcement official who refuses to comply with the new law faces termination. That’s exactly the stance the governor needs to take.
Like any other citizen, sheriffs have a right to express their views, particularly political viewpoints since the office of sheriff is typically an elected post. But there’s a difference between freedom of expression and dereliction of duty. Law enforcement officers violate their sworn duty when they decide a particular law doesn’t fit their politics, and therefore should go unenforced.
Let’s see, three out of four law enforcement professionals who should know the law say this violates it. Luckily those paragons of jurisprudence, the Trib, know better and say the laws MUST be enforced whether or not they are Constitutional. I am a bit lazy today, so I did not look back in the Trib archives to see them condemning the riots following George Floyed’s death or the Antifa revolts – I’m sure they were equally as vocal then, weren’t they? Or calling for defunding the same police they want enforcing this?
Maybe all those sheriffs should go ahead and enforce bad laws. There is even historical precedent… we heard it at Nurnberg a while back: “We were just following orders.”
Category: Democrats, Gun Grabbing Fascists, Police
Here we go again, liberals, starting with the brainless hypocrites in the Press, screech for strict enforcement of Law THEY are in favor of. Somebody remind me when those brainless shits were in favor of enforcing US Immigration Laws in “Sanctuary Cities” among other places? OH, and if strict Gun Control Laws are such a great idea, then why is Chicago such a crime-ridden hellhole? But yeah, here i go with logic and common sense, something liberals are horribly allergic to along with facts!
Gotta vote “feeelings” or it’s…
Pritzker thinking he can fire duly elected County sheriff’s shows just how out of touch our ” betters” think they are, and the media showing how smart they aren’t.
I will believe he is serious if he sends the cops into Chicago or east st louis hoods to check on who has what guns registered.
Until then, he can pound sand.
Exactly. Never trust a fat, wealthy Leftist.
I want to see him be the first guy in the stack who goes through the door on the first raid to confiscate the first semi-auto rifle.
This.
Lots of center body mass for the dindunuffins to aim for.
“You don’t get to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. You and every other sheriff, police chief, officer and prosecutor took an oath to uphold the law. And violating that oath carries consequences.”
That’s the money shot, right there. So, did The Chicago Tribune write an Op-Ed condemning Mayor Lightfoot for defying ICE detainers against illegal aliens in their custody?
Oop, FOUL, throwing facts and common sense at liberals as well as pointing them out on their hypocrisy!
You will see that sycophant Tom Dart jumped right on the band wagon at the start. From now I will be quoting Mark Twain in all of my politics posts.
“In that immense crowd which throngs the avenues to power in the United States I find very few men who displayed any of that manly candor and that masculine independence of opinion which frequently distinguished the Americans in former times, and which constitutes the leading feature in distinguished characters, wheresoever they may be found. It seems, at first sight, as if all the minds of the Americans were formed upon one model, so accurately do they correspond in their manner of judging. A stranger does, indeed, sometimes meet with those who dissent from these rigorous formularies; with men who deplore the defects of the laws, the mutability and the ignorance of democracy; who even go so far as to observe the evil tendencies which impair the national character, and to point out such remedies as it might be possible to apply” – MT
Like other elected officials, the Sheriffs swear an oath to the constitution, NOT the state legislature or governor. As such they have a duty to not enforce unconstitutional laws. Pretty freaking plain to anyone other than a party apparatchik.
“You and every other sheriff, police chief, officer and prosecutor took an oath to uphold the law.”
Um…no, dipshit.
I took the same oath when I joined the Marines. I didn’t take an oath to uphold the LAW. I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies. That means that my oath, and the oath of each and every LEO is to enforce those laws that follow the Constitutional limits on the infringement of civil and individual rights of the people, not to enforce the law no matter what that law happens to be.
As it happens the Constitution specifically bans the GOVERNMENT from infringing upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not say anything about what type of arms the citizens may or may not have.
I would not enforce such a law, and I would not expect my elected sheriff to do so. I also would not expect my elected officials to enact such a law.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of police officer of ___________ to the best of my ability.”
DUTIES – GENERALLY
“The several members of the Police Department of ______, including the Chief of Police, shall devote their time and attention to the discharge of their duties, according to the provisions of this Code and other ordinances. It shall be the duty of each member of the Police Department to preserve order, peace and quiet and enforce the provisions of this Code and other laws and ordinances.”
The problem is of course the conflict between an unconstitutional law and the Constitution. Until al law is ruled unconstitutional by the courts it is merely an opinion.
So, supposing
To refuse to do this is based merely on an opinion?
Regardless – the Supreme Court of the US as well as several Federal courts have ruled that such laws are in violation of the Constitution. Reasonably, the LEOs do not have to wait for someone to rule from a bench that this law is unconstitutional in order to take the actions (or inactions) necessary to not violate the rights of law-abiding citizens of the US.
Gee…..where’s FDR when you need him?
(hopefully burning in hell alongside Woodrow Wilson)
Can you say “Topaz Mountain”, UT? “Moab”, UT?
“Manzanar”, CA? Among about 100 other WWII Japanese Internment camps?
I knew you could, boys and girls.
Never forget. Never again.
Police HAVE TO do very little. For example, In a number of states for example on a DV call the police are either required to make an arrest or report of there are injuries. That is something that is required by state code.
If police officer sees a crime being committed he doesn’t HAVE TO step in and stop it from being committed. For example at the Parkland shooting Peterson didn’t HAVE TO go into the building to stop the shooter. So he didn’t. Unfortunately for him the state later said he owed the students duty because he was assigned as an SRO. This is actually new ground. Because PO’s don’t owe normally any one person a specific duty.
cont-
So the most that could happen normally would be getting fired if someone were derelict. So if there were an unconstitutional law on the books and the Sheriff didn’t follow it, most states have a way for the Governor or the AG to remove the Sheriff. This is very different than say the military where you can be arrested and imprisoned for not following orders.
My point was more to the factual aspect of the oath. Yes, officers take an oath to enforce laws.
Technically true, however incomplete.
Just as with the military oath of enlistment where we sear to obey orders, the unspoken addendum to that is “lawful” orders. It is well understood that when issued an unlawful order we not only are not required to fulfill it, we are prohibited from doing so and will be held accountable for our actions should we execute the unlawful order.
“I was just following orders” is not a valid legal defense.
There’s a reason for the order in which the statements are placed. The Constitution comes first, federal, state and local laws come after. There may be some debate about whether a particular law is constitutional or not, but if a Sheriff enforces a law that he legitimately believes is unconstitutional, he is failing to uphold his oath.
Sheriff is an elected position, if his constituents don’t appreciate his position, they can recall him, or decline to re-elect him.
As we all know, you’re NOT obliged to follow unlawful orders.
The Sheriffs are NOT going to use resources to “round up” law abiding citizens weapons. It’s very hypocritical, I know you’re shocked, that The Left is upset by “selective” laws being enforced.
Just remember their mantra:
It’s okay when we do it
It’s okay when we do it
It’s okay when we do it
Stand up to all bullies and tyrants (but I repeat myself)
I hope the LEOs all maintain the backbone to resist tyranny peacefully, so we don’t have to do so violently.
“…Shall not be infringed.” Awaiting the court challenge to the Constitutionality of this.
Again, it is not so much the control of the gunz that the despots want, it is control of We, The People that they are after. And again, they would not want to control the gunz if they were not planning on doing things that would cause We, The People to want to shoot them.
Molon Labe, Bitches.
Kurt Schlichter (author of “Peoples Republic” and “Indian Country”) described southern Illinois and Indiana as Indian country. The people there have no use for Chicago politicians. Check the red-blue map of the state.
My local, elected sheriff in the PDRofMD was unimpressed with similar stupidity from Annapolis.
He told me so at the range, where we were firing ARs.
Hopefully only with 10 round magazines, because you know that extra 20 rounds might hurt Wes Moore’s feelings. We don’t want him to run away in fear… again.
Out at the range or hunting and your buddy asks for a couple rounds… more legislation proposed in Illinois:
HB 1057 – “Provides that it is a Class 4 felony to sell or give firearm ammunition to any person if the transferrer of the firearm ammunition is not a certified licensee under the Firearm Dealer License Certification Act or if the transferrer of the firearm ammunition is not an employee of the certified licensee selling or transferring firearm ammunition in the course of his or her business as an employee of a certified licensee.”
Then it becomes a case of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (remember back to those simpler days?)
My buddy didn’t ask, and I didn’t give him any. Prove me wrong.
Sh*thole Blue State…
Might can follow the lead of some of the Western counties in Oregon. Hold votes for the sane counties to leave Illinois for the surrounding states of Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, or Iowa.
Screw it. Enough of them leave and Illinois would just be nothing but a little strip of Chicagostan.
“74 out of 104 is a pretty healthy percentage – like over 71%, or in simple English, closing in on three quarters of ’em. In an election, 71% is a landslide.”
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. The vast majority of Illinois (geographically speaking) is conservative. I grew up in Indiana and the similarity between the cultures of the two states (with one exception) is striking.
The difference is Chicago. Yes, there are a couple of other liberal cities in Illinois, and you could make the case that Indianapolis is just as liberal as Chicago, but the big difference is the long and storied tradition of utter corruption in Chicago…and, by extension, the entire Illinois government.
If there is a scheme, scam, or outright fraud designed to steal an election, odds are it was invented, field tested and perfected in Chicago.
It doesn’t matter what the other 71% of the state wants, the Chicago machine will just buy, coerce or create however many votes it needs to get what it wants.
Serious question- what is the remedy for someone who is arrested, prosecuted, has their property confiscated under a law that is challenged as unconstitutional from the outset and then decided to, in fact, be unconstitutional?
I was pretty sure I remembered this from back when passing Constitutional exams was required to matriculate. The order is U.S. Constitution, State, local ordinances. Neither an ordinance nor a State law can contradict the Constitution.
We have remedies for malicious prosecution. I know one recourse for malicious legislation is voting. When there is no faith in the integrity of the ballot, that is no longer a remedy.
If LE can be charged and prosecuted, every legislator should be as well.
I keep asking-are we sure the Rapture didn’t already happen and we just didn’t realize it? For the literalists-144,000 out of 7 billion wouldn’t be noticed.
If the sheriff is an elected official (which he is here in CO, not sure about IL) then the only people who can ‘terminate’ him are his constituents, by voting for someone else.