144 replies to this topic

[Molly B.]

Valentine on record opposing prosecutions in conflict with Second Amendment

Navigator Journal
Published: Saturday, August 18, 2012 10:53 PM CDT

The McLean County State’s Attorney went on record last week of announcing he would not prosecute people charge with weapons violations that directly are in conflict with the Second Amendment. Edwards County State’s Attorney Michael Valentine said he agrees with the stance taken by Ronald Dozier.

“I have to commend Ron for his public stance,” said Valentine. “He said at the State’s Attorney’s conference earlier this year he was planning to make public the fact the State is in conflict with the Second Amendment.”

Given the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment allows people the right to carry arms, either openly or concealed, Dozier said the State of Illinois, by being the only state to deny concealed carry, is out of step with the rest of the country. He added his office will not prosecute those people charged with possession just because they do not have a FOID card.

He also is circulating a petition expressing the General Assembly reverse its stance and adopt concealed carry.

“I think it does go against the (U.S.) Constitution,” said Valentine of the state’s stance. “I agree and commend Ron for his stance.”

It is a stance, the non prosecution of non-violent firearm violations such as FOID violations, unlawful use of weapons that conflict with federal policy, that Valentine’s office, as well as many in the region, carry out, just not as vocally as Dozier.

“It’s a policy I know several counties in Illinois, including Edwards, now follow,” he said.

[Molly B.]

This a developing story and we don't know how far reaching it will end up being.

[kurt555gs]

The McLean Co SA is right. Both UUW and AUUW law are unconstitutional on their faces. If enough States Attorneys in Central / Southern Illinois do this, Madigan will have to allow some sort of carry legislation.

[lockman]

where's that dancing banana?

[Molly B.]

While I also have seen the "memorandum" I do not believe it has been made public yet - at least I cannot find a link to any online sources.  I think it would be best to hold our calls until we see how this develops.

[papa]

Great news Molly!! I hope this spreads like wild fire.

[colt-45]

it's good news an all but he has to follow Illinois law and if he don't than why should we.

[vess1]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

Like I might have mentioned before, Concealed Carry will be the law of the land in illinois this year.

  Or the current law will be ignored.  One way or another.  Its surprising that the antis want to push this to the point they have no control over the situation as opposed to passing a bill they have some control over.    Of course, nobodys accused them of being too bright anyway.

Sent from my Motorola Electrify using Tapatalk 2

[Molly B.]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

It's been made public in that a newspaper has published an article.

I believe that the time to stand up and get behind Ron Dozier and any other State's Attorney who joins his gutsy move is right now.

You want to see pressure? than start calling the newspapers and media in your area and ask why there is only one State's Attorney in the whoile State who has actua;lly read the constitution, compared it to the Oarth that he has sworn and decided that regardless of the consequences to do the right thing.

it is one of those  "our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor" type moments that if each of us is lucky, occurs once in a life time.

The main stream media in the rest of the State will not report any of this unless they feel it will sell newspapers and advertising.

It is more than time that each and every one of us stand up and demand our rights as were promised to us two centuries ago.

It is not the time to stand on the sidelines and keep hoping for the best.

One man has stood up and decided to do the right thing. The only way he can fail is if he keeps standing there alone.

We do not have a statement released by SA Dozier.  We just have another State's Attorney's comment on SA Dozier. I believe we will have something in due time but we don't have it yet.  Things can change between now and the time we do so it is prudent to wait and make sure all is in order.

[colt-45]

yea don't rush something that hasn't happen yet. i don't think this should have been posted until he made a statement.

[Molly B.]

colt-45, on 19 August 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

yea don't rush something that hasn't happen yet. i don't think this should have been posted until he made a statement.

The story so far is that the Edwards Co. State's Attorney has stated , " the non prosecution of non-violent firearm violations such as FOID violations, unlawful use of weapons that conflict with federal policy . . .  "(is) a policy I know several counties in Illinois, including Edwards, now follow,”.

[Molly B.]

Molly B., on 19 August 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

The story so far is that the Edwards Co. State's Attorney has stated , " the non prosecution of non-violent firearm violations such as FOID violations, unlawful use of weapons that conflict with federal policy . . .  "(is) a policy I know several counties in Illinois, including Edwards, now follow,”.

And that is a story in and of itself.

[colt-45]

Molly B., on 19 August 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

colt-45, on 19 August 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

yea don't rush something that hasn't happen yet. i don't think this should have been posted until he made a statement.

The story so far is that the Edwards Co. State's Attorney has stated , " the non prosecution of non-violent firearm violations such as FOID violations, unlawful use of weapons that conflict with federal policy . . .  "(is) a policy I know several counties in Illinois, including Edwards, now follow,”.

must be a hand full cause they are in my county. i think once this does get out Quinn will step in and make them do something about it. Quinn will make them prosecute them for no foid or uuw and auuw. i hope not but this is Illinois.

[colt-45]

this is what the SA said in my county on smoking in bars to. try it know and see what will happen.

[snubjob]

colt-45, on 19 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

this is what the SA said in my county on smoking in bars to. try it know and see what will happen.

Yep.  The SA here ignored the smoking ban in bars. Wasn't too long before the plain clothes state police officers were visiting the local establishments and writing tickets to patrons, and in one case, the owner.  And the state will eventually step in on this issue also.

[pyre400]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

State's Attorneys are the Chief Law Enforcement Officers of the County. A Governor cannot make or force them to do anything they don't want to do.

I had thought that the Sheriff was the Chief LEO

I agree on the big picture though...  The SA is an elected official, and they are capable of independent discretion.
Hopefully my SA will take a stand - I'll be inquiring, once again.  This could be a tipping point.

What is the course of action for the ISP in these circumstances?  Who's court must the ISP use, and who would represent the State?

[colt-45]

PYRE400 that was my next ?. if you don't think Quinn can't do any thing about it well he runs the ISP.

[Lou]

You see this time and time again.   Those that were opposed before RTC passes realize that the sky didn't fall, the streets did not run red with the blood of innocent victims and AMAZINGLY  the people that spend the time and money to exercise   their Constitutional rights are law-abiding citizens. This is really getting old.  The story never changes yet in Illinois ......................


http://www.thepilot....ed-weapons-law/

Quote

How My Viewpoint Changed On Concealed Weapons Law


By Gerald Galloway
Sunday, August 19, 2012

By Gerald Galloway
Special to The Pilot
We are facing another challenge in our nation as we contemplate how to respond on the local, state and national levels to the actions of individuals using firearms to commit murders.
It is natural and expected that our legislative bodies at these levels would wonder how they might react to prevent such actions closer to home. Such responses should be guarded with reasonableness and full understanding of the consequences of any legislative actions.
I served as president of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police in the 1990s when the North Carolina Legislature enacted the "concealed carry" (of firearms) law. We (the police chiefs) opposed the legislation because, at that time, we thought it was bad public policy.
We were very concerned about the safety of our officers and how this proposed legislation, if enacted, might affect their safety.
We were told that the legislation was going to be enacted, and we were invited to sit at the table to share our concerns as the legislation was being drafted. We did.
The law passed. I was contacted two years later by a member of the media and asked if our fears had become reality. I said, "Surprisingly, no." I believe our willingness to work with legislators and give our input resulted in acceptable public policy.
Despite the efforts of some legislators, there continue to be reservations and concerns that the "concealed carry" option is still bad public policy.
Having served as a sworn law-enforcement officer for more than 31 years, I wish I could say not to worry and that the police will always be there when you need them. Unfor-tunately, this is not reality.
We tried hard to deliver the highest level of service, and I believe law enforcement still does. I think we need to be cautious not to create a vigilante citizenry who take the law into their own hands.
However, the path to personal safety is a shared responsibility that includes law enforcement and each individual person. No law-abiding citizens should be restricted from protecting themselves and others - yes, even including the use of deadly force if necessary.
Whether it is action by town councils, state legislatures or Congress, when the need to respond arises, consider who you are helping and who you are hurting. No law restricting the freedom of innocent people to protect themselves will prevent psychopathic behavior or criminal activity. Law breakers don't care what the law is.
Any concerns should center on firearms education and appropriate legal knowledge of the use of this level of force. Concealed carry legislation provides for just that.
I have never been a member of the National Rifle Association, nor have I joined any other organization that promotes the use of firearms. However, my years of experience enforcing and overseeing the enforcement of the law have allowed me to develop what I believe to be a reasonable understanding of issues relating to public safety.
Restricting and/or limiting innocent people's rights to ensure their own safety in situations where that action might be merited is not in the best interest of peace and security.
Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
If we are not careful, we will find ourselves without liberty or safety. I challenge legislators at all levels not to overreact.
Gerald Galloway retired in 2005 as police chief of Southern Pines.

[mrpapageorgio]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

State's Attorneys are the Chief Law Enforcement Officers of the County. A Governor cannot make or force them to do anything they don't want to do.

I was going to say, prosecutors have discretion, and it looks like the SA is exercising it on what would be people who were just caught having a gun w/o a FOID who would be otherwise legal or not properly stored. What can Quinn do to an elected official of a county? Sue them? Even with the ISP, the people arrested will get off anyway when the prosecutor declines to press charges.

Edited by mrpapageorgio, 19 August 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[GarandFan]

Yes ... a great development indeed, as all this serves to increase pressure to pass a solid RTC bill.

[snubjob]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Here's a fun civics fact.

If the ISP writes a ticket in XX county, where do you think that it is prosecuted? Who do you think the prosecuter is?

Here's a tip, there are no State courts in Illinois.

None, nada, not a single one.

If the ISP writes a ticket in XX county, it is prosecuted in XX county and the prosecuter is the XX county State's Attorney.

Really, this is pretty much basic civics in high school.

Bud, do you think that if this "catches on" in several counties that it will go un-noticed by the Madigans?  I don't really know what to think of this development, but i can't them being appreciative of a state trooper's citation being ignored by possibly numerous downstate SA's.  It's interesting for sure.  I'm not sure if there's a provision for the State AG to interject in a matter like this or not.

[colt-45]

i can see where this will help us out on RTC, but i would hope that all the southern counties will do this. Bud i didn't tell you was wrong i'm just stating that if all the down state do this than Quinn will step in or Lisa will. they have before on theses counties trying to pass RTC and them ironing state law. but really i don't know what they can do to a SA for doing this.

[abolt243]

OK, I aced Civics in high school, but that was a long time ago.  I know that sometimes, a "change of venue" is requested by one side or another when they can prove that a fair trial cannot be held in the "home" location.  In this case, the prosecutor would request the change to a different county that would prosecute UUW violations.  But, since the SA of the county will be the prosecutor, and he/she's agreed not to prosecute, the county SA won't request a change.

Now, can Lisa, the AG for the state, step in and request a change of venue to a UUW friendly county so that the charges can be filed and trial held??

Just wondering out loud.

As for precedent of a SA or AG refusing to enforce a law that they feel to be unconstitutional.  I believe that Lisa herself as well as a county SA announced not long ago that they would not enforce the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in the state of Illinois because they felt the law was unconstitutional.

What's different here?

Tim

[snubjob]

abolt243, on 19 August 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

OK, I aced Civics in high school, but that was a long time ago.  I know that sometimes, a "change of venue" is requested by one side or another when they can prove that a fair trial cannot be held in the "home" location.  In this case, the prosecutor would request the change to a different county that would prosecute UUW violations.  But, since the SA of the county will be the prosecutor, and he/she's agreed not to prosecute, the county SA won't request a change.

Now, can Lisa, the AG for the state, step in and request a change of venue to a UUW friendly county so that the charges can be filed and trial held??

Just wondering out loud.

As for precedent of a SA or AG refusing to enforce a law that they feel to be unconstitutional.  I believe that Lisa herself as well as a county SA announced not long ago that they would not enforce the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) in the state of Illinois because they felt the law was unconstitutional.

What's different here?

Tim

I believe we all know what's different here. Same old Illinois story. The almighty Madigans choose what is ignored, and what's not. And this will not be ignored.

[GarandFan]

Again, this is a really positive development.  I know there are many of you who always throw up your hands, saying "this is Illinois" and talk about the almighty Chicago pols.  Whatever ... I guess it's hard to feel free when you've been down so long.  But that attitude won't make you free, and it's sadly shared by far too many Illinoisans.

All of this brings attention to the issue of concealed carry.  And any attention to it is good, give Illinois is the last state that entirely prohibits carry.

I say run with this!

[snubjob]

I agree that it draws attention to the issue. But is it really going to be any more effective than the county by county referendums?  Is it going to force any action. It will force Lisa to take action.   All it will do is further muddy the waters with some SA's choosing to ignore UUW statutes, and others enforcing. At some point, the state will step in and "clarify" things.  All it boils down to is more downstate vs Chicago. And we've all heard that this division is not good for "our cause".

[Gunslinger]

So glad to live in McLean county. I'll be writing a pleasant email tomorrow. It's nice to write thankful ones now and then

You can probably bet the state police will be looking to enforce UUW a little harder around here

Edited by Gunslinger, 19 August 2012 - 08:16 PM.

[milq]

Yep, I live next to Edwards County and drive through it every day. I'll be passing along a nice letter to SA Valentine for sure and asking my SA to join him.

[Gunslinger]

So..... I gotta ask..... He is basically saying he won't prosecute for loaded weapons outside the home? I still feel like it would be foolish to risk though.

[Ranger]

Bud, on 19 August 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Here's a fun civics fact.

If the ISP writes a ticket in XX county, where do you think that it is prosecuted? Who do you think the prosecuter is?

Here's a tip, there are no State courts in Illinois.

None, nada, not a single one.

If the ISP writes a ticket in XX county, it is prosecuted in XX county and the prosecuter is the XX county State's Attorney.

Really, this is pretty much basic civics in high school.

True...  I don't know how much discretion the SA's have.  I think pretty substantial; but not complete. I also know that most rely upon the State Appellent prosecutor's office to handle cases on appeal and that a major kicker is that most of the state's counties are in rough financial shape and depend upon the state's reimbursement to the County for most of the States' Attorney's compensation.  I don't know if that could be threatened if powers that be deemed SA not adequately fullfilling their responsibilities...