144 replies to this topic

[GarandFan]

Can I add a philosophical trajectory to this discussion?

While I feel this is a very positive development for the right to bear arms ... and I feel that Illinois' ban on bearing arms is unconstitutional ... I'd also like to remind folks of the danger that comes along with the selective enforcement of law.

This is a kettle of worms.  In this case, it is easy to praise the decisions not to prosecute laws which we feel are unconstitutional.  But what if it was on another issue?  What if an SA decided not to prosecute people for violating laws we agreed with (eg. immigration, voter intimidation, etc.)?

It is easy to think about things as individual issues, to support measures that support our issues, or to support ANY means by which we feel our issue is being forwarded.  But this is really a matter of the erosion of rule of law.  If everyone just simply ignored law they disagreed with, and demanded there be no consequences for violating such law ... we'd soon have massive chaos on our hands and our justice system with be wholly deficit.  I know that these SAs are trying to leverage pressure to change the law, which is what must inevitably happen.  But I wanted to remind everyone that in general, selective enforcement of the law, and an erosion of the rule of law, has the potential to harm us all, and harm our very institution of justice.

[lockman]

Like Chicago and pot enforcement or lack thereof?

In the end I believe the unwillingness to prosecute a class of laws will generally over time result in those laws being removed or in certain cases ruled unconstitutional.  These classes of crimes generally do not result in a direct harm against another person and are ripe to question why they exist at all or what benefit they provide without a destruction of your rights.

[wilessiuc]

GarandFan, on 23 August 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

Can I add a philosophical trajectory to this discussion?

While I feel this is a very positive development for the right to bear arms ... and I feel that Illinois' ban on bearing arms is unconstitutional ... I'd also like to remind folks of the danger that comes along with the selective enforcement of law.

This is a kettle of worms.  In this case, it is easy to praise the decisions not to prosecute laws which we feel are unconstitutional.  But what if it was on another issue?  What if an SA decided not to prosecute people for violating laws we agreed with (eg. immigration, voter intimidation, etc.)?

It is easy to think about things as individual issues, to support measures that support our issues, or to support ANY means by which we feel our issue is being forwarded.  But this is really a matter of the erosion of rule of law.  If everyone just simply ignored law they disagreed with, and demanded there be no consequences for violating such law ... we'd soon have massive chaos on our hands and our justice system with be wholly deficit.  I know that these SAs are trying to leverage pressure to change the law, which is what must inevitably happen.  But I wanted to remind everyone that in general, selective enforcement of the law, and an erosion of the rule of law, has the potential to harm us all, and harm our very institution of justice.

+1

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

[Molly B.]

http://illinoiscarry...opic=31195&st=0

A new thread has been created for the question about has anyone been convicted of UUW or AUUW for simply being in possession.

[stm]

I don't know what the statute of limitations is on A/UUW, but I'm guessing it's longer than the amount of time that Mr. Dozier has left in office. He was appointed to fill a vacancy and is not running for reelection. He will be out of office in a few months, and a new State's Attorney will be elected. Just because Mr. Dozier decides not to prosecute you for Aggregated Unlawful Use of Weapons, it doesn't mean his successor can't prosecute you later for breaking the law now.

[Federal Farmer]

The way to get rid of a bad law is not to not enforce it.  You get rid of a bad law by rigidly enforcing it.

[.40 S&W]

"Posted Today, 08:28 AM
I don't know what the statute of limitations is on A/UUW, but I'm guessing it's longer than the amount of time that Mr. Dozier has left in office. He was appointed to fill a vacancy and is not running for reelection. He will be out of office in a few months, and a new State's Attorney will be elected. Just because Mr. Dozier decides not to prosecute you for Aggregated Unlawful Use of Weapons, it doesn't mean his successor can't prosecute you later for breaking the law now"


I had been thinking the same exact thing, complete and total gamble that could cost you any future chance at carrying. Tread lightly.

[Tvandermyde]

statute of limitations is 1 year on misdemeanors and 3 years on Felonies

[wilessiuc]

Tvandermyde, on 23 August 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

statute of limitations is 1 year on misdemeanors and 3 years on Felonies

18 months on misdemeanors

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

[junglebob]

stm, on 23 August 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

I don't know what the statute of limitations is on A/UUW, but I'm guessing it's longer than the amount of time that Mr. Dozier has left in office. He was appointed to fill a vacancy and is not running for reelection. He will be out of office in a few months, and a new State's Attorney will be elected. Just because Mr. Dozier decides not to prosecute you for Aggregated Unlawful Use of Weapons, it doesn't mean his successor can't prosecute you later for breaking the law now.

How long has Mr. Dozier been in office?  I assume he hasn't prosecuted anyone under A/UUW for just carrying if he had a FOID card and wasn't doing anything else illegal. I wish he had made this statement about not prosecuting and was also running for reelection.

[Ken]

Tvandermyde, on 22 August 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Two area state's attorneys say decision not up to them

Two central Illinois state’s attorneys said Wednesday they disagree with McLean County State’s Attorney Ronald Dozier’s stance on enforcement of laws against carrying concealed weapons.

Morgan County State’s Attorney Chris Reif said he uses discretion in deciding whether to file charges in every case. However, he said, that doesn’t extend to not enforcing the laws already in effect.

Sangamon County State’s Attorney John Milhiser said it’s up to the courts to decide what laws are constitutional, not him.

“If I think the law is unconstitutional or needs to be changed, I’ll work with legislators or someone else to get it changed,” he said. “But if the law is on the books, then it’s my duty to enforce the law

I am currious as to whether or not the Sagamon County SA uses discretion about enforcing this law:

(720 ILCS 5/11-35) (was 720 ILCS 5/11-7)
Sec. 11-35. Adultery.
(a) A person commits adultery when he or she has sexual intercourse with another not his or her spouse, if the behavior is open and notorious, and
(1) The person is married and knows the other person involved in such intercourse is not his spouse; or
(2) The person is not married and knows that the other person involved in such intercourse is married.
A person shall be exempt from prosecution under this Section if his liability is based solely on evidence he has given in order to comply with the requirements of Section 4-1.7 of "The Illinois Public Aid Code", approved April 11, 1967, as amended.
( Sentence.
Adultery is a Class A misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 96-1551, eff. 7-1-11.)

[Molly B.]

Noting that this could take us off topic once again, please keep responses focused on selective prosecution of laws.

[Gunslinger]

That could be construed as regulating if a couple wants to be swingers or not. Laws about things like adultery and sodomey are a giant overreach of legislated morales brought on by religion within a body of government. I hope these are some of the laws selectively not enforced.

Edited by Gunslinger, 23 August 2012 - 03:49 PM.

[Ken]

The specific point of my post is that Illinois has current statutes classifying adultery as a class A misdemeanor, as well as, fornication as a class B misdemeanor.  I doubt that the Sagamon County SA has ever prosecuted a case on either of those statutes. If he has not, then he exercises a similar discretion that he criticizes Mr. Dozier for.

[daplumber]

Edwards County, is so rural, you can carry all day long and not come in contact with a single LEO! Beautiful County though, you should check it out!

[Gunslinger]

GarandFan, on 23 August 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

Tvandermyde, on 23 August 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

it is the freedom OF religon, not the freedom FROM religon.

Actually ... it's neither of those simple statements above.  It's:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And so if your religion is accepting of multiple spouses and you end up being charged with adultery that would make those charges and that law unconstitutional.

I am not saying this because I support these behaviors but because I support people living their lives as they see fit so long as they do not physically harm another.

[TyGuy]

Most people affirm  that they will forsake others and be faithful only to their spouse.  I believe that to be part of the marriage contract as the officiant has them swear it and is the official signing the marriage license(contract), but of course, such laws are not enforced anymore.

[RGreen1911]

GarandFan, on 21 August 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Exactly.  Prosecute someone for peaceably bearing arms, get sued on second amendment ground, and (eventually) lose.  Probably pay damages per USC 1983 .  Not a winning situation for SAs or their counties ...

Nah, SA/police really have nothing to fear from Section 1983 cases in this regard.  They have the winning qualified immunity argument this time around.

[dmefford]

I have kept watch on this topic and haven't really said anything, however I would like to make an observation after reading GarandFan's comment on "philosphy" above.  He made the remark about selective law enforcement and that it could be a tricky course to take...  I would prefer to take a quote from Ron Doziers "Press Release" to add another thought to this... : (IN BOLD)


"The duties of the State’s Attorney include:
“1) to commence and prosecute all actions,…civil and criminal, in which the people of the state or county may be concerned.” [55 ILCS 5/3-9005]
C)
“The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” [Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8. See also Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.C. 629, U.S. Supreme Court, 1935]
D)
“The State’s Attorney is not merely a ministerial officer but is vested with a large measure of discretion. In the exercise of that discretion, he has the responsibility of determining what offense should be charged.” [Marcisz v. Marcisz, 65 Ill.2d 206, Illinois Supreme Court, 1976]
E)
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” [Second Amendment, United States Constitution]

Every State’s Attorney is expected to prosecute persons who violate the criminal laws of the State of Illinois within his or her jurisdiction. However, there are literally thousands of criminal laws on the books, ranging in seriousness from extremely minor to extremely serious. Because of both budgetary and time limits, every State’s Attorney must set priorities on which cases to prosecute and which to not prosecute. The pursuit of a just result and the wise use of taxpayer dollars are major factors in setting those priorities."

I think this should say volumes...  Why would we waste resources prosecuting an otherwise law abiding citizen for exercising his Fundamental Right to Keep and BEAR an arm?  Selective enforcement is common practice...  EVERY SINGLE DAY for a state's attorney...

Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 25 August 2012 - 12:14 AM.

[kurt555gs]

There are silly un-enforced laws everywhere. I have a house in Michigan. There, it is a Class III felony to block your caller ID. I have yet to hear anyone being arrested for that. Prosecutors like having everything one does or say be illegal. That way they can intimidate virtually anyone. Not my idea of justice.

[colt-45]

lets hope his statement makes a big impact on this IGA. i dough it but we can hope it will.

[dmefford]

kurt555gs, on 23 August 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

There are silly un-enforced laws everywhere. I have a house in Michigan. There, it is a Class III felony to block your caller ID. I have yet to hear anyone being arrested for that. Prosecutors like having everything one does or say be illegal. That way they can intimidate virtually anyone. Not my idea of justice.

Intimidation leads to compliance in most cases...  Just read the above responses...  It works...!  We cannot fight all battles, so we must choose our fights...

Regards, Drd

[Smallbore]

What is great about our system of law is the discretion to ignor the law on individual cases. A prosecutor can choose not to procecute, a judge can dismiss a charge, the jury can nulify. It may not be perfect, but what is?

[daplumber]

Smallbore, on 24 August 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

What is great about our system of law is the discretion to ignor the law on individual cases. A prosecutor can choose not to procecute, a judge can dismiss a charge, the jury can nulify. It may not be perfect, but what is?

A, Ma Duece (50 Cal.)

[Smallbore]

daplumber, on 24 August 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Smallbore, on 24 August 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

What is great about our system of law is the discretion to ignor the law on individual cases. A prosecutor can choose not to procecute, a judge can dismiss a charge, the jury can nulify. It may not be perfect, but what is?

A, Ma Duece (50 Cal.)

Well OK, but second only to the 1911.