SLIM410 Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:15 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:15 PM This was copied from the local headlines at my local news site. Officials with the Illinois State Police have issued an advisory that they will continue to enforce the state’s current ban on concealed firearms until a bill is signed allowing concealed carry. The advisory comes following an a move this week by the Madison County State’s Attorney advising residents of that county that they could start carrying weapons immediately. State police say they will continue to arrest anyone violating the state’s unlawful use of weapons statute. It is unlikely that Illinois’ concealed carry law will go into effect before early next month.
pdpsc Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:27 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:27 PM No surprise here. The ISP are minions of our worthless governor and they will do whatever their master says.
Dave D Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:43 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:43 PM What they dont know wont hurt them. How many times have you ever had a run in with one of them? Mainly on the highways...
BobPistol Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:45 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:45 PM And the Madison County SA will drop the UUW/AUUW cases that have to do with concealed carry, thus rendering ISP's threat useless. I'm wondering what other counties will also follow suit.
Yas Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:48 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:48 PM You mean the understaffed and over worked ISP that we've been hearing about for how long now?
Talonap Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:52 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 03:52 PM Actually, they are just doing their job. They work for the state and are bound to enforce the laws of the state. CCW is still against the law until it is changed officially. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, this is Ilinois - it takes time for them to realize they can't do anything they want.
pomme333 Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:02 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:02 PM maybe i am mistaken but can someone explain this to me. i always thought the war between the states was fought over state rights. and the south lost so that meant the central goverment had the rights. if this is so, how come illinois is now taking precedent over the usa? i just dont understand this and i have searched on the net for it with no luck.
mostholycerebus Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:06 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:06 PM Court wont be for a month, get another month continuance, by then the law you broke wont exist. Sounds like the SA is trying not to waste taxpayer dollars, while the Gov is try to intimidate citizens at taxpayer expense.
Patriots & Tyrants Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:16 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:16 PM And the Madison County SA will drop the UUW/AUUW cases that have to do with concealed carry, thus rendering ISP's threat useless. I'm wondering what other counties will also follow suit. Doesnt stop you from spending a night in jail and having to pay to get your car out of impound.
Spclpps Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:19 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:19 PM Actually, they are just doing their job. They work for the state and are bound to enforce the laws of the state. CCW is still against the law until it is changed officially. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, this is Ilinois - it takes time for them to realize they can't do anything they want. This is the state of Illinois and shame on us for ever letting the state take our 2nd amendment rights away to begin with. This all started decades ago and we should have put a stop to it then.
TyGuy Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:31 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:31 PM Again, when will they catch you? I've never been searched. A traffic stop isn't PC for a search. The only time you might be searched is if you get into an accident and are shipped off to the hospital.
vezpa Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:41 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:41 PM But Bud claimed CCW was the law of the land in 2012? .
cls74 Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:51 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 04:51 PM Again, when will they catch you? I've never been searched. A traffic stop isn't PC for a search. The only time you might be searched is if you get into an accident and are shipped off to the hospital. But technically they wouldn't need to search you. Madison County SA put a DTI when asked much like HB183 has. All the officers have to do is ask upon approach if you have any guns or weapons within your vehicle. I'm sure once the law is enacted statewide this will once again become a common practice on all stops.
Thomas Redmond Posted June 8, 2013 at 05:07 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 05:07 PM It is just the official statement. I have a hunch that most individual officers wouldn't want to start trouble with the law abiding citizen and purposely violate the Constitution because the governor tell them to.
Mac Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:10 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:10 PM Actually, they are just doing their job. They work for the state and are bound to enforce the laws of the state. CCW is still against the law until it is changed officially. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, this is Ilinois - it takes time for them to realize they can't do anything they want.seems to be doing a pretty good job of it so far.
lockman Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:25 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:25 PM Actually, they are just doing their job. They work for the state and are bound to enforce the laws of the state. CCW is still against the law until it is changed officially. Whether or not it is unconstitutional, this is Ilinois - it takes time for them to realize they can't do anything they want. Sucks when your boss tells you to continue violating someones rights, considering it is your assets may be on the line too!
Bud Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:45 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 06:45 PM The current ban on carrying a concealed or open carry handgun ends on July 9, 2013. At that point, there is no law banning the carrying of any firearm, long gun, shotgun or bazooka. The ISP, led by a former Chicago police Officer/ Cook County State's Attorney Investigative Chief needs to add the following advisory to all of his smokey bear hat wearing storm troopers: Arrest of any person for violation of a law in which a Federal Appellate court has ruled as unconstitutional will allow the citizen arrested to go after the smokey bear hat wearing storm trooper personally in a Federal civil court as described in 42 USC Section 1983. You don't have to sue just the Director personally, you can sue the trooper also and put them both into bankruptcy court.
whowe82 Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:17 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:17 PM The current ban on carrying a concealed or open carry handgun ends on July 9, 2013. At that point, there is no law banning the carrying of any firearm, long gun, shotgun or bazooka. The ISP, led by a former Chicago police Officer/ Cook County State's Attorney Investigative Chief needs to add the following advisory to all of his smokey bear hat wearing storm troopers: Arrest of any person for violation of a law in which a Federal Appellate court has ruled as unconstitutional will allow the citizen arrested to go after the smokey bear hat wearing storm trooper personally in a Federal civil court as described in 42 USC Section 1983. You don't have to sue just the Director personally, you can sue the trooper also and put them both into bankruptcy court. I can't tell when some people are joking, and some are not. Sorry to have to ask, but are you joking?
cshipley92 Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:28 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:28 PM two words = Officer Discretion ie., it's up to the individual officer whether or not he arrest you at this point.
bob Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:43 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:43 PM two words = Officer Discretion ie., it's up to the individual officer whether or not he arrest you at this point. pretty much the way it always is. I suspect a lot of states attorneys are quietly making it clear they want as few UUW cases as possible that involve the provisions the court found unconstitutional. I would bet most LE agencies see it that way as well, or are at least starting to. At this point there is little to be gained from enforcing a law that may or may not be enforceable. Outside of Cook County these agencies are not completely dense, nor do they have a lot of money to spend on legal fees for Gura, et al. It would not surprise me much at all to find that the county SA that are writing letters about UUW enforcement (or not enforcing it) are thinking this is a way to reduce the county's exposure to legal liability, among other things. The ISP has a long history of harassing gun owners as an institution, so I would not expect that to stop, especially since the guy in charge is a long time Chicago LE political hack.
skinnyb82 Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:52 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 07:52 PM I've had Troopers make up BS like "your carry smells like cannabis. Care if I search it?" And I look at him and say "Yeah sure" because I know the Trooper will just screw me otherwise and no way can my car smell like pot since I do not smoke pot (I chain smoke cigarettes) in my car nor would I EVER allow anyone to smoke in my car. If the Trooper(s), it's happened twice, actually smelled pot then they wouldn't ask for consent since the smell itself is PC for a search. One of them was a real horse's posterior. First he takes my phone, then he rummages through my car while his backup stares at me about 1s away from drawing on me. He found a couple prescription bottles, called my doctor to verify them, asked WHY I have the scripts, I told him that it's none of his damn business. Then he finds a bunch of ibuprofen (oooohhh) and grills me as to why I have so much of it. I said "well it's over the counter, and as you can tell by the sutures in my arm, I just had surgery so it stands to reason that I take a lot of ibuprofen." Finally he gets angry that he can't find drugs and knows that if he cites me for what he initially stopped me for, then he could get in a lot of trouble if I challenged the citatation so he lets me go. Others, pulled me over, talked to me, then banged my speed down so they don't have to cite me or just I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've had good luck with the Troopers around here knock on wood. Troopers out of Collinsville though...the one I dealt with had some sort of "I hate WIU students" thing because he went from "OK" to "I'm gonna arrest you if you don't shut up" when I told him I was a WIU student (wayyy back in 2002 or so). Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
Bud Posted June 8, 2013 at 08:37 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 08:37 PM The current ban on carrying a concealed or open carry handgun ends on July 9, 2013. At that point, there is no law banning the carrying of any firearm, long gun, shotgun or bazooka. The ISP, led by a former Chicago police Officer/ Cook County State's Attorney Investigative Chief needs to add the following advisory to all of his smokey bear hat wearing storm troopers: Arrest of any person for violation of a law in which a Federal Appellate court has ruled as unconstitutional will allow the citizen arrested to go after the smokey bear hat wearing storm trooper personally in a Federal civil court as described in 42 USC Section 1983. You don't have to sue just the Director personally, you can sue the trooper also and put them both into bankruptcy court. I can't tell when some people are joking, and some are not. Sorry to have to ask, but are you joking? no Supreme Court Standard Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for a nearly unanimous Court:[1] Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of his federal rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In order to prevail in a § 1983 action for civil damages from a government official performing discretionary functions, the defense of qualified immunity that our cases have recognized requires that the official be shown to have violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). Thus a court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right at all, and if so, proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232-233, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); see also County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841, n. 5, 140 L. Ed. 2d 1043, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998). Statutory Language 42 U.S.C. §1983 authorizes lawsuits against state officials, local officials, and sometimes local governments for violating federal constitutional and statutory rights. The text of the statute is as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress .... Elements A cause of action under Section 1983 requires four elements:conduct by a "person" who acted under "color of law" and proximately caused a deprivation of federally protected rights.
BobPistol Posted June 8, 2013 at 08:41 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 08:41 PM Doesnt stop you from spending a night in jail and having to pay to get your car out of impound. It also doesn't stop me from filing a 1983 lawsuit against the cops and getting my car and money back.
nulloverride Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM Again, when will they catch you? I've never been searched. A traffic stop isn't PC for a search. The only time you might be searched is if you get into an accident and are shipped off to the hospital. Actually I have been searched half a dozen times when pulled over for various things. Usually they bring up multiple squad cars too. Mostly local and county cops but at least one state trooper too.
RobR369 Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:19 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:19 PM Wasn't the ban found unconstitutional back in December? Giving them 180 days to pass a law. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe there might be a good fight there if arrested for UUW. Not saying I want to take that chance, but I see an argument there
cm.stites Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:20 PM until posners ruling goes into effect the law is still valid..
RockerXX Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM Posted June 8, 2013 at 10:25 PM Again, when will they catch you? I've never been searched. A traffic stop isn't PC for a search. The only time you might be searched is if you get into an accident and are shipped off to the hospital. I have been searched several times on a traffic stop, all the officer needs to do is make up an excuse like "I smell this or that", even had my car searched because he saw 'sparklers' in the back seat and accused me of having illegal fireworks... Heck a few months back, I wasn't searched but the officer went into supper question mode, hand on gun and flashlight in every window search mode because I flashed my FOID while getting my DL out of the wallet...
tkroenlein Posted June 9, 2013 at 01:09 AM Posted June 9, 2013 at 01:09 AM What they dont know wont hurt them. How many times have you ever had a run in with one of them? Mainly on the highways... To date, I've never been pants-checked for a gun.
oneshot Posted June 9, 2013 at 01:17 AM Posted June 9, 2013 at 01:17 AM I believe the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, loaded, concealed, in the open, pistols, rifles, shotguns. Unfortunately, we have a system of laws borne out of representative democracy that undermines our rights, nevertheless we have to obey these laws or suffer the consequences, unless we can change them. The law hasn't been changed yet and if a carry bill is signed before July 9th, UUW will not disappear, you will have to jump through their hoops and wait for your little card to carry, however long it takes. I don't know what this rush to carry is, in spite of the legal condition and honestly I don't know why the admins are tolerating the discussion of breaking the law in the open. Just because a State's Attorney says he won't prosecute, doesn't mean it's not breaking the state law. Do whatever you want on your own, but we have a reputation to uphold around here about being law abiding citizens.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.