wtr100 Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM I always wondered how you could charge someone with something now that is known to be un-consitutinal come June , now July. Too my little pea brain it made little sense. Seemed to me if it would not pass muster then it won't pass muster now. Dear Mr. wtr100: Thank you for your interest in the recent court opinion addressing gun possession. Lastweek, I agreed generally with the statement by Tazewell County State's Attorney StuUmholtz. Since the court's ruling, Peoria County has been following the court's opinionand not charging persons with valid FOID cards entitled to possess a firearm. Our officeseeks to follow the court's opinion and honor a person's constitutional rights outlinedby the recent decision. If you wish further discussion on the matter or have specific questions, I will be happyto respond. JERRY BRADYPEORIA COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY
TyGuy Posted June 18, 2013 at 01:50 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 01:50 PM Good for them. I like them coming out and SAYING that they won't follow the unconstitutional law, but at least they already made up their minds. Peoria has been itching for years to have CCW though.
thornstein Posted June 18, 2013 at 01:58 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 01:58 PM The Peoria county SA, the Peoria PD Chief, and the County Sheriff are meeting to see if they are on the same sheet of music. Currently the County Sheriff said they will arrest based on the law but was going to wait until their meeting today to change that and make an official statement. I have been told by an officer in Pekin that their department, along with Tazewell County, have been told to get on board and everyone is. They still have the option of arresting stupid people if it involves CC, but you would really have to be professing your stupidity in an act of some sort. I have an email from the Pekin Chief stating that if someone were to cause a scene at our business, and they were CCing and we called the police, the police would get them for trespassing, but NOT for concealed carrying. Makes sense to me.
IL-Logical Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:10 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:10 PM I am really curious as to how Settingsgaard (Peoria PD Chief) is going to go along with this. The city has its own ordinance, so I think he will be the hiccup in the system. The Chillicothe Chief isn't really in favor either, based on conversations with him last July. Hopefully his opinions have changed.
wtr100 Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:17 PM Author Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:17 PM I am really curious as to how Settingsgaard (Peoria PD Chief) is going to go along with this. The city has its own ordinance, so I think he will be the hiccup in the system. The Chillicothe Chief isn't really in favor either, based on conversations with him last July. Hopefully his opinions have changed. catch and release I suspect - you'd get the ride but beat the rap biggest thing is most of the ordinances seem to call for confiscation of of the firearms invovled - getting it back might be an issue IANAL but seems to me you'd need to be doing something 'felonioulsy stupid' to get pinched at this point - I for one ain't gunna test it
sirflyguy Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:21 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:21 PM And wouldn't the arrest stay on your record?
IL-Logical Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:39 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 02:39 PM You'd pop up in NICS afterward. Which poses other problems. If you apply for a PERC card, you would come back with an FBI hit on the finger prints, and that delays getting the card. Plus isn't something in 183 about 5 or more arrests (not convictions) disqualifying you from getting LTC?
skinnyb82 Posted June 18, 2013 at 06:39 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 06:39 PM There is a little bit of argument whether the statute was voided ab initio since the citations in the opinion authored by Posner included Norton which, to paraphrase, an unconstitutional law never existed in the first place. Ab initio, "from the beginning." Norton was upheld about 4 times and even furthered. That's the logic that the SA is using....well I'm guessing it is. If a law is found unconstitutional with no remedy other than passing a modified version that does not "repair" the old one. So it's unconstitutional no matter if the court stayed the mandate or not. That's the legal reasoning at least. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
IL-Logical Posted June 18, 2013 at 09:49 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 09:49 PM Has anyone heard what the outcome of the meeting was?
IL-Logical Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM Posted June 18, 2013 at 10:37 PM Looking for a link, but WHOI had something scrolling at the bottom of the screen during the news tonight. The PCSO, and city PD have said that they will not arrest for carrying.
whosawmike Posted June 19, 2013 at 02:58 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 02:58 AM Looking for a link, but WHOI had something scrolling at the bottom of the screen during the news tonight. The PCSO, and city PD have said that they will not arrest for carrying. I can't find anything on what the outcome of the meeting today was... Where did you see that the police will not arrest.
wtr100 Posted June 19, 2013 at 03:20 AM Author Posted June 19, 2013 at 03:20 AM Looking for a link, but WHOI had something scrolling at the bottom of the screen during the news tonight. The PCSO, and city PD have said that they will not arrest for carrying. I can't find anything on what the outcome of the meeting today was... Where did you see that the police will not arrest. WEEK said pretty much this - also the EP chief of police
whosawmike Posted June 19, 2013 at 04:03 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 04:03 AM Do you know if the SA released a letter (like other counties have) with guidelines? Would we be expected to inform if pulled over while carrying?
IL-Logical Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM Posted June 19, 2013 at 11:40 AM http://m.pjstar.com/jstar/pm_29463/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=sKB8vxUr
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.