starwatcher

I wonder how a sheriff would handle someone booked for an AWB crime and something very subjective as resisting arrest. Since most statements have been that they wouldnt hold anybody with only AWB crimes.

Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm sure some cities can arrest people but cities don't control jails and courts that's up to the county. So he's going to have the state police enforce it since the only jurisdictional overlap is the state. Then he's going to have which jail to book them and which courts to prosecute. Does anyone know if a state can prosecute criminal cases outside of the county the crime was committed? Does this violate a jury of your peers? They would need to request a change of venue. Are all these cases going to be prosecuted in red counties? Can you be held in jail in a county outside of where the crime was committed? This whole thing brings up so many interesting legal questions. I'd love to hear a lawyer chime in. So the flow would be; ISP arrests -> you are held in an ISP facility -> a change of venue is requested -> you are moved to a compliant county jail, arraigned -> then prosecuted. Can a change of venue be requested before arraignment, does the ISP have the authority to hold arrestees? So many questions and likely processes that have many legal quagmires.

I'm asking hypothetical questions about the current legal system. There was an other post that said the state police only has interrogation rooms and no holding cells/jails. I don't feel like looking for that post, so my understanding is if arrested by a state trooper for any offense they'd need to book you into a county jail as they don't have the facilities to hold someone. This is general assumption and questions not directly related to any specific law. Thank you Zombieinthehat for sharing your experience that gives me a better understanding of the current state of the legal system.

Who told me what? I'm just trying to understand how the current Illinois legal system works in general. Nobody should be alarmed by questions of evidence and procedure.

From my understanding if the state police arrests you, you'll get booked into a county jail. Where does the evidence of the arrest go? Does that get sent to the county's evidence lockup or does the state police have their own evidence lockup?

https://www.dupagecounty.gov/Content.aspx?id=67488

I've given money to NRA and SAF and have learned to regret both donations. Mainly due to their alignment with Trump which was at odds with their stated missions. I remember a SAF newsletter apologizing for Trump's bumpstock ban claiming he was just given bad information, instead of the truth that Trump is simply not aligned on 2nd amendment issues. Their other newsletters cozying up to MTG (the AOC of the right) really put another bad taste in my mouth. NRA again promoted Trump, and had Wayne using the NRA as a personal piggy bank. When I was reading the NRA-ILA's feed they seemed more interested in sharing memes rather than starting legal battles. Being burned in the past, I'll donate to an organization that gets a legal challenge filed first.

Any idea how long it'll take for the lawyers to gear up and request a TRO?

At this point I don't believe any governmental organization is politically impartial. This only furthers the erosion of trust in our government which feeds into extremist conspiracy theories and creates a government that's no longer impartial.

So this went down as; Person likely committed a gun crime. Deputy left, wrote a report about this person pointing a gun at him. Sheriff went to judge to get a red flag order before the individual was in custody. This still doesn't pass the sniff test. They should have gotten a warrant for his arrest if the deputy left the scene without making an arrest, going the red flag route doesn't make sense. Based on my Law & Order: SVU law degree Deputy should have arrested the individual or gotten backup to assist with the arrest. The individual should be booked and arraigned which will strips him of his firearm rights, likely through a search warrant before he his allowed to be bailed out. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that crime never happened. Easier for a deputy/sheriff to lie in a red flag hearing than an actual court case

I didn't read the article but why do you need to use a red flag law when clearly a crime has been committed as the Sheriff claims Just charge him for those crimes. This doesn't pass the sniff test, either the Sheriff is incompetent or is using the red flag law to circumvent this possible criminal's due process rights.

If lower courts were blatantly misapplying Heller (someone correct me if I'm wrong) what makes SCOTUS think they will appropriately apply this ruling to other 2A cases?

GLOWS

He saw what the Wayne was doing and wants a piece of that pie for himself?

Maybe what he said is the truth of criminal element fighting amongst themselves. However when he brought up rapes my BS flag was raised. I can see him knowing about shootouts and murders in the streets but the only way he'd hear about rapes would be from unsubstantiated gossip or in the news. Since he didn't didn't mention providing news articles for the rapes I'm going to go with unsubstantiated gossip. Either way he comes across as a rabid anti private gun ownership person. His threshold on calling a regime evil and/or insane is laughably low. Also whens the last time you've read about murder or rapes in Ukraine caused by common criminals? NEVER! The western MSM isn't hiding anything when they would never report on such events in the first place.