Crook county board member Suffredin proposes county-wide gun registration!

[Suburbangunslinger]

Why not sue the state of Illinois for not passing CCW? Please include this in your lawsuit. Have them settle by allowing FOID card holders to carry loaded handguns...

[Ocellairs]

Back on 12/4 I faxed my thoughts on Suffredin's bill and 3 numbers failed: Maldenado, Silvestri, and Steele.

 

This time two failed: Maldenado and Silvestri.

Sounds like you're getting better at it .

 

By the way, I use a fax service (myfax.com). It's the assault fax weapon of the grass roots movement!

It allows me to fax over the internet. Saves on phone bill too.

 

 

If you have Windows XP, it has its own built in fax program.

[burningspear]

Also keep in mind these ordinances haven't passed yet. You can't initiate a lawsuit against a law that doesn't exist. If you're interested in being a plaintiff if and when the time comes, contact the ISRA. They will be spearheading the judicial efforts to defeat these proposals and will need citizens willing to step up.

To answer the earlier questions:

I am an NRA member.

As of about 5 minutes ago, I am an ISRA member.

I will contact the ISRA in an attempt to find a lawyer (Thanks AB), I did not know about their referral service.

 

The lawsuit I intend to file would (hopefully) injunct the Cook County Board from passing the ordinance, rather than sue to get it overturned after it's passed. I would rather be in court as a concerned citizen than an accused criminal. Why should I wait to be made into a criminal prior to filing a constitutional challenge (hasn't the DC case proven you don't have to be a criminal to make a challenge of this kind, perhaps taken a step further). At very least, perhaps I could injunct Cook County from moving forward on the legislation until the DC case gets heard. I don't know the possibilities, that's why I want to talk to a lawyer. I do know the legislation, if passed, would potentially make me a criminal, and I'd like to speak to a lawyer about my options. That's the simple fact of it. I can't afford to wait for the ISRA to take action.

 

 

Thanks,

w00dc4ip

You lack standing. Wait. Be patient. An ordinance must be in place before you have a basis to challenge it. You can not attack in court an ordinance that does not exist.

[Federal Farmer]

Back on 12/4 I faxed my thoughts on Suffredin's bill and 3 numbers failed: Maldenado, Silvestri, and Steele.

 

This time two failed: Maldenado and Silvestri.

Sounds like you're getting better at it .

 

By the way, I use a fax service (myfax.com). It's the assault fax weapon of the grass roots movement!

It allows me to fax over the internet. Saves on phone bill too.

 

 

If you have Windows XP, it has its own built in fax program.

 

It faxes over the internet? This doesn't use my own phone lines.

[GarandFan]

To answer the earlier questions:

I am an NRA member.

As of about 5 minutes ago, I am an ISRA member.

 

Congratulations, and welcome to the groups. We are more than happy to have you in these organizations.

 

There will almost certainly be room for signing on as a plaintiff, when that time comes.

[mikew]

Also keep in mind these ordinances haven't passed yet. You can't initiate a lawsuit against a law that doesn't exist. If you're interested in being a plaintiff if and when the time comes, contact the ISRA. They will be spearheading the judicial efforts to defeat these proposals and will need citizens willing to step up.

[sNIP]

As of about 5 minutes ago, I am an ISRA member.

I will contact the ISRA in an attempt to find a lawyer (Thanks AB), I did not know about their referral service.

 

The lawsuit I intend to file would (hopefully) injunct the Cook County Board from passing the ordinance, rather than sue to get it overturned after it's passed.

 

[sNIP]

 

I can't afford to wait for the ISRA to take action.

 

 

Thanks,

w00dc4ip

 

w00dc4ip:

Thanks for joining the ISRA.

 

And Smersh is right, you don't sue a proposal.

 

What can be effective, however, is keeping a bad ordinance from being passed.

Putting pressure on the commissioners may keep that from happening.

 

The ISRA is not waiting to take action, but ISRA is not going to take them to court while it's

a proposal. There is one lawsuit in progress right now as it is.

 

 

Mike Weisman,

ISRA 1st Vice President

[GarandFan]

All right! At my request, David Hardy's blog "Of Arms and the Law" covers the new Cook registration proposal. His entry is entitled "Proposed gun law for Cook County, ILL" and is available here: http://armsandthelaw.com/

 

David Hardy is one of the leading scholars that's turned the 2A debate back around to the logical, rational, and historically correct position. David's own efforts, as well of those of his colleagues, are directly responsible for several important liberal scholars coming out and saying that the 2A protects the right of individuals from infringement. David is the author of the wonderful DVD documentary "In Search of the Second Amendment." More on that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of_...econd_Amendment

 

See this relevant post here:

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7357

[w00dc4ip]

So I spoke with a lawyer friend, he didn't see anything that can be done prior to passage of the ordinance. However, immediately following it's passage there may be options. I told him I'd call him if it passes the county board.

 

Also, just talked to Peraica's office and they're clearly against both proposed ordinances. The guy I talked to there said they expect the ordinances, if passed, to come under scrutiny once the DC case is heard by SCOTUS. I asked if Peraica had brought up to the board that if these ordinances pass, the county will probably be facing a lot of legal expenses trying to defend them depending on the outcome of the DC case. Sounds to me like a lot of wasted taxpayer money. Anyway, was an interesting little conversation.

 

My $.02.

w00dc4ip

[predator1972baz]

I do think one thing they may do is rename the law similar to the Blair Holt assault weapons ban law. That way it builds momentum to keep the law. I'll make sure I call in to voice my outrage. All this law is designed to do is to discourage gun ownership.

[GarandFan]

The Cook county board met today at 1000, but there is still no proceedings up on the county website. I am dying to know what transpired.

 

Did anyone here happen to attend?

 

http://www.cookctyclerk.com/sub/meeting_de...8&year=2007

[predator1972baz]

The Cook county board met today at 1000, but there is still no proceedings up on the county website. I am dying to know what transpired.

 

Did anyone here happen to attend?

 

http://www.cookctyclerk.com/sub/meeting_de...8&year=2007

 

Probably nothing, the main thing they do with gun laws is to wait until there is either momentum or people's aren't looking and then they will add and pass such laws. Momentum being that some tragedy happens that will make people want some gun control like a Virginia tech shooting, or a high number of people voting like on Nov. 7th 2006, or when people aren't looking at the situation intently. But what do these situations have in common ?

 

They all depend upon voter opinions. That is why I have always said that it depends upon the people of cook county.

[GarandFan]

Given the Cook board website has not posted their post-meeting information, I called Peraica's office.

 

There was no action on the firearms bills at the meeting yesterday. The bills remain in the Legislation, Intergovernmental & Veterans Relations Committee. They call that committee (of which all commissioners are members) "whenever they want to", but currently there is no meeting scheduled for this committee.

 

I recommend that everyone keeps calling. And calling, and calling.

[GarandFan]

Just received a message from Gregg Goslin, as follows:

 

Dear "GarandFan":

 

I did not support either of the proposed amendments to the Deald

Weapons Ordinance introduced recently, nor did I support the original

legislation when it was introduced, but ultimately passed.

 

I, too, believe that this is an erosion of a citizen's right to

bear arms and that they are attacking the responsible gun owners and not

the problem of gun violence. I will continue to oppose this

unconstitutional erosion of our rights.

 

Very truly yours, Gregg Goslin, Commissioner

 

The "original legislation" to which he refers is the "assault weapons" portion of the Dealer's Ordinance, passed November of 2006. Goslin was one of only 4 members (along with Murphy, Gorman, and Peraica) who voted NO to that ordinance. Glad to know that at least a few of these people are willing to "stand against the Machine."

 

If anyone gets sound confirmation of YES or NO votes on these two measures from any commissioners, please post the response. I will then update post #93 of this thread. Thanks.

[Matt B]

Second City Cop posted about the ordinances today. Good deal, the more folks we alert to this the better.

 

Keep calling!

[ishmo]

-->

QUOTE(Matt B @ Dec 19 2007, 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Second City Cop posted about the ordinances today. Good deal, the more folks we alert to this the better.

 

Keep calling!

I left a comment inviting the pro 2A/CCW leo's to visit here and it actually got posted. Would be nice to get some CPD guys on board and get their insights.

[RandyP]

I received the same reply e-mail from Commissioner Goslin. To date only he and Tony Peraica have bothered to respond.

 

Gosh, and here I was expecting Commsrs Beavers and Suffredin to send me a nice warm fuzzy letter of support for our cause - lol

 

While it is VERY important to keep this issue on the front burner to prevent a midnight sneak attack, I think we all understand that ONLY a favorable directive from the Supreme Court has any chance of improving gun owner rights in this County, even a little bit.

[Suburbangunslinger]

Well I've been calling Beaver's and he told me over the phone that he "did not know of such a proposal existed" is he that dumb?! Keep calling!

[45superman]

Well I've been calling Beaver's and he told me over the phone that he "did not know of such a proposal existed" is he that dumb?!

My guess is that he hopes that we're that dumb.

[Suburbangunslinger]

By the looks of it, yeah, he thinks that anyone who is not a cop should just be left to the dogs. In the midst of this, I'd like to wish everyone here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Let's hope 2008 is a better year for Illinois!

[tplane37]

Potential Cook County State's Atty. Opposes.

 

"peraicalaw@aol.com" <peraicalaw@aol.com>

 

I oppose and will vote against this proposal.

 

Tony Peraica

 

www.joinperaica.com

[45superman]

This column makes a statement about Suffredin's proposal that I hadn't seen before, and I'm too lazy to check the text of the bill to see if the columnist is right (will do so later today).

 

Sarley: Gun control proposal foolish

 

I don’t mean to startle you enough that you spill your mug of eggnog, but the forces that want you to stop fishing and hunting are at it again.

 

As practitioners of hunting and fishing, we face threats to our sports on a constant basis. Whether it is loss of available hunting land or our losing access to waterways, the threats are real and must be fought with vigor. No threat should be taken more seriously than one that restricts our right to bear arms.

 

The Cook County Board of Commissioners is the governing body for a region that contains the City of Chicago and 132 other municipalities. It is the second-largest county in the country, housing 5.4 million people. This board is the 19th largest governing body in America.

 

This body of legislative geniuses have decided it is their duty to take the guns out of the hands of the common law-abiding citizen in August, while doing nothing additional to penalize the lowlife who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.

 

A pair of bills introduced by commissioners William Beavers and Larry Suffredin are loaded with clauses that should scare the heck out of any aficionado of the shooting sports.

 

The new legislation, if enacted, would eliminate gun shows, ban guns that did not have “chamber load indicators,” limit the amount of guns that a person could purchase and restrict the areas where gun dealers can be located.

 

Revolvers are incapable of having these “chamber load indicators,” but new automatics could be designed to utilize the indicators. What this means is that all revolvers and every automatic made up to now would become illegal.

 

This new legislation, if passed, would not allow gun dealers within 15 miles of another dealer, even if the other dealer was in a different county. Gun dealers also would be unable to be located within a mile of any public or private school, a mile from any church or place of worship, home for the aged, indigent or veterans, military stations or public parks.

 

Do these astute politicos think someone is going to dash off to the local gun shop after Sunday church services to buy a “Saturday night special” and go on a religion-inspired shooting spree? Do they want to protect the aged from wild-eyed blasters, or do they fear the elderly will become gun-toting vigilantes? Of course you shouldn’t be able to buy a gun within a mile of a park, especially one of those parks in Chicago that are populated by drug dealers or other such vermin.

 

There is a clause in the bill that grandfathers in existing gun dealers who have been in business for the entire year of 2007, but that leaves out one very interesting dealer. Cabela’s opened its huge mega-store in Hoffman Estates in 2007. They were not open for the entire year. Does that mean that they face the prospect of having their gun department shuttered? It would certainly seem that way.

 

Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it. Cabela’s employs hundreds of people, rakes in millions in Illinois tax revenue and was given incentives to move into the region. Now the brainiacs running Cook County are looking for a way to shut them down. Incredible, I say!

 

Every time someone is shot in Chicago, they drag out the victim’s relatives and showcase them as the Rev. Jesse Jackson and friends wail that a ban on guns would have saved the life of the victim. When will people learn that crimes usually are committed with illegal guns? Firearms that are purchased at gun dealers, all of which are federally regulated, are not guns used in crimes unless they are stolen from the legal owners. How does any type of gun ban help?

 

The solution, plain and simple, is to inflict fast and rigorous penalties on any lawbreaker who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. No more stickups. No more armed carjackings. No more drive-by shootings. Send the goons to jail for a long, long time. Don’t let them stay out on bond for months and years while the wheels of justice move like molasses. Set up separate courts for gun crimes and incorporate judges willing to lower the boom.

 

The National Rifle Association espouses a plan that would turn local gun crimes into federal offenses. Those convicted would go to federal prisons in places such as Utah and Oregon, not to local stirs where they can run their gangs by telephone until they get their early releases. Of course, the anti-Second Amendment forces absolutely turn up their noses at any plan backed by the NRA. If the NRA is for something, the antis are totally against it, even though the NRA’s plan has proved to work in areas that have adopted it.

 

Maybe you think that longer waiting times for gun pick-up is OK. Maybe you think that a limit of buying one gun a month maximum is pretty fair. Hang on a second! Who decides what is fair and reasonable? There are some people who think that zero guns is an acceptable number to possess. When you start caving in a little at a time, before you know it, you are gun-less.

 

You might ask, “Who cares about those wackos in Cook County? They can’t pass a budget, they are trying to rob the people with high taxes, and the administration is scandal-ridden?” You are right, and I am certainly glad that I don’t live there.

 

Remember one thing, though: Once the antis get laws like this passed in Cook County, they’ll move on to the next county or maybe even give it a try on the statewide level. Would a federal gun ban be totally out of the question? Who knows? But if we give in to the antis, they’ll keep coming at us and at us again and again. They are backed with huge sums of money and will never give in until your deer hunting slug gun is melted into a pile of slag. I am deadly serious.

 

For more information on these insane regulations and what you can do to show your disgust over their introduction, please check out the website for the Illinois State Rifle Association at isra.org. Sending off an e-mail, writing a letter or making a quick phone call is something of major importance.

 

If there's a "grandfather clause" relating to gun shop zoning, I hadn't noticed it. If that's right, would any gun shop (aside from Cabela's) be affected?

[burningspear]

Cook County Commissioner Williams Beavers, who is advocating a Cook County gun registration (ban) scheme, may have believed in 1994 that Chicago residents had a right to own handguns. If the following is correct, as a Chicago alderman in 1994, Commissioner Beavers proposed a freeze on enforcement of the Chicago gun registration ordinance. He reportedly said, "People are going to own guns. You cannot deny them the right to own a gun."

 

 

Gunning for Change Source: Reasononline.com

 

An alderman wants to end Chicago's handgun ban.

 

Liam T.A. Ford | August/September 1994 Print Edition

 

In February, Illinois State Sen. Rickey Hendon came home to discover that his house on the Westside of Chicago had been robbed. The burglary got more than the usual amount of press attention because the former alderman lost not only money but also an unregistered handgun. It has been illegal since 1983 for even the most law-abiding Chicago residents to own handguns; only guns owned before the ban was passed can be registered, and they must be re-registered every two years. Possession of an unregistered handgun carries a penalty of less than a year in prison or a $500 fine.

 

Hendon was unapologetic. "I have a right to protect myself," the black Democrat told the Chicago Sun-Times. The police decided not to charge Hendon with violating the gun law because it wasn't clear who actually owned the gun.

 

Hendon's attitude is increasingly common among Chicago's black political leaders. During the recent primary campaign for the presidency of the Cook County Board, for instance, the leader of the Harold Washington Party caused a stir at a candidates' forum when he derided gun control as ineffective. Those who say gun control deters crime ignore recent findings by criminologist Gary Kleck that suggest guns are more often used to stop crimes than commit them, said David Reed, head of the party named for Chicago's first black mayor. "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by six," said Reed, a business consultant.

 

That sentiment is common among the residents of Chicago's tougher neighborhoods. It's easy for people with wealth and political power to push stricter and stricter gun control laws, notes Alderman William Beavers, who represents the working-class, mostly black South Shore district. The wealthy, he says, "can afford to pay a detective agency or some kind of police agency to act as security." His constituents, he argues, deserve the right to protect themselves.

 

Beavers is no stranger to gun crime. Before his election to the City Council 11 years ago, he spent 21 years in the Chicago Police Department, working some of the neighborhoods responsible for the city's nickname of "Beirut by the Lake." Now, for the second time in five years, he has proposed legislation to reopen handgun registration. The idea is endorsed by other prominent black political leaders, including activist Sokoni Karanja of the Center for New Horizons and Aldermen Virgil Jones and Robert Shaw, who feel that gun bans prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

 

While the national press has sympathetically covered high-profile attempts by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Chicago Housing Authority to control guns in Chicago's federally funded housing projects, it has ignored black political leaders' challenges to the city's draconian handgun-control laws.

 

"There's always been a kind of streak in the black community here of those who want to defend themselves," says Northwestern University law professor Daniel Polsby, an expert on gun issues. But that proclivity, notes Polsby, is counterbalanced by the trend--both nationally and in the greater Chicago area--away from ideas of "responsible gun ownership" and toward stricter gun control. "There's a tremendous amount of momentum in the culture to turn gun ownership into...an unacceptable thing," observes Polsby.

 

That is certainly the case in Chicago, where the 1983 freeze has driven gun ownership underground. Since the freeze, the number of registered handguns has declined precipitously as owners have died or have failed to re-register. Just after the ordinance went into effect, there were about 400,000 handguns registered in Chicago. The Chicago Police Department says that number currently stands at 143,000.

 

Total official registration of all guns, including rifles, shotguns, and handguns, has declined at a similar clip. In 1982, residents registered 727,000 guns. Twelve years later, that number stands at 215,134, even though Chicagoans can still legally buy long guns. While numbers of registered weapons have fallen, few observers assert that the smaller numbers mean fewer weapons actually in circulation.

 

The 1983 handgun registration freeze is a legacy of one-term Mayor Jane Byrne, who capitalized on the anti-gun sentiment that flourished in the early 1980s in the wake of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. The suburbs of Morton Grove, Evanston, and Oak Park outlawed handguns about the same time Chicago did, although their bans included even existing weapons.

 

From the beginning, the Chicago ban elicited negative reactions from black leaders. Local newspapers quoted several black politicians who called the ban racist because it penalizes people who live in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates--often black neighborhoods. Beavers, however, doesn't emphasize the racial dimension in opposing the gun-registration freeze. Instead, he stresses Second Amendment issues and pragmatic policy concerns.

 

"The Constitution allows you to bear arms in your home," he says. "But according to our city ordinance, it's illegal to own a firearm that is not registered."

(While he defends a right to ownership, the alderman is no Second Amendment purist. He is, for instance, against the issuing of carry permits.)

 

Beavers is also disturbed that the registration freeze forces law-abiding citizens into breaking the law if they, like Sen. Hendon, try to protect themselves by keeping a handgun in the house. And the freeze, Beavers thinks, makes the police's job tougher by making it more difficult to track stolen firearms. "Guns are stolen now from people who don't have them registered and won't report the [theft]," says Beavers.

 

The sponsor of the registration-freeze ordinance, Alderman Edward Burke, has been quoted as saying the ban should be re-examined. With Burke's apparent support and backing from other black leaders, Beavers thinks there's a good possibility his ordinance might pass. But Beavers recognizes that he faces a tough battle. One of the staunchest supporters of his previous effort, Alderman Ernest Jones, died in 1992. The current proposal is still pending in the council's Police and Fire Committee, which Beavers chairs. Most important, Mayor Richard Daley--whose resistance in 1989 effectively kept the proposal from even making it to a full council vote--is again opposed to renewed registration, and usually as the mayor goes, so goes the city.

 

And even though Beavers stresses that lifting the ban would make life easier for the city's cops, the Chicago Police Department remains a major adversary. The CPD sent the lone opposing witness when Beavers's Police and Fire Committee held hearings five years ago. A department spokeswoman would not comment on official police policy for this article, but she noted that the CPD has opposed reopening registration in the past and called the idea the police might endorse new registration "ludicrous."

 

Even though Beavers's second attempt to revoke the gun-registration ban faces long odds, it may represent an emerging urban consensus that gun-control laws have failed both at curbing violent crime and protecting citizens. Gun-control expert David B. Kopel of the Independence Institute in Denver notes that several states have passed much more liberal carrying laws in the past year. "The vast majority of Americans continue to believe that gun ownership for defensive purposes is a right," says Kopel. Recent legislation on the state and local levels reflects that sentiment.

 

For his part, Beavers remains pledged to change Chicago's handgun registration law by hammering home arguments born out of real-world experience. Gun control will always fail, he argues, because criminals are never going to register their guns. And as for ordinary citizens who feel a need to protect themselves: "People are going to own guns. You cannot deny them the right to own a gun."

 

Source: Reason Magazine Reasononline.com

 

Also, I wonder what Rickey Hendon's current position is on gun possession, gun control, and conceal carry.

[45superman]

Also, I wonder what Rickey Hendon's current position is on gun possession, gun control, and conceal carry.

Funny you should bring that up--he's still an Illinois state senator, and according to our rating system, about as anti-gun as one can be.

 

Good find, Burningspear.

[GarandFan]

This column makes a statement about Suffredin's proposal that I hadn't seen before, and I'm too lazy to check the text of the bill to see if the columnist is right (will do so later today).

 

Sarley: Gun control proposal foolish

 

 

If there's a "grandfather clause" relating to gun shop zoning, I hadn't noticed it. If that's right, would any gun shop (aside from Cabela's) be affected?

 

I read this the other day...as much as I am in favor of seeing people make a stand for the right side, was highly disappointed the author didn't breathe a word about registration (and how onerous it is).

 

Yes, there is a grandfather clause in the Suffredin proposal...but as I recall it's trickily worded and the exemption seemed to me to be difficult to obtain. I will look at it again.

 

 

Also, received two separate emails from Peraica:

 

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:52:44 -0500

From: peraicalaw@aol.com

 

Thank you for your note.

 

I oppose and will vote against both Suffredin and Beavers proposed ordinances.

 

I believe that these proposals are unconstitutional.

 

Tony Peraica

 

When asked what I or we or Peraica would/could do to stop/bar/obfuscate/kill these proposals:

 

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:59:47 -0500

From: peraicalaw@aol.com

 

I can assure you that I will do everything that I can to make sure this ill-advised proposals are defeated.

[Molly B.]

"From the beginning, the Chicago ban elicited negative reactions from black leaders. Local newspapers quoted several black politicians who called the ban racist because it penalizes people who live in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates--often black neighborhoods."

 

Who are these "black leaders" and where are they today?

 

Molly B.

[abolt243]

"From the beginning, the Chicago ban elicited negative reactions from black leaders. Local newspapers quoted several black politicians who called the ban racist because it penalizes people who live in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates--often black neighborhoods."

 

Who are these "black leaders" and where are they today?

 

Molly B.

 

Probably sitting on the Cook county board and serving as alderpeople. The view is different from the other side of the street!

 

AB

[Pappy353]

(8) Those persons summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace while actually engaged in assisting the peace officer.

 

 

 

I know its already Illinois state law that we must assist the Po Po if requested, but having it also included in this piece of garbage proposal is a another slap in the face from our corrupted crook county government.

 

Try to take away our right to any kind of sidearm, restrict the heck out of the longarms we can have, everything must be broken down and locked away if not directly on your person in your home, or business. But hey if the crook county Po Po need your help................ As$#%&^% Fu^&(*& Son of Bi$%#!!!!!

 

/rant off

 

 

 

 

 

Tomorrow another round of calls go out, and a new batch of letters. Goin to see about getting a fax machine, cause my scanner broke. And only used the scanner for faxes anyway.

 

Lets keep up the pressure.

[burningspear]

"From the beginning, the Chicago ban elicited negative reactions from black leaders. Local newspapers quoted several black politicians who called the ban racist because it penalizes people who live in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime rates--often black neighborhoods."

 

Who are these "black leaders" and where are they today?

 

Molly B.

 

Probably sitting on the Cook county board and serving as alderpeople. The view is different from the other side of the street!

 

AB

Rickey Hendon is a state senator and William Beavers is a Cook County commissioner just to mention two.

[Blackhawkpaul]

This ban will ressurrect after teh holidays. Are we all preparing to attend the Cook County Board Meeting when it is brought up?

[tplane37]

I know its already Illinois state law that we must assist the Po Po if requested, but having it also included in this piece of garbage proposal is a another slap in the face from our corrupted crook county government.

 

At this point, I am not 100% positive that I would be willing to obey that law should I ever be presented with the need to assist. That is a decision I would have to make when the time comes. But if you refuse to assist an LEO, are there actually legal penalties for not assisting? If so, isn't that basically saying the public is responsible for the safety of the police when in all reality, is should be the other way around?