Nullification begins

[springfield shooter]

Who could have known how the state's refusal to obey Federal immigration law would come back to....shall we say....point out their hypocrisy.

 

What does the Constitution say about supremacy? Well, take a look at Article Six (emphasis mine):

 

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

Edited January 13, 2023 at 11:23 PM by springfield shooter

[springfield shooter]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

 

From the link, emphasis mine:

 

"“We know the way they’re going to vote, but I have to say, we have eight states that have passed assault weapons bans. We’re the ninth state,” Pritzker said. “So we believe the Supreme Court will take into account that these are established law, have been for some time.”"

 

 

"Established law?" Pre-Bruen, but he knows that.

"

[starwatcher]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

 

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.

Edited January 13, 2023 at 11:41 PM by starwatcher

[mousegun6]

Thanks for posting the Twitter link. Funny stuff. Our attorney general did not say who was going to do the emperor's bidding if the Sheriffs refuse to enforce the law, maybe because he's bluffing. 1200 ISP troopers trying to enforce a law against the interests of 2.4 million people is not a winning hand. I would suggest that at least half of those officers would like to see this law overturned and will be happy to just go home and see their wife and kids at the end of their shift. JB has never worked a day in his life and they know it. Will they really back up our chubby governor and defy their oath to uphold the constitution? I don't think so. The governor and attorney general are very surprised at the backlash to their attempt to deny the citizens of this state their 2nd Amendment rights. They got so used to compliance with the never ending Covid proclamations that they thought they could move on and continue their reign of terror against the citizens. They are finding that they pushed too far and miscalculated the strength of the people, who, if they work together, can stop the rule of a tyrant. Let's stay together and stay peaceable and send JB a loud and clear message that we are done with his petty tyrant ways. He is elected to serve us. He works for us. I suggest we mount a bid to impeach him. He deserves it.

[JNG3]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:31 PM, springfield shooter said:

 

From the link, emphasis mine:

 

"“We know the way they’re going to vote, but I have to say, we have eight states that have passed assault weapons bans. We’re the ninth state,” Pritzker said. “So we believe the Supreme Court will take into account that these are established law, have been for some time.”"

 

 

"Established law?" Pre-Bruen, but he knows that.

"

Soooo........... is it all a façade? Smoke and mirrors? dog and pony show? Or is King Pritzker talking out his arse again?

[357]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:49 PM, mousegun6 said:

Thanks for posting the Twitter link. Funny stuff. Our attorney general did not say who was going to do the emperor's bidding if the Sheriffs refuse to enforce the law, maybe because he's bluffing. 1200 ISP troopers trying to enforce a law against the interests of 2.4 million people is not a winning hand. I would suggest that at least half of those officers would like to see this law overturned and will be happy to just go home and see their wife and kids at the end of their shift. JB has never worked a day in his life and they know it. Will they really back up our chubby governor and defy their oath to uphold the constitution? I don't think so. The governor and attorney general are very surprised at the backlash to their attempt to deny the citizens of this state their 2nd Amendment rights. They got so used to compliance with the never ending Covid proclamations that they thought they could move on and continue their reign of terror against the citizens. They are finding that they pushed too far and miscalculated the strength of the people, who, if they work together, can stop the rule of a tyrant. Let's stay together and stay peaceable and send JB a loud and clear message that we are done with his petty tyrant ways. He is elected to serve us. He works for us. I suggest we mount a bid to impeach him. He deserves it.

Exactly. Unfortunately don’t think the tyrant can be impeached and was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and used to getting his way and could care less about the Constitution and thinks he can do as he pleases and laws and court rulings don’t apply to him. A lot of people were saying that after covid they will come for the guns and that's what is happening. It's all about control and they almost have total control and that's why they're desperate to take the guns and the ends justify the means to them.

[357]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:32 PM, starwatcher said:

 

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.

An alleged crime has to be prosecuted in the county where it took place. More than 90% of the counties are red and have said they will not prosecute.

[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.

[JNG3]

On 1/13/2023 at 6:38 PM, starwatcher said:

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.

Ask your local elected officials. If I am a arrested in a year  from now by a local Sheriffs deputy, I will NOT resist arrest and hope the States Attorney and Sheriff will not press charges. As I am an otherwise law abiding citizen who has a 'banned' item.  These folks have publicly stood up for you against the King. Why make their lives harder? 

[JNG3]

You know, I wish there was an edit feature. At least for spelling errors.

[JDW]

Sorry guys, but neither person called me back today. They were both in court. Hopefully I can catch up with one or both this weekend. 

[soundguy]

On 1/13/2023 at 6:50 PM, JNG3 said:

You know, I wish there was an edit feature. At least for spelling errors.

 

As a supporting member ($25/year), you gain edit privileges while supporting the place and the folks who do so much for you...

 

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

@JNG3

[Onytay]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:14 PM, Upholder said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/attorney-general-says-if-sheriffs-wont-enforce-gun-ban-there-are-other-people-there-to/article_8b6d435c-938f-11ed-bf51-3b89f7f861d3.html

 

I find it comical that the article states "some Sheriffs." I think overwhelming majority would have been a more accurate description.... 

[lawman]

I'm surprised it didn't say "mostly compliant".

[ScopeEye]

On 1/13/2023 at 2:45 PM, mkhalil61 said:

 

 

Very happy to see the stand against this bogus law

 

 

Don't forget 

There are lot's of supporters in Lake county 

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:48 PM, Onytay said:

 

I find it comical that the article states "some Sheriffs." I think overwhelming majority would have been a more accurate description.... 

“Some”....

[JTHunter]

Being an arthritic "old fart" who can't move that quickly anymore, anybody foolish enough to try and force entry here should not be surprised at the response they get.

[ragsbo]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:48 PM, Onytay said:

 

I find it comical that the article states "some Sheriffs." I think overwhelming majority would have been a more accurate description.... 

The local "news" said it was a few sheriffs who had concerns about it. Guess their definition of a few and concerns are not what is in the dictionary.

[357]

On 1/13/2023 at 4:23 PM, steveTA84 said:

Will County Sheriff gives weak opposition answer 

 

I think that's strong opposition. He specifically mentioned that he took an oath to protect people's Constitutional rights and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[steveTA84]

On 1/13/2023 at 11:18 PM, 357 said:

I think that's strong opposition. He specifically mentioned that he took an oath to protect people's Constitutional rights and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But he didn’t say he wouldn’t enforce it like there others (thus my comment)

[steveTA84]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:27 PM, JTHunter said:

Being an arthritic "old fart" who can't move that quickly anymore, anybody foolish enough to try and force entry here should not be surprised at the response they get.

😍

lol. Like your “old fart” attitude 

Edited January 14, 2023 at 07:50 AM by steveTA84

[Lou]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:27 PM, JTHunter said:

Being an arthritic "old fart" who can't move that quickly anymore, anybody foolish enough to try and force entry here should not be surprised at the response they get.

 

[billzfx4]

Champaign Co. sheriff responds with detailed statement on assault weapons ban (msn.com)

 

"Regardless of my personal beliefs as a firearm owner, I don’t believe it’s the role of a Sheriff to arbitrarily decide what law is or isn’t Constitutional. That is the job of our judicial system. That sets a dangerous precedent to enforce laws based solely on personal opinion of them. The Sheriff’s Office will continue to use the Illinois Compiled Statutes as a guide when determining the need for enforcement action of any law unless the Courts find that law unconstitutional. With that said, I have no intentions of limiting the discretion of my deputies with enforcing this specific law, just as I don’t limit their discretion when enforcing with any other law when they are in the best position to evaluate the totality of circumstances of an incident. My deputies will not be going door to door searching for violations of this law. As Sheriff, my goal continues to be to get guns out of the hands of people who want to use them maliciously so we can increase the safety of all of us who live here."

Champaign Co. Sheriff Dustin Heuerman

 

So I guess this means he'll be rounding up illegal immigrants, and handing them over to ICE.....right????

 

[Bird76Mojo]

All of these sheriff office statements are meaningless drivel until they actively prevent ISP raids based on the AWB terms. It's truly a soft stance, and many sheriffs included language in their statements to the effect of "we'll use this law to make sure other charges stick"

[spec5]

Just wondering if just because you would be arrested by lets say the State Police and the Sheriff says no way are they going to put you in their jail is to have the arrest itself be the reason to take all your guns since you would loose your FOID and CCL.

 

Waiting Patiently for the temporary order to put a pause on the statute and our win in the courts.

Edited January 14, 2023 at 04:20 PM by spec5

[ragsbo]

We should remember that like it or not, Sheriffs are politicians as in they must run for office and be elected by the majority of the voters in their jurisdiction. Write to many tickets and out they go. Could this be a grand stand to garner voters? Could be. BUT if that is so, it means that they also KNOW that this is highly unpopular with their voters. They also know it is highly likely that this will get thrown out in the courts even if it takes a while. It could be they are playing the odds to keep voters. OR it could be they actually think it is a crappy illegal unconstitutional law

[snooter]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:14 AM, billzfx4 said:

Champaign Co. sheriff responds with detailed statement on assault weapons ban (msn.com)

 

"Regardless of my personal beliefs as a firearm owner, I don’t believe it’s the role of a Sheriff to arbitrarily decide what law is or isn’t Constitutional. That is the job of our judicial system. That sets a dangerous precedent to enforce laws based solely on personal opinion of them. The Sheriff’s Office will continue to use the Illinois Compiled Statutes as a guide when determining the need for enforcement action of any law unless the Courts find that law unconstitutional. With that said, I have no intentions of limiting the discretion of my deputies with enforcing this specific law, just as I don’t limit their discretion when enforcing with any other law when they are in the best position to evaluate the totality of circumstances of an incident. My deputies will not be going door to door searching for violations of this law. As Sheriff, my goal continues to be to get guns out of the hands of people who want to use them maliciously so we can increase the safety of all of us who live here."

Champaign Co. Sheriff Dustin Heuerman

 

So I guess this means he'll be rounding up illegal immigrants, and handing them over to ICE.....

Beautiful insight into how his mind works. Schooling others was a nice touch.

[mousegun6]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:14 AM, Bird76Mojo said:

All of these sheriff office statements are meaningless drivel until they actively prevent ISP raids based on the AWB terms. It's truly a soft stance, and many sheriffs included language in their statements to the effect of "we'll use this law to make sure other charges stick"

Call it what you want ,but in my opinion, this much is true:

The Sheriffs felt the need to respond to the passage of this law and most of them expressed their intention to not enforce it. That is huge, all by itself.

JB and company have had push-back from the elected Law Enforcement members of this state and it cannot be ignored politically.

Politics is war by another means and JB just lost the first battle.

The next battle will be in the courts and if we stand together and financially support the fight against this law we have a good chance to prevail.

 

I am thankful to the Sheriffs that have taken the risk to go toe to toe with JB and the map shows he is wrong. He must know that, instead of furthering his political career, this law may well end it.

[ming]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:16 PM, steveTA84 said:

“Some”....

Is this map accurate?  If so, it’s fantastic.

[JTHunter]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:08 AM, Lou said:

 

 

That is a good picture, one that I have seen before.  And when I said that I'm ready to "repel boarders", I'm not kidding.