Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Mendoza: “When people say you should run government like a business – I say how about we run it better than a business?”
Next Post: The Republican leaders’ responses
Posted in:
* Wiki…
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) is a political organization of local police officials in the United States who contend that federal and state government authorities are subordinate to the local authority of county sheriffs. Self-described constitutional sheriffs assert that they are the supreme legal authority with the power and duty to defy or disregard laws they regard as unconstitutional.
* Not saying, just saying, but if you go to the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association Facebook page, you’ll see several nearly identical statements posted like this one…
As your Sheriff, I wanted to give citizens of Kankakee County an update on the recent passage of HB 5471, also known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act.
As your duly elected Sheriff my job and my office are sworn, in fact, to protect the citizens of Kankakee County. This is a job and responsibility that I take with the utmost seriousness.
Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution. One of those enumerated rights is the right of the people to keep and bear arms provided under the 2nd amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.
I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement official for Kankakee County, that neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this Act.
-Sheriff Mike Downey
That looks like they’re gonna allow illegal gun sales to happen unabated.
Sheriffs from Jo Daviess County, Logan County, Wabash County, Edwards County and Ogle County have all posted nearly identical statements so far.
* Mark Maxwell makes a valid point…
The sheriff’s press release needs an edit. He incorrectly uses the term “law abiding individuals” to describe defiant scofflaws. Critics may ultimately convince a court that registering guns with the state is unconstitutional, but until that day comes, the requirement is law. https://t.co/uez32×6ad7
— Mark Maxwell (@MarkMaxwellTV) January 11, 2023
* Politico got a response from the governor’s office on a similar statement from the Greene County Sheriff…
Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the state, not pick and choose which laws they support and when. We’re confident that this law will hold up to any future legal challenges, but again, it is the current law of our state. Anyone who advocates for law, order, and public safety and then refuses to follow the law is in violation of their oath of office.
* Interesting factoid from state law…
The State shall furnish 66 2/3% of the total annual salary to be paid to a sheriff. Said amounts furnished by the State shall be payable monthly by the Department of Revenue out of the Personal Property Tax Replacement Fund or the General Revenue Fund to the county in which the sheriff is elected or appointed. The county shall furnish 33 1/3% of the total annual salary.
…Adding… From the Illinois Constitution…
SECTION 2. COUNTY TERRITORY, BOUNDARIES AND SEATS
(a) The General Assembly shall provide by law for the formation, consolidation, merger, division, and dissolution of counties, and for the transfer of territory between counties.
Just sayin.
*** UPDATE *** From comments…
(A) ban on assault weapons is clearly constitutional under the Second Amendment. The federal Courts have made a ruling on this literal controversy, and in Illinois. They have done it more than once; see Friedman v. City of Highland Park (2015) and Wilson v. Cook County (2019).
Friedman is here and Wilson is here. The Supreme Court refused to hear both.
…Adding… The governor was asked about this sheriffs topic today…
Well, the first thing I’d say is they took an oath of office to uphold the law. As law enforcement, that’s their job. And I expect them to do that job. You know, you can have all the resolutions and declarations that you want. The reality is that the laws that are on the books, you don’t get to choose which ones people are going to follow. You know, if you don’t like it, go petition for a change in the legislation or in Springfield. But as it is you don’t get to decide I’m going to drive 150 miles an hour on the highway and there should be no consequences. And the same thing is true about carrying out the assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity magazines and also switches that are changing regular guns into essentially machine guns or automatic weapons. So I think we did the right thing. It was a consensus. There even was a Republican vote for it. And an overwhelming support across the state of Illinois, including in Downstate Illinois for this kind of a ban. Remember, nobody’s guns are getting taken away from them. There are plenty of other weapons that aren’t covered at all by this ban. And this ban is really focused on the same kinds of weapons that were banned by the federal government for 10 years and we saw a significant downdraft in the number of people who were shot and killed as a result of the passage of that assault weapons ban. We expect the same thing to happen here in Illinois.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Mendoza: “When people say you should run government like a business – I say how about we run it better than a business?”
Next Post: The Republican leaders’ responses
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
-is a political organization of local police officials in the United States who-
are completely and dangerously wrong. Fixed it.
-I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.-
To paraphrase the learned legal scholar, The Rock, it doesn’t matter what you believe. If you don’t like it, take it to court. They get to decide what is constitutional or not. Not you.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:49 am
Isn’t it up to the courts to sort out what is or isn’t constitutional? And aren’t many of these Sherrif’s the same folks that ignored a deadly pandemic, derided the SafeT Act, and got all caught up in reefer madness?
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:49 am
Not a good look for the Illinois Sheriff’s Assn and sheriffs. Makes them all look like scofflaws who act like they are above-the-law. What other laws don’t they enforce?
Comment by Medvale School for the Gifted Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:50 am
–believe –
And there lies the problem.
As Mark points out, unless law enforcement have also become judges, they don’t get to decide what is and is not constitutional.
Allowing law enforcement to take official actions as if they are also part of the judicial branch of government is something that needs to come to an end.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:51 am
So the blue wants us to back the blue and believe in law and order, but only the laws and order that locally elected sheriffs want to follow. Hopefully these sheriffs don’t expand their powers to recent SCOTUS decisions. Yikes.
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:51 am
– neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State –
That provision doesn’t kick in until Jan. 1, 2024. Are they saying they’ll look the other way on illegal sales of assault weapons, too?
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:51 am
I noticed the same thing Mark did about the “law abiding” edit needed. It angers me that sheriffs (many in the area in which I live) think they have the ability and authority to determine which laws are constitutional. I’m no Constitution scholar, but I thought that rested with the judicial branch of government.
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:51 am
My questions - What other duly enacted laws are they planning to ignore? If *they* can decide to ignore a law, why can’t ‘regular’ citizens?
Comment by Teacher Lady Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:53 am
Also, isn’t the State’s Attorney the chief law enforcement officer of the county, not the sheriff?
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:55 am
Backing the Blue now means backing disobedience to your oath, and disobedience to the rule of law.
No wonder Republican-Type fascists in positions of power (including law enforcement) find democracy and the courts so awful.
I do appreciate it writing.
Makes it easier for further reference… makes that “Back the Blue” flag seem more and more different by the day too
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:55 am
In Florida, the Governor has the power to remove local officials. This is a power I suddenly, definitely for reasons unclear, would like our Governor to have. Certainly if DeSantis can use it to remove school board members who say Latinx*, then our Governor should definitely be allowed to have it to remove Sheriffs who announce they will not enforce any law they dislike. And before the whataboutism on reproductive rights, explain to me how any of the reproductive rights decisions amount to just saying “I won’t do my job.”
*Clearly snark.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:56 am
Could you imagine what it would be like if US Attorneys and local FBI office heads were elected instead of appointed by the President/Executive branch?
Comment by Homebody Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:56 am
…add Richland County to the list
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:56 am
The local Billy Bobs are now constitutional experts. Good to know.
Comment by Give Me A Break Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:57 am
==The State shall furnish 66 2/3% of the total annual salary to be paid to a sheriff.==
Withhold their salaries. We’ll see how willing they are to work for 33 1/3rd of their salary.
Comment by So_Ill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:58 am
==As Mark points out, unless law enforcement have also become judges, they don’t get to decide what is and is not constitutional.==
Also most are not attorneys so they have no clue what is constitutional in the first place.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:58 am
===willing they are to work for 33 1/3rd===
The counties would undoubtedly pick up the difference.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:01 am
Official Misconduct at its best. Then again, did we really expect them to enforce the law which affects white affluent folks /s
Looking forward to a statement from the AG, ISP, or ILETSB today. This is dangerous.
Comment by Kayak Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:02 am
I particularly like the use of the word ’solely.’ Because of course if said Sheriff finds themselves in the right circumstances they want to reserve the right to charge someone under this law in relation to a different crime.
Comment by Gen. Aubrey Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:03 am
So the new law isn’t as universally popular as its advocates claimed? Surprised?
Comment by Gene Williger Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:03 am
===isn’t as universally popular===
Who said that? Seriously, don’t argue like a child.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:04 am
Pundent makes a good observation to which I would add the opposition to statewide wind and solar siting.
Not a sheriffs’ issue, per se, but of a piece with a reflexive, counter-majoritarian impulse on the right across a range of issues.
Many of these counties and their elected officials are glad to have the (mostly unacknowledged) financial subsidies provided by the parts of the state that want common sense gun safety, a science-based approach to the pandemic, a more thoughtful and effective response to crime, and discarding aspects of the failed War on Drugs - they’ll take the money provided by the majority of the state’s population, but don’t want to abide by the majority’s policy preferences as expressed by voters.
But, with the power of the purse, there’s a decent way for the majority to get the attention of lawless sheriffs and local governments that aid and abet their dereliction of duty.
Comment by Moe Berg Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:06 am
When you pass divisive legislation you get division.
Comment by James Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:07 am
Maybe the Governor and GA could impose a little “cutback amendment” of their own and force some dissolution and consolidation of noncompliant counties, townships, and municipalities for their refusal to enfoce the gun laws. And while they are at it, also forcibly impose a much-needed consolidation of the city of Springfield, Southern View, Leland Grove, Jerome, Grandview, as well as Capital, Springfield, and Woodside townships plus all the other unincorporated doughnut holes around the city.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:08 am
What a bunch of cowards these sheriffs are. If they had any guts, they’d resign on principle. Instead, they are promising dereliction of duty. It might be good politics for them, but it’s another sign that our democracy is slipping away.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:08 am
Which is worse? The Gov. and Legislatures violation of the publics Constitutional rights or the sheriffs refusal to enforce an unconstitutional law.
The US Supreme Court has decided this issue!
Comment by MOON Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:10 am
===The US Supreme Court has decided this issue!===
Then why do 8 other states still have similar laws?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:13 am
==When you pass divisive legislation you get division.==
Pretty much every law is opposed by someone. And here an overwhelming majority of Illinoisans wanted this.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:13 am
Well.. 2 groups not following this new law. Sheriffs and gang members
Comment by NotRich Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:15 am
Add White County.
https://www.thevillagersvoice.com/white-county-sheriff-makes-statement-regarding-passage-of-the-protect-illinois-communities-act/
Comment by Bigtwich Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:15 am
The law is the law. These sheriffs would laugh if I decided laws regarding driving while intoxicated infringed on my freedom to drink and drive. Until the courts decide the law has passed and should be enforced.
Comment by illinifan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:17 am
===== - James - Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:07 am:
When you pass divisive legislation you get division. =====
Just so I’m clear, if a law is “divisive” we can ignore it because of “division”?
Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I’ll use this logic. I’ll report back to let you know how it goes.
Comment by Madigan's Apple Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:18 am
===isn’t as universally popular===
There is polling that says assault weapon bans are popular.
Rich even had a post about polls on these issues.
If you have such polling to support your drive-by, please share.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:18 am
We are certainly blessed that so many sheriffs are able to process the new law and rule it unconstitutional. Meanwhile who gets to prosecute violating oaths office? And we hope someone is conducting audit of gun stores on how weapons they have in store that can no longer be sold in IL?
BTW could someone summon the 2A whacks and read the amendment front to back not back to front and then hand out the IL National Guard apps.
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:18 am
Never a good sign when law enforcement becomes law abandonment. This won’t end well.
Comment by Papa2008 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:20 am
I expect a few Sheriffs are getting an uncomfortable feeling today. They could have sat back, let their associations fight it out. Instead they affixed their signatures to a hasty poorly written non-proofread letter creating unnecessary liabilities. They may also realize that the Illinois Sheriffs Association does not pay their salary and that qualified immunity may only be temporary.
Comment by Kayak Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:22 am
====The General Assembly shall provide by law for the formation, consolidation, merger, division, and dissolution of counties, and for the transfer of territory between counties.====
The people who complain about excess government- could get what they asked for- though perhaps they didn’t mean their excess government.
Comment by West Sider Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:23 am
For all those who scream “obey the law” at minorities, what kind of an example does this set?
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:26 am
==When you pass divisive legislation you get division.==
But you also get laws.
Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:27 am
I felt like that when local law enforcement and politicians refused to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws that set a bad precedent. Now here we are.
Comment by Oracle Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:29 am
Our Clay County Sheriff says he is not enforcing the new law. Wonder if he would enforce the law if someone went into his childrens school with an AR?
Comment by Mitch1959 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:31 am
=== I felt like that when local law enforcement and politicians refused to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws that set a bad precedent. Now here we are.===
… and yet at the border the tally of folks “entering” is in actuality a tally of enforcement at the border. That’s how those tallies are made.
This also shows, again, the old, angry, white, rural folks who elect the Roscoe P. Coltrane type sheriffs, the sheriffs that don’t really want to enforce the law, but want “the way of life we cherish” saved from… progress that includes looking at public safety different than chasing the Duke boys for the boss of the county
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:35 am
== Then why do 8 other states still have similar laws? ==
Because they were passed pre-NYSRA v. Bruen. Those may change if challenged, but to say they are immune to revision is incorrect under the new legal test.
Comment by CJA Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:40 am
“The counties would undoubtedly pick up the difference”
Can’t wait for the local commissioners meetings where the vote has to be taken to pick up what, for some counties, is a pretty big expenditure because the Sheriff is not upholding the law.
Comment by Flying Elvis'-Utah Chapter Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:41 am
–Wonder if he would enforce the law–
I think we all know he would turn and run the other way. He even knows he would, that’s why these false and confused attempts at demonstrating strength are coming from them.
When you need help or assistance, he will put his personal beliefs above his job, and always choose himself above anything else. He even put that in writing, and signed his name to it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:42 am
So when a sheriff gives a pass to someone he knows is breaking the law and that someone goes out and murders a few people with his god given and 2nd amendment rifle the sheriff and county will have a heck of a liability problem
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:44 am
Are the non compliant sheriffs so confident that their constituency will not cause legal liability towards their sheriffs department?
Comment by magic carpet ride Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:44 am
=For now=, a ban on assault weapons is clearly constitutional under the Second Amendment. The federal Courts have made a ruling on this literal controversy, and in Illinois. They have done it more than once; see Friedman v. City of Highland Park (2015) and Wilson v. Cook County (2019).
Comment by ZC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:48 am
The law is unconstitutional. Why would they?
Comment by Ryder Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:48 am
-The law is unconstitutional. Why would they?-
Says you.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:49 am
ZC makes a good point.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:51 am
I’m curious about the possibility of passing a law eliminating immunity for these folks and states attorneys who fail to enforce the law. Service of notification from the state about the enforcement duty and a complaint about a violation would be prima facie evidence for the removal of protection and personal liability of a minimum amount.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:52 am
At least one State’s Attorney is singing the same tune as these Sherrifs, in Montgomery County—he, too, has formally declared he will not enforce the law using his prosecutorial discretion because believes it to be unconstitutional.
Whether I agree with the law or not, it’s tough to find a legal basis to say that the SA cannot exercise that discretion in gun crimes, but nevertheless can with regards to theft and drug amount thresholds (as many SAs routinely do).
As others have noted, this is ultimately going to require a court order, though I suspect even that won’t move the most hardened “from my cold, dead hands” types.
Comment by Chambananon Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:53 am
Again, not one court has said this specific legislation is unconstitutional, there’s no injunction to stop the law from being implemented in 2024, and those choosing “now” to decide themselves what is or is not, please help the politics to this so it will sink any Republican gains in the collar counties now, so it will solidify come petition time in 9-10 months from now.
I’d run ads with a downstate “sheriff” ..,in his mirrored glasses… talking about “our way of life” and “children without fathers”
This idea that anyone is speaking to any truth of any ruling on its constitutionality is mostly being done by “whiners” who are gonna “whine”… now we have a signed letter where following the law… following the law… is a bridge too far to “sheriff”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:56 am
The Republican sheriff of McLean County came out with a statement that was less explicit about not enforcing the law but made clear he thinks he knows the 2nd Amendment better than the General Assembly.
Of course, like most McLean County Republican officeholders, he ran unopposed,even though McLean County voted for Biden and Durbin in 2020 and for Pritzker in 2022.
*sigh*
More broadly, this is further evidence that the sovereign sheriff/constitutional sheriff movement is an issue in this state and something to watch out for.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:56 am
You have to parse some of these statements like a politician’s denial.
The local one I read said they would “not be pro-actively checking”. The final sentence did say they would enforce said law in the event there was a “warrant, court order, or exigent circumstances”.
I translate that to read they will enforce the law when a court says to do so. Or in a case of active public endangerment.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:57 am
Imagine if TRS sent out a release declaring it believes Tier 2 is unconstitutional and everyone is being given Tier 1 standing.
Same crowd cheering?
You don’t get to choose sides in anarchy.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 10:59 am
Sheriff, or warlord? Some guy with guns chooses what the law is and whom it applies to, and answers to no civil authority? Time to get the feds involved, methinks, same as during the civil Rights struggle in the south.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:01 am
“Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution.”
I thought his job was to enforce the laws?
If he wants to protect people’s rights maybe he should join the ACLU?
Comment by Henry Francis Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:01 am
I disagree with the Bill, but laws are presumed to be constitutional until a court determines otherwise. Arguing with people on this is just not productive. I’m looking forward to the USSC decision on this law.
Comment by rtov Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:04 am
Maybe this should have been a ballot question instead of being rammed through in a midnight lame duck session.
Sheriffs are elected and they are doing what what think their constituents want, besides the Constitution question.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:04 am
It is up to the Courts to decide. That is how it is laid out in the Constitution. There are 3 distinct branches of government, all must do their job as prescribed.
I can’t agree with not enforcing the law because it hasn’t been seen by the Courts yet. I may not agree with the law, but until it is litigated I have to be in compliance.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:05 am
Mandamus - suspect some Sheriffs are going to hear and have to look up that word soon. Just might be applicable action to force them to act in some instances. Maybe ?
Comment by Red Ketcher Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:06 am
The most any of the sheriffs should have said was “We have doubts about the constitutionality of this law and look forward to a court ruling on it.” Then they just quietly look away as much as they can. Instead they’ve come out and said that they are going to violate their oath of office. “Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge” worked out for the comics on Monty Python, not for these clowns.
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:07 am
My local sheriff posted much the same statement yesterday. There are several hundred comments, practically all positive.
Like it or not, this is not playing well downstate.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:08 am
@james 1007am
Divisive, except if you see your child’s head get blown off at the All American 4th of July Parade.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:09 am
===Maybe this should have been a ballot question===
We don’t live in California.
===Sheriffs are elected===
So are legislators. And they have a higher office.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:12 am
If myself or a family member lived in one of the “non-enforcement” counties and were harmed by a weapon illegal under the law, I would strongly consider suing that county and the police department for damages. Seems this letter would give me a very strong case. Also, good luck getting your insurance provider to cover the cost of the lawsuit. Putting in writing your plans to explicitly disobey a law seems like a pretty good reason for Insurance companies to deny coverage.
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:12 am
We are fortunate to have some really good commenters here and that Rich created this forum.
What is even more fun is the doodoos that show up sometimes.
=I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.=
Good for you, take it to court. Until then, you do not have the lawful authority to determine the constitutionality of a law. Lessen you’re a judge. Sheriff. He needs to take the 8th grade (cause the high school one would be too hard) Constitution test.
=If *they* can decide to ignore a law, why can’t ‘regular’ citizens?=
Well, you are correct. They are in no better legal position to determine if a law is constitutional than you or me. Until the courts decide it is what we call an opinion.
=Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I’ll use this logic. I’ll report back to let you know how it goes.=
I agree, and I just won’t be able to stop myself from the same even knowing the trouble it will bring.
=local law enforcement and politicians refused to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws=
You know what the difference between the two is? Obviously not. “Politicians” MAKE laws they do not enforce them (a high school junior in a civics class could have helped you with that). And local law enforcement is not tasked with immigration enforcement, that is a FEDERAL law.
Apples to oranges as they say.
The whole thing is a joke. I have enjoyed reading many of the rebuttals here. No surprise that OW, Pundent, Norseman, Ron Burgundy and others have completely shut the kooks down. Y’all are the best.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:13 am
=Like it or not, this is not playing well downstate.=
Color me not shocked.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:13 am
== ZC makes a good point.==
Except it flatly ignores the impact and change that the Bruen case created last Summer. Maryland had a similar ban upheld by the 4th Circuit as recently as 2021. After Bruen was issued, the Supreme Court vacated that decision, and sent it back down to the 4th Circuit under the new standard of review. Bottom line is any precedent prior to Bruen doesn’t hold a lot of weight at the Supreme Court right now, and it is absolutely arguable that these bans are not constitutional under the current standard.
Comment by fs Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:14 am
Interesting Tony (Scalia) and Clay (Thomas) said history and text are now a part of 2nd Amendment decisions. Nothing in the text or history would have allowed Clay to own a gun in the late 1700’s. He’d be dead himself. I’m assuming he is aware of this.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:15 am
Add Crawford County to the list….. pretty much all sheriffs of the Eastern Bloc area has now agreed not to enforce a valid law.
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:15 am
===is absolutely arguable===
Sure, but arguable doesn’t equal unconstitutional at this point.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:16 am
A sheriff is duty bound not to enforce a law that is not illegal or constitutional. A judge has already rules that this is the case. For Pritzker to threaten police for following their legal duty is unconscionable.
Comment by JM Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:20 am
== Maybe this should have been a ballot question ==
Could have been a non-binding referendum. Results would likely have been the same: downstate doesn’t have the population to outweigh a few big cities.
Plus there would have been a bunch of hot air about the question being used to gin up voter turnout. Some of us may not like the result, but the GA actually took the proper approach.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:20 am
The Second Amendment sanctuary counties movement was derived out of the immigration sanctuary movement. We are seeing the direct result of the immigration sanctuary movement play out with busloads of immigrants landing in cities that have decided not to follow the law or at the very least not work with law enforcement on what I believe are failed immigration policies. So, lets add that to the discussion. Are these the same? Should the State and the City of Chicago follow federal law or continue to ignore it?
Comment by Nagidam Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:22 am
-A sheriff is duty bound not to enforce a law that is not illegal or constitutional. A judge has already rules that this is the case.-
Whuh? A law is presumed constitutional until the courts say that specific law isn’t. Until then they are duty bound to follow the law, not their beliefs or opinions.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:23 am
=== A sheriff is duty bound not to enforce a law that is not illegal or constitutional===
Narrator: there has been no such ruling on this law yet.
- JS Mill -, appreciate the shout-out, but I’d be remiss that you have been one who has, many a time, “shut the kooks down” and done it skillfully. So thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:23 am
=== Should the State and the City of Chicago follow federal law===
What you folks never address is that there are no federal mandates on states and cities to enforce those laws. They can’t violate a federal law where no law exists.
Sheesh.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:24 am
Yes, we aren’t California. But non-binding ballot questions have been asked in the past to gauge public reaction. Which it appears to me that public reaction is a bit negative outside Chicago and the collars.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:26 am
This is just a lot of people puffing their chests out. They will enforce the law. Imagine if someone in one of these counties gets pulled over, the sheriff’s deputy finds an assault weapon with a 30 round clip, lets the guy go, then the guy commits a crime with that weapon that results in death. The ensuing lawsuit will bankrupt a little county. They will enforce the law.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:26 am
-Which it appears to me that public reaction is a bit negative outside Chicago and the collars.-
When they get their own state, or a lot more seats in the GA, that will matter.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:27 am
=== Which it appears to me that public reaction is a bit negative outside Chicago and the collars.===
Chicago and the collars are the majority of likely voters.
Polling done on similar question(s) are not trending for the “continually aggrieved” downstate secessionists…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:28 am
As someone alluded to, if God forbid there is a tragic shooting in one of these sheriff’s counties and the weapon was on this law’s list, there won’t be enough money in the County funds to cover what will be awarded to the victims in a county where the sheriff publicly stated they wouldn’t enforce this law.
So all you wanna be Wyatt Earps, lawyer up, you are going to need it.
Comment by Give Me A Break Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:33 am
OW… McHenry’s sheriff said they won’t enforce. Do you consider that as “downstate”?
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:49 am
== there won’t be enough money in the County funds … ==
Only if the Sheriff’s Office was previously aware the firearm or magazine was not properly grandfathered in and/or otherwise illegally possessed. I don’t expect a Sheriff to conduct door to door searches for violations, nor does the enacted bill provide such authority; think the Federal courts would frown on that without a proper warrant.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:50 am
=== McHenry’s===
White sheriff, angry by a ruling in a country with rural underpinnings?
Your argument is… geographical?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:53 am
RNUG… even if the non-binding ballot question said that a majority wanted this ban, well then the Governor could have pointed to that as expressing the will of the people. Instead, they had a late-night lame duck session. It appears sneaky. And in Illinois sneaky is not a good look.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:57 am
To be honest, if you’re looking for “geographical” loopholes to try to argue a law that hasn’t faced any legal challenges is unconstitutional… and law enforcement should be celebrated for arbitrarily deciding the constitutionality and also choosing the law’s enforcement… you may not be an honest broker to a discussion or to the side you are advocating
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 11:59 am
- A Jack -
== in Illinois sneaky is not a good look ==
But it is pretty much standard operating procedure …
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:02 pm
=== Should the State and the City of Chicago follow federal law===
Actually, they should start bussing loads of people to rural counties that have great churches to provide for them. /s
Comment by Kayak Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:04 pm
Really Rich, that’s the update that two cases that have zero precedential value any longer?
Lets break it down, 1. Friedman used feelings as a plausible governmental interest to justify it.
“If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”
2. Friedman used intermediate scrutiny and an interest balancing approach. Both have been rejected by the Court.
3. Maryland’s AWB which was upheld using intermediate scrutiny was pending before the SCOTUS. The case was granted, the ruling by the court of appeals upholding the ban vacated and remanded to the lower court to try again see New York.
4. the 4th heard the orals on Maryland in November and the orals did not go well for Maryland, they wanted to debate each and every gun on the list as being in common use for self defense in trying to fabricate a new standard of review. If the court had simply let Maryland stand then you would have something, but they didn’t they vacated the ruling – erased it.
5. Wilson was upheld as Friedman at the time was controlling on the circuit and nothing distinguished Wilson from Friedman.
6. from the holdings in New York:
“But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.”
Means end scrutiny is just what Friedman and Wilson did going to far as to justify feelings. Friedman isn’t worth the paper its written on since New York came out.
7. The test is does the text cover the conduct – yes then what is the historical similarity to this law circa 1791, a broad prohibition on the sale and acquisition of commonly used and owned firearms. There are none.
8. what is significant is that 6 months ago the Supreme Court vacated the ruling upholding a similar ban.
Again people who want to justify this law inspite of New York simply look like the South after Brown was decided.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:07 pm
=== even if the non-binding ballot question said that a majority wanted this ban, well then the Governor could have pointed to that as expressing the will of the people. Instead, they had a late-night lame duck session. It appears sneaky===
Representative form of government allows for those elected to, within the laws and rules of the chambers, enact laws.
The lame duck GA that passed this, the new GA seems more inclined to agree than look to repeal it, and with 60/30 you need a signature, and there ain’t no 71/36 against this law or be willing to repeal it so a veto would stop any chance of repeal too.
If you are not a fan of a Republic form of governing…
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:08 pm
Relying on pre-2022 2A rulings is improper; the Highland Park ban will not survive a new challenge under Bruen, given also that SCOTUS reversed Maryland’s rifle ban as unconstitutional and violative of Bruen. SCOTUS also reversed magazine bans as well days after the Bruen opinion was issued, and sent the cases back to the lower courts to rule consistent with Bruen, MacDonald, and Heller.
Comment by thisjustinagain Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:09 pm
-Instead, they had a late-night lame duck session.-
Do you honestly think the result would have been any different this week? We also had an election just two months ago, and the pro-gun politicians running on crime got shellacked. Not everything requires a poll or a referendum. We select people to lead and make decisions.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:11 pm
Add Winnebago to the list of announced noncompliant sheriffs.
A LEO relative fb posted the identical letter from the Winnebago sheriff. I said I wasn’t aware that sheriffs can now supersede the courts, and determine what is constitutional, and what is not.
One retired LEO agreed with me. A half dozen insisted, in essence, that a sincerely held belief that this law is obviously unconstitutional, justifies noncompliance. Another, who has a masters degree in law-enforcement, and taught at the college level, enthusiastically applauded noncompliance as “excellent enforcement discretion”. Two insulted me personally.
Rather than just scolding local sheriffs, JB and his administration should get in front of the info war over this. Make available a five or six page bullet point analysis of the bill, noting delayed effective date portions. This would be useful to opinion makers at the local level. Otherwise, the field will be occupied by the eastern block types.
“Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officers Association” sounds like sovereign sheriffs. Their website explains how to vet your local sheriff. “If you are a local citizen or posse member,… “ they encourage activism.
Comment by Langhorne Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:14 pm
RNUG
Agreed this is Standard Operating Procedure but I am a bit concerned with the people I’ve talked to who had no idea it was passed. A little worried that there are those who would comply but don’t even know the thing was voted on let alone details. Having the hearings over the holidays didn’t help public awareness.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:15 pm
Technically, the Illinois State Police are charged with enforcement, not the Sheriff, when it goes into effect a year from now.
So in essence, the Sheriffs (McDonough County included) are saying, we will not help the State Police when they attempt to enforce the law.
It is easy to make political hay by saying, “I intend to do nothing a year, because I am not technically required to do anything a year from now.”
But should the Illinois State Police barracks in McDonough County, ask our local Sheriff for assistance, and that Sheriff say “no,” then the Sheriff will be culpable for any negative outcomes, for failing to “support the blue.”
This is why sheriffs should be above politics, rather than wallering in them.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:18 pm
This talk by sherriffs is extremely irresponsible.
It feeds into the (incorrect) narrative that our elected representative government is “tyrannical”.
One route to radicalization is the perception by an individual that “series of small insults” justifies an inappropriate reaction.
I don’t like it. Not one bit. These statements should never have happened.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:18 pm
===when it goes into effect a year from now.===
The sales ban is immediate.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:19 pm
PS - I wonder if the Board of Higher Education should bar the sheriff of McDonough County from teaching at Western Illinois University? We have a well-known Law Enforcement and Justice Administration program here. Allowing the sheriff to teach our students, when he is on record with this announcement, speaks very poorly of our program, should the sheriff be invited to talk with our students about law enforcement.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:21 pm
There has been almost constant discussion about an assault weapon ban since July 4 and many of the campaigns prior to the election discussed the need for one. It’s only “sneaky” if you are oblivious or willfully ignorant.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:23 pm
Todd- Please help turn down the heat and overamped responses. This is not good for any of us.
Let the process work as it is designed.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:23 pm
- Mason Born -
== A little worried that there are those who would comply but don’t even know the thing was voted on let alone details. ==
I agree. Only about 10% (my estimate) of firearms owners are members of organizations like NRA, ISRA, GSL, etc.
I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there does likely need to be more education of firearms owners about the new regulations.
Maybe ISP needs to mail the new rules out to all FOID holders?
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:24 pm
==I am a bit concerned with the people I’ve talked to who had no idea it was passed.==
It was the top story virtually everywhere lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:25 pm
==I translate that to read they will enforce the law when a court says to do so. Or in a case of active public endangerment.==
Appreciate you RNUG, but you left out “or when it’s a person of color.”
Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:27 pm
===== McHenry’s===
White sheriff, angry by a ruling in a country with rural underpinnings?==
The same county that gave us the misfortune of electing Jack Franks.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:30 pm
- Big Dipper -
== It’s only “sneaky” if you are oblivious or willfully ignorant. ==
Unfortunately the average voter is not politically engaged. Most only tune in the last 2 to 6 weeks, and then only long enough to make sure their guy or gal hasn’t been involved in some huge scandal. And with all the last minute changes, even if they were initially aware, they may not know the nuances that actually were enacted.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:33 pm
== Appreciate you RNUG, but you left out “or when it’s a person of color.” ==
Our local department isn’t perfect, but they do seem to be mostly colorblind.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:35 pm
starting with this, ISP and gun dealers… https://isp.illinois.gov/foid/faq
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:35 pm
I support a ban of assault weapons, but unfortunately, this isn’t going to curtail gun violence or the next mass shooting. There are simply too many guns out there and people willing to use them for evil purposes.
Comment by up2now Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:38 pm
There’s an unavoidable fight coming… will it be a country run by laws or a country run by lawmen?…the former represents democracy…the latter tyranny.
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:40 pm
==Unfortunately the average voter is not politically engaged.==
That’s squarely their fault then. It’s like people who don’t vote then complain nonstop. We have responsibilities as well as rights in a democracy. Some think they have only the latter.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:42 pm
==Technically, the Illinois State Police are charged with enforcement, not the Sheriff, when it goes into effect a year from now==
Where will ISP house said “violators” when the sheriff refuses to accept them in his jail?
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:55 pm
== I wonder if the Board of Higher Education should bar the sheriff of McDonough County from teaching at Western Illinois University? We have a well-known Law Enforcement and Justice Administration program here.==
That or threaten to defund WIU’s entire LEJA program instead.
Comment by Stuck in Celliniland Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:55 pm
==That or threaten to defund WIU’s entire LEJA program instead==
Always the answer from this side — do as we want or we will defund you
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:55 pm
OW… I am a fan of the minority having a voice in legislation. Clearly “rural” people are a minority. And when you consider the amount of rural sheriffs that have spoken out against this, it doesn’t appear their voices were heard.
Now, the GA, Gov can continue down this path or perhaps just like the Safe-T act, they can try for a compromise in the new GA.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:56 pm
My Uncle/boxing coach advised me that when a street fight was unavoidable…throw the first punch.
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:58 pm
when a law is passed in the legislature and signed, and the enforcement date is immediate, unless a judge says otherwise, the law is in effect. now. you can carp on all you want about other states and cases and who knows. but now is now.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 12:59 pm
This whole comment section just makes me look forward to the day when Bruen and Heller are hopefully held to be incorrectly decided.
Until that day, unlike these Sheriffs, I recognize these rulings are law and may result in the Illinois ban being struck down. Until that happens though, this is Illinois law.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:02 pm
That last comment was not well phrased. My apologies, but I hope the point came across.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:02 pm
This is so on brand for the policing community and its undercurrent of white supremacy. No one is above the law.
Comment by Politix Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:03 pm
==its undercurrent of white supremacy==
How in the world does refusing to enforce a firearms law have anything to do with race? Come on…
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:10 pm
Occasionally — what heat?
this bill has things that kicked in days ago that make people felons. things that kick in in 90 days which severely restrict carry and then things that kick in in 300ish days.
All having criminal penalties that few really understand.
I enjoy seeing the sheriffs and local law Enforcment saying yea not gonna work on this. Enjoy seeing SAs saying they will use their discretion.
I know a fair number of people who are not going to comply and have the means so achieve that. It is really amazing how people saying they will not register their guns and comply with that piece of paper has some all shook up and then applying what ever double standard they wish to to poke fun at the yokels.
I would really love to see the Governor and other introduce a bill or try to consolidate some of these counties. You thought we had a divided state before, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
I asked the question in committee how are you going to enforce this? and no one wanted to answer. I said local LE in lots of areas of this state were not going to enforce. Looks like I was right. Now what? gonna have a trooper ride with everyone to make sure they are?
gonna send the troopers out to check up on people?
please tell me what that plan looks like. I think we will prevail on an TRO /injunction, things will go back to normal while its litigated out
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:21 pm
===Where will ISP house said “violators” when the sheriff refuses to accept them in his jail?===
Good question. And it makes these sheriff declarations even darker to contemplate.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:22 pm
=things will go back to normal=
The state of gun laws in the United States is anything but normal, whether this bill stands or not.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:25 pm
=== anything to do with race?===
Weren’t you the one who commented about “children without fathers” a few days ago, the Jeanne Ives dog whistle?
I’m told it’s the “law abiding” folks that want to not follow the law that “criminals” aren’t following anyway.
There’s an slight underpinning to “Back the Blue” with race, that was seen, as one example, during the George Floyd protests.
I can’t believe you’re that naive, I think you hoped that your connect would be ignored.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:25 pm
White Supremacy? You may want to get out more. There are many people of color in rural areas. Honestly, why wouldn’t you want minorities to have the means to defend themselves, even if they were to choose a so called “weapon of war”?
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:26 pm
You guys are quite amusing with your bad sheriff nonsense. Cop pulls guy over, finds “banned assault WMD” on a citizen with a clean record, lets the guy go. End of story. No different from the guy pulled over for any ticketable offense and let go with a verbal warning. No record of weapon during stop. If they don’t want to enforce it, they won’t. That simple.
Comment by Not a fan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:27 pm
Sorry, to the folks in a twist about this. The Dems started this optional compliance nonsense with their sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Goose meet gander. Deal with it.
Comment by ReaderOne Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:28 pm
“his jail”
IL bans the use of private jails.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:30 pm
=== I am a fan of the minority having a voice in legislation. Clearly “rural” people are a minority. And when you consider the amount of rural sheriffs that have spoken out against this, it doesn’t appear their voices were heard.===
Yeah, I’m a fan of math.
The House now has 78 Democrats, 18 more than needed to pass legislation.
The Senate has 39 Democrats, 9 more than needed to pass legislation.
Voters chose those folks to move an agenda they support, and if those Sheriffs support an assault weapons ban or other things that curtail, they can propose legislation that *begins* with an assult weapons ban that already passed with *weaker* Dem majorities that were already super-majorities…
Nothing in legislation *needs* to pass 118-0 and 59-0
The adults that understand how to count noses, pass legislation, and cobble coalitions realized they could pass what they passed.
The minority caucuses either need to peel votes, or climb on legislation.
Please understand how this works, not how you want minority rule to exist.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:32 pm
=== There are many people of color in rural areas.===
Please cite the statistics to that measure, not your opinion.
Thank you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:33 pm
=== Deal with it.===
Facebook is down the dial. The adults are talking.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:34 pm
If rural sheriffs don’t want to enforce certain state laws, let them put their money where their mouth is and refuse the two-thirds of their salaries paid by the state.
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:36 pm
“And this ban is really focused on the same kinds of weapons that were banned by the federal government for 10 years”
governor, no its not, that part of your statement is a bold faced lie. from 94 - 04 you could buy and AR. It didn’t have a flash hider, bayonet lug or collapsible stock, but I could go buy a new one if I wanted. And I could fully transfer any I owned or buy the now prohibited for sale models from a private party or from a dealer where a trade in came in. they commanded a premium but you could get them.
And this is why the gun guys despise greasy, comment splitting politicians. You perpetuate an out right lie about what the ‘94 ban did.
Comment by Todd Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:37 pm
=optional compliance nonsense with their sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.=
Thank you for telling us you didn’t read the above comments. Immigration is federally enforced, and states and cities are not required by law to comply. State firearm laws are binding on law enforcement.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:37 pm
*to comply
Should say to assist. Oops. I should take a break.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:38 pm
==IL bans the use of private jails==
Please educate yourself — the sheriff has full discretion and control over the jail in his county, therefore during his term and time in office, he can refuse to accept any prisoner he chooses.
It happens regularly now, often sheriffs refuse to accept inmates from other law enforcement agencies when they are in need of medical treatment, etc. Absent a court order, the sheriff can refuse to accept someone, and even then it is likely he could still refuse, pending appeal of the order.
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:38 pm
=I enjoy seeing the sheriffs and local law Enforcment saying yea not gonna work on this. Enjoy seeing SAs saying they will use their discretion.=
I will equally enjoy it when they capriciously refuse to uphold some law violation that was perpetrated on you.
====Where will ISP house said “violators” when the sheriff refuses to accept them in his jail?===
In that very same jail when the ISP comendeers it from them.
While we are at it @Deputy Sheriff, I am sure that you are fine with citizens making the determination of what laws will be upheld an what won’t right?
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:43 pm
At last count a little more than 70% than the Sheriffs and a handful of States Attorneys have released statements on lack of enforcement. I don’t think it has anything to race. I do think they are betting on a quick TRO giving them cover. We’ll see if that happens.
Comment by Pretzel Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:43 pm
=== Always the answer from this side — do as we want or we will defund you===
… and yet it was a whole General Assembly that Raunerites refused to fund the state with a budget… unless Rauner got his way.
Please, keep up, your want of talking points is not going to supersede institutional knowledge
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:52 pm
@JS Mill
Everyone likes to have people cite their sources here, which I agree is a good practice…so I planned to ask you for the statute giving ISP such authority but I already know the answer.
There is absolutely no authority for ISP to “commandeer” a jail from a county sheriff. Plain and simple. The sheriff is a constitutional officer and ISP cannot under any legal authority take over his/her jail.
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:54 pm
=== At last count a little more than 70% than the Sheriffs===
It’s not like there’s an option, lol
Thinking there’s an option to “comply” is the problem with any argument to this.
You can have 10%, 58%.., 91.7% releasing any type of statement, but what is the problem is the premise of “optional”
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:55 pm
Note to Sheriffs who won’t abide by the law…contact Tom Devore…but don’t forget you are contacting loser Tom DeVore…just so you know what to expect.
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 1:58 pm
Given the rural Repulcian sheriffs who refuse to enforce state gun laws, will the GOP stop posing as the law and order party that wants strict enforcement of the law?
Comment by anon2 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:04 pm
Anon2
Not all of these Sheriff’s are Republicans. There’s more bipartisanship on this than the original bill.
Just saying.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:15 pm
“A Modest Proposal”
For Sheriffs that don’t enforce the law, the State of Illinois withholds the previously discussed 2/3rds of salary. Then it informs IMRF the pension is to be calculated using 1/3rd of current salary. This remains in effect until the sheriff(s) “enforce” the law. IF IMRF is leery, perhaps a law codifying all this?
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:15 pm
Deputy Sheriff, I do a decent job of educating myself, thanks. That’s how I know sheriffs do not have “full discretion and control” over jails or anything else.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:16 pm
Can we please not recommend anyone go to Tom DeVore? No matter how much you want that person to lose? That guy is the definition of Troll, if we all ignore him maybe he’ll go back under a bridge.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:16 pm
=There is absolutely no authority for ISP to “commandeer” a jail from a county sheriff. Plain and simple.
=The sheriff is a constitutional officer and ISP cannot under any legal authority take over his/her jail.=
The ISP is a higher legal authority. The “Sheriff” singular is elected. The Jail belongs to the county not the Sheriff.
And you never answered my question Deputy Not Law and Order.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:20 pm
.Alabama is gonna start arresting women who take abortion pills. Gotta love the small guv’mint Comservatives!
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:22 pm
==How in the world does refusing to enforce a firearms law have anything to do with race? Come on…==
I have no doubt these “non-enforcement” sheriffs will not hesitate to use the law to justify arresting a person of color they believe “doesn’t belong in their county.”
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:28 pm
The jail and the county belong to the people who pay for them…no one should forget…or be made to forget!
I’m sick and tired of petty tyrants laying claim to the people’s property and maliciously misacting as law makers…as well as instigating and supporting lawlessness which disqualifies all of them from holding office.
Dotnonymous is gettin’ mad…real mad.
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:38 pm
=== State of Illinois withholds===
You cannot legally alter an elected official’s salary during their term of office.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:41 pm
Maybe the LETSB can add to the list
https://www.ptb.illinois.gov/resources/decertification/
Comment by very old soil Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:43 pm
Jerry - So let’s play pretend here. If some counties in AL decided to not go after women seeking abortion pills, would you be in favor of these counties or against? Just trying to see how the rationale works? Should laws be enforced even when they’re ludicrous, or just when they suit you?
Comment by Not a fan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:45 pm
=== So let’s play pretend here===
The dorm room isn’t the best.
=== If some counties in AL decided to not go after women seeking abortion pills, would you===
Yeah, see, I’m gonna stop you right here.
Legally passed statute(s) if you agree or not should be enforced.
If there’s a TRO in AL then that’s something they will need to figure out.
Once all laws become arbitrary, no one is safe, even in a dorm room.
Oh. Yeah. It’s also why Illinois passed such sweeping abortion protection… because the law matters.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:48 pm
Also, this whole situation brings up the need to finally rein in these so-called “constitutional sheriffs.” For some reason, they think being elected Sheriff makes them akin to a King or Queen. In my understanding, the constitution was written to protect again a monarchy. Thus, I’m not sure how they it gives them the right to unilaterally perform the work of all 3 branches of government and at the same time declare ownership of any public building they choose.
Comment by Former Downstater Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 2:59 pm
@ow 248:
Well said.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:06 pm
This is what it looks like when the seams are about to burst…beware.
Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:12 pm
===You cannot legally alter an elected official’s salary during their term of office.===
Hence the deliberate decision to use the expression “A Modest Proposal” …
Comment by Anyone Remember Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:20 pm
@Stephanie Kollmann
Care to cite your legal source on that? The sheriffs, in fact, to have full legal control over the jails of their respective counties and cannot be told otherwise
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:29 pm
@JS Mill
==The ISP is a higher legal authority. The “Sheriff” singular is elected. The Jail belongs to the county not the Sheriff.==
Again I ask, please cite your source on this. It is factually inaccurate. ISP does not have any authority over the sheriffs or their jails. The only person who can house the sheriff in his own jail is the coroner of said county.
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:34 pm
===@Stephanie Kollmann
Care to cite your legal source on that===
(Getting popcorn)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:41 pm
This looks like a giant copy of the sanctuary state scheme. Refuse to check for registration status is the same as refusing to check for immigration status. Refusing to house violators of this law is the same as refusing to house illegal immigrants. Just exercising the same discretion other LEO agencies have been for years, only on a different law.
Comment by Labradoodle Dad Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:41 pm
Deputy “Sheriff” — try the last nine words of: (20 ILCS 2605/2605-35) (a) (9) Exercise other duties that may be assigned by the Director in order to fulfill the responsibilities and achieve the purposes of the Illinois State Police, which may include the coordination of gang, terrorist, and organized crime prevention, control activities, and assisting local law enforcement in their crime control activities.
Comment by Vote Quimby Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:44 pm
It is worrisome that a “Deputy Sheriff” that also bragged often about defying Covid orders, gleefully, (then magically was not going to tell where it was, because, you guessed it, they knew it was in defiance) is now touting so much of the idea that enforcement of laws is quite arbitrary, to them, and it’s not the legislature, to them, and their work, is something to be enforced.
It’s a scary thought.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:49 pm
=Again I ask,=
Answer my question tough guy.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 3:59 pm
- Give Me A Break - Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:57 am:
The local Billy Bobs are now constitutional experts. Good to know.
=================================================
So you HAVE been to my section of Forgottonia.
Comment by btowntruth from forgottonia Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:04 pm
=Refuse to check for registration status is the same as refusing to check for immigration status=
Funny how I can literally copy my exact response from earlier in this same thread because people don’t read the discussion.
Thank you for telling us you didn’t read the above comments. Immigration is federally enforced, and states and cities are not required by law to assist. State firearm laws are binding on law enforcement.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:17 pm
The Rock Island County sheriff just issued a statement that said they don’t think it’s constitutional but stopped short of saying they wouldn’t enforce it.
Comment by QCMan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:22 pm
So this is from current statute… the Counties Code under the Sheriff section. To me it reads if a sheriff does not enforce a warrant, process, order,etc. under the new law they SHALL be in contempt and MAY be punished, and SHALL be liable to an aggrieved party. Am I misreading? There’s also an interesting section (Sec.3-6003) conditioning a sheriff’s required surety bond on their faithfully discharging the duties required of him by law.
(55 ILCS 5/3-6020) (from Ch. 34, par. 3-6020)
Sec. 3-6020. Contempt of court; damages. The disobedience of any sheriff to perform the command of any warrant, process, order or judgment legally issued to him or her, shall be deemed a contempt of the court that issued the same, and may be punished accordingly; and he or she shall be liable to the party aggrieved for all damages occasioned thereby. No sheriff shall be civilly liable for serving, as directed by the court, any warrant, order, process, or judgment that has been issued or affirmed by a court of the State of Illinois and that is valid on its face, unless the service involved willful or wanton misconduct by the sheriff.
(Source: P.A. 93-386, eff. 1-1-04.)
Comment by DS Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:23 pm
OW - You may be surprised to learn that while rural Illinois lost population, rural Illinois has become more diverse. In Cass County, for example, there was a 4 percent population decline during the last ten years but a 20 percent increase in Hispanic population. The entire rural landscape has changed — small population declines but increase in diversity. A good source on that is Dr. Chris Merrett at the WIU Rural Affairs Center.
Comment by This Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:27 pm
LOL. Do I care to do free legal work for police? Not often, no.
Sometimes, I do answer condescending or rude questions for the sake of dispelling any onlooker confusion, but in this case, I don’t think most people ARE under any delusions that jail operations are somehow unchecked by laws, rules, regulations, executive orders, judicial orders, court opinions, constitutional interpretation, federal and state correctional standards…
So I must decline with all due, and I do mean due, respect.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:29 pm
I think we all need to take a bit of a breath here. I know that there are Sherriff’s claiming they won’t enforce the law. But that’s just politicking. Not everyone is going to get a pass.
I’m sure there are those that live in these counties that might deserve the scrutiny the law affords. And they certainly might arrest you if you were passing through the area and, you know, “looked suspicious.”
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:30 pm
“court that issued the same” entails that there should be a specific court order, not just a broad “law” to enforce. But maybe taking a page from Abbot’s book JB will start offering constituents monetary compensation for turning in their neighbors. Sounds like a joke?
Comment by Not a fan Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:31 pm
===You may be surprised to learn===
Interesting stuff indeed.
I’m always fascinated by the statistical points, not the anecdotal thoughts, and to that point you’d think rural areas seeing an influx of population would realize for their idea of living to continue they’d want to be more inclusive, but voting and candidates that win and how they win speak to a different thought of that… let along the thoughts of the ILGOP
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:33 pm
-This looks like a giant copy of the sanctuary state scheme. Refuse to check for registration status is the same as refusing to check for immigration status.-
Except the first is legally mandated (or will be) and the second is not. But other than that, yep, perfectly the same. /s
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 4:53 pm
===You may be surprised to learn===
You mean the diverse population increase in Cass County or Beardstown mostly due to the meat packing plant that had to attract immigrant workers from outside the US because they couldn’t find local kids who wanted to work those jobs or there wasn’t enough workers in such a rural area to fill those jobs? I’m glad that immigrants from Mexico or elsewhere were able to take those jobs and now live in the community. But were it not for that company I doubt you would be able to say Cass County is so diverse now.
Comment by Baloneymous Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:05 pm
===mostly due to the meat packing plant that had to attract immigrant workers from outside the US because they couldn’t find local kids who wanted to work those jobs or there wasn’t enough workers in such a rural area to fill those jobs?===
If I’m being at all honest, I was waiting for another person to put the numbers to a reason for a discussion to the “why”
I’m glad for this clarity as well
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:11 pm
=assisting local law enforcement in their crime control activities.=
Nice try, but there is hardly any way anyone with even the slightest legal experience/knowledge would interpret this as giving ISP authority to take over a county jail. Having worked in criminal justice in this state for well over 20 years, I assure you this is not the case.
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:26 pm
===but there is hardly any way===
Hardly is doing a lot of work there.
Maybe no one has enforced it?
I kid, I *kid*
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:29 pm
The latest maps show most of the state saying they won’t enforce. You have Cook, Lake, and Champaign saying they will.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:39 pm
===maps===
Land isn’t population.
You need to hang out with McCombie if you think land matters when talking about actual people.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:41 pm
***jails were NOT subject to***
Please excuse my typo
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:44 pm
I remember Deputy Sheriff being a proud anti-vaxxer so bear that in mind when he pretends to be knowledgeable and rational.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:46 pm
Land matters when you don’t have nearly enough State Police to cover what they need to do now, let alone trying to enforce this.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:48 pm
@Big Dipper
I never engaged in any anti-vaccine discussion, you’re mistaken. What I said was there was not a legal remedy for law enforcement to enforce mask mandates. If you’re gonna throw stones at me, please do so accurately.
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:50 pm
===Land matters when you don’t have nearly enough State Police to cover what they need to do now, let alone trying to enforce this.===
Like a child, you want this to be a game, you don’t believe in the rule of law, you mock the sense of it.
Your childish thought is like when a 6 year old thinks of all the kool places to play “Hide and Seek”
Meanwhile polling where actual people live indicates that a majority want to see assault weapons managed.
As others “hide”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:53 pm
===I never engaged in any anti-vaccine discussion, you’re mistaken===
Yes you did.
With me.
Would you care to change your remarks or should I show you?
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 5:54 pm
4/14/22
“I am not vaccinated — neither is 98% of my agency…. The negative affect on our office…. 0″
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:00 pm
Tips cap to - Big Dipper -
Was *kinda* waiting for the “oh no I didn’t”, but…
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:03 pm
States Attorneys are now stepping forward to protest the law.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:17 pm
===States Attorneys are now stepping forward to protest the law.===
Reminds me of DeVore. lol
They should just take it to court.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:19 pm
Has this met the record for the number of comments on CapitolFax?
Comment by BCOSEC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:22 pm
I am sure they will file suit. The State’s Attorney I saw was Union County, but he mentioned other States Attorneys involved with protesting the Safe-T Act. It’s only been a couple days. Several other suits are in the works by various parties. I haven’t seen the NRA yet.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:25 pm
===I am sure they will file suit.===
They will. This ain’t no great revelation by you, thinking you have some mystic answer, lol
This was always gonna be… pass, sign, then it will go to the courts.
The politics is truly awful for Republicans now, going forward… as land don’t vote.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:27 pm
== Has this met the record for the number of comments on CapitolFax? ==
I think it still has a ways to go to reach a few of the pension clause threads.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:27 pm
A Jack, the sundown town state’s attorney may not understand that, while the SAFE-T Act reduced the power of prosecutors, this law increases it, so he is likely to find fewer friends.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:37 pm
RNUG - Did you get an answer to your question earlier this week about how to prove a magazine was owned prior to implementation ? Also, Am I interpreting this law correctly that Assault Weapons can’t be transferred in State after implementation including via a will ?
Comment by Anotheretiree Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 6:45 pm
Still waiting for legal citations on ISP having authority to take over a sheriff’s jail….
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 7:03 pm
Is it known how many Illinoians are or will be in violation of this statute if they do not take timely action?
I suspect this legislation affects more persons than the PFA of the SAFE T Act, but is there any idea as to numbers?
There is arrest data in Illinois. Is there data in the public domain regarding possession of the subject weapons?
Comment by BCOSEC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 7:05 pm
BTW I have tried to use Google here, but just found general gun ownership numbers, and haven’t had any luck on assault weapons ownership data.
I’ll keep trying, don’t want to be deemed a lazy poster.
Comment by BCOSEC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 7:14 pm
===Still waiting===
Can you hold your breath while you’re waiting?
At least make it entertaining.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 7:27 pm
The former AG wouldn’t defend the lawsuit regarding marriage equality. Police and prosecutors can choose to not arrest or prosecute certain cases. The Cook County SA doesn’t prosecute non-dui suspended licenses. Is this different?
Comment by Spooky32 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 7:47 pm
Illinois prosecutors refuse to defend gay marriage ban June 21, 2012 (ABC 7 chicago) Madigan and Alvarez refused to defend the ban stating its unconstitutional.
Comment by Spooky32 Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:00 pm
BCOSEC, there are probably around 750,000 assault weapons and 9 million magazines over 10 rounds (some of which are permissible under the version that passed allowing 15 rounds for handgun magazines) in IL.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:01 pm
== Also, Am I interpreting this law correctly that Assault Weapons can’t be transferred in State after implementation including via a will ? ==
- Anotherretiree -
As I read it, banned firearms can be transferred to family members / heirs. But they will have to get a FOID and also file a registration affidavit within a period of time. Think I read 60 days, but don’t take that as the final word.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:07 pm
Stephanie Kollman. Thank you for that data.
Of course, many owners own multiple of the subject weapons/magazines, etc. So maybe tough to pin down in terms of “people affected” data?
The stats I see nationally are that about 30% of US adults own a firearm and about 44% live in a household where I firearm is present. Of course, a small percentage of firearms are impacted by this law, as you note.
Disregarding arguments for or against this new law, it does affect a significant number of Illinoians.
I have been thinking about enforcement. Before I comment further on that, I will do some reading about the experiences of other states with similar laws. However, I would very much welcome comments on enforcement from those more knowledgeable than me about this issue.
Comment by BCOSEC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:21 pm
Sorry, I misspelled your last name. Kollmann.
Comment by BCOSEC Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:23 pm
== 9 million magazines over 10 rounds … ==
Just about every ‘assault rifle’ mag for an AR-15 or equivalent is now banned since they are typically sold with 15 round mags and are now limited to 10.
The 15 limit on pistols will have less effect in terms of banning mags. 10, 12, or 15 is the typical mag size for popular 9mm semi-automatic pistols, although some came with a capacity of 17.
This bill, in terms of a firearm ban, is actually more public relations than actually addressing firearms violence. I think someone here cited statistics that ‘assault rifles’ are only used in something like 2% of shootings. Yes, those 2% are often mass shootings, but seni-auto pistols can do the same damage in the same time. All it does about pistols is ban the ridiculously large, 30+, magazines favored by certain groups. If you ‘need’ 30 rounds in a pistol, you are definitely in the wrong neighborhood.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:26 pm
==Can you hold your breath while you’re waiting?==
Such a pleasant and polished individual you are OW
Comment by Deputy Sheriff Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:31 pm
===Such a pleasant and polished individual===
So you won’t hold your breath? That’s a no?
:)
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:34 pm
RE: number of comments, some of the Blago impeachment/arrest threads were nearly 1000, I thought. It’s been a while, so I may be mistaken.
Comment by Former ILSIP Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 8:53 pm
Jasper County Sheriff Brandon Francis, originally elected as a Dem but who has since switched parties, has issued the same statement. Disappointing.
Comment by Shibboleth Thursday, Jan 12, 23 @ 9:50 pm
Former ILSIP…. that is my recollection about Blago arrest being the highest, at least since I’ve been here. That was a fine day back in ‘08.
Comment by Vote Quimby Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 1:11 am
Quite a thread.
If the Deputy is still around, I would like to pose a question. In his opinion, is there any legal reason why a county sheriff couldn’t simply open the doors to the jailhouse and let all of the prisoners out?
Comment by Concerned Observer Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 6:21 am
I have a question for Todd if he can and will answer it.
The last time I purchased a firearm, a laptop was handed to me to fill out multiple pages of questions. I am sure you know the routine so I won’t get into details too much. After completing the form, I believe it was sent electronically to the ISP along with what I think was a form describing the firearm.
I am not positive what all was sent to the ISP, but if a description of the firearm was sent with the laptop form, why would the law state that certain firearms have to be registered with the ISP?
I could be wrong about the details of the paperwork filed the day of taking possession of the firearm.
Comment by redleg Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 7:19 am
Your UPdate to comments needs updated. In Dec. 2022 the United States Supreme Court sent notices to three different Federal Appellate Courts in Maryland, California and Hawaii to reconsider their decisions concerning assault weapon bans, magazine capacity and the right to carry in light of the Supreme Court decision in Bruen. In other words they are telling those Federal Courts that those are unconstitutional and to rule as such.
Comment by The law Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 8:07 am
The laptop you mention during a sale only gets the ISP your FOID# and ties it to a purchase of either a handgun or long gun. FFL’s are not legally allowed to inform the ISP of the serial number of the weapon sold.
Comment by Not a fan Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 8:50 am
I’m closing comments on this one. A fresh thread is here: https://capitolfax.com/2023/01/13/states-attorney-takes-local-sheriff-to-task-for-unilateral-approach-on-gun-ban-law/
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 13, 23 @ 8:51 am