* For the second time in a week, a Downstate county state’s attorney has decided to issue his own local rules for concealed carry. Last week, it was the Madison County state’s attorney. This week, it’s Randolph County State’s Attorney Jeremy Walker…
“In May I spoke with the Randolph County Police Association and indicated I would give the legislature and the governor until June 9 (the date mandated by the Federal Appellate Court) to give citizens the opportunity to carry concealed weapons,” Walker said.
“June 9 has come and gone with no resolution. Accordingly, I feel it is time to act.”
Walker said the following guidelines will be given to all local police agencies regarding people who wish to carry concealed weapons:
* The person must have a valid Firearm Owners Identification Cars (FOID);
* The person must not be prohibited from possessing a firearm under any Court Order or Statute;
* The firearm must be concealed on the person, or in a vehicle;
* The person must not be engaged in any criminal conduct;
* If stopped by a police officer, the person must immediately notify the officer if he or she is carrying a weapon;
* The person may not carry a weapon in the courthouse, any school or any church.
Provided these requirements are met, the State’s Attorney’s Office will not file charges related to the carrying of concealed weapons, Walker said.
Walker’s announcement came with one warning: “One should still be cautioned the Illinois State Police has indicated, after other jurisdictions have announced similar plans, they will still arrest people for conceal carry violations. If they choose to arrest someone, the State’s Attorney’s office will not prosecute if the above criteria are met.
Discuss.
- Downstation - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
I don’t see what the problem is here. There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. If the people of Randolph and Madison counties do not like this policy, then vote for a different States Attorney next election. I have a feeling that most of them are OK with it.
- Skirmisher - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:18 pm:
It is refreshing to see Downstate flex some muscle. I believe States Attornies have always had discretion on just how they would prosecute the law in their jurisdictions, and if all downstate counties followed suit and followed the Randolph County criteria, it would serve as a pretty good nullification of a rather onerous set of Chicago conditions.
- Anon - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:19 pm:
Fine by me. It’s our right, and we’ve waited long enough to join the other 49 states with the long court timeframe, extensions, and implementation times.
- railrat - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:20 pm:
come on Gov. go ahead and AV this thing so the legislators can override your AV and put this nonsense to bed !!! sheesh
- Curious - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:22 pm:
Former state senate candidate
- BR - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:25 pm:
These States Attorney’s are abiding by the US (2A) AND Illinois Constitutions…specifically the Bill of Rights ARTICLE I SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:29 pm:
I’m just glad the justice system uses discretion and doesn’t ticket, arrest or prosecute me every time I jaywalk.
That said, this is a dangerous game we’re playing.
It has been ever since the Attorney General and the Cook County State’s Attorney declined to defend the state against certain lawusits concerning another controversial issue last summer.
Legal experts pointed out the dangers of allowing this to happen, but no one raised much of a fuss at the time. Now we get this. Great.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:31 pm:
A State’s Attorney has absolutely no power or right whatsoever to make up laws on their own. This is, in my opinion, a complete failure to uphold their duty to enforce the laws of this state. Regardless of what some of you have said, a State’s Attorney doesn’t simply have the right to decide what he thinks the Constitution says and everything else be damned. A court determined CC must be allowed. A law has been passed and is awaiting signature. A court has granted an extension of the timeframe for the implementation of CC to July 9. This is nothing but a stunt and has absolutely no legal basis whatsoever. The man should be sanctioned for violating his duty as a law enforcement representative of the state. Absolutely despicable.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:34 pm:
Lol, this is awesome.
Chances of this being a problem are slim anyways. No big deal. They can’t even catch criminals who are carrying concealed already. They have the miconception that carrying makes a person a criminal.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:44 pm:
Interesting. It actually looks like this has been going on for a while now.
McLean County, Edwards County and others essentially stopped prosecuting concealed carry cases some time ago.
Flashback: https://capitolfax.com/2012/08/22/states-attorneys-not-enforcing-concealed-carry-law/
That made news and became public in August 2012 - shortly after Madigan and Alvarez made public their decision not to defend another set of laws in June 2012.
This is part of what makes CapFax such an excellent community and source. You learn things here you would never find elsewhere. Thank you, Rich.
- BR - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:51 pm:
To Demoralized.. why should any States Atty waste his or her’s staffs time and money prosecuting laws already deemed to be unconstitutional? Your buds in Cook County ignore the law when it comes to deporting (holding for Feds) illegal immigrants… and those laws ARE constitutional. Chicago has a Safe Haven law for Illegals? Talk about wrong…
- siriusly - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 3:58 pm:
Did this genius not realize that the deadline was extended to July 9 before he decided to declare himself the arbiter of all things Constitutional?
wow
- pfft~ - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:00 pm:
Can’t believe some folks hammering these SA’s. Have they noticed there are federal laws that the SOI and (Cook) Co decided not to uphold/enforce and do what they see fit such as immigration and medicaid? Some just can’t deal with it when what comes around goes around (sorry for the cliche Rich).
- Robert Wadlow - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:29 pm:
Can someone explain to me how this is different from entire states (CA, CO) legislating to not enforce federal marijuana laws or the federal government choosing not to enforce federal immigration laws? I just don’t get the difference. There’s discretion in choosing not to enforce or not to prosecute in those examples.
And, both Gibbons and Walker will be heroes amongst their Democrat constituencies AND their Republican opposition with these moves. Anyone who says otherwise has a perspective that has never been south of Springfield. They both punched a ticket to in unopposed reelection.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:33 pm:
===There’s discretion in choosing not to enforce or not to prosecute===
I agree fully.
However, it’s just odd that they’ve come up with their own “rules” while they wait on the new state law. It’s one thing not to enforce a law. That happens all the time. It’s another, though, to say, “I won’t enforce the existing UUW law as long as you follow my own special rules.”
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:45 pm:
I knew that nature abhors a vacuum , apparently neither do lawyers
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:55 pm:
@BR:
First of all I don’t have any “buds” in Cook County. Second, I don’t have a problem with him choosing to use a bit of discretion right now knowing that CC is almost here. But that’s not the way he couched it. He essentially said he’s making the law and his law is that CC is allowed. Will it be? Yes it will. But not until at least July 9, which is how long the Judge extended the deadline to. Wait until the law goes into effect and leave it at that. This is a complete stunt. Discretion is one thing. Choosing to make your own laws is quite another. The State’s Atty in this case has chosen to make his own law. There is a difference and what is wrong is that you apparently can’t see it right in front of your face.
Oh, and your quote of the Illinois Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is meaningless. CC isn’t law until it’s law. I say again that a State’s Atty, or anybody else for that matter, has absolutely no right to decide that they get to interpret the Constitution. That is done by those people called judges. A judge did so and the State’s Atty should be following that judge’s lead not usurping his power by making laws.
The fact that anybody would be ok with this sickens me. If this is all it takes then why don’t we just get our State’s Atty’s to declare SSM the law in their counties. Screw the GA. We don’t need them or judges apparently.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 4:56 pm:
Egos and ambition abound. Everyone of them is setting up a political campaign. All of a sudden States Attorneys write their own laws? What nonsense!
Just wait for the bill to become law, and do your job.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 5:09 pm:
This is more than just using prosecutorial discretion, this out and out subversion of the rule of law and constitutional separation of powers. These SA’s are literally creating their own set of law. Particularly galling in this case, the SA says “June 9 has come and gone with no resolution,” completely ignoring the fact that a 30 day extension to the stay was granted. You wonder how some people are allowed to operate as officially-sanctioned legal actors.
- Nick - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 5:27 pm:
If Quinn does an AV of the CCW bill that, for example, adds a section that limits the sale of magazines to 10 rounds, would that require a simple majority for the GA to concur, or would it still need the three-fifths majority because the original bill pre-empted home rule?
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 5:35 pm:
Not being able to carry in church would not have helped Mary Shepard.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 5:38 pm:
=== a State’s Atty, or anybody else for that matter, has absolutely no right to decide that they get to interpret the Constitution. ===
Which is why some people were so surprised by the choices Madigan and Alvarez made last summer not to defend the state against certain types of lawsuits.
Their decision struck some as a surefire recipe for chaos, but no one in state leadership stepped up to push back.
As Alvarez put it at the time, “I’m not going to defend something I believe is in violation of the constitution.”
One could easily make the same case in re: many gun laws, specifically concealed carry.
Now we are seeng the trickle down effect of those recent choices made by leadership.
After all, if the AG and Cook County State’s Attorney can do it, why not the Madison County State’s Attorney? Or the Sangamon County State’s Attorney?
Our legal leaders set a bad precedent on this one, and the fish rots from the head down.
Either the Governor, the General Assembly or the Department of Justice needs to somehow reel this back in asap, but that would require some intra-party courage.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 5:52 pm:
@Formerly:
They weren’t making law. They were exercising discretion on defending a law. That’s an entirely separate issue. They still enforced the laws that existed. They made a determination that they didn’t believe a law was Constitutional but they didn’t translate that into saying they were making their own laws. Whether or not you believe what they did is right is a point of debate but it’s not the same thing as what this State’s Atty. did.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 6:23 pm:
–To Demoralized.. why should any States Atty waste his or her’s staffs time and money prosecuting laws already deemed to be unconstitutional?–
There is not, and never has been, any Constitutional right to conceal-carry.
Do the reading, daddio.
To the issue — whatever. I’m not shocked that some state’s attorneys put on shiny suits and call in the TV cameras to pretend that they’re James Madison.
If I were a citizen in those counties, however, I’d be a little concerned about the civil liability of some fool with a gun doing something stupid and rolling the state’s attorney’s press conference as a defense.
- Judgment Day (Road Trip) - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 6:50 pm:
“However, it’s just odd that they’ve come up with their own “rules” while they wait on the new state law. It’s one thing not to enforce a law. That happens all the time. It’s another, though, to say, “I won’t enforce the existing UUW law as long as you follow my own special rules.””
It’s likely that this was done as a result of unofficial request(s) from local law enforcement. There’s always a cry of “what’s the rules” in these types of situations, so now the local LE has some ‘guidelines’ to follow.
Makes local LE happy, makes most (not all) of the attorneys happy, and makes most of the non-partisan local population happy. Likely even makes the local judges happy.
This action just takes one more item off the plate (for the time being).
- x ace - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 8:04 pm:
Agree with Mr. Miller that creating “special rules” is problematic. And Wordslinger’s concern about “civil liability” appears on target.
Think it has been long settled that a State’s Attorney who steps out of the prosecution role into the investigation role loses the benefit of absolute immunity.
That loss of immunity, puts the State’s Attorney and their County at much greater risk , and those risks may well be outside insurable liability coverage.
In turn , legislating “special rules” seems to put the State’s Attorney and County at undue risk.
And if that risk is not insurable , then the overall assets of the County and the personal fortune of the State’s Attorney are up for grabs.
Good Intentions - But Risk Too Great - So Bad Move by the State’s Attorney
- DaveS - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 8:35 pm:
@Demoralized
“a State’s Atty, or anybody else for that matter, has absolutely no right to decide that they get to interpret the Constitution. That is done by those people called judges”
Nonsense
We the people have every right to interpret the Constitution. The government after all is our creation. We tell it what our rights are, not the other way around. Two ways we do this stand out. First of course is the time honored tradition of jury nullification (fugitive slave act, alcohol prohibition, prohibition of raw milk sales) The second is by wide spread public violation of laws that we the people deem beyond the power of government to enact. (alcohol prohibition, forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus, prohibition on marijuana)
In any case, how could a respectable legal professional consider themselves to be adhering to their oath of office if they attempt to prosecute a suspect accused of violating a prohibition that was ruled unconstitutional when the suspect has been afforded no other means of lawfully engaging in the prohibited activity.
Yes, I know..the ruling was stayed. We all know what the ruling said however. Considering that the 15+ states that permit the unregulated carrying of openly displayed (and in a few cases concealed) firearms do not suffer ill effects under their laws, the stay really should not have been issued in the first place.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:16 pm:
>>>>> Do the reading, daddio.
Did the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals not rule on this?
Illinois’ law prohibiting carry of any kind by the citizenry is unconstitutional.
- yo yo - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 9:33 pm:
@Nick (If Quinn does an AV of the CCW bill that, for example, adds a section that limits the sale of magazines to 10 rounds, would that require a simple majority for the GA to concur, or would it still need the three-fifths majority because the original bill pre-empted home rule?):
Phelps gets to control the bill since he’s the sponsor and it’s a House bill. I don’t think he’d move to accept any AV issued by the Governor, and I dont think an AV that adds a magazine ban would be approved by the Rules committee. Any AV would take a super majority vote because the bill has an immediate effective date. I presume Phelps will move to override. That also requires a super majority.
- BR - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 10:11 pm:
So it is ok when the Mayor of Chicago gives the orders to the States Atty to not obey Federal law and turn over Illegal Immigrants to the Feds when they are done serving their sentences for CRIMINAL ACTS? But we LAW ABIDING Citizens..are being denied our basic rights…. in PLAIN English it says our Rights to keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed. Even HB183 could be deemed Unconstitutional if pressed…
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 10:17 pm:
–There is not, and never has been, any Constitutional right to conceal-carry.
Do the reading, daddio.–
Problem, JJ? I don’t think so.
And Dave S, you’re talking out your tukkus. Unless you think John C. Calhoun and Timothy McVeigh are the goods.
- BR - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 10:39 pm:
Keep and BEAR ARMS… does NOT differentiate between open or concealed… it says we CAN BEAR ARMS… (Your choice Open carry and/or concealed). Keep and bear and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is very clear.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 10:47 pm:
–Keep and BEAR ARMS… does NOT differentiate between open or concealed… it says we CAN BEAR ARMS… (Your choice Open carry and/or concealed). Keep and bear and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is very clear.–
Well, now that you’ve chosen to put some words in ALL CAPS, I’m blown away.
Well played.
Peddle that willfully ignorant stuff somewhere else. Read the decisions. Unless you’re one of those murderous sedition types who doesn’t care about the law or Constitution.
Don’t worry. I’m going to bed. I’m not coming to get your guns. But better check under the bed just to make sure.
- frustrated GOP - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 11:13 pm:
I wonder if he gave himself his own oath of office. What law school did he attend, they need to be investigated, or something is wrong with the bar exam.
- DaveS - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 11:23 pm:
@wordslinger
Sorry, but nullification is alive and well and the right of a Jury to practice. This right has been upheld time and time again. I’d even go so far as to say it is the duty of a Jury to nullify when faced with the choice of convicting a defendant of an unjust law.
New Hampshire recently passed law prohibiting Judges and Prosecutors from interfering with the defense attempts at informing a Jury of their right to nullify.
- Jake - Tuesday, Jun 11, 13 @ 11:53 pm:
Do you think the sa’s are doing this purely for politically gainful publicity? How could I be so cynical?
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 1:53 am:
==Keep and BEAR ARMS… does NOT differentiate between open or concealed… it says we CAN BEAR ARMS… (Your choice Open carry and/or concealed). Keep and bear and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is very clear.==
I guess you missed all the firearms laws the founders had on the books.
- BR - Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 7:21 am:
I must have missed…. please send a link.
- John - Wednesday, Jun 12, 13 @ 11:13 am:
Precinct Captain: “You wonder how some people are allowed to operate as officially-sanctioned legal actors.”
The reason the Randolph County State’s Attorney can issue an advisory re. concealed carry if he chooses is because he is elected directly by the people of the county. He is accounable to the local voters close to where he lives. If they don’t like what he does, they can vote him out of office next election.
Unlike Chiefs of Police or cops, who are appointed bureaucrats with civil service protections and union contracts.