* Republic-Times…
Monroe County Sheriff Neal Rohlfing is sending a message to firearm owners across the county, with the hope it reaches all the way to Springfield.
With the declaration of Monroe County as a “sanctuary county,” Rohlfing has said he will not enforce any new laws passed that infringe on Second Amendment rights.
Monroe County Board Chairman Bob Elmore said he wholeheartedly supports Rohfling’s intent.
“We want people to understand we’re for the Second Amendment; we don’t want Springfield dictating things to us because they do plenty now,” Elmore said in an interview with KMOV News 4.
The full Monroe County Board went on to unanimously pass a resolution Monday opposing the passage of several House and Senate bills “where the 100th Illinois General Assembly desires to restrict the individual right of U.S. citizens as protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
* BN-D…
Among the potential laws that the Monroe County Board and the sheriff do not support are House Bill 1465, which would make it unlawful to sell an assault weapon, .50 caliber rifles, cartridges or assault weapon attachments to any person under the age of 21.
House Bill 1467 says any municipality may not regulate assault weapons “in a manner less restrictive than the regulation by the State” and makes possession of a bump-fire stock or trigger crank illegal in Illinois. […]
The county’s resolution posted on the sheriff’s Facebook page said that those bills are violations of the Fourth Amendment.
* Fox St. Louis…
State Senator Paul Schimpf (R) of Waterloo also weighed in on the resolution.
“While I am sympathetic and just as angry and frustrated as these county officials are, when it comes to different jurisdictions saying that they are going to selectively enforce legislation, they are going to pick and choose which statutes they support, that’s something that I don’t think is consistent with the rule of law and that’s not something I agree with,” said Schimpf during a phone interview with Fox 2.
* CNN…
“We want to make a statement. We don’t want our Second Amendment rights to be stripped away from us,” David Campbell, vice chairman of the Effingham County Board, told CNN. “If we protect immigrants with sanctuary cities, why not use similar laws to protect our rights to own a gun?” he added.
According to Campbell, at least 30 of Illinois’s 102 counties have asked to see Effingham County’s resolution. So far, Iroquois, Jasper, Saline and Jefferson counties have adopted similar resolutions opposing state gun restrictions, although Iroquois County’s resolution didn’t use the “sanctuary county” language.
“Sometimes laws are passed or introduced when people don’t understand guns. For example the semi auto AR-15 is like a lot of guns we have across the country to simply hunt with,” said Saline County Board Chairman Jay Williams.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:22 am:
This is totally crackers. As a rural gun-owner, the clueless nature of these statements is insulting. People on the terrorist watch list can still buy guns legally. In many cases, people convicted of domestic abuse keep their guns. Mental illness surely isn’t keeping people from buying guns. As a legal gun owner, I see no threat whatsoever in having rules of gun ownership.
- JS Mill - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:23 am:
=“We want people to understand we’re for the Second Amendment; =
The actual Constitution and the other 25 amendments are not so important to them apparently. Illegal search and seizure? Not a big deal. Due process? Meh.
True stupidity in action.
- Mama - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:24 am:
Are so called “sanctuary Gun counties” legal?
- Perrid - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:24 am:
So the Sheriff agrees that cities and other local governments have the right to protect undocumented immigrants? Sounds like he’s conceding that point.
- M - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:26 am:
If a person needs a semi auto- AR-15 hunt with, they should give up hunting.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:27 am:
==Are so called “sanctuary Gun counties” legal?==
Are so called “sanctuary cities” legal?
In the end, prosecutors and law enforcement have discretion
- Oh Sherwiff! - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:30 am:
Isn’t the Sheriff’s statement nonsensical in that 2nd Amendment rights are literally in the context of “a well regulated” militia or individual arsenal? (Also see USC Heller).
It’s not the 2nd Amendment if it’s not well-regulated.
- Mama - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:33 am:
What about “sanctuary counties” for illegals immigrants? Is that different?
- Give Me A Break - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:33 am:
Well I don’t like the posted speed limits on Monroe County roads so I just want Rohlfing to know I will be driving a speed of my choosing when driving through his county.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:35 am:
==The county’s resolution posted on the sheriff’s Facebook page said that those bills are violations of the Fourth Amendment.==
Apparently we don’t need the judicial branch. The County can just adjudicate the constitutionality of things.
- Skeptic - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:36 am:
I didn’t think it was the Sheriff’s job to determine whether a law was Constitutional or not.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:37 am:
==Apparently we don’t need the judicial branch. The County can just adjudicate the constitutionality of things.==
Just like the City of Chicago
- Texas Red - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:38 am:
More symptoms of the bifurcation in Illinois, we have the the small town/rural Illinois vs Chicago/collar counties. No issue is as clearly defined by this divide as 2A. As a result we have local control issues 2A/sanctuary that are fraught with potential constitutional issues and that are polarizing. You gotta love this state !
- Anotheretiree - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:42 am:
I’m guessing he was against Obama’s DACA program. Deciding which laws to enforce and all..
Ducky.. I’m leery of the terrorist watch list. A secret list taking away constitutional rights with no idea how you get on or of it. Probably asking if you are on it will get you added.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:44 am:
==A secret list taking away constitutional rights==
There is no law on the books that takes away 2A rights for simply being on the Terrorist Watch List
- Wow said I - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:45 am:
well a group needs a regulated Militia, necessary to secure whatever the heck it wants,just sit back and watch sheriff. Wouldn’t want to be a cop there…
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:51 am:
==I just want Rohlfing to know I will be driving a speed of my choosing when driving through his county==
You’ll have to change your screen name to “Give me a Ticket”
- Comments Blocked for 3 days now - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:53 am:
“well a group needs a regulated Militia”
Agreed. My earlier comment (that was blocked) agrees that the whole the 2A is predicated on a “well-regulated” militia.
How can regulations violate the provision for regulation(?)
- PJ - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:56 am:
==What about “sanctuary counties” for illegals immigrants? Is that different?==
Yes. This whole thing seems driven by (shocker!) utter ignorance. The term “sanctuary city” is pretty optimistically misleading. It just means the police there don’t actively do the work of ICE by holding people in detention. That’s all. ICE makes plenty of arrests in “sanctuary cities” and no one tries to stop them. It’s just an issue of how much the locals cooperate with the feds.
This is different because it’s a county just deciding what’s constitutional. The equivalent is a liberal county in Texas deciding it’s going to be an “abortion sanctuary” and not enforce laws about late-term abortions because it doesn’t want to.
Somehow I think conservative positions on the issue might change.
- Gooner - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:57 am:
Somebody should tell the sheriff that the courts decide whether a law violates the Second Amendment. He sounds confused as to his job.
- @misterjayem - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 11:58 am:
Illinois didn’t need its own Roy Moore or Joe Arpaio, but it seems we got one.
– MrJM
- JS Mill - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:09 pm:
Antonin Scalia (whom I am sure this sheriff is/was a big fan) was a self-proclaimed constitutional originalist.
When the 2nd Amendment was passed, the only gins around were muskets.
These lunatics have my permission to have a musket.
I always enjoy the hypocrisy some of the guys live. No issues with random “safety checks” or confiscation, and I am sure he loves him some Patriot Act. 4th and 14th Amendment be darned.
But tell someone they don’t need an M-60 or an AR 15, well, that is a line in the sand that cannot be crossed.
Maybe it isn’t taxes driving people out of rural Illinois.
- Downstate - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:10 pm:
So, sanctuary status to protect a constitutional right is bad. But, sanctuary status to willfully violate federal law is good.
I think I got it now.
- PJ - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:13 pm:
==So, sanctuary status to protect a constitutional right is bad==
Just to be clear - you think each individual county should get to decide what’s constitutional? I’d love to get your thoughts on sanctuary counties for abortions, where the constitutionally protected right to an abortion is not infringed by red state laws.
- JS Mill - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:27 pm:
=So, sanctuary status to protect a constitutional right is bad. But, sanctuary status to willfully violate federal law is good.
I think I got it now.=
Yeah, you got it alright.
A constitutional right does not require a local government ceremonial “sanctuary status”. It is protected by the U.S.A. In essence, the USA is a constitutional sanctuary nation.
Got it?
- AC - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:35 pm:
It’s too bad the sheriff isn’t as passionate about the 4th amendment.
- Roadrager - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:38 pm:
==“If we protect immigrants with sanctuary cities, why not use similar laws to protect our rights to own a gun?”==
Uh, because guns aren’t people? This is why, if you break a gun, you don’t get charged with first-degree murder for it.
This seems simple to me, but the Firearm Personhood Act of 2018 is probably being drafted as I speak, so what do I know.
- JohnnyPyleDriver - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:42 pm:
wait, are there legitimately people who think this is the same as sanctuary cities for immigrants?
oy
A “sanctuary city” is one that refuses to use local dollars to enforce federal immigration policies and indefinitely hold suspects in jails at local taxpayer expense. Cities opt to become sanctuary cities because they don’t have the resources nor the jurisdiction.
What’s being discussed here is just a refusal to do their literal job based on picking and choosing which laws they like and don’t like
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:47 pm:
==I think I got it now.==
I think it’s readily apparent that you don’t.
- Anon - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:48 pm:
This actually is a big deal downstate as any new laws that JB tries to put on the books likely will not be enforced downstate.
This only furthers the divide here in IL between downstate and chicago.
- Cook County Commoner - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:52 pm:
Illinois leads the nation with an estimated 7000 local government units. This was the result of localities being inspired by Frank Sinatra to do things “My Way.”
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 12:54 pm:
==This actually is a big deal downstate as any new laws that JB tries to put on the books likely will not be enforced downstate.==
That’s just idiotic. Nor do I believe any such thing.
- Saluki - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:06 pm:
Illinois would be much more Governable if it were two states instead of one. This is example #345,875.
- Belle - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:19 pm:
Not to sound like an illegal communist from a sanctuary city, but if we don’t want to get shot, is there a place to register? It seems like only people with guns have rights these days.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:26 pm:
==But, sanctuary status to willfully violate federal law is good.
Holding someone indefinitely without charge or warrant is certainly unconstitutional, don’t you think?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:35 pm:
–Somebody should tell the sheriff that the courts decide whether a law violates the Second Amendment. He sounds confused as to his job.–
Many are.
Although the word “sheriff” is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, there are many Buford T. Justice’s around the country who have convinced themselves that they are the sole interpreter of the Constitution and law within their jurisdictions, and are accountable to no other authority.
There’s no rationale or coherent argument for this belief. But it’s being applied in counties throughout the country. A very sinister, lawless development.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/the-renegade-sheriffs
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
== there are many Buford T. Justice’s around the country who have convinced themselves that they are the sole interpreter of the Constitution and law within their jurisdictions, and are accountable to no other authority.==
See Arpaio, Joe
- Swift - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:41 pm:
Something tells me that the “gun sanctuary” status in Monroe County won’t apply to citizens with a darker skin tone than the Sheriff.
- Turn it up - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:44 pm:
I thought the U.S. Supreme Court decided what is or isn’t Constitutional…not county sherrif’s or county board members.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:53 pm:
–I thought the U.S. Supreme Court decided what is or isn’t Constitutional…not county sherrif’s or county board members.–
No, these geniuses have it all figured out. Here’s a taste:
–In addition to upholding the law, the sheriff is also charged with upholding the supreme law, the Constitution. The law enforcement powers held by the sheriff supersede those of any agent, officer, elected official or employee from any level of government when in the jurisdiction of the county. The vertical separation of powers in the Constitution makes it clear that the power of the sheriff even supersedes the powers of the President. Furthermore, it is this responsibility that grants a Sheriff the Constitutional authority to check and balance all levels of government within the jurisdiction of the County.–
Below is a link to more of the actual nonsensical gibberish that real sheriffs in the country claim makes them sole authority within their jurisdictions.
It would be funny, except these dudes can tune you up really badly in a hurry if they want to.
http://cspoa.org/about/
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 1:57 pm:
So basically the Sheriff is the dictator. Did I get that right Word?
- Amalia - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:03 pm:
who gets down there first to interview folks? John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, or Samantha Bee?
- btowntruthfromforgottonia - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:04 pm:
A sanctuary county for guns?
And not a single county board member said “this sounds at best paranoid”.
- SOIL M - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:06 pm:
The Bills they do not support, I do not support either.
The Sheriff took an oath to enforce all laws, not only tye laws that he agrees with.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I think Sen. Schimpf is on the right track.
- Fayette County - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
Add Fayette County to the list. It was approved by the County Board unanimously this week.
- SAP - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:21 pm:
Monroe County Sheriff Neal Rohlfing is obviously not Attorney General timber.
- Smitty Irving - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:23 pm:
Wordslinger -
It gets worse. There are judges that, through injudicious use of language, encourage these delusions of grandeur. Like the PA Supreme Court Justice, in a majority opinion, gave sheriffs common law powers all the way back to Merry Olde England, and stated that power even existed for the Sheriff of Nottingham. Commonwealth of PA v Leet.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:30 pm:
It’s all or nothing.
You can’t wink at law enforcement ignoring laws you don’t support, but whine when they ignore laws you do support.
- Just Me - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:31 pm:
The Monroe County Sheriff might want to ask the Tazewell County Sheriff about the consequences of not enforcing gun laws.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:42 pm:
–You can’t wink at law enforcement ignoring laws you don’t support, but whine when they ignore laws you do support.–
For example?
- Todd - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:49 pm:
JS you just pole vaulted right to patato.
Muskets were the same arms the Militia used. There was parity. And as Scalia wrote:
ome have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
So modern firearms are protected and I don’t need your permission for anything over a musket.
Its a simple concept, that IF locals can turn a blind eye to some laws they don’t like and not inform, report or aid federal authorities in deporting someone. Then why not let the guys down south decide that there are laws the Chicago legislators pass that they don’t like and won’t enforce.
“I see you have a 30 round magazine for an AR, please put it out of sight and slow down on these country roads. have a nice day.”
“I see a gun case in the back seat, I’ll bet its just that .22 you got from your granpaw.”
Yup all kinds of discretion there on who gets cuffed
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:54 pm:
“I see you have a 30 round magazine for an AR, please put it out of sight and slow down on these country roads. have a nice day.”
“I see a gun case in the back seat, I’ll bet its just that .22 you got from your granpaw.”
Or…
“I confiscated your psycho kid’s guns after his FOID card was revoked. You take them, but pinky-swear to keep them away from him….”
- Gooner - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 2:59 pm:
Vanilla Man,
It is state law v. federal.
A local sheriff is not a U.S. Marshall or the FBI (or INS). His job is to enforce state law.
So no, it is not all or nothing.
- Springfieldish - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 3:13 pm:
Belle: There IS such a place! It’s called Australia, where handguns and AR-15’s a banned. SMH
- Former Hillrod - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 3:25 pm:
*But tell someone they don’t need an M-60 or an AR-15…*
That statement is dishonest at best. An M-60 is a .30 cal military grade machine gun not available to the general public. An AR-15 is a type of semi-auto civilian grade rifle that has been in the market for years. At least argue as if you know something about what you are talking about.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
==It is state law v. federal==
Doesn’t matter.
You either support federalism or you don’t, and we usually have until some communities don’t want the higher level of government negatively effecting them.
Whether it is the Feds forcing Federal laws, or states enforcing state laws, the higher government decides.
County officers shouldn’t ignore state and
Federal laws, and states shouldn’t ignore Federal laws. You can’t let “sanctuary” cities ignore Federal and state laws.
Don’t like a law? Elect people to change it. Until then, follow the law.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 3:49 pm:
Nothing kills a bad law faster than enforcing it. Ignoring it is foolish.
- Goonerp - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:05 pm:
Vanilla, do you expect the FBI to stop someone from going 40 in a 35 zone? Do you expect Sheriff Dart to issue OSHa citations for improper fall protection on a 60 story project? Sure it matters. State law is enforced by local police, county sheriffs and state police. Federal violations are left to the federal.
- Rod - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:15 pm:
The sanctuary county movement as it relates to anticipated new gun laws in Illinois has been discussed now for months by ISRA members and GOA members here in Illinois. It is based to be honest on a presumption that at least a law similar to Connecticut’s on certain semi-automatic firearms defined as “assault weapons” and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds will pass the Assembly and be signed into law by Democrat Governor Pritzker in January 2019. That law is CGS 53–202, registration in Connecticut is now required for so called assault weapons purchased between September 13, 1994 and April 1, 2014. the law prohibits the sale, of new AR type guns and makes it illegal to bring the weaponry in from out of state.
Currently in Connecticut there are at least 51,763 rifles designated as assault weapons and additionally, 40,491 residents filed paperwork showing they owned ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Failure to register these weapons is a felony in Connecticut. It can be reduced to a misdemeanor if an owner can prove it was bought before the spring 2013 vote in the Connecticut General Assembly, but even then, gun-ownership rights can be terminated because of the failure to register. The Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen believes that only about 10% of the AR type weapons have actually been registered.
It is in anticipation of this type of situation that the Monroe County Board and Sheriff Neal Rohlfing have endorsed the sanctuary county movement. No serious gun owners in Illinois believe that the more limited restriction being discussed in Illinois will be the end of laws assuming Pritzker is elected because he supports the Connecticut type ban which has been found to be for the most part legal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Shew v. Malloy and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
So as an ISRA member I do not believe that the sanctuary county movement is absurd, it assumes that a law similar to Connecticut’s will pass and eventually be signed by a Democrat Governor in Illinois. Each gun owner to their own solution in that situation, I likely will move any rifles or magazines found in violation of new Illinois laws to my Clark County Wisconsin home to a gun vault I have there.
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:34 pm:
==I likely will move any rifles or magazines found in violation of new Illinois laws to my Clark County Wisconsin home to a gun vault I have there==
Which is exactly what the anti-2nds want. It would be much more effective to move your possessions, labor, talents, family, SS, pension, tax payments, etc. to Wisconsin along with your firearms, effectively voting with your feet. Stop in Racine and pick up some Kringle, the raspberry is my favorite.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 4:42 pm:
==I see you have a 30 round magazine for an AR==
Nobody needs a 30 round magazine. There isn’t a rational reason in the world for a civilian to have one. To oppose such a restriction is absolute lunacy.
- Rod - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:19 pm:
Stuntman Bob’s Brother I have been though this before when Chicago passed its hand gun ban. I registered one gun here and move the rest up to Clark County Wisconsin registering numerous hand guns was just crazy. I am opposed to the ban of semi-auto rifles called ARs, but I believe that Rauner will not be reelected to veto these bills and new ones to be written based on the Connecticut framework. I will not face felony charges to act militant sorry, nor have thousands of dollars worth of gun taken by the police.
To Demoralized I do have such magazines and you are of course free to believe having such loading devises is not rational. As is obvious I do not share your opinion.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:22 pm:
–To Demoralized I do have such magazines and you are of course free to believe having such loading devises is not rational.–
What is the good reason a law-abiding citizen like yourself needs 30 rounds of load at a time? Raccoons?
- Past the Rule of 85 - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:35 pm:
This is what happens when you don’t properly fund education.
- jwr - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 5:55 pm:
thank you springfieldish for the info. might just head that way the way trumpism is these days it has to be better and much safer they also have good beer i hear
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 6:02 pm:
==I will not face felony charges to act militant sorry==
Please re-read, Rod, that wasn’t my suggestion. For me, the trigger to leave this asylum won’t be gun rights, but it may very well be real-estate taxes - once I retire, I just can’t see spending ten percent of my pension income on real estate tax. I don’t really have a dog in the fight regarding guns, except that I believe the solution to gun violence is not to criminalize ownership by responsible citizens, but to federalize illegal firearm possession and use, and hand out LONG sentences to those in violation - regulate the activity, not the object. Your 30-round magazine doesn’t scare me 1/1000th as much as the eight round magazine being carried by a gang-banger.
- Rod - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 6:10 pm:
wordslinger I see no point in answering that question its pretty clear there is no dialog on this issue on Rich’s blog. I wrote what I wrote. Gun owners know their situation in Illinois, unless there is a major turn around in Rauner’s polling numbers a ban will eventually be voted on and signed by the Democrat majority.
It really as simple as that, given the Supreme Court deciding not to review Shew v. Malloy all that has to be done is copy that law in Illinois, pass it, sign it. Done deal unfortunately from my perspective, positively from your perspective Word, possibly from Rich’s perspective too. I don’t see Rauner winning, I don’t see enough votes to stop such a bill next year unless there is a massive turn around for both Raunner and Trump in Illinois. Very unlikely I think.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 6:53 pm:
We wouldn’t have a “sanctuary” issue if the GOP Congress had done their job and passed reasonable immigration reform.
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 6:53 pm:
==you are of course free to believe having such loading devises is not rational.==
Why stop there? Have you cut off your car muffler to gain power?
- Anon - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 7:08 pm:
Adams County is next. All you gun haters can move to Chicago and become the next murder statistic in a gun free zone.
- Rod - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 8:00 pm:
Stuntman I have owned a second home in Clark County WI for 40 years. I don’t have to move up there permanently to move weapons up there, I have done it before. I am retired as of the start of April and luckily can afford my outrageous property taxes on our outrageously inflated Chicago Victorian home.
Selling would also generate massive capital gains. The best thing about being retired is not going down to Springfield for session which I did for year upon year as a registered lobbyist.. It is a real grinder, I can read this blog periodically if I want that experience again. Honestly I don’t know how Rich takes it, but he Is a lot younger than me.
- Gene Ralno - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 8:34 pm:
Most sheriffs don’t have time to deal with nonsense. They have robbers, rapists, killers & whatnot to deal with. We don’t want them annoying peaceable, lawful citizens. Good on this sheriff.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:18 pm:
Rod
What is wrong with answering the question as to why you believe anyone needs something that holds 30 rounds? It’s a legitimate question. Have the guts to answer it
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:21 pm:
Yes Gene. Enforcing laws is such nonsense.
- Demoralized - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:22 pm:
And Gene, if you’re breaking a law you aren’t a law abiding citizen
- Anonymous - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:35 pm:
“Nobody needs a…” could be applied to just about anything. How about we dont make peaceable people into criminals for owning a small plastic box?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:51 pm:
–wordslinger I see no point in answering that question its pretty clear there is no dialog on this issue on Rich’s blog–
LOL, there is dialogue if you participate. You’re interested in giving a monologue.
You suggested there was a rationale for your need for a 30-round magazine. I was curious as to what that purpose was.
I guess if you can’t handle a butterball question like that without falling to pieces, a dialogue with you is impossible.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 9:54 pm:
–How about we dont make peaceable people into criminals for owning a small plastic box?–
How many rounds can you pop off with that small plastic box?
- Stuntman Bob's Brother - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 10:30 pm:
==What is wrong with answering the question as to why you believe anyone needs something that holds 30 rounds?==
Demoralized, check out videos of a proficient user of a semi-auto handgun reloading smaller-capacity (ten round?) magazines, they can do it so quickly that the difference between depleting one 30-round and three 10-round magazines is very small. What I’m saying is, in the real world, it won’t matter if 30-round magazines are banned or not if someone is set on mass-murder. Banning them will have a negligible effect on Chicago’s gun deaths, it is a “feel good” solution. But long-term incarceration of those who are found carrying or using firearms illegally? I believe that would make a BIG dent in the problem. I prefer to advocate for solutions that make a difference. The recent death of the police commander is a perfect illustration, his killer should NOT have been on the street.
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 10, 18 @ 10:36 pm:
–Demoralized, check out videos of a proficient user of a semi-auto handgun reloading smaller-capacity (ten round?) magazines, they can do it so quickly that the difference between depleting one 30-round and three 10-round magazines is very small.–
So no worries, there’s no reason or need for a 30-round magazine.
The other guy said he had a rationale for his need. Glad you could straighten him out.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 6:00 am:
==So the Sheriff agrees that cities and other local governments have the right to protect undocumented immigrants? Sounds like he’s conceding that point.==
Cities and other local governments don’t protect undocumented immigrants. There really is no such thing as a “sanctuary city.” It’s a misnomer. If ICE wants to deport someone no one is going to stop them. “Sanctuary city” just means the local police have their job and ICE has its job.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 6:22 am:
==. All you gun haters can move to Chicago and become the next murder statistic in a gun free zone.==
Oh brother. Chicago isn’t a “gun free zone” It’s legal to own guns in Chicago.
- Anonymous - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 7:55 am:
How many rounds can you pop off with that small plastic box?
A lot. If I was ever forced to defend myself or family with a firearm, Id want as many as possible on hand.
- NothsideNoMore - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 8:48 am:
Ducky …The point is the 2nd amendment. Why should otherwise law abiding citizens be hassled and harassed by government. If there are any limitations restrictions they need to be universal throughout the USA not haphazard local garbage randomly enforced. One cannot be reasonably expected to know every town, county or state law. These sheriffs et al have said enough is enough, finally the adults in the room have made a statement.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 9:21 am:
–If there are any limitations restrictions they need to be universal throughout the USA…–
Says who? Since when?
–These sheriffs et al have said enough is enough, finally the adults in the room have made a statement.–
LOL, what? That sheriffs are the final word on interpreting the law and Constitution? Those “adults” couldn’t pass a sixth grade Constitution test with that nonsense. There’s no basis for it anywhere except in their wannabe-tinpot-dictator fever-dreams.
You might want to read the entire Constitution. There’s more to it than the 2nd Amendment. And sheriffs aren’t mentioned in it at all.
Counties and sheriff offices are creations of the state. You might want to read up on the state Constitution, too.
- Gooner - Friday, May 11, 18 @ 9:21 am:
NorthsideNoMore,
Your defense of the sheriff is that learning state law is too difficult?
Sounds like he may need to find a new job, since “knowing the law” is pretty central to the position.