State Rep. Kathleen Willis, D-Addison has filed a state resolution to counter the wave of local declarations establishing “gun sanctuary counties.”
“I have been deeply concerned by the actions of several county boards in Illinois that have passed resolutions declaring that they will prohibit the enforcement of new gun laws passed by the General Assembly,” said Willis. “County board members are required to take an oath of office that includes a vow to uphold the Constitution of the State of Illinois. Instead, some are passing resolutions intended to set aside legitimate state law.”
The resolution challenges the legitimacy of county declarations and names each county action as a “shameless political stunt which undermines the rule of law and threatens the safety of all Illinois citizens.”
WHEREAS, Gun violence is an epidemic in America and in Illinois, touching all parts of the State; and
WHEREAS, The legislative and executive branches of the State have lawfully regulated guns and gun trafficking; and
WHEREAS, The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of reasonable state gun violence prevention regulations; Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stated in the McDonald decision that state “experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment”; and
WHEREAS, President Trump’s administration appears to be willfully ignoring the problem of gun violence in America, and at the same time, is attempting to coerce municipal police forces into diverting their resources towards harassing immigrant populations; some municipalities have lawfully opposed having their local law enforcement used for such purposes and have been dubbed “sanctuary cities”; and
WHEREAS, Some counties in Illinois have erroneously tried to liken the cause of a sanctuary city with opposition to gun violence prevention measures by declaring themselves “gun sanctuary counties”, thereby declaring their intention to refuse to enforce any gun safety measures lawfully passed by the State with which they disagree; and
WHEREAS, These counties are trying to use those lawful sanctuary cities as an excuse to unlawfully ignore important, democratically-implemented, state laws; and
WHEREAS, These so-called “gun sanctuary counties” are nothing more than scofflaw counties, usurping the judiciary and role of separation of powers in our government, while openly encouraging criminal behavior; therefore, be it
RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that we condemn these scofflaw counties and declare their attempts to label themselves as “gun sanctuaries” as an unconstitutional and shameless political stunt which undermines the rule of law and threatens the safety of all Illinois citizens.
- Just Me - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:03 am:
This issue is directly parallel to the sanctuary city issue. The Trump’ers believe Chicago is ignoring federal law by not enforcing federal immigration laws, so they think their local government should be allowed to ignore state gun laws.
They’re both wrong.
- Roman - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:04 am:
Rep. Willis is giving the Republicans exactly what they want: more attention for their publicity stunt.
- A Jack - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:06 am:
This was bound to happen.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:10 am:
===believe Chicago is ignoring federal law by not enforcing federal immigration laws, so they think their local government should be allowed to ignore state gun laws===
Federal laws are almost all enforced by federal police and prosecutors. State criminal laws are almost all enforced at the county/municipal levels. There’s a big difference here that’s being ignored.
- Tequila Mockingbird - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:11 am:
Roman, this resolution is a publicity stunt.
- Anon 1 - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:11 am:
Translation: “I will call out your political stunt with my political stunt.” So there !
- theCardinal - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:15 am:
Very interesting just like Cook County pols that ignore Federal Laws. Unfortunately (snark) the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give you a choice on which laws you like and want to abide by. Kinda doesn’t work that way. But hey anything for political expediency. Leave law abiding citizens alone and go solve the gang violence issues at the root cause(once you admit that the government policies fostered over the past 50 years have degraded the family and community values/mores to the where they are now). Ah but there is an election to win… “nothing to see here folks move along”
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:22 am:
theCardinal - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:15 am:
Might want to re-read the U.S. Constitution sport. And crack open a few legal history books while you’re at it.
- Fav Human - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:29 am:
There’s a big difference here that’s being ignored.
That’s a legal argument. This is a political argument….
One wonders if any one running for a downstate legislative seat will file one about sanctuary cities? Or criticize a legislator who doesn’t do so?
It can very quickly become a ping-pong game….
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:34 am:
Yo - gun controllers -
You’re being trolled.
Gun sanctuary counties only work if you’re in on the joke about “sanctuary” governments. They’re not called that because it makes any sense. It’s a twist on what Democrats are doing.
Stop taking yourselves so seriously. Geez you guys are so self-righteous.
- Roman - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:34 am:
- Tequila Mocking -
Agreed.
- anon2 - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 11:37 am:
=== Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t give you a choice on which laws you like and want to abide by. ===
Fortunately, the Illinois Constitution doesn’t give you a choice on which laws you ignore and which you abide by.
So, are rural counties wrong in defying state law? Or is defiance only wrong when it comes to federal immigration law? You can’t have it both ways.
- Joseph Lochner - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 12:17 pm:
The states retain their sovereignty, despite being in a union. This is why federal courts strike federal attempts to “commandeer” state governments. The federal government cannot tell Chicago to enforce immigration law, nor can it order the state legislature to pass a particular law. States can only be mandated into action due to explicit requirements imposed by the federal constitution (or, rather, how the courts choose to interpret it).
This is why the AFSCME lost their attempt to force Quinn to pay them their money in the 7th Circuit — state sovereign immunity and the inability of the federal courts to tell the legislature to fund those raises and Quinn to pay them. (Which BTW is a sign post to pension resolution…) State sovereignty is generally disliked by the left who favor centralization of power in Washington, though today in Trump’s America the left has rediscovered the benefits of federalism. Resist! The right generally supports it, but apparently has forgotten that when it comes to immigration in Trump’s America. The hypocrisy is palpable.
The system we have established is fiscal coercion. The federal government uses its unlimited taxing (and borrowing) power to suck all the oxygen out of the room (in terms of revenue), leaving the states with what they can reasonably collect. The federal government then offers “grants” back to states, but with strings attached. Thus enforcing policy via fiscal coercion. It’s been thus since the days of building canals and log roads.
The protection the states do have from this coercion is that courts generally reject attempts to change the terms of the deal after the “grant” is made. Hence Trump’s attempts to tie existing grants to cooperating with federal law enforcement have often been rejected. Adding those strings to new grants, though, should have no legal issues, other than judges deciding to try to impose their policy choices. This coercion via tax funded grants to enforce federal policy is the way our system “works.”
So, Illinois… I am not conversant with the legal protections counties may have here, with home rule aspects of the state constitution. Like states in their relationship with the federal government, counties may have some protections. The caveat of course is that while the federal government and the states are co-sovereigns, counties are just political subdivisions of the state. I’d guess they don’t have legal protection from cooperating with state law enforcement, or even being required to enforce state laws directly, hence most of the “sanctuary” resolutions are like this proposed house resolution — a political stunt.
- Steve - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 12:27 pm:
Whereas,
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.)
- Randoph - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 12:45 pm:
So Willis, who supports sanctuary cities for criminals does not support them for law abiding citizens practicing a constitutional right.
- Just Me - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 12:45 pm:
Rich, I don’t disagree there is a big difference. But to the Trump’ers there isn’t. To them Chicago is ignoring a law they want to see enforced (immigration), so they feel perfectly justified in ignoring another law (gun control) that “Chicago” wants enforced.
They’re both ignoring all sort of relevant points such as yours.
- the Patriot - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 12:57 pm:
I love how we want to pull out the Constitution, yet Democrats cheered Lisa Madigan repeatedly delaying conceal and carry after the Supreme Court said we were violating the law so her father could squeeze a bigger political bargain.
The relevance of that ruling was that the State, by and through Lisa Madigan failed to provide compelling evidence that the gun control measures work. This is the problem with Gun Control proponents. They have no actual evidence it works.
- Demoralized - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 1:04 pm:
Steve:
I’m not sure what your point is, because you can’t possibly be suggesting that we get to ignore the processes we have in place to determine the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed.
- Demoralized - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 1:07 pm:
==This is the problem with Gun Control proponents.==
As opposed to the other side who oppose any gun control measures?
==They have no actual evidence it works.==
I’d rather try something than be tone deaf and ignore the obvious gun violence problems we have in this country.
- Randolph - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 1:31 pm:
Changing the constitution just to see what happens, what could go wrong?
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 2:22 pm:
@Joseph Lochner, enjoyed your analysis.
But I had no idea all these people using state’s rights for legal marijuana since 1996 were right wingers. Learn something new everyday, LOL.
- thechampaignlife - Friday, Aug 17, 18 @ 3:22 pm:
I might be mistaken, but my understanding is that both cops and prosecutors have discretion. This is often used to prioritize efforts, but ignoring laws is the logical extreme. The sanctuary declarations just codify* what might already be an informal practice.
*however, there is nothing to prevent a cop or SA from still enforcing the law.