* WTTW’s Paris Schutz interviewed Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Bullard last night about the new assault weapons ban…
Paris Schutz: At the same time, Sheriff, though, I mean, you say that this does violate the Second Amendment. I think there’s still a question of that, even the most conservative Supreme Court justices have said the Second Amendment is not absolute. There is no absolute right to keep and bear arms. There will be limitations and this is sort of the gray area being litigated. You mentioned some case law, but how can you confidently say it’s constitutional when there still are these questions about it?
Sheriff Bullard: Well, the, to answer that, is because I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices who have ruled in the matter have stepped outside of their authority. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to infringe rights either and the Second Amendment states ’shall not be infringed’ and there has been infringements over the years in government and the people have allowed that to a point. And but that’s not something that was ever within my control. But what is in my control since December 1st of 2018, as the Sheriff of Jefferson County, is that if I see a civil rights violation occurring in my county, I’m duty-bound to stop it. And I can say with 100 percent certainty that the Protect Illinois Communities Act is a violation of the Second Amendment. Registering firearms, forcing registry of firearms turns a second amendment from an inalienable right…
Paris Schutz: You’re gonna stop the Illinois State Police from trying to register those firearms?
Sheriff Bullard: I have put out a notice to the people Jefferson County that if they’re being harassed by agents of governments who are violating any civil liberties that they should contact me so I can be aware of it and develop a strategy on how to deal with it.
This is what Sheriff Bullard said on Facebook…
In the meantime, any citizen who’s having a problem with any agent of government that’s trying to enforce this act in my county, you need to contact me so we can make sure that citizens’ rights are protected in this county, because as your sheriff, public safety is my priority, but it must be followed inside the guidelines of the Constitution.
Your local law enforcement leaders are your experts on public safety. And a vast majority of us understand that gun control is not the answer to public safety, that disarms law abiding citizens and makes them less capable of protecting themselves from people who would victimize them, that do not pay attention to laws like the Protect Illinois Communities Act anyway.
Say whatever you want, but this topic has not been litigated through the top court. Everyone on the pro-gun side is so very sure that the US Supremes totally have their backs. But as we’ve seen before, that doesn’t always work out.
* From Lake County Sheriff John Idleburg…
There have been many questions on where I stand regarding the assault weapons ban bill just signed into law. Following the horrifically tragic mass shooting right here in Highland Park, not seven months ago, along with the mass shootings we see on a weekly basis across our nation, I issued a statement, which remains true today.
I said: “As a society, so many have become numb to mass shootings as we read about them nearly every day. Then, on Independence Day, when our families, our children, our friends, were gathered along parade routes to celebrate this nation’s independence a calculated coward unleashed unprecedented terror on our community with a weapon of war. I truly hope this is the last mass shooting we live through before assault-style rifles are banned. Assault-style rifles are nothing more than killing machines, and they have no place in a civilized society. It is time action is taken. While the intent of my message is not meant to be political, I feel the most significant action that can be taken to minimize and prevent further carnage is by enacting a full ban on assault-style rifles.”
While I am a believer in our Constitution and our 2nd Amendment, I firmly support the ban on assault-style rifles and I truly hope our federal government follows to ban them nationwide. Since our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment were formed, firearms have become much more sophisticated and much more deadly. Our Founding Fathers were not loading .223 rounds into their muskets. They were not using firearms designed to disintegrate human bodies. As I said following the Highland Park mass shooting, these weapons of war do not belong on our streets. They’re used to kill our police, used to kill innocent people, and used to inflict maximum carnage on their victims.
Our Illinois legislators discussed and created a bill, which was amended several times, after input from law-enforcement and other stakeholders. The bill was voted on and passed. It was then signed by the governor, which makes the bill law. I, as your Sheriff, am sworn to enforce the law. It’s incredibly dangerous for me to cherry-pick and enforce only laws I agree with, or only laws I feel are important. That is not what our Constitution of the State or Illinois intends for law-enforcement. That is not what the people of Lake County or Illinois deserve.
It’s important to note, unfortunately many remain very divided in this country, which leads to mudslinging, hate, rumors, false information, and innuendo being spread, instead of fact. I ask everyone to take a deep breath. I encourage those who haven’t read the law to give it a read for themselves, instead of listening to others who might be spreading misleading or false information.
This law does not mean our deputies will be going door to door, asking for documentation on weapons. It does not mean we are forming a team to search your home for weapons. Like everything else we do in our profession, we will use discretion and common sense.
I, along with other Lake County leaders have heard from thousands of people who support this legislation. I stand with the people of Lake County, and I will always do everything in my power to keep you safe.
* Meanwhile, from ISRA…
Lawful gun owners from around the State of Illinois, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and the Second Amendment Foundation, have filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, the Director of the Illinois State Police Brendan Reilly, and numerous Illinois States Attorneys challenging Illinois’ new law.
On January 10, 2023, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed legislation that enacted an extensive ban on firearms and high-capacity magazines in the state. Plaintiffs say the new law infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear commonly possessed firearms and ammunition magazines for the defense of self and family and other lawful purposes.
“Governor Pritzker and the legislators who voted for this law did this for self-serving political purposes and are not upholding the United States Constitution,” said Richard Pearson, Executive Director of the ISRA. “The 2nd Amendment is fundamentally about self-defense, and the 14th Amendment is about not having our rights infringed. This new law makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.”
“The real problem is that there are existing gun laws that do not work because they are not enforced,” Pearson added. “We would all be much safer if the police had the resources they need, and there were stronger consequences for the non-law-abiding citizens.”
A resident of St. Clair County and two Illinois gun stores join the three non-profit organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Click here for the lawsuit.
…Adding… I missed the funny little typo. Brendan Reilly is a Chicago alderman. Brendan Kelly is ISP director.
*** UPDATE 1 *** “U.S. Supreme Court declines to block New York gun restrictions,” from Reuters…
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday turned away a challenge by a group of firearms dealers in New York to numerous Democratic-backed measures adopted by the state last year regulating gun purchases that the businesses said hurt their businesses.
The justices, with no public dissents, denied a request by the dealers to block the laws, some of which imposed gun safety requirements on retailers, while their appeal of a lower court’s decision in favor of New York proceeds.
The state’s Democratic-led legislature passed some of the laws last June. Others were adopted in July after the Supreme Court the prior month struck down New York’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home in a landmark ruling expanding gun rights.
*** UPDATE 2 *** The federal case is far more important, but “friendly” county judges can easily muck up the works…
*** UPDATE 3 *** AG Raoul press release…
Over the last few years, my office has become accustomed to facing a barrage of challenges to newly-enacted state statutes and executive orders. As we have done previously, we are prepared to defend the Protect Illinois Communities Act in courtrooms around Illinois. As in other actions, we recognize that the act’s constitutionality will ultimately be decided by a higher court, and we will continue to defend it throughout the appellate process. This law is an important tool in our fight to protect Illinois residents from gun violence, and in the event that a court stays the statute’s effective date pending appellate review, we are committed to pushing for a quick resolution.
Here’s the state’s outline. We’ve seen most of these tired arguments fail over the years in various suits, but click here for the whole thing…
I. Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.
A. Plaintiffs’ single-subject challenge fails because the Act’s provisions all relate to the regulation of firearms.
B. The Illinois Supreme Court’s enrolled billed doctrine forecloses Plaintiffs’ challenge under the three-readings clause.
C. Plaintiffs’ attempt to recycle their single-subject and three-readings challenges as a procedural due process claim fails as a matter of law.
D. Plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge fails because the Act’s exceptions draw a rational distinction based on military and law enforcement training and experience.
II. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have not shown they will suffer irreparable harm without a TRO.
- Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:09 am:
=== I have put out a notice to the people Jefferson County that if they’re being harassed by agents of governments who are violating any civil liberties that they should contact me so I can be aware of it and develop a strategy on how to deal with it.===
This good ol boy is so big for his britches he’s slid right into terrorist threats.
- Henry Francis - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:10 am:
== I have put out a notice to the people Jefferson County that if they’re being harassed by agents of governments who are violating any civil liberties that they should contact me so I can be aware of it and develop a strategy on how to deal with it.==
Then you are in the wrong line of work, Sheriff. If protecting “civil liberties” is your priority then join the ACLU.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:10 am:
=I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution.=
Then explain “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” in the context of the entire document.
You see, many of us can read AND understand, and obviously much better than the sheriff.
Also, where does it state, in the USSC, the a county sheriff is the interpreter of the constitution?
=And unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices who have ruled in the matter have stepped outside of their authority. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to infringe rights either and the Second Amendment states ’shall not be infringed’ and there has been infringements over the years in government and the people have allowed that to a point.=
But you only care about one amendment, and take advantage of other “infringements like the ones on the 4th amendment. I call that hypocrisy.
He is another authoritarian member of law enforcement and the reason we have these protections. He is precisely who we are protected from.
I also love his “my county” statement. Provides an interesting insight into his metality.
- Ryan - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:11 am:
“Your local law enforcement leaders are your experts on public safety.” Yes, but they’re not experts on Constitutional Law.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:13 am:
I wish this Sheriff was as passionate about the 4th Amendment as he is about the 2nd.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:14 am:
If the Jefferson County sheriff would like to *be* a judge, I’d suggest doing all the necessary steps to qualify, run, and win election.
Otherwise this is another example of the angry, white, rural folks, aggrieved because “they, gosh dang, speak ‘Merican”
Troubling indeed.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:15 am:
“I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution”
Article 3 section 1: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
So then he must know that determining if something is constitution or not is not his job. The executive branch enforces the laws. You would think a sheriff would know that….
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:15 am:
==The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to infringe rights either==
Home boy’s gotta unwind Marbury v. Madison to make his point.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:15 am:
Seems to me some legislators may want to look at the statutes that gives Sheriffs their authority to do *anything*
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:15 am:
“because I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution”
And to think all the lawyers and scholars of the world wasted time going to school.
Just because there are absolutely zero educational standards for being a sheriff, doesn’t mean the rest of the world is like that. Some of these guys are stuck in a bubble with very thick walls.
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:16 am:
Seems like the Crawford County guy should have kept his place on the Tuesday night bowlin’ league. It is sad that Paris did not 2A to the whack ’cause the words really talk about a “well regulated militia”
Perhaps he should fire up his proclamation machine and blast a few national guard applications over his subject. We think the countdown clock on the launch of the Committee to End Electin’ Sheriffs is tickin’ faster this morning.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:16 am:
“The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to infringe rights…” I’d say there’s at least half of the country’s population that would vehemently disagree with that sentence.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:17 am:
I think the Sheriff is right that most if not all of the Bill is unconstitutional under the Bruen standard or even strict scrutiny. That said there’s these sheriffs need to step away from the mike and camera and just say, “I believe the suit is unconstitutional and will be corrected in court.” This grandstanding is ridiculous and isn’t helping anyone.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:18 am:
It is quite “fun” the multiple meanings of “speaking English”, as it’s trying to be presented as one who can read… as others may not… read English… as others may not be able to read “English”… and the simpleton thoughts that being able to “read English” makes one an expert on things one has no business saying they are qualified in an official duty (a duty that doesn’t exist for a sheriff) of their.. “authority”
So much being said… to the simpletons.
- We’ll See - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:19 am:
Betting Sheriff Bullard always skips the “ A well regulated Militia…” part of the 2nd when he reads it to himself- lips moving.
- West Side the Best Side - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:21 am:
So Four Star General Bullard, whose name does not appear on the ARDC website as a practicing lawyer, has let us know he can read. Did he ever go beyond reading the Constitution and read cases interpreting the Second Ammendment? I’m thinking not. Also apparently didn’t read the part about the job description of the Supreme Court reviewing laws passed by the legislative branch.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:22 am:
All the ISRA could find was a no-name suburban solo practitioner?
- HangingOn - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:24 am:
“Arms” is such a general term. Wouldn’t that mean I could have a nuclear warhead stored in my shed and nobody can do anything about it? I mean, I might need it some day.
- Just Me 2 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:26 am:
Meh. Sheriffs are elected officials. Like all politicians they just say whatever they can say to get attention and donors. Let’s look at this Sheriff’s next fundraising report.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:26 am:
Never have sheriffs felt so important since the days of Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry, NC… when Sheriff Taylor wasn’t arrestin’ Ernst T. Bass, lettin’ Otis Campbell lock himself up, or regulatin’ (yep, regulatin’) Deputy Barney Fife’s ammunition from his shirt pocket.
The importance here… readin’ English and all.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:26 am:
Has anyone else noticed that when a group of people doesn’t like something it suddenly becomes unconstitutional?
For instance, this gun law. People don’t like it, therefore it’s unconstitutional.
The covid pandemic restrictions and vaccinations were an unconstitutional infringement of people’s liberties.
The list is endless.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:26 am:
=“I believe the suit is unconstitutional and will be corrected in court.”=
Freudian slip?
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:27 am:
“no-name suburban solo practitioner?”
Really? you need to keep up with 2A issues going back decades.ISRA hired David Sigale, the Wheaton, IL attorney, he is the real deal on 2A issues. He was the lead in the landmark SCOTUS McDonald V. City Of Chicago. There is no better lawyer on these issues.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:29 am:
JS Mill @ 10:10 am +1
Great statement from Lake County Sheriff John Idleburg. Bravo
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:31 am:
SCOTUS does what it wants regardless of the quality of advocacy.
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:31 am:
Historically speaking the only gun available when the 2nd Amendment was written was a single shot musket. Thus that is the only legal “arm” the “militia” can use.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:33 am:
Hmmm just checked and Alan Gura argued McDonald, so I guess he was the lead lol
- JoanP - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:35 am:
= I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution =
I can, too, so I guess I shouldn’t have bothered with law school and the bar exam.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:39 am:
===the only gun available when the 2nd Amendment was written was a single shot musket===
While not exactly “available,” or even very useful, a repeating air rifle was invented in Austria in 1779. I hadn’t heard about it until I read a book over break about the War of 1812 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girardoni_air_rifle
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:43 am:
He was co-council in a landmark SCOTUS case. He also represents Vivian Brown in her challenge to the constitutionality of the FOID law. So it goes to your statement that he is a “no name”. I guess only to you.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:45 am:
When “Sheriff Andy Taylor” wanted to practice law, he left Mayberry, changed his name, actually studied the law and became “Ben Matlock, esq”
Ok, enough of the silly, no matter how silly this sheriff is.
The rogue sheriffs thinking they are part of these legal interpretations and discussions are not helpful, as to the beginning it allows such an overstep to “office” that people then equate other oversteps (or missteps) as part of what the legal or law enforcement find “the same”
- Streator Curmudgeon - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:48 am:
Rich, I believe air rifles are not considered firearms in Illinois, although some of them are quite powerful. To my knowledge, you don’t need a FOID card to own one or to buy ammunition or CO2 cartridges.
On the sheriffs’ refusal to enforce the assault weapons law, what constitutes nonfeasance or official misconduct in Illinois law? Don’t sheriffs take an oath to support the state constitution and uphold all laws?
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:55 am:
===Don’t sheriffs take an oath to support the state constitution and uphold all laws?===
From state law: Oath. He or she shall also, before entering upon the duties of his or her office, take and subscribe the oath or affirmation prescribed by Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution, which shall be filed in the office of the county clerk of his or her county.
Section 3 of Article XIII:
“I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …. to the best of my ability.”
- Google Is Your Friend - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:56 am:
==Say whatever you want, but this topic has not been litigated through the top court. Everyone on the pro-gun side is so very sure that the US Supremes totally have their backs. But as we’ve seen before, that doesn’t always work out.==
Just last summer SCOTUS gave these folks exactly what they wanted on a different issue and that hasn’t been working out too well for that side. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
- up2now - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 10:59 am:
The U.S. Supreme Court may, indeed, rule Illinois’ new gun law unconstitutional. But in the meantime, it IS state law, and as such, must be enforced. Last time I looked, county officials are not charged with interpreting the Constitution.
- Sir Reel - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:03 am:
Following Sherriff Jeff’s line of reasoning, we should all be issued nuclear weapons cuz that’s the ultimate of “bear arms.”
All these Sherriffs say they won’t enforce this law. That’s a tell. I bet they already selectively enforce laws, in that they choose who gets enforced.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:04 am:
===Just last summer SCOTUS gave these folks exactly what they wanted on a different issue and that hasn’t been working out too well for that side. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.===
Ball game.
Two wholly different tracks, but the politics to this law and once it goes through legal channels…
Republicans have already been “red” on it, either way the ruling falls, the politics aren’t great.
Myopic to the law while forgetting the politics will leave the ILGOP again on the wrong side… of the polling.
Less said (unless by lawyers, preferably in a filing or court) is better for the politics.
- Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:09 am:
“because I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution”
There are only 9 people in this country, whose interpretation of the Constitution matters. And you ain’t one of them.
- HangingOn - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:11 am:
=Section 3 of Article XIII of the Constitution=
He’ll probably then argue that is unconstitutional as well.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:13 am:
=I believe air rifles are not considered firearms in Illinois, although some of them are quite powerful. To my knowledge, you don’t need a FOID card to own one or to buy ammunition or CO2 cartridges.=
You may want to research that. I am not sure what the FPS threshold is, but I was told by a shop that I had to have one (I do) to purchase a higher end air rifle with a FPS of 1850.
- Dysfunction Junction - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:15 am:
==While not exactly “available,” or even very useful, a repeating air rifle was invented in Austria in 1779. ==
The existence of this Austrian air rifle was referenced in Count III, item 10 of the Langley-Jones-Wilson complaint filed yesterday. In your thrice-updated post yesterday, you said they were using the kitchen sink approach. Looks like it was kitchen sink found in a central European antique shop. And yes, air rifles over a certain caliber require the purchaser to present a FOID card.
- Amalia - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:16 am:
Bullard. Bully. Bull. His comment about other government authorities coming into “my” county is dangerous.
- Proud Sucker - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:17 am:
“…or even very useful,”
Good point. The first truly reliable repeater was the Spencer carbine, famously tested by Lincoln. Now, there were also single shot rifles available in 1787, but they were custom made and not affordable to the masses. The smoothbore musket (Brown Bess and Charleville) was the weapon issued to the militia.
To the earlier question about “arms”, this may be the clearest term in the 2A. “Arms” refers to weapons that were carried by militia: muskets, rifles, pistols and swords. The corollary is “ordnance” which refers to artillery: cannon and mortars.
This is why you do not have the right to keep a modern tank, howitzer or nuclear device.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:19 am:
JS Mill
I believe the fps threshold on air rifles is 700fps beyond that you need a foid.
- H-W - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:19 am:
== I can read the Constitution. And unfortunately, the Supreme Court justices who have ruled in the matter have stepped outside of their authority. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right to infringe rights either ==
Just because you can read, does not mean you have read. Read the Constitution. You may be surprised, but the Supreme Court does have the right (authority) to interpret laws (not sheriffs).
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:20 am:
“Myopic to the law while forgetting the politics will leave the ILGOP again on the wrong side… of the polling”
They have good prospects in a majority of county races (hence the 80 sheriffs and 76 2A sanctuary counties), and they may as well also push for judicial wins on 2A. Take What wins you can.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:20 am:
–protecting themselves from people who would victimize them, that do not pay attention to laws like the Protect Illinois Communities Act anyway.–
After which the sheriff immediately goes on to describe how he plans to not pay attention to laws like the Protect Illinois Communities act, and then goes a step further and describes how he will knowingly and actively interfere in its implementation and enforcement if he gets the chance.
This is not a rational person.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:25 am:
===They have good prospects in a majority of county races (hence the 80 sheriffs and 76 2A sanctuary counties), and they may as well also push for judicial wins on 2A.===
40 in the Illinois House
20 in the Illinois Senate
0-8 statewide
5-2 ILSC
If your “take ‘em where you can get them” doesn’t include actual governing of the state, you already have the phony sheriffs, you’re not gaining anything else. You may not realize it, but this instance is exactly the bottom, taking what is “given”
Also,land doesn’t vote, laws for 102 counties (less Home Rule as I digress into a rabbit hole…) are written, voted on, signed by winners… and winners make policy, no matter what this sheriff thinks about “reading”
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:28 am:
Donnie, like your party you like to embellish. Own it.
- Steve Rogers - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:30 am:
OW: Sheriff Andy Taylor was reasonable and intelligent. Barney Fife on the other hand has become synonymous with an inept and overzealous law enforcement officer. Sheriff Bullard is Barney Fife, not Andy Taylor. /s
- Goodson Oddman - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:31 am:
“When a man carries a gun all the time, the respect he thinks he’s getting might really be fear” - Sheriff Andy Taylor
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:32 am:
The question to ask these sheriffs is why do they compel others to follow the law when they won’t. They’re in the business of locking up lawbreakers.
What kind of example are these sheriffs to those the right wing vilifies for crime, the urban poor? The entire ILGOP campaign last year was based on attacking urban crime. How do they sell that when they themselves refuse to follow the law?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:34 am:
===Sheriff Bullard is Barney Fife, not Andy Taylor. /s===
How about… Barney Fife when Andy had to go to Mount Pilot for the day and left Barney in charge… but for like… 4 years?
:)
Good quote from “Sheriff Taylor” too about guns.
- Roadrager - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:37 am:
==Meh. Sheriffs are elected officials. Like all politicians they just say whatever they can say to get attention and donors.==
Most of our state reps don’t have a taxpayer-funded stockpile of military weaponry and vehicles at their disposal to reinforce their grandstanding, though.
- duck duck goose - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:45 am:
= I can read the English language and I can read the Constitution =
It seems weird that he seems to think those are two separate things.
It also seems weird that he feels that he needs to tell people that he can read.
- MyTwoCents - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:47 am:
By the sheriff’s reasoning that there are 0 restrictions on the 2A can I get a .50 cal machine gun, mount it in the back of a truck, technical style, drive it right in front of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office & not be arrested?
Related to that, I take it his deputies have NEVER arrested anybody for any weapons violations, even felons in possession? Might be a fun research project for an inquiring journalist.
- Alice Childress - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:48 am:
I blame the internet. Sheriffs (this guy and many of the other 80) have always been around and have backwoods/knee jerk responses to things they don’t understand. But if we still read newspapers and watched the evening news, this nonsense (and that’s what it is) wouldn’t exist to EXTREME degree it does today. Social media has become the devil’s work.
- Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:56 am:
The gun law ain’t unconstitutional yet. Law and order, obey the law [exclamation points]. They’ve been yelling this at the urban poor and undocumented immigrants for so long.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 11:59 am:
With Mount Vernon having the third worst crime rate in the State, perhaps the Sheriff might want to focus on reducing that rather than bloviating.
https://moneyinc.com/most-dangerous-cities-in-illinois-in-2022/
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:00 pm:
The key part of the sheriff’s oath is: ” … to the best of my ability.”
May God bless Sheriff Bullard, but he doesn’t strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:04 pm:
Anyone that argues the language of the constitution tells us anything on its own is delusional at this point. Whatever faction controls the various courts decides.
I suspect the sheriff’s command of the language is suspect at best, but it’s irrelevant. I’m not in favor of several parts of the law, but I’m less in favor of grandstanding mayors deciding they’re constitutional scholars.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:07 pm:
== There are only 9 people in this country, whose interpretation of the Constitution matters. ==
I would say more like 20 some people. The various clerks of the Justices will be doing a lot of the research and writing a lot of position papers. They may not get to vote, but they will have significant influence …
- Original Anon - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:09 pm:
I would say it is more than 9 who will have a say. Appellate court decisions can be highly influential in shaping the Supreme Court analysis, for example.
- Original Anon - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:15 pm:
The 1st Amendment states that Congress “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” But the Courts have long held restrictions on time, place, and manner are permissible. The courts will find some restrictions permissible, but maybe not the outright ban.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:25 pm:
===The 1st Amendment states that Congress “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”===
It also forbids laws abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Ask a lobbyist how that works.
- Elmer Keith - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:26 pm:
“It does not mean we are forming a team to search your home for weapons. Like everything else we do in our profession, we will use discretion and common sense.” I don’t know if Sheriff Idleburg requires a university degree to be hired as a Lake county Sheriff’s deputy, so I’m not sure if us non-cops should just trust him and the members of his “profession” to not kick down doors.
The IL GA, by making these crimes of simple possession, not use, is setting up a scenario for conflict between police and citizens, which is what I believe they really want, to justify further gun laws.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:28 pm:
===which is what I believe they really want===
Less coffee, more naps, and get off Facebook.
- Nick Name - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
Emergency hearing on the new law being discussed right now on CNN.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:30 pm:
The ISRA case in the Federal Court System is the one to watch, not the cases in the State court system. Yes, it’s a kitchen sink approach but there are a few potential gold nuggets in with all the garbage. Whether this case is the pivotal one, or one of the currently pending ones further up the Federal Court System that were remanded by SCOTUS for further review, one of these (those?) may end up getting a more definitive answer on regulation and limitation under the 2nd Amendment.
Personally, I think the recent legislation is clearly in the gray area. I can see the ‘assault rifle’ ban going either way, depending on the court’s interpretation of what they meant previously when referring to ‘in common use’. Same on the magazine capacity limits; there may be some slight adjustments there. And I can see the registration of grandfathered firearms being somewhat questionable due to a fee associated with it; that comes a bit too close to the equivalent of a ‘poll tax’ to exercise a right. But a fee hasn’t stopped the FOID requirement yet, so the registration fee might pass muster.
Going to be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes a case (and which one specifically) and makes a definitive ruling, or if the court continues to duck by remanding cases back to the lower courts for review under the suggested (ordered?) strict scrutiny standard.
- H-W - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:34 pm:
Any word yet on the DeVore “emergency” petition?
- Joe Bidenopolous - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:40 pm:
=they may as well also push for judicial wins on 2A. Take What wins you can.=
And if the rule of law is undermined, no big deal, right? Party of law and order indeed
- Weary - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:42 pm:
Who has authority over a sheriff, other than the voters? Can anyone make them enforce the law?
- Dysfunction Junction - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:45 pm:
==And I can see the registration of grandfathered firearms being somewhat questionable due to a fee associated with it;==
Gosh. If only there were some person of sufficient means - a billionaire, say - high enough up in the IL government to underwrite the cost of these fees and make this a moot point. Hey wait. /s
- Siualum - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 12:55 pm:
“The real problem is there are existing gun laws that do not work because they are not enforced”. So the sheriffs are not/have not been enforcing existing gun laws?
- Slick Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:09 pm:
A quick Google search shows that with respect to air rifles, anything firing a projectile under .18 inches diameter OR having a velocity under 700 fps is exempt from firearm status and does not rquire a FOID card/FFL transfer.
- Jerry - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:17 pm:
I stand corrected on air rifles. Thanx for pointing that out.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:19 pm:
=== There are only 9 people in this country, whose interpretation of the Constitution matters. ===
Actually, it’s only 5 people whose ultimate opinion matters. Their 6th person is a bonus for the MAGA GOP.
- Save Ferris - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:29 pm:
I guess Sheriff Bullshard can’t read the third word of the part of the Constitution he’s thinks he can read.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:31 pm:
To the update,
I hope Sheriff Bullard reads the NY opinion, I’m sure it was written in English.
- fs - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:32 pm:
To the update, that appears to be simply a follow-up to the story a week or so ago that denied tro, with the qualifier that they should return if the 2nd circuit did not expidite review. They set an expedited schedule for the case this week. The case is still pending.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:43 pm:
To this specifically,
===The justices, with no public dissents, denied a request by the dealers to block the laws, some of which imposed gun safety requirements on retailers, while their appeal of a lower court’s decision in favor of New York proceeds.===
The decision, not a ruling (my apologies to a too quick comment) to let the lower courts continue the work while the law is still in place is a reminder that laws passed and signed are the law until otherwise … decided.
Now, that’s not saying how Illinois’ law will, or won’t, be facing a similar status, but it does clarify signed laws are still the law until…
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:51 pm:
“To the update, I hope Sheriff Bullard reads the NY opinion”
The ruling was purely procedural offering no view on the merits of the case.
- fs - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:51 pm:
The Supremes can tend to give a lot of deference to circuits on such motions, but the fact that some Justices went out of their way last week on the other case to emphasize that such cases should be expedited and reviewed under Bruen is telling. The 2nd clearly took note that these aren’t to be dragged out, so this isn’t really surprising (other than some perhaps thinking it’s a bigger deal than it likely is substantively)
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 1:57 pm:
===The ruling was purely procedural offering no view on the merits of the case.===
The law is still in place… until it isn’t.
===denied a request by the dealers to block the laws, some of which imposed gun safety requirements on retailers, while their appeal of a lower court’s decision in favor of New York proceeds.===
So, it seems that passed laws should be followed, not decided to its “existence” by the sheriff.
It was in English.
- Lincoln Lad - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:00 pm:
If local jurisdictions choose to not enforce State law, I see no reason to support them with State tax dollars. Jefferson County could be a great place to start.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:00 pm:
=The ruling was purely procedural offering no view on the merits of the case.=
And yet the law is preserved. Now maybe that’s still subject to change but the larger point remains. Until the courts rule otherwise the law is the law whether you or Sherriff Bullard agree with that or not. A political party standing on a law and order platform would follow that basic tenet.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:17 pm:
As state militias were replaced by the National Guard, could not one make the argument that “militias” referenced in the 2A no longer exist?
- very old soil - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:34 pm:
Two of the Supreme Court ’s most conservative justices warned this week that New York ’s concealed carry restrictions law raises “serious” constitutional questions ahead of arguments in four Second Amendment-related challenges at the federal appeals court level.
In a short unsigned order Wednesday, the high court deferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which in December eliminated a pause on several portions of the law after a federal district court judge struck down most of the law’s provisions on Nov. 7.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said in a letter attached to the order that the law “presents novel and serious questions under both the First and the Second Amendments.” The pair also made clear that the court’s denial was in no way “expressing any views on the merits” of the challenges brought by firearms proponents; instead, it was to “reflect respect for the 2nd Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/scotus-warns-new-gun-control-laws-raise-serious-2a-questions
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:37 pm:
==The ruling was purely procedural offering no view on the merits of the case.==
I wouldn’t jump up and down too hard on that. A lot of procedural relief has it built into the elements for granting the relief that the Court has to consider the likelihood of the final outcome. Moreover, the Roberts Court has proven itself perfectly comfortable to rule through procedural decisions. And finally, Alito and Thomas aren’t the best at shutting up, so their silence is interesting.
Not predicting anything, but if I were against NY’s gun law, I would not be happy right now.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:39 pm:
- very old soil -
With respect,
Do you think, as it seems SCOTUS feels here, that a passed law is the law until a ruling exists?
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:44 pm:
“my county”
He got ownership papers or something?
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 2:52 pm:
@ Very Old Soil- So is the law still in effect or was a TRO issued? Still in effect right? Until that changes, it is the law. That is how our system works, Not by sheriff proclamations.
- Deputy Sheriff - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:00 pm:
If the IL Senate was setup like the US Senate, and every county had 1 senator…. what a different place IL would be…. and 90+ counties wouldn’t be ruled by 4
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:03 pm:
===If the IL Senate was setup like the US Senate===
LOL
You really need a nap.
Also, the Democrats would just break up Cook into 200 counties. lol
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:08 pm:
Bullard manages to veer from good ol’ boy to pseudo intellectual.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:09 pm:
=== ===If the IL Senate was setup like the US Senate===
LOL
…
Also, the Democrats would just break up Cook into 200 counties. lol===
“Simple Solutions are Neither”
Very telling that “one person, one vote” is too big of a democratic (small d, don’t hyperventilate) ideal to subscribe.
And you enforce laws?
- very old soil - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:10 pm:
OW and JS,
\I was just providing information. I do believe that the law is in effect and should be followed by everyone. IMHO, all of these weapons should be illegal and we should follow the lead of countries like Australia. And no, I am not opposed to hunting.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:13 pm:
Westside:
That’s Four Star General Constitutional Scholar Supreme Court Clarifier Bullard isn’t it?
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:36 pm:
“If the IL Senate was setup like the US Senate, and every county had 1 senator … .”
Welcome back Sen. Dirksen!
- Leap Day William - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:39 pm:
== Also, the Democrats would just break up Cook into 200 counties. lol ==
While also merging together all those tiny counties whose lines were drawn in the 1820s.
- TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:54 pm:
“U.S. Supreme Court declines to block New York gun restrictions,”
It was amazing how many sudden constitutional experts were citing that case as inevitable in online discussions. Even calling people ’stupid’ because they were ignoring the other cases being cited they knew nothing about, but heard someone else reference in conversation and then repeated. Every discussion involved the same cases being cited, as if it was mindlessly being read off a script.
I have to wonder if this is why Jim Glasgow has been completely silent on this issue in contrast to many other SAs, which is a complete reversal from his front and center publicity-seeking behavior just a month ago to tell everyone how unconstitutional the SAFE-T act was.
I do not envy the position many officials are going to be in if this gets decided against the proclamations they have been making locally, as if they were the final arbiter of law. How many will have the integrity to resign, and what will remain of the reputation of those who don’t.
- Cornfield Cowboy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 3:57 pm:
Ben Matlock was only as good as Conrad McMaster’s investigative skills.
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 4:16 pm:
==If the IL Senate was setup like the US Senate==
Then that actually *would* violate the Constitution. One Man, One Vote, babe.
- Anyone Remember - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 4:38 pm:
“One Man, One Vote, babe.”
Actually, that is only about 60 years old. Baker v. Carr. Reynolds v. Sims.
- FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 5:00 pm:
I think the Sheriffs are out of their lane, they do not decide legislation nor Constitutionality, they enforce what the Legislature has placed as law. There are very few instances where I would expect anyone to veer from their lane, if somehow in the unlikely event the Legislature decided to bring back slavery, then of course we all would like to Sheriffs refuse to enforce the Law. It is only in the most absurd or rare instances would we expect such action. This Legislation is not part of these rare or absurd cases.
The time period for compliance gives time for Courts to decide whether to pause the Law while they deliberate or to do nothing and allow the law to stand. IMHO, the SCOTUS will allow this case and others to remain at the lower Courts until there is case that is more relevant Nationally to decide on. I don’t think the SCOTUS will stay silent too long on this issue of the 2A.
For these Sheriffs, instead of speaking about how they would not enforce the law, they would be better off spending that time writing briefs for the Courts stating their concerns about the law.
- Donnie Elgin - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 5:33 pm:
“ The time period for compliance gives time for Courts to decide whether to pause the Law while they deliberate or to do nothing”
Time ? The sale of so called assault rifles and mags over 10/15 are banned immediately.
- Big Dipper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 5:34 pm:
==and 90+ counties wouldn’t be ruled by 4==
Someone doesn’t know there are 102 counties and is too lazy to look it up.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 5:36 pm:
===Someone===
Hey, he’s a deputy sheriff.
- Occasionally Moderated - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 5:46 pm:
Sheriff Bullard’s comments are very unhelpful. I am very concerned about the use of statements by those who wish to radicalize members of the public or justify violence.
We don’t hire sheriffs thinking they are statesmen. We do hire them to help maintain calm and promote the peace. Like I said before, this was unhelpful.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 6:28 pm:
=Hey, he’s a deputy sheriff.=
You know how you can tell? It is in his handle.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 7:02 pm:
Rauol’s response to the TRO is on point, and the State could likely win that round. Depends on the mood of the court to keep the prior (2022) status quo or to keep the current (2023) position.
Other than the claims cited (which have been previously ruled on), it does not address (and does not have to at this point) the actual merits of the case as to their public safety rationale versus the 2nd Amendment.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 7:07 pm:
===It is in his handle.===
It’s a clue, as they say…
- Deputy Sheriff - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 8:35 pm:
Yea like I didn’t know there was 102 counties. I’m not once condescending or rude to you people, yet you remain that way to me. I meant that 90+ counties usually don’t agree with at least 4, sometimes a few more that can lean either way.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 8:43 pm:
The thing is counties don’t vote, neither does land.
Diminishing the votes of others so smaller counties are artificially elevated may lead to condescending, as the goal of the exercise is to see governing for the greater good, and winners make policy to that.
It’s not a very democratic (small D) to think taking voting power away from people to ensure the minority can win elections.
- Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 8:50 pm:
- yet you remain that way to me. -
Typical cop, demanding respect without earning it. Get back to us when you total up the populations of the counties you wish had control of the state senate, crybaby.
- FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 8:58 pm:
>>Time ? The sale of so called assault rifles and mags over 10/15 are banned immediately.
- FormerParatrooper - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 9:00 pm:
The sale is an issue, possession isn’t banned, yet. Small steps until the Courts decide. If the Courts judge the case by the Constitution, not emotion, the law will be overturned. We just need to see how they decide.
- Deputy Sheriff - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 9:31 pm:
I’m not crying about anything. And who said anything about control? Last I checked, the senate was only one half of the GA. I assume you think the composition of the US Senate is wrong then too?
By your logic, the states with the most population should be able to crush the states with the least. Who cares about Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska right? Just make legislation that is horrible for them, they don’t have enough population to matter. That’s what you’re implying.
I try to have reasonable debate here yet many are very snarky…
PS - last I checked we were a republic not a democracy
- Deputy Sheriff - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 9:33 pm:
@excitable — ****my apologies, I went back and saw that I missed you said control of the senate, that’s my mistake, missed that.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 9:40 pm:
===I assume you think the composition of the US Senate is wrong then too?===
They actually changed how we got us senators, by actual election, so that has been changed… already.
===By your logic, the states with the most population should be able to crush the states with the least. Who cares about Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska right? Just make legislation that is horrible for them, they don’t have enough population to matter. That’s what you’re implying.===
The electoral college has now elected presidents that have put a majority on the Supreme Court. It’s an odd thing to readily admit that winning elections by a minotity vote is smart… as the founders were trying to make voters less important.
You really do lack knowledge of history.
===last I checked we were a republic not a democracy===
We’re a Democratic Republic…
Also Illinois counties aren’t “states” as you have this fixation on governing. As a state having counties within the state be… equally weighted… that takes democracy out of the hands of the people?
Hmm
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Jan 18, 23 @ 9:45 pm:
Polling also has that voters would like to abolish the electoral college.
Both Pew and Gallop have polls to this.
- Deputy Sheriff - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:10 am:
The drafters of the Constitution struggled and debated more in the creation of the Senate than in any other part of the Constitution. In the end, a bicameral Congress emerged primarily as a compromise between some smaller states who threatened to walk away if they lost any more power and larger ones. The resulting congress with one chamber representing people equally, while the other maintains the equal power of smaller states from the existing arrangement (the Articles of Confederation), was known as the Connecticut Compromise. There was also a desire to have two Houses that could act as an internal check on each other. One was a “People’s House” directly elected by the people, and with short terms obliging the representatives to remain close to their constituents. The other represented the states to such extent as they retained some sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation.
- Big Dipper - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 12:47 am:
Nice copy pasta.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 1:13 am:
- Deputy Sheriff -
(Sigh)
We’re a single state. One state.
The Illinois senate isn’t changing, even with the Cutback Amendment the senate remained.
US Senators are elected now, not appointed by legislatures.
Your whole cut and paste is about taking the voting rights/powers away from people, via the senate, as was the intent with legislatures sending Senators, not voters, in its original design
Dunno if this was fun, but the idea of “each country represented equally” will never, ever pass, the impractical thinking and lack of grasping the politics that won’t devolve back, meet us in the reality of what *is*
- Excitable Boy - Thursday, Jan 19, 23 @ 8:15 am:
- By your logic, the states with the most population should be able to crush the states with the least. -
Yeah, by my logic things should be decided by the majority of the people. You shouldn’t get an outsized vote because you choose to live in less densely populated territory.
- I try to have reasonable debate here yet many are very snarky… -
I’m sorry your fee fees are hurt officer.