* Tribune…
Some area Democratic members of Congress, state lawmakers and DuPage County Board members gathered Monday to call on DuPage County Sheriff James Mendrick to retract his statement or resign after he said he will not enforce the state’s new assault weapons ban.
Mendrick, a Republican, issued a statement Jan. 13, saying he believes the new bill violates Second Amendment rights and that his office won’t be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the state nor arresting or housing anyone charged solely with not complying with the act. […]
Lawmakers, including U.S. Reps. Sean Casten, D-Downers Grove; Delia Ramirez, D-Chicago; Bill Foster, D-Naperville; and Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Schaumburg, spoke at Monday’s news conference at Danada House in Wheaton, calling Mendrick’s statement irresponsible.
“I just want to say with one voice, we cannot wait another day, we cannot wait another hour, we cannot wait another minute for the sheriff to do his duty because lives depend on it,” Krishnamoorthi said.
The sheriff did not say what he would do about individuals and/or stores if they sell the newly banned assault-style weapons within his county.
* CBS 2…
In a news conference on Monday, Casten called Mendrick’s position “dangerous and unconstitutional.”
“His actions are going to make future mass shootings more likely,” Casten said. “They are going to compromise the safety not only of civilians who want to go out and celebrate their holidays, but he’s going to put the police officers who are there to protect them directly in the line of fire.”
DuPage County Board Chair Deb Conroy also has criticized Mendrick’s position, saying the sheriff “should not be playing politics with state laws.”
In a lengthy statement released on Monday, Mendrick again criticized the new law as “poorly written” and for having “no clear direction on who will be enforcing new gun laws.” He said he was contacted by Casten on Jan. 16 about enforcing the law.
“There is absolutely nothing that we are doing or not doing that would make a mass shooting more accessible in DuPage County,” Mendrick said in the statement. “In fact, I have asked on multiple occasions to increase penalties on all existing gun crimes, but it does not appear that they want to have that conversation. They seem more concerned with lawful gun owners than people illegally possessing guns.”
* NBC 5…
In a statement released Monday afternoon, Mendrick struck back at the lawmakers saying, “When elected officials are blatantly untruthful, maybe they are the ones who should consider resignation.”
“There is absolutely nothing that we are doing or not doing that would make a mass shooting more accessible in DuPage County,” he added. […]
All but a handful of Illinois’ county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce the ban. Many of them did so by posting letters almost identical to Mendrick’s.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said he is not one of them. Speaking at the City Club Monday Morning, Dart said sheriffs take and oath to uphold the law, “not our version of it.” He said it is “wildly premature” to make such pronouncements when the Illinois State Police have not given any clear guidance on how the law will be enforced.
* Sun-Times…
Mendrick, who previously suggested he believed compliance checks would be tied to the law, also took note that lawmakers on Monday said they would not be asking officers to go door to door to ensure weapons were legally registered.
“That is a big win for our law-abiding citizens and for law enforcement,” he said.
In clarifying that house-to-house inspections were not expected, state Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, a Naperville Democrat, said the weapons ban would come into play if the person was involved with another crime. Using an example of a domestic violence call where guns are involved, Stava-Murray questioned if Mendrick would follow the new law.
“Is he going to enforce our automatic weapons ban if that’s an unregistered weapon?” Stava-Murray said. “He said no, he’s not going to. That seems very dangerous.”
In his statement Monday, Mendrick, a Republican, said it was “disheartening” to hear Stava-Murray suggest he would not enforce the law when he has said he would enforce the weapons ban when it involves other illegal activity.
Again, no word on whether he’ll enforce the new law on people who buy and sell the banned weapons.
* KSDK…
Casten challenged critics to lay out their constitutional arguments.
“By the way, your argument can’t be, ‘Well, there’s different people on the Supreme Court now.’ That’s not a constitutional argument,” he said.
Former State Senator Darren Bailey, the GOP nominee who lost his November bid to unseat Governor Pritzker, was among the downstate Republicans who filed a lawsuit in Effingham last week.
“Well, umm…I think…I don’t know that the FOID card has…the background checks…You know, with the federal background checks, I think we all agree,” he stammered [when asked why he believed the law was unconstitutional]. “I don’t think we have… yeah, we can look at that. There’s an…there’s an area of compromise. You know?
“We can say, alright, ‘Shall not be infringed,’ but yet we understand that sometimes these guns fall into the hands of the wrong person. So we have the federal, you know, firearm background check. That’s exactly what it does, and I don’t see anyone arguing that. But to come here into Illinois and to add the FOID card, and to continue to add these restrictions, that’s an infringement,” Bailey said.
* Daily Herald…
During a nearly hourlong interview over the weekend on AM-560’s “Black and Right” radio program, Mendrick was critical of the weapons ban, claiming sheriffs were not consulted in drafting the new law.
From that radio interview…
Sheriff Mendrick: And you know, what’s going to happen when we send this three-man team to a citizen’s house and they’ve never committed any crime, but they really don’t want to give up their weapons and we get into some type of standoff, and then somebody gets shot or all these people are gonna back me then?
Host: No
Sheriff Mendrick: And I bet they’ll go and say I should’ve never been doin’…
Host: Especially if it’s a Black person.
Sheriff Mendrick: [Crosstalk] Yep.
Host: A white sheriff a black dude, they will…
Sheriff Mendrick: I’d be eaten alive.
Whew.
Also, if the sheriff thinks assault weapon owners are that mentally disordered that they would shoot at police, why is he defending them?
More from the interview…
And wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would maybe increase the penalties for these 3-D-printed ghost guns? We could actually, if they would make that like child pornography make it illegal to possess a program. My digital forensics lab could do a keyword search algorithm and we could find all the illegally being made guns on the program. Nobody will enhance penalties, though. Nobody will increase crimes that could be charged with.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022…
Governor JB Pritzker signed HB4383 into law, banning the sale and possession of so-called ‘ghost guns’ statewide. ‘Ghost guns’ refer to unserialized, privately made firearms that are often sold as a set of parts to be assembled at home, allowing prohibited purchasers to circumvent background checks. Ghost guns cannot be traced by conventional means and can be created on a 3-D printer, leaving no record of their ownership.
- Captain Ron - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:47 am:
The sheriff’s have become a activist organization over the last few years. Out to make money while bragging about not enforcing the law. Way to go!
- ZC - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:49 am:
Just pointing out the obvious, that you don’t know whether the man walking toward you with an AR-15 is a “law abiding citizen” until he lifts it and starts firing, and by then it’s generally too late to get your own gun out.
- George Ryan Reynolds - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:50 am:
The radio interview is from a show hosted by ex-Rep. John Anthony. You may remember him as the guy who was “fired from a high-paying job at the Illinois Department of Corrections in December 2016 after being accused within the workplace of inappropriately touching women at a Christmas party. A video substantiated contact with one woman in a hotel entryway as she headed outside.”
(Including the link to cite the source, but warning, it comes from a McQ column trying to clean the guy up…
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/kristen-mcqueary/ct-column-john-anthony-radio-show-mcqueary-20191125-6ddt72txmze6xbko2vkidq74la-story.html )
- The Truth - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:56 am:
That radio interview…woof, Sheriff. Better hope that doesn’t end up on the local TV news.
- DuPage Dad - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 9:59 am:
I have absolutely no issue with Sheriff’s taking political positions. They’re elected officials and have that privilege. I can also greatly understand exercising some discretion in how you enforce certain laws. But they’re not the courts, and they don’t have the privilege or power to pick and choose what they would like and not like to enforce.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:00 am:
This is all predicated on the false narrative that there would be door-to-door checks as part of the new law. That somehow morphed into ‘the entire law is unconstitutional’, even though that’s not the law.
So basically, the sheriffs are saying they will not do something that they made up in their own minds.
I suppose it’s a good thing that they aren’t going to act on the voices in their heads, but that means there’s a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed.
– claiming sheriffs were not consulted in drafting the new law.–
Sheriffs derive their power from the state, not the other way around. It’s his job to get involved in that conversation. Instead he sees himself as a king with a ring needing to be kissed by everyone else. If he continues on this path, nobody is going to consult him when the state makes changes to the laws defining his office either.
Keep digging, Mendrick.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:05 am:
Pass the bill, sign the bill, let the courts find the constitutionality of the law, a law on the books to be enforced at whatever stage of implementation exists.
I would like the maximum amount of regulation (if a ban of some sort is part, or even not) that is wholly constitutional, and the law, passed and signed, is constitutional until a court says otherwise.
I preface all that because what the DuPage sheriff here is doing is misunderstanding the mandate given to his elected office:
The mandate is that he will faithfully execute the duties.
I suggested in a QOTD Rich had up a 5-member board, the Director of ISP, 4 members representing the 4 legislative caucuses, and while I’m taking a very long time walking it around the barn, it boils down to this in all my typed words…
The oversight to sheriffs in a uniformed (no pun intended) way to all elected sheriffs does not exist, and further no real statewide mechanism for oversight, including *any* form of discipline exists.
So, all that is left is the “public politics” and that’s where the congressional delegation, and others, fit.
It’s a flat out loser for Republicans in competitive or “higher population” areas of this state, saying that by the roll call vote to this bill and nary a cry against those voting Green and, well, “geography”
We are at the point of the film where being right and “being Right” has a crossroads to where following the law and doing the job meets a highly unpopular political want, even if in the end the law might be on these Sheriffs’ side?
So much unneeded posturing, let the courts do what they do, less the “kangaroo” state courts which aren’t helping at all.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:14 am:
“Is he going to enforce our automatic weapons ban if that’s an unregistered weapon?”
Stava-Murray should know better, automatic weapons (machine guns) are and have been banned by federal and state laws that have been on the books for decades. The new law (which she was a sponsor) bans so-called “assault -weapons”.
- Rudy’s teeth - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:14 am:
Time for Darren Bailey to give it a rest. The man cannot resist a microphone even though he lost an election. Bailey is no longer in Illinois government. Bailey’s 15 minutes are up.
Reminds me of another failed candidate—-Mark Curran. Always spouting nonsense tinged with religious overtones. And, reminds all that he is the former Sheriff of Lake County.
- Jocko - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:16 am:
I would love to see Mendrick’s position on DUIs
==They seem more concerned with law-abiding citizens having a couple brewskis than drunken repeat offenders terrorizing our roads==
- New Day - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:21 am:
“So basically, the sheriffs are saying they will not do something that they made up in their own minds.”
A classic straw man.
- Old time Independent - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:27 am:
And now Profts hand picked losing Candidate Pekau put out a press release. Don’t these people understand that when you lose big like Pekau did that nobody wants to hear from you.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:29 am:
The only heat Sheriff Mendrick is feeling is from the bright lights of Fox News. Maybe he can parlay this into being Fox’s new Sheriff David Clarke, or Arpaio.
- Google Is Your Friend - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:33 am:
==Also, if the sheriff thinks assault weapon owners are that mentally disordered that they would shoot at police, why is he defending them?==
Have we considered the mental state of the sheriff?
- thechampaignlife - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:48 am:
===…maybe increase the penalties for these 3-D-printed ghost guns…make it illegal to possess a program…Nobody will enhance penalties, though. Nobody will increase crimes that could be charged with.===
Being overly generous with the benefit of the doubt, he could be asking that the penalties for ghost guns be increased beyond what is provided in HB4383, and he appears to want to criminalize possession of the files used to print the guns. I am not sure if HB4383 addresses that, but it worked wonders with BitTorrent. /s
But, is he asking for more gun regulations and more criminalization of currently “law abiding” citizens, when we all know that criminals don’t follow the law? Isn’t he part of the crowd that says we just need to enforce the laws we have on the books, while announcing that he will not enforce some of the laws?
===My digital forensics lab could do a keyword search algorithm and we could find all the illegally being made guns on the program.===
Ugh, my techie brain hurts from reading that. You are going to find the illegal guns “on the program”? Like the printing software keeps a hidden record of all the guns it printed and where they are currently located? And just with a keyword search “algorithm” eh? Fancy pants.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 10:59 am:
Really?? “sheriffs were not consulted in drafting the new law”.
Like every other interest group, the sheriffs had their say on the bill, which did not turn out the way they wanted. Too bad, so sad.
- Todd - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:16 am:
==Also, if the sheriff thinks assault weapon owners are that mentally disordered that they would shoot at police, why is he defending them?==
Some of you don’t seem to understand the hornets nest that’s been kicked over
Gun owners tolerated the FOID as it was abusive. But recent changes to it are making it more so a resentment just grows. People are filling in bogus information on the private sales background checks or going over and doing the ammo sales to prevent the collection of make model and serial numbers. While some of you think no big deal, it is a big hell no for lots and lots of gun owners. And so they won’t do it.
And yes Gun owners had been proponents of enforcing existing laws to see bad guys illegally using firearms get jail time. But now since yall think that the gun owners are the problem, and refusal to fill out and submit to the government exactly what guns we own under their ever shifting definition of what constitutes an AW, are now the problem, despite FOID cards and carry licenses and such then our response is a middle finger.
And maybe the sheriffs understand that some will take the notion of from my cold dead hands to heart and are sincere in that belief.
As for door to door checks, I saw where CPD under their handgun ban, would run plates from gun shops and then run their FOID cards for purchases. they would then send a fax tot he gun shops seeking the 4473 on all the approvals for background checks. And I saw more than one person get a visit and more than one loose a gun collection — all because of a registry that was turned into a ban.
But like I said I committee, its not gonna be enforced in 80%+ of the state. by local cops, so what is your enforcement mechanism? the supporters of the ban need to explain that.
People have lots of unfinished frames/receivers and they are making plans to run across state lines to buy the parts to finish them kinda like fireworks. So again, how you gonna enforce this?
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:24 am:
===And so they won’t do it. ===
Then y’all can stop calling yourselves law abiding.
- Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:27 am:
Certain people keep shouting “shall not be infringed” about guns, yet we can’t own machine guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombs, bazookas, etc. What gives? If we can ban those legally, why not assault weapons and high capacity clips?
But mass shootings are nowhere near as dangerous as “woke ideology” and CRT. /s
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:29 am:
–Ugh, my techie brain hurts from reading that.–
He’s describing a process available to law enforcement, albeit incredibly poorly because he probably doesn’t understand how it works.
Suffice it to say, unless your device is completely air-gapped from the internet, yes law enforcement can ’see’ you. I mean, even a private citizen can pay your ISP for all of your internet activity.
“Don’t do anything on the internet you wouldn’t be comfortable seeing on a digital billboard on the interstate”
- H-W - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:33 am:
== “There is absolutely nothing that we are doing or not doing that would make a mass shooting more accessible in DuPage County,” he added. ==
Of course, the real question must be, what is Mendrick and the ISA (the union behind this refusal to enforce laws) doing to reduce the probability of mass shootings. The answer seems to be, “nothing.” And that should speak volumes.
- Publius - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:37 am:
“The oversight to sheriffs in a uniformed (no pun intended) way to all elected sheriffs does not exist, and further no real statewide mechanism for oversight, including *any* form of discipline exists.”
Nah. The SAFE-T Act has a mechanism to de-certify any LEO in the state via processes at ILETSB (A statewide org). Heck, they even accept anonymous complaints. The mechanism exists. Of all people, you want politicians to make these certification calls? yikes. I prefer to have the Gov and AG make some appointments and have victims and civilians and police make the call. The appointees even have a LE training requirement.
The fix is there. Make a complaint. Its on their website.
- Shytown - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:39 am:
I hope the DuPage Dems are lining up their options to oppose this guy in the next cycle. The ads can write themselves.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:46 am:
===The SAFE-T Act has a mechanism to de-certify any LEO in the state via processes at ILETSB (A statewide org). Heck, they even accept anonymous complaints. The mechanism exists. Of all people, you want politicians to make these certification calls? yikes===
As you can plainly see I was unaware of the possible application to this thru that way.
Politicans? Yep. Exactly them, actually.
Why? Easy. It’s an elected official, the sheriff elected by a constituency, and having a bureaucratic way to censure the elected, for the job by which they were elected? No thank you. I can hear it now… “who appointed this person?”, but you have the Director of ISP, elected legislators, there the political accountability with either exact, or gubernatorial proxy. You wanna take on a sheriff, well, let’s see how it’s going to roll, while holding accountable the sheriff
- Roadrager - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 11:55 am:
==And yes Gun owners had been proponents of enforcing existing laws to see bad guys illegally using firearms get jail time. But now since yall think that the gun owners are the problem, and refusal to fill out and submit to the government exactly what guns we own under their ever shifting definition of what constitutes an AW, are now the problem, despite FOID cards and carry licenses and such then our response is a middle finger.==
“I’ve got all these guns and you’re gonna make use ‘em if you try to regulate them in any way, shape or form. That’s on you.”
From the same group of law-abiders who brought you such hits as “Black Lives Matter made me a fascist” and “I wouldn’t have stormed the Capitol if it weren’t for all those liberals trying to steal the election.”
Hot take here, maybe someone with so little agency and self-control shouldn’t have their hands on machinery that can kill 20 people in 30 seconds.
- This - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:05 pm:
Many sheriffs, notably Tom Dart, have this right. Sheriffs aren’t appellate courts. They swear an oath to uphold the law, not to decide which laws they want to uphold.
- charles in charge - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:14 pm:
Oh great, Mendrick wants to increase penalties for all gun crimes. It’s funny that he claims to know what will or won’t work to reduce shootings, and he proposes the one policy for which ample evidence exists that it will fail.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:24 pm:
=Stava-Murray should know better, automatic weapons (machine guns) are and have been banned by federal and state laws that have been on the books for decades. =
A self own of immeasurable proportion. Empirical proof of the fact that the Second Amendment has limits and can be limited as it has been since the 1930’s. Thank you Donnie.
=Certain people keep shouting “shall not be infringed” about guns, yet we can’t own machine guns, nuclear weapons, tanks, bombs, bazookas, etc. What gives? If we can ban those legally, why not assault weapons and high capacity clips?=
@GOM was on it too.
=Gun owners tolerated the FOID as it was abusive.=
Several thoughts come to mind as a “gun owner”. First, I do not recall anyone electing you as speaker for gun owners. And I never felt “abused” by the FOID. The assertion is ridiculous and an example of hyperbole run amok.
That you think the govt does not already now what guns you have is laughable.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:36 pm:
@JS Mill
To your last point;
Especially considering how loudly most people are at publicly announcing their personal inventories on the internet every chance they get.
- Gravitas - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:40 pm:
There are many court filings to come, but I wonder if this matter someday winds up being appealed to the SCOTUS?
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 12:42 pm:
Tip of the hat to TheInvisibleMan.
=Especially considering how loudly most people are at publicly announcing their personal inventories on the internet every chance they get.=
And their woke attempt to virtue signal all of the other “law and order” folks that they will in fact not follow the law.
Like the Jan 6 insurrectionists, they make it too easy for real law enforcement. Thankfully.
- Walker - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 1:23 pm:
At this point they’re punching down.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 1:39 pm:
Mendrick was re-elected in Nov, running unopposed. His term had been ripe with controversy yet no opponent was slated. I’d like to understand why that is… he barely won the first race.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 2:22 pm:
The FOID process is not going to stop these crazy ‘mass’ shootings. the FOID process is not going to stop gang violence. if need be, let’s extend the waiting g period to 30 days on certain guns. let’s eliminate mags over 10 rounds.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 2:35 pm:
BTW. still a proud member of NRA and IRSA.
- Blue Dog - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 2:52 pm:
ISRA
- RNUG - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 3:47 pm:
== make it illegal to possess a program… ==
Wasn’t there a case (actually a series) already about this, starting with Defense Distributed vs US Dept of State, based on 1A free speech claims? While there was never a legally binding opinion issued (resolved by a settlement), it was settled in favor of Defense Distributed being able to continue to host the files.
So trying to ban ghost gun programs is probably a non-starter.
- Loop Lady - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 4:45 pm:
My Mom taught me that there are things you say out loud, and things you keep to yourself.
I guess Mendrick missed that lesson.
H3 should resign.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 5:07 pm:
Mendrick is an embarrassment- but he’s lined up supporters to make public comment on his behalf at the county board meeting. Better to be loud than right - the GOP playbook now I guess.
- thisjustinagain - Tuesday, Jan 24, 23 @ 7:37 pm:
To: Donnie Elgin at 10:14, about fully auto weapons being banned by Federal law.
Uh, no they are NOT. You have to apply for a license through ATF, including fingerprints and a background check. There is a $200 tax as well.