At least 74 Illinois sheriff’s departments vow to defy state assault weapons ban

[Deplorable Me]

At least 74 Illinois sheriff’s departments vow to defy state assault weapons ban

At least 74 Illinois sheriff's offices have publicly vowed to defy a recent gun-control law signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, which banned assault weapons.

abcnews.go.com

In NY the sheriff's weren't as vocal. In any event, this is good on a national level. Another opportunity to head to the Supreme Court. The lefties have to open their damn eyes and see who's committing the murders and stop dancing in the blood of the dead. Damn socialist opportunist.

 

[lrick]

Sheriffs in this state need to start getting the message that their elected positions could be affected by their willingness to go along with this unConstitutional over reach. Especially in red counties. Voters need to start demanding they take a position on this as part of their platform.

I've heard many make the point that getting involved at the local level is key to fighting all this crap. I'm starting to believe it.

They were more vocal after unSAFE.

 

[GOPerfect]

These departments will fail on their claims of not following the new laws. I commend them for their words, but, their actions, in time, will not match their words.

Couple of reasons they will fail:

1. The Sheriffs are elected, many of their voting base want these laws. The elected will bow down for the votes.

2. These departments get much of their money through the State and the Feds, once the dollars are with held, they will cave.

3. The Deputies that work for these departments, some of them will follow what ever laws that are placed in front of them.

4. Too often, the individual officer will not be well versed in the laws and run with any and all charges that he can think of.


the Police are not the friends of the people, these are words only.

 

[Defilade]

These departments will fail on their claims of not following the new laws. I commend them for their words, but, their actions, in time, will not match their words.

Couple of reasons they will fail:

1. The Sheriffs are elected, many of their voting base want these laws. The elected will bow down for the votes.

2. These departments get much of their money through the State and the Feds, once the dollars are with held, they will cave.

3. The Deputies that work for these departments, some of them will follow what ever laws that are placed in front of them.

4. Too often, the individual officer will not be well versed in the laws and run with any and all charges that he can think of.


the Police are not the friends of the people, these are words only.

How do they with hold dollars?

 

[GOPerfect]

How do they with hold dollars?

State budgets. Federal handouts. Many County sheriff's departments are beholden to the money given by the States and the Fed's.

 

[GOPerfect]

How do they with hold dollars?

Similar to the seatbelt laws, the federal goverment withheld a ot of money to the states until they enacted seatbelt laws.

 

[tgenec86]

I looked at the November voter record for Oneida County. 70/30 Republican (Conservative). And yet Sheriff Rob Maciol (D) got voted in for a fourth time because he ran under the banner of conservative. So voter stupidity is still the highlight of elections - Whorechul was a significant loser here, but she still got a puppet limp on crime, hard on gun restrictions sycophant in a key law enforcement office. Not a chance in hell that candy ass will defy ANYTHING out of Albany. He ran on "Bail Reform" and "Public Safety" - neither of which address any of the unConstitutional bullshit plaguing NYS citizens. Public Safety out of Albany pretty much means - keep guns out of the hands of everyone (except the criminals who Bail Reform lets out on the streets the same day). And his outlook on reform is to "highlight how out of touch the current system is with Albany." What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Not - I will demand changes, I will defy the trends that let violent criminals walk free, I will pursue justice and keep dangerous felons off the streets, no. I will highlight the issues. Well isn't that fucking special?

Been living here for just under 5 years now and the Police and Sheriff are two things I DO NOT want coming around, because they're more of a threat to me than just keeping a low profile and dealing with the local elements. Better to have our house look just run down enough to not be a target, so I don't have to shoot a home invader and have the local Constabulary arrest me, and (if I didn't terminate the intruder) have the robber get free medical care and a pro-bono attorney for a civil lawsuit which would destroy me financially, on top of the jail time and fines.

 

[Grimscale]

Sheriffs in this state need to start getting the message that their elected positions could be affected by their willingness to go along with this unConstitutional over reach.

Doesn't heil hochul have the power to remove sheriffs she doesn't like?
So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Might be better to go along with the people that elect you only because these are also the people who live next to you?

 

[lrick]

Doesn't heil hochul have the power to remove sheriffs she doesn't like?
So they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Might be better to go along with the people that elect you only because these are also the people who live next to you?

You are correct for the most part. I hadn't even considered the Gov's power being that extensive, but this is NYS. This makes about as much sense as if POTUS were empowered to remove a Governor.

She does need cause though and can't just do it on a whim. An issuance of charges and a defense are required, but I don't know how that works legally or administratively. It may be covered in another section of the state constitution.

It certainly would make for an interesting dialogue though.....the charges are the failure to enforce NYS law...the defense is those laws are unConstitutional. If we get more SCOTUS rulings in our favor that defense gets stronger and the Gov's defiance of Constitutional law more apparent. I'm not sure she would enjoy the optics. En mass the sheriffs would hold a strong hand but I doubt they have the backbone. She could get away with 1 or 3, but 20, 30 or more?

When I made the comment, I was thinking mostly in regards to keeping red counties free (as can be in this hole), blue counties are screwed and will always lean towards oppression - fk 'em. Honestly, I would have less a problem with gun laws if implemented as ordinances within city limits rather than statewide laws. Still wouldn't like it, but the cities are where the problems exist and I do want LE to have reason to lock up bad actors.

New York Constitution​

Article XIII - Public Officers​

Section 13​

a. [...] The governor may remove any elective sheriff, county clerk, district attorney or register within the term for which he or she shall have been elected; but before so doing the governor shall give to such officer a copy of the charges against him or her and an opportunity of being heard in his or her defense. [...]

 

[Mr. terzmo]

When the law is broken..for example the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, I don't understand why a challenge to the law does not get the "fast track" through the Courts. Any amendment that is made illegal by any level of Government should get "warp speed" to get it right.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Even if the sheriffs ignore the laws... There's no guarantee you won't have a run in with an Illinois state police trooper that won't be looking the other way.

 

[Acer-m14]

would have been better if 72 Ill sheriffs went and arrested the Governor

18 usc 241 and 242 ..

hey they have that qualified immunity thing

 

[lrick]

Illinois Gov. Pritzker ripped for threatening sheriffs who vowed not to enforce assault weapons ban​

Illinois Gov. Pritzker ripped for threatening sheriffs who vowed not to enforce assault weapons ban

Spokesmen for Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association joined a bounty of disgruntled Americans who pushed back against Illinois' assault weapons ban.

www.foxnews.com

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker's assault weapons ban signed into law last Wednesday had gun owners up in arms about the move they claim is a constitutional violation.

The Protect Illinois Communities Act effectively bans the manufacture and ownership of high-capacity ammunition magazines as well as firearms deemed as "assault weaponS" and has come under fire from sheriffs across the state who voted not to enforce the policy on the people.

"This is an outright assault on our constitutional rights," Val Finnell, national director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America, told Fox News Digital.

"Sheriffs are constitutional officers. They're elected by the people, and they take an oath, swear an oath to the constitution of the state and also the United States Constitution to uphold it. If they believe that those laws are unconstitutional, then they're morally obligated not to enforce those laws. We are fully supportive of the sheriffs in Illinois who will not enforce the law," he added.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Well, at least the Bruen case is helping other states.

 

[ManualF150]

When the law is broken..for example the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, I don't understand why a challenge to the law does not get the "fast track" through the Courts. Any amendment that is made illegal by any level of Government should get "warp speed" to get it right.

It should be, especially since it directly affects peoples life and safety.

 

[ManualF150]

Well, at least the Bruen case is helping other states.

This only helps.

 

[Dr. Evil]