Illinois AWB is RIDICULOUS

[K.Mooneyham]

Herschel’s take on the Illinois Sheriffs over at The Captain’s Journal
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2023/01 ... inois-awb/

Merely refusing to assist the state police isn’t doing anyone any good. For this to have teeth the Sheriffs would need to ensure that not only were they constitutional Sheriffs, but their deputies were constitutional deputies as well, and that the city and township PDs agreed with this stance. Those are the preconditions for success.

That would all lead to the next necessary step, which would be a threat to arrest any state police who came into their counties to enforce the new law, and the stomach to follow through with it. Finally, if those counties have militia to whom the Sheriff could go for assistance, that may prove to be necessary as well.

Do any of the Sheriffs have the stomach for this? I seriously doubt it. I’ve said before, nullification laws or threats are dangerous for the citizens if they aren’t serious and don’t carry both the threat and reality of force behind them. If they are weighty and enforced, they serve as a check on centralized power and authority to infringe on God-given rights.

So, how many semi-automatic rifles are in the State of Illinois? No one knows, that's why they want folks to register them. How many ISP officers are there? Enough to force compliance ON THEIR OWN without assistance of local law enforcement? I keep saying this thing is a matter of logistics. How long will the ISP have enough folks to do anything if they have to start "spending" officers going door-to-door trying to find out if people have semi-automatic rifles and shotguns? I get it, most people are "sheeple", they'll doff the cap, make obeisance, and all that. But if even some small percentage do not, and take serious umbrage, how long until enough ISP officers end up in a bad way before officers start calling in with the "blue flu" or find other employment? I know, I know, everyone thinks we're at the point of Stalin's Soviet Union, but I'm not among those folks. Things are bad, real bad, but I still don't think that state troopers, even in Illinois, are going to be able to go door-to-door and take away rifles. And taking them on random traffic stops or because one neighbor ratted out another isn't going to get the job done, either. LOGISTICS!

(ETA: There are about 3K ISP officers. Can they effectively disarm who knows how many folks in a state where the population is 12 million and spread over a lot of rural counties?

A reasonable definition of logistics: The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel, or the management of the details of an operation. And make no mistake, disarming who knows how many tens of thousands of people would require at least a paramilitary operation.)

[RoyGBiv]

The citizens of Virginia are not taking lightly the stuff the Dems in their state would like to do to gun rights....

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/it- ... onal-laws/

It begins: Virginia forms active militia to protect sheriffs, citizens from unconstitutional laws

Earlier in the week, we reported on how lawmakers over in Virginia were threatening to use the National Guard if members of local law enforcement refused to enforce laws passed in the state that they felt violated the second amendment.

Well, looks like Tazewell County isn’t going down without a fight. On top of calling themselves a second amendment sanctuary county, they’re also crafting a militia as well.

Did you happen to notice the date of that article? It was back in 2019. Things have changed in Virginia, and I don't think that state is going to try to send the National Guard after anyone's guns there. I don't want to say that Virginia is back in the fold as a "red state", but again, things have changed there from how it was in 2019.

Good catch... thanks. I'd swear I checked it, as I usually do, but, apparently not.

Must have just seen December 16 and figured it was last month... LOL.

[Soccerdad1995]

The real question to me is "does an obviously unconstitutional law have any force of law"?

For example, let's say that a small town somewhere passes a law that says "anyone who votes for a democratic candidate is guilty of a felony punishable by a minimum of 30 years in prison". Further assume that this does not make national news and since the town is full of republicans no one ever gets charged or prosecuted under this law.

Does the law have any validity whatsoever? Or, since the Constitution is the ultimate law of the land, and this clearly violates the constitution on it's face, can we say that this law is, in fact, invalid?

And further to that, would a LEO have immunity if they were to forcibly arrest someone who "violated" this obviously unconstitutional law (before any court had the opportunity to strike it down)?

Now apply the same logic to the unconstitutional Illinois AWB.

There is a point you have missed in your analysis that is best answered by answering your hypothetical case. The answer is that yes, the officer would have immunity. There is a legal presumption that ALL laws are constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

And that means that, at least in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as an obviously unconstitutional law. I tend to disagree with the courts and a lot of legal presumptions, including this one. For example, I always thought the Second Amendment was pretty clear on its own but many of the courts seem to disagree with me. I thought the Bruen decision made what laws would be acceptable pretty clear. But the 2nd Circuit judges and the government of New York (among others) again seem to disagree with me.

So to further my hypothetical, let's say that a new resident moves into town and mentions to someone that they did, in fact, vote for Biden in the last Presidential election. They are immediately arrested, and imprisoned until their case is heard. Since they obviously violated the law, as written, presumably a defense would be that the law is unconstitutional. Eventually the person is freed, possibly after weeks or months of incarceration, and the law effectively becomes moot (although it may still be on the books).

My understanding from your post is that the LEO's involved have immunity since the law was presumed to be constitutional before it was ruled on by the court. Would the person who was charged here have any recourse against the local government or are they just out of luck?

In the military, I was taught that I would be held accountable if I followed an order that I should have known to be illegal (the prinicipal which came into play during prosecution of the My Lai massacre, and also during the Nuremberg trials). It sounds like that same principal does not hold in the case of unconstitutional laws within the U.S.

[Grayling813]

Herschel’s take on the Illinois Sheriffs over at The Captain’s Journal
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2023/01 ... inois-awb/

Merely refusing to assist the state police isn’t doing anyone any good. For this to have teeth the Sheriffs would need to ensure that not only were they constitutional Sheriffs, but their deputies were constitutional deputies as well, and that the city and township PDs agreed with this stance. Those are the preconditions for success.

That would all lead to the next necessary step, which would be a threat to arrest any state police who came into their counties to enforce the new law, and the stomach to follow through with it. Finally, if those counties have militia to whom the Sheriff could go for assistance, that may prove to be necessary as well.

Do any of the Sheriffs have the stomach for this? I seriously doubt it. I’ve said before, nullification laws or threats are dangerous for the citizens if they aren’t serious and don’t carry both the threat and reality of force behind them. If they are weighty and enforced, they serve as a check on centralized power and authority to infringe on God-given rights.

So, how many semi-automatic rifles are in the State of Illinois? No one knows, that's why they want folks to register them. How many ISP officers are there? Enough to force compliance ON THEIR OWN without assistance of local law enforcement? I keep saying this thing is a matter of logistics. How long will the ISP have enough folks to do anything if they have to start "spending" officers going door-to-door trying to find out if people have semi-automatic rifles and shotguns? I get it, most people are "sheeple", they'll doff the cap, make obeisance, and all that. But if even some small percentage do not, and take serious umbrage, how long until enough ISP officers end up in a bad way before officers start calling in with the "blue flu" or find other employment? I know, I know, everyone thinks we're at the point of Stalin's Soviet Union, but I'm not among those folks. Things are bad, real bad, but I still don't think that state troopers, even in Illinois, are going to be able to go door-to-door and take away rifles. And taking them on random traffic stops or because one neighbor ratted out another isn't going to get the job done, either. LOGISTICS!

(ETA: There are about 3K ISP officers. Can they effectively disarm who knows how many folks in a state where the population is 12 million and spread over a lot of rural counties?

A reasonable definition of logistics: The aspect of military operations that deals with the procurement, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel, or the management of the details of an operation. And make no mistake, disarming who knows how many tens of thousands of people would require at least a paramilitary operation.)

True statements.

This "State" has infringed upon the rights of the people to bear their lawfully purchased arms. How long before, if not already, Illinois begins to require it's subjects to show their proof of registrations in order to purchase ammunition or use their weapons at ranges?
As a prior 20 year resident of the socialist state of Illinois I know the filthy communists from Chicago who are in the majority in Springfield and rule over it despite being a small part of the state in land.

[oohrah]

Illinois already requires proof to buy ammunition, have for years. You must have a FOID card to even possess a firearm in IL (Firearm Owners ID), and you must either show your FOID or your IL CCL to but ammo.

I have an IL CCL. It is my understanding the FOID has undergone some legal challenges and they are merging it with the CCL. One interesting wrinkle is that you cannot get a FOID card if you are a non-resident, but you can get a CCL. And frustratingly, a lot of businesses that sell ammo will only take the FOID, not the CCL.

[srothstein]

So to further my hypothetical, let's say that a new resident moves into town and mentions to someone that they did, in fact, vote for Biden in the last Presidential election. They are immediately arrested, and imprisoned until their case is heard. Since they obviously violated the law, as written, presumably a defense would be that the law is unconstitutional. Eventually the person is freed, possibly after weeks or months of incarceration, and the law effectively becomes moot (although it may still be on the books).

My understanding from your post is that the LEO's involved have immunity since the law was presumed to be constitutional before it was ruled on by the court. Would the person who was charged here have any recourse against the local government or are they just out of luck?

In the military, I was taught that I would be held accountable if I followed an order that I should have known to be illegal (the prinicipal which came into play during prosecution of the My Lai massacre, and also during the Nuremberg trials). It sounds like that same principal does not hold in the case of unconstitutional laws within the U.S.

I was taught this principle also, and was taught that it is also true for civilian police. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has changed this while at the same time establishing it firmly. The trick to the immunity is not the moral definition of right or wrong, but the legal definition of "should have known it was illegal". SCOTUS established qualified immunity in 1967 as a way to protect police from the quandary of making an illegal arrest or being fired for dereliction of duty. It was intended as a good thing to help cops do their job in the then expanding legal world of what a person's civil rights were. But in 1982, they created the current legal definition as "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". That sounds good as a rule, but they have since defined "clearly established" as something that has been ruled on by the courts in a very similar case.

So the current status is that a person can only sue if the cop is breaking a rule already established by the courts as violating a person's rights. So if no cops had ever been sued for this type of case anywhere in the US, then the court presumes that it is not generally known and the cop has immunity. The cops could not claim they were unaware if the other law had been against Republicans and this one against Democrats, but it has to be about that similar a case.

And this is why so many people are upset at qualified immunity. They have valid points against it. Qualified immunity is a necessary thing for cops to be able to work, but it has gotten out of hand and needs to be reformed. And since courts created it, not law, I don't know if the legislative branch can change it.

[Soccerdad1995]

So to further my hypothetical, let's say that a new resident moves into town and mentions to someone that they did, in fact, vote for Biden in the last Presidential election. They are immediately arrested, and imprisoned until their case is heard. Since they obviously violated the law, as written, presumably a defense would be that the law is unconstitutional. Eventually the person is freed, possibly after weeks or months of incarceration, and the law effectively becomes moot (although it may still be on the books).

My understanding from your post is that the LEO's involved have immunity since the law was presumed to be constitutional before it was ruled on by the court. Would the person who was charged here have any recourse against the local government or are they just out of luck?

In the military, I was taught that I would be held accountable if I followed an order that I should have known to be illegal (the prinicipal which came into play during prosecution of the My Lai massacre, and also during the Nuremberg trials). It sounds like that same principal does not hold in the case of unconstitutional laws within the U.S.

I was taught this principle also, and was taught that it is also true for civilian police. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has changed this while at the same time establishing it firmly. The trick to the immunity is not the moral definition of right or wrong, but the legal definition of "should have known it was illegal". SCOTUS established qualified immunity in 1967 as a way to protect police from the quandary of making an illegal arrest or being fired for dereliction of duty. It was intended as a good thing to help cops do their job in the then expanding legal world of what a person's civil rights were. But in 1982, they created the current legal definition as "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". That sounds good as a rule, but they have since defined "clearly established" as something that has been ruled on by the courts in a very similar case.

So the current status is that a person can only sue if the cop is breaking a rule already established by the courts as violating a person's rights. So if no cops had ever been sued for this type of case anywhere in the US, then the court presumes that it is not generally known and the cop has immunity. The cops could not claim they were unaware if the other law had been against Republicans and this one against Democrats, but it has to be about that similar a case.

And this is why so many people are upset at qualified immunity. They have valid points against it. Qualified immunity is a necessary thing for cops to be able to work, but it has gotten out of hand and needs to be reformed. And since courts created it, not law, I don't know if the legislative branch can change it.

Thank you for the great explanation on this.

And count me in as one who agrees that this needs to be reformed.

[The Annoyed Man]

So to further my hypothetical, let's say that a new resident moves into town and mentions to someone that they did, in fact, vote for Biden in the last Presidential election. They are immediately arrested, and imprisoned until their case is heard. Since they obviously violated the law, as written, presumably a defense would be that the law is unconstitutional. Eventually the person is freed, possibly after weeks or months of incarceration, and the law effectively becomes moot (although it may still be on the books).

My understanding from your post is that the LEO's involved have immunity since the law was presumed to be constitutional before it was ruled on by the court. Would the person who was charged here have any recourse against the local government or are they just out of luck?

In the military, I was taught that I would be held accountable if I followed an order that I should have known to be illegal (the prinicipal which came into play during prosecution of the My Lai massacre, and also during the Nuremberg trials). It sounds like that same principal does not hold in the case of unconstitutional laws within the U.S.

I was taught this principle also, and was taught that it is also true for civilian police. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has changed this while at the same time establishing it firmly. The trick to the immunity is not the moral definition of right or wrong, but the legal definition of "should have known it was illegal". SCOTUS established qualified immunity in 1967 as a way to protect police from the quandary of making an illegal arrest or being fired for dereliction of duty. It was intended as a good thing to help cops do their job in the then expanding legal world of what a person's civil rights were. But in 1982, they created the current legal definition as "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". That sounds good as a rule, but they have since defined "clearly established" as something that has been ruled on by the courts in a very similar case.

So the current status is that a person can only sue if the cop is breaking a rule already established by the courts as violating a person's rights. So if no cops had ever been sued for this type of case anywhere in the US, then the court presumes that it is not generally known and the cop has immunity. The cops could not claim they were unaware if the other law had been against Republicans and this one against Democrats, but it has to be about that similar a case.

And this is why so many people are upset at qualified immunity. They have valid points against it. Qualified immunity is a necessary thing for cops to be able to work, but it has gotten out of hand and needs to be reformed. And since courts created it, not law, I don't know if the legislative branch can change it.

Thank you for the great explanation on this.

And count me in as one who agrees that this needs to be reformed.

Gov’t always has a way of becoming toxic. The same general sequence of events happened with Asset Forfeiture. It was originally used to prevent known organized crime figures from profiting from their efforts. It is now used to confiscate perfectly lawfully obtained cash from mom and pop on RV vacations, and dairy farmers who are in as-yet unresolved disputes with the EPA.

Bottom line: if gov’t wants to rape and pillage you, it will; and unless you have cubic dollars secreted away somewhere with which to either pay good lawyers or escape, gov’t will absolutely get away with it. This is why gov’t is evil…perhaps a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. It is also why I am no longer a member of any political party, and why I have become a fervent minarchist. I am NOT an anarchist. An EXTREMELY limited gov’t is necessary for humans to live alongside one another in relative peace. But a minarchy is the only way to keep gov’t subservient to The People, rather than the other way around.

[Grayling813]

Gov’t always has a way of becoming toxic. The same general sequence of events happened with Asset Forfeiture. It was originally used to prevent known organized crime figures from profiting from their efforts. It is now used to confiscate perfectly lawfully obtained cash from mom and pop on RV vacations, and dairy farmers who are in as-yet unresolved disputes with the EPA.

Bottom line: if gov’t wants to rape and pillage you, it will; and unless you have cubic dollars secreted away somewhere with which to either pay good lawyers or escape, gov’t will absolutely get away with it. This is why gov’t is evil…perhaps a necessary evil, but evil nonetheless. It is also why I am no longer a member of any political party, and why I have become a fervent minarchist. I am NOT an anarchist. An EXTREMELY limited gov’t is necessary for humans to live alongside one another in relative peace. But a minarchy is the only way to keep gov’t subservient to The People, rather than the other way around.

[Paladin]

So, how do we stop the cancer before it metastasizes?

That is the question. The easiest way is to support the organizations who are successfully defending our second amendment rights.

Aristotle described the basic blueprint for tyranny, which also suggests how to resist it

We must be spirited, independent, and capable.

In the Classical Greek city-state, the military was ... the citizenry – every man had to procure the arms and armor that he would use