Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Kingcreek on January 20, 2023, 06:16:33 PM
-
4:48pm today judge issued a TRO against governor Jelly belly pritzker’s “assault weapon ban” that also banned a bunch of standard cap mags and other scary stuff etc.
-
Internet hearsay (bookface post by gun store in Rock Falls, YMMV) says it's pretty limited in scope.
THE STAY IS FOR
EFFINGHAM COUNTY ONLY AT THIS TIME. PLEASE KEEP POSTED. FOR
FURTHER UPDATES.
-
Didn't a bunch of sheriffs say they're not enforcing the stuff?
-
I read most of the sherriffs in IL are saying they will not enforce the ban. Over 70 of them.
-
Pritzker's law requires registration of existing "assault weapons." In view of the old SCOTUS case from 1968 (IIRC, it was Haynes vs. US) prohibited persons can't be prosecuted for a registration violation, because a requirement for them to register something they're prohibited from possessing would be a requirement that they incriminate themselves, a 5th Amendment violation. (They can still be charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a felon - a possession violation, not a registration violation.)
So . . . is there anything in Pritzker's law explicitly exempting prohibited persons from registration?
-
I read most of the sherriffs in IL are saying they will not enforce the ban. Over 70 of them.
Around the same percentage as sheriffs not enforcing the new Oregon laws.
While I applaud them all for making a public stand, the bottom line is that it's a statement more than an action. As long as state or federal LE can come and arrest me, from the status of a firearm owner, it makes no practical difference. When local (or state) LE start arresting state and federal LE who are attempting to enforce an illegal law, then I will feel less like a guinea pig who still has to look over his shoulder at a public range.
-
Around the same percentage as sheriffs not enforcing the new Oregon laws.
While I applaud them all for making a public stand, the bottom line is that it's a statement more than an action. As long as state or federal LE can come and arrest me, from the status of a firearm owner, it makes no practical difference. When local (or state) LE start arresting state and federal LE who are attempting to enforce an illegal law, then I will feel less like a guinea pig who still has to look over his shoulder at a public range.
Mostly pandering to their perceived base. When the Gov calls out the state police to enforce his unconstitutional law not a damn one of them will stand between the citizenry and the state gestapo.
-
I read most of the sherriffs in IL are saying they will not enforce the ban. Over 70 of them.
The only ones enforcing are Lake and C(r)ook counties, and Champaign county. Lake and Cook are Chicago and north burbs. Champaign is central IL, and surprised me a bit. But, it's home to Univ. of IL.
I talked with the Carroll County sheriff briefly about it this week. He was amused at Gov. Prickster thinking he had that authority over the sheriffs.
-
I talked with the Carroll County sheriff briefly about it this week.
Caroll county? There is a great little bistro kitchen and bar in Mt Carroll. Mollys kitchen and bar.
We drive up at least a couple times a year for a play at Timberlake playhouse and dinner at Molly’s.
-
Mostly pandering to their perceived base. When the Gov calls out the state police to enforce his unconstitutional law not a damn one of them will stand between the citizenry and the state gestapo.
How many state police are there? Seems like they would be spread pretty thin confiscating guns over the entire state plus attending to their regular duties.
Anyway, there are a bunch more law suits in the works, likely that additional restraining orders will cover most, if not all the state.
-
How many state police are there? Seems like they would be spread pretty thin confiscating guns over the entire state plus attending to their regular duties.
Anyway, there are a bunch more law suits in the works, likely that additional restraining orders will cover most, if not all the state.
Jelly Belly pritzker has been busy hiring into the Illinois state police firearm division for enforcement. Illinois now requires FFL dealers also have an Illinois gun dealer license at additional cost plus additional record requirements. Most of us fought it was intended to drive more home based FFLs out of business and maybe it was but it also gives the JBTs more leverage and intimidation factor.
-
How many state police are there? Seems like they would be spread pretty thin confiscating guns over the entire state plus attending to their regular duties.
Anyway, there are a bunch more law suits in the works, likely that additional restraining orders will cover most, if not all the state.
Wouldn't have to go statewide all at once.
A few targeted enforcement actions on a few squeaky wheels - "pour encourager les autres" and then start freezing bank accounts on anyone suspected of disagreeing with the state government.
Our benevolent government will never need to do a door to door gun confiscation type action. They may be evil and not terribly bright but they aren't completely stupid. Once they have declared an item as contraband and the "turn in" period has expired they just offer a nice reward to people for turning in their neighbors. Always plenty of quislings and toadies around. get an "anonymous tip" initiate a few pre-dawn SWAT raids and voilà, another evil, right wing radical has been cleansed from the liberal utopia. Dealing with protestors insurrectionists that dare to question the authority of the state can easily be dealt with by sealed indictments and frozen financial assets.
And, as we are seeing recently, it's not like the state governments give a flip about what the SCOTUS has to say about anything anymore anyway
-
In addition to state and federal LE there are a ton of local departments. I’m not sure how things work in IL, but often local LE chiefs are selected by town councils or mayors. If they are not elected directly they might not all feel the same pressure that the Sheriff’s have.
-
Caroll county? There is a great little bistro kitchen and bar in Mt Carroll. Mollys kitchen and bar.
We drive up at least a couple times a year for a play at Timberlake playhouse and dinner at Molly’s.
We (company I work for) have the county offices on support contract, and I do most of that. We do Timberlake as well, but not me normally. I think I've been out that way once.
-
Guess this means my M&P Compact 357sig and M&P hat are Weapons of War
I also learned that the gun used by the suspected Highland Park shooter, the Smith & Wesson M&P 15, is marketed as “M&P” because “M&P” implies “Military & Police”. In other words, the gun’s manufacturer intentionally markets the weapon by touting its use as a weapon of war.
— Declaration of Illinois Rep. Bob Morgan in Barnett v. Raoul challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban
Look out S&W
Rep. Bob Morgan: Anything Stamped ‘M&P’ is a Weapon of War
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/rep-bob-morgan-anything-stamped-mp-is-a-weapon-of-war/
-
Insanity prevails.
Ill AG has filed a 1400 page response to the judge in 4 combined suits. The terms "Grasping at straws" and "bury them with bullsh*t" would be understating it.
-
Guess this means my M&P Compact 357sig and M&P hat are a Weapons of War
— Declaration of Illinois Rep. Bob Morgan in Barnett v. Raoul challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban
Look out S&W
Rep. Bob Morgan: Anything Stamped ‘M&P’ is a Weapon of War
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/rep-bob-morgan-anything-stamped-mp-is-a-weapon-of-war/
Then they're taking them away from the police, also?
-
Then they're taking them away from the police, also?
But not their tax payer paid for private security.
-
Guess this means my M&P Compact 357sig and M&P hat are Weapons of War
— Declaration of Illinois Rep. Bob Morgan in Barnett v. Raoul challenging Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban
Look out S&W
Rep. Bob Morgan: Anything Stamped ‘M&P’ is a Weapon of War
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/rep-bob-morgan-anything-stamped-mp-is-a-weapon-of-war/
Heaven help you if you have an old cop .38.
-
In other words, the gun’s manufacturer intentionally markets the weapon by touting its use as a weapon of war.
I wish our side would do more to use this "weapons of war" stuff against them, especially as it pertains to LE exclusions for all these laws. I wonder how many police chief organizations and police unions would change their pro gun control stance if they lost all their semi-auto rifles because LE exemptions were removed from gun control bills? Because no civilian law enforcement agencies should have weapons of war. Unless they're saying that US citizens are enemy combatants.
-
Whether they take the cops ARs or not, I would still like to see anti-gun mouthpieces challenged about whether they believe the police are at war with us.
-
While I applaud them all for making a public stand, the bottom line is that it's a statement more than an action. As long as state or federal LE can come and arrest me, from the status of a firearm owner, it makes no practical difference. When local (or state) LE start arresting state and federal LE who are attempting to enforce an illegal law, then I will feel less like a guinea pig who still has to look over his shoulder at a public range.
As it turns out, that doesn't actually make you feel anymore secure about violating federal laws either.
50-1207. Criminal penalty; certain actions of federal officials. It is unlawful for any official, agent or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas. Violation of this section is a severity level 10 nonperson felony. Any criminal prosecution for a violation of this section shall be commenced by service of complaint and summons upon such official, agent or employee. Such official, agent or employee shall not be arrested or otherwise detained prior to, or during the pendency of, any trial for a violation of this section.