Skip to comments.Prosecutors, judges ignore federal ruling against state concealed carry ban
Posted on 03/28/2013 7:58:24 AM PDT by rellimpank
Despite a federal ruling that Illinois' concealed carry ban is unconstitutional, police, prosecutors and judges alike say they are disregarding the finding and continuing to enforce the law at least for now.
Police say they continue to arrest those who violate the state's ban on carrying a gun in public, and prosecutors continue to charge them. Backing up the authorities but perhaps creating more confusion a state court ruled last week that the federal decision is not binding on Illinois courts and upheld the nation's last concealed carry ban as constitutional.
The resulting contradiction has left some people who have been charged with violating the law in a kind of legal limbo. They argue that they shouldn't be held liable for violating a law that the federal ruling tossed out.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
And the Supreme Court will just suck its thumbs and let Chicago ignore the law? I’m sure they’ll do the same if Texas decides it won’t honor the unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling allowing the killing of unborn citizens of Texas.
Blatant violation of civil rights under color of law.
The only way to handle this is to send in agents, troops, etc., to arrest those that disobey, such as judges, prosectors, police, etc. The poor civilian has to expend tens of thousands of dollars with little hope of getting it back; thus, the scumbags win.
Illinois is using the Tenth Amendment as a defense of its laws. This could have serious repercussions for the Tenth Amendment.
“Blatant violation of civil rights under color of law.”
Don’t most civil rights violations happen under color of law?
This is an important precedent. It means that federal gun-bans are not binding upon the states.
A while back someone was talking about Citizen's Arrests; they had a claim of something like one of the reasons the Police hate it is because they have to make the arrest (and file the report) thus taking away much of their power [to selectively enforce law].
Be careful what you ask for, this is essentially the same argument that many of the Sheriffs in pro-gun states are using for refusing to enforce any future gun control (such as an AWB or magazine limit) out of DC...
Soap box, ballot box, jury box - all gone.
How can a State court rule that a Federal Court ruling declaring an Illinois law un-Constitutional doesn’t apply to the State?
I agree. People should be able to just move to a State that has laws, both social and economic, that they want to live around. Eventually like minded people will be living in close proximinity. And if, for example, a CA moves to TX for economic reasons and tries to change all the social laws or norms, run them out of town.
Ummm, if properly concealed, how does a LEO know that someone is carry a sidearm?
The ruling could work both ways depending on a state’s wish to nullify federal law. This is how the country could end up splitting up. If States were wise, they would only enforce laws that are constitutional. But there’s more politics than wisdom these days.
The tenth can't trump the second.
It's getting hard to find places that will sell you tar and feathers in reasonable quantities. We'd need to run 'em out a bunch at a time for economy's sake.