The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 20, 2012, 06:43 AM   #1
Kentucky-75
Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2011
Posts: 31
McLean County ILLINOIS AG Will NOT PROSECUTE FOR CONCEAL CARRY

McLean County IL AG Will NOT PROSECUTE FOR CONCEAL CARRY

This might open up the floodgates for our friends in Illinois. The county Attorney General has decided not to prosecute FOID holders for concealed carry. The article goes on to state that this is a large county in Illinois. This could have far reaching ramifications for those in the entire state.

It kind of reminds me of hearing reports in early November 1989 that the Berlin Wall was being breached and then the wall might come down. Days later it did and the people were free.


http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=881



"McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier is set to announce publicly today, Monday, August 20, to the media and residents of McLean County, Illinois, his decision not to prosecute Firearm Owner Identification Card holders who are arrested for merely possessing a concealed weapon in violation of Illinois’ prohibition on law-abiding residents carrying the means with which to protect themselves. In essence, with Dozier’s decision, gun owners may be able to use their FOID card as a de facto carry permit in that county."
Kentucky-75 is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 07:03 AM   #2
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
It sounds like Edwards County's State's Attorney might do the same.

In the meantime, I'm sure Cook County will continue to procescute gunowners to the fullest possible extent of the law - charging them with Aggravated Unlawfull Use of a Weapon, and setting outrageously high bail, even if they haven't violated the law.

It's interesting to see where this will go. I don't know exactly how the state's attorney system works, but the county state's attorney represents the State of Illinois and the Illinois Attorney General is Lisa Madigan - fighting tooth and nail in Moore v Madigan to uphold the very law that this state's attorney is now refusing to bring prosecutions on.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 10:04 AM   #3
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 706
It will be interesting to see how this will proceed...I see a few options though.

1. Nothing will be done, and one county will be able to carry, though still unlawfully by IL state law, due to lack of prosecution.

2. The head State AG may be able to come in and "require" the county state attorney to either prosecute, or to be replaced by one who will.

3. Perhaps this will be "tip of the iceberg" so to speak which provokes enough movement to obtain a legal concealed carry permit system in IL.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 10:48 AM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,054
I see a few potential problems for this.

First off, there's been no change to the law. Dozier is giving an easement, but the fact remains: it's an illegal activity. That could lead to real confusion if I forget which county I'm in at the moment.

Furthermore, it's the current verbal opinion of the current AG. That could change very quickly. How would I know if he decided he's changed his mind?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 11:00 AM   #5
DFrame
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 451
My guess is the Illinois attorney general who's a hard core liberal democrat will take him to task, one way or another. Likley go to court to have an order prepared forcing him to "Comply" with the law. Much like the obama ag went to court to PREVENT Arizona from enforcing with the law.
__________________
Mark Lane to William Buckley: "Have you ever referred to Jessee Jackson as an ignoramus?"
Buckley: "If I didn't, I should have"
DFrame is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 12:19 PM   #6
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,934
How would the state attorney general force him to prosecute, if McLean County decides not to? I can see an injunction to prevent people form enforcing a law while its constitutionality is decided, but how do you force someone to prosecute a law, when they refuse to based on the question of whether it is constitutional? It's two different things. And how can you "force him to comply" when there is no law saying he must prosecute anything?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 12:57 PM   #7
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,529
Knowing nothing about the legal issues - so what! :

1. To prosecute - you have to be arrested. Will the police still arrest folks for this?

2. If you are arrested, can't the state take over the prosecution or is it mandated to be at a county level?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 01:31 PM   #8
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
One thing the governor or the IL AG Lisa Madigan could do is increase the presence of the State Police in McClean Co. to make arrests. However, those cases would go to the McClean Co Sate's Attorney's office. The State's Attorney could decline to prosecute. What I don't know is what happens after that.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 01:32 PM   #9
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
The County State's Attorney is an elected position (elected by the County). The AG in all probability cannot "fire" such an elected person.

I would proffer that unless arrested by the State Police, the State may not be able to subsume the prosecution.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 01:34 PM   #10
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,274
It sounds like a step in the right direction.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 02:32 PM   #11
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
If someone insists on the law being enforced, isn't that being "conservative."
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 03:23 PM   #12
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Isn't there something in IL law that allows local government to be more lenient, but not stricter. (as concerns firearms). In WA there is...RCW 9.41.300 (they MAY do this or they May do that...not the must)
hermannr is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 04:20 PM   #13
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Quote:
Isn't there something in IL law that allows local government to be more lenient, but not stricter. (as concerns firearms).
Just from researching this - I think the opposite is true. Municipalities can pass more stringent regulations on firearms, but the Illinois UUW law - is just that - it's a law, a state law.

There is the Hale Demar law which prohibits municipalities from prosecuting someone for firearms violations when they are defending themselves. The Hale Demar law provides "that it is an affirmative defense to a violation of a municipal ordinance that prohibits, regulates, or restricts the private ownership of firearms if the individual who is charged with the violation used the firearm in an act of self-defense or defense of another"

SB2165: http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext...Sess=&Session=

But that's actually a state law that protects people from punative local laws... not exactly the same thing as what you're making reference to.

I don't see anything that gives counties or local authorities discretion on enforcing state law for UUW.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 04:37 PM   #14
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,531
I see the important thing being that another government official has publicly bought into the broader and, we believe more proper, reading of Heller and McDonald. Government officials publicly taking these positions can have a significant, positive effect on public perceptions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 05:03 PM   #15
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
This could also just be considered prudent... just think of what will happen if the 7th Cir overturns the Illinois unlawful use of a weapon law - 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. People who have been convicted of AUUW for having a pistol improperly stored in their vehicle and similar cases will be filing with the courts to have their convictions overturned.

Why pile up even more cases to process if you think the law is going to be overturned?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...2000050K24-1.6
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 08:17 PM   #16
vytoland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 613
we are adamant in our cause and we SHALL overcome.
vytoland is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 08:41 PM   #17
teeroux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Posts: 1,489
I don't know how it works in Illinois but here in Louisiana when you are arrested for a crime a judge signs the warrant not the D.A. The D.A. can later decide not to prosecute and set you free. However depending on condition of the release you could still be charged at a later date by the D.A.(or a new D.A.) within the statute of limitations.
teeroux is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 09:51 PM   #18
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier was expected to make an announcement today - a statement that he wouldn't be prosecuting FOID card holders for carrying a firearm. But I haven't seen any announcement.

Here is another article:

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=881

Jack Howser reported that Illinois governor Pat Quinn met with Illinois AG Lisa Madigan and Director of the Illinois State Police Hiram Grau, to try to get Dozier to postpone the announcement.

Grau is a Quinn appointee, but from what I've read, a majority of the rank and file ISP officers favor CCW - especially the officers from Central and Southern Illinois.

I have no idea what is going to happen but if just a few other county States' Attorneys joined Dozier - the anti-gun Chicago political machine is going to have a serious problem propping up their anti-2A laws and even more problems imposing their will on the rest of Illinois.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 09:54 PM   #19
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 537
Quote:
In the draft announcement, Dozier explains that by law and precedent, local prosecutors have great discretion with regard to charges in criminal cases – and he notes the primary check and balance to this power is the people’s power to remove him or her at the next election.

He goes on to say that with the Heller and McDonald decisions, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is incontrovertible. He writes that Chicago and the State of Illinois have “done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings”.

He sees Illinois current prohibition on law-abiding individuals carrying firearms for personal defense as unconstitutional and as such he will not bring charges in those cases. In essence, his press release says to local, county and state law-enforcement in McLean County: don’t bother to make an arrest because Dozier’s not going to prosecute in cases that “appear in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions”.
His purpose in making the announcement, he cautions, isn’t to encourage folks to disregard the laws, particular pertaining to firearms, but to send a message to the Governor and legislators “who continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions”.http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=881

People downstate are tired of living under Cook County's boot. Cook County has about 40% of the population of Illinois, but just a tiny fraction of the land area. It's ridiculous that a man can carry a gun in one town, while another is prohibited the same right because he lives on the other side of the State line.

Whatever can of worms this opens, it has to be done.
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."
-Sydney J. Harris
spanishjames is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 10:39 PM   #20
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Fox news report on this

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/19325546/-exclusive

2 things about this report:

1) Statement from Madigan's office basically saying the Illinois AG can't do anything about this

2) This state rep La Shawn Ford seems like the messenger for the antis, they are offering to let CCW go forward for most of Illinois in exchange for an AWB and letting Chicago and similar municipalities continue to deny people the right to carry.

From what I understand from following this, that proposal won't fly with the NRA. Its my understanding that the NRA views that as a "divide and conquer" strategy by Chicago and they've rejected it multiple times in the past.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old August 20, 2012, 10:39 PM   #21
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,454
Most state attorneys general have limited prosecutorial authority. I would not think the Illinois AG would have the authority to prosecute routine crimes like carrying a concealed deadly weapon. This is from their website:

Quote:
Through the Criminal Enforcement Division, the Attorney General coordinates crime-fighting activities with state, county and local authorities. In particular, the Attorney General's Office assists state's attorneys in the prosecution of criminals in all regions of the state and handles all cases from DUIs to Death Cases. In addition, specialized bureaus within the Criminal Enforcement Division handle a variety of cases that do not fall within the traditional scope of a local prosecution office such as complex financial cases, public corruption matters, medicaid fraud, environmental crimes, high tech crimes and cases dealing with the involuntary commitment of dangerous sex offenders. The Criminal Enforcement Division also operates a statewide grand jury with jurisdiction over multi-county crimes related to drugs, gangs and guns.
http://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/a...y_profile.html
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old August 21, 2012, 12:06 PM   #22
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,054
Quote:
Its my understanding that the NRA views that as a "divide and conquer" strategy by Chicago and they've rejected it multiple times in the past.
A few years back, it looked like a proposed law for concealed carry had a good chance of passage. However, it was amended to allow individual cities and counties to opt-out. Had it passed, Illinois would have been a confusing (and dangerous) patchwork of counties: some in which it was legal, and some in which it was a felony.

A lot of gun owners cried foul when the NRA walked away from the table on that one.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 21, 2012, 12:37 PM   #23
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
1) Statement from Madigan's office basically saying the Illinois AG can't do anything about this

2) This state rep La Shawn Ford seems like the messenger for the antis, they are offering to let CCW go forward for most of Illinois in exchange for an AWB and letting Chicago and similar municipalities continue to deny people the right to carry.

That’s the problem, driving in a straight stretch of road in the Chicago area (like I do often) because of the irregular way in which localities including the city of Chicago are laid out means you can literally start in one town, briefly cross into another town, cross into a third town, then cross back into the first all in just a few miles of driving.

If you allow individual Cities/Towns/Villages "opt out" of concealed carry then the law is worthless to the majority of the population of Illinois.

Conceal carrying and traveling in any of the "collar counties" around Chicago(Lake, DuPage, Kane, Will and McHenry) impractical because you would need to constantly worry about however briefly crossing the boundary of a place where CC is banned.

Not to mention that it would subject those traveling through the state of Illinois to a different destination subject to a confusing web of local restrictions. You cannot easily drive from Iowa to Indiana , Indiana to Wisconsin or Missouri to Indiana without going through some sort of area that would have a CC ban.

Lets face it, Cook County would pass a CC ban, a good number of towns in Will, Lake, Dupage and to a lesser extend Kane and McHenry county would pass a CC ban. Rockford would have a CC Ban. Springfield would have a CC Ban, Areas bordering St. Louis would have a CC Ban and Champaign/Urbana would probably try for one too. Look at a map of these areas and the interstate highways that go through them. Interstate CC through Illinois would be so difficult as to be near impossible without serious risk of breaking the law.


We need to go for this all or nothing, Chicago must be FINALLY dragged kicking and screaming into the real world where the Second Amendment guarantees ones right to protect themselves inside and outside the home.

Last edited by Patriot86; August 21, 2012 at 12:42 PM.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old August 21, 2012, 01:22 PM   #24
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 6,986
All I can say is,,,

All I can say is,,,
McLean County State’s Attorney Ron Dozier is one gutsy dude.

He's basically calling a very well established group of anti's to come out and fight.

Wow! The times they are a'changing.

Aarond

.
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old August 21, 2012, 04:36 PM   #25
spanishjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2010
Posts: 537
The following is from a press release sent out today 8/21/12. The complete version is here: http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com...-illinois.html

It's really incredible. There's no arguing with common sense.


Quote:
As the State’s Attorney, I have to make a choice. Do I continue to enforce laws that I believe to be unconstitutional, a belief that is supported by decisions of the highest court in the land, or do I continue to prosecute citizens who run afoul of State gun laws but have no evil intent or purpose in mind? Certainly the more cautious approach to such controversial issues is to keep enforcing the law, whenever possible in the least harmful way, until enough higher court cases are resolved against them that the anti-Second Amendment folks are forced to change. I’m not willing to do that anymore—too many good people will be harmed.

In fact, since I was appointed State’s Attorney last December, I have been quietly changing our policies to bring them in accordance with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now I am announcing publicly that the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms: Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65), Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1), Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6) and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.
The questions we will seek to answer in determining whether or not to file charges are:
1) What appears to be the reason or purpose for the person’s possession of carrying a firearm?
2) Was the firearm actually displayed, or used, for an improper purpose or in a reckless manner?
3) Was the person under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or have illegal drugs on his or her person or in their vehicle?
4) If the person is not an Illinois citizen, was the weapon possessed or carried in accordance with the laws of the State of his or her residency?
5) Is the person a member of or affiliated with any gang known to engage in illegal activities?
6) Has the person been convicted of a felony offense? If so, how long ago and for what offense(s)?

Other questions may arise as we continue to improve our policy.
__________________
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable."
-Sydney J. Harris
spanishjames is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13581 seconds with 9 queries