McLean County ILLINOIS AG Will NOT PROSECUTE FOR CONCEAL CARRY

K

Kentucky-75

New member
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
Isn't there something in IL law that allows local government to be more lenient, but not stricter. (as concerns firearms).
Click to expand...

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/fulltex...Num=2165&GAID=3&LegID=7961&SpecSess=&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.
 
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
 
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/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-1.6
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top