Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Daley would keep hope alive for those who want pension benefit cuts
Next Post: Should the state sell the Tollway to boost the pension funds?
Posted in:
* SB107 synopsis…
Makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess an assault weapon 300 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act, except possession of weapons registered with the Department of State Police in the time provided. Provides exemptions and penalties.
* He does have this prosecutorial discretion…
Even if lawmakers pass a bill that bans assault weapons in Illinois, a state’s attorney in southern Illinois says he won’t enforce it.
Williamson County State’s Attorney Brandon Zanotti said state Sen. Julie Morrison’s bill to ban common firearms would turn law-abiding citizens in his county into felons.
“I can start naming people off on my hand and thinking of how many of these people have these types of weapons,” he said. “They’re going to be felons now?”
After reading the proposed law, the Johnston City Democrat attended a town hall and announced that he would use his discretion as an elected state’s attorney should the bill become law. He said he wouldn’t prosecute anyone with an otherwise clean record under the terms of Morrison’s bill. Prosecutors have wide latitude when it comes to bringing criminal charges. […]
Zanotti said he’s spoken with other state’s attorneys that plan to announce similar positions on the enforcing of the proposed ban.
He would, of course, be taking the risk that a formerly law-abiding gun owner in his county suddenly snaps and becomes a mass shooter.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:49 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Daley would keep hope alive for those who want pension benefit cuts
Next Post: Should the state sell the Tollway to boost the pension funds?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This could encourage citizens to engage in jury nullification . It would be too bad if gun owners lie to get on juries . Nice law you’ve got there…
Comment by steve Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:53 am
I just love it when law enforcement officials say they will ignore laws.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:55 am
“turn law-abiding citizens in his county into felons”… yes, because they are no longer abiding by the law. That’s how this works, when you break a law (that happens to be a felony) you become a felon.
Comment by Perrid Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:58 am
These guys really need to stop pretending like they’re law abiding while stating their intention to violate the law.
They’ve got 300 days to avoid being a felon.
It’s like those folks that aren’t planning on destroying or turning over their bump stocks — a device they purchased so they could modify their weapons to behave as a fully automatic.
Throwing a tantrum and promising to violate the law isn’t the best way to engage law makers.
As a person who knows Brandon personally, I am disappointed by what is very clearly an effort to grab a headline and to try to win votes in a county that has decidedly supported folks from the GOP by playing to an issue that only matters to a minority of his constituents.
This behavior is how someone flouts their oath of office, and is unbecoming of the profession of being a lawyer.
Comment by Anon Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 9:59 am
==He does have this prosecutorial discretion==
He does and prosecutors use their discretion all the time. But I would argue that coming out and saying that he simply won’t enforce a law goes beyond a prosecutor decisions on discretion.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:01 am
Gonna be awkward if they decline to prosecute someone and it turns out they commit a crime with that weapon…
Comment by OneMan Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:01 am
People who commit mass casualty attacks (school shooter, violent hate crime perp, lone actor terrorist: they’re all targeted violence) don’t “suddenly snap.” In appx 80% of the cases there is “leakage” which means hints (sometimes explicit) about the impending violence, and in more instances there are concerning behaviors long before someone mobilizes to violence. But you are right that law abiding gun owners can, over time, become perpetrators of such attacks. Lastly, and in anticipation of others feedback, mental illness does not cause violence, but undiagnosed and/or untreated mental health issues can certainly contribute to that which pushes a person to engage in targeted violence. My 2 cents. Preventing mass casualty attacks has no “silver bullet” solutions, but it is not unsolvable either.
Comment by Violence_Prevention Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:02 am
Your call, jefe. I’m sure you ran your statement past the county’s Risk Management advisors as to potential financial liability?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:02 am
Just call it a “Sanctuary Gun Zone” similar to Chicago’s “Illegal Alien Sanctuary Zone” and thinking Liberals will be forced to support it.
Comment by Fuel For the Fire Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:04 am
–This could encourage citizens to engage in jury nullification . It would be too bad if gun owners lie to get on juries .–
What juries? He said he wouldn’t prosecute.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:04 am
==thinking Liberals will be forced to support it.==
I see someone from the Mr. Wizard group has commented. Anyone who makes such arguments is simply a hyper partisan hack.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:07 am
==I just love it when law enforcement officials say they will ignore laws.==
My thoughts exactly. I he cannot or will not fulfill his duties, he should resign.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:08 am
** I just love it when law enforcement officials say they will ignore laws **
Like the attorney general of the state of Illinois ignoring DOMA, or the GA forgetting that pot is still illegal at the federal level?
Comment by Cornfed Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:10 am
- wordslinger -
His behavior encourages people to think they don’t have to follow laws. Many gun rights people may decide they want to lie to get on a jury if they feel a gun law is unjust. It might even start happening up North.
Comment by Steve Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:13 am
==“Illegal Alien Sanctuary Zone” and thinking ==
And if you were actually “thinking” you would know you’re comparing to apples and oranges. There is no “sanctuary” for these people. They aren’t protected from arrest. The only thing these policies do is state that local and state governments aren’t going to do the job of the federal government who is responsible for enforcing immigration laws.
This state’s attorney is responsible for enforcing state law. It’s his job to do so.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:13 am
So, as long as you pay the ISP $25, you can possess the “assault weapons”? What does this solve, other than a revenue problem?
Comment by Birdseed Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:13 am
What exactly constitutes an “assault weapon” .. Pistol grip? Collapsible stock? An AR-15 and Mini-14 do the same thing. If you are going to ban semiautomatic weapons ban all of them, including handguns.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:18 am
–Many gun rights people may decide they want to lie to get on a jury if they feel a gun law is unjust.–
You base that scenario on what? Some Lifetime movie you saw?
You don’t just volunteer at the courthouse for jury duty and select your case.
If you’re one of the few who actually shows up for a jury summons, you don’t even know what kind of case you’re getting.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:25 am
Oh another note, I am opposed to this bill, however the State’s Attorney has an obligation to do his job and enforce the law. We have a court system in this country to determine if a law is constitutional or not. That is not his job. File suit with the court if you are effected and believe it is not constitutional.
If he cannot do his job he needs to resign.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:26 am
We are a nation of laws. When you are elected to a position responsible for the enforcement of those laws, you do it. When you are hired into a position responsible for enforcement of those laws, you do it.
This behavior is dangerous on many levels.
Comment by SSL Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:29 am
== So, as long as you pay the ISP $25, you can possess the “assault weapons”? What does this solve, other than a revenue problem? ==
It starts to build a state-wide *centralized* database of firearms in Illinois.
Historical fact: back when the State finally agreed to implement the FOID, it was the compromise by gun owners to avoid such a registry.
It will also serve to boost “assault rifle” sales in the months between now and the effective date of the bill. Should help make all those small gun shots profitable even with the new licensing requirements.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:29 am
== An AR-15 and Mini-14 do the same thing.==
Haven’t read the full text, have you? It specifically lists a Mini-14 as one of the banned firearms … which seems to be a bit if overreaching to me.
== If you are going to ban semiautomatic weapons ban all of them, including handguns. ==
With the *change* of 1 “and” to “or”, this bill would effectively ban all semi-auto pistols.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:35 am
I’ve never owned a gun and only fired one gun one time (at a target).
“knowingly possess” an “assault weapon”. Nothing ambiguous here. But at least the Senator feels good about her bill.
Comment by don the legend Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:39 am
Cook County States Attorney does it too on other issues that appeal to her base. They are both wrong. Don’t they take an oath?
Comment by 19th ward guy Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:39 am
Chicagoans are discovering that outside the city is a place called Illinois where their way of living and thinking doesn’t work.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:41 am
“With the *change* of 1 “and” to “or”, this bill would effectively ban all semi-auto pistols.”
May as well add semi-auto shotguns.
Comment by Huh? Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:41 am
I’m sure this bill has been checked with Brady Campaign etc. and it’s got both the description as well as models—but not limited to—that are banned. good. if it passes, and is signed, enforce the law or use the State Police to enforce it.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:42 am
=== - RNUG - Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:29 am:
== So, as long as you pay the ISP $25, you can possess the “assault weapons”? What does this solve, other than a revenue problem? ==
It starts to build a state-wide *centralized* database of firearms in Illinois. ===
But the argument some here are making is that we are trying to prevent somebody “suddenly snapping” and becoming a mass shooter. I could keep that option open for only $25. What a bargain….
Comment by Birdseed Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:46 am
This is the inherent problem with taking the “sanctuary” approach on any subject matter. It ALWAYS comes boomeranging back with a subject matter that the original implementor of the tactic despises.
The sanctuary approach is those on the left and right being intellectually lazy. Foresight is a terrible thing to waste.
Comment by Truthseeker Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:49 am
Don’t get lost in the weeds of the SA reaction or discussions of sanctuary city. Instead read the bill and find the super restrictive language that would ban some of the most popular pistols and rifles. Most of your “home defense” type pistols ( not concealed carry models) would be banned including Ruger, SIG, Glock S&W, Springfield…..
“B) a semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition”
Comment by Donnie Elgin Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:50 am
Gee…. up go the prices on mini 14s. I have always wanted one. I guess I should buy it today before the price goes too high. Sheesh.
Comment by Whizbang Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:52 am
Earlier this year the SCOTUS agreed to hear a gun rights case for the first time in almost 10 years. I think in the years ahead you are going to see the high court accepting more of these type of cases. There are a bunch of questions that need to be settled as per how far a local or state government can go in passing gun control laws. It’s a matter of at which point does common sense restrictions become an infringement of a constitutionally protected right.
If this particular bill becomes law you can expect a court challenge I’m sure but I make no prediction on the outcome. If state governments overreach and try to ban most handguns I’m confident in saying that the court would strike the law down based on previous court rulings.
Comment by The Dude Abides Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:53 am
= Chicagoans are discovering that outside the city is a place called Illinois where their way of living and thinking doesn’t work. =
Really? Try flipping that around, who has the supermajorities in both chambers?
Comment by cover Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:53 am
== May as well add semi-auto shotguns. ==
Modified ones are considered “assault weapon” under this bill. You would have to register them And yes, a couple of word changes would completely ban them also.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 10:57 am
There is no evidence these laws have any effect on safety. Not sure I would make an announcement, but the first person prosecuting this is likely going to get drawn into Supreme Court case that drains time and money from your county.
Any small county prosecutor would be a fool for prosecuting this law.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:00 am
== But the argument some here … ==
-Birdseed-, the point I am making is that older gun owning citizens will probably feel betrayed by the State. Same as some very elderly senior citizens feel about the broken Federal promise to never tax Social Security.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:09 am
==but the first person prosecuting this is likely going to get drawn into Supreme Court case that drains time and money from your county.==
The District of Columbia vs.Heller decision upheld the Second Amendment but also stated that the right to bear arms wasn’t unlimited. Chemical or biological weapons can be banned. Or certain types of guns.
And while we no longer have Scalia with us I can’t imagine the Supreme Court reversing its own decision in such a short time frame.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:13 am
== And while we no longer have Scalia with us I can’t imagine the Supreme Court reversing its own decision in such a short time frame. ==
Or McDonald.
Since those 2 decisions have left a bunch of gray area, and there have been conflicting rulings at the Appellate Court level, I can see SCOTUS clarifying how far the right to bear arms extends in terms of everyday carry and clarifying what type / style of firearms would be considered in general use and mostly not subject to restrictions.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:26 am
==Chicagoans are discovering that outside the city is a place called Illinois where their way of living and thinking doesn’t work.==
This is so true. I wouldn’t have even made it to work today without my AR-15 to mow down several packs of wandering bandits. People in Chicago would never understand this.
Comment by LXB Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:29 am
So, he is grandstanding, playing to his base…there are far worse on the federal level. No meat on this bone. But, one thing about weapon bans is they seem to stop the good guys, not the bad guys. I don’t think the gangs will object or even have an opinion.
Comment by wondering Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:31 am
==Any small county prosecutor would be a fool for prosecuting this law.==
Yes, why should they uphold their oath? Sheesh
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:48 am
=== He said he wouldn’t prosecute anyone with an otherwise clean record under the terms of Morrison’s bill. ===
I’m actually most concerned about this. He won’t prosecute someone if they have a clean record, but he will prosecute someone if they have a shoplifting charge on their record even if the assault rifle ownership had nothing to do with it.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:53 am
- Donnie Elgin -, you skipped over the “and” part that lists the modifications that change a legal semi-auto pistol into a banned one.
I did the same thing the first time I read the bill several days ago. Right now it would allow a standard semi-auto pistol with a +10 magazine if you have none of the proscribed modifications.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:54 am
===He would, of course, be taking the risk that a formerly law-abiding gun owner in his county suddenly snaps and becomes a mass shooter.===
The Tazewell County Sheriff has seen no adverse consequences for what happened last year.
Comment by Graduated College Student Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 11:57 am
You can’t explain it way folks, “sanctuary” is much more that just making the Feds “do their job”. Webster’s dictionary makes it pretty clear.
a : a place of refuge and protection
b : the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary
Comment by Fuel For the Fire Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:04 pm
I dont currently own anything that may be referred to as an assault weapon. Pass this law and i will be sure to buy several.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:06 pm
==a place of refuge and protection==
Are they protected from arrest? No
==the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary==
Are they immune from the law? No.
So it’s not a sanctuary. Those of you attempting to make a comparison are ignorant of what a sanctuary really is.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:06 pm
==Pass this law and i will be sure to buy several.==
That’s the adult thing to do Blue Dog. Stomp your feet and say if you pass a law I’ll immediately go break it. That’s a very adult thing to do. That’ll show em.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:08 pm
I call it civil disobedience.
Comment by Blue Dog Dem Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:11 pm
If we’re honest we really need SCOTUS to put some guard rails on this. As Heller reads the AR15 as the most popular rifle would seem to fall under common use, semi automatic pistols with magazines over 10 rounds definitely do. All this Strum & Drang is largely because it hasn’ been laid out.
Nothing IL can do about that of course, but it is what we need.
Comment by Mason born Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:36 pm
What other laws does Brandon not plan on enforcing?
Comment by Jocko Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:38 pm
It’s our right to own assault weapons. It says so in the Bill of Rights.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:41 pm
==It’s our right to own assault weapons. It says so in the Bill of Rights.==
The Second amendment says arms, not guns. Arms can be any weapon. Anthrax, nuclear weapons, nerve gas. You ok with all these things being owned by just anyone?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 12:49 pm
For those that think SCOTUS will provide a “one size fits all” ruling, think they will be sorely disappointed. While I don’t see them adopting the Wyatt Earp position (”open carry illegal in all populated areas”), also don’t see them totally striking down NYC’s Sullivan Law (concealed carry is essentially restricted to retired NYPD cops).
Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:04 pm
==It’s our right to own assault weapons. It says so in the Bill of Rights.==
You care to point out where it says that?
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:27 pm
==why should they uphold their oath?==
The oath is to uphold the laws and Constitution. See the Constitution has this thing called the Supremacy Clause. If a law violates the Constitution it is invalid. No prosecutor should waste time and money prosecuting laws that are unconstitutional.
When did all the liberals suddenly become advocates for enforcing the law. The City of Chicago has a sanctuary policy that says we are not enforcing the law. And those laws have been repeatedly upheld by the Courts.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:40 pm
And should he choose to prosecute, he risks his reelection and would likely have to lock up a majority of his friends and family in this far downstate county.
Comment by JSI Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:41 pm
===You care to point out where it says that?===
Right next to the word “musket”.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:42 pm
Patriot
There is a process for adjudicating the Constitutionality of something. Follow it. He’s making a decision on the Constitution that he has no authority to make.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 1:43 pm
==Really? Try flipping that around, who has the supermajorities in both chambers?==
The majority of voters piled into the northeastern part of the state who are deaf to the rest of the state.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:01 pm
===The majority of voters piled into===
That’s truly an odd way of describing the metro region.
But, whatever, they’re still the majority and last I checked majorities tend to rule.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:03 pm
He is making a decision because he can read. It was just dumb for Lisa Madigan to fight the conceal and carry case. It was obvious she was going to lose and it was a waste of time and money. Now she created case law that says she failed to provide compelling evidence the ban has any affect on safety.
Not for sure, but his announcement may also have something to do with the fact Republicans swept all the local judicial races in 2018 like 60-40 and he is a democrat.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:09 pm
Many SCOTUS decisions have been made on issues that are not even remotely named in the Constitution and that fall, or should fall, under the 10th Amendment.
Since firearms are specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution it would seem that various state and local laws relating to this will have to end up in SCOTUS. This will be dragged out for years, maybe decades.
Comment by Nonbeleiver Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:12 pm
It’s just like the state saying they won’t enforce immigration laws. Everyone eant to just follow what they want. Banana Republic
Comment by Roger Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:14 pm
==He is making a decision because he can read.==
So can I. But I don’t wear a black robe and neither does he. That’s the process. You are advocating for any of us simply ignoring laws that we believe are unconstitutional. Not his (or our) decision to make.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:42 pm
==who are deaf to the rest of the state==
That continues to be an absolutely absurd argument as well as a childish argument.
People we vote for lose elections. That’s the way it works. But for some of you it’s an excuse to whine that your interests aren’t being represented. Baloney.
Grow up.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:44 pm
So funny that a little over a year ago counties were passing resolutions saying they would not follow these types of laws.
Chicago and Cook don’t need to follow federal immigration law.
The state will thumb its nose at federal drug laws.
So why should a down state prosecutor not get to pick which laws he is going to enforce? Especially when he believes it to be contrary to the Constitution?
Heller and McDonald can be ignored by the left so, now the gun guys will start ignoring gun control laws. Seems fair.
Comment by Todd Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:55 pm
== You are advocating for any of us simply ignoring laws that we believe are unconstitutional. Not his (or our) decision to make. ==
Individuals make those kinds of decisions and, sometimes, end up in court over their decision.
It is a bit different when you are a public official; you are expected to uphold the law as written. However, a lot of laws have wiggle room depending on how you interpret the language. And politics does often influence how and where any law gets applied.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:56 pm
Todd
It’s apples and oranges. The “examples” you use are federal laws. The feds have primary responsibility to enforce those laws. This is a state law and that prosecutor took an oath to uphold the laws of the state. If he believes it’s unconstitutional that’s fine. Get a lawsuit filed and follow the process. I’m sure your friends will do just that.
==the left==
And that’s just a hyper-partisan way of arguing.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 2:59 pm
==However, a lot of laws have wiggle room depending on how you interpret the language. And politics does often influence how and where any law gets applied.==
I don’t disagree. But I don’t believe a prosecutor should be coming out and saying he’s simply going to ignore a law. Prosecutorial discretion is one thing. Refusing to acknowledge a law exists is another.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 3:02 pm
@RNUG 10:29 ==It will also serve to boost “assault rifle” sales in the months between now and the effective date of the bill. Should help make all those small gun shots profitable even with the new licensing requirements.==
This gave me a chuckle since just before reading this thread, I was on the phone with a local FFL to talk about buying a long gun. Been on the fence for some time, but legislation like this is pushing me toward the “buy now” side.
As to the state’s attorney’s comments, any public official who openly advocates non-enforcement or disobedience of the law crosses a very serious line and should step down or be removed.
Comment by Flapdoodle Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 3:08 pm
== Been on the fence for some time, but legislation like this is pushing me toward the “buy now” side. ==
- Flapdoodle -, last year some proposed legislation pushed me into picking up a SR9C with 10/17 capacity.
Comment by RNUG Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 3:25 pm
==Heller and McDonald can be ignored by the left==
Where has this happened? Do you have a link?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 3:49 pm
lots of cases where assault weapons bans are upheld in court.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 4:11 pm
==When did all the liberals suddenly become advocates for enforcing the law?==
Good question. I had to look that one up. In Western culture the concept of liberalism started with the writings of John Locke, he lived 1632 to 1704.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Friday, Feb 15, 19 @ 4:34 pm
Would you obey an unconstitutional law? That is all this SA is saying.
Would you support a law that makes you a felon if you speak your mind like here? Or would you consider that a violation of your First Amendment rights? It’s the law so would you expect the SA to prosecute you or to ignore a BAD LAW so you can keep complaining?
Comment by Hunter Wednesday, Feb 27, 19 @ 3:18 pm