IL Anti-Legislator proposes even more firearm ownership restrictions on citizens

[solus]

CBS2, quote:
Gun control advocates plan a rally in Springfield on Wednesday, to urge state lawmakers to approve legislation aimed at closing perceived loopholes in the state’s gun licensing system.

The measure would require anyone applying for or renewing a Firearm Owner’s Identification card to submit fingerprints as part of their application. It also would require background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers.

FOID Card fees would increase from $10 to $50, and licenses would be valid for five years instead of the current 10.

The legislation also would require Illinois State Police to create a web portal to share a list of people who have had their gun licenses revoked with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Rep. Kathleen Willis, the bill’s House sponsor, said it’s a way to ensure criminals don’t get firearms. unquote

Activists Urge Approval Of Proposal To Require Fingerprints For Illinois Gun Licenses, More Background Checks For Firearm Purchases

Gun control advocates plan a rally in Springfield on Wednesday, to urge state lawmakers to approve legislation aimed at closing perceived loopholes in the state's gun licensing system.

chicago.cbslocal.com

Gotta love the rhetoric ~ these legislator(s) might as well ban firearms in their entirety from its citizens...oh wait they tried that already and got it shoved where the sun don't shine by the courts...

 

[color of law]

Here is a link to the Illinois constitution annotated.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/ILConstitution2018.pdf

ARTICLE I SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When you read the annotation it becomes clear that the Illinois courts could care less as to what the U.S. Supreme Court has held.
A right cannot be subject to state police power; it's an oxymoron.

 

[OC for ME]

Can't vs. Does...what can the USSC do to compel Illinois to comply? Compel the Executive Branch to exercise its policing powers? Compel the US Congress to exercise their power of the purse? Nope, Heller was/is a toothless tiger.

 

[color of law]

Can't vs. Does...what can the USSC do to compel Illinois to comply? Compel the Executive Branch to exercise its policing powers? Compel the US Congress to exercise their power of the purse? Nope, Heller was/is a toothless tiger.

And Clarence Thomas has said as much.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf

 

[solus]

Anybody ever considered kicking out IL, CA, NY, + maybe one or two other states out of the union and consider the group like a foreign country!

 

[hammer6]

Anybody ever considered kicking out IL, CA, NY, + maybe one or two other states out of the union and consider the group like a foreign country!

Each state is its own country, in fact.

 

[2a4all]

It's interesting how we chafe at the notion that the Feds can compel states to do something that will narrow our own concept of personal freedom, but seek federal help when states attempt the same thing.

If we don't like what a state does, elect different officials.

 

[color of law]

It's interesting how we chafe at the notion that the Feds can compel states to do something that will narrow our own concept of personal freedom, but seek federal help when states attempt the same thing.

If we don't like what a state does, elect different officials.

Comply with the 10th Amendment and many of the problems wouldn't exist.

 

[Ghost1958]

It's interesting how we chafe at the notion that the Feds can compel states to do something that will narrow our own concept of personal freedom, but seek federal help when states attempt the same thing.

If we don't like what a state does, elect different officials.

All states are answerable to the COTUS, especially the bill of rights.

They are not required to recognize or enforce acts of Congress, Presidential decrees, etc.

True the Supreme Court is toothless, except on the occasions where the Fed sends,in Fed LE to impose its opinions.

Much like the civil rights act. Unlikely the Fed will send in Fed officials to force ILL to do squat as long as it has some type of permit system in place.

Unless the day would come that SCOTUS ruled all gun regulations as violations of the 2A.

 

[OC for ME]

It's interesting how we chafe at the notion that the Feds can compel states to do something that will narrow our own concept of personal freedom, but seek federal help when states attempt the same thing.

If we don't like what a state does, elect different officials.

Which different officials?

The ones that promise they will do XYZ once they are in office vs. the ones that promise they will do XYZ once they are in office.

 

[color of law]

The USSC can only uphold the Constitution as they swore to do so.

United States Constitution - Article. V says:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for pro-posing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

2nd. Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the only authority the USSC has on addressing the 2nd. Amendment laws/regulations regulating firearms is to strike down said laws or regulations as unconstitutional. Then inform those that want firearm regulation is amend the 2nd. Amendment by using Article V of the Constitution.

Not difficult to understand.

 

[JTHunter2]

Anybody ever considered kicking out IL, CA, NY, + maybe one or two other states out of the union and consider the group like a foreign country!

If we could just do a "carve-out" of Chicago, much like the way Washington D.C. is its own "entity", the rest of Illinois would be better off - more than you can imagine.
ETA: The costs for the FOID would start by going up to $25 (from $10) while adding the the $50 + for the fingerprints PLUS a $35 "background check fee" where WE are required to pay for the background check. There have been "rumors" of other "fees" that would be implemented/raised that are designed to make gun ownership prohibitively expensive.

 

[2a4all]

All states are answerable to the COTUS, especially the bill of rights.

They are not required to recognize or enforce acts of Congress, Presidential decrees, etc.

True the Supreme Court is toothless, except on the occasions where the Fed sends,in Fed LE to impose its opinions.

Much like the civil rights act. Unlikely the Fed will send in Fed officials to force ILL to do squat as long as it has some type of permit system in place.

Unless the day would come that SCOTUS ruled all gun regulations as violations of the 2A.

They sorta are because Article VI of the Constitution declares that federal laws, treaties and the Constitution itself "...shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.".

 

[Ghost1958]

They sorta are because Article VI of the Constitution declares that federal laws, treaties and the Constitution itself "...shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.".

They absolutely do not.
A state can't , in therory, prevent Fed LE from enforcing Fed law.

But a state doesn't even have to recognize an act of congress.

 

[solus]

They absolutely do not.
A state can't , in therory, prevent Fed LE from enforcing Fed law.

But a state doesn't even have to recognize an act of congress.

Ghost, please climb into the DeLorean and join me to 2011...

Here’s one the mainstream media isn’t going to tell you: County sheriffs in Wyoming are demanding that federal agents actually abide by the Constitution, or face arrest. Even better, a U.S. Federal District Court agreed.

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.

The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.

Wyoming Sheriffs Told Federal BATF & IRS Agents To Abide By The Constitution Or Face Immediate Arrest. UPDATED!

Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds In Their Place. Immediately Below Is The Internet Embellishment Followed By How It Really Went Down! Here’s one the mainstream media isn’t going to tell you: County sherif…

politicalvelcraft.org

Can i drop you in an other era on the way back to 2019?

 

[Ghost1958]

Your right that one escaped me.

I've always held, and every sheriff I've known here have held that the Sheriff is the Ultimate LE in his county

 

[OC for ME]

Link to court documents?

It appears that there may be a battle of the interwebz cites brewing...http://www.no-debts.com/anti-federalist/files/posse16.txt

Wyoming...nice state...except for the 40 ft of snow very other week...

 

[solus]

Mea culpa...who’d thunk fake news was pervasive so long ago...an urban legend resurfaced!

QUOTE​

United States District Court District of Wyoming
Our office has been receiving inquiries regarding the case of Castaneda v. United States, No. 96-CV-099.
This was a civil case arising out of an alleged entry into an apartment by law enforcement officials in June of 1993. The Plaintiffs, who were staying in the apartment, alleged that the officials violated their civil rights. They filed an action against the United States, unnamed INS agents, Big Horn County, the County Sheriff, and unnamed Sheriff's deputies.

The complaint was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Wyoming in May, 1996. The federal defendants were primarily represented by attorneys with the Constitutional Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. The County defendants were represented by non-federal attorneys. The case was settled following a settlement conference in 1997. The court did not rule on Plaintiffs' claims or any other legal issues in the case. After the settlement conference, Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a "Policy." In the "Policy," the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County.

We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision. Instead, the court simply granted a motion, submitted jointly by all the parties, to dismiss the case because the parties had settled.

This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming.

Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.

Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

William F. Downes
Chief Judge, District of Wyoming

Unquote

Opinion Documents

Now the chief justice’s letter is also undated but was taken off the WY district court website!

Final note...there are no public records to substantiate the chief justice’s commentary!

My sincere apologies to ghost1958 and the membership.