search
top

Chicago’s Ostrich Strategy

Chicago is arguing that they can essentially ignore the federal courts, and keep arresting people for carrying unlawfully, even after the expiration of the 180 day deadline.

“Only the Illinois Supreme Court can declare a statue from (the legislature) unconstitutional,” Castiglione told lawmakers Tuesday. “I heard (someone) say that after 180 days our UUW (unlawful use of weapon) statute is unconstitutional. Not so.”

This is delusional. This is utterly delusional.

“After 180 days, anyone who decided, for example, to walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago carrying an AK-15 would be subject to arrest and prosecution for violating the [Unlawful Use of Weapons Act,]” said Cook County Assistant State’s Attorney Paul Castiglione. He said the Cook County state’s attorney’s office intends to enforce the Illinois Unlawful Use of Weapons statute, which outlaws carrying guns in public, after the deadline, unless lawmakers change it or the Illinois Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional. “The lower federal courts, either the district courts or the courts of appeal, cannot tell the Illinois Supreme court how to rule or whether or not that law is constitutional. The only court that can resolve that split is the U.S. Supreme Court.”

These people are living in an alternate reality where not only does the Second Amendment not exist, but where federal courts have no power to declare state laws unconstitutional. Anyone enforcing the Unlawful Use of Weapons Act after the federal courts invalidate it would be subject to potential federal prosecution, and would be easy targets for lawsuits in federal court in regards to deprivation of civil rights under color of law. More importantly, suits under 42 USC Section 1983 don’t have to be limited to the offending officer. You can sue all the way up the chain of command, and if the order for defiance came from the Mayor’s office, you can sue Rahm too. Section 1983 also allows for suits in an official capacity or a personal capacity, meaning you can sue Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, and you can also sue Rahm Emanuel the civil liberties abridging tyrant.

If Chicago wants this to be the tactic, bring it. I want to see more pictures of Alan Gottlieb being photographed with more six figure checks from he City of Chicago. In the mean time, sensible people will work on reforming the outdated and antiquated law.

16 Responses to “Chicago’s Ostrich Strategy”

  1. Gene Hoffman says:

    I want video of US Marshals serving a habeus corpus petition on Chicago PD!

    Not seen since Bull Connor.

    -Gene

    • aerodawg says:

      I want all the mother $*%(&^#$ prosecuted for civil rights violations.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/color_of_law

      I’m not hopeful though with Barack at the helm…

      • Andy B. says:

        “I’m not hopeful though with Barack at the helm…”

        Don’t ever be hopeful, with anyone at the helm. Remember they are all members of the same ruling oligarchy, even if it is an oligarchy with two wings that enjoy competing, as long as both are winning. No one is going to have enthusiasm for setting a precedent for hanging crooks who are identical to themselves. The issues may change, but they want the same wiggle-room for themselves if the day ever comes.

  2. Andy B. says:

    Actually, they live in the reality in which public officials can do pretty much as they damn see fit, and only someone with substantial resources can challenge them. And, they use our resources to defend themselves, while we use our resources to attempt to challenge them. I’m sure you’ll find nothing in the law (at least, as it would be interpreted) to force them to so much as hit themselves on the forehead with the heels of their hands and say “Oh, Silly Me” after they were proven wrong in court. And their constituency will reward them at the polls for being so wrong. So, there is no downside at all for flagrantly disregarding the law and the constitution.

    Until that is fixed, words on paper are not going to be worth even what it cost to put them there.

    Not to belabor Old Stories, but I believe the first Pennsylvania Supreme Court finding that state law preempted local municipalities from enacting their own firearms or hunting ordinances was in 1963. But the following year I had to appeal a conviction under such an ordinance, and twenty years later a friend had to repeat the process, again going all the way to the state Supreme Court. And still the preemption question is being challenged today. I doubt a single municipality changed its practices, much, and why should they? There is no downside at all for them breaking the law — unlike for you and me.

  3. jumpthestack says:

    LOL at ‘AK-15′. Not sure if that was a joke or not.

  4. thinice says:

    For the testimony of the Cook County States attorney He gives a opening statement around 1:48 and then gets questioned around 1:59 at the video link
    @2:03 discussed federal courts ruling and Supremacy clause

    http://new.livestream.com/blueroomstream/events/1862841

  5. N says:

    Illinois, uniquely, has case law that suggests that the decisions of a federal court, below the S.Ct., regarding the constitutionality of a Illinois law is not binding on Illinois courts. That is, there is precedent that an Illinois court is not obligated to agree with the 7th Circuit on whether Illinois’ UUW statute is a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    BUT, and this is a huge but, that doesn’t matter. At the end of the 180, the mandate goes into effect, and the state of Illinois and all of it’s agents are enjoined from enforcing the UUW law.

    So that gentleman is just the wrong kind of right.

  6. Carl from Chicago says:

    Sebastian,

    Readers should be clear it is not the city per se making this absurd argument, but rather the office of the Cook County State’s Attorney.

  7. anon says:

    if this is the case then why cant states have their own independent immigration policy? since Il. can ignore federal laws on guns others states can also ignore federal non enforcement of immigration policy

    • Andy B. says:

      “why cant states have their own independent immigration policy?”

      I would argue that they can, because nowhere does the constitution authorize the federal government to have an immigration policy. It is authorized to control naturalization, but not immigration, and those aren’t the same thing.

      Thomas Jefferson pointed that out, I think in the Kentucky Resolution (?) and I think also Madison, in the same time frame. Congress recognized it had no authority on the matter, when c. 1850 it attempted to use its constitutional powers under the Navigation Laws to block Irish immigration, rather than address immigration head-on, when it knew it couldn’t. (As a result, my Irish g-grandparents sailed to Canada rather than the U.S., then boogied across the border into New York.) It wasn’t until a suitably distasteful ethnicity (the Chinese) got attention, c. 1881, that activist judges on the Supreme Court discovered that the federal government had a right to something not delegated to it in the constitution. All the rest followed from that.

      I’m not implying it isn’t logical for the federal government to manage immigration, I just enjoy pointing out ways that end runs around the constitution have been made over the years, and how whether Activist SCOTUS Judges are a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whose oxen were being gored, and how you feel about oxen in general.

  8. rd says:

    I have a feeling that no matter what is passed or not passed, the Chicago Government gang will attempt to persecute people carrying open or concealed. They are that arrogant and corrupt.

    I hope that people will plan for that and have friends using video to document their being harrassed and arrested in Chicago in the first few days. Multiple cameras, in close, mid distance and far distance. And ruthlessly pursue civil and criminal sanctions against everyone by their gov position and personally. Mr. G may want to recruit some brave sympathetic figures to become the modern day equivalent of Rosa Parks and the Freedom Riders.

    I will pray for their safety, but I am afraid some will be seriously injured or killed before the Chicago gang realize the laws apply to them also. Not just to us peasants and serfs.

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      Philly does a bit of that and we actually have laws for carry lol

      So yeah I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago stops and arrests people for it.

    • Zermoid says:

      I would even suggest setting up “stings” for the police. Have multiple video locations setup along a street and then have someone bait the trap by carrying openly on that street. I would also suggest body armor…….

  9. BC says:

    The fact that federal trial and appellate courts do not exercise appellate jurisdiction over Illinois state courts is completely irrelevant, here. The Illinois Supreme Court can decide whatever it likes; its decisions do not, however, empower Illinois state officials to defy a federal court order enjoining enforcement of the UUWA.

    Frankly, if I was admitted to practice law in Illinois, I’d make out a state bar ethics complaint against Castiglione. Either he’s dispensing grossly incompetent advice to lawmakers, or he’s flat-out lying to them to facilitate a criminal act (i.e., depriving citizens of civil rights under color of law). Either way he’s violating the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. “The petitionŒ is therefore DENIED.” | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] Contrary to the claims by Cook County officials, even the dissent from the decision is pretty damn clear that …
top