More Illinois Counties Pass Gun Sanctuary Resolutions

More Illinois Counties Pass "Gun Sanctuary County" Resolutions

AP photo by Rich Saal/The State Journal-Register

Illinois “sanctuary counties” have sprouted like spring mushrooms this year. These counties have adopted resolutions defining themselves as sanctuaries for gun owners in defiance of proposed gun control measures under consideration in the Illinois General Assembly. Just last night, Cumberland County became the latest county to pass a sanctuary resolution.

Yes, gun owners have co-opted the left’s sanctuary strategy and applied it to guns. Of course, this roils those who so eagerly embrace immigration sanctuary laws, that welcome illegal aliens.

Effingham County led the way with their resolution passed on April 15th. Soon afterwards, more followed. Now, the trend has grown to where the mainstream media can no longer ignore it. The Associated Press posted this story . . .

Several rural Illinois counties have taken a stand for gun rights by co-opting a word that conservatives associate with a liberal policy to skirt the law: sanctuary.

At least five counties recently passed resolutions declaring themselves sanctuary counties for gun owners — a reference to so-called sanctuary cities such as Chicago that don’t cooperate with aspects of federal immigration enforcement.

Actually it was at least seven when this story broke: Jefferson, Effingham, Iroquois, Jasper, Perry, Fayette and Saline Counties. With the addition of Cumberland County yesterday, the number now stands at eight.

The resolutions are meant to put the Democratic-controlled Legislature on notice that if it passes a host of gun bills, including new age restrictions for certain weapons, a bump stock ban and size limit for gun magazines, the counties might bar their employees from enforcing the new laws.

Yes, these resolutions stand as proverbial shots across the bow for (mostly) Chicagoland Democrats wishing to drag all of Illinois onto the gun control plantation. Because generations of gun control are just a small price to pay for Rahm’s crime-free, 168 homicides to date, paradise, right?

“It’s a buzzword, a word that really gets attention. With all these sanctuary cities, we just decided to turn it around to protect our Second Amendment rights,” said David Campbell, vice chairman of the Effingham County Board. He said at least 20 Illinois counties and local officials in Oregon and Washington have asked for copies of Effingham County’s resolution.

Grassroots gun rights group Guns Save Life has quietly provided information and support for those wishing to bring these resolutions to their own counties. The Illinois State Rifle Association may well have done the same. And with our help, additional Illinois counties will pass this resolution before the end of May, guaranteed.

…“We’re just stealing the language that sanctuary cities use,” explained the Effingham County’s top prosecutor, Bryan Kibler, who came up with the idea.Not lost on them is that lawmakers from Chicago were instrumental in turning Illinois into what they derisively call a “sanctuary state” by passing recent legislation that prohibits local law enforcement from arresting or detaining people based solely on their immigration status. Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed it into law.

Kibler has spoken at Guns Save Life meetings in the past. He’s also very much a gun culture guy. If Cook County had Bryan Kibler as its State’s Attorney, things would be a whole lot different there. And safer for everyone, as Chicago’s days as a crime-with-no-punishment paradise would end.

Of course, the AP had to interview one of Illinois’ most dedicated gun control advocates.

Such talk worries Kathleen Willis, a Democratic state representative from suburban Chicago who sponsored some of the gun legislation.

“I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it,’” she said. “I think it sends the wrong message.”

The hypocrisy runs deep with this one. Willis sponsored and voted for Illinois’ Sanctuary State bill, SB-31, that calls for the state to ignore federal immigration laws. That measure has now become law in Honest Abe’s home state.

Last night, the Cumberland County board voted unanimously to become the latest gun sanctuary county in the Prairie State. Which county will be next to pass one of these resolutions reaffirming their support of the Second Amendment?  Stay tuned…

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Come on Kane county…

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      And DuPage. Too near to Chicago to be more than just a wish.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Kane is actually amazingly conservative. We’re one of the few red dots around Chiraq.

      2. avatar mib8 says:

        Am cheering for Richland, Kankakee, White, Piatt, Vermilion, Shelby, Champaign…not much hope from the heavy infestation of illiberal Reds/Regressives/Leftists/Collectivists in the latter county seen over recent years… but must strive to free the cousins throughout the state and region…and the graves of the ancestors.

        (Why DO so many go along so meekly with the leftist media’s color designation reversal?)

  2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Will is too blue for this to happen. Here’s to hoping though. At this moment that’s just under 8% of the state. It’s going to be odd as hell to see this going from a state’s rights issue to a county rights issue. It would be even crazier to see this start popping up in the big slave states like cali, wash state and NY. They are like IL in a lot of ways where there’s a large liberal demogrpahic in a small area that controls a large amount of the politics in the state.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      I appreciate the sentiment, but wonder about the legal authority. Both State government, and Federal government, have sovereignty (within their own Constitutionally defined spheres). City and county governments do not have sovereignty. They are under the authority of their respective State.

      Of course I’m speaking with the assumption that our governments (Federal, State, County, Municipal) are guided and controlled by their constitutions. They frequently aren’t.

      Arguing constitutional law with Statists is like arguing Biblical doctrine with apostates (not terribly helpful).

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        I think that’s the whole point. Democrats are willing to shut down the government to protect illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities/states. Any laws they cite to protect this “golden-calf” issue only strengthens the “sanctuary gun law” possision. THIS is how you fight the left; you don’t run away to gun friendly states. You fight them using their own bullsh!t legality. Please, please, please oh God let this happen in California!!

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          It would be nice if some California counties went Constitutional carry, and also refused to enforce the “assault weapon” and magazine capacity bans.

    2. avatar Stanley Nick Jedrzejczyk says:

      One look at Dimocrap Rep. Kathleen ‘Willis’ just screams out ‘European-Style Socialist’!

  3. avatar dpk54 says:

    Kathleen Willis, you truly are an idiot!! What exactly do you think the politicans,( especially in the great hellhole state of Illinois) have been doing for DECADES, telling the truth and obeying the laws???? You people have been ignoring laws in this country for a very long time, simply because you didn’t agree with them!! (Especially immigration laws)… How dare you attempt to cover your own hypocrisy and inability to tell the truth with what these counties in Illinois are doing!!! I despise everything you and others like you represent, Ms. Willis, and if left up to me I would kick your *** to the curb along with the rest of the morons in Springfield, IL!!!!

  4. avatar Francis says:

    “I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the constitution so I won’t uphold it. I think it sends the wrong message.”

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Francis….. I think they are saying that we will not enforce un -constitutional laws. ” Shall not be infringed”.

  5. avatar Paul Mcmichael says:

    This is some of the best news I’ve heard in years. The time is long overdue for a single urban area to run roughshod over the rest of a state. Just because we live in the sticks doesn’t mean we’re hicks. And we sure as shit don’t need a tofu eating Andy Worhal [sic] admirer telling us how to live!

    1. avatar Paul Mcmichael says:

      Run roughshod to end, I meant.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Scott County, Tennessee seceded from the rest of state when Tennessee joined the Confederacy. It’s not entirely inconceivable that something like that could happen again.

    3. avatar California Richard says:

      +1… there are already huge swaths of California that ignore the state’s gun laws. I could see “red California” doing this IOW most of the California land mass.

  6. avatar Brewski says:

    Why not use terms for these counties that clarify what they are opposing?

    Anti-tyranny counties
    Constitutional counties
    Free counties

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      There is a certain “strategery” perhaps to using the term “sanctuary”. The left dare not sue to put an end to these sanctuary counties for fear of setting a legal precedent that might jeopardize their precious sanctuary cities.

  7. avatar Geoff PR says:

    This is a *beautiful* practical application of rule #4 of Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’ –

    “4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.“ If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.”

    That puts a big-assed smile on my face and is making me *snicker*… 😉

  8. avatar Ed says:

    So, practically speaking, if you get “caught” by a county sheriff, no problem…but if you get “caught” by a town or city cop, do not pass go or collect $200…..right to jail. What a horrorshow.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      The *county* prosecutor makes charging decisions sir.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        I would point out that each county’s State’s Attorney is independently elected and therefore has no duty to comply with a county board’s “sanctuary” policy. They do, however, need to answer to the voters. Same with county sheriffs.

        Which means that these “sanctuary” resolutions being passed by county boards are symbolic gestures and nothing more.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          All law is symbolic unlessed acted upon. Symbolic gestures backed by the screaming/armed/voting/tax-paying citizenry quickly becomes the law of the land…. like you said though, some people are going to push back. Thats expected. But if enough people believe the same thing for long enough, they will fight for it.

      2. avatar mib8 says:

        But are not the locals on the grand juries the gate-keepers who can indict or not?

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Indeed it is as if Pandora’s box was opened up by people who wanted to follow their agenda more than rule of law. That said, it makes a pretty strong statement about how stupid it really is.

  9. avatar TommyG says:

    Wait I just want to get it straight. Willis voted FOR Illinois as a Sanctuary state in violation of federal immigration law. Then said “it sends a bad message” when Illinois counties declare themselves Sanctuaries against state laws that violate the US constitution?

  10. avatar Nanashi says:

    “I don’t think you can say, ‘I don’t agree with the law so I won’t enforce it,’”

    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;”

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Nanashi…but these laws are not constitutional so they are not to be obeyed. ” Shall not be infringed”. This 2nd amendment does not belong to the government to take away or give, it belongs only to the citizens of the U S.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      You will have to excuse my ignorance of US constitutional law, but how can states overrule the Federal Government?

      In Australia there is section 109 of the Federal constitution that says (in short) where there is a difference between Federal law and State law, the Federal Law prevails.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        My point was she didn’t like the second amendment and she’s ignoring that despite it being supreme law of the United States.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        The “law” only has the power given to it by those who obey and enforce it. If people dont believe in the law and their elected mayor says to the police chief, “Make a new department rule and suspend without pay any officer who enforces this law, or I will find a new police chief who will,” you will soon find that officers will not enforce that law. The law then becomes meaningless. It may hang there like a Sword of Damocles, waiting for the political wimds to shift. Like money, it remains nothing more than ink on paper unless we all believe its worth something.

      3. avatar Toni says:

        yes not only that here in australia but gun laws are up to the individual states. what the federal govt did was threaten the states with withholding of tax revenue to the states to get them to comply. now in saying that the ATO (Australian Tax Office for those in the US) never has been properly gazetted and under our constitution the only way the federal govt can lawfully tax the australian people is DURING wartime to help with the war effort. taxation of businesses and the individual was in state hands prior to the formation of a federal land tax in 1910. this was in direct violation of the constitution which only gave the federal govt taxation rights over import/export duties and excise… eg liquor. we also did originally have a bill of rights though it was not written directly into the constitution as the US Bill of Rights is. this is due to the fact that all of british common law was inherited with the ratification of our constitution and there was a line in the constitution which explicitly brought all that with it. this was quietly omitted at some point in our history without referendum and you wont find it in any of the modern reprints (at least since about 1970) of the pocket constitution. all that common law included magna carta, habeas corpus, bill of rights 1689 and many more besides. 2 of those i just named had the right to keep and bear arms in them. sadly it was not as strongly worded as the 2A as it had “and as allowed by law” in the text. in short treason has been being committed in this country at an ever increasing rate almost since federation

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Well that’s interesting…not for far southern/central Illinois counties being “sanctuaries” but for IROQUOIS co. Not far at all from me and I grew up in Kankakee(got relatives in Iroquois co). Out of stater’s(and hater’s) have this idea the state is leftard and Chiraq. It’s not-we’re outnumbered by the Cook and Lake co. bastard…

  12. avatar Paul Mcmichael says:

    Nanashi, I don’t believe anyone is under any obligation to obey an illegal, or unconstitutional law, or order. That was the “Nuremburg Defense.” I know I would not have when I served in the military and law enforcement. I swore to defend the Constitution twice. I don’t feel that I’m relieved of that obligation just because I no longer serve in a military, or civil capacity. I’m getting older and a little tired now. My kids are grown and gone. I live alone. Still, “Don’t tread on me!” I have an M-1 Garrand rifle that I can wear your ass out with. Hypothetically speaking of course.

    1. avatar Just Sayin says:

      Any possibility you also own a vintage Gran Torino?

      *chuckle*
      You sound like a guy that I would buy a beer for.
      Cheers!

  13. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Let freedom ring.

  14. avatar Samson Simson says:

    We should repeat this effort in some of the more conservative counties in California, especially since its “Sanctuary” laws have taken front and center with Trump’s lawsuit against them.

  15. avatar sound awake says:

    it wont matter

    unless a miracle happens rauner wont get reelected

    pritzger will sign any anti gun legislation madigan and cullerton send to his desk

    and that legislation will likely mirror what was passed in deerfield

    unless another miracle happens by which that law isthrown out

    so basically in the absence of TWO miracles anything that can accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds in illinois will be banned

    oh yeah and pritzger actually won the primary running on tax hikes

    double trouble for illinoisans

    MOVE MOVE MOVE

  16. avatar Stanley Nick Jedrzejczyk says:

    One look at Dimocrap Rep. Kathleen ‘Willis’ just screams out: ‘European Style Socialist’

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email