Illinois Sanctuary Counties
Previous Post
Next Post

“While that’s a way of symbolically protesting, the words of what they’re doing undeniably allow people to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. We’re a nation of laws. If we lose that, we lose everything.” – Southern Illinois University professor Trish Oberweiss in 26 Illinois counties have passed ‘gun sanctuary’ resolutions. Are they constitutional? [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Does Trish know that the Constitution and it’s Amendments are the supreme laws of this country and that is that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? When we ignore the supreme law of the country we lose everything.

    • I’ll even one-up you Governor Le Petomane: we are supposed to be a nation of Common Law, NOT laws by legislative fiat.

      For the uninitiated, let me explain:
      Common Law is exceedingly simple — if there is no victim with demonstrable injuries or loss (including financial, physical, and emotional), then there is no crime. Violating the arbitrary dictates of your local, state, or federal government where no one suffers any injuries or loss is NOT a crime.

      We don’t need a state or federal government to pass a law declaring that damaging or stealing someone’s property is a crime: everyone already knows that.

      Allowing a state or federal government to declare that anything can be a crime (such as picking up an owl feather off the ground in the woods) is tyranny of the ruling class and is counter to the entire concept of liberty and a limited government of, by, and FOR the People.

      • You are obviously not an attorney. There is nothing in common law, whether here or in England, that precludes that passage of statutory law. There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes the passage of statutory law, and in fact, its provision for a Congress that passes laws presupposes such power. If Congress could pass no laws, it would be superfluous.

        • Mark N.,

          I readily admit that I am not an attorney. I also recognize that many attorneys simply follow the existing system, regardless of how rotten, baseless, and even illegal it may be.

          I would simply argue that the federal government’s power to pass laws is restricted to the powers which our U.S. Constitution expressly granted to it — which isn’t very much. Off the top of my head, those laws would pretty much be restricted to removing barriers to interstate commerce, equipping the militia, managing the military, defending our borders, managing immigration and emigration, imposing excise taxes on imports from foreign countries, and settling disputes between the states. Federal laws about possessing owl feathers, buying/selling/possessing “illegal narcotics”, and countless other victimless “crimes” have no basis in the U.S. Constitution.

          And state laws should be similarly limited in scope, perhaps even more limited. Anything else is statutory law by fiat and tyranny of the majority and/or ruling class.

          Remember, the function of government is to secure our rights, not to tell us what we can and cannot do to satisfy the whims of the majority or ruling class.

    • Sanctuary for the second amendment is pretty much as constitutional as it gets. Illegal aliens… not so much.

      • Tell that to the Democrats who are willing to shut down the government to protect illegal aliens and will spend your tax money to strip you, an American citizen, of your constitutionally protected rights.

        • Exactly how are the Democrats doing that? of the 435 Seats in the US House of Representatives 248 are Republicans (~57%), more then enough votes to pass a bill without the Democrats and 51 Republicans in the US Senate. Again more than enough. If the Republican’s can’t pass anything in either the House or Senate without the aid of the Democrats, what are they doing there?

    • And when we lose everything like the Democrats want, guess who we wind up like, CHINA. Your congressmen becomes your master and you will obey, besides what would you fight back with? A rake or a hoe? I really don’t like where all this is heading.

  2. I’m *loving* it.

    Using Alinsky tactics (force the enemy to live by their own rules) against the Leftists warms the bottom of my cold, black heart.

    If they want illegal ‘sanctuary cities’ they get to choke on them for all laws someone doesn’t like…

    *snicker* 😉

    • Exactly. It was crickets when it was immigration, so suck it.

      If you don’t want easy court nominations, don’t blow up parliamentary procedure. Want strict adherence to the law? Adhere to the law. This stuff is simple, unless you are a modern progressive, I guess…

  3. Let’s start at the top, then. Or, in this case, 2nd from the top.

    Or would you prefer to try the “interstate commerce” route?

  4. Suddenly all the liberals become ‘law and order’ when it’s their precious gun bans that people are ignoring. They should be flattered – we learned how to ignore laws from watching them.

    • The old quote: “If liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all” applies well here.

  5. She lost me at “university professor,” since they are on average much further to the left than even the news media. Why listen to the Marxist ravings of people like that, there are much better things to do with my time.

    • I’d bet you a hundred bucks this lady is all about “pick and choose” disobedience when it concerns a progressive/leftist cause. It’s been said many times before, and I’ll say it again: If not for double standards, progressive “liberals” wouldn’t have any standards at all.

  6. as morton grove, ill. policy begat the kennesaw, ga. mandate, so too these illinois counties are standing up to springfield (cook).
    i can envision a day with 99 gun sanctuaries vs. 3 (maybe less) delusional ones.

  7. Hey, maybe they could propose legislation making the entire state a sanctuary, and jail any cops who cooperate with ATF and FBI, like they do in California with those who cooperate with INS and ICE. Would that make Rahm’s head explode, or just Father Snuffy’s?

    Better yet, pass that legislation in Ohio and Michigan, see if the anti gun governors can avoid total psychotic meltdowns long enough to veto it.

  8. This is some amusing shite…and I say this as a Cook resident. Highland Park violated state preemption statues. No howls from the leftard’s. I have no plans moving to the cool counties-Illinois still sucks. Shall not be infringed be-yotch…

    • The thing about Highland Park is that it got its ordinance on file before the drop dead date before pre-emption kicked in, so it avoided the law that has embroiled the most recent community to pass such an ordinance (and which resulted in the issuance of a TRO).

  9. There are 102 counties in Illinois. That means fully a quarter of the state’s counties are in opposition of further erosion of their rights. Is it symbolic? Time will tell on that, I could see this being the formalization of many sheriffs and local PDs in these areas refusing to enforce such laws.

    Cook County has lenient enforcement on gun issues and other crime matters already when it pertains to illegal gun whatever. Maybe it’s time the otherwise law abiding get a break too.

  10. The hypocrisy of the Left on full display…but I have to wonder if it is hypocrisy or intentional deception? Generally speaking, fascist totalitarians engage in deliberate lies to advance their agendas. Is that hypocrisy, or intentional lying propaganda? A hypocrite, generally, has no respect for the truth. A fascist totalitarian, generally, intentionally manipulates the truth for a specific purpose.

    The Left in the U.S. has become fascist totalitarians because they embrace a vision that is based on Lenin/Stalin’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”, wherein the proletariat has consented to the creation of an all powerful central government that holds absolute life and death power over the masses of the people on the pretense that the proletariat is “not ready to govern itself”, as Marx and Engels envisioned. Hence the State is justified in using any means to protect itself by ruthlessly exterminating all opposition, bald faced lying and denying human rights on behalf of the people who established it for their own benefit (ironically).

    This convoluted logic needs make no sense because once the people “consent” to it the State becomes the be all end all authority in their lives and they can do nothing but obey or die. Lying is used to obtain the consent of the people in the full knowledge that once the people consent to the dictatorship of the proletariat no one will be able to effectively challenge the veracity of anything said to obtain the peoples’ consent.

    This “rule of law” chicanery in Illinois is neither hypocrisy or stupidity. It is much more dangerous…

    The problem those of us who believe in the American Republic and it principles and ideals have is that we believe we are obliged to live by those principles and ideals while engaging an enemy who is no longer constrained by those principles and ideals and actively working to enslave us.

    • “The hypocrisy of the Left on full display…but I have to wonder if it is hypocrisy or intentional deception?”

      It’s two things – Hypocrisy, and suicidal lack of recognizing the potential ramifications of not looking ahead.

      The concept of ‘sanctuary cities’ really strikes a chord deep in their shallow souls and they never play the game of “where could this lead?”

      • I think you have to separate the strategic thinkers from the deranged emotional parrots. The strategists engage in deliberate, lie-based propaganda to manipulate the deranged emotional parrots ( who are mere “useful idiots” to the strategic thinkers). The strategy makers rely on the deranged emotional parrots to NOT foresee the long-term consequences. This is how the strategists get the proletariat to consent to the ever-expanding control of the central government without the proles ever realizing it until it is too late. For those actively plotting the demise of the American Constitutional Republic and its conversion to an EU style Socialist Democracy {or some variant thereof} it is deliberate lying by those who full well know the long term consequences. For the deranged emotional parrots it is failure to see ahead and comprehend the consequences of what they are being led to support.

        • Most people I talk to are aware of the lying left and want no part of it, but soon we all are going to have to make a decision, will I comply with laws made up by people who belong in metal ward or do I fight for the freedoms these self proclaimed IDIOTS are trying to take away. Don’t be surprised on how soon you just might have to make that decision. Just be ready, know matter which way you decide to go. Just saying!!

    • DerryM,

      … the State becomes the be all end all authority in [the People’s] lives and they can do nothing but obey or die.

      I would say that we are already there. Local, state, and federal governments pass laws by fiat and our options are comply or die.

      Your state government could literally declare that short-sleeved shirts are illegal and countless law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges would dutifully enforce that law. Or your federal government could declare that you MUST have health insurance or else pay a hefty fine — and die if you refuse to pay the fine when revenue agents appear at your home to confiscate your property for refusing to pay the fine.

      Sure, a few outliers occasionally decide that they will not enforce such laws and our state and federal supreme courts occasionally overturn fiat laws. Unfortunately, that is by far and away the exception to the rule and NOT the norm.

      • I would say you are correct. The American version of “the dictatorship of the proletariat” is only partly formed, hence the pockets of resistance you cite exist. The “Democrats”, I think, thought they were going to sew it all up during Obama’s reign, but in the first two years they failed the “will to rule” test, only passed Obama Care, which generated an unexpected backlash, and in the 2010 Mid Terms lost control of COTUS. Obama was not able to accomplish enough with his “pen and phone” in the next six years he was POTUS, then HiLIARy lost the Democrat’s hold on the Executive Branch to Donald Trump.
        The long-term goal of the Democrats is something like an EU modeled Socialist Democracy, but evolving it out of the American Constitutional Republic has turned-out to be more difficult than outright overthrowing an older style Government and being able to do whatever you want (as was commonly done in the 20th Century). For now the Democrat Marxists are stalled in the U.S., which is why so much political theater and ranting and raving in the streets by the deranged emotional parrot useful idiots is happening.
        Whatever happens in November 2018 will be a tipping point for the preservation or demise of the American Constitutional Republic.

  11. “While that’s a way of symbolically protesting, the words of what they’re doing undeniably allow people to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. We’re a nation of laws. If we lose that, we lose everything.”

    Kinda like immigration laws, eh?

  12. And this, folks, is why we have independently elected Sheriffs and State’s Attorneys in Illinois.

    County Boards can pass whatever resolution they want. The Sheriff and the State’s Attorney are not bound by them. The Sheriff and the State’s Attorney, who take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, can continue to do their jobs as they see fit.

    This is what democracy looks like.

    In the meantime, watching liberal heads explode while we use their own tactics against them is quite entertaining!

    • Curtis in IL,

      There is still a HUGE, GAPING hole in that concept that county Sheriffs and Prosecutors will not enforce bogus firearm laws: the state of Illinois can simply send the Illinois State Police to enforce any state firearm laws in counties where the local Sheriff refuses to enforce bogus state firearm laws. And what stops the state from direction the prosecution of those laws to any court of its choosing?

      • That local sheriff can arrest those state police and any fed in his county.
        Sheriff’s are the highest Constitutional law enforcement in their county.

        • RMS1911,

          “That local sheriff can arrest those state police and any fed in his county.”

          Then why haven’t any local Sheriffs done it yet? Countless city and state police have arrested and prosecuted people for “illegal firearms possession” and I have not heard of a single instance where a local Sheriff intervened. And this doesn’t even touch on the fact that we would also need a sympathetic prosecutor to prosecute those city/state police officers for enforcing bogus laws — which we both know will never happen.

          While a local Sheriff may have arrest powers of state police and federal agents in theory, in practice I would say it is utterly and totally non-existent.

  13. Let’s see … When we own the bigger jurisdiction, supremacy rules, and there is no federalism. When we own the included jurisdiction, federalism rules, and the is no imposition from above.” Is that about right?

    The fundamental argument is: “What do we decide federally, and what more locally?” Related: “Do superior jurisdictions impose *minimums*, or *maximums* on the rest?”

    Being full of lawyers and cry-weenies, the “activists” position is always: “The rules are whatever will get me the answer I’ve already decided on.” This is why they get so tiresome, and nobody trusts them. It’s also why they can’t do science, BTW, but that’s another rant.

    /Running Arguments that Define a Self-Governing Republic

    There’s a marvelous book none of the “my way however we get that” folks will read: “The 13 American Arguments.” Written by an actual journalist (not “journ-o-list, or a denizen thereof), this book posits, inventories and explores 13 running arguments — really discussions of trade-offs — in American government, and culture. The best part is the observation that *grappling with these trade-offs is the fundamental American distinction. Not the answers, but owning the questions, as an exercise in self-government of diverse people.

    One of the 13 arguments is the local / federal tension. What do we decide and impose collectively and consistently? What is local, indeed carved out to have its local control protected? (“… reserved for the states, or the people…” never gets referred to much these days. The fundamental objection to The Current President’s nominations to the Supremes. They aren’t all that conservative as in “Ban all the debauchery!” They’re more “If you want to do that federally, pass an amendment.”)

    Yet more subtle, is that greater jurisdictions often impose restrictions in one direction or the other. “Federal law restricts this much. You can restrict *more* if you want, but not less.” Or “Federal law carves out this much. You can carve out *more* if you want, but not less.”

    Is Heller or the 2A itself a minimum, or a maximum restriction? The Anti’s love to muddle up that one. This is part of why “The 2A protects a civil (and BTW natural) right.” ties them up in such knots. ” Generally Federal civil rights lawas are *minimum* guarantees. States & etc. are free to lay off people more. (Except, of course, if guided by the American Civil Social Liberties Justice Union League.

  14. “We’re a nation of laws. If we lose that, we lose everything.”

    And just who is this “we” you speak of, you stupid twit (sic)?

      • *sigh*

        I’ll bite, I’m dense.

        What besides “What’s this ‘we’ shit, Kemosabe?”

  15. “We’re a nation of laws.”

    And what are laws but the opinions of tyrants, enforced by violence? We act like “law” is some noble characteristic of an equitable society, but law is just a bunch of bureaucrats deciding just how much freedom they think we need to keep us from seeing them as the lecherous tyrants they are. Law is just the opinion of a self-important person in funny robes and a wooden hammer trying to maintain the status quo.

    That we are a nation of laws is the problem. If we ever want freedom, we will have to become a nation of rights.

  16. I do not believe in laws. Laws were made to be broken. MORALS STAND ABOVE LAWS. Laws =courts = lawyers= money= criminals. Eliminate the money that is procured with laws and there would be less prohibitive laws legislated. May judges and laws burn in hell

  17. “26 Illinois counties have passed ‘gun sanctuary’ resolutions. Are they constitutional? ”

    No, they are not Constitional but neither are the gun laws.

    ….shall not be infringed.

    • There are thousands of laws, so police need to prioritize which ones they’ll bother to enforce. Being unconstitutional makes it easy to put a law on the bottom of the list. Upper agencies should be allowed to use a carrot or stick to influence the enforcement of its laws,

  18. ” the words of what they’re doing undeniably allow people to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. ”

    Says someone who is probably for ignoring all our immigration laws, for the children.

  19. nullification won’t restore the republic overnight, but it will help a ton. hopefully it’ll really catch on

  20. So the States can choose what laws they follow, we choose the people that refuses to follow those laws and WE THE PEOPLE can’t do it. Hey Trish isn’t Illinois a sanctuary State? Isn’t that against our current laws? This is bullshit, don’t we have the right to arm ourselves or what? When you let one entity get away with not following our laws, what do you think follows? Our fore fathers gave us that RIGHT, and none of you IDIOTS are going to take it away. You people are playing with fire and fire burns.

Comments are closed.