Wednesday, August 29, 2012

One Illinois State's Attorney Just Says "No" To Harsh Illinois Gun Laws

There is a big change in enforcement of restrictive firearms laws in one Illinois county. 
Illinois' McLean County State’s Attorney, Ronald C. Dozier, has taken a stand against enforcing certain Draconian Illinois gun laws. Announcing in his press release, with certain exceptions, the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office, “Will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms:
Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65),
Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1),
Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6)
and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.”

Heavily weighing in his decision were the Second Amendment, and as he says, “The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Indeed, every prosecutor’s office has a duty to be a fair administrator of justice. That means for both victims and those accused of crimes.

Under the laws of all states, including Illinois, prosecuting attorneys use great discretion everyday when they decide to file charges or not. They also decide what charges to bring. They can also reduce charges or dismiss them.

A major consideration in his decision was the Heller decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

Dozier said this of the Heller decision in his news release, “What has been the response of the State of Illinois to the Supreme Court? So far, the City of Chicago and the State have done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings. Illinois remains the only State in the Union to deny its citizens the legal right to “bear” firearms, either open or concealed, for personal defense. We are the only State to have a draconian FOID law that makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong except exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.

We have a law called “Unlawful Use of Weapons” which criminalizes people for merely possessing (not using or threatening to use) a firearm in the wrong place or wrong kind of container… What has been the response of the State of Illinois to the Supreme Court? So far, the City of Chicago and the State have done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings. Illinois remains the only State in the Union to deny its citizens the legal right to “bear” firearms, either open or concealed, for personal defense. We are the only State to have a draconian FOID law that makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong except exercise their constitutional right to own a gun...”

Dozier also stated  “We also penalize citizens of neighboring states who possess or carry firearms in complete obedience to their state laws, but don’t stop at the border of Illinois and switch the guns and ammunition around to accommodate our more stringent firearm laws.
Even the courts in parts of this State refuse to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, going so far as to hold that the Second Amendment gives citizens only the right to keep and bear arms within our houses! Can any person honestly say he or she believes our forefathers intended the Second Amendment to allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves only while inside their houses?

Proponents of the status quo continue to argue that such laws as these are “reasonable”
restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. But as pointed out in McDonald, “Chicago Police Department statistics reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban [which was struck down by the Supreme Court] was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the Country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in other comparable cities.”

In fact, the result of most gun control laws is that law-abiding citizens go defenseless while
criminal thugs are armed.

I believe these facts to be incontrovertible:
1) No State that has gone from no-carry to concealed-carry or open-carry of firearms has
experienced a significant increase in firearm violence.
2) Any evil or deranged person who is intent on killing others will find a way to do so, no
matter how strict our laws.
3) Murder is already against the law and carries very serious penalties. If that is not enough
to deter someone from committing the crime, why would they be deterred by laws against
gun possession?
4) The police can’t be everywhere to protect us. Only on rare occasions is a policeman
present to prevent a violent crime. Mostly they arrive after the fact, to investigate and
apprehend the offender if possible.

People who don’t like guns—who don’t want to own or carry a gun for protection, have the right to rely on the government to do that for them. They do not have the right to require everyone else to do so. The Supreme Court has so decided.

As the State’s Attorney, I have to make a choice. Do I continue to enforce laws that I believe to be unconstitutional, a belief that is supported by decisions of the highest court in the land, or do I continue to prosecute citizens who run afoul of State gun laws but have no evil intent or purpose in mind?  

In fact, since I was appointed State’s Attorney last December, I have been quietly changing our policies to bring them in accordance with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now I am announcing publicly that the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms: Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65), Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1), Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6) and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The questions we will seek to answer in determining whether or not to file charges are:
1) What appears to be the reason or purpose for the person’s possession of carrying a
firearm?
2) Was the firearm actually displayed, or used, for an improper purpose or in a reckless
manner?
3) Was the person under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or have illegal drugs on his or
her person or in their vehicle?
4) If the person is not an Illinois citizen, was the weapon possessed or carried in
accordance with the laws of the State of his or her residency?
5) Is the person a member of or affiliated with any gang known to engage in illegal
activities?
6) Has the person been convicted of a felony offense? If so, how long ago and for what
offense(s)?

Other questions may arise as we continue to improve our policy.

At this point, I must remind everyone that I am just the State’s Attorney of McLean County and can only enforce the laws within McLean County. I am not urging anyone to disregard the laws of the State of Illinois or of the Federal government with regard to firearms. The penalties for doing so can be very harsh. Additionally, I have no right and no intention of telling local law enforcement agencies when or under what circumstances to make arrests for firearms offenses.
Officer safety must remain the highest priority, and departmental policies must be followed.

My purpose is to send a message to the Governor and legislators of this State who continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and who continue to oppose reasonable legislation that would bring Illinois into compliance with the Second Amendment. I know that other State’s Attorneys share my views and am hoping they will join in this effort.

Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Date: 08/21/12

Ronald C. Dozier
McLean County State’s Attorney”

Reaction to Dozier’s decision has been as expected. That reaction ranges from legal experts saying that he is within his rights not to prosecute to the assertion that the NRA is too powerful and that Dozier has overstepped his bounds. Apparently, so far, no anti gun rights groups have weighed in on the Prosecutor’s decision. But, that is surely coming with attempts to remove him from office.

However, the final judge on his decision will be the voters of McLean County, Illinois. Dozier said it best above, “The primary check or balance on the power and authority of the State’s Attorney is the power of the people to vote him or her out of office.”

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG

Carrying a gun does not provide ANY realistic possibility of self defense


Saturday, August 18, 2012

Obama Lied To The Illinois Bar About Barry Soetoro

Why did Barack Obama lie about never using the name Barry Soetoro on his Registration with the Illinois Bar Association? "Full Former names" the second question on the ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD. 

However, instead of Listing "Barry Soetoro," he wrote the word "NONE" on the "Former Names Used" line. 

The Bar wants to know EVERYTHING on the background about its members, and generally do not look kindly on deception by applicants or members. This could have lead to more questions about "Barry Soetoro" if he disclosed that name. Such as, when, where, and how was it used. There could have been requests by the Bar for supporting documents that were used with than name which could prove embarrassing. 

The Bar website address for his form is http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=584273216
However, your request may not go through.
If not, go to the Illinois website: http://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp and enter "Obama" and then click on his name for verification, or read below.

Lawyer Search
Lawyer Registration
How to Submit a Request for Investigation
Rules and Decisions
Ethics Inquiry Program
Publications
Clerks Office, Filings and Public Hearings
Client Protection Program
Resources & Links
ARDC Organization Information
spacer (no content)

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of August 17, 2012 at 1:17:38 PM:
Full Licensed Name:Barack Hussein Obama 
Full Former name(s):None 
Date of Admission as Lawyer
    by Illinois Supreme Court:
December 17, 1991 
Registered Business Address:Not available online 
Registered Business Phone:Not available online 
Illinois Registration Status:Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law 
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information)
In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.) 
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings:
None
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email registration@iardc.org. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests page for details.

  
.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Agree Constitutional Right to Own a Gun is as Important as Right to Free Speech


Public Religion Research Institute

News Release- Overwhelming Majority of Americans Agree Constitutional Right to Own a Gun is as Important as Right to Free Speech

08/15/2012 Most Americans oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns in a place of worship, government building, or on a college campus
Washington, DC— Following the tragic mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, which led to a renewed dialogue on gun rights, a new national survey finds that Americans overwhelmingly believe that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as their constitutional right to free speech.
The August PRRI-RNS Religion News Survey, conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service, found that more than two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans agree that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. There are substantial differences between gun owners (89 percent) and non-gun owners (55 percent), and large differences along racial lines. White Americans (75 percent) are significantly more likely than non-white Americans (56 percent) to agree.
“In spite of recent debates over gun control, a strong majority of Americans believe that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as the right to free speech,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, PRRI CEO. “Unsurprisingly, this belief is particularly pervasive among gun owners.”
The survey also found that roughly three-quarters of Americans believe people should not be allowed to carry concealed guns in a church or place of worship (76 percent), in a government building (73 percent), or on a college campus (77 percent). However, opinion varies somewhat along political and religious lines.
Nearly one-third (32 percent) of white evangelical Protestants and 3-in-10 (27 percent) white mainline Protestants believe that people should be allowed to carry concealed guns to church, compared to 18 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans and 14 percent of Catholics. A majority (55 percent) of Americans who identify with Tea Party support allowing people to bring concealed guns to church, compared to nearly 4-in-10 (38 percent) Republicans and fewer than 1-in-5 Independents (17 percent) and Democrats (9 percent). Similar patterns of opinion exist in Americans’ views about whether concealed guns should be allowed in government buildings or on college campuses.
“White evangelical Protestants and white mainline Protestants are roughly twice as likely as Catholics to believe that people should be allowed to bring concealed weapons to church,” said Daniel Cox, PRRI Research Director. “But it’s important to note that white evangelical Protestants and white mainline Protestants are also substantially more likely than Catholics to own guns, which strongly predicts views on these questions.”
Additionally, the survey finds that a slim majority of Americans support passing stricter gun control laws. There is also broad public support for providing stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws. Few Americans support loosening current gun control laws.
Among the Findings:
There is no consensus among the public on the most important thing that could be done to prevent mass shootings. However, there is considerable disagreement along political and religious lines.
Nearly 3-in-10 (27 percent) Americans say that stricter gun control is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings, while roughly 1-in-5 say that better mental health screening and support (22 percent) and placing more emphasis on God and morality (19 percent) are the most important preventive measures. Fourteen percent of Americans say that stricter security measures at public gatherings are most important for preventing mass shootings from occurring. Roughly 1-in-10 (11 percent) Americans say that allowing more private citizens to carry guns for protection is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings.
  • Members of the Tea Party movement are three times more likely than Americans overall to say that allowing more private citizens to carry guns for protection is the most important thing that can be done to prevent shootings (35 percent vs. 11 percent).
  • Democrats are roughly three times more likely than Republicans to say that stricter gun control laws and enforcement is the most important measure to prevent mass shootings (38 percent vs. 13 percent).
  • Close to 4-in-10 (36 percent) white evangelicals say that placing more emphasis on God and morality in school and society is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings.
The survey was designed and conducted by Public Religion Research Institute. Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews conducted between August 8, 2012 and August 12, 2012 by professional interviewers under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,006 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States (304 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. In addition to sampling error, surveys may also be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order effects. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Brady Announces Push For Moderator To Ask About Guns In First Presidential Debate

MEDIAPRESS RELEASE

“We Are Better Than This” Campaign Urges Candidates to Listen to American Public

Aug 13, 2012
Washington, D.C. – The Brady Campaign today released a letter to presidential debate moderator  Jim Lehrer, calling on him to ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present plans to prevent gun deaths and injuries in the first presidential debate that will be held in Denver, Colorado. The Brady Campaign has been leading a national conversation on gun violence with an online campaign, www.WeAreBetterThanThis.org, and will ask Americans to join the call for questions on guns in the presidential campaign.

The letter reads:

Dear Jim:

As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, I respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because

•  The debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.

•  Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.

•  During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.

Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions -- solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms -- solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.

It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.

As a nation, we know we are better than this.  It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it too.

Brady Campaign President Dan Gross explained why the letter to the moderator is so important.

“There’s a dramatic disconnect between what the American people want and what our elected officials -- even our presidential candidates -- are doing about it. Our goal with this letter campaign is to lead the American people in closing this disconnect and in holding elected officials accountable. Until we do that, nothing will change. Once we do, everything will.”

The letter to the presidential debate moderator is hosted at www.WeAreBetterThanThis.org.