The Jo Daviess County sheriff and state’s attorney recently concluded that their personal opinion on the State of Illinois’ laws is what dictates whether those laws should be enforced.
Never mind their oath to uphold the laws of the state; they will decide what’s enforceable.
In the case of the state’s new ban on assault weapons, they have decided not to enforce the law.
Recommended for you
Sheriff Kevin Turner and State’s Attorney Chris Allendorf, both Republicans, announced that they will not enforce the law signed by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker this month. The law prohibits the manufacture or possession of dozens of rapid-fire weapons and attachments and requires registration of those previously owned in response to the massacre at a July 4th parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park during which seven people were killed and 30 others were wounded.
In a letter posted on social media, Turner said that the sheriff’s department would not enforce the law, asserting: “The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people. Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us in the Constitution. One of those enumerated rights is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
But the letter makes no mention of the fact that sheriffs and prosecutors also take an oath to uphold the laws of the state. And violating that oath should come with consequences.
Nearly identical letters were shared online by many other sheriffs in the state so that now, as many as 80 have said they will not enforce the law.
This is not how our system of government and lawmaking process works.
Voters elect legislators based on their views and how they will vote on issues that citizens care about. These elected officials voted 68-41 in the state House of Representatives and 34-20 in the state Senate to ban the weapons.
Meanwhile, voters elect sheriffs to enforce laws on the books and state’s attorneys to prosecute people who violate those laws.
Now, is it possible that the Legislature created a law that is unconstitutional? It is possible. Shouldn’t there be some kind of check on the Legislature to ensure that legislators aren’t creating unconstitutional laws? Indeed. As a matter of fact, such a check exists: That third branch of government, the judiciary. And, in fact, an Effingham County judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the state ban.
Yes, challenges of constitutionality happen quite regularly. And who decides whether something stands the test of constitutionality? Is it a local sheriff or attorney? No. It is the courts.
That is the recourse for questioning the validity of a law. Individual law enforcement officials do not get to pick and choose those that they want to enforce.
To refuse to recognize the authority of the controlling system is, by its very definition, anarchy.
Sheriffs and prosecutors in Illinois must stand down on their political opinions and enforce the laws of the land.
Editorials reflect the consensus of the Telegraph Herald Editorial Board.
While the courts have prevented the Title 42 public health order from lifting for now, the Biden-Harris Administration announced new enforcement measures to increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry. So what are you referring to?
Coming from a 4 day a week newspaper that steps all over the first amendment. Pick an chose who can comment. The IT people where I’m employed have loved my phone for the last couple years. Comments erased,can only view my post while other phones show all, other peoples post doing the same, but what else would you expect
I believe the Supreme court is allowing states rights to over rule now. If there was a state where all abortions were banned, but a county sheriff decided he would not enforce the law in his county, would that be alright? All laws that are passed need to be enforced until the people speak with there vote.
Sanctuary city refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law.
Funny, coming from a news source that has nothing to say about NATIONAL border issues, which have been on the books for YEARS, and these LAWS are not being challenged in the courts. PLEASE, quit being selective on your right and wrong editorials...it really, really makes you look bad.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(14) comments
wish you would have the same concern for biden not enforcing border closure
Absolutely! They don’t seem a bit concerned about that.
I’m proud of the sheriffs for standing up against unconstitutional edicts.
While the courts have prevented the Title 42 public health order from lifting for now, the Biden-Harris Administration announced new enforcement measures to increase security at the border and reduce the number of individuals crossing unlawfully between ports of entry. So what are you referring to?
Coming from a 4 day a week newspaper that steps all over the first amendment. Pick an chose who can comment. The IT people where I’m employed have loved my phone for the last couple years. Comments erased,can only view my post while other phones show all, other peoples post doing the same, but what else would you expect
I believe the Supreme court is allowing states rights to over rule now. If there was a state where all abortions were banned, but a county sheriff decided he would not enforce the law in his county, would that be alright? All laws that are passed need to be enforced until the people speak with there vote.
Sanctuary city refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law.
Waiting for the TH to condemn these cities....
[thumbup]
It's their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
{who knows} same rules for president
Funny, coming from a news source that has nothing to say about NATIONAL border issues, which have been on the books for YEARS, and these LAWS are not being challenged in the courts. PLEASE, quit being selective on your right and wrong editorials...it really, really makes you look bad.
Goonybirds and Dummybirds don't realize Biden has done nothing wrong, they are related to Gossipbirds who only follow rumors and B S.
gliver i suppose he doesn't have any classified documents in his garage either
Downstate judge issues temporary restraining order over Illinois' new assault weapons ban.
https://abc7chicago.com/illinois-assault-ban-weapons-weapon-il/12720880/
SAF files injunction in Illinois gun ban.
https://www.saf.org/saf-files-for-injunction-in-illinois-gun-ban-case/
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.