sjfcontrol wrote:barstoolguru wrote:
The official press release issued by SA Ronald Dozier goes on to state:
"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? . . . I’m not willing to do that anymore—too many good people will be harmed."
this came off of ;
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Did anybody else notice that both sides of his "choice" result in continuing the status-quo?
Choice "A", continue to enforce unconstitutional laws...
or
Choice "B:, continue to prosecute citizens...
I understand it a little differently I guess.
I see a statement that says he has in the past enforced laws that he believed to be unconstitutional, that now have been ruled as such, and he questions whether he would continue to do so, and as a collateral statement, that he is unwilling to do that (prosecute those who carry in defiance of IL's current law) any more.
Parsing it my way, it reads as permission for the law abiding citizens of IL to go ahead and carry now, now that they know that the law preventing them from carrying is unconstitutional, he is not willing to prosecute. I would assume that a FOID would still be necessary because the 7th did not rule the FOID law unconstitutional, just the law against concealed carry.
That said, I would also expect that those same law abiding citizens could expect to get a free ride in a fancy police car wearing a new set of silver bracelets if caught.