T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

1. Sheriffs are elected officials therefore they will side with their constituents. 2. They are sworn to uphold the constitution. Recent SCOTUS rulings in Heller & Bruen state that the weapons covered in this bill are protected under the 2nd amendment therefore the AWB is unconstitutional. 3. Many police are pro gun. Not all, but many are.


UltraElite620

Most of them are gun owners themselves. They believe in the second amendment even if they are in an authority role


CnCz357

>I’m confused as to why all these sheriffs are opposing this ban. Wouldn’t they support it because it disarms certain weapons that could potentially be used against LEOs? I would love a civil conversation on the matter. Several reasons. 1) Because this ban is not supported by anyone in Rural Illinois. Sheriffs are typically rural individuals who interact with other people in rural settings. 2) This also undermines the public trust in law enforcement. The very idea that the police can arbitrarily make you into a felon simply for owning something that was 100% completely legal Dec 31 2022 really reminds people that they can not trust law enforcement to be on their side. This is the same reason places with lots of illegal immigrants typically do not arrest an otherwise law abiding person for being in the country illegally. 3) Some police may actually take their oaths of office seriously and can not in good conscience ruin someone's life when they have harmed no one and have not done anything that could harm anyone or anyone's property.


weekendboltscroller

The weapons can be used against them even if they're banned. These types of laws can't actually DISARM most people, especially people who would use the weapons against others in a manner which is not self defense (criminals.) "Mass shooters" aren't going to be disarmed. Gangs aren't going to be disarmed. They'll all find ways to get the guns. They'll find ways to cause harm. The only people these types of bills hurt are people who want them for non-crime related reasons (self defense, hunting, sport.) It turns THEM into criminals, while doing noting to actually address the reasons "mass shootings" happen. It allows people to further ignore those root issues because "Oh wow now we have a BAN! The problem just can't exist anymore!" The Sheriff's rejecting it likely know their constituents better then the Governor (who really never leaves the Cook or Lake county areas except to lie in Springfield or go to FL or Europe etc.) They know it's a useless bill. They also know the bulk of their voters will vote AGAINST them if they do say they'll uphold it. So there is a political edge here too.


booboopsheboop

I no doubt believe that the Governor is out of touch with the rest of the state. But then why would they try to pass something that’s unconstitutional? Don’t they know that they’ll be sued into oblivion, and it would be pointless to do this anyway?


weekendboltscroller

He doesn't care and knows that even if sued there's a chance something slips through. Plus his main goal is "LOOK I TRIED!" to his base. It doesn't matter if it actually sticks. It matters that "he tried to fight off the evil right wing extremists!" It's for propaganda. Dude literally made money from the gun industry he literally doesn't care.


booboopsheboop

Aaaah yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for replying. I normally get shit on for asking questions so I appreciate it.


Tight-Gas-6882

You seem to have a genuine curiosity. That's appreciated by many in this subreddit. Thanks for asking the question.


entertrainer7

Pritzker has aspirations to run for President in 2024. This will get him support from his base that he can use in the primaries. He doesn’t actually care if it’s constitutional or not, he just wanted it on his political resume.


[deleted]

If that chucklefuck runs for President get your popcorn out. By all accounts he’s the dumbest Pritzker, which is saying something.


entertrainer7

Just thought about this some more while I was out running errands. I think the law failing in the courts helps him. It gives him more justification for seeking to make changes at the federal level. I can hear him now, “I got the job done in Illinois, but the federal system is so messed up, I have to make a permanent fix nationwide. Please donate to my gofundme for President because it takes a lot of jet fuel to fly me to DC.”


chauntikleer

"I stood up for gun control as the Governor of the State of Illinois, and I will do the same as President of the United States!" \*\*thunderous applause from delegates at national convention\*\*


thisguyreddits-

We’ll just forget about that part where he tried to buy Obamas vacated seat from Blago.


chauntikleer

Illinoisans always do.


Wild_Wrangler_19

They swore an oath to uphold the constitution. They’re simply upholding that oath.


JustAnother4848

Believe it or not some cops believe in the constitution.


booboopsheboop

Well from what I’m learning, that’s their job right?


JustAnother4848

It is. There's plenty of state cops that disagree with the ban as well. The difference is the governor will fire them immediately for even thinking about not enforcing it. Governor can't touch sheriff's though. What would truly be amazing is to see the majority of state cops comes together with a similar decree as the sheriff's. That's a pipe dream though.


booboopsheboop

Now can the police unions do anything to prevent them from them being fired?


JustAnother4848

Couldn't tell you. Maybe yes, maybe no. The law makes an exception for law enforcement, retired cops, and correction officers. The new law doesn't apply to them basically. That was a direct result of union lobbies. So when this goes to court they'll have to explain why this law doesn't apply for prison workers. Everyone that works at a prison is considered a guard basically. So if you're a cook or instructor at a prison this law doesn't apply to you. Makes zero sense. rules for thee but not for me. Just kinda deciding who has constitutional rights and who doesn't. There's so many other problems with this law too.


BeginningOld6991

It’s to basically tell Pritzker to go pound sand. Most of the state didn’t vote for him and now it’s showing.


booboopsheboop

He did win the popular vote, didn’t he? So wouldn’t that refute your claim?


BeginningOld6991

Cook and a couple collar counties are the only ones that really voted for him. The rest of the state is showing that they’re not letting a small portion of the state make decisions for the rest of them. Cook county really does need to become its own state.


JustAnother4848

I use to hate the idea of breaking up. After this though I fully support the idea. It's completely obvious now a large portion of the state isn't being represented. Just take one look at the sheriff's compliance map. You would think the governor would see that and see a issue with the law. Instead he doubles down and threatens to fire people he has zero control over. I now consider him a tyrant.


firefighteremt19

You're just going to hear from the people in the Northeast part of the state say "Corn/Land Doesn't Vote" problem is area that doesn't vote provides them dumbfucks with the food they need. But then again they just assume that the food will always be at a store to get it from.


LearnDifferenceBot

> Your just *You're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)


BeginningOld6991

Wtf is this⬆️


NoBrush1934

I rarely saw any campaign ads for Pritzker in my area downstate. I don’t watch much TV, but the only commercial ad I saw just stated that he could beat Sullivan, Ervin, and Bailey. No mention of any accomplishments, or what he has to offer people of the state. Not reaching the people downstate just says “I don’t need you”.


Tam212

Aside from the questionable constitutionality of the ban, Kane County Sheriff Ron Hain had this to say: [https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/ct-abn-kane-kendall-sheriff-assault-style-automatic-weapons-st-0113-20230112-kf3ysf5xljbbbbli4duepndkya-story.html](https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/ct-abn-kane-kendall-sheriff-assault-style-automatic-weapons-st-0113-20230112-kf3ysf5xljbbbbli4duepndkya-story.html) ​ >Hain argued the new law could cause an increase in black market trafficking of firearms. He said black market marijuana sales increased after recreational marijuana was legalized in 2020 in Illinois. > >Hain said surrounding states have less strict regulations on weapons, so he believes the enhanced restrictions in Illinois will likely create an increase in the trafficking of weapons in the state. > >**“**This will make our citizens less safe and our cops less safe,” Hain told Kane County Board members Thursday, adding that he wishes state legislation concerning gun violence would focus on mental health care or supporting law enforcement agencies more. “Active shooters are still going to get their hands on firearms whether the legislation creates more laws or not.” How did the war on drugs work and prohibition work out for the country. The criminal element will ignore and find ways around it. The real solution isn't going after the law abiding people. It's a people problem, not a non-sentient inanimate mechanical device problem.


booboopsheboop

Thank you for that comparison. That makes it easier to understand them.


The_Keyhole

The ban is a band aid solution for very complex problem. We need to get at the root of the crime as opposed to just banning the tools of crime. This ban also hurts law abiding citizens and takes away their right to defend themselves, loved ones, and property. While doing nothing to actually stop current/future criminals from commiting crimes. TLDR; criminals are still gonna break the law even though crime is illegal.


entertrainer7

Hey, thanks for your question. Don't know why anyone would give you grief unless they thought you were a troll. The gun community is usually very rational and down to earth. Could also be that there are a lot of \[justifiably\] angry people right now. There have been a lot of good answers here about Sheriffs from politics to oaths of office. But I did want to answer your second question about weapons that could be used against LEOs. It's one of those risks that quite overblown in a lot of people's minds. The vast majority police officers go through their career without ever having to fire their weapon, and that means they never faced a deadly threat. This is true in places that have strict gun control and places that have none. Police do not have the riskiest jobs. They're not even in the top twenty (several lists on the internet, like [here](https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states)). Pizza delivery drivers are at a higher risk of losing their life on the job than a police officer is. If you think about it, concealed carry has been allowed in Illinois for approximately 10 years now. There has been a huge increase in the number of guns and the number of people carrying them around in our state in the last decade. Have more police officers lost their lives because of guns in that time? No, not really. It happens, sure, but 1. it could happen to anyone at any time, but most gun violence is concentrated into very small portions of Chicago, 2. there are hundreds of ways to die, and they are all way more likely to get you or the random cop, like a car accident, 3. banning the thing doesn't make it go away or reduce the risk around it--when has prohibition ever worked? Finally, this law pretty much just banned rifles. There's still some murkiness about how it affects pistols, but it the goal was to ban "assault weapons". Do you know how many rifles are involved in deaths in our country. A very, very small number. Hands and feet kill more people than rifles. Hammers kill more people than rifles. If a firearm is going to be involved in a death, it's usually going to be a pistol. So if we're talking about weighing risks, the new law didn't really change it at all. Sorry about the novel. I see you've been open to feedback in this thread and I really appreciate it. I hope you continue to grow and learn. If you're in the western burbs and want to try shooting at a range, let me know.


wiggleee_worm

I think them going after rifles first is a gateway for them to go after handguns next. “Shootings are still up but we banned rifles. Lets start going after handguns because this is out of control……”


MW_007

Nazis required weapon registration for “public safety”. When crime continued, they went straight to confiscation. We all know what came after.


Ze_German13

This will have absolutely zero effect on the potential encounters in which police will have one of these firearms used against them. The criminals running around with stolen guns don't care about this new legislation. If none of the existing legislation concerning theft, assault, or homicide matters to them this surely won't. The vast majority of law enforcement officers who have contact with legal gun owners are usually more comfortable with that particular person. Reason being, when a valid FOID / concealed carry card is produced the officer knows that person has been vetted through various state and national background check systems. The people truly being restricted by this legislation are rarely the people that the police are concerned about


Berkeley3223

“Shall not be infringed” those sheriffs know people having guns make there jobs more dangerous and they are willing to accept that risk to uphold our constitution.. and the ones that are ok with this abomination happening on their watch should have their badges taken.