Wilmette IL suspends its handgun ban, one day after USSC ruling

[Little-Acorn]

Remember when the U.S. Armed Forces blew away the Taliban in Afghanistan for harboring bin Laden? And quickly afterward Moammar Qaddafi of Libya decided he'd be a nice guy and quit supporting terrorists, in hopes that his posterior would not be next in line?

That motivation sems to work in local U.S. politics, too. Looks like these folks KNEW that what their constantr banning of guns would never pass Constitutional muster. And once the Supreme Court came down on the DC gun ban, they've decided that maybe obeying the Constitution was a GOOD thing to do. For a change.

Wisdom comes to us all, eventually.

P.S. Mayor Daley of nearby Chicago, may think he's pissed now. He hasn't SEEN "pissed". But it's coming.

--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nbc5.com/news/16729972/detail.html

Wilmette Suspends Local Handgun Ban

POSTED: 2:47 pm CDT June 27, 2008

WILMETTE, Ill. -- Wilmette has suspended enforcement of its 19-year-old ordinance banning handgun possession in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that appears to invalidate such bans.

In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, a prohibition similar to those used in several major cities, including Chicago, and a handful of suburbs including Wilmette, Evanston, Winnetka and Oak Park.

"The Law Department and the Police Department have suspended enforcement of the ordinance pending further review by the Village Board," Wilmette village attorney Tim Frenzer said Thursday. "Based on the decision today, at a minimum it calls into serious question the continued viability of the ordinance."

Frenzer said questions remain about how directly the court's decision will impact local gun laws in Wilmette and other parts of the country. Washington is not a state, and each state has its own legal language governing the right to bear arms.

"That aside, the opinion will require further review and discussion by the Village Board, but it's prudent at this point to suspend enforcement of it," Frenzer said.

Wilmette's law, enacted in 1989, levied fines of up to $750 for handgun possession and allowed the village to seek a judge's order to have seized weapons destroyed.

Frenzer said he did not know exactly how many times the law has been invoked, but said its use is rare.

The last case he recalls involved a 2003 incident in which a resident, Hale DeMar, was cited after using a handgun to shoot and wound a burglar in his home. The case mobilized state gun right groups and led to the passage of a law that gave gun owners a defense to local prohibitions if the weapon was used in self-defense.

Wilmette's charges against DeMar were eventually dropped. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Wilmette Police Chief George Carpenter declined to comment on the high court's ruling, saying he had not yet had a chance to read the decision or review it with village staff.

[Kathianne]

Yep, for years victims that used self-defense tended to be left alone by authorities, but the opening for civil suits was there, no more.

[midcan5]

Wow, 19 years of sense only be overturned by a fascist court intent on putting power back in the hands of the feds.

[avatar4321]

Wow, 19 years of sense only be overturned by a fascist court intent on putting power back in the hands of the feds.

oh the irony. Complaining that a fascist law is being repealed and pretending it's facist to allow people to freely defend themselves.

[5stringJeff]

Wow, 19 years of sense only be overturned by a fascist court intent on putting power back in the hands of the feds.

Actually, I was thinking that the citizens of Wilmette, IL, now have the freedom to arm themselves, if they so choose. Freedom is the opposite of fascism.

[Little-Acorn]

Freedom is the opposite of fascism.

And, the opposite of what midcan5 wants to see.

[Kathianne]

Actually, I was thinking that the citizens of Wilmette, IL, now have the freedom to arm themselves, if they so choose. Freedom is the opposite of fascism.

As I said Jeff, many from Winnetka, Wilmette, Oak Park, Evanston chose to arm themselves. It came out when they defended themselves and families. The authorities chose not to prosecute, but in a couple instances civil suits were brought by the perps or their families. Now those would be moot.

[5stringJeff]

As I said Jeff, many from Winnetka, Wilmette, Oak Park, Evanston chose to arm themselves. It came out when they defended themselves and families. The authorities chose not to prosecute, but in a couple instances civil suits were brought by the perps or their families. Now those would be moot.

As they should be. No one should be prosecuted for defending their family in their home.

[Little-Acorn]

As they should be. No one should be prosecuted for defending their family in their home.

Jeff, you and Kathianne are missing the larger point. As her quote mentioned, those gun users were not prosecuted BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES CHOSE NOT TO. Not because any law protected them from prosecution.

A dictatorship is characterized by having no real laws, but being run on the decisions (and the whims) of one person, the dictator. Under such a situation, it's impossible to make any plans or assume any future course of action by the authorities, because they might change their minds at any time. Maybe "the authorities" (that's the dictator) got up with a bad headache this morning, and will throw you in jail today where he wouldn't have yesterday. Or maybe somebody quietly promised him mucho poontang and so he threw you in jail on that basis. Even if his "government" has written laws, he can cange them any time, with or without notice. And so he can he held to account to NO law at all.

Well, sounds like those "authorities" in Illinois who benevolently decided not to prosecute people who they found had violated the gun laws and defended their families, are acting exactly like that dictator. They COULD have thrown the gun owner in jail, and innocently pointed to the gun ban law, saying their hands were tied. And if the gun owner's dog had pooped on the lawn of whatever person was to make the decision, the person would have gotten pissed and thrown the guy in jail, and pointed to the gun law if anyone protested.

Did I miss the part of the Illinois Constitution that said government officials could decide which laws to enforce and which not to? Where I come from, a law is an ORDER or COMMAND that something be so... it is not a suggestion or guideline. And that command is applied to the enforcement agency as well as the public: NEITHER has a choice, by command of the people's elected legislature.

Sure, it's always nice when a cop gives you a break on a speeding ticket. And within limits, it does no harm. But going outside those limits is REAL easy... and the results can be quite harmful, such as the county or state turning into a third-world country.

If there were any law I'd like to see not enforced, it's a gun ban. But picking and choosing what to enforce is NOT the solution. Changing or getting rid of the law is, either by repeal or overtruning by a court.

In a (more) perfect world, I can imagine a legal system where, if the authorities decide not to enforce a certain law, that law then becomes null and void within 90 days of the incident, unless the legislature passes something explaining why that law should generally remain in effect. And if there are, say, three non-upholdings in a month, then the law is automatically stricken from the books, and the legislature has to re-pass it if they really want it.

Authorities who pick and choose whether to enforce onerous laws, are dictators, no more or less. If the issues in question are extremely minor, that might be tolerable. Gun bans are hardly minor issues.

[Kathianne]

Jeff, you and Kathianne are missing the larger point. As her quote mentioned, those gun users were not prosecuted BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES CHOSE NOT TO. Not because any law protected them from prosecution.

...

I believe that is exactly what I said:

It came out when they defended themselves and families. The authorities chose not to prosecute, but in a couple instances civil suits were brought by the perps or their families. Now those would be moot.

[Little-Acorn]

I believe that is exactly what I said:

Forgive me, Kathianne, you did indeed. But you didn't emphasize what a major issue that was.

Conservatives try to minimize laws, so as to leave people free. Leftists have a habit of making laws on everything under the sun... a tendency that can lead to a kind of despotism frequently found in third-world countries, when the authorities start picking and choosing which of their laws they will enforce. Make enough laws, and it becomes impossible to live without violating something somewhere. And then the rulers can control anyone they choose, by finding out what he has violated and threatening to prosecute unless he does things "their way".

This country is sliding in that direction. It's one of several good reasons to minimize overbearing government and its huge burden of laws, and let people live their lives with a minimum of "control" by government.