comment: >
  
  Lawless lawmen. It's a Republican thing.
context: "I hate Illinois Nazis." Blues Brothers. >
  
  First, not as many people in Germany in 1930's carried guns as a form of self defense. Most gun owners were people who hunted for sport or to sell wild game at market.
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  Third, this doesn't strip anyone of any Constitutional rights. >
  
  
  Second, even if every German Jew was armed they still wouldn't have been able to stop the NAZI's. They had the police, military and their own paramilitary forces that were better armed and trained.
  
  You're going to ruin someone's fantasies with talk like that. >
  
  They legit rolled over entire standing militaries in short order and these fucking inbred hillbillies practicing on stationary PBR cans here at home think they'd be able to do a goddamn thing to our military if they ever backed a despot. It's not 1776 and any fascist at the helm of U.S. forces wouldn't have them playing with kids gloves like we were in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It'd be scorched Earth. >
  
  To be fair, the United States just lost a war to a bunch of goat farmers. But I don't think the average American is anywhere near as brave or experienced as your average Taliban insurgent. >
  
  The difference here is the Taliban was well armed and trained by both the US military and the Russian military. They were formed from the remnants of the competing groups in the region during the 80s when the US was arming the Mujahideen to fave the Russian backed groups. Taliban, isil, all of the current groups are in power because of us.
  The US military just helps make guns available here in the states. They're not directly training the hillbillies. The military hillbillies are coming back and training their own groups of hillbillies. But I wouldn't call that as effective as being trained by the richest nations in the world to overtake existing government systems like the radicals in the middle east got. >
  
  I do not understand the distinction between police and sheriffs…except that sheriffs are elected?  Can someone explain this to me? >
  
  Police are city mostly. They are sworn officers and "employees" 
  Sheriffs are usually elected and work for the County they are sheriffs of.  Deputy sheriffs work under the elected sheriff and the county and are unelected. >
  
  Many thanks for the clarification. >
  
  Basically police departments have no jurisdiction outside of their city. Sheriffs are there to enforce the laws outside of city limits. >
  
  But, police can break laws right? Cause is that not what there doing, going against what is said? >
  
  Sure they can. Weed is still federally illegal. All places where police and sheriffs don't arrest for it are technically breaking the law. 
  The only real reason you don't have the marshalls and fbi kicking in pot shop doors is that it would be inconvenient without local support. >
  
  Bad news... Sheriffs are not in the constitution. >
  
  I think he pretty clearly meant the U.S. Constitution. >
  
  Then he's unaware of the fact that states are bound by the US Constitution and their state constitution. >
  
  I don’t think so. The sheriffs are claiming the law is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, not the state constitution. The US constitution doesn’t give them this power, in fact they aren’t even mentioned, as the poster said. >
  
  Probably because the sheriffs of yore in Europe were massive pieces of shit that the Founding Fathers felt were best left out of the United States’s legal system >
  
  Why should a sheriff obey laws? >
  
  They don’t believe they have to. No really. Parallel to the independent state legislature theory, many sheriffs believe they are exempt from the law, simply because their job title is not mentioned in the constitution. There is a legal “theory” becoming more popular, and has even been mentioned by sheriffs associations. >
  
  They call themselves "constitutional sheriffs" and they're evil. >
  
  And they stop reading the constitution when it gets to the third amendment >
  
  Ironically, the 3rd amendment seems to be the only thing we virtually all agree on.
  GOP pushing forced quartering of soldiers in civilian homes to "reduce spending" isn't on my bingo card until 2028. >
  
  Christ, don't give our current Conservative Chaos Caucus any new ideas. >
  
  Every single one of them should be fired, pensions lost, tried, convicted and jailed. >
  
  So, vow to not do their jobs then?
  Edit: there's a lot of comparison to drug or immigration enforcement. The role of the police, as I understands it, is to both enforce the law, and serve and protect society. They use their discretion, as is their purview, to balance those two and may be more lenient if they feel a warning will suffice. But saying an immigrant (literally everyone or their family at one point) or marijuana (with no recorded fatalities) is as dangerous to society as an assault weapon, I find to be an intellectually dishonest comparison >
  
  For years cops did not enforce marijuana laws; waste of police resources…or some didn’t agree with Class 1 designation. How did you feel about that? One must be consistent if they hold the view “the law is the law;” it must be enforced by law enforcement without exception, and until it is no longer “the law.” >
  
  
  For years cops did not enforce marijuana laws
  
  They sure did if you belonged to certain demographics. >
  
  But doesn't that make this worse? Who do you think these new gun laws will be mostly enforced against? Rich white people? >
  
  Do poor people own $1000 rifles? I'd think they'd choose a $200 shotgun if the needed protection. >
  
  You can buy an AR for $400 these days. I assure you, plenty of poor people own them. >
  
  This is a myth just to prop up gun cutlism
  Sherifs should resign in disgrace >
  
  Are you saying it's a myth that law enforcement selectively enforces laws against minorities? >
  
  No it’s a myth that this ban will disproportionately affect them
  Stop making gun excuses
  Sherifs aren’t enforcing the law.
  Lock them up. >
  
  Why do you think that gun laws are the only laws that won't be primarily enforced on minorities?
  Do you feel the same about sheriffs that don't enforce marijuana laws? Should they be locked up? >
  
  And here I thought that law enforcement’s job was to enforce laws. I’m so stupid. >
  
  Tell that to the sanctuary cities, or cities not enforcing drug laws. Or letting shoplifters go. >
  
  Cities and states are not required to enforce federal law with their resources. Sheriffs and police are there specifically to enforce state law. So different issues entirely. >
  
  The executive has always had the power to choose which laws to enforce. Drugs are also illegal under state laws, that's why Oregon changed their law to decriminalize possession of most drugs and why in Seattle the prosecutor decided to just not prosecute people arrested for possession. So now they just don't get arrested. >
  
  So, people who’s job is enforcing the law are like “nope.”  Got it. Fire the lot of them I say. >
  
  How much you want to wager all those departments are run by republican sheriffs.  
  Just goes to show republicans don't mind weaponized politicized law enforcement as long as it's biased in their favor. >
  
  But it is not even in their favor. As police officers they may find themselves in gun fights with these types of weapons. Why wouldn’t they want it banned? I think they are just pure political animals and incredibly stupid people. >
  
  Because the use of rifles of any type in crimes is extremely rare, though disproportionately reported on. >
  
  
  disproportionately reported on
  
  Because they make up a disproportionate amount of weapons used in mass casualty events. >
  
  And those are rare, and would be done with handguns anyway, as is traditional. >
  
  The majority of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have been with the AR-15. >
  
  6 of the 15 dealiest were carried out with an AR-15, which is a minority. If you add in other semiautomatic rifles the number rises but your statement is still incorrect. Also, the deadliest mass killings in US history didn't involve guns. >
  
  I would love to see your sources on that. >
  
  Let's start with your sources for AR15s being used in a majority of the deadliest mass shootings then we can do mine. >
  
  Winnebago county, home of Rockford, the most dangerous city in Illinois per capita, doesn't want an assault weapons ban. Go figure. >
  
  Something tells me that so-called "assault weapons" have almost no impact on the crime in that county and a ban would do nothing at all to help. >
  
  
  Something tells me that so-called "assault weapons" have almost no impact on the crime in that county and a ban would do nothing at all to help.
  
  If it helps them incarcerate minorities, it's a win in the minds of the pushers of the law. >
  
  Except all of these Sheriffs are refusing to uphold a law in their jurisdiction, which includes minorities, and gives said minorities the right to arm and defend themselves with certain types of weapons. 
  What now? >
  
  
  Except all of these Sheriffs are refusing to uphold a law in their jurisdiction, which includes minorities, and gives said minorities the right to arm and defend themselves with certain types of weapons.
  What now?
  
  Expect the people pushing the law to get the courts to order the sheriffs to enforce it. They will not stand for minorities being armed and defending themselves. >
  
  Except that isn't what we're talking about is it?
  We're talking about the sheriffs defending minority rights to own weapons by refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law banning weapons. 
  Again... what now? Seriously. The cognitive dissonance on the left is as bad as it is on the right. >
  
  Then arrest them. >
  
  Arrest who and for breaking what law? >
  
  Obstructing justice, public endangerment, fraud (signing a contract to do a job then not doing it) and a civil suit to recover wages paid to an employee refusing to do their job?
  The world has lots of laws so that if the people in power choose to they screw people over. They normally choose to ignore it. But they keep them on the books for when they want to use them. >
  
  Left leaning places have been refusing to enforce certain immigration laws for some time. 
  So that precedent is already set. >
  
  Precedent is set by courts. Whether politicians/prosecutors/judges go after these people or try to remove them from their station is up to them. >
  
  Yes, it is set by the courts. 
  And the precedent has already been set that certain authorities can just refuse to enforce certain laws, a demonstrated by the fact that left leaning places have done stuff like that for a long time. >
  
  and they won't come to your school if ..... >
  
  Well, when someone gets shot with one of these weapons in those counties, I guess they can sue the sheriff into oblivion. >
  
  They've got immunity up the yin yang. >
  
  Only when doing something legal under color of law. Breaking the law inherently does the opposite, therefore the employee is not protected by the sovereign immunity granted to them in other situations. >
  
  Look up qualified immunity. It’s a much higher bar to get over, and lawyers have made an art form out of showing that every case is unique, and therefore not “clearly obvious” using the usual standard of prior case law. >
  
  This is different than police assault cases. >
  
  Not really.  There isn't a court case precedent that says a sheriff in X county CAN'T refuse to enforce this assault weapons ban.  
  That's how spelled out "qualified immunity" cases have to be. >
  
  Think of all the Militia groups that would have to leave state. >
  
  And all the diners that would be crying about the lost business >
  
  Good. The working class should never be disarmed. >
  
  
  Good. The working class should never be disarmed.
  
  Exactly. What most of these people seem to miss is that half of this country wants to disarm and murder all of the LGBTQ and democrat voters. And this law only aids the right wingers and police that hope for a civil war and are already armed to the teeth and on their last straw with "liberals" >
  
  Exactly. I’m a trans woman. I don’t want the only people with access to guns be fascists. >
  
  defund the police. >
  
  Remind me why our Democrat leaders keep giving them more and more money without any oversight?  What was that reason again?  A very GOOD reason, I would assume.  There has to be one, right? >
  
  Police either follow the same rules as us while upholding the law - or are they really police at all >
  
  They don't follow American laws, the towns they run are under a Christian versions of sharia law. >
  
  In 2023 there will be elections near you vote. >
  
  Just stop resisting! >
  
  Until someone with that rifle shoots at them… >
  
  Nobody wants to work anymore >
  
  Violating their oaths and making their termination imperative. >
  
  Wait… isn’t it the same as states that don’t follow federal law and report illegal immigrants? What’s the difference? >
  
  Party of law and order. >
  
  They'll definitely start enforcing the law if minorities or "leftists" are seen with these weapons. Laws like this are always selectively enforced by the cops. The right loves gun laws when they prevent certain people from having guns. >
  
  The "right" has been overturning racist gun laws while the left doubles down on them. >
  
  Gonna be 74 new unemployment claims then. Fuck ‘em. >
  
  Remove them from office >
  
  Sheriff is an elected position. If you get the votes you can remove them from office. >
  
  Unless they’re not doing their job, in which case they can still be fired in some form or another by a higher up in the legal process via a grand jury or federal investigation. A governors order can also do it, of course it all depends on the state too. 
  But in general yes most places have a way to remove a sheriff for malfeasance… >
  
  
  in the legal process via a grand jury or federal investigation
  
  For what crime? >
  
  
  Sec. 3-6020. Contempt of court; damages. The disobedience of any sheriff to perform the command of any warrant, process, order or judgment legally issued to him or her, shall be deemed a contempt of the court that issued the same, and may be punished accordingly; and he or she shall be liable to the party aggrieved for all damages occasioned thereby.
  
  What "warrant, process, order or judgment" from a court is not being performed? >
  
  So would these same departments also agree not to enforce laws that are enacted strictly based on potentiality? Because that's the argument, isn't it? That the possession of guns does not contain enough potential danger to warrant laws on restriction. Maybe I think that speeding 15 over does not carry enough potential danger to warrant a ticket. What about drinking and driving? I've run laps on a driving simulator over the limit and my lap times don't suffer in the least. Are we trying to say that merely the POTENTIAL for a bad outcome, warrants getting dragged in front of a court and complying with this highway robbery by the state?
  Of course if I actually hit someone or cause property damage, a fine is warranted but I want to hear no more talk of tail lights or being critical of where I pass, or cutting through the school yard to cut 2 minutes off my commute. I expect full leniency by these departments in ALL regards relating to issues of potentiality, and not just guns >
  
  Driving under the Influence is demonstrably dangerous. Me owning a gun, regardless of what kind (and I'm in the camp of some should be restricted) is not demonstrably dangerous. >
  
  All data says it is, and that you’re more likely to get shot yourself or shoot someone you didn’t mean to if you own a gun vs people who don’t. Those negatives are also more statistically likely than using it against a bad guy too. The former happen way more often than the fantasy scenario gun people have conjured up of protecting their family huddled in a corner or the random old lady at the supermarket. >
  
  This is what happens when morons want the federal government to do nothing because "states' rights".  Now when it happens, the same morons don't like it.
  Is "counties' rights" what comes next?  Absurd goalpost movement. >
  
  Well then i do not want to hear crap about how dangerous it is for them and how they are outgunned clearly thats what they want >
  
  If anyone asks why I don't respect cops, add this to the list.  After the Uvalde incident, cops should be the first ones pushing to get these types of weapons banned. >
  
  We urgently need legislation that makes the office of sheriff contingent on their enforcing every state law, not just the ones they like. >
  
  If they won’t do their jobs, don’t pay them. >
  
  That is illegal.  They have protections as elected officials. >
  
  New amendment, no retirement payout for any sheriff found not enforcing state law >
  
  So when the Sheriff says that they aren't going to enforce the states Failure to Appear statute because it disproportionately results in the arrests of minorities, you think they should lose their retirement? >
  
  I dunno, hang on let me review the complicated criteria I posed above…
  Hmm, yes it is a law.. so yes, they should enforce it. Because they are law enforcement officers. No where in that title does it say they decide or interpret the laws. >
  
  Police have always had some discretion in how they use their time and resources. >
  
  Fire everyone of them >
  
  They are elected, and their constituents want this. >
  
  I tend to not get paid if I don't do my job, so Pritzker should just freeze all assets/pensions/paychecks and we'll see what happens. >
  
  The next headline should be "At least 74 Illinois sherrif's departments fired for vowing to defy state law." >
  
  It is what it is. The people of these counties have to care enough about the issue to vote these guys out. >
  
  That's great.  Make it easier to put people into those positions to follow the new laws. >
  
  Sounds like Illinois has a law enforcement problem.  Do these "sheriffs" have a long list of the laws they refuse to enforce?  Is murder one of them?  How about illegal political contributions? >
  
  Wait… isn’t it the same as states that don’t follow federal law and report illegal immigrants? What’s the difference? >
  
  And after the next mass shooting, these villains will swear up and down that there is “no way to prevent this”. What a tragedy. >
  
  so they're by definition no longer law enforcement. >
  
  Wait… isn’t it the same as states that don’t follow federal law and report illegal immigrants? What’s the difference? >
  
  So these cops have to uphold the law, a new law was passed and they were like "nah we don't like that one"? >
  
  Wait… isn’t it the same as states that don’t follow federal law and report illegal immigrants? What’s the difference? >
  
  Cool. Fire them. >
  
  They are elected officials.  You can't fire them. >
  
  Get enough people and you can fire anyone. >
  
  They are representing the people who elected them and the vast majority of them agree with the rural sheriffs >
  
  So fire them and put people in the respect the law.
  What happened to sorry but it is the law excuse? 
  If you don't want to enforce the law, either quit or enforce it until it is actually adjudicated by the courts. >
  
  The doj and Illinois state must sue them. Fire them. >
  
  So we can do that now? Defy any laws that we disagree with? >
  
  Only if you are a police.  All others must comply./ sorry but it is obviously true. >
  
  Lock them up! >
  
  Eh, you don't lock people up for not doing their job. You fire them, but then you get the issue of having to replace them. >
  
  Funny how the police just get to choose what laws they want to enforce and what laws they get to ignore. >
  
  They don’t, because police departments are under the purview of the executive of the municipality (typically the mayors office). Whereas sheriffs typically are elected and really only answer to voters. There’s a whole new terrifying movement of Constitutional Sheriffs that is starting to resemble roaming bandits in some counties. >
  
  So then it's totally fine if a bunch of sheriffs get shot up by one of these guns, right?
  I mean, if I was a sheriff, I don't think I'd be too stoked on walking into a place where someone is potentially waiting for me with some sort of machine gun.
  Fucking idiots. >
  
  “wE LiKe lAw AnD oRdEr”
  “No not those laws” >
  
  Time to clean house and fire their asses. >
  
  r/byebyejob
  Get rid of all of them and take away their severance. >
  
  The law is unconstitutional. That's it. This is the supposed 'good side' of American politics stirring up shit in a place they know they can and getting pushback from the majority of people... because the majority of people don't agree with it, and it's a bullshit law. Fuck the spin doctors trying to play sides against each other. >
  
  Just remember that people praised it when laws concerning marijuana and immigration were ignored. >
  
  It's all fun and games until someone gets killed because the Sheriff's Department didn't do its job. Of course, the victim's family sues said Sheriff's Department  and the taxpayer ends up having to pay because said Sheriff's Department are fucking idiots >
  
  Time to send in the state guard to take over Sherrif duties in those areas. >
  
  It’s like hiring an ice cream server at Baskin Robins and then After employee gets “Comfortable” decides not to serve chocolate mint ice cream although it’s the designated flavor of the month…
  Why it’s so much better to make a cake and eat it too.
  Remember everyone wants yo rule the world. >
  
  De-weaponize the police union and purge anyone who doesn't honor their oath to serve the public. No more police corruption. No more white nationalism and Christo-fascism in our law enforcement. We the people unite and reclaim our justice system. Rise up. >
  
  Because they need to assault people?