1,000 Foot Rule Answered
From our friend Todd Vandermyde, the 1,000 foot rule explained:
- Chicago City Council recently passed two new additions or revisions to their gun control ordinance.
One was the new student safety zones penalties and the other was a revised semi-auto ban.
The safety zone change is a penalty enhancement to the underlying gun ordinance. On page 2 of the proposal it states “The following enhanced penalties shall apply to violations of sections 8-20-075 and 8-20-085 of this code. . . “
Section 8-20-075 of the revised ordinance adopted in July is title “Possession of Assault Weapons”. Section 8-20-085 is titled “high capacity magazines and certain tubular magazines extensions – sale and possession prohibited – exceptions”.
So in reading the increased penalties listed in the safe zone revisions, look to only apply to violations of these two sections.
But what is really interesting is on page 8 of the substitute ordinance on the revised semi-auto ban that was passed. On the day before I testified at the Public Safety Committee hearing, you may have heard be and the Chairman going at it a bit in a sound bite. But during my testimony, I pointed out the preemption language that was contained in the new carry law. There are actually 4 parts to it. The summary of which:
- The regulation of carrying a handgun is an exclusive function of the State.
- The regulation, licensing, possession, and registration of handguns and ammunition for a handgun are exclusive functions of the State.
- The transportation of any firearm and ammunition by a holder of a valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card are exclusive functions of the State.
- The regulation of “assault weapons” is an exclusive function of the State unless a home rule unit passed an ordinance within 10 days (July 19) of the law taking effect.
The committee was told of the problems with the existing ordinance such as the unsafe handgun roster that were preempted as well many others. Specifically, The safe zone ordinance references possession of a so called assault weapon with in the new safe zones. Yet the preemption passed by the General Assembly clearly states that the transportation of ANY firearm is an exclusive function of the State. As the committee was told, an individual can traverse the City with an AR-15 unloaded and enclosed in a case in the passenger compartment of the vehicle and there is nothing Mayor or the City Council can do about it. And they were made aware of this that day.
Furthermore Section 085 pretends to ban the carrying or possession of any magazine with a capacity of more than 15 rounds. First this runs afoul of the carry preemption as the carrying of a handgun is an exclusive function of the State. The City Council nor the Mayor can tell a person what handgun they can or cannot carry, the size of the magazine they use with it, the number of magazines they can have for it, the type of ammunition they can use in it, or the number of rounds they can have in or with their handgun. Also the new handgun preemption protects the “possession” of said handguns by people with FOID cards.
So a person with a carry permit can stay on the public right of way and ignore these signs while carrying or while in their vehicle. The carry law even allows licensees to stay strapped when driving onto school property to drop off or pick up their kids so long as they don’t exit the vehicle.
A person with a handgun does not have to worry about possessing a handgun on their property or within their home within one of these zones, provided they have a FOID card. Not to mention the City’s ban on possession outside the four corners of the home clearly violates the decision in Moore.
And a person with a FOID card is free to transport firearms throughout the state in compliance with state law. A Chicago resident transporting an AR-15 through the City might run afoul of the possession ordinance, but will have a claim and defense of transportation. Remember, Illinois law does not require an individual to be going to or from a specific destination while transporting a firearm.
After making the Committee aware of several short falls in their new proposals and just a few questions, the hearing was over. The next day the City proposed a substitute ordinance. And buried on page 8 was a new sentence. It reads:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to regulate any firearm or ammunition to the extent that such regulation is preempted”
In short, without great fanfare the City gutted their new proposal. After the Corp Counsel being questioned by one alderman about my assertions and getting a non-answer answer, it appears they have admitted our interpretation of the issue is correct. Otherwise, why the capitulation? Why this slight of hand change?
Could it be the $2 plus million they have paid out to NRA and SAF attorneys? They fact that we are 3 – 0 in our lawsuits?
Our litigation has embolden gun owners in the City. Any CPD officer should carefully weigh any decision on arresting someone under the municipal ordinance for a mere possession, transportation or carrying by a person with a FOID card or carry license. It would seem prudent that any decision to arrest one of these individuals should clearly document supervisor’s and commanders directive to do so. As 1983 seems to be the favorite numbers these days.
As Todd says in an aside to us...
- I really want your guys to understand that there are a bunch of gun guys who are itching for 1983 suits against the city and will name everyone involved. I don't want to see a good cop jammed up on a civil suit because a supervisor made a political decision to kiss ass and get hung out in Court.
We'll just add, do not get caught up in this game. There are professional agitators on both side of the fence, and they will deliberately goad you into an arrest situation. They will comply with your demands, submit to arrest, be fingerprinted and photographed and processed through the system. Then they will own your house in Federal Court. Be smarter than them and be educated about the situation. And be wiser than the boss who might think they know better - which isn't that hard anyway.
Labels: info for the police
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
57 Comments:
Own my house in fed court???? Hahahhahaha. No, if the city has an ordinance and followed tht ordinance the officer is not liable the city is. The officer would be covered by qualified immunity if following procedure and following laws which are on the books... Yes, the city ordinance is bogus but we only enforce the laws not enact them. The city is on the hook for having bs laws. I don't plan on enforcing it considering I'm very pro concealed carry however I do like being fair... If officer follow general orders and proper arrest procedures and arrest properly as the city ordinance states then they are good... I don't recommend to do this but u will be fine in court.. U will be named, deposed but knocked off leaving just the city. But who wants to go through that anyways? Not me. But slow down, nobody is loosing a penny off this except the city
B.O.L.O for false flags, bogus "man with a gun near a school" calls and other assorted bullshit...
These newly enacted ordinances aren't worth the ink on the paper Rahm & Corp. Counsel scribbled them on.
These rotten m/fers want to middle Policemen in this monumental, fungus encrusted, fermenting goo-goo cluster.
All of this nonsense because they don't have the political will to call out the Armed Wing Of The Catered To Constituency and take the appropriate action against them.
Nope... Far easier to demonize an INANIMATE OBJECT and VILLIFY the FED UP CITIZENS who desire to EXERCISE THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT of self defense by possessing and carrying such to ward off the ravages of said Armed Wing Of The Catered To Constituency, by whom the fed up citizens are now greatly outnumbered.
It's not like those bad guns were seen scurrying around on the City Council floor with little legs, jumping up and rapidly discharging themselves into the ample hindparts of the alder-cretins.
"LOOK OUT! THERE'S ONE RIGHT THERE!"
"Hee-Hee!" *Scamper!* POP-POP-POP!
"AIIEEEEE! OH MY ASS!"
Ahem...
Thank You Mr. Vandermyde for clarification on this joke of a municipal ordinance fraught with potential peril and intentionally designed by Rahm and Corp. Counsel to be as clear as graveyard mud.
NOT ONE bonafide element pertaining to ACTUAL public safety is addressed with this nonsense...
But the political agenda shines through bright as the morning sun...
These ordinances are patently unenforcible due to how they were crafted and enacted.
"Pass it first... Then we'll know what's in it..."
Egad... These loons love afflicting decent people with horrid legislation.
No Copper in their right mind is going to co-sign this madness with their assets.
If and when the good ship 1983 DOES sail, Policemen are going to end up being the only ones getting wet.
Can't play the game unless you know the rules. In this case to effectively enforce a law and stay out of trouble, one needs to know the law. Thanks Todd!
So the city would love for me to lock up someone who is violating one of "their" laws even though the 2nd Amendment allows people the right to bear arms but they don't want me to arrest the person in the country illegally....hell, they don't even want me asking questions about their status in this country. Sounds about right for the politicians making the laws here.
They have told us nothing of this at roll call.
Todd has been our ace in the hole for CC and his efforts downstate and his communication with everyone interested in this issue is much appreciated. As a private citizen, I agree 100% with the advice he is giving to CPD. You guys are also appreciated for the tough job you do on our behalf. FOID owners are by and large law abiding citizens not looking to cause any trouble whatsoever or to intentionally violate any law that would jeopardize their 2A rights. FOID and CC license holders should not be in fear of being arrested in Chicago for exercising a fundamental constitutional right. The CPD actually on the street doing the work has much bigger problems to deal with (wildings, chalkie, etc.) and should steer clear of BS arrests predicated on a political agenda of the Lib-Tard aldercreatures. It would be unfortunate for an officer to be caught up in a 1983 lawsuit and risk their personal assets.
Better yet-- leave normal people alone and grab the shitheads.
The NRA doesn't have a clue. My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones.
If they have a FOID and a concealed permit, I am not arresting them no matter where they are unless ordered by a supervisor, and I will be sure to document that I was ordered in the paperwork and by who! I believe that we still have discretion on this job and I for one use it!
Unfortunately all of us "are the city!" The monies for these screw ups belongs to the residents. When the asshats that make the screwed up policies and laws are held personally liable things will improve.
Please arrest me for having a 17 round magazine in my handgun Mr. Officer, I would love to get a multi million dollar settlement from the city. I don't want to jam up a beat officer for doing his job but how can you guys justify enforcing local laws that are clearly prohibited by state law? If the CPD brass ordered you to stop and frisk every African American male under the age of 21 on the mag mile under a new city ordnance you couldn’t very well do that could you? Instant civil rights suit.
Qualified immunity will not protect you from a 1983 lawsuit which will be coming against any officer who arrest someone in clear violation of state law and the second amendment. The whole "we were following orders" by arresting people under bogus, illegal, vague local laws is not going to fly anymore. The NRA and SAF are taking the gloves off with Chicago; the call has gone out that they are ready to take some officers down with 1983 suits if need be for violation the civil rights of firearms owners….don’t be that guy, don’t arrest people for possession of a 17 round handgun magazine.
If you are ordered to make the arrest, make sure you put in your report "per the direct order of". Watch how fast the supervisor backs down.
That being said, you know there will be kiss asses that will make the arrest just because they want to impress their supervisor. The same supervisor that will throw them under the bus in a heart beat.
Who cares? Chicago is Sodom!
ra-hm\ as a boy's name is a variant of Ram (Sanskrit, Hebrew), and the meaning of Rahm is "pleasing; supreme".
His name Means to please the masses, not to do whats right.
Remember 47% in the nation and 68% in Chicago are on public aid.
so - can i get my 15 round magazines delivered to my house now??? - how about ammo, can that be shipped in now?
morons - all of them...
this can't come soon enough for the citizens in this horrible city. What has happened to chicago?
Careful out there, Constable. If you ask the open-carrier on Michigan Ave for his FOID and he sticks his wrists out for the cuffs and says, "Off to jail we go." then you know he's one member of the team ready to sue.
You have a vaild FOID card...you are as good as gold. Just don't act a fool...otherwise I will lock you up and just inventory your hardware as personal property.
LMFAO on any shit birds owning my house. My money and second house is 2,500 miles away in Costa Rica on the beach where both the U.S. Federal and Cook County courts can't touch it even if I gave them the address to my home with a picture of me standing in front it sipping on a Pina Colada, pool side. A judgement here is not worth shit down there.
I have it set up under a S. A. which is a Sociedad Anónima which is under my wife's maiden name. So good luck on the animal owning any of my assets. I lease my car too. My advice to all is to set something up like that BEFORE a lawsuit comes around because it takes time to do it.
Even if a court-ordered judgement comes in wouldn't do them any good. My house here in Chicago is upside down and I am keeping it that way.
I also have several thousand in an offshore account. The problem is people wait until the law suit comes down then try to set it up. Do it now. It's not that hard and doesn't cost much and it's easy to move funds.
So even if some shit bag attorney Googled my name checking for assets the offshore account won't come up anywhere.
Let me put it to you this way. I had a recent lawsuit and their attorney told me in plain English: "I checked and see you have no assets." I laughed under my breath as my second home is paid for and worth about $295K; he didn't find shit and he was well aware I was underwater on my home here in Chicago.
@Twenty and Out
Well said. I must admit that I am a little dissapointed that after all these years and all the hard work by Todd and others that there will be zealots looking to jam up coppers just to get Rahms stupid laws thrown out. Come on people, work this in the Legislature not on the backs of police. Why put police at risk when it is not police that make these asshole illegal laws. Act responsible. Rahm and the fools who create this environment will never personally be affected by a lawsuit.
Own my house in fed court???? Hahahhahaha. No, if the city has an ordinance and followed tht ordinance the officer is not liable the city is. The officer would be covered by qualified immunity if following procedure and following laws which are on the books... Yes, the city ordinance is bogus but we only enforce the laws not enact them. The city is on the hook for having bs laws. I don't plan on enforcing it considering I'm very pro concealed carry however I do like being fair... If officer follow general orders and proper arrest procedures and arrest properly as the city ordinance states then they are good... I don't recommend to do this but u will be fine in court.. U will be named, deposed but knocked off leaving just the city. But who wants to go through that anyways? Not me. But slow down, nobody is loosing a penny off this except the city
Wow.... I'm guessin' you never had a Federal Lawsuit filed against you. When the corp-council tells you to bring in all your bills, check and savings book, or any assets you may have, you can just tell him that "hey, the city told me to do this. Why do I have to pay?" Be careful young stud. Don't get caught up in the mess.
"... if the city has an ordinance and followed tht ordinance the officer is not liable the city is"
You are not liable under Chicago law and courts, but you will be liable for violating state and/or federal law. You will have no immunity in these cases. I guess you could try the defense of ignorance but that probably wouldn't go over too well. The case will not just be tossed in state or federal court. The brass is not concerned about how much the city or you lose in a court case because the fees and fines are not coming out of their pockets. The taxpayers pick up the city's tab and you pick up your own.
I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you.
>>nobody is loosing a penny off this except the city
Try it, and let us know how it works out for you.
Twenty and Out said it really well.
Being required to enforce anti Civil Rights laws against American Citizens while not even being allowed to arrest an illegal alien for violating a federal law is just plain wrong.
"Own my house in fed court???? Hahahhahaha. No, if the city has an ordinance and followed tht ordinance the officer is not liable the city is."
@Anonymous: actually sir, they will. USC1983 can and will follow an officer straight back home. Worse, the city may or may not back the officer on this one, leaving the poor officer, who unfortunately is most likely following orders up the flagpole, to deal with this on their own, unless the union forces the city to back him up or they'll back him. As far as I know (and hope I'm incorrect), I know of no unions who have backed their officers up on a USC1983 charge. It is the reason why the city passing this new ordinance has given officers such a headache.
I also have to agree with the post above about both sides having agitators. I unfortunately cannot stand these people, especially those pro-gun itching for lawsuits (hard to really blame them, it's pretty much free money from the city and from the officers involved), as it gives us gun-rights people such a bad name. Unfortunately, there's always a rotten egg in every basket, and I hope our police officers don't come across an idiot like this one.
Does anyone have specific knowledge regarding any proposed law or ordinance and where retired police officers stand? Federal law permits retired law enforcement carrying handguns anywhere. Is Illinois or local jurisdictions attempting to change this, or does federal law carry the day?
To Anonymous at
8/07/2013 12:12:00 AM
I don't think you understand 1983 lawsuits. You better look it up before you end up in the middle of something you don't want to be in the middle of.
Gentlemen, you best take this seriously.
8/07/2013 07:18:00 AM - Hope you are the first!
12:29 says: those pro-gunners itching for lawsuits gives us gun-rights people such a bad name.
=================================
Uh, no. Those gun-rights enthusiasts are going to ensure the city (and any cop who does their bidding) respects our rights by hitting them where it hurts.
I'll buy lunch for anyone who open-carries in the loop.
7:29 Wrote:
If they have a FOID and a concealed permit, I am not arresting them no matter where they are unless ordered by a supervisor.
==================================
What if they aim to sue the city (and you) and they don't want to show their FOID because they don't think you can detain them for carrying a gun? Will you arrest them and play into their hands?
Anonymous said...
The NRA doesn't have a clue. My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones.
8/07/2013 07:18:00 AM
Anon -- please Let SCC know what the Dist # is and the commander's name. So that he can forward it to me.
I will be happy to have a talk with him. And We'll see what he says.
I don't tell people to do things I am unwilling to do. And I have no intentions of unloading or disarming if I happen to be walking in Chicago and see one of these signs.
"My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones."
When your your "Commander" McDoofus says "we", he means "you". I will be carrying according to state law guidelines. You feel free to follow your city ordinance that even makes clear it is invalid where the state pre-empts. Your commander has about 8 months to learn to read and then figure out the actual law. Help him out with the big words. Good luck!
(hard to really blame them)
I don't blame them. First daley now rahm stuck it right up the ass of every honest working schmuck with that bullshit CFP crap. Take a four hour course every three years, fingerprint every three years, a hundo every three years a trip down to 35th every three years. Paperwork and rules designed only to jam up said honest schmuck just to own a gun in your house, despite a Supreme Court ruling. Rahm and McCarthy can bite a dick.
LMFAO on any shit birds owning my house. My money and second house is 2,500 miles away in Costa Rica on the beach where both the U.S. Federal and Cook County courts can't touch it even if I gave them the address to my home with a picture of me standing in front it sipping on a Pina Colada, pool side...Even if a court-ordered judgement comes in wouldn't do them any good. My house here in Chicago is upside down and I am keeping it that way. I also have several thousand in an offshore account. The problem is people wait until the law suit comes down then try to set it up. Do it now. It's not that hard and doesn't cost much and it's easy to move funds."
Thank you for the information. Frankly, I'm surprised that lawyer didn't do due diligence. I wish you can give us his name, I know I won't be calling him.
I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you.
8/07/2013 11:04:00 AM
I have good idea, move outta city dumbass.
It's been mentioned before...if you have to make that arrest because of your supervisor, make sure you get that documented! There will be people who will be fishing for this lawsuit. This might not save you from a civil lawsuit, but it might help reduce what can be taken from you. The poster above mentions setting up a trust offshore, it's a good idea on paper, but be careful of what he's suggesting. Being smart is still better than just relying in CYA.
"The NRA doesn't have a clue. My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones."
8/07/2013 07:18:00 AM
Uh-Huh...
What up tho' slick!
Your Commander and everybody else will be pointing and laughing at your silly little ass when they see you on the 4, 5, 6, and 10 o'clock news walking into 219 S. Dearborn Street with that famous "I just shit on myself really hard" expression on your face... O_o?
We're actually hoping you're just a trolling shit-starter because you're too fucking dense and obtuse to be worth anything as a Copper...
Many a dumbass behind bars for the same dumb shit you co-signed...
"Da boss said..."
Then when YOU break a leg slipping in the big pile o'shit EVERYBODY ELSE had good sense to avoid, you'll be mad because "Da Boss" and others won't return your calls...
Idiot...
I thought even the FOID cards are unconstitutional? Anyone have the info on this?
Anonymous said...
The NRA doesn't have a clue. My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones.
8/07/2013 07:18:00 AM
And will you Commander put it in writing so that he is a party to the 1983 suit? I know mine won't. The only good part is if his assets are greater than yours the federal courts might not be as hard on you if they can go after him.
Anonymous said...
I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you.
8/07/2013 11:04:00 AM
Of course they won't let you register with a laser sight. They wouldn't want people to hit het target.
They'd rather innocent bystanders get hit.
Many very good comments on this blog people should know the law but the retards down at city hall just can't get over it's "WE THE PEOPLE" don't get caught up by some commanders whim or rhams inability to wrap his head around being beaten by the 2ND Amendment and the failure of the corp. counsel to stay on top of the law. I'm ret. carry my card and you will too someday good luck stay safe you never know one of us old farts might be around when you need help w/some a-hole.
"The NRA doesn't have a clue. My Commander has been clear. We will arrest anyone carrying in these zones."
Could you please share the District in question? I realize that will identify your Commander, but that shouldn't be a big deal if he/she's planning to stand behind this decision to arrest people illegally.
Pre . . . emp . . . tion. The regulation of these matters is the sole power of the state of Illinois now, per the law of the land. And be clear--that went into effect in July. It's the law today.
Have you seen the new Wolverine movie? Where Yukio the littlest ninja finds Logan in the bar, and she uses her swift and terrible sword to cut the legs off some dumb redneck's bar stool, and he just sits there, dumbfounded, until the legs topple and so does he? That's Rahm and your city council. They're sitting there on nothing, eyes wide, jaws slack, not even understanding that they lost on this issue a month ago and there's nothing they can do about now except get toppled.
Anonymous said...
"I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you."
If you're willing to sue if it comes to it, you can ignore their registration scheme as far as I know. Check with a lawyer, but the city simply does not have the legal power to regulate the ownership or possession of handguns or handgun accessories anymore.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but . . . that's what the law says now.
To Anonymous at
8/07/2013 12:12:00 AM
I don't think you understand 1983 lawsuits. You better look it up before you end up in the middle of something you don't want to be in the middle of.
&&&&&&&&
Well know it all I do understand 1983 like the back of my hand considering I'm a police officer who has been sued under 1983 numerous times and since then I have gotten my law degree and admittance to the bar. I also have defended police officers from suburban jurisdictions in 1983 suits for the past 11 years in federal court. I'll reread 1983 again if you want just as long as u read and understand what qualified immunity means. Stop playing lawyer.. You remind me of "dude the street lawyer" after he caught a case in the station. If its a city law on the books and you do your job and enforce it you are covered from punitive damages by qualified immunity. The city, who enacted the law will be on the hook for a monetary judgement. Everybody chill with the doomsday federal court stuff. Follow general orders and the ordinance and document properly and you will be fine.. However, I still think the ordinance is BS.. Just getting the truth out about 1983 and how it would effect you. With all that being said and being a pro carry person myself i say fk rahm and don't enforce his crap ordinance.. Good luck officers stay safe
016 District Section 8 said...
I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you.
8/07/2013 11:04:00 AM
I heard north siders who live real close to niles, park ridge, hardwood hts and skokie are exempt..
Own my house in fed court???? Hahahhahaha. No, if the city has an ordinance and followed tht ordinance the officer is not liable the city is. The officer would be covered by qualified immunity if following procedure and following laws which are on the books... Yes, the city ordinance is bogus but we only enforce the laws not enact them. The city is on the hook for having bs laws. I don't plan on enforcing it considering I'm very pro concealed carry however I do like being fair... If officer follow general orders and proper arrest procedures and arrest properly as the city ordinance states then they are good... I don't recommend to do this but u will be fine in court.. U will be named, deposed but knocked off leaving just the city. But who wants to go through that anyways? Not me. But slow down, nobody is loosing a penny off this except the cit
Ever been at the Dirksen?
I'm a retired P.O. and purchased a semi auto with laser and tried to do the right thing(my fault)and register the weapon with the city. Was told no weapons with built in lasers can be registered per city ordinance. Again trying to do the right thing and can't. Try to be legit and look what it gets you.
Why would you tell them you have laser sights? Every laser sight I have seen is an accessory.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
@Twenty and Out at 10:18AM said
...will be zealots looking to jam up coppers just to get Rahms stupid laws thrown out. Come on people, work this in the Legislature not on the backs of police.
How can they work it out in the legislature. That's a stacked deck if ever there was one. They created the problem and only the courts can resolve it unless all the lib-tards are voted out and some sanity and honesty enters City Hall and/or Springpatch. You want to hold you breath waiting for that?
20 and skedaddle said:
"Why put police at risk when it is not police that make these asshole illegal laws." For the same reason we, as police, arrest the asshole mutt rather than the parent who did such a wonderful job of raising them - NOT! For the same reason we take down the asshole with the gun rather than the bitch who may be egging him/her on. Because they are the focal point of the problem. IF the police did absolutely nothing to enforce this bogus crap there would be no problem, right? Politicians don't have the balls to do the right thing, the certainly don't have the power or balls to individually enforce the crap laws they pass (and exempt themselves from). So it falls on some drone in the police to take one for the team and "just follow orders" even though they know it's wrong. We saw how well "Just following orders worked at Nuremburg, didn't we?
Don't let the pols use you. They have enough morons ready, willing and able to take the hit. You all know one... the guy you can trust in the locker room, can't rely on for a backup, sucking up to the brass and sticking it in your ass every time you turn around. The goof bucking for exempt. Follow me? Let him or her make his play and wind up on the crucifix. We'll all feel better in the morning.
Look at the bright side... Maybe McGoof will push hard enough and somebody will push back hard enough (in court) that some attorney will shove his whole arm up his ass and turn him inside out to get at the spare change. Still think it's such a bad idea?
" I'm a police officer who has been sued under 1983 numerous times and since then I have gotten my law degree "
Great, another jail house "lawyer" chipping in his two cents. ... his hourly rate . LOL.
"If its a city law on the books and you do your job and enforce it you are covered from punitive damages by qualified immunity."
According to this genius, a city can pass a law stating the a black person can not walk within 1000 feet of a grocery store . So the cop can arrestt the person with no legal ramifications. See you in court, dope.
There is not enough money in a 1983 action to make it worth the effort for minor infractions. That is why there are so few of them filed, compared to the sheer volume of civil rights infractions actually committed. You are pretty safe in that respect.
However, the "I was ordered to do it" defense is not accepted by the courts. Following an order you know to be illegal will not save you from a 1983 action.
Unfortunately, protecting yourself from a 1983 action may well put you at risk for a superior's displeasure.
Perhaps this is an area FOP should come up with some kind of suggested practice that they and the city can agree on.
http://www.policeone.com/homeland-security/articles/6361234-TSA-quietly-expands-its-role-prompts-controversy/?source=newsletter&nlid=6363431
9:21 wrote: "You have a vaild FOID card...you are as good as gold. Just don't act a fool"
If he tells you he has a FOID is that good enough, or will you demand to see it?
" I'm a police officer who has been sued under 1983 numerous times and since then I have gotten my law degree "
Great, another jail house "lawyer" chipping in his two cents. ... his hourly rate . LOL.
8/08/2013 01:28:00 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Jailhouse lawyer? Fk you jag off. I've defended more police officers in federal court than bad guys you've ever put in jail. Great sounds like another "typical do nothing dog" spouting off on here. Gfy and try to realize that guys like me are one of the only people willing to Stand up for police officers these days.... I've been retired for 7 years now.. Sure sounds like the dogs and crybabies outnumber the workers and decent cops these days.. Stay safe
Thanks Second City Cop for clarifying this!!!
Just so everyone is made aware. The only people subjected to firearms registration is active Chicago Police Officers. State law has eliminated this for everyone including retired CPD. The only reason that firearms registration is still in existence is because by General Orders, active CPD are required to have their duty firearms registered. Active CPD are also the only ones still required to register their non duty weapons as well. State law has exempted everyone else from this. Also because of the CC law, the CFP (Chicago Firearms Permit) is no longer in effect so anything associated with it, fingerprints, classes, etc are no longer required. You can now legally have an unregistered firearm in your house in Chicago without having or needing a CFP. The only thing that would be required is a valid FOID card. That's it.
You don't have to believe me. Feel free to contact the Chicago Police Gun Registration Section at 312-745-5164 to verify.
So now we have to get the General Order rescinded so we can enjoy the freedom legally that everyone else has. And people look at me funny when I describe us as second class citizens. This is a great example of why we are...
"Jailhouse lawyer? Fk you jag off."
Obviously, I was mistaken. With logic and prose like that, you must be a top notch Ivy League grad.
Just kidding, congrats on your Joilet "JD"!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home