top prosecutor is refusing to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional.

[Neilthepilot]

Despite a statewide ban on concealed weapons, gun owners in one central Illinois county don't need to worry about facing charges because its top prosecutor is refusing to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional.

Illinois is the only state that still bans residents from carrying concealed guns. McLean County State's Attorney Ronald Dozier calls the law antiquated and said Wednesday that he hopes his policy against prosecuting harmless violations will send a message.

"I felt like I just wanted to make a statement to the Legislature," said Dozier, a retired judge who was appointed state's attorney in December and plans to step down in October.

And legal experts say he's completely within his rights.

As a prosecutor, Dozier has the power to decide which cases he will and won't pursue, though it was unusual to publicly announce that a whole class of offenses is off the table, American University law professor Angela Davis said.

Also rare is basing that decision on the prosecutor's own opinion that a law is invalid, she said.

"I'm not saying it's never been done, but it's certainly not common," said Davis, author of "Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor."

Dozier believes many state's attorneys have privately decided not to pursue charges against people who violate some of Illinois' gun laws, such as failing to properly store a gun or allowing their state-issued Firearm Owners Identification Card to expire.

But he said he decided to tell the public about his policy -- and make clear that it extends to violations of the law against carrying a concealed weapon -- to encourage changes in state law.

The governor isn't pleased and suggested that Dozier abide by his oath of office.

"You have a duty to respect the law," Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, said Wednesday. "If you don't agree with the law, we have procedures where you can challenge the law properly."

But a fellow Democrat who supports legalizing concealed carry, Rep. Brandon Phelps of Harrisburg in southeast Illinois, predicted that state's attorneys in areas like his where guns are popular will now face pressure to follow Dozier's lead.

"A lot of voters in those areas, especially at town hall meetings, are going to say, 'What's your position on what the McLean County state's attorney did?'" Phelps said.

Dozier, who also served as McLean County state's attorney from 1976 to 1987, said he is not urging anyone to carry a weapon or break the law. Police in the area say they will continue to arrest people if they see violations.

But in a four-page statement Tuesday, Dozier argued that state laws on where and how people can carry guns are unconstitutional under recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

People have the right to carry a concealed gun if they aren't disruptive or threatening, he said. A trucker passing through Illinois with a pistol under his seat shouldn't face felony charges, and a widow who inherits her husband's guns shouldn't be arrested for not having a Firearm Owners Identification Card, Dozier said.

The prosecutor said his decision to drop such cases is "absolutely parallel" to President Barack Obama administration's decision not to pursue deportation of certain young illegal immigrants with strong ties to the United States.

Dozier said he would decide whether charges are appropriate by asking several questions about each case, such as whether the gun was actually displayed, whether the owner was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and whether the owner has a criminal record or gang background.

That's where prosecutorial discretion gets tricky, said Davis, the law professor. Prosecutors can't possibly pursue charges in every case, but they must make sure decisions don't wind up being based on the wrong factors, such as class or race, she said.

"Whenever there is discretion, there is the possibility of unwarranted discrimination," Davis said.

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence condemned Dozier's "reckless" decision. Executive Director Colleen Daley said Dozier should run for the General Assembly and work to change the law if he thinks it's unconstitutional.

But the state's attorney in southeast Illinois' Edwards County praised Dozier's announcement. While stopping short of adopting a broad policy, Mike Valentine said he is unlikely to press charges over minor violations of gun laws.

State's attorneys as a group haven't taken any position on Dozier's action or the issue of legalizing concealed carry, said Matt Jones, associate director of the state Office of the State's Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor. He said it's long been established that each county prosecutor has almost complete discretion on how to use the office's limited time and money.

"Ultimately, the check on that is the voters who can vote them out of office," Jones said.

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

Associated Press writers Sophia Tareen in Chicago and John O'Connor contributed to this report.



Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/a...#ixzz24KaobluX

[PowerPM]

Good for him...

[Mitch10mm]

I was hoping it was about the irs

[Ewussor]

The governor isn't pleased and suggested that Dozier abide by his oath of office.

"You have a duty to respect the law," Gov. Pat Quinn, a Chicago Democrat, said Wednesday.

Yup he does. I bet his oath included upholding / defending The Constitution, which is after all, the supreme law of the land, and states quite clearly that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[pyld]

I agree with his intentions but not his methods.

The last major case of this was when Gavin Newsom decided that same sex marriage was OK in San Francisco because he felt that the state ban on it was unconstitutional. By doing what he did, he managed to set the cause of SSM back about 10 years in California because people were pissed off that he did not follow the laws of the land as written.

We are a nation of laws for a reason. This kind of thing tends to only be cheered by the side or group that agrees with the interpretation of the official in question. There is a slippery slope problem with this--because this stuff only works when you happen to agree with the outcome. It's not something you want "the other guy" doing.

[TheF00L]

I agree with his intentions but not his methods.

The last major case of this was when Gavin Newsom decided that same sex marriage was OK in San Francisco because he felt that the state ban on it was unconstitutional. By doing what he did, he managed to set the cause of SSM back about 10 years in California because people were pissed off that he did not follow the laws of the land as written.

We are a nation of laws for a reason. This kind of thing tends to only be cheered by the side or group that agrees with the interpretation of the official in question. There is a slippery slope problem with this--because this stuff only works when you happen to agree with the outcome. It's not something you want "the other guy" doing.

Two points:
We are a nation of laws....and the State is ignoring those laws by ignoring our RIGHTS.

It stated in the article that this fellow is within his LEGAL RIGHTS to act as he is. I see no problem here.

This is nothing like SSM. SSM was not a right granted to us by our fore fathers insight.

[Dasbalddog]

This is nothing like SSM. SSM was not a right granted to us by our fore fathers insight.

Hmmm. I don't see anything about Marriage in the Constitution at all.

So maybe Government should stop making laws/rulings on something they have no power over?


My reasoning, laws are logical, not moral. Being against SSM is a morality stand, which is fine, I don't care.... But being that it is a moral judgement, it should not be a law.

Furthermore, Marriage is a religious sacrement.... So the Government which forbids the posting of the Commandments should stay out of the argument. I don't want then passing similar laws about Confession.... Can you imagine the Priest having to keep a record book of all Confessions like gun dealers do?

[pyld]

It stated in the article that this fellow is within his LEGAL RIGHTS to act as he is. I see no problem here.

Really? Did you read it all?

The prosecutor said his decision to drop such cases is "absolutely parallel" to President Barack Obama administration's decision not to pursue deportation of certain young illegal immigrants with strong ties to the United States.

So you have no problem with Obama essentially exercising his executive power (or discretion) to not deport illegal immigrants?

It's the same thing. If this does not strike you as bad, I urge you to reconsider.

[nomad48]

He has cojones..

[schr8er2000]

FINALLY a politician from Illinois with his head out of his ass. About time someone in that state says what is right and has the Constitution to back him up.

Of course you have to remember that our "President" ( and by that I mean I didnt vote for him and he cant really be considered a president for all the crap he throws out ) came from Illinois also.....