New Pre-Dating Screening: Have you recently been with a Cop?

This article sums up a terribly twisted nightmare of a story, so my only advice is... ask if a girl has ever been... or dated a cop in her life... if the answer is yes... RUN!

I will attempt to summarize in order:

Matt Kohnen met a girl, and began dating her in the city of Swansea.  The woman had previously dated a man who is a police officer named Steve Epps in nearby Caseyville.   The police officer from Caseyville drove by the Swansea house, and ran the plates of an unknown Munie Greencare Professionals truck, was dissapointed to find no personal information, so he sent a fax to the Munie Greencare corporate office alleging the driver of the truck was driving recklessly, and the officer needed the name of the employee.

The Munie HR department provided Matt with a copy of the Fax, and asked the 15 year worker there what had happened.   Not Knowing Matt called the Chief of Police at Caseyville, J.D. Roth who then tried as hard as he could to do the right thing.  He first suspended Steve Epps without pay, then  J.D. Roth opened an investigation, interviewed the girl, and Matt Kohnen, and Steve Epps.

Epps said in an interview he was just doing his job by sending the fax about the reckless driving.

Matt Kohnen:

Kohnen told Roth he was in Swansea at a woman's house -- a woman who previously had a relationship with Epps, the report stated. Roth later checked and found his department received no reckless driving complaints.

And the unnamed girlfriend:

The woman told Roth that Epps had "done things like this in the past" and she didn't doubt that he had sent the fax to Munie, according to Roth's summary of his interview with the woman.

So now you have 3 statements, the Chief sent the reports to the Illinois State Police... something something internal affairs something.. (Public Integrity Unit.) and they pushed it to local state's attorney Robert Haida, who then REFUSED TO CHARGE EPPS.

 

A warrant was requested for Steve Epps phone records to attempt to prove where he was all night, that request was denied by Assistant State's Attorney Beth Nester.  

 

After the prosecutor refused to charge Epps, the ISP closed the case... then Epps sued the village over his suspension... and guess what!?

 

Epps, who worked for Caseyville for 10 years, returned to work in May after engaging in arbitration with the village.

8 out of the 10 village police in Caseyville petitioned for the Chief's ouster... I think it's time some of those people started culling that herd.

Thanks to all their training...

Is law enforcement a necessity? That depends where you live. The purpose of law enforcement is to make you free. You can leave your land without the fear of a break-in, because police are out there watching.  Walk to the store feeling safe, because police are keeping dangerous people off the street. They don't do that... unless you consider pot-heads dangerous people.

Thanks to all their training, people like Deputy David Bowers, Lonnie Lawler, and their boss have given us horrors like this:

Bowers allegedly pushed one boy toward his bed and repeatedly shocked him with a stun gun. Bowers then held down a second boy, stunned him several times and threatened to sodomize him, ultimately causing the child to soil himself, the lawsuit claimed.


A third child complied with the deputies' demands that he sit on a couch, but Lawler handcuffed him before Bowers zapped him repeatedly, the lawsuit said.


The fourth child, a girl, pleaded with the deputies to stop but Lawler handcuffed her. Bowers lifted her off the ground, pressed her against a wall and choked her, the lawsuit alleged.


"Do you want to live or die (expletive)?" the lawsuit claimed Bowers asked the girl before she was thrown into a closet, vomiting.

The saddest thing about this incident are these two things:

No criminal charges were ever filed.

And

Bowers and fellow deputy Lonnie Lawler still work for the department

Remember what I said about normal citizens not being as good as them? Think about it real long, and real hard when you imagine what one of them would have done to you if they caught you in the act of doing this. Then think long and hard about what a judge and jury would do to you after that... if you were still alive. What would the chances that you'd EVER be able to go to work again?

When police come to your house in Illinois, you have to revere them, or cower in fear of their swift smiting.. If there were a REAL castle doctrine in Illinois, we would legitimately lose hundreds of cops overnight... beginning to question why there's not one?

Face it: Cops are better than you are

This news story is a couple months old, but bear with me for the relevance.  

Prosecutors said Killackey hailed a cab about 1 a.m. on April 23, 2009, outside a bar on the Near North Side.

Clermont testified that Killackey fell asleep, so when he reached his destination, the driver tapped on the cab partition. Killackey woke up, exited the car and began to walk away, Clermont said.

Clermont said he told Killackey that he forgot to pay the $8 fare but Killackey didn't stop.

"No, I didn't forget," Clermont said Killackey told him. "I don't owe you (expletive)."

Clermont then did a U-turn to block Clermont's path and asked him again to pay the fare. Killackey pulled a gun out and pointed it at Clermont, the cabbie testified. "You choose," Clermont quoted Killackey as saying to him. "Either I don't owe you (expletive) or you get out of the car and see what happens."

Clermont said he called 911. Police found a gun and his police badge in Killackey's pockets.

What was the terrible sentence for this man robbing a cab driver, threatening a man with a gun, and posessing a firearm on the street while drunk? That's right, he was charged with misdemeanor theft and assault, and given 60 hours of community service, His gun was returned to him the same night of the incident, and HE STILL HAS HIS JOB!!!...

He has also been relieved of police powers and an internal investigation is under way, said Chicago Police News Affairs Lt. Maureen Biggane. Killackey has been put in an administrative role, she said.

Let me tell you what would have happened to you or me in this situation:
you would have been held on a bond so high, no one could afford to get you out, so you would immediately LOSE YOUR JOB.
The court would KEEP your gun as evidence, then they'd trust someone like Killackey to properly "destroy" it.. or sell it to a child on the street, whichever is easier I suppose; Keep in mind there's no publicly available records of gun destructions.

Your charges would be:
2 counts of "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" Class 3, and Class 1 felony
1 count of "Armed Violence" Class X felony
1 count of "Theft" Class A misdemeanor
1 count "Aggravated Assault" (with use of a firearm) Class 4 Felony

If you were found guilty as officer Killackey was, your sentence would be: a minimum of 6 years, up to a maximum of 30 years in prison:
up to $25,000 in fines.
The loss of your right to own a firearm (not that YOU ever had it here in the first place)
And of course, the inability to ever get a decent job again.

The system is unfairly biased towards police, and this simply proves that the court system is also a part of that ring of corruption and thuggery. In a funny twist, the Suntimes reported that the officer actually commented that he thought that his 60 hours of community service, and 18 months of supervision was too harsh of a sentence. They have removed that article. I would normally file this under the "blue Wall of Silence" but since a judge and court was involved, the corruption goes much, much deeper.

This Land is NOT your land

Buying property in any suburb of Illinois is very much like temporarily leasing it. There's a huge set of rules that must be followed, plus you pay a HUGE amount in "rent" in the form of Property Taxes (My rent is $600 a month for $180K worth of property). When it comes to technologies that can better not just the community, but the entire world, I would like to say that I'm shocked by this, but I'm not. Gurnee IL is starting it's first Public Hearings to attempt to determine how to "regulate" wind power. Remember, in the days of the founding fathers, if a town stated they wished to "regulate" wind power, it would mean that they wanted to insure there was enough of it, or in other words, to keep it regular. Today this means the village of Gurnee wants to grant you permission to set up wind power as long as you pay them enough money (for the permit), and jump through whatever hoops the village wants you to jump through. Remember when your land was considered YOURS, and if you wanted to put a wind turbine up, provided it didn't pose a risk to nearby structures, you were free to do so?  Yeah... I don't either.

Wind Energy Systems include, but may not be limited to, Small Wind Energy Turbines which include Building Mounted Turbines and Tower Mounted (free-standing) Turbines. The potential regulations do not currently allow Large Wind Energy Turbines (Utility scale) on any lots in the Village of Gurnee.

I have long thought of setting up a wind turbine, my approach was to build it, set it up, and when the village harassed me about code, create a media firestorm making them look like idiots.  Although, this might be some interesting insight into why we as a people aren't advancing in technology. Everything from free power, to clothing is regulated in the form of some type of tax, or process that impedes.   This is the first town to announce a public hearing about the subject, so I can only assume people have started popping them up, and the village wants their cut of these people's money.

Illinois State Police Ruining a record number of lives

Read this news that Illinois DUI arrests are on a record pace this year.  My favorite quote is from Capt. Jeffrey Patterson who has never stopped for 2 seconds to think about why these people are driving after having some drinks, he just dishes out the $10,000 tickets, and said:

“I don’t get it,” Patterson said. “There are ads about the penalties of drunk driving on the TV, on the radio, in newspapers, on billboards, they’re all over.”
Yet, he said, people continue to drive drunk. “I guess they think they’re not going to get caught,” Patterson said.

He doesn't get it?   It's really simple... in Illinois, people are miserable because they have few freedoms, and pay too much in property taxes, and drinking makes them feel good.   Our property taxes pay for everything except a decent public transportation system... buses, and trains run from the suburbs, into the cities, but it's near impossible to get from one suburb to another one that's only 12 miles away, without taking a 6 hour train ride into a city, and back out.  

Patterson, citizens know they might get caught, they refuse to live their lives under your boot of fear and intimidation... if you think controlling people's relaxation time is bad... you should try to come for our guns and see what happens.

As I showed before using the Illinois state police's own propaganda videos, the purpose of DUI stops in this state is not to keep other drivers safe.   You might say heavy fines, and life ruining criminal charges are appropriate for people irresponsibly using the roadway, and potentially endangering other drivers.   My response to that:  Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper for the ISP to have a preemptive phone service that potential drivers could call and state they're intoxicated and have limited options to get home, can they sleep it off in the local PD?   The answer is, yes, it would be cheap, and very likely effective... but it wouldn't make the police any money, and wouldn't accomplish their ultimate goal, of ruining the lives of every citizen in this state. They WILL find you!



This video claims in America one person is killed by a drunk driver every 32 minutes, but in Illinois, one person is arrested for drunk driving every 10 minutes!?   What am I missing when the Math doesn't add up this much?   50,000 people per year, at an average cost of $10,000 per person... that makes DUIs a $500 BILLION a year economy for lawyers, judges and cops.   DUI enforcement should be about protecting people, not ruining people.

No FOID in IL? 1 year minimum sentence of prison.

Illinois passed HB5832 last week as I mentioned in a previous article.   Some people may be wondering, what's wrong with a FOID (Firearm Owner ID)?  

Well, the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right, and one could easily view the requirement of a card in order to buy, own and transport a firearm in this state to be equivalent to equal infringements of another amendment.   Where the 2nd amendment states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the 1st states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So essentially the same thing, to make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion would be unconstitutional... but what if any state passed a law requiring all Muslims to register with the state police for an MRID or Muslim Religion ID prior to practicing that religion?  After 9/11 we can certainly see how dangerous that religion could be, and the state police would certainly only be working in the best interests of Muslims anywhere to require that every 10 years Muslims pay $10 to keep practicing in their respective states.    How about a CRID (Christian Religion ID)?  Or an NRID (No religion ID) requiring a license to not practice religion... did you praise the lord today son?  If you didn't, it's a 1 year minimum sentence since you don't have your card!

See, everyone should see how ridiculous these cards are at this point in time, and be extraordinarily angry at the FOID card.   Sadly a lot of people are afraid of guns, and will continue to push for gun control... but a lot of people are afraid of Muslims, Atheists, Christians, and Jewish people too.... so let's keep our heads on straight... cards for rights is NOT good... protest the FOID!

Quinn signs more completely useless legislation

The people of this state must realize that they're paying people like Governor Quinn to inappropriately punish them...  given the lack of public outcry, I would have to say that this is not the case.   The People of Illinois must wish to be enslaved further.   On July 19th, Quinn signed into law updates to the already unconstitutional "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" law which makes jail time MANDATORY for first time offenders.   So what does this mean?

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that a first offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon committed with a firearm by a person 18 years of age or older where both: (1) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; and (2) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card is a Class 4 felony, for which the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than 3 years.

I interpret this piece of legislation to mean, if an out of stater comes through Illinois, or a citizen who refuses to allow their 2nd amendment rights to be infringed with the unconstitutional FOID card gets caught in the act of bearing arms, even if they hurt, or threatened absolutely no one, they go to jail automatically for 1 to 3 years.    This is part of Illinois' biggest issue, in this state they prosecute Victimless, damage-less, non-violent crimes.   If nobody's rights were infringed, and there was no damage, and no threat.... where's the crime?   I would suggest the citizens of Illinois explain this to their lawmakers in very short, easy to understand words.   If you're a good person, then you don't want to see citizens prosecuted for non-crimes.  

Illinois State Police shrug at 1 mile over myth

ISP State Trooper Michael Link shrugs at the thought of where people got the idea that the ISP would be issuing tickets from photo enforced construction zones for only 1 mile over the limit.   The already low 55mph speed limit in Illinois is reduced to 45mph on highways because of the danger to workers.   The fine also increases from the standard $125, to $375.   Just so Michael Link knows, the "myth" came from an Illinois Department of Transportation press release back in March of 2005.

The press release has been removed from the DOT webpage (presumably because it makes them look bad), and is only available from web archives.

Troopers assigned to work zone details will take a zero tolerance approach when issuing citations to speed limit violators. The message is clear -- Slow down; we're serious about workzone safety."

There ya go Michael Link, this is where the "Myth" came from, an unprofessional, IDOT press release. Zero tolerance to almost everyone in the world means, 1 mile over the limit, because a limit is defined as a maximum.  That's not really important anymore, as Michael Link attempts to soothe and calm the people with this statement:

There is, in fact, a specific number of miles over the posted construction-zone speed limit that will trigger a ticket, but "I can assure you it's not just 1 mile over the speed limit," says Trooper Michael Link

Keep in mind that the Illinois State Police are still enforcing construction zone limits, when there are no workers that will be in those construction zones.

Work has ground to a halt on most Lake County road projects as a major construction strike entered its second week.

The fact that Michael Link admits to currently enforcing construction zone fines is an admission of corruption within the department as a whole, and a conspiracy of corruption with the State.

I know the state of Illinois displays corruption at a level far beyond this... but they ADMITTED to this one, so they are attempting to extort money from the people, and they are blatant about it.

One bad Lake County deputy caught, the rest of them to go.

Before assuming that I am rabidly anti law enforcement, allow me to clarify my position. I love law enforcement, because it makes me, and everyone more free. I can leave my home without worrying about protecting my property, because law enforcement is out on patrol. I can live in comfort knowing help and assistance is a phone call away. What I get worked up over, is the different class of people my specific area has made out of law enforcement. They are no longer people, but rulers, allowed to kidnap, disarm, steal, wiretap, brandish, and of course disobey any traffic law ever written.  I no longer am comforted by their presence in my area, I am fearful of them, and the brute force they use to get almost anything they want.

Now, I don't mean any offense if you're one of the 3 deputies on the Lake County Sheriff's department that aren't doing something illegal, but chances are pretty damn close to 100% that every single one of them has broken Illinois State, and federal laws while "doing their job" and for that they get no leeway from me, look to our court system for that leeway.  Remember, if they've ever arrested anyone for UUW, or AUUW they have committed perjury by my interpretation.   We are living in a state where the Rule of Law only applies to citizens, lovingly referred to as "worms" by many in positions of perceived power. Unless, you're dumb enough to do something so blatant, in public, and in another state, it's nearly impossible to get the crime answered for.

Jack Johnson, a three-year deputy with the Lake County Sheriff's Office, has been charged with one count of false imprisonment while armed and one count of attempted second degree sexual assault while armed by the Kenosha County state's attorney's office, said Sgt. Christopher Thompson of the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

He was charged in Wisconsin, not Illinois with these crimes. Hey dumbass, keep it on this side of the border and you'd have the full protection of Lake County's wonderful Internal Affairs department.

Chicago's "Reasonable" New Ordinances

There's already been a lawsuit filed against Chicago's "reasonable" new gun laws.   I say "reasonable" in quotes because they are not reasonable at all, some guy who hates guns just keeps referring to the laws like that.   That would be Mayor Daley, who fell off the reasonable tree, and broke every branch on the way down and couldn't up it again to save his life.

"We believe that Chicago's ordinance is a reasonable attempt to balance the right of individuals to possess handguns in the home for self-defense with the substantial risks to public safety that are associated with the proliferation of firearms,"

The Ordinance itself must have read the last 2 major gun related Supreme Court decisions that states the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, and it APPLIES TO EVERYONE.   So you can see how it's reasonable to make a law that mandates, only ONE individual in every household may have a functioning firearm at any time.   Wait... so if an Armed Criminal breaks into your house... is the homeowner, or criminal violating the ordinance... oooh, it's Chicago, so it's both of them, I get it!   Hey Chicagoans, this is your chance, don't re-elect ANY of the officials that voted for this piece of crap ordinance, that's 46 people you need to replace with people who don't suffer from whatever learning disability these 46 people have that makes it so they can't figure out that banning guns doesn't work.  

Roadside "safety" checks

Tonight was a busy night, I rode a motorcycle 100 miles to go do some work, then 100 miles back.   It was a really nice day to ride, the sun was out in the day, the temperature was just right, and driving was uneventful.   On the way back, it was a little chilly, and I got sucked into a Roadside "safety" check in Palatine at Harper College.   Upon pulling in they asked me to get off my bike, and I complied, taking off my gloves, then helmet so I could have the dexterity to get my license from my pocket.   Handing them the license, they seemed surprised that there was a little "M" on it as they examined it for what seemed to be minutes.   They held on to it while they asked me a bunch of questions, seemingly harmless, but I know better than to assume that.  The conversation went something very similar to this:
Officer: "Where are ya' coming from tonight?"

Me: "From work, just heading home."

Officer: "Where do you work that you're driving so late?"

Me: "Sir, it's kind of late, I'd like to get home, am I free to go?"

Officer: "Not quite yet, this is a roadside safety check, we need to make sure you're wearing your seatbelt,
and you're not driving impaired."

Me: "Since it's a motorcycle and it has no seatbelt, and I am not impaired, am I free to go?"

Officer: "Why are you in such a hurry, are you hiding something?"

Me: "I would just like to get home, that's all, may I go now?"

Officer: "What's in your backpack?"

Me: "My belongings."

Officer: "What exactly is in the bag."

Me: "The exact belongings I chose to bring with me today."

Officer: "Since you're not hiding anything, you wouldn't mind if I took a look at your belongings, would you?"

Me: "I would mind very much, I do not consent to any searches."

Officer: "What are you hiding that you don't want me to look?"

Me: "I'm hiding nothing, I simply don't consent to any searches."

Officer: "Wait here, I have to get the sergeant for this."(officer leaves for 15 minutes, talks to another officer, the new officer walks over to me)

Officer 2: "I understand you're hiding something in that backpack sir!?"

Me: "I'm sorry, there seems to be a communication meltdown sir, I am hiding nothing, I simply will not consent to any searches, I apologize if this bothers you, am I free to go now?"

Officer 2: "No, you're not free to go yet!"

Me: "So I'm being detained?"

Officer 2: "No, we're just not done with the safety check."

Me: "I fail to see how anything inside my backpack could be related to my riding safety, so since I'm not being detained, am I free to go?"

Officer 2: "No, we aren't done here."

Me: "Well, I'm done here, so if I'm not being detained, we're already passed what I think is an acceptable amount of time for a Terry stop.

Officer 2: "Look, whatever you think you know, you're the reason this stop is taking longer than necessary."

Me: "Why?  What is so tantalizing about my off-limits bag of mystery?"

Officer 1: (returns with a dog) This dog is looking for drugs.

Me: "How well trained is he in sniffing out drugs?"

Officer 1: "He can sniff out even tiny amounts!"

Me: "That's really cool!  Has he found any tonight?"

Officer 1: "quite a few tonight."

Me: "Great!  So why isn't he going crazy with that scent around?"

Officer 1: "Umm..  he.. uhh...  knows those aren't illegal?"

Officer 2: "He's a remarkably trained dog"

Me: "Since we're obviously just going to be making stuff up all night, I'm going to head home, you guys have a good night, I hope your busts go really well."

Officer 1: "umm there is umm"

Officer 2: "We've completed the safety inspection, thank you for wearing a Helmet sir, I know it's optional, drive safe now."

Officer 1: Have a good night sir.


-------------End of Interactions---------------


What bothers me the most, is they are using something mysterious like dogs, and then lying about what the dog tells them.   Had I not called them out on their bluff, they would have told me something like: "The dog signaled, we have to search your bag."  The dog "signal" has never really been defined so that the public would know what it is, and the police use this fact to their advantage.   They also seem hell-bent on searching everything on everyone.  I saw a number of cars come in, and the police went through the whole car, the people didn't even resist a little.... but were quick to call out bullshit when they got cuffed.

You're losing your right to be secure in your own belongings Illinois... this is your warning!

Journalistic Asshole: Mark Karlin

Today I'm taking a look at the Journalists who report against liberty, and analyse their "beliefs". Mark Karlin is a Chicago area journalist who was not terribly happy with the supreme court decision that Chicago's handgun ban was unconstitutional. So let's look at his own words that fall like drool from his fingers, seething with unintelligent drivel.

It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.

Mark Karlin thinks handgun ownership in Chicago is about white males. When I walk around Chicago, and look at the people who would benefit from protection from criminals with guns, white males doesn't seem to come to mind. I theorize that Mark Karlin is most afraid of good citizens who are black owning handguns. He portrays this fear by bashing white males, while skirting the "race" and gender issue altogether about how he feels about black males owning guns, or white females, or Hispanic females. I am entirely in support of every good citizen of this country being able to own a gun and protect themselves, and possibly others. The more good people with guns, the more the scale is shifted towards the side of good. Mark Karlin with his Yale degree, and six figure income must not understand that very much, he probably only associates with like-minded individuals with nothing intelligent to say.

After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

This tender gutted sack of  slow moving white meat then attempted to claim Chicago allowed you to have rifles.   Sure they did, if you jumped through some registration permit hoops, and made sure to buy a rifle that wasn't on an expansive "assault weapons" list and you could justify for hunting purposes (hint: Illinois doesn't allow rifle hunting).  Keep in mind, the most common home defense weapon ever, the Remington 870 shotgun is on the Chicago list of assault weapons.  In fact, if you could fire a rifle without getting burned by it, you weren't allowed to own it in Chicago

"A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel,"

Then of course Daley turns around and decides his armed thug squad needs some of these banned items.   Mark shows his lack of historical knowledge by making the claim that handguns did not exist at the time the constitution was written.  Really asshole?  Then what is this you tubby piece of future worm food!?

That sure looks like a concealable handgun to me, Circa 1780!?  A full eleven years before the constitution was penned!   Or how about this nice 1750 model?

Apparently a Yale education isn't worth the price, because this man has officially printed lies.  This coming from some asshole who wants his readers to go to his site to see the news through a "pro-democracy lens."   I hope Mark realizes that in a democracy, the majority could vote to take his overstated paychecks away from him just for being an asshole.  What Mark doesn't realize, probably due to his substandard, overpriced education, is that America is a Republic.  This is a nation that was supposed to exist of laws that protected people from the harsh controls of the government.... So what if that backfired, and now we have Pan-troglydyte's like Mark Karlin preaching about how great democracy is, and how we had no handguns in the late 1700's so no one could conceive of controlling them.  Congratulations Mark, you're an asshole!

Daley Actively Decieves to Gain Support

After the Supreme court ruling yesterday Daley started his soapboxing with the normal humor that you'd expect from a deviously intelligent man that hides behind the persona of a complete nimrod. His antics are supposed to be funny, and distract you from the real issues. Here's an example:

Daley said yesterday, "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns", however it was the supreme law of the land that told him that we ARE a nation of laws, and the law said you can't deny people guns! He implies, with skills that could only be obtained as a lawyer, that laws and guns can't be the same thing. Well in this case, they are one in the same, it is LAW that we are a nation of people with GUNS.

Control Freaks in politics and the cycle of "law"

People are often comforted when they elect an official who claims to have all the answers, and it's even better if the people don't have to do anything to receive these answers. This is where the leaders' narcissistic traits start to backfire. The elected leader now will claim it is some inanimate object that causes all the problems, and that you have to give it up. Now you are dependent on a group of people, normally a policing unit for your needs in solving the problem. In the case of murder, while being murdered you are supposed to try to run, and phone police then be in a location where they can find you to help. Some things are just easier to do yourself, if Daley banned soap, I wouldn't want to call the soap police so they could wash my ass.

The Power of One armed Citizen

One armed citizen is more often than not, the difference between attempted murder, and a tragedy.   On Father's day, in East St. Louis Illinois Ashley Oliver was gunned down by her boyfriend while she ran from car across several lanes of traffic, and banged on car windows pleading for help.   She already had been shot, and was bleeding as she begged drivers to help.   There was not a single armed citizen on the road that day due to bad Illinois laws.   The only man with a gun, was Ashley Oliver's killer, Tommie Hill.   Tommie wasn't worried about the Illinois felony level improper transportation of a firearm laws known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" nor was he concerned with "Aggravated Discharge of a Weapon" and he also wasn't concerned with the law and potential death sentence from  "Murder."  All of these high penalty laws, and Tommie Hill still caught up with his prey, and shot Ashley Oliver in the head in front of onlookers, and Oliver's 7 year old daughter.

In light of the strict punishments, had I been there, I too would have been an unarmed citizen.  If I intervened unarmed, I would have been a victim as well.   This was one of thousands of examples where seconds counted the difference between life and death, and help was only minutes away, and all it would have taken was one armed citizen.

What happened to our 4th amendment right?

In Illinois there is a recent standing history of the 4th amendment being chipped away.   At this point it is essentially non-existent.   I'll explain what happened, and when, the why's and the hows are beyond my analysis abilities at this point.

For years cars have been treated less like personal property, and more like state property.   Think of the 4th amendment in this context, "How would Thomas Jefferson react if a local police thug wanted to search his carriage without warrant?"  This is an argument used often by defense lawyers.  The colonial period response would be that the thug would be disallowed access to his carriage.  Now, what if the thug pulled out a weapon affixed at Mr. Jefferson, demanding entry, and that he stand down.   We know we would soon find a LOT of dead thugs.   This is a right so entwined in common sense, which is that no one has a right to your stuff, no matter what it is.   The same right that has been perverted for the last century, but many examples appear in the last 10 years.  

In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court decision allowed what is known as focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.  Regardless of these restrictions, Lake and Cook County Sheriff's police routinely set up DUI checkpoints, which in my opinion count as crime-fighting checkpoints, and not informational.   What's worse, is the police have no right to any information without due process, so these checkpoints should be entirely useless.   I have been through a number of them personally, the sheriff's thugs ask you to get out of the car, and when you do you lock your door behind you.   They instantly get suspicious, and want to get in your car.  Even though I have nothing to hide, they have no right to rifle through my belongings, and worse, I have good reason to suspect that they don't like me already and would be willing to plant criminal material in order to "bust" me for their satisfaction.  

In Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005), The defendant was stopped for speeding by an Illinois State Trooper. While the first officer temporarily held the defendant in his police car while writing a warning ticket to the driver, another officer walked his canine around the defendants car. The canine "alerted" at the trunk of the car, and the officers searched it.  They found marijuana in the trunk.
The officers were able to make this search stick using something known as a holding.   What this particular holding means is the officers did not need probably cause to use a canine as long as the detection occurred while the defendant was detained in a lawful manner.

The real beginning to the end was Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), in which a probable cause search was loosely defined as: "a flexible, common-sense standard."  Conveniently this case was heard during America's first "war on drugs": prohibition.  This means that probably cause can be redefined as almost limitless things, so long as it "sounds" like common sense to a judge or jury.

Unwelcoming predators

Many cities charge you $25-$100 to get a "city sticker" which normally allows you to access to parking somewhere on public roads, or access to a special city resource.   Many people ignore them because they only park on their own property, or at their place of work in a different city.   Some people buy them because they believe they have to, but do not affix them to their vehicle because they never plan on using the services awarded by such sticker display.

Enter the predator:

The local code enforcement thug comes down the street, wearing body armor and carrying weapons.  Carrying a weapon down the street is not legal for normal citizens, and the penalty gets increased if body armor is worn in conjunction with carrying a weapon.  We already see special protections awarded by the law to the code enforcement thug based solely upon his or her occupation.  They exercise their special rights while trespassing on private property to issue $75 citations to people who had the nerve to park their cars on their own driveways.  They walk up the driveway to check for a sticker that isn't clearly visible from the road, then issue a fine in the form of a ticket.   There are murmurs here and there that people are getting fed up with this.

Illinois defines these code enforcement thugs as having "lawful authority" so they can do whatever they please as illustrated in the trespassing law.

(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
    Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (a‑5), whoever:
        (1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or
        
remains within or on a building; or
        (2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving,
        
prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
        (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving
        
notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
        (3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents
        
his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.

So apparently every citizen of every Illinois town has to post a sign on their lawn that states "No Trespassing by Law Enforcement except in emergency" in order to keep these thugs from ticketing you on your own property.

6 inches from a Felony

Probably the most atrocious law in Illinois at this current time is 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 otherwise known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon." The unique way in which this law is worded makes it clear, this one is about citizen disarmament. Let's take a look at some of the details of this piece of legislation.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or

(2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her

person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his or her own land or in his or her own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm



So we've found that if you carry a firearm at all, you are guilty. If we dissected the 2nd amendment of the US constitution we would find some simple language. The right to keep (to have), and bear (to have ON you) arms shall not be infringed. Apparently Illinois is allowed to legislate such infringement, possibly because Illinois politicians do not consider Illinois part of the United States since they follow so little of the constitution.

Of course Illinois politicians have to let gun owners transport their weapons to hunting grounds, or out of the state, so they have a few caveats:

(c) This Section does not apply to or affect the transportation or possession of weapons that:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;
or
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

So you need a special card, a FOID card, then you can put your M1a in a case, and transport it unloaded in your pickup truck.   Oh wait, what if you are from a neighboring state?  They don't give FOID cards to people from Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, or any other state because the system is linked with the DMV's license database.   So for example, if you are from Wisconsin, and you have a pickup truck, suddenly no matter where you put your revolver is illegal, even if it's unloaded and in a case.  The way I interpret this law, is that people from any state can take the trigger group out of their M1a and throw her up on the dashboard with a round in the chamber!  These lawmakers are BRILLIANT!  Oh, but it gets so much worse:


Here is the portion of the law that describes what is necessary to make this a crime:

(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(B) the firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(C) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or 

(D) the person possessing the weapon was previously adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or 

(E) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in a misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act, in a misdemeanor violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or in a misdemeanor violation of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act; or 

(F) (blank); or
(G) the person possessing the weapon had a order of protection issued against him or her within the previous 2 years; or
(H) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of violence against the person or property of another; or
(I) the person possessing the weapon was under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun as defined in Section 24‑3, unless the person under 21 is engaged in lawful activities under the Wildlife Code or described in subsection 24‑2(b)(1), (b)(3), or 24‑2(f).


According to this section, that person from Wisconsin with a pickup truck, is still screwed.   Their gun is in a case, and unloaded, and can't be disassembled without a lot of undue fuss, so there is no way out.



To make matters worse, Illinois has linked Marijuana possession with carrying a gun.  Because police can be trusted so fully to NEVER plant drugs to hype up charges.


Nonetheless, thousands of out of staters, and many in state residents have succumb to this legislation for some reason.   One court counselor admitted to me that big rig truck drivers are most commonly brought in on this charge, many of them have some type of weapon to protect themselves from robbery or attack while on the road, and a broke Illinois government can't help but to destroy lives, and steal money over complete nonsense.  This law is such nonsense, that they left subsection (f) blank!
  

You may think I'm overreacting about the destroying someone's life, but if you look at the punishment, it does not fit this crime.    We are talking about a victimless-crime that involves no property damage, or emotional stress that centers around a right that Americans have to keep, and bear their arms... and doing so is a felony.

(d) Sentence. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is a Class 4 felony;

Governor Quinn once stated that "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon just means that you shot at someone and missed." He said this in order to get the law passed to strengthen this law from a class 4 felony, to a class 1 felony, so in January 2011 it becomes a class 1 felony. What he didn't realize, is that the law he was really talking about was "Aggravated discharge of a firearm." Leave it to an Illinois governor to not know which it is.


Of course law enforcement is exempt, as they open carry loaded pistols every day, and have rifles within reach that are loaded in their cars.

How Illinois breaks its own laws.

Have you ever read any of the Illinois Criminal Code? Most people would say no. If you did, you may find a lot of it enraging. The first thing that should glare out at you, is that almost everything that is illegal to a normal citizen of Illinois, is perfectly legal for a Law Enforcement officer. Let's use, for example 720 ILCS 5/14‑2 Illinois Eavesdropping laws. It states, that if you record anyone without all party's consent, you may be guilty of up to a class 1 Felony. A bit steep for not injuring, or taking property from anyone, right? This is the same punishment as of sexual assault, a very invasive, violent crime. One might call eavesdropping a non-violent, non-property crime which at worst should never be more than a fine. Well it gets worse. You may wonder how Chicago can be the Most Watched City if this law prevented any videotaping without all party's consent, right? Welcome to the dubious Illinois double standard applied to every single one of its laws. Pick any one out the the Illlinois Criminal Code, read it, and look for the portion that exempts law enforcement from it. In the case of Eavesdropping, there is a whole section that exempts law enforcement. It reads something like this:
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:

1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A‑1...



There are a couple caveats in there that are obviously there to protect corrupt politicians from all but Federal law enforcement's arm, but on the whole, this law essentially attacks the citizens and people of the state of Illinois. The only problem I seem to find here, is that most of the citizens of this state... like it that way?