Brace Yourselves, Gun Owners: Dems Introduced A New Gun Control Bill

H/T Bearing Arms.

Delusional DemocRats will hit the demonization of sound suppressors as John Q Public is more ignorant as to how a suppressor really works.

Anything John Q Public knows about sound suppressors aka silencers is what they see in the movies that are a pack of lies.

In spite of what the gangster and James Bond movies show the suppressor does not make a firearm whisper quite.

Multiple anti-gunners in the Senate are moving to ban suppressors following the tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Help Empower Americans to Respond (HEAR) Act is being introduced by Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (NJ), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Richard Blumenthal (CA) and Tim Kaine (VA).

“We were reminded how dangerous silencers can be a few weeks ago, when a gunman used a .45 caliber handgun fitted with a suppressor to kill 12 Americans in Virginia Beach. What first sounded like a nail-gun ended up being gunfire,” Menendez said in a statement. “The sound of gunshots is what tells you that your life is danger, and that it’s time to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves. At the end of the day if you can hear a weapon you might just save a life.”

“Dangerous gun silencers, like the one used in the Virginia Beach shooting earlier this month that killed 12, don’t belong in our communities,” Feinstein said. “This legislation is a commonsense proposal that will save lives.”

“The only people who could reasonably oppose a ban on gun silencers are criminals trying to avoid detection by law enforcement or mass murderers trying to hurt as many people as possible,” Blumenthal said. “Whether a firearm is being used in a mugging or a massacre, the sound of a gunshot is a warning that helps bystanders get to safety and allows law enforcement to track and apprehend the shooter.”

“We need to be doing everything in our power to reduce gun violence and improve the safety of our communities. At least one survivor of the tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, where the shooter used a silencer, said that the gunfire sounded more like a nail gun,” Kaine said. “Banning silencers won’t eliminate gun violence, but this is a reform that would help law enforcement locate active shooters and save more lives,”

In addition to an outright ban, the HEAR Act would:

• Authorize a buyback program for silencers using federal Byrne JAG grants;
• Provide individuals with a 90-day grace period after the date of enactment for individuals to comply with the ban;
• Provide limited exceptions for certain current and former law enforcement personnel, for certain Atomic Energy personnel and purposes, and for certain authorized testing or experimentation.

Gun rights groups have opposed the outright ban of suppressors, also known as silencers. In fact, the firearms industry pushed for the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, which would have deregulated the firearm accessory. As it currently stands, suppressors are highly regulated. Currently, anyone who wants to purchase a sound suppressor must undergo the National Firearms Act’s application process, pay a $200 stamp fee, a background check and wait a long period of time, generally 9 months to a year. The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 would have removed suppressors from the NFA and treated it as a regular firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Pro-gun groups are generally opposed to this type of legislation because more people can benefit from suppressors, especially if someone participates in the shooting sports. In fact, an audiologist explained the long-term benefits suppressors provide to hunters, shooting sports competitors, and even the average, everyday gun enthusiast.

“I treat hearing loss and I see the ill-effects of hearing loss every day with my patients,” audiologist Steven Wade previously said. “Once somebody is exposed to loud sounds and they have damaged their hearing — whether it be gunshots or other types of loud impulse sounds — that cochlear becomes damaged and it’s irreversible damage.”

Pro-gun groups made their position known.

Mark Oliva, the Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, slammed Menendez and friends for pushing falsehoods about suppressors:

Senator Menendez is purposefully misrepresenting suppressors. Suppressors are the most highly-regulated firearms accessory today. Senator Menendez knows the truth is suppressors reduce the sound of a muzzle blast from a decibel level equal to a jet taking off to that of a jackhammer, not quite the nail gun he’s claiming similarities to. He could have easily chosen to witness this for himself if he accepted National Shooting Sports Foundation’s invitation to hear suppressors in the Capitol Police gun range two years ago. Conveniently, Senator Menendez, nor any of his staff, responded to that invitation.

Suppressed gunfire is clearly audible and will gain the attention of anyone within the vicinity. Suppressors are legal for ownership in 42 states and 40 for hunting. More than 1.5 million suppressors are owned and operated for lawful purposes every day.

Basing national firearms policy on fiction spy movies is hardly the way we should legislate and our nation’s more than 100 million law-abiding firearms owners deserve better from their elected officials. The senator is ignoring clear facts; that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives considered recommending moving suppressor regulation from the 1934 National Firearms Act to the 1968 Gun Control Act because of the rarity in which they are used in crimes. From 1995-2005, less than 0.1% of homicides in federal court, an infinitesimally low 0.00006% of felonies in California and a mere 0.1% of armed robberies involved a suppressor. The ATF noted in an unpublished 2017 White Paper that an average of just 44 cases involving suppressors per year over a 10 year period were recommended for prosecution. In fact, many of the European countries which Senator Menendez looks to as an example of strict gun laws require the use of a suppressor and they are available over the counter in hardware stores.

This is a disturbing exploitation of a tragedy when the senator would be better served using his platform to provide real solutions for safer communities across America, instead of vilifying and attempting to deny law-abiding American citizens their rights.

“GOA is opposed to the National Firearms Act and its current restrictions on suppressors, and GOA will oppose any legislation, like the Menendez bill, to ban them. Suppressors are safety devices that act more like a car muffler, rather than the Hollywood notion of a ‘silencer,’ which is a myth,” Gun Owners of America’s Senior Vice President told Townhall. “So while suppressors don’t reduce the sound of a gun shot to a whisper, as so deceptively portrayed in many movies, they are a health benefit, which is why the CDC recommends that people use suppressors to protect their hearing.”

“The favorite word of anti-gun rights Democrats is ‘ban’ it. First it was handguns, then it was semi-auto so-called ‘assault’ weapons. Then they added standard capacity magazines to the list. Now it is suppressors. And they also want to ban gun shows and advertising for firearms and ammunition. If they could they would ban gun owners from voting,” Second Amendment Foundation Founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told Townhall.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court refused to hear a multi-state challenge to firearm suppressor laws in Jeremy Kettler v. United States, which challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically in relation to firearms suppressors.

The National Rifle Association did not immediately respond to Townhall’s request for comment.

 

Advertisements

Cory Booker: Constitution Be Dammed! Gun Owners Must Be Federally Licensed

H/T The Lid.

Senator Booker(Delusional-NJ) the Second Amendment was written to prevent a tyrannical government like you have purposed.

Democrats love government intrusion into everyone’s life…except their own of course. 2020 Dem candidate Senator Cory Booker has brought a new one for Democrats to rally around: all gun owners and purchasers must be federally licensed. He made the statement on Monday in a desperate attempt to put himself out front in a crowded field. It was his 2nd major platform agenda since becoming a candidate.

Fox reported:

According to Booker’s plan, current and first-time firearms buyers would seek a license at a designated office, similar to obtaining a passport. The applications would then be verified by the FBI. Current gun owners would have a transition period to obtain a federal license.

He thinks that his plan is the most comprehensive out there to stop gun violence. Actually, it would create a snarl in the Federal government. Right now there are 13 states, plus the District of Columbia, with a license requirement. Add that requirement to all 50 states plus others, and you get a nightmare…no, a quagmire of regulations. And with the number of legal gun owners in America…he’s genuinely barking up the wrong tree.

His plan also calls for many of the things that other Democrats have proposed: universal background checks for gun buyers (which is actually meant to counteract loopholes that don’t exist); the reinstitution of a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity firearm magazines – in short, Cory Booker as president would bring a gigantic destruction of our rights.

“I am sick and tired of hearing thoughts and prayers for the communities that have been shattered by gun violence — it is time for bold action.” Senator Booker

We’re sick and tired too… of listening to the agendas of those who wish to destroy the Second Amendment.

“Just when you think the 2020 field could not get anymore out there, Cory Booker comes in with a plan to use executive action filled with new restrictions and permits on law-abiding gun-owners. Votes across the country will see this as another big government grab on our constitutional rights.” Mandi Merritt, RNC spokesperson

Ridiculous analogy: The funny thing is, Sen Booker has no concept of what he was trying to say – it’s typical of liberals who use ridiculous apples and oranges analogies to push their case. He said, according to the Washington Examiner, You need a license to drive a car, you should need one to own a gun.”

The Washington Examiner wrote,

“The examples are numerous. There are no requirements for car owners to get licensed or registered at the federal level, but Booker is proposing moving to federal licensing for guns. People are allowed to drive a car without a license on their own private property, but Booker wouldn’t allow unlicensed gun owners to purchase guns for their own self-defense or sporting use on their own property. A person can obtain a driver’s license by passing an easy test, and it typically can’t be revoked for misconduct that does not involve driving, whereas Booker wants to require strict FBI background checks and to expand the categories of people whose gun rights could be stripped away by government. Driver’s licenses issued in one state are recognized by all others, and there aren’t restrictions in driving one’s car to another state, but that is not the case with guns. Also, there is no waiting period to purchase a car, as there is with a gun.”

Georgia DA’s Comments Raises Serious Gun Rights Questions

H/T Bearing Arms.

These comments by Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney David Cooke shows the ignorance of the laws of his own state.

If there’s a knock on the door in the wee hours of the morning, especially if I’m not expecting company, I don’t answer without a firearm in my hand. People don’t drop by after midnight without either a damn good reason or nefarious purposes.

I also know that I’m not alone in that. I suspect most of us have a similar policy.

A Georgia citizen was shot by police after the man answered the door with a firearm in his hand [emphasis mine]:

On Friday, a Peach County jury acquitted Lonnie Shaw on all charges.

He was charged with aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, after he allegedly pointed a gun at a Peach County deputy when he knocked on Shaw’s door around 3 a.m. one morning.

The deputy shot Shaw, but Shaw was ultimately charged, even though he claimed he never pointed the gun at the deputy.

The jury didn’t buy the prosecution’s case.

After the not guilty verdict came down, Macon Judicial Circuit District Attorney David Cooke released a statement that seemed to suggest Shaw shouldn’t have had the gun with him when he answered the door.

That statement read, in part, “Mr. Shaw is fortunate to have his freedom, and that his injuries weren’t more severe after he chose to answer the door holding a gun knowing police officers were on the other side.”

However, Georgia law disagrees.

Georgia is a Castle Doctrine state, which means a man has a right to defend his home.

Cooke’s arguments stem from two particular claims. One is that Shaw knew the police was on the other side of the door and the other is that he pointed a gun at police.

Unfortunately for Cooke, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Shaw pointed the gun at anyone. Now, I can’t say definitively because I wasn’t there, but a jury found insufficient evidence to convict Shaw. That suggests that Shaw may well be telling the truth on this.

The other argument that Shaw knew it was the police on the other side is a bit more interesting to me.

You see, the police failed to identify themselves as law enforcement. Cooke’s confidence that Shaw knew it was the police was his belief that Shaw’s wife saw it on a video feed. Shaw, however, testified that he heard nothing of the sort from his wife. All he knew was that there was someone at the door at 3 a.m.

Cooke admits that what Shaw did–minus the claim of pointing a weapon at police–was legal.

“Legally, you can have a weapon in your hand when you encounter the police,” said Cooke. “I don’t recommend it for the safety of yourself, for the safety of the police, or anyone in gunshot range of you.”

But Cooke said regardless of its legality, he thought it was a poor choice. “There are many things that are legal that are nonetheless foolish and can lead to someone else dying,” said Cooke.

Generally, I’d agree.

However, I also think that a knock on the door at 3 a.m. is a far cry from having a gun in your hand when you approach a police officer on the street, especially when officers fail to identify themselves as police at such an ungodly hour.

Cooke’s comments are a problem because it suggests that gun rights may be all fine and well, but the presence of a police officer somehow negates our right to defend our home, even if we don’t realize it’s a police officer at the door.

Frankly, I think the police should be glad that Shaw didn’t listen to Joe Biden’s advice of blasting a shotgun through the door. That would have gone badly for everyone.

 

NY Official Lash Out At Trump Over Pro-NRA Stance

H/T Bearing Arms.

Little Andy Cuomo is upset at the NRA because they highlight the faults of their fell good gun control ideas and how they are a failure.

If there is anything state officials in New York dislike more than the NRA, it’s probably President Donald Trump. The progressive state officials are part of the Democratic Party, and it’s part and parcel for the party to despise everything the president does just because it’s him doing it.

While the state has been a thorn in the NRA’s side, it has stepped it up as the state’s attorney general is calling for the IRS to yank the NRA’s non-profit status.

President Trump has thrown his lot in with the NRA, however, and that infuriates officials in New York.

New York’s governor assailed President Donald Trump on Monday for backing the National Rifle Association in its dispute with the state, accusing the U.S. leader of being afraid of the powerful gun lobby.

Two days after a gunman sprayed a California synagogue with bullets, killing a worshipper, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo urged Trump to do more to stop gun deaths.

In a statement directed at the president, Cuomo said 74,600 Americans had died from gun violence since Trump was elected in November 2016.

“You have done nothing but tweet about it,” Cuomo said. “Unlike you, President Trump, New York is not afraid to stand up to the NRA.”

Oh, that old, tired refrain.

Ever notice how people like Cuomo seem to believe people like President Trump would back gun control if they weren’t afraid? They can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with them about the solution to gun violence.

Then again, this is someone who spouts numbers that include suicides committed with a firearm as if they’re the same as murders. They’re not.

State Attorney General Letitia James on Saturday confirmed her office had issued subpoenas as part of an investigation related to the NRA. The New York Times reported the probe involved the group’s tax-exempt status.

Trump, a Republican, shifted the spotlight on Monday to Cuomo and James, Democratic officials in his home state, after divisions within NRA leadership surfaced.

“The NRA is under siege by Cuomo and the New York State A.G., who are illegally using the State’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization, & others,” Trump wrote on Twitter without providing evidence.

“It must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting,” Trump said of the NRA.

And he’s right. This isn’t a good time to battle one another.

But how was Trump out of line on this?

He wasn’t, at all.

The truth is that Cuomo has set himself in opposition to the president in pretty much every way. If Trump personally discovered a cure for cancer, Cuomo and folks like him would lash out at all the oncology department jobs that would be lost as a result of his discovery. Trump siding with a political ally isn’t exactly unconscionable, especially since it’s not like Cuomo is unbiased in this debate.

Cuomo’s so far up the posterior of groups like Everytown For Gun Safety that he doesn’t need to cast aspersions on anyone being beholden to any organization. He can pretend his motives are pure all he wants, but I’m not buying it. For him, it’s personal.

NJ Governor Wants To Make It Harder For Poor To Buy Guns Legally

H/T Bearing Arms.

DemocRats by hook or crook want to circumvent the Second Amendment.

When you want rational discourse on guns, you don’t go to New Jersey to get it. I know that, and you know that. After all, the state is perhaps one of the most insane when it comes to enforcing laws, continually ignoring federal law and arresting people lawfully carrying weapons through the state, and that’s just the tip of the old iceberg.

Now, New Jersey is taking things to a whole new level. Lawmakers want to make it even more difficult to purchase a firearm legally.

Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey wants to put the state at the forefront of a movement to raise fees on gun permits in order to expand efforts to tackle gun violence and reduce the flow of illegal firearms.

Though New Jersey has strict gun control laws, its firearms fees have not changed since the mid-1960s, making it a bargain for gun owners. A firearm identification card costs $5, while a permit to own a firearm is $2. A permit to carry a gun costs $20.

New York City, which also has stringent gun laws, charges $340 to apply for a permit to own and carry a gun.

Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, has proposed fees that would be among the highest in the country. An identification card would cost $100, an owner’s permit would be $50 and a carry permit $400.

Now, the carry permit fee looks ridiculous, but the poor shouldn’t worry too much about that. It’s virtually impossible for many people to get a carry permit in the Garden state anyway. They could be giving them away, but without serious changes in the state, no one will get one regardless.

Murphy has plans for the money raised by this.

Though he is prohibited by state law from directing the new revenue toward specific programs, Mr. Murphy said it would go toward anti-violence initiatives.

“There’s no war on responsible gun owners,” Mr. Murphy said in an interview. “We can support the efforts of the attorney general, state troopers, county and local law enforcement, to do the stuff we need to do: track crime, track gun violence, combat trafficking of illegal guns.

“I was in Jersey City,” he said. “It’s at least $10 to get a dog license in Jersey City. It’s still $2 to get a permit to purchase a firearm in New Jersey.”

It sounds like the issue is that dog licenses are too expensive, not that gun permits are too cheap.

Of course, even a single penny is too expensive for a gun permit. No one should have to ask permission to exercise a basic constitutional right.

Oddly enough, not all of Murphy’s opposition is from the pro-gun camp. Even some of his allies in the State Legislature have concerns about passing what they see as a tax hike. That’s a good sign, not that I think it’ll make much of a difference in the long run.

Look, Murphy can claim there’s no war on gun owners in his state, and he may mean it.

What it is, though, is a war on the poor and most vulnerable citizens such as the elderly. As it stands, those people don’t have hundreds upon hundreds of dollars for the “standard” firearms. They’re not scraping up the cash for a Glock or Smith & Wesson M&P or a Sig or anything of the type. They’re getting Hi-Points and firearms along those lines. They’re buying inexpensive guns because they need something to use for self-defense.

Murphy’s proposal will jack up the cost of legally acquiring a firearm to put it out of reach for many people.

He’s taking a steaming dump on the poorest of his state, all while pretending he actually gives a damn about them.

I’m sorry, Governor, but if you care about the poor, stop making it even more difficult for them to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Efforts to Recall Dems over Red Flag Law Grow in Colorado

H/T Gun Powder Magazine.

Hopefully, gun owners in Colorado will be successful in recalling and throwing these bums out of office.

Colorado’s Democratic Secretary of State, Jena Griswold, has approved a first wave of recall petitions in an effort led by Republican and Conservative groups attempting to recall a handful of anti-gun Democrats from office.

“The message that the Democrat Party should receive is that voters trusted them to move at a moderate pace,” Colorado GOP Chairman Ken Buck said during an interview with Marshall Zelinger. “Instead, the Democrats have promoted gun legislation that has frustrated a lot of voters.”

Values First Colorado, a political committee run by Joe Neville, brother of House Minority Leader Pat Neville, said the group is targeting Sen. Jeff Bridges (D-Greenwood Village) and Rep. Meg Froelich (D-Englewood) for their support of the state’s recently passed red flag gun confiscation bill.

Douglas County Sheriff Tony Spurlock is facing a recall effort because of his public support for the bill as well.

HB 1177, the state’s red flag bill, which Gov. Jared Polis (D just signed into law, would allow a person to petition a court to seize someone’s weapons if they deem them to be a danger to themselves or their community because of their mental health.
A court would then conduct an ex parte hearing, in which those seeking an order against someone provides evidence that a respondent is a clear and present danger to themselves or a community.

The respondent is not made aware of the hearing, but nevertheless bears the burden of proving him or herself innocent. The bill does not require a respondent to enter into mental health treatment.

The bill requires law enforcement departments to search a respondent’s home for weapons if a court has found that they are a danger to themselves or their community. Once the court files the orders, the respondent’s weapons are confiscated for up to 14 days while court proceedings are conducted to determine whether the accused is a danger or not.

“The effort is in place because he turned back on the values that got him elected,” Robert Wareham, a law enforcement veteran, family law attorney, and the registered agent for The Committee to Recall Sheriff Tony Spurlock, told Gunpowder Magazine.

“Spurlock said he supported the constitution, due process, and took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Instead, he’s become the poster child for what is nothing more than a thinly veiled gun confiscation scheme.”

HB 1177 requires a petitioner to sign a sworn affidavit to a court under the penalty to perjury that sets forth the reasonable basis for a protection order.

The bill says that people who file false statements while seeking a protection order may be subject to criminal punishment, but leaves the punishment to the discretion of a judge.

“In my 20 years of practicing family law, I can tell you that these protection orders get abused all of the time,” Wareham said. “I’ve seen cases where people are accused of domestic violence and spend the weekend in jail on trumped-up charges.

And district attorneys typically don’t want to prosecute these false allegations because they don’t want to dissuade people from filing these protection orders.”

Sen. President Leroy Garcia (D-Pueblo) and Rep. Bri Buentello (D-Pueblo) are also facing recall efforts, though neither of them voted for the red flag bill.

“Anyone who supported the red flag bill should pay a price,” Wareham said. “Garcia could have killed this bill, but instead he tacitly approved it by allowing a vote in his chamber. All he had to do was send it to a kill committee.”

Gov. Polis is also facing recall efforts.

Under state law, petitioners must collect signatures of 25 percent of the total ballots cast for each race. In the case of Gov. Polis, that equates to more than 631,000 signatures.

In 2013, Democratic Senate President John Morse and State Senator Angela Giron were recalled over their support for new gun control legislation.

Second Amendment ‘sanctuary county’ movement expands as organizers take aim at new gun laws

H/T The Chicago Tribune.

People in these counties in Illinois by creating these gun sanctuaries are letting the gun grabbing thugs in Springfield that they are tired of being crapped on.

t was no accident Effingham County’s resolution to protect the rights of gun owners stole an important word from the very people the resolution was intended to provoke, supporters of the country’s sanctuary cities movement.

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler last month told a raucous crowd the origin story behind the “Second Amendment sanctuary county” movement, which began in Effingham and now includes 64 of the state’s 102 counties, counties in three other states, and nine more states in which counties are eyeing similar nonbinding measures. And as state legislators, emboldened by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, look at more gun-control measures, counties are looking at more ways to resist them

Effingham County Board member David Campbell came to Kibler with a resolution passed by Iroquois County regarding gun rights, saying he wanted to do something similar, but questioned if they could make the language “a little more provocative,” he said in remarks posted on YouTube. He hit on the idea of alluding to some cities’ policies on cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.

“I said, well, they’re creating sanctuary counties for illegals up in Chicago, why don’t we just steal their word and make Effingham County a sanctuary county for firearms?” Kibler relayed to the crowd at a conservative gathering, to massive applause.

Effingham’s 2018 resolution asserted that at least five pieces of proposed Illinois legislation dealing with gun ownership would be unconstitutional. The resolution targeted proposed laws including those that would raise the minimum age for gun ownership to 21, outlaw various types of weapons, and outlaw bump stocks or body armor. It also demanded “the Illinois General Assembly cease further actions restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and demanded the governor veto any such bills.

When the measure passed in the county of about 35,000 last spring, it may have looked like a publicity stunt or a way to provoke Chicago officials who object to Trump administration immigration policies. But as the movement gained traction, it also has grown in substance. County sheriffs and state’s attorneys have publicly backed the cause, saying they will use their discretion to leave new gun laws unenforced.

Close to Chicago, Ogle, Boone and LaSalle counties have passed such resolutions and are among the more than 50 percent of Illinois counties to do so in the past year. Campbell keeps a map in which counties that have passed resolutions are colored green and those where no action has taken place are marked red. There also are yellow and orange counties, for those that are voting soon and those where a movement is underway to introduce the resolution to the county board.

Only 12 counties are red, including Cook County, meaning the other 90 are either on board or entertaining the idea.

In Cook County, officials have generally supported more restrictions on gun ownership and the types of guns available, in an attempt to reduce violence involving guns. Cara Smith, chief of policy for Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, who has supported closing what he and others see as loopholes in firearm laws, including the firearm owner’s identification card process, said she does not recall anyone reaching out to Dart’s office to pitch a sanctuary county resolution.

“It’s the age-old struggle with gun control efforts in Illinois. Historically, central and southern Illinois, fortunately for them, don’t experience the kind of gun violence and trauma that Cook County and some of the collar counties do,” Smith said. “There’s always been this divide.”

On April 9, Plainfield Township adopted its own “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolution. It is notable not just because of Plainfield’s proximity to Chicago, but also because it’s the first township to pass this type of resolution.

The movement has spread “like wildfire,” Campbell says, in part because gun rights advocates believe the state’s current laws are unconstitutional.

“It’s not a binding law, it’s to get the attention of legislators. I think there is a big disconnect — our lawmakers down here really don’t have a say, they’re overwhelmed by the Democrats,” Campbell said. “I will say that legal gun owners can rest much easier knowing they have a safe haven

Effingham County on Monday upped the ante, this time adopting a resolution to ban state firearm owner’s identification cards, Campbell said, mainly to send a signal, based on a White County case in which a rifle owner asserted Second Amendment rights after an arrest. Before Effingham even passed the resolution, 20 counties had contacted Campbell to ask for a copy, he said.

But Campbell said until the Illinois Supreme Court weighs in on the matter, gun owners need to keep a current FOID card.

“I still believe that people need to have a FOID card, although I think it’s unconstitutional to require someone to pay a fee for a constitutionally protected right,” he said.

Monroe County Sheriff Neal Rohlfing is one of a handful of sheriffs who have thrown their support behind the latest measure, as has Kibler. Sheriffs and state’s attorneys can to some extent control who is arrested or charged with a crime, moving the nonbinding resolution into the sphere of practical implementation. Each has said they plan to use their discretion when making arrests and charging decisions regarding guns.

“We in law enforcement can’t assign police to families for personal protection and I think that’s what the Second Amendment is all about — personal protection for yourself and your loved ones,” Rohlfing said.

Rohlfing said the FBI’s 2016 Uniform Crime Report — which details the number of violent felonies nationwide — explains why the sanctuary county movement has snowballed. There were 941 homicides in Illinois that year, and 762 of them were in Chicago, he said.

“All of them are tragic, all of them,” Rohlfing said. “But we just don’t have the type of illegal gun activity Chicago has.”

If fingerprints become a requirement for a firearm owner’s card, as proposed in House Bill 96, he said people would need to comply with that unless the group is successful in getting FOID cards declared unconstitutional statewide.

“I wouldn’t take the approach of, hey, don’t worry about it, and don’t get the FOID cards,” Rohlfing said. “… If you have to submit your prints every few years and that prevents something like Aurora, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I think most people wouldn’t have a problem with that.”

Edwards County also was added to the list of green counties this month. Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe is a concealed-carry instructor who has taught many in his county. In a 2018 interview, he said the majority of applicants were pursuing the permit so they could leave a weapon in their vehicle during hunting season.

“We’re actually closer hour- and mile-wise to Nashville, Tennessee, than we are to Chicago and we identify in most ways more with Kentucky, Indiana and such than with Chicago,” Boewe said.

Kibler has said state’s attorneys are able to weigh decisions on a case-by-case basis and that will continue. When explaining discretion, he often uses the example of a man from Mississippi who was passing through Effingham County on his way to visit relatives in Chicago. The man had a small revolver visible inside a driver’s-side door compartment when he was pulled over. He originally was arrested by a state trooper for having a loaded weapon in the car.

“I said, ‘get him out of here and give him his gun back.’ The state of Illinois should not be making a felon out of this man,” Kibler said.

Kibler also said the central and southern parts of the state are dealing with high rates of methamphetamine use and police and the state’s attorney’s office don’t have time to pursue minor gun cases.

“We don’t have the luxury of trying to enforce the laws that come on down from high from liberal jurisdictions while we’re making record numbers of arrests in a meth epidemic,” he said.