Illinois Law Banning Semi-Auto Firearms a Violation of Their Own State Constitution
Author: Silence DoGood
In response to the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre the Illinois state house has proposed legislation to not only ban guns but criminalize the owners as well. The only problem with the bill or bills is that the Illinois state house is governed by the state Constitution that has been “adopted at special election on December 15, 1970,” which means that a more modern Constitution that governs the state of Illinois and it’s legislature has the right to “keep and bear arms”.
“HB 815 amendment 1 & 2 and HB 1263 amendments 5 & 6 were passed out of the Illinois Senate Public Health Committee last night, advancing to the full Senate floor for a debate and possible approval later today,” according to Infowars.com.
HB 815 Amendments 1 & 2 and HB 1263 Amendments 5 & 6 that have any provisions to ban firearms which also defines guns, semi-autos, and even the term weapons that can fire bullets are all considered arms which is protected under the 1970 December 15 ratified State Constitution of Illinois. That means in the event that any officials inside the state that engage in confiscation of peoples legally registered and owned firearms, they have a right to know the names of the officers that confiscated the firearms and then file a lawsuit with the county district state courthouse that the firearms being confiscated due to a state law banning his/her firearms is in violation of Section 22 Article I of the Illinois State Constitution adopted and ratified on December 15, 1970. You can read the Amendment for yourself at ilga.gov (Illinois General Assembly website) with the quotes “Section 22. Right to Arms,” stating that “Subject only to police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Also with local police, the local municipal police departments are created by the town and city governments which are created by municipal corporation created charters, in other words a town or city Constitution per se, which are local laws that are passed by both houses of the state which allows a town or city to be officially registered with the state government and subject to the state Constitution. That means town and city charters are subject to the laws of the state and regulated in accordance to charter laws. City and Town governments are municipal corporate entities and are also considered a legal body politic which are all legal lawyer terms but nevertheless means that all state police and even local authorities are all subject to the state Constitution and that Federal police forces are subject to the US Constitution. The thing is the US Federal Constitution has the 2nd Amendment so any attempt to confiscate or even charge individuals that own firearms are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Any state police and local law enforcement and even State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) agents that attempt to use force to confiscate firearms and criminalize individuals for their firearms is in direct violation and infringement of Article I Section 22 of the Illusion State Constitution. Since all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are void, Marbury Vs. Madison (1803) and thousands of other federal and also state rulings for example, any state or even local laws which are ordinances passed by state registered political entities subject to the State Constitution, if any state or local laws are passed infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms then those laws are invalid as if the law never existed. If a police officer enforces a law he/she knows to be invalid then they may be subject to a state lawsuit at the county or even superior court since the police have no legal subject matter jurisdiction in order to take someones firearms and would be considered theft of someones legal and protected private property. The firearms owner cannot just only be released from imprisonment for legal firearm ownership protected by the state Constitution but can sue the state government and town or city municipal corporation entities for using the color of law or charter registered by the state to illegally and unconstitutionally seize a individuals firearm ownership.
So let’s look at what a lawyer might see when he/she reads “the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Now first of all it says individual citizen meaning both a US Citizen residing in the state and even natural born resident of the state meaning somebody whom was born in that state but nevertheless means any citizen living within the boundaries of that state. It says the right to keep and bear arms which means we have the right to possess firearms as you cannot keep firearms without possession of them. By banning possession of firearms the right to keep arms will be infringed. Since the section was adopted into the state Constitution in 1970 it is a more modern drafted Constitution thus meaning it cannot be treated as obsolete simply because of the modern times we all live in which is one excuse Constitution violators like to use is that it should only apply to the old times and not the modern times. When you look-up the definition of the term “bear arms” it means to “to carry weapons”, the right to carry and keep firearms is engraved into the Illinois Constitution then we have the US Constitution which has the 2nd Amendment which also carries the right to keep and bear arms and that the militia be allowed to secure the free state.
No matter what justification the state representatives and senators can use to justify a bill to ban firearms, it would be null and void when a citizen of that state files a complaint with the State court and requests that there be questions as to whether the state law violates the Constitution of that said state. The state Attorney General that will likely be named as the defendant can give their arguments as to why he/she believes that state law is Constitutional and then the plaintiffs can argue Section 22 and Article I and explain to the justice or Superior judge what that Amendment talks about and apply it to the modern cases of firearms carry and ownership, and then the judge will give the verdict based on law and facts not based on fantasy as some activist judges like to do. Of course a proper judge will always rule in favor of valid Constitution arguments and will enforce a nullification and injunction on the state legislation in part or in whole, whatever violates the Constitution, banning any kind of firearms as it violates Section 22 Article I of the state Constitution unless the state legislature went through it’s Constitutional process of removing that Amendment or section which would be very difficult to do as it can be a lengthy process in other words the state may have to get permission from a majority of voters. Unless that provision and the 2nd Amendment are removed, any police that enforce and legislators that pass legislation banning firearms are in violation of the State Constitution. The Constitution is meant to restrict government as government cannot always be trusted so checks and balances are put in to keep the peace and order of the country and state.