Picking and Choosing the Law

The most recent culture war legal foray is yet another large amount of shouting without much to say.

Illinois, true to political form, did something popular with its dense urban centers and unpopular with its rural outliers: it purported to ban assault rifles.

This post is not to discuss whether such an action is constitutional; I think in light of recent decisions it will be found to be unconstitutional.

But rather than wait for the inevitable SCOTUS ruling, several Illini shire-reeves and other officials have put out very serious-sounding statements that they will not follow this law and go around confiscating assault rifles, on the basis that (1) that’s a pretty stupid use of department time and (2) they’re liable to get shot oh and (3) they don’t think it’s constitutional.

“I have just made it illegal for restaurants to refuse to give you an extra dip on your Italian beef sandwiches, and my office will stridently prosecute anyone who cheaps out on giardiniera.”

Queue a bunch of liberal hand-wringing about “but should we allow police to arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce?” As if these same folks were not the ones cheering when a progressive DA or police chief says she will not prosecute people for smoking marijuana. Sauce for the goose is, as they say, sauce for the gander.

So what are we to make of individual public officials making constitutional judgment calls?