So Rahmbo decides to tell his cops to issue citations for "minor" pot possession rather than go through the full arrest and process procedure.

Now I haven't reviewed the statutes in depth on the issue, but it seems like they are handling this criminal act in a different fashion than state law would dictate.

So, what''s to stop communities or counties from adopting a similar policy for CCW barring any other criminal activity?

Thus the reason why many municipalities create Ordinances with nearly identical language to the State Statutes, although how that doesn't trip double jeopardy is by the thinnest of judicial and legislative flim-flammery.



I have heard this repeatedly, and it may be a matter of "understanding", but I tried to look for statutory and (state) constitutional language that expressely stated that and I could not find it.

Is this a matter of this concept being an "accepted nature of the law" or something I'm unaware of?

This question will almost certainly be answered in the case law. I doubt there's any case law on point, so your job will be to analogize between fact patterns.

For example, in City of DeKalb v. White, 591 N.E. 2d. 522 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. 1992), the court held that "although home rule municipality could exercise any power or could legislate to protect public health, safety, and welfare of its community, the Illinois vehicle code had to be applicable and uniform throughout the state and no municipality could enact or enforce any ordinance in conflict with its provisions."

In opposition to that case is Witvoet v. Quinlan, 354 N.E. 2d. 524 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 1976), although ILCS "[section] pertaining to protection of farmers, fruit growers, vine growers, and gardeners granted to farmers an “undisputed right to sell” their produce in direct conflict with attempt by city of Chicago to limit such right via an ordinance prohibiting the selling, packing and storing of produce on a public way, where foodstuffs and, especially, produce were subject to spoilage and vermin and, as such, presented a serious health hazard unless closely supervised by local authorities, ordinance was enacted for the protection of the public health and safety and, as such, constituted a valid exercise of the home rule power of the city."

Perhaps if a municipality argued that it permits concealed carry of a firearm for public health and safety reasons it could survive an attack for being in direct conflict of a state statute.

I don't know about this one though. There are 685 cases in the "notes on decisions" section of Westlaw concerning the powers of home-rule units and I simply don't have the time to sift through all of them.