Our FF's & LEO's oath includes "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to enforce the laws of the State of Illinois and the Ordinances of the City".

Quoted: How do you go about defending the Constitution of the US if the State of Illinois and the Ordinances of the City are in violation of it?

Well, I know that some in power here will argue that until incorporation is established, their feifdoms are immune from such things as SCOTUS.

Remember, we're talking about a [s[mayor petty dictator who had city crews bulldoze the runways of an active and busy GENAV airport without so much as a NOTAM, who CCW's as a "Conservator Of the Peace" while continuing to insist the subjects of Illannoys don't "need" guns, and who keeps insisting that Shitcago gun control will never be truly successful until the "51st ward" (the rest of the state) is disarmed as well, and sends his cronies to the state capitol to try to effect such change .

Quoted: Quoted: Our FF's & LEO's oath includes "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to enforce the laws of the State of Illinois and the Ordinances of the City". Fixed for you. All better now.

If we were donning ACU or MARPAT the pattern that shall not be named that would be fine.

There are lots of non-gun laws that still need enforcing, and I know of several cases where the more onerous and objectionable laws were not enforced, simply by the reporting officer failing to notice any probable cause to suspect that said laws had been broken during his investigation.

Of course, I'm also glad that I don't work or live in Shitcago or Crook County, and I try my hardest to fight every one of the incursions they attempt through their downstate agents.

Quoted: i dont know but i thought it was a oath to uphold the laws of the constitution.. hence why running from the cops accross state lines wont save your butt cause they will keep following you... However what do i know.. i aint no cop.

"Laws of the Constitution"? Mmmmmkay.

Actually, there is much existing case law concerning active pursuit that "governs" such actions much more effectively than the Constitution in that regard, both as far as local jurisdictions and inter-state.

The oath generally includes supporting the Federal and State consitutions, the laws of the Nation, state and city, in that order.  Now, as to the so called constitutionality of laws, cops do not have a personal opinion.  By our legal tradition, laws enacted by the legislature and signed by the executive, are presumed to be constitutional until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction rules them unconstitutional.  At that point, the cops will stop enforcing the law that is no longer valid.

For instance.  A new state pre emption law went into effect in Ohio last year or so.  It was enacted by the State legislature and applied state wide.  The law basically forbade municipalities from enacting ordinances more restrictive than state law so as to promote uniformity throughout the state on firearms related matters.  Prior to that time Cleveland had an ordinance that required local registration of handguns and forbade open carry.  They interpreted printing under clothing as open carry unless you didn't have a license, then it was CCW.  In short, the Mayor and law department sought to harass gang bangers and along the way refused to distinguish legitimate gun owners.  

With the new law, the Cleveland Police publicly stated that they would not enforce the invalid ordinance even though ordered to continue to do so by the mayor.  It did not matter whether any particular cop agreed or disagreed, only that the ordinance was in conflict with the higher state law and the cops refused to be sued for false arrest based upon the Mayor's whim.

Quoted: All new officers at my department are sworn in on the date of hire.

After the date of hire, they are regularly sworn at.