Dan Caulkins’ attorney Jerry Stocks is hitting back at the Illinois State Police claim that a court ruling striking down a law as unconstitutional is somehow not applicable to the entire state.

Todd Vandermyde over at Freedom’s Steel on YouTube indicated that the Illinois State Police took action against one gun shop who began selling guns after the final judgement came down in the Macon County case.

Caulkins, through his attorney Jerry Stocks in Decatur, has hit back.

Today, Dan Caulkins, a plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Protect Illinois Communities Act, issued the following statement:

“Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly is a lawyer and former States Attorney for St. Clair County. He certainly knows this law, Protect Illinois Communities Act (Public Act 102-1116), has been ruled facially unconstitutional. Rather than doing the right and honorable thing – obeying the ruling of Judge Forbes, Macon County Order 2023-CH-3, until the Illinois Supreme Court rules on the appeal – he is allowing the Pritzker administration to weaponize his agency against the law abiding citizens of our state.

Any business or individual who is subjected to the enforcement of this unconstitutional law must immediately contact their attorney to investigate taking legal action against the Director and any sworn officer involved.”

Caulkins, through his attorney, sure seems to be saying, “Hey, Brendan.  Make our day.  We’ll be coming after you PERSONALLY for a Section 1983 violation if anyone is subject to enforcement of a law ruled facially unconstitutional.  Ditto for individual officers or agents of the ISP (like those contract employees who do the gun dealer licensing inspections).  

Especially the dealer license inspectors, that $25 an hour isn’t looking so good if you get whacked with a six-figure claim for a 1983 violation.  And if you lose your qualified immunity, you’re on the hook for that from your personal assets…

What are 1983 violations?

“Section 1983 Litigation” refers to lawsuits brought under Section 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights) of Title 42 of the United States Code (42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 provides an individual the right to sue state government employees and others acting “under color of state law” for civil rights violations. Section 1983 does not provide civil rights; it is a means to enforce civil rights that already exist.

Deprivation of civil rights under the color of authority.  

It’s gettin’ good.

My popcorn is popped and ready for consumption!

12 thoughts on “CAULKINS HITS BACK: Pritzker ‘weaponizing’ the ISP against law-abiding citizens… Director Kelly risking Section 1983 lawsuits”
  1. Regarding Illinois gun shops that have lost business sales of their previously legal inventory (harmed) due to the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (PICA), and law abiding Illinois citizens (FOID holders) who have been deprived of the ability to purchase America’s favorite rifle, etc. From my understanding of the above Section 1983 information, and assuming the PICA will be ruled unconstitutional Federally per Bruen, would such harmed Illinois gun shop owners, and harmed law abiding Illinois citizens have legal redress to sue Illinois Politicians who knowingly voted for and passed an unconstitutional PICA. Do you think there are attorneys who would take up cases such as these?

    1. My thoughts exactly. It would seem every Democrap lawmaker who voted for this to begin with could be held personally responsible because of 1983. Maybe that’s what needs to be done next, to hopefully make them think twice before they do any more of this s**t.

    2. Sounds like Tom DeVore has another cause to eff with the political establishment. Wouldn’t it be sweet if he could name every legislator voted for this along with Pritzker and Raoul.

  2. I am not sure who yo believe. Which is probably exactly as Governor Butterball wants it

    1. Absolutely correct, Freddy. This chaos is exactly what Fatwad is playing for. The Macon County judge didn’t go far enough in the ruling, and left the door open for further interpretation instead of simply declaring the law unconstitutional ‘statewide’. I personally believe that the law does apply statewide, since you cannot have a state law that only applies to certain areas or people in that state by definition. My opinion, however, doesn’t mean anything.

  3. Huh, I think this is exactly what Tom DeVore said. But he’s a no good grifter, who’s just out to make a buck. Who told these dealers and people that it was ok to sell & buy?????? I think it would be appropriate that Dan Caulkins, Jerry Stocks, Illinois state rifle association, & GunsSaveLife should offer to pay for the legal expenses of these poor individuals who got trapped in taking poor legal advice from people not qualified to give it. Truth Hurts

    1. Sure. We’ll get right on that and introduce moral hazard to it. Are they going to give us any settlements from successful 1983 lawsuits when it’s all said and done?

    2. I think DeVore’s made, what, $1.4M so far? And he’s “protected” 7,000 ish plaintiffs? But he’s fighting for everyone. Or so he says.
      Meanwhile Caulkins protected the whole state for about $20k.
      Who’s the more altruistic? And I’ll go with the altruistic person almost every time.


  4. I am worried that we can win in court all we want, but Illinois will ignore the courts and arrest us anyway. Many GSL members cannot afford to fight the powers that be. How will SCOTUS or the Illinois courts enforce their decisions? SCOTUS cannot even protect its own members.

  5. With all this ambiguity going on, can’t someone just go to the judge and ask him, “Hey judge, did you intend your ruling to be effective statewide or not?”

Comments are closed.