Nine out of 10 Illinois sheriffs WILL NOT ENFORCE new gun law

vibise said:
vibise said:
As I pointed out above, a State Attorney in FL refused to enforce a law he did not like and was fired. He sued and lost in court. The same should apply to sheriffs who refuse to enforce laws they don't like.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And, as was pointed out to you, the two are not similar. The prosecutor in Florida refused to uphold the law because he had a personal political disagreement with them and was fired , just as Florida's constitution says he should be.

The sheriffs, on the other hand, is refusing to enforce illegal laws.
 
Reformedguy said:
Of course when Roe vs Wade was overturned and left leaning district attorneys and attorney generals proclaimed they would not enforce laws protecting the unborn they were hailed as hero's. Seems like vibise and her new found love of law enforcement is a little hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder, nobody was punished for lying under oath to the Supreme Court about Norma mcCorvey matter. r v w
lying under oath law is against the law and was not enforced.
 
vibise said:
Not all sheriffs are voted into office.
And all sheriffs in office take an oath to uphold the law. There is no clause that says they can pick and choose what laws to uphold.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the highest law of the land, the US constitution states that law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms
 
vibise said:
As I pointed out above, a State Attorney in FL refused to enforce a law he did not like and was fired. He sued and lost in court. The same should apply to sheriffs who refuse to enforce laws they don't like.
Click to expand...
If the City, County,, or State terminates the officer, the courts will decide the outcome, and it could very well be a big lawsuit award for liable, harm, and back pay?

Cities, Counties, and States overreach their authority all the time, that ends in a big paycheck for those harmed $$$
 
4Him said:
Moot. Pregnancy crisis centers have nothing to do with a constitutional right, the 2nd amendment does.
Click to expand...
And the second amendment can be restricted, just like all other rights in the Constitution.
Scalia's decision specifically said that that is the case.

Sheriffs do not make the law.
 
Truth7t7 said:
Yes, and the highest law of the land, the US constitution states that law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms
Click to expand...
With restrictions, according to the SCOTUS, which interprets the Constitution to determine which laws are Constitutional.

What about this don't you get?
If sheriffs can make up their own laws and claim them to be Constitutional, then why have a SCOTUS?
Your way would lead to a different set of enforced laws in each jurisdiction headed by a sheriff.

From the International Association of Chiefs of Police:
Sworn law enforcement officers are those who have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, their state, and the laws of their agency's jurisdiction. Sworn officers also have the responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of life of the communities they serve.
Click to expand...
 
Truth7t7 said:
If the City, County,, or State terminates the officer, the courts will decide the outcome, and it could very well be a big lawsuit award for liable, harm, and back pay?

Cities, Counties, and States overreach their authority all the time, that ends in a big paycheck for those harmed $$$
Click to expand...
And if the person is fired for not doing their duty, and the court upholds that as it did in FL, that person might have to pay all court costs.
 
Last edited:
4Him said:
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No one said they made laws, but they are to follow THE CONSTITUTION.
Click to expand...
So you know better than Justice Scalia?

This is directly from the Heller decision and the paragraph is complete, with nothing left out:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Click to expand...

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

This is a decision by SCOTUS on gun rights. They interpreted the Constitution and expanded gun rights for some circumstances but also included the above statement.
 
Reformedguy said:
Its what they were appealing for them to do. And if they actually did it you would be okay with it. Its called hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Huh?

Because some are trying to convince the DA to do something illegal, you think I would be ok with it if the DA did that?
No. I would not.

DAs have certain amounts of prosecutorial discretion, but that discretion has to be applied within the strictures of the law.
 
vibise said:
Huh?

Because some are trying to convince the DA to do something illegal, you think I would be ok with it if the DA did that?
No. I would not.

DAs have certain amounts of prosecutorial discretion, but that discretion has to be applied within the strictures of the law.
Click to expand...
Sherrifs do to then. If your pulled over speeding they do not have to ticket you do they? They can simply tell you to slow down and let you go. Are you going to fire them?
 
Mike McK said:
And, as was pointed out to you, the two are not similar. The prosecutor in Florida refused to uphold the law because he had a personal political disagreement with them and was fired , just as Florida's constitution says he should be.

The sheriffs, on the other hand, is refusing to enforce illegal laws.
Click to expand...
A political disagreement, or a constitutional agreement? Can you link to where the DA said this was political?

Sheriffs are required to enforce laws that are in place in their jurisdiction. They have nothing whatsoever to do with determining what laws are passed, nor can they unilaterally claim that any law is "unconstitutional". They have neither the training nor the mandate to do any such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top