Reformedguy
Well-known member
Its what they were appealing for them to do. And if they actually did it you would be okay with it. Its called hypocrisyAppealing to DAs is a far cry from a DA actually ignoring a law.
Its what they were appealing for them to do. And if they actually did it you would be okay with it. Its called hypocrisyAppealing to DAs is a far cry from a DA actually ignoring a law.
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.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.
Just a reminder, nobody was punished for lying under oath to the Supreme Court about Norma mcCorvey matter. r v wOf 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.
Yes, and the highest law of the land, the US constitution states that law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear armsNot 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.
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?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.
NopeWhich is what they did.
And the second amendment can be restricted, just like all other rights in the Constitution.Moot. Pregnancy crisis centers have nothing to do with a constitutional right, the 2nd amendment does.
With restrictions, according to the SCOTUS, which interprets the Constitution to determine which laws are Constitutional.Yes, and the highest law of the land, the US constitution states that law abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms
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.
Yep.Nope
And the second amendment can be restricted,
No one said they made laws, but they are to follow THE CONSTITUTION.just like all other rights in the Constitution.
Scalia's decision specifically said that that is the case.
Sheriffs do not make the law.
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.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 $$$
Notice that vibise had ducked this questionIf Vibise lived in the 1940s in Germany and the law was passed to round up the jews into concentration camps. Her position is thst since that is the law, then it has to be done.
So you know better than Justice Scalia?SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
No one said they made laws, but they are to follow THE CONSTITUTION.
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.
Was that an actual law in Germany?Notice that vibise had ducked this question
Huh?Its what they were appealing for them to do. And if they actually did it you would be okay with it. Its called hypocrisy
Not sure what you think he said that negates SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.So you know better than Justice Scalia?
You are sidestepping. If it was an actual law, your argument is that it should be enforced.Was that an actual law in Germany?
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?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.
A political disagreement, or a constitutional agreement? Can you link to where the DA said this was political?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.
Law enforcement agents are obligated to enforce whatever laws are in place.You are sidestepping. If it was an actual law, your argument is that it should be enforced.