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

"Not guilty" does not mean "innocent".

"Innocent" means "didn't do it".
"Not guilty" means "the prosecution didn't convince the jury".

Of course it does.
But calling a thing "murder", when there are no legal consequences, does not matter.

Under Nazi German law, very likely - why else would it have been carried out in secret?

Uhhh... no.
Can you cite the laws that allowed for the extermination of "undesirables"?

No.

"Attempts at abstinence do not always lead to success."

Do you dispute this claim?
So he is guilty yet not guilty? Either he committed murder or he did not.

So if there were legal consequences it would be murder? So before Roe vs Wade it was murder but a day later it was not?

In Nazi Germany?

Nope. But when you are successful it works every time it's tried It success rate is 100%. Do you dispute this claim?
 
So he is guilty yet not guilty?
He was found not guilty.
Did he do it? Only he knows.
Either he committed murder or he did not.
Agreed.
The jury's verdict means that the prosecution failed to convince them that he did commit murder.
So if there were legal consequences it would be murder?
Other way around - if it were murder, there would be legal consequences.
So before Roe vs Wade it was murder but a day later it was not?
Correct.
Nope. But when you are successful it works every time it's tried
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

"I'm the best archer in the world - when I do hit the bullseye, I hit it every time I try!"
Do you dispute this claim?
The claim is too moronic even to be considered.
 
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:

It will soon be decided in a conservative US Supreme Court, and I'm very confident the previous Unconstitutional liberal rulings will be reversed, and the plaintiff's attorney is seeking a "Temporary Injunction" from a Donald Trump appointed judge, relating to the Illinois Governors actions, big smiles!​


TheFederalist

This Challenge To Illinois’ Gun Law Tees Up SCOTUS To Finally Nuke ‘Assault Weapons’ Bans​

JANUARY 19, 2023
6 MIN READ

This case seems destined for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has sidestepped the constitutionality of ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large-capacity’ magazine bans for years.

Illinois recently enacted ban on most semi-automatic rifles and so- called “high-capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in a federal district court. The case, Harrel v. Raoul, represents one of the first challenges to so-called “assault-weapons” bans since the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle v. Bruen made clear that the right to bear arms is not “a second-class right.”

On Wednesday, the case was assigned to federal Judge Stephen P. McGlynn, a Donald Trump appointee.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, David G. Sigale, told The Federalist he anticipates seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction “very soon,” noting that the statute has been in force since the governor signed the law on Jan. 10.
 
Last edited:
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.
A temporary injunction from a Donald Trump appointed Judge is days away from being secured in Illinois, the conservative US Supreme Court will soon hear the challenges to the Unconstitutional law enacted, anybody who is fired for not enforcing the unconstitutional law will be suing for damages and back pay, and it's highly probable they will win
 
Unfortunately, yes.
But they can always quit those jobs.
Wrong answer. But for the fact that northern states refused to enforce the fugitive slave law, the south would have never seceded from the union, the Civil War would never have happened, and there would still be slavery in the United States today. You just proposed in your answer to that question the only scenario under which we would still have slavery in the United States.
 
Last edited:
Wrong answer. But for the fact that northern states refused to enforce the fugitive slave law, the south would have never seceded from the union, the Civil War would never have happened, and there would still be slavery in the United States today. You just proposed in your answer to that question the only scenario under which we would still have slavery in the United States.
But hey, what's important is the slavery laws are valid and true to vibise until a court rules otherwise.
 
Wrong answer. But for the fact that northern states refused to enforce the fugitive slave law, the south would have never seceded from the union, the Civil War would never have happened, and there would still be slavery in the United States today. You just proposed in your answer to that question the only scenario under which we would still have slavery in the United States.
One difference is that the fugitive slave law was challenged by state courts and legislatures and then repealed, whereas the situation with sheriffs is refusal of individual law officers to enforce the law with no legal or legislative support.
 
He was found not guilty.
Did he do it? Only he knows.

Agreed.
The jury's verdict means that the prosecution failed to convince them that he did commit murder.

Other way around - if it were murder, there would be legal consequences.

Correct.

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

"I'm the best archer in the world - when I do hit the bullseye, I hit it every time I try!"

The claim is too moronic even to be considered.
So it's not effective every time it's tried? Let's do a experiment. Let's get two people to remain celibate, practice abstinence, and see if the woman gets pregnant. Then we will know right?

What does "not guilty" mean?
 
So it's not effective every time it's tried? Let's do a experiment. Let's get two people to remain celibate,
You changed terms right in the middle - you went from "try" to "remain".

If we get two people to try to remain celibate, will they always succeed?

I will answer my own question: no.
What does "not guilty" mean?
When rendered as a judicial verdict, "the jury were not convinced of guilt".

Colloquially, "did not do it".
 
You changed terms right in the middle - you went from "try" to "remain".

If we get two people to try to remain celibate, will they always succeed?

I will answer my own question: no.

When rendered as a judicial verdict, "the jury were not convinced of guilt".

Colloquially, "did not do it".
If they do succeed then the answer is obviously yes. Right?

So if he did do it, yet the state pronounces him not guilty, is it still murder?
 
One difference is that the fugitive slave law was challenged by state courts and legislatures and then repealed, whereas the situation with sheriffs is refusal of individual law officers to enforce the law with no legal or legislative support.
So until the law to take the jews to the camps wers challenged in court you would have kept rounding them up.
 
Back
Top