Yes some of us are aware of the so called "casual racism"...problem is many refuse to see the truth behind what they are being told....first case of murdered women being pregnant that comes thru lets see if they only charge the perp with 1 murder and not 2...There's a guy in Alabama, on death row I believe, who challenged his double murder conviction for killing a pregnant woman and her unborn child. Specifically the conviction for murdering the child, or as people like Pritzker would say, "clump of cells" (with eyes, fingerprints, a heartbeat....). He asked a simple question - why can he be convicted of murder for killing the kid if she can trot into an abortion clinic and "take care of it" and it's a "right." Alabama Supreme Court went and said "Well, under PP v. Casey, an abortion is health care." Affirmed the conviction. Don't recall if the dissent, concurrence, or majority stated this is a HUGE problem with Roe v. Wade. An unequal application of the law. Frankly, I believe the one murder conviction should've been vacated. That would be equal application of the law. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Gun licensing bill fails, supporters vow to bring it back
Posted 02 June 2019 - 01:58 PM
C&R License Holder
Posted 03 June 2019 - 12:20 PM
"Dangerous people are revoked every day." I didn't know people could be revoked. Scary.
pretty simple really.....ask Stalin or Zuckerburg.
Posted 03 June 2019 - 01:26 PM
An unequal application of the law.
I'm all for equal application of the law, the law should not vary, the courts should clearly define if it's a human life or it's not, and apply that single single standard across the board to all applicable laws. Even if that means taking the bad with the good as is the case many times with 'rights'
Edited by Flynn, 03 June 2019 - 01:27 PM.
Posted 03 June 2019 - 02:55 PM
With Accurate Biometrics taking a position of supporting the bill (correct me if wrong), I would never use them or recommend them to anyone.
The accurate biometrics lobbiests were all over this. They're former Tom Dart and other Illinois gov agency stoolies so they knew exactly how much constitutional law they could violate and get away with.
No, they support it. It’s Dart’s people that are their lobbyists too
Their witness slip was for House Amendment 001, not for HA003. I guess they lost their appetite for this idea when legislators capped fees at cost.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users