DK, the proof that we (both the US and Illinois) are not in a "police state" is the fact that this guy was brought up on charges at all. If he was above the law, they never would have bothered charging him with anything. When you read the decision, you'll note that the plaintiff is consistently referred to as "the Government" - that same government that you're intent on branding a police state.
I see this case as proof that your basic premise is wrong.
Are you going to call for the execution of this judge next, as is your usual style?
You're really stretching on this one. I honestly don't think that you bothered to read past the introduction of the decision, which is what you quoted above. This decision revolves around whether or not Vest had the permission to purchase and use the weapon in question as a part of his duties as the equipment officer for the Illinois State Police SWAT team and head rifle instructor for the department. There's also the question as to whether or not Vest's superior in the ISP had the authority to grant him permission to buy the gun or if the authority had to come from the Federal government. Given that the judge came down squarely on the side of states' rights, I would think that you would be pleased with this.
Quote:
|
If this were any civilian, they'd be facing 10 years in prison for doing the same exact thing that this ISP officer did.
|
If you'd actually read the decision, you'd know that it's absolutely impossible for a civilian to "the same exact thing". The case revolves solely around Vest's employment with the State Police, which excludes civilians explicitely.