[Wreck-n-Crew]

The following were posts made by someone who used my computer and are not mine. I have taken steps to insure it doesn't happen again and apologize for allowing my security to lack. I also disagree with these post. Once again sorry TFL. I did notify a staff member and since the post's were not refractions I am deleting or editing them.

The entire point of a judicial challenge to a law is both to get an unjust law overturned so the legislature can create a just one in it's place if the law served a just purpose, AND to provide The People with one avenue to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.

I would not disagree with it being her right, just with the path chosen. I don't like the process for the simple fact that the process is flawed and has opened the door for many who have used it similarly to legislate from the bench.

When Law becomes subject to it's intention, it ends up being the same as interpretation from a judicial standpoint, at which point the law could lose it's power. Reason for the "rains on the just as well as the unjust" point.

Though I understand that the law is like a fishing net made for netting shrimp and some fish get caught in it. However the majority of the fish are not harmed and returned. Some however are and when that happens we look to find a solution.

In order for that "net" (LAW) to be better, it must be redesigned, tested, adjusted and tested again. That is the time consuming but proving way.

Having law temporarily changed until a new one can be perfected is for severe cases. I don't see this case as something in dire and immediate need.


Quote:
Are you suggesting a curfew from 1201 PM to 11:59 AM is unjust, but people should not challenge it in the courts, but instead work to change it in their 2 minutes of freedom every day?

I think that is stretched metaphorically. The the idea that the law in this case is that constricting is a little much therefor my answer is yes. If you want something changed, do the work to get it changed.

Tempest Horsley has claimed that the response defense of the State, led by Madigan's office basically says that her right to abortion(if she was just a year younger 17, she wouldn't need parental consent) is more important than her 2A Rights to self defense.

These are two separate issues and the statement about abortion has no bearing on law, so the abortion statement is irrelevant.

I think the issue then remains her FOID and the Law is the Law. I stand with the law because bending the rules for one person can have more negative consequences than positive. "It rains on the just as well as the unjust".

Do I think the Law should change? Yes but conditionally.

Also I think she went about things the wrong way. She should be fighting to have it changed and accepting why it's in place to begin with.

Quote:
Put another way, Wreck-n-Crew, why do you think FOID should be tweaked instead of tossed?

Yes I think it needs some fixing and if tweaking gets it there all the better.

My biggest concern is route to fixing it. As much as most people (myself included) would like to see things done more easily, history says the easy path can be a minefield.

The thing complicating our world the most is not simplicity , but the lengths as to which one must go to close loopholes in what should be simple laws that need no interpretation.

Hope I got them all, sorry again all...