And while both should be held to a very high standard [being entrusted with life & liberty] and should be prosecuted for violations, the scum that bold faced says F.U to The People by blatantly drafting and passing 'law' that is in obvious conflict with established case law [such as Heller] or plain English [such as 'shall not be infringed' ] shouldve been summarily bound and publicly lynched or shot on the council lawn...
ANYTHING less, which is what weve NOT done in a hundred years, just furthers the degradation of the Republic and allows these POS continue their agenda...
The Govzilla monster has outgrown its cage and individually we all know we're martyr wannabes if we oil the pitchfork alone...
that is why it will continue to be litigated till hell freezes over or socialism finally wins...whichever comes first...
LFOD...
If a cop arrests someone for something that is not a crime, the cop should at minimum receive a written reprimand and, more importantly, no longer be able to claim ignorance.
BTW, one thing I would like to see would be a means by which citizens could participate in prosecutions. Given the rules against double jeopardy, having a separate trial for the state prosecutor and a private one wouldn't be practical, but allowing both state and private prosecutors to present evidence and examine witnesses might not be unreasonable. Currently, there's nothing to prevent states from deliberately throwing certain cases (especially against government employees). If a private prosecutor could introduce evidence and ask questions that the state prosecutor neglected, that would seem to solve that problem.
As to whether private prosecutors should only be allowed when government officials are on trial, or whether their role should be broader, I don't know. Applying the concept more broadly would have some advantages, but also some risks. What would you think?