| Author | Post |
|---|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 02:11 am |
|
cato wrote: You need to WIN your 148 PC charge. It's also a firearms disqualifying misdemeanor in CA I believe.
I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO.
You seem to be ignorant of some basic laws and case laws which we have discussed here that are still controlling of 12031 "e" checks and detentions. I think you may be in for the legal fight of you life. Please Pm me your # number so we can talk about a few things if you want.
What am i missing here?? WHat exactly are you trying to say?? THat is lawfull to detain citizens that are acting lawfully because other citizens are afraid?? Am i missing something?? Do i have to let the violate my rights just cuz im persueing a career in law enforcement?? WTF!! I served in the marines i had no rights then and yesterday i felt that feeling all over i again
|
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 02:22 am |
|
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
I think that we actually need to assert that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right here first. That takes incorporation...
|
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 02:26 am |
|
stuckinchico wrote: cato wrote: You need to WIN your 148 PC charge. It's also a firearms disqualifying misdemeanor in CA I believe.
I would not and we have not encouraged members here to disobey orders (even unlawful ones) given by officers attempting to detain UOCers. That is not good strategy IMO.
You seem to be ignorant of some basic laws and case laws which we have discussed here that are still controlling of 12031 "e" checks and detentions. I think you may be in for the legal fight of you life. Please Pm me your # number so we can talk about a few things if you want.
What am i missing here?? WHat exactly are you trying to say?? THat is lawfull to detain citizens that are acting lawfully because other citizens are afraid?? Am i missing something?? Do i have to let the violate my rights just cuz im persueing a career in law enforcement?? WTF!! I served in the marines i had no rights then and yesterday i felt that feeling all over i again
stuckinchico, the trick is to get the evidence to prove that they violated your rights. Disobeying orders, however asinine or illegal or otherwise, just gets people shot, injured or fighting B.S. PC 148 charges. If you can get the evidence (voice recording, video recorder, etc) then you can come out on top and make a dent in some police budgets.
I know it sucks and I know it is frustrating. Unfortunately, we have to take the moral, ethical and legal high ground in everything we do or else we end up on the losing team. Keep your chin up and your voice recorder (DIGITAL RECORDER!) on and plug away.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:31 am |
|
Yeah im just afraid that if i lose this pc charge that i will no longer be able to have my firearms That would be hell!!!! I am hoping that this doesnt go to court but i am unsure i have never heard of anyone going ot court with this being the only charge have any of you guys??? how jacked up am i??
|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:43 am |
|
I wonder if the disarming/search/seizure was an unlawful act by LEO in the first place, in which case the PC 148 is a bad call?
If you were resisting, delaying or obstructing while they were UNLAWFULLY seizing does it stick?
I'm no lawyer, but I'd ask one if I was in the hot seat. 
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:44 am |
|
pullnshoot25 wrote:
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
I think that we actually need to assert that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right here first. That takes incorporation...
What's wrong with Nordyke?
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:49 am |
|
nukechaser wrote: I wonder if the disarming/search/seizure was an unlawful act by LEO in the first place, in which case the PC 148 is a bad call?
If you were resisting, delaying or obstructing while they were UNLAWFULLY seizing does it stick?
I'm no lawyer, but I'd ask one if I was in the hot seat.
THATs exactly my strategy If the detention is unlawful nothing else matters I am in law classes and my professor is a retired city police chief and he continually stresses that point
|
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 04:30 am |
|
marshaul wrote: pullnshoot25 wrote:
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
I think that we actually need to assert that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right here first. That takes incorporation...
What's wrong with Nordyke?
Nothing at all, except that it is under en banc review and as such is not binding case law.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 04:33 am |
|
i just got done doing my legal brief and my motion to dismiss my case. I have enough grounds to prove that my detention was unlawful........
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:01 am |
|
marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
We already have CA Appellate Court case law which says "e" checks do not violate the 4th A. He would need to be convicted and then ride the case up to the CA SC and from there lateral to SCOTUS. Does he have a spare mil lying around?
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:04 am |
|
UMMMM god if only !!!! I would be OC and CC my weapons ha how do you like them beans
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:04 am |
|
cato wrote: marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
We already have CA Appellate Court case law which says "e" checks do not violate the 4th A. He would need to be convicted and then ride the case up to the CA SC and from there lateral to SCOTUS. Does he have a spare mil lying around?
Could you cite the case, please...for my case library collection?
Thanks.
|
cato
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 1607 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:10 am |
|
Sons of Liberty wrote: cato wrote: marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
We already have CA Appellate Court case law which says "e" checks do not violate the 4th A. He would need to be convicted and then ride the case up to the CA SC and from there lateral to SCOTUS. Does he have a spare mil lying around?
Could you cite the case, please...for my case library collection?
Thanks.
Ya I don't know it off the top of my head. Let me find the case and get back to you (I knew some one would want me to cite   ) Theseus might know it's name (I'll send him a pm).
HERE IT IS : http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/27689.html
Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 09:46 pm by cato
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:12 am |
|
cato wrote: Sons of Liberty wrote: cato wrote: marshaul wrote: If that's the only law he broke, then he should challenge the constitutionality of the (e) checks themselves.
We already have CA Appellate Court case law which says "e" checks do not violate the 4th A. He would need to be convicted and then ride the case up to the CA SC and from there lateral to SCOTUS. Does he have a spare mil lying around?
Could you cite the case, please...for my case library collection?
Thanks.
Ya I don't know it off the top of my head. Let me find the case and get back to you (I knew some one would want me to cite ) Theseus might know it's name (I'll send him a pm).
Its been cited before here on the forum, if I recall.
Try the search feature.
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 07:20 am |
|
I think we are missing some important details regarding the encounter where stuckinchico was arrested. Unfortunately, discussing any of them on a public forum will not really help a defense.
12031 (e) checks, while unconstitutional in my view, still give police PC to detain and demand inspection in specific circumstances- refusal of this inspection would have opened up the PC148 charge, but I would have also concluded that 12031 would be applied as well. How jacked up is this? We have no idea, because we are not privy to the totality of the circumstances. This is not the arena you want to aire those circumstances pending permission from counsel.
If you havent nailed down an attorney, I think you better get cracking- While there are a dozen laymen here with commentary, none of us will be able to keep you out of jail or from losing your firearm rights.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine
Did you mention it to the evidence clerk? I would have filed a report immediately to document that your property, and your evidence that your rights were violated had been stolen by someone in the evidenciary chain of custody.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
notified attorney
|
smoking357
Banned
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 11:01 pm |
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine
Spoliation.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 02:08 am |
|
stuckinchico wrote: Just an update The tape recorder i had was tape obviously but i had etched my intial into it. I got my recorder back from evidence today and the tape inside of it was not mine
I would report the theft - have them take a report so you can document it thoroughly. Then report it to internal affairs and the local DA. You may also wish to talk to your local news media. There's obviously some coverup occurring.
|
Current time is 05:26 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|
