| Author | Post |
|---|
Theseus
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 07:38 am |
|
camsoup wrote: Theseus wrote: "He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public."
So now business owners are not even allowed the right to protect their lives in their place of business unless its closed? If its open to the public it isn't considered private? That is hog wash.
If you own a convenience store within 1000' of a school, I guess you need to keep the handgun locked up under the counter. When the armed robber comes in, you would have to call a time out and ask him nicely to wait while you unlock the pistol case.
No, the judge made pretty clear that "inside a business or residence is too clear" to be overridden. But since private property is not defined he took the initiative and defined it.
The problem is like the people coming out of Turners Pasadena. They are protected inside, but in the parking lot, which I am sure is within 1000 feet of a school is not protected. You can not leave Turners Pasadena without a handgun locked in a fully enclosed secure locked container under this new definition if it gets made case law.
|
gravedigger
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 96 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:25 am |
|
Gosh, we need to get rid of this STUPID F'ing LAW!
|
KylaGWolf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
Theseus wrote: "He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public."
So now business owners are not even allowed the right to protect their lives in their place of business unless its closed? If its open to the public it isn't considered private? That is hog wash.
If you own a convenience store within 1000' of a school, I guess you need to keep the handgun locked up under the counter. When the armed robber comes in, you would have to call a time out and ask him nicely to wait while you unlock the pistol case.
No I think the judge is saying in that case bend over kiss your arse goodbye because the badguy KNOWS you can't have your gun unlocked and by the time you can get to it your toast. Although your take on it puts this vision in my head of it happening. I so got to learn not to drink coffee as I read the threads spewing it on the laptop is bad.
|
ConditionThree
Activist Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 01:18 am |
|
KylaGWolf wrote: Theseus wrote: "He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public."
So now business owners are not even allowed the right to protect their lives in their place of business unless its closed? If its open to the public it isn't considered private? That is hog wash.
If you own a convenience store within 1000' of a school, I guess you need to keep the handgun locked up under the counter. When the armed robber comes in, you would have to call a time out and ask him nicely to wait while you unlock the pistol case.
What? Like this guy? His wasnt locked up. More than likely in a 1000 ft school zone. Clearly not unloaded. On private property that is open to the public. The difference here is that they are not looking to make this man an example by putting his head on a pike near the city walls for all to see.
|
camsoup
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:58 am |
|
Theseus wrote: camsoup wrote: Theseus wrote: "He, in one breath admitted that 626.9 was not ambiguous or vague and that since it wasn't he was not supposed to look into legislative intent and did it anyway declaring that private property as it pertains to 626.9 is not private if it is open to the public."
So now business owners are not even allowed the right to protect their lives in their place of business unless its closed? If its open to the public it isn't considered private? That is hog wash.
If you own a convenience store within 1000' of a school, I guess you need to keep the handgun locked up under the counter. When the armed robber comes in, you would have to call a time out and ask him nicely to wait while you unlock the pistol case.
No, the judge made pretty clear that "inside a business or residence is too clear" to be overridden. But since private property is not defined he took the initiative and defined it.
The problem is like the people coming out of Turners Pasadena. They are protected inside, but in the parking lot, which I am sure is within 1000 feet of a school is not protected. You can not leave Turners Pasadena without a handgun locked in a fully enclosed secure locked container under this new definition if it gets made case law.
Maybe we should all take a trip down south and set up lawn chairs in the judges front yard and have a BBQ, Under his definition of "not private property" private property seems like we would be OK to do so.
Last edited on Sat Jul 4th, 2009 03:59 am by camsoup
|
demnogis
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
This is sounding like a great idea! And if this judge doesn't live within a school zone we could UOC all day and night...
I believe something to this effect happened when one of the judges in FL ruled that private property could be seized from citizens for "municipal use" then subsequently sold to another private party (Pfizer). One of the judges' homes was seized and given to a private business...
camsoup wrote:
Maybe we should all take a trip down south and set up lawn chairs in the judges front yard and have a BBQ, Under his definition of "not private property" private property seems like we would be OK to do so.
|
KylaGWolf
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Diego, USA |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 5th, 2009 01:48 am |
|
demnogis wrote: This is sounding like a great idea! And if this judge doesn't live within a school zone we could UOC all day and night...
I believe something to this effect happened when one of the judges in FL ruled that private property could be seized from citizens for "municipal use" then subsequently sold to another private party (Pfizer). One of the judges' homes was seized and given to a private business...
camsoup wrote:
Maybe we should all take a trip down south and set up lawn chairs in the judges front yard and have a BBQ, Under his definition of "not private property" private property seems like we would be OK to do so.
LOL amazing how fast that judge changed opinions on the whole eminent domain thing. Although I think I will pass on that BBQ since I hate LA traffic with a passion. LOL
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
I'm sorry to hear that things appear to be getting tougher. I wish there was more I could do... but you'll have to settle for my moral support. Hang in there buddy.
Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but is it possible the judge is giving us a silver-lined cloud? It seems to me like the judge is saying, "what the police and DA did is wrong, but I want this case to go to appeal."
If/when this case goes to the CA Court of Appeals, I believe we could get some excellent case law out of this. We already know that LE can't legally seize your ID as part of a 12031(e) check, but wouldn't it be nice to have case law specifically stating that? How about case law specifically stating that 626.9 does NOT apply on private property?
Either that, or the judge is really a tyrant, and is hoping the CA App court will take the opportunity to reverse existing case law...
(On an unrelated note, regarding loaded carry on public streets in unincorporated areas: This is how I imagine People v Knight would be overturned. The trial judge would simply ignore case law, and hope the higher courts want to reverse case law.)
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: (On an unrelated note, regarding loaded carry on public streets in unincorporated areas: This is how I imagine People v Knight would be overturned. The trial judge would simply ignore case law, and hope the higher courts want to reverse case law.)
Well, as prior panel decisions bind future panels, the only way your scenario would work is for Knight to be reversed by the Appeals Court en banc or the Ca. S. Ct.
There are like 3-5 cases where subsequent appeals court panels have followed and frankly extended Knight, by. i.e., explicitly shooting down the prosecutor argument that state law shooting bans over e.g., roads, create prohiobited areas - no, only local law can do that, as Goc, Schw. said in his veto message, the statute creates a local option.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:09 am |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: We already know that LE can't legally seize your ID as part of a 12031(e) check
I have been thinking this over - I'm not sure I see suppression arising in this case becasue the info obtained is not being used to convict him, it just aided them in finding him again, which likley would have been done inevitably anyway; contrast this to what if the Defendant was a prohibited person and that offense was discovered by running PII (pers. identifiable info) taken from the ID - then he would have a case for suppression i think.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 9th, 2009 06:10 am |
|
Thesis right behind ya brotha .... Still waiting to hear if my 6 will be actually taken to court I still have to show up on the 17th yet i havent been able to find my name on the courts online schedule for that date Who knows
|
Current time is 04:04 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
