| Author | Post |
|---|
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Ogden, UT |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 01:47 am |
|
Mitch Vilos? You don't get much more gun rights than that.
|
jcameronwalker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 10:45 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:16 pm by jcameronwalker
|
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Ogden, UT |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 03:13 pm |
|
| Are you going to pursue something civil?
|
GeneticsDave
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:30 pm |
|
Might want to contact the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/utah.html
|
UtahJarhead
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 24th, 2009 |
| Location: | Ogden, UT |
| Posts: | 109 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:50 pm |
|
GeneticsDave wrote: Might want to contact the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates/utah.html According to:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html
They say "Get lost". So they have a very very selective memory. Our Supreme Court means jack to them.
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.
The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
Last edited on Sat Oct 31st, 2009 05:53 pm by UtahJarhead
|
Francis Marion
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri May 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Baghdad, Iraq |
| Posts: | 182 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 08:02 pm |
|
And that's how the American Criminal Liberties Union counts, 1 - 3 - 4 - 5...
|
jaredbelch
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 31st, 2009 08:31 pm |
|
This is the national ACLU view, the local chapters will sometimes take on gun cases.
|
cheese
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 02:06 am |
|
|
Vegassteve
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 302 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 04:51 pm |
|
jaredbelch wrote: This is the national ACLU view, the local chapters will sometimes take on gun cases.
The NV ACLU has taken case in our state. So the local UT may as well.
|
cheese
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:34 am |
|
| Well just dont hold your breath or spend it all in one place.
|
jcameronwalker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:08 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:18 pm by jcameronwalker
|
SGT Jensen
State Researcher
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | Santaquin, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:09 am |
|
We are wishing you luck! How can we help?
|
cheese
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 51 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:13 am |
|
good luck!
|
jcameronwalker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:17 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 06:20 pm by jcameronwalker
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:32 am |
|
Mike wrote:
76-10-502. When weapon deemed loaded.
(1) For the purpose of this chapter, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, or other weapon described in this part shall be deemed to be loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile in the firing position.
(2) Pistols and revolvers shall also be deemed to be loaded when an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired.
(3) A muzzle loading firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinders.
What is a 'firing position"? A firing position for a revolver would be the chamber ready to be advanced to be fired, right? unless you have case law otherwise, I don;t see how a bullet in a position which cannot be fired cn be "in the firing position"
Firing position is the position from which a round would be fired and a bullet exit the barrel. For a semi-auto, this is the chamber. For a revolver, it is the chamber that is in-line with the barrel and under the hammer, regardless of whether the hammer is cocked, half-cocked, or resting on the round. Consider what happens in the off-chance a non-drop-safe revolver, with the hammer resting on a live round, is dropped and it lands in such as way as to cause a discharge. It is the round "in firing position" that will be discharged.
While we'd love to see Utah become a full, true, unlicensed OC legal State, our definition of loaded--while a bit confusing--is one of the more liberal in the nation. How many other places allow you to put 4 rounds into a 6 shooter and have the gun be considered legally "not loaded" for most legal considerations as long as the cylinder is rotated correctly? (I do note that our language on carrying a concealed gun without a permit does not use the definition of 'loaded" but instead differentiates between a gun "that contains no ammunition" and a gun that does contain ammunition to determine whether a class B or class A misdemeanor has been committed.)
Charles
|
StuartG
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:36 am |
|
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:23 am by StuartG
|
gunsfreak4791
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | Kearns, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 509 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:15 pm |
|
So glad it is working out for you.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 899 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
StuartG wrote: Mike wrote: You both need to find Utah barred couonsel who will handle your criminal case WITH AN EYE toward filing a lawsuit for damages after the charges are dismissed - on what grounds were you even seized to begin with!!??
as for a federal lawsuit i don't know what grounds i would have to stand on except for maybe violating my civil rights i am looking at such a rout but honestly were dose that get us beside more hassle from the same police department towards my self,James and other fellow OCers or even other departments to start targeting OCer's and then again it might help to get the laws learned by the LEO's that are not fully up to date on them
Violation of your civil rights should be enough motivation to sue in federal court.
You might also consider filing an official complaint with your local FBI civil rights division, and see if you can get them to look into the actions of the police.
|
StuartG
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 28th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 10:27 am |
|
as i sated in the first post i have edited all information for what is happening has been removed on advice from a 3rd party assisting in this situation
for tho's of you who have quoted anything i have said i would like to kindly ask that you edit the post and remove it thanks 
if you would like me to keep you up to date on everything that is taking place or will be taking place you are welcome to send me a privet message and i will give you a number i can be reached at but untill then it has been advices that all matters for this issue is to be keep word of mouth and not be released on the forums further
i do thank everyone for there reply and the support that has been given and i do hope you continue to support my self and James in this matter
|
jcameronwalker
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 2nd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:11 am |
|
| prelim. court date has been set for tomorrow morning at 1100 hrs at the midvale court. if you want to show up you are invited sorry for such short notice but it was either tomorrow or december 23
|
Current time is 12:55 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
