Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Anyone can keep a firearm they own legally in their vehicle. You don't need a concaled carry permit for that.
That depends on where the vehicle is located, Ken. If the vehicle is on private property (say a parking lot of a business) the owner or tenant of the property can prohibit firearms if he or she wishes. This is what the NRA is trying to kill.
I feeL that property rights supercede right to carry so they can go pound sand.
One of the most basic property rights is "Right of Exclusion".
the vehicle is property. hence it too comes with property rights.
How about eminent domain. Right of exclusion only means you can use the law to keep someone from saetting up house in your living room.
If you think you have the right of exclusion try not mowing your fucking lawn and see how long it takes for the city to have their foot up your ass.
A vehicle is personal property, land is real property. Surely you know the difference Mr legal eagle.
Right of exclusion means that I can exclude anyone from setting foot on my real property if I so wish. This means that I can tell you to keep your personal property (vehicle for instance) off. I can also exclude certain practices. If you refuse, you are subject to arrest.
Eminent Domain means that the government can take property for public works, etc (although that line has become blurred as of late) but thay must give fair market value.
As you should realize (I have a feeling you're being deliberately obtuse here) municipal employees in the furtherance of their duties may enter property. This means that you cannot disallow entry by meter readers, police, building inspectors, etc as long as they are there as part of their official duties.
Could that be why everyone is expatriating from the gubafia?
“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so they may retain control over the instruments they have created. [Brown Open Meeting Act]
Lip service
Constitutional Law and Law of Contracts
A permit granted by the sovereign, generally for a consideration (Smith v Commonwealth, 175 Ky. 194 S.W. 367. 370), to a person, firm, or corporation to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business subject to regulation under police power. State ex rel. Guillot v Central Bank
NOTICE
ENFORCEMENT OF CITY/COUNTY CODES PROHIBITED
California Law prohibits Cities and Counties from enforcing City or County Codes and Ordinances upon property that is not OWNED by the City or County – even if the property is within City limits.
More lip service
California Penal Code: Chapter 5b CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COUNTY, CITY, OR CITY AND COUNTY ORDINANCES – Sections 853.1 through 853.4 was repealed in 1967.
The Supreme Court ruled that Municipalities cannot exert any acts of ownership and control over property that is not OWNED by them, see Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606, 150 L.Ed. 2d 592, 121 S.Ct. (2001) (no expiration date on the taking clause for City’s illegal enforcement of its Codes on the man’s private property and restricting the man’s business), affirming both Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 US 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). (butterfly activists and Code Enforcement cannot restrict development of the man’s private swampland unless they lawfully acquire the land FIRST, surveying with binoculars constitutes a “takings”), and Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 US 687 (1999), 143 L.Ed. 2d 882 S.Ct. (1998). In the Monterey case, the California private property owner was awarded $8 million for Code Enforcement’s illegal trespass and restriction of his business, and another $1.45 million for the aggravation of a forced sale.
Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition (page 1140): Recaption. At Common Law, a retaking or taking back. A species of remedy by the mere act of the party injured (otherwise termed “reprisal”), which happens when anyone has deprived another of his property in goods or chattels personal, or wrongfully detains one’s wife, child, or servant. In this case, the owner of the goods, and the husband, parent, or master may lawfully claim and retake them, wherever he happens to find them, so it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet) 539, 612, 10L.Ed. 1060.
If you allow the vehicle on your property you allow whatever is in it on your property as well and you do not have the right or authority to search ones private property, the vehicle though carrying a split title is none the less construed to be subject to the beneficial donor. (you) as owner in equity.
If you operate a public or quasi public anything you forfeit your right to stop anyone from coming onto your property with an arm, however if your property is purely private that is not the case.
Now even residential property is quasi public, by force of the gubafia.
George nailed this one bang on target!
You need to understand the way concurrent law works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: Gun Control Saving or Costing Lives? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread