Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Not so. California has a shall issue policy for ccw.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.
26150. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
...
26155. (a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
...
26170. Upon proof of all of the following, the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, may issue to an applicant a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person:
(1) The applicant is of good moral character.
(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
...
The code neglects to define "good moral character" (presumably it's like pornography) or "good cause," or what might constitute "proof" of either.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=26001-27000&file=26150-26225
K.
PROOF? Which of course is only legitimate if reviewed by a court.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (111 pages); -- Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
-- The only one to testify against you is yourself.
But they abrogate your rights every day by the process of ever expanding infringement and shockingly university egglmacated dipshits in this country are too illiterate to 'get it'.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
City of Chicago v Cullens, et al, 51 N.E. 907, 910, etc. (1906)"A license is a privilege granted by the state" and "cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right...
SHUTTLESWORTH V. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 373 U. S. 262 (1963): "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969): Your photograph and fingerprints are your property.
Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336 (11th Cir. 1984): US Court of Appeal awarded $65,217.39/hour for false imprisonment.
Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991): The US Supreme Court ruled that public Officials (Judge are not exempt) who cause "Unauthorized Deprivations" lose their Eleventh Amendment Protection and are subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Case before the US Court of Appeals is found at 912 F.2d 628. The key is negligence: acting in excess or without authority or jurisdiction or failing to act when required to do so. Also read Melo v. Hafer, 13 F.3d 736 (3d Cir. 1994).
If the government pleaS sovereign immunity, then here are some other cases, which lay that nonsense to rest. Westfall v. Erwin, 484 US 292 (1988); Will v. Michigan State Police, 491 US 58 (1989); and Mitchum v. Foster, 407 US 225 (1972). The latter makes the bureaucRATS cringe. When coupled with PL 94-381 and Senate Report 94-204, 28 U.S.C. § 2284.
“If you’ve relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court you have a perfect defense for willfulness.”
U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346
“Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases.”
Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990)
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250
The code neglects to define "good moral character" (presumably it's like pornography) or "good cause," or what might constitute "proof" of either.
I have definitions for justice department that complies with 'original intent':
"good moral character" 'not' in jail.
"good cause," 'reserved' right
This type of legislation is ripe for a 1983 suit, better yet CL suit and really bust their nuts.
Why people continue to sucker for 'unconstitutional regulatory euphemisms' being used to 'replace' the constitution and enforced as law is beyond me.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 10/17/2016 11:03:54 AM >
_____________________________
"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: L.A SATURDAY. shooting. - 
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