Governor Jerry Brown, with a stroke of his pen has solved a problem that never existed. Open carry in California is now unlawful. It was in fact rather limited anyway - while it didn't require an existing concealed carry permit, it was only lawful if it the firearm was unloaded. There was nothing preventing an OCer from keeping ammunition close at hand, but having it inside the weapon was a no-no.
Hopefully the Second Amendment Foundation will go after this one vigorously, since California is notoriously arbitrary with issuance of concealed carry permits.
Eight Shots and a Ping... The Suburban Redneck on politics, guns and current events.
Showing posts with label really f*** unfair. Show all posts
Showing posts with label really f*** unfair. Show all posts
Monday, October 10, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Mass. Says: "One way or another, we'll get your money."
Rather depressing court decision:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp
Basically this Massachussetts motorist felt the speeding ticket was unfairly issued, and was charged court fees close to the cost of the ticket. He challenged the ticket (and won) and proceeded to contest the fees, took it to his states highest court, and was ruled against.
Incredibly, the Massachussetts Supreme Court reasoned that it was perfectly acceptable to charge people to challenge tickets. In fairness, it also said that it was *improper* to start making people accused of more serious law-breaking court fees to, but this could easily be the beginning of a slippery slope. After all, the courts are a "government service" to both society at large and the accused. Nothing wrong with charging user fees for the services they use... right? right??? (Sarcasm off)
It's an open secret that traffic law enforcement is about 80% revenue and 20% safety driven.
This ruling affirms this overwhelmingly.
So right now Massachussetts traffic law is a rigged casino. They win no matter what. I suspect ticket issuance will now skyrocket.
I thought our Constitution protected us against the arbitrary taking of anyone's life, liberty or property. This ruling basically tosses away the due process that we've been given, by renaming this unfair confiscation as mere "court fees."
Unfair civil forfeitures of boats, cars, homes and bank accounts has been happening for decades, and hardly arouses any outcry.
So I'm not too optimistic that we'll be seeing any mobs of torch and pitchfork wielders over this one, either.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp
Basically this Massachussetts motorist felt the speeding ticket was unfairly issued, and was charged court fees close to the cost of the ticket. He challenged the ticket (and won) and proceeded to contest the fees, took it to his states highest court, and was ruled against.
Incredibly, the Massachussetts Supreme Court reasoned that it was perfectly acceptable to charge people to challenge tickets. In fairness, it also said that it was *improper* to start making people accused of more serious law-breaking court fees to, but this could easily be the beginning of a slippery slope. After all, the courts are a "government service" to both society at large and the accused. Nothing wrong with charging user fees for the services they use... right? right??? (Sarcasm off)
It's an open secret that traffic law enforcement is about 80% revenue and 20% safety driven.
This ruling affirms this overwhelmingly.
So right now Massachussetts traffic law is a rigged casino. They win no matter what. I suspect ticket issuance will now skyrocket.
I thought our Constitution protected us against the arbitrary taking of anyone's life, liberty or property. This ruling basically tosses away the due process that we've been given, by renaming this unfair confiscation as mere "court fees."
Unfair civil forfeitures of boats, cars, homes and bank accounts has been happening for decades, and hardly arouses any outcry.
So I'm not too optimistic that we'll be seeing any mobs of torch and pitchfork wielders over this one, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)