Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Viking on February 13, 2014, 02:47:31 PM
-
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf
Currently reading through it. CalGuns Foundation claims a victory for 2nd Amendment. Trying to make sense of the thing at the moment to see for myself.
Edit to add: CalGuns forum members claim that California is now Shall Issue thanks to this ruling :O.
-
Link to Washington Post about the decision. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-strikes-californias-restrictive-rule-against-licensed-carry-of-handguns/)
The Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion written by Judge O’Scannlain, ruled that Peruta was entitled to Summary Judgement, because the “good cause” provision violates the Second Amendment.
-
I have just read it. An amazing decision, by a historically-liberal Federal Appeals Court. This is a positive decision for those in favor of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in self-defense.
-
I doubt we will see any kind of true "shall issue" out of California in my lifetime and I'm only 51. The deision will be appealed, stayed and drug through the courts for decades.
-
I doubt we will see any kind of true "shall issue" out of California in my lifetime and I'm only 51. The deision will be appealed, stayed and drug through the courts for decades.
I would have agreed with you, and it's still possible. But SCOTUS has weighed in on the matter and they tend to try to resolve splits in the lower courts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/
-
The 9th Circus can be rather unperdictable...
-
The 9th Circus can be rather unperdictable...
High-potency pot will do that.
-
I doubt we will see any kind of true "shall issue" out of California in my lifetime and I'm only 51. The deision will be appealed, stayed and drug through the courts for decades.
Do not bet on that!!!
I would have agreed with you, and it's still possible. But SCOTUS has weighed in on the matter and they tend to try to resolve splits in the lower courts. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/13/more-on-the-reasoning-of-the-ninth-circuits-right-to-carry-a-gun-opinion/
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahah
I am positively buoyant today, this decision will un do soo much damage.
Withing 5 years I will be able to visit NYC/NJ and be perfectly legal while carrying on my NV LTC.
This is the best news since Heller V DC, uncork the Champagne!
-
I doubt we will see any kind of true "shall issue" out of California in my lifetime and I'm only 51. The deision will be appealed, stayed and drug through the courts for decades.
Next step is an en banc rehearing of case. Regardless of outcome of that it will be appealed to SCOTUS after the en banc hearing. Then may-issue goes away for the few states that still practice it. Assuming Benedict Roberts doesn't find some to call it a tax anyway. Then you have to litigate the whole issue of cross-state recognition.
Shall issue in Cali is probably a couple years out. Being able to legally carry with an out of state CCW is probably more like 10 years out, assuming a liberal bias isn't introduced by Obama or Hillary Clinton.
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi149.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs54%2FBitFreakazoid%2FFunny%2Fhomer_woohoo_zps80b8ecb3.jpg&hash=6aa4a623628f1030daae5425ac7fe2b15a1bd297)
Suck it California!
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
Were you looking over my shoulder when I was typing this post?
Unfortunately, I am in perfect agreement with you, RKL.
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
I tend to agree with you on that as well.
Unfortunately.
"We" are, for the most part, individual hobbyists and amateurs.
"They" are, for the most part, dedicated, eight-hour-a-day salaried statists.
"We" tend to relax and go back to shooting tin cans off our back porches after every miniscule victory.
"They" keep on digging up every abstract or circuitous reason to try to remove guns from the population.
"We" cannot even place ads in the public media.
"They" constantly bombard the low-information voters with specious propaganda.
"We" are individualists.
"They" are statists.
Terry, :(
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
I have been reading these same statements since Reagan, and look where we are now on RKBA.
-
I tend to agree with you on that as well.
Unfortunately.
"We" are, for the most part, individual hobbyists and amateurs.
"They" are, for the most part, dedicated, eight-hour-a-day salaried statists.
"We" tend to relax and go back to shooting tin cans off our back porches after every miniscule victory.
"They" keep on digging up every abstract or circuitous reason to try to remove guns from the population.
"We" cannot even place ads in the public media.
"They" constantly bombard the low-information voters with specious propaganda.
"We" are individualists.
"They" are statists.
Terry, :(
One of the most compelling reason to reduce the size of the state is to throw such folk out on their azzes so they have to find real work that leaves them too tired at the end of the day to agitate for more statism.
-
I have been reading these same statements since Reagan, and look where we are now on RKBA.
Some temporary gains. Look where we are everywhere else.
DHS
BATFE
FBI
NSA
ACA
Hell Reagan couldn't even get nominated with today's GOP.
-
One of the most compelling reason to reduce the size of the state is to throw such folk out on their azzes so they have to find real work that leaves them too tired at the end of the day to agitate for more statism.
Or nuke DC.
People like us have absolutely no interest in living in the seat of power because we just want to be left alone. People like them LOVE living in seats of power because it gives them easy access to the levers and buttons of social engineering.
There's nowhere to "throw them out on their azzes" because the entirety of the city they live in is dedicated to the purpose of meddling with your life. You have to throw the very city itself out on its *expletive deleted*ss.
DC was spec'ed as a federal enclave whose sole purpose was to serve as a naval yard, military training center and home to Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS and foreign embassies. "Needful structures." Not effing K-street and a shytload of lobbyists. Definitely not a city of millions of people trying to suck off the government teat.
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
The Democratic appointed justices want to take away our guns while the Republican appointed justices want to kick down our doors to see if we have a "small amount" of some prohibited vegetable material.
=(
-
not too years ago it was said that there will be no carry at Grand Canyon, at Yellowstone.
if the anti gunners are as stupid as think they are they will try for enbanc and drag it to the SCOTUS - :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
HOWEVER they are beginning to understand they are cutting their nose to spite their face, they will probably let it go and we'll simply have shall issue in CA and Hawaii.
I hope they are as dumb as they appear and have Gura the great win another huge SCOTUS win in a year or two.
-
The Democratic appointed justices want to take away our guns while and join the Republican appointed justices wanting to kick down our doors to see if we have a "small amount" of some prohibited vegetable material.
I believe you'll find that more accurate.
-
I believe you'll find that more accurate.
I never said the two were mutually exclusive :P
Actually, I think the only reason that Republicans somewhat sorta sometimes support gun rights is that they just figure that the dot guv has bigger guns and MRAPs and drones etc so they really don't care about our pea-shooters =| =(
-
^
Actually, I think the only reason that Republicans somewhat sorta sometimes support gun rights is that they just figure that the dot guv has bigger guns and MRAPs and drones etc so they really don't care about our pea-shooters.
That concept has been drifting around, unformed and unverbalized, in the back of my head for a while. Thanks for stating it clearly for me.
Terry
-
I think you could express the same sentiment with less of a dire undertone, i.e. our small arms are suitable for defense but not a localized uprising.
-
Tell that to Helmand Province.
-
I wish I could be optimistic about it.
I just don't see a Republican, let alone an actual conservative, ever occupying the Whitehouse again in the foreseeable future. The next several SCOTUS appointments WILL place the courts firmly in the hands of liberal bed wetters and what few gains we have seen in the last few years will be wiped away.
Either way, I see SCOTUS becoming less & less relevant. Just look at how quickly DC complied with HELLER.
It'll be Jackson/Marshall all over again....
-
As far as i can tell, our local sheriffs will hold us off with the excuse of "too many applications" and increase the fees from roughly 300 to 800 bucks so they afford to sign papers. It will take at least a year or more before i could get any news on my application. Becides, who would want the poor community made up of many blacks and hispanics to be able to defend themselves.
Now, lemme put on the tinfoil for a moment. They must be purposely showing their true Jim Crow nature in order to make the wealthy feel more at ease while they prepare to disarm them soon after. black helicopters.
-
Raising the "rate" and slowing down the process to apply, will do poorly in court. It is a well established principle that a right delayed is a right denied. Playing such games could end in Constitutional Carry.
-
Do they have some evidence that issuing a permit actually costs $800? Heck, even the $300 it is now?
-
Raising the "rate" and slowing down the process to apply, will do poorly in court. It is a well established principle that a right delayed is a right denied. Playing such games could end in Constitutional Carry.
Well, i suppose you're right. However, it makes me cringe to hear that it could "end in constitutional carry". Constitutional carry should be the beginning and the end. I have a feeling the the term constitutional "nut" will soon be a very common term in the media. As if following the constitution makes me some deranged medieval quack.
-
Do they have some evidence that issuing a permit actually costs $800? Heck, even the $300 it is now?
They they present any evidence to push any of the gun laws they have now?
-
Do they have some evidence that issuing a permit actually costs $800? Heck, even the $300 it is now?
Of course it doesn't, and some jurisdictions are less expensive and less burdensome, which is why though I think this is a great decision for CA and for other states as well, I'm not kicking up my heels at this time. The "shall issue" is, at this point, basically just saying that if I say "self protection", the CLEO can't immediately say "No!". The rest of it is still based on what county you live in. Some counties are already basically "shall issue" as the rest of you know that term. A hundred or so bucks, the basic class, and your permit in maybe 1-3 months. Other counties require several hundred dollars for the permit, an interview, administrative costs, the class, and sometimes a psych eval. That can easily approach $1000, then you still have to wait a year for a permit that you have to renew every two years.
If we were truly "shall issue" because of this ruling, there would be a maximum (but inexpensive) fee each county could charge. You show up with your paperwork and proof of CCW class, do your fingerprints, get your permit right then or within 30 days. No interviews, psych evals, or other bullcrap. By the time that would all happen, CA citizens could only carry revolvers, because all the manufacturers will have stopped selling semi-autos because of the microstamping law (though I think that law may end in court in the future).
-
If we where in a true "shall issue state" there would be no fee period. There shouldn't be a permit to defend ourselves to begin with.
-
Raising the "rate" and slowing down the process to apply, will do poorly in court. It is a well established principle that a right delayed is a right denied. Playing such games could end in Constitutional Carry.
Illinois.
-
Some counties are already basically "shall issue" as the rest of you know that term. A hundred or so bucks, the basic class, and your permit in maybe 1-3 months.
Just out of curiosity, does that cover open carry?
For instance, you want to go hiking or horseback riding in the mountains, and carry a sidearm. Right now that's basically illegal anywhere in the state, right?
-
Raising the "rate" and slowing down the process to apply, will do poorly in court. It is a well established principle that a right delayed is a right denied. Playing such games could end in Constitutional Carry.
If this is true, why does the NFA branch get away with 10+ month wait times between accepting a tax payment, and providing the stamp it paid for?
-
Just out of curiosity, does that cover open carry?
For instance, you want to go hiking or horseback riding in the mountains, and carry a sidearm. Right now that's basically illegal anywhere in the state, right?
I honestly can't correctly answer that right now. That has become so convoluted, I don't know what's legal and what's not anymore. AFAIK, no open carry, loaded or unloaded anywhere right now (which caused this whole thing with the OP). Before that, you could open carry loaded in National Forests and on BLM land. I'm not sure what the current status of that is at the moment.
-
If this is true, why does the NFA branch get away with 10+ month wait times between accepting a tax payment, and providing the stamp it paid for?
Because, (dancing on a lawyer's pinhead here) it's not a right. If you have to pay a "Tax", then it's not a "right". Unless it's healthcare then you have to get it or pay a tax/fine. Not sure how that works.
(Yeah, I know. IT SHOULD BE.) But either because of, or in spite Miller it is what it is. =|
As I've often pointed out to my liberal friends. Imagine if voting were as difficult as buying/keeping a firearm or bearing that firearm. [popcorn] >:D
-
I honestly can't correctly answer that right now. That has become so convoluted, I don't know what's legal and what's not anymore. AFAIK, no open carry, loaded or unloaded anywhere right now (which caused this whole thing with the OP). Before that, you could open carry loaded in National Forests and on BLM land. I'm not sure what the current status of that is at the moment.
How else would you hunt if it wasn't legal?
-
How else would you hunt if it wasn't legal?
Fish and Game laws are somewhat different than regular gun laws. Many areas have a distinction between actively hunting and carrying for personal protection while hiking, etc. There should be some google-able examples out there of CA DFG wardens ticketing hunters because when the warden approached them to check licenses etc., the hunters did something like lean their loaded gun on their vehicle or placed it in the bed of a truck or something (loaded gun in vehicle).
Like I said, I haven't looked at what the laws are in the last half year or so, since all these changes have been taking place so open carry may still be good to go in most National Forest areas. Though CalGuns has a couple of interesting threads on a National Forest Ranger in Northern CA who was routinely stopping people and checking them for weapons, then ticketing them and confiscating their guns. It got so bad that the county Sheriff there pulled the Fed's reciprocity for enforcing laws in that county
-
This Downfall parody about the recent ruling is better than average:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eryaL_mKuM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eryaL_mKuM)
-
Fish and Game laws are somewhat different than regular gun laws. Many areas have a distinction between actively hunting and carrying for personal protection while hiking, etc. There should be some google-able examples out there of CA DFG wardens ticketing hunters because when the warden approached them to check licenses etc., the hunters did something like lean their loaded gun on their vehicle or placed it in the bed of a truck or something (loaded gun in vehicle).
Like I said, I haven't looked at what the laws are in the last half year or so, since all these changes have been taking place so open carry may still be good to go in most National Forest areas. Though CalGuns has a couple of interesting threads on a National Forest Ranger in Northern CA who was routinely stopping people and checking them for weapons, then ticketing them and confiscating their guns. It got so bad that the county Sheriff there pulled the Fed's reciprocity for enforcing laws in that county
The Forest Circus has gotten totally out of control, and not just in California. :mad:
-
The Forest Circus has gotten totally out of control, and not just in California. :mad:
Its not the Forest Service it is the Dept of Ag and the folks who make the laws.
Do a little forest service policy reading and you will see it is all political and it really came to a head in the Clinton Administration.
-
Its not the Forest Service it is the Dept of Ag and the folks who make the laws.
Do a little forest service policy reading and you will see it is all political and it really came to a head in the Clinton Administration.
All I know is that they have woods ninjas running around now :mad:
-
How else would you hunt if it wasn't legal?
if you have a hunting license with you you're probably good to go.
Eldorado County Sheriff last summer stripped fed forest circus agents of their ability to enforce state laws due to enormous fascism on the fed level.
Simply open carry is probably no longer legal, however you can still conceal carry at your legal campsite as long as you're not otherwise prohibited.
hopefully this will all be changed soon, if San Diego doesn't petition for en banc or SCOTUS it will be sweet.
if they do it will be sweeter, only it will take a couple of yrs.
-
All I know is that they have woods ninjas running around now :mad:
They have had woods ninjas since the beginning of the forest service.
-
They have had woods ninjas since the beginning of the forest service.
But no one knew, because ninja are invisible.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJPGPOtx.jpg&hash=9fc972b9f0d3ac7edcda127b55c2e1934fcbd5d1)
-
Woods Ninja?
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa199%2Fdogmush%2FLegolas_II_zps2b37194d.jpg&hash=48720e75b1148e3d04f61cc651a8cfabb1e1cf77) (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/dogmush/media/Legolas_II_zps2b37194d.jpg.html)
-
They have had woods ninjas since the beginning of the forest service.
I never heard of any real issues until just a few years ago, and I've spent huge amounts of time living and working in the NF.
But now I'm not sure that I even want to go camping on NF again ... =| =(
There was an incident in MT with a local couple and their kids. Woman in unmarked pickup and coat covering uniform tries to search and then arrest/kidnap the wife who was sitting in a pickup alongside the road. Husband comes back from hunting about then. I would have killed her. I still haven't heard how the case worked out in the end.
-
If this is true, why does the NFA branch get away with 10+ month wait times between accepting a tax payment, and providing the stamp it paid for?
Hasn't been challenged.
-
Yesterday, the SA County sheriff announced that he would not be appealing the decision and asking for the entire Ninth Circuit (en banc) court to take up the case. Other parties, such as the state of California, may do so, however.
-
Yesterday, the SA County sheriff announced that he would not be appealing the decision and asking for the entire Ninth Circuit (en banc) court to take up the case. Other parties, such as the state of California, may do so, however.
UM, are you sure?? It sure looks like they're celebrating on calguns.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=897109
I'm praying I will be able to legally carry in CA soon.
-
Yesterday, the SA County sheriff announced that he would not be appealing the decision and asking for the entire Ninth Circuit (en banc) court to take up the case. Other parties, such as the state of California, may do so, however.
Per David Kopel (at Volokh) and other legal commentators the State has no standing as they were not a respondant. The only possibility is a 9th Circuit judge calling for a vote of the Circuit to take it up.
-
my understanding is San Diego has about a month from the day they announced that they ( knew they would lose )
I mean that the 9th overturned the unconstitutional restrictions on ccw - will be when the whole state goes shall issue. [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] [ar15] :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn] [popcorn] >:D >:D >:D =D =D =D
My understanding is that SD is being told not to appeal to en banc, that the 9th is unlikely to either grant en banc or ask for it them selves and that the anti gun nuts in power recognize that they would lose with the current make up of SCOTUS - THEREBY the whole of the USA would become shall issue.
They are not giving up, they are biding their time and not cutting off their nose to spite their face, accepting that CA will be shall issue until they can get their minions into SCOTUS then turning it around.
-
March 6 is the date that they have to announce whether it will be en banc.
Default "Sua Sponte"
That is fancy lawyer talk for saying the Ninth Circuit itself can decide to rehear the case en banc, regardless of whether Sheriff Gore asks for review. The Court's deadline to make that decision is March 6. We will keep everyone posted as things are learned. Also keep an eye out for an FAQ our office will be releasing shortly about what the decision means legally and practically.
In rereading my post I should have been more clear, any judge has until March 6 to petition en banc review. My post made it sounds like the Court would make a decision by that date. But, we should at least know something about the future of this case by that date.
__________________
my friends, it really is beginning to look like hell has frozen over.
-
This keeps up and pretty soon people will be able to attend church or write a letter to the editor without first getting a permit.
-
The problem they are now facing is that just 14% of the US population now lives in
8 7 "may-issue" states. With about half that pop actually within DC, Baltimore, Boston, and NYC. Their constituency is regional and isolated.
Further, "states" isn't really an accurate measure as Connecticutt and most of the the counties of Mass and NYS are "will-issue" in practice.
Their only significant state with "no-issue" is NJ. Even Delaware issues.
That CCW map showing the states changing color? We really need one breaking out "Will" and "Won't" issue counties in the hold-out may-issue states. Make it clear how geographically irrelevent they are.
-
The problem they are now facing is that just 14% of the US population now lives in 8 7 "may-issue" states. With about half that pop actually within DC, Baltimore, Boston, and NYC. Their constituency is regional and isolated.
Further, "states" isn't really an accurate measure as Connecticutt and most of the the counties of Mass and NYS are "will-issue" in practice.
Their only significant state with "no-issue" is NJ. Even Delaware issues.
That CCW map showing the states changing color? We really need one breaking out "Will" and "Won't" issue counties in the hold-out may-issue states. Make it clear how geographically irrelevent they are.
I like that idea!!
Man, I am in a good mood today, I may even consider moving back to California!
-
The problem they are now facing is that just 14% of the US population now lives in 8 7 "may-issue" states. With about half that pop actually within DC, Baltimore, Boston, and NYC. Their constituency is regional and isolated.
Further, "states" isn't really an accurate measure as Connecticutt and most of the the counties of Mass and NYS are "will-issue" in practice.
Their only significant state with "no-issue" is NJ. Even Delaware issues.
Hawaii. And IL until recently.
That CCW map showing the states changing color? We really need one breaking out "Will" and "Won't" issue counties in the hold-out may-issue states. Make it clear how geographically irrelevent they are.
Similar to the "red state/blue state" resolved into counties. Except that the blue gets its way.
-
Hawaii. And IL until recently.
Similar to the "red state/blue state" resolved into counties. Except that the blue gets its way.
Illinois is done, I'm talking from here forward. Likewise, Hawaii is in the 9th and this ruling is precedent for Baker, which was heard at the same time.
The anti's will pout but all that're left are those little states on the Atlantic: and in Conn, and most of Western Mass and upstate NY, and odd counties in MD and DE, are will issue. The antis are losing on carry and carry is the key to removing every other gun restriction.
-
The antis are losing on carry and carry is the key to removing every other gun restriction.
Why do you say that? Is it because it normalizes guns in everyday life? Because predictions of Wild West shoot-outs are always shown to be nonsense?
-
Why do you say that? Is it because it normalizes guns in everyday life? Because predictions of Wild West shoot-outs are always shown to be nonsense?
That, and once someone goes to the trouble of getting a permit they will vote to keep it and won't easily tolerate new restrictions on it like fee increases, prohibited places, and mag bans. Their personal experience also serves to innoculate them against all other anti-gun claims of the anti's as they have personal knowledge that the anti's lie and demonize.
-
Hmmmm.
Poor anti's. =(
-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guns-california-20140227,0,4591093.story
California's AG asks for an en banc hearing to overturn the decision.
-
Does she have legal standing to make that happen, or is it essentially like any other non-party to the decision asking?
-
I read somewhere else that all sorts of antis are coming out asking for an en banc hearing, including the Brady Campaign.
-
I read somewhere else that all sorts of antis are coming out asking for an en banc hearing, including the Brady Campaign.
You know, I suppose they have to be thinking a couple of things..... One, 9th circuit will reverse itself on the re-hearing. Dunno how likely that is, I would think the circuit courts don't normally reverse themselves. Two, if the circuit court reverses, that one of three things will happen. Either the 2A folks won't appeal to the USSC (Not likely), or the USSC will refuse to hear the case (as they have in a couple of other recent gun law cases), or the USSC will uphold the 9th circuits reversal. Which after Heller and McDonald, I wouldn't be holding my breath on.
Should be interesting....
-
so it seems as if the 9th has put the decision "on hold" until they decide if the CA attny general can ask for an en banc....so far I have no idea how long "on hold" is.
-
Interestingly, I read this morning that she was asked to join San Diego County when they started this whole thing, but she said no. Guess she thought the cat was in the bag and not worth her time between this being CA and them being the 9th. She thought wrong. :)
-
I never heard of any real issues until just a few years ago, and I've spent huge amounts of time living and working in the NF.
But now I'm not sure that I even want to go camping on NF again ... =| =(
There was an incident in MT with a local couple and their kids. Woman in unmarked pickup and coat covering uniform tries to search and then arrest/kidnap the wife who was sitting in a pickup alongside the road. Husband comes back from hunting about then. I would have killed her. I still haven't heard how the case worked out in the end.
Got a citation?
-
Got a citation?
Looks like they pled out to a misdemeanor:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/roundup-couple-admit-to-misdemeanors-in-confrontation-with-forest-service/article_c48fb156-397a-5143-925a-723b3f1a0689.html
Of course I have no idea what actually happened, but according to their earlier accounts there was no indication the person was an officer of any kind. Apparently it is now some sort of probably cause to park your vehicle on a FS road =(
More of the original story:
http://undercoverlawyer.com/forums/showthread.php?5627-Outrage-in-Roundup-Mother-of-Twins-Sexually-Assaulted-by-Montana-Forest-Service
-
The 9th circuit again rules in favor of the second amendment:
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=812c9186a81db6434329bda16&id=13008abab4&e=90c1c89906
-
Just don't conceal your gun under a shirt with a flag on it :lol:
-
More of the original story:
http://undercoverlawyer.com/forums/showthread.php?5627-Outrage-in-Roundup-Mother-of-Twins-Sexually-Assaulted-by-Montana-Forest-Service
How is the trooper(?) still alive. Husband saw wife bent over the tailgate by unknown male from +/_ a hundred yards. Husband is armed w/ a rifle. Unless there's an obvious Heimlich being administered, Who wastes the time to close the yardage on a possibly (evidently) armed assailant?
-
Looks like they pled out to a misdemeanor:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/roundup-couple-admit-to-misdemeanors-in-confrontation-with-forest-service/article_c48fb156-397a-5143-925a-723b3f1a0689.html
Of course I have no idea what actually happened, but according to their earlier accounts there was no indication the person was an officer of any kind. Apparently it is now some sort of probably cause to park your vehicle on a FS road =(
More of the original story:
http://undercoverlawyer.com/forums/showthread.php?5627-Outrage-in-Roundup-Mother-of-Twins-Sexually-Assaulted-by-Montana-Forest-Service
Two versions differ a bit. I bet the other cops were all out of line too? They always picked on this poor couple?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
How is the trooper(?) still alive. Husband saw wife bent over the tailgate by unknown male from +/_ a hundred yards. Husband is armed w/ a rifle. Unless there's an obvious Heimlich being administered, Who wastes the time to close the yardage on a possibly (evidently) armed assailant?
That would have been my reaction. Guy was a FS ninja with no apparent uniform. This was way the hell up in the mountains.
Two versions differ a bit. I bet the other cops were all out of line too? They always picked on this poor couple?
The other cops were not there until later. So who do you think they believe? Funny the feds let them plead out to a misdemeanor :P
-
AG kamala harris has been trying to intervene, I think its actually she's an intervenor some kind of legal term, either the ninth will enbanc panel-which means it will go to SCOTUS or they won't - no one seems to know how long the 9th has to sit on their hands.
last week they were supposed to issue by the 26th of march, but the ides of march have come and gone.