• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gun store owner threatened with fines & jail time for AR-15 sign (Kalifornia)

carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
color of law said:
Not generally only criminal.....
Black's Law Dictionary: After the fact; by an act or fact occurring after some previous actor fact, and relating thereto; by subsequent matter; the opposite of ab initio. Thus, a deed may be good ab initio, or, if invalid at its inception, may be confirmed by matterex pout facto.
Click to expand...

What deed are you referring to? The PREVIOUS tenants installing (or modifying) a sign that was legal at that time? Grandfathering the PREVIOUS tenant for their continued use? Or the current owners modifying a sign that is no longer legal and should have been removed by the landlord?

color of law said:
Law would be found unconstitutional if challenged. why not mandate the entire building be torn down if vacant for 90 days or more.
Click to expand...

How would the law be unconstitutional? Please explain, not just make a blanket claim believing that makes you correct. The PREVIOUS tenant was grandfathered and had no obligation to act. The CURRENT tenant has to obey CURRENT laws when making changes.

color of law said:
Again, Law would be found unconstitutional if challenged. why not mandate the entire building be torn down and a new building be built per new building code.

Oh...Never mind......I forgot you guys live Kalifornia.......
Click to expand...

(*sigh*) (*shakes head sadly*)
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
color of law said:
The way your defending Kalifornia you act like you live there. I sure they will welcome you with open arms.:lol:
Click to expand...

No...and nobody that knows me personally would EVER make that assumption. I have no interest in even visiting. (*shrug*) Meh.
 
Last edited:
A

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
carolina guy said:
You would be incorrect. The video tape only has the owners claiming that they have no need for a permit to do what they did. As far as the partition issue, I have not looked (and won't) at the municode around that. I did not see anything (like video or audio recordings) to backup their claims of city harassment. I don't doubt them, but none was presented.

My previous responses quoted the relevant language around the commercial use of signage in that city. Like it or not, cities and states can regulate businesses and do.

Just my $0.02. IANAL.
Click to expand...

In the video they state that their lawyer has already viewed all applicable laws and that the sign does not violate them. They also state how after the put up a fight that a building inspector came and has tried to fine them for their partitions, something else that their lawyer said wasn't true.

Now personally, I'm not a lawyer. As such, when their lawyer says that the sign and the partitions don't break the codes, I'm going to think that he knows something that I don't. Also remember that one of the owners states that he just passed the bar as well and is simply waiting on something to come back (I think he said background check).

Sure they could be wrong and/or lying, but I don't see them as lying and given that it is CA I am far more likely to believe them than the city.
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The city is hoping that their deep pockets will deter any further actions against the alleged code violation. It does not seem to be the case.....in this case.
 
carolina guy

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Aknazer said:
In the video they state that their lawyer has already viewed all applicable laws and that the sign does not violate them. They also state how after the put up a fight that a building inspector came and has tried to fine them for their partitions, something else that their lawyer said wasn't true.

Now personally, I'm not a lawyer. As such, when their lawyer says that the sign and the partitions don't break the codes, I'm going to think that he knows something that I don't. Also remember that one of the owners states that he just passed the bar as well and is simply waiting on something to come back (I think he said background check).

Sure they could be wrong and/or lying, but I don't see them as lying and given that it is CA I am far more likely to believe them than the city.
Click to expand...


Perhaps...and I said that they might be right, but based upon the codes online, the pictures and lack of actual footage of the city saying what the store owners claim they said, the story has too little to be objective about and side with the store owners. That said, I have no doubt that the city is against them on ideological reasons, and as such needs to lose this fight...but I suspect they will not lose because the sign appears to violate code on its face (see above quotes from the code and look at the pics).

BTW: Of the lawyers in court, usually 1/2 are found wrong. ;) Also, lawyers are not the judges/juries, so they are giving professional opinions, not final judgement.

IANAL and my opinion is worth slightly less than what you paid for it.
 
Last edited:
F

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
Just sounded, to me, that threats of jail time, were exaggerated. I'm sure there is a whole process, court filing, rulings and appeals. All of which, would not involve jail time.

That does not stop somebody, who thinks they are in power, from making these kinds of threats.

Some people's children...
 
MSG Laigaie

MSG Laigaie

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
3,241
Location
Philipsburg, Montana
Ares Armor had their Grand Opening just last Saturday. It was well received by the public. It may be that the local gov is not happily supporting a business that makes "Ghost Guns". Some in california do not like the idea that the People can build an unserialized weapon at home.

Ares Armor, home of the 80 percent lower receiver. Here you will find products to legally make your own weapon; whether it be an billet, forged, polymer80 lower. An 80% AR-15, 80% AR-10, or 80% 1911. Innovative deployment gear, custom nylon, kydex and combat armor. Contact us with any questions. Made in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top