Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: E CHECKS

  1. #1
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    I am still trying to figure out how a CA Appeals court out trumps a us supreme court

    US V Ubiles say that a firearm is not enough for a detention under terry v ohio then what the flying pigeons are we getting stopped for !!!! This issue is right on point with it

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

    That is their logic.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

    That is their logic.
    Just try to relax, this exam will only take a moment.





  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    The CA court rules that 12031(e) is not a detainment or a search, but a mere examination.

    That is their logic.
    Which, of course, flies in the face of the very wording of Terry v Ohio, which clearly defines that any involuntary contact is a "seizure" of the person in the 4A sense.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Surely there must be a lawyer willing to take this case pro bono. It's a slam dunk once we get it to the right court. Couldn't the state be forced to cover attorney fees if/when we win?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •