Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: California's PC 12031(e) a Remedy to Win !

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    California's PC 12031(e) a Remedy to Win !

    As we all know PC 12031(e) violates a persons 4th-A, the remedy is to
    challenge that 4th-A violation
    The option of Leo's is if they want to check to see if your gun is unloaded.
    However they must violate your 4th to do it.
    There is no 'Constitutional law" that gives them that right, not even PC 12031(e).
    its unconstitutional to begin with, making it "Null & Void "from Inception. PC 12031(e) !
    Marbury vs.Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176. (1803). Also:
    16 AM Jur 2d,sec 177 late 2d, sec 256. Also:
    Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442.

    There is one more way a remedy would work, to challenge PC 12031(e).
    Being as Leo's follow orders, to cut back on that power, with an unconstitutional laws being Enforced
    on "We the People", we need to" File a Restraining Order" against the Sheriff's Dept, and all other
    law enforcement dept in your respective counties.
    That way the Leo's won't have to violate your 4th-A, neither would they have to check you
    but just ask you. ( Is that loaded?). NO - UOC.

    Now the question might come up, "What if the court Judge" won't give you a Restraining Order, to prevent a violation of your rights" ?
    Then you can file a Title 18 Section 241, on that judge, and any officers who have violated your rights
    at anytime in the past, or might in the future.
    I guess you could call this "E-Checks gone wild" !

    Anyway in the Federal Court suit, the question would come up about the Constitutionality of PC 12031(e).
    Its not Leo's we are fighting but bad laws ! The Leo's are just following orders, kind of like foot soldiers.
    So let me hear from you your opinions !

    Robin47

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Great idea, but you need to find someone with deep pockets to make the challenge because no California federal court will side with you, this would have to go all the way to the SCOTUS, and that takes money.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevada carrier View Post
    Great idea, but you need to find someone with deep pockets to make the challenge because no California federal court will side with you, this would have to go all the way to the SCOTUS, and that takes money.
    I don't think so, you just need the filing fee, for Fed Court, and the burden of proof, is the judges denile of
    the request, which is on the court record, and a paper you get from them.
    Mc Donald case is the same 4th-A, and has already been decided.

    The judge who denied you your right to protection, of your person from 4th -A violations by Leo's
    is the one who is being personally sued in Federal Court. under Title 18 Section 241 along with the PD's
    who are also Involved in violating your 4th-A.

    The either keep their oath, and protect your right s or they do not , and if they don't that makes them a n
    Impostor in their office, and a fraud for taking public monies, under false pretenses.
    And that is a crime !

    Robin47
    Last edited by Robin47; 12-04-2010 at 08:27 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    I might add also: to then ask the Attorney General, and if he don't then go to the Governor.

    It worked for Charles Sprinkle, same apples to all your B of R Rights, think about it !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS43E...e=more_related

    Robin47

  5. #5
    Regular Member CenTex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    ,,
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I might add also: to then ask the Attorney General, and if he don't then go to the Governor.

    It worked for Charles Sprinkle, same apples to all your B of R Rights, think about it !

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS43E...e=more_related

    Robin47
    Well, Robin47, are you another Charles Sprinkle? Are you ready to be the one to challenge the illegality of PC 12031(e) on what you have presented? I will donate some to the cost of the filing fee. It has always been my impression that the one who designs a building is the best person to see that it is built correctly. Go for it.
    Last edited by CenTex; 12-06-2010 at 11:36 AM.
    The words of a tyrant: I never entertain opposing opinions. I am always right.

    Socialism is just another dirty word for totalitarianism.

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -Patrick Henry

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    I might add also: to then ask the Attorney General, and if he don't then go to the Governor.
    Over the last 20 years, I've written mayors, city councilmen, state legistlators, governors, Senators, Representatives, and Presidents

    To date, and batting a thousand, if they were Republicans, they responded. If they were Democrats, they did not.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317


    Its not just a book......its a way of life! Any takers on reading this thing?
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTex View Post
    Well, Robin47, are you another Charles Sprinkle? Are you ready to be the one to challenge the illegality of PC 12031(e) on what you have presented? I will donate some to the cost of the filing fee. It has always been my impression that the one who designs a building is the best person to see that it is built correctly. Go for it.
    I knew a lot of old Patriots, back in the late 1970's who were like Charles Sprinkle, and they didn't use drivers
    license's, I did learn a lot from them.
    What Charles said makes a lot of since.
    We do need to fight for our freedoms in every way.

    I still know a few old Patriots who are fighting, in their local areas.
    Yes there's a lot of going to court, and a continuing fight, the judges are corrupted to the point
    you can't exercise your rights effectively today.
    And that's our problem.

    There is a county park near me, and a list of "Rules" even though its in an Unincorporated area of the county.
    The sign said "No firearms allowed". This "Regulation" was done in 1986.
    I could see a sign that might say "No discharge of firearms", but to say "No firearms Allowed" is really
    Unconstitutional.
    We carry for "Self-Protection", and its our Right.
    So that make these county supervisors, either not thinking when they passed this rule, or plain oath breakers.
    In either case, a good law suit could happen in this county. There setting them self up for litigation.
    So I'm going to try to bring this to their attention.
    We'll see what happens.

    Carry on ! Robin47

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    There is a county park near me, and a list of "Rules" even though its in an Unincorporated area of the county.
    The sign said "No firearms allowed". This "Regulation" was done in 1986. I could see a sign that might say "No discharge of firearms", but to say "No firearms Allowed" is really Unconstitutional.
    Hmm... YES. It's unConstitutional, six ways to Sunday. Perhaps that's why our Founding Fathers asked their constituents to carry their arms to Church...

    Oh! Didn't know that, did you? Hmm...

    Alas, we who forget our past are bound to repeat twice the repurcussion of our mistakes, as our enemies are DAMN SURE NOT FORGETTING OUR MISTAKES.

    Complacency is for idiots and those within 15 seconds of entering their graves.

    Sorry, but I and my kin choose to live a *bit* longer than others might like. Oh, well.

    So that make these county supervisors, either not thinking when they passed this rule, or plain oath breakers.
    No such person in the military would have passed muster.

    In either case, a good law suit could happen in this county. There setting them self up for litigation. So I'm going to try to bring this to their attention. We'll see what happens.

    Carry on ! Robin47
    Good luck. More than 90% of litigation is settled out of court, so what's your plan?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

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