Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Davis v. Sails

  1. #1
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Davis v. Sails

    I was reading court cases the other night and ran across this one. Here's an excerpt:
    "This Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Ellis, in Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666, 668, L.R.A. 1918E, 949, pointed out the prerequisites of a valid ordinance, and said: `* * * To be valid an ordinance must be reasonable and not in conflict with any controlling provision or principal of law (Waller v. Osban, 60 Fla. 268, 52 So. 970); should it be within the powers expressly or impliedly conferred (Hardee v. Brown [56 Fla. 377, 47 So. 834], supra; Malone v. City of Quincy, 66 Fla. 52, 62 So. 922, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 208; Ferguson v. McDonald, 66 Fla. 494, 63 So. 915), and if any doubt exists as to the extent of a power attempted to be exercised by a municipality out of the usual range, or which may affect the common-law right of a citizen, it is to be resolved against the municipality (Anderson v. Shackleford, [74 Fla. 36], 76 So. 343 [L.R.A. 1918A, 139]).'

    "An ordinance when in force should not in its application deprive the owner of a reasonable use and enjoyment of his own property, thereby depriving him of his property without due process of law or just compensation. The ownership of property is guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions. Frequently it becomes necessary for the property and use thereof to yield to constitutional regulations. While a municipality by ordinance may regulate or limit the use of property in behalf of the general welfare of its citizens, such action is authorized only in a constitutional manner. See City of Palmetto v. Katsch, 86 Fla. 506, 98 So. 352; Liggett Co. v. Amos, 104 Fla. 609, 141 So. 153." (192 So. at pages 874 and 875)
    I wish Alabama had case law this clear on record. If y'all down in Florida had a better worded RKBA in your constitution, or we here in Alabama had this kind of case law, all our OC problems could have been solved by now.

  2. #2
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdonalk View Post
    I was reading court cases the other night and ran across this one. Here's an excerpt:


    I wish Alabama had case law this clear on record. If y'all down in Florida had a better worded RKBA in your constitution, or we here in Alabama had this kind of case law, all our OC problems could have been solved by now.
    It is amazing to me that no well to do freedom lover or liberty loving organization hasn't sued the state of Florida over the infringement of the Fl constitution vis-a-vis the RKABA. It reads:

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."

    Under current Fl law, this is what the constitution should read

    "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the right to bear arms shall be prohibited by statute.

    From the point of the common law "except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law" means that the state might say you have to carry in a holster, or maybe (it's too much of a stretch, IMO) that you cannot carry concealed without a permit. No reasonable person, with any understanding of natural law or history, could honestly conclude that the state can ban or require a permit for, ALL manner of carry. And in fact the FL Supreme Court has said this is indeed the case, IF you are white.

    Even the courts in Kommiefornia, have just this year suggested that the state's ban on loaded open carry, in light of the severe restrictions in urban areas on CC, may be unconstitutional.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
    I've discussed this before, but....

    The point of this section, is to allow augmentation of the State Constitution by extension. That is the very definition of the words. It is there to allow changing the meaning of this part without having to actually get that supermajority to do it.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    I've discussed this before, but....

    The point of this section, is to allow augmentation of the State Constitution by extension. That is the very definition of the words. It is there to allow changing the meaning of this part without having to actually get that supermajority to do it.
    Well, in Alabama we don't have that last clause but because the state doesn't bother to enforce preemption, we have a mish mash of local ordinances that the cities know are unlawful. They stand behind them anyway, mostly because Alabama doesn't seem to have solid case law like that in Florida quoted above. If Florida didn't have that tail clause in their RKBA, the case law shown above would be a huge step in getting your carry problems straightened out. As it is...

    Just my $0.02

  5. #5
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdonalk View Post
    Well, in Alabama we don't have that last clause but because the state doesn't bother to enforce preemption, we have a mish mash of local ordinances that the cities know are unlawful. They stand behind them anyway, mostly because Alabama doesn't seem to have solid case law like that in Florida quoted above. If Florida didn't have that tail clause in their RKBA, the case law shown above would be a huge step in getting your carry problems straightened out. As it is...

    Just my $0.02
    Model legislation that Al should copy: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0402
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

Posting Permissions

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