• 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.

Theseus lost his appeal.

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
Unbelievable. Citing Tapia and saying there's no difference between possessing a firearm on public property and private property is silly at best. More lower court bungling of the issues.
 

hoffmang

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
You do realize that in California State Court you get one judicial disqualification by right if exercised at the appropriate time?

More moonbattery...

-Gene
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
I didn't see this posted anywhere, so here it is. To read the opinion open the attached file link titled "People v Clayton Scott Opinion.pdf"

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=394266

Well that's a long read.
The biggest error I see is "A Fully Informed jury".
The Jury was never fully Informed of their rights, as to also "Judging the laws", that's where this case is
falling behind. If its a "Bad Law" they have the right and duty to say "Not Guilty" ! For the 2A.

Also this "Law 626.9 GFSZ" Is unconstitutional from the get go.
It discriminates the Citizens rights, because the Military and Guards, and police, can all carry on that
property. That makes this "Law" unequal to all persons.
All laws are to work FOR every one, in a free society.
Just because "Legislators pass laws don't mean there Lawful, under our Bill of Rights.

Also why would the court try to hide the "Private Property" exemption, when its up to the 12 judges
the jury to make that decision. Think about it.

Maybe we should all ( OC-ers) get a "Restraining Order" to protect our Liberties from the
"grave danger" of loosing it to foreign government agents !
All we have to do then is put up with the "Papers Please" program.
We could all LOC then anywhere at any time !

Robin47 :)
 

Lawful Aim

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
131
Location
USA
You do realize that in California State Court you get one judicial disqualification by right if exercised at the appropriate time?

-Gene

That is partially correct. One may have a single disqualification without reason but a recusal for cause is always feasible.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Here's an alternate download link:
http://filevo.com/vp6ewg8swy5p.html

Thanks Bigtoe. Got it, read it, has the next level of appeal been filed?

I can't believe these courts pull this crap. It's obvious that PRIVATE PROPERTY is.....PRIVATE PROPERTY. Whether it is "open to the public" or not doesn't magically change it into "public property". 626.9 EXEMPTS PRIVATE property. It makes no distinction as to whether the property is open to the public or not.

Tapia was a sidewalk with a public easement, bogus finding but not as big of a reach as a flippin parking lot with no public easement (defined as easement granted to ... or taken by... government).
 
Top