PDA

View Full Version : Brown petitions CA Supreme Court to review body armor decision...


CaliforniaCarry
01-22-2010, 3:53 PM
http://www.jerrybrown.org/node/594

San Francisco-Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal's ruling which "wrongly threw out" the law banning felons from possessing body armor.

"The appellate court wrongly threw out an important law that prohibited felons from possessing body armor," Brown said. "We're asking the Supreme Court to review the decision and restore important protections for the men and women in law enforcement."

In 1998, the California Legislature enacted the James Guelff Body Armor Act to prohibit felons convicted of a violent crime from possessing body armor.

On December 17, 2009, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal struck down the statute, ruling that the law was too vague.

Brown's petition argues that the Court of Appeal's Opinion:

- Fails to follow the test for determining whether a statute is vague;
- Contradicts the Legislature's intent in enacting a body armor statute; and,
- Needlessly abrogates the entire body armor statute.

I couldn't find the actual petition anywhere, or the appellate decision. Does anybody have links to these?

davescz
01-22-2010, 4:30 PM
after a felon is deemed rehabilitated enough to return to society, they should be able to purchase a life saving defensive device, what could be safer than body armour? Maybe we shoudl ban use of seat belt by felons too?

seems to me the problmm is armoured crooks in a gun fight while commiting a crime, as if a gun fight during say a holdup does not carry a big enough penalty.

To solve this problem, make it an extra 20 years for any one (convicted felon or not) to be wearing a bullet proof vest while in a gun fight with police or citizens legally defending life and property, when said vest wearer is in commision of a crime.
The above law is simple will solve the problem,without hindering folks from using this life saving device. this is the same logic of gun control, rather than lock up for ever the crooks that use guns to commit crimes, the politicians criminalize the device, gun or vest. how silly is that?

Fjold
01-22-2010, 4:44 PM
after a felon is deemed rehabilitated enough to return to society, they should be able to purchase a life saving defensive device, what could be safer than body armour? Maybe we shoudl ban use of seat belt by felons too?

seems to me the problmm is armoured crooks in a gun fight while commiting a crime, as if a gun fight during say a holdup does not carry a big enough penalty.

To solve this problem, make it an extra 20 years for any one (convicted felon or not) to be wearing a bullet proof vest while in a gun fight with police or citizens legally defending life and property, when said vest wearer is in commision of a crime.
The above law is simple will solve the problem,without hindering folks from using this life saving device. this is the same logic of gun control, rather than lock up for ever the crooks that use guns to commit crimes, the politicians criminalize the device, gun or vest. how silly is that?

For a felon who serves his entire sentence there is no determination that he is rehabilitated.

383green
01-22-2010, 4:53 PM
If the felon in question has already demonstrated their willingness to commit violent acts which are prohibited by law, then why would anybody with more than one brain cell to rub together think that they would obey another law which merely prohibits them from possessing a fancy shirt? How would this protect police officers from armored felons, when the law cannot be applied until after the police officers in question have already taken the armored felon into custody?

R-tards.

bigstick61
01-22-2010, 5:18 PM
I think a blanket prohibition on all felons of every sort is a bad idea. Certainly there are cases where a lifetime ban on body armor, or firearms, or whatever is justifiable past the prison sentence (although I think that in some of those cases release before death or lack of execution automatically results in an injustice), but this should be up to the discretion of the judge. If the felony is something like securities fraud, I fail to see the connection to firearms or body armor or why the person should not be allowed to have them. Of course, I also think that we use too broad a definition for "felony" these days as well. The term should be reserved for fairly serious or egregious criminal acts, as it used to be.

Shotgun Man
01-22-2010, 5:18 PM
Is it any wonder were bankrupt? Wasting our time with laws like this.

bigcalidave
01-22-2010, 10:28 PM
Things like this aren't why we are bankrupt. I have no problem with this going hand in hand with felons owning guns. It should also stay an add on charge in commission of a felony. They need to review it and give it an appropriate definition.

luvtolean
01-23-2010, 7:52 AM
For a felon who serves his entire sentence there is no determination that he is rehabilitated.

Especially in CA!

Of course, the fact a person is a felon in CA doesn't necessarily mean they're a threat to society in my eyes either.

GrizzlyGuy
01-23-2010, 8:47 AM
I couldn't find the actual petition anywhere, or the appellate decision. Does anybody have links to these?

Here is the appellate decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B204646.PDF).

We reverse Saleem‘s conviction. Section 12370 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12370.html) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it does not provide fair notice of which protective body vests constitute the body armor made illegal by the statute.

davescz
01-23-2010, 11:18 AM
Here is the appellate decision (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B204646.PDF).

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry

I couldn't find the actual petition anywhere, or the appellate decision. Does anybody have links to these?

Here is the appellate decision.


Quote:
We reverse Saleem‘s conviction. Section 12370 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it does not provide fair notice of which protective body vests constitute the body armor made illegal by the statute.

__________________
seems to me fair notice ought to be given to persons convicted by the gun free zone laws. the police should paint lines 1000 feet around schools, so we can have a clear and fair notice where our consitutional rights end. seem only fair to me. lacking markings on the street or signs, the 1000 foot rule is very vague.

stil the vest is a non offensive device, it is strickly defensive, yes some say that you should have no defense aginst the lawman, after all the lawman has never ever ever shot the wrong person, ever!

just make using a vest during a crime an additional charge, dont ban use of the vest when no crime is being commited. it is same arguement used for gun control. we need to make the crimes and actions illegal, not objects.

bwiese
01-23-2010, 11:21 AM
JB is carrying weight for cop organizations upset by the decision.

loather
01-23-2010, 12:02 PM
People seem to be confusing rehabilitation and punishment.

Our prison system is certainly not rehabilitation. It's punishment. This is evident by the recidivism rate of released convicts. If they were rehabilitated they would not be apt to re-offend. The sad state of affairs is that it costs a tremendous amount of money and resources to house inmates in prison. While the state and society would love proper rehabilitation programs, it's simply not the way things are done. This is why our jails are filled with three-strikers who get busted on drug charges. Is being in prison really going to help them get off the smack? No! Get these ingrates into a program that helps re-educate them.

Sometimes, what people need is a little bit of help and direction -- a little bit of a chance to get ahead. If our prison system actually focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment, it'd certainly be a lot more effective.

davescz
01-23-2010, 1:11 PM
People seem to be confusing rehabilitation and punishment.

Our prison system is certainly not rehabilitation. It's punishment. This is evident by the recidivism rate of released convicts. If they were rehabilitated they would not be apt to re-offend. The sad state of affairs is that it costs a tremendous amount of money and resources to house inmates in prison. While the state and society would love proper rehabilitation programs, it's simply not the way things are done. This is why our jails are filled with three-strikers who get busted on drug charges. Is being in prison really going to help them get off the smack? No! Get these ingrates into a program that helps re-educate them.

Sometimes, what people need is a little bit of help and direction -- a little bit of a chance to get ahead. If our prison system actually focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment, it'd certainly be a lot more effective.

part of the problem is long jail terms in resort prisons. I read it cost like $30,000 per year to house a crook in jail. ridiculus. does not some sherrif in arizona have a solution for all this waste of money?
actually if they put prisoners to work, 10 hours a day, no TV, with early morning running drills, there might be fewer re-turn prisoners. sentances should be shortened for minor first offenders so as not to disrupt life more. labour at prison should be required, instead they treat it like welfare with free cable tv. big union over paid prison guards dont help any with the budget either, the pension plan is really a Ponzi scheme.

wildhawker
01-23-2010, 1:16 PM
JB is carrying weight for cop organizations upset by the decision.

He has to considering their value in the Guv race.

7x57
01-23-2010, 2:45 PM
actually if they put prisoners to work, 10 hours a day, no TV, with early morning running drills, there might be fewer re-turn prisoners.

It's quite possible the ACLU can make a case against forced labor, though to really have an intelligent opinion I'd have to know a great deal more about the history of practice and legislation on the subject.

But what I would prefer is not that they work for the state, but that the wages paid for the mandatory work go either to dependent children, if they exist, or to be banked. IOW, they have to work, but it is for themselves or their family obligations. My theory is that in the long run society benefits more if they are working for themselves in prison than if they were working for us (if only to pay some of the costs of their incarceration. But that's so eminently sane that I have no doubt that it cannot and will not ever happen in California, or for that matter in most of the rest of the country.

7x57

SteveH
01-24-2010, 9:16 AM
If the felon in question has already demonstrated their willingness to commit violent acts which are prohibited by law, then why would anybody with more than one brain cell to rub together think that they would obey another law which merely prohibits them from possessing a fancy shirt? How would this protect police officers from armored felons, when the law cannot be applied until after the police officers in question have already taken the armored felon into custody?

R-tards.

Simple. The cops arrest the parolee/felon for the body armor in his closet or in his car before he has a chance to use it in a robbery/gun fight.

GrizzlyGuy
01-24-2010, 9:33 AM
just make using a vest during a crime an additional charge, dont ban use of the vest when no crime is being commited. it is same arguement used for gun control. we need to make the crimes and actions illegal, not objects.

Exactly. Felons have a natural right to self-defense just like anyone else, and (unlike a gun) body armor is a self-defense tool with no inherent offensive capability. It's the actual use of the tool, and not possession or potential use of the tool, that should be the focus. If anyone (felon or not) chooses to actually use that tool in conjunction with an illegal act, then anyone should be subject to charge or an enhanced sentence for the illegal act they were committing.

davescz
01-24-2010, 10:35 AM
It's quite possible the ACLU can make a case against forced labor, though to really have an intelligent opinion I'd have to know a great deal more about the history of practice and legislation on the subject.

But what I would prefer is not that they work for the state, but that the wages paid for the mandatory work go either to dependent children, if they exist, or to be banked. IOW, they have to work, but it is for themselves or their family obligations. My theory is that in the long run society benefits more if they are working for themselves in prison than if they were working for us (if only to pay some of the costs of their incarceration. But that's so eminently sane that I have no doubt that it cannot and will not ever happen in California, or for that matter in most of the rest of the country.

7x57

if the ACLU could sue the tax man for taking half my earnings each year (forced labour) I'd donate to them. making prisoners work to pay for prison expenses will help the state, and help prisoners learn trades, and become productive when they get out. basically it is free room and board for prisoners if they dont work. Yes the money should be sent to child support if they have kids, same as if they worked on the outside and owed child support.

SteveH
01-24-2010, 1:13 PM
People seem to be confusing rehabilitation and punishment.

Our prison system is certainly not rehabilitation. It's punishment.

Our prison system is neither rehabilitation or punishment. Its simply short term storage.

7x57
01-24-2010, 1:41 PM
if the ACLU could sue the tax man for taking half my earnings each year (forced labour) I'd donate to them. making prisoners work to pay for prison expenses will help the state, and help prisoners learn trades, and become productive when they get out. basically it is free room and board for prisoners if they dont work. Yes the money should be sent to child support if they have kids, same as if they worked on the outside and owed child support.

Indeed, but my point was to put a priority on making the work something that pays off in a way as close as possible to the outside world rather than primarily a way to save money.

7x57

nicki
01-24-2010, 2:44 PM
I honestly don't have an issue with felons owning body armor, quite frankly, many of them need it for daily protection.

If a Felon gets shot while wearing body armor, his wounds are going to be less severe and cost us less money in medical costs.

Make the penaties for commiting a crime severe so that the crime is not committed in the first place.

Nicki