PDA

View Full Version : Standing and abuse of power


aileron
11-09-2007, 7:05 AM
So, Im reading the amici brief for cross petition from the ACRU and I read this little bit, and it rings so true here.


This case presents important questions of law
concerning whether citizens can even gain access to a court
to protect their constitutional rights under at least the Second
Amendment, if not under the other Amendments embodying
the Bill of Rights as well. If plaintiffs cannot gain standing
until they “have been singled out or uniquely targeted for
prosecution” then many people will be coerced into giving up
their constitutional rights to avoid the personal dangers of
criminal prosecution. MedImmune, 127 S. Ct. at 772-773.
This would be a sad and tragic loss of constitutional rights.

This is exactly how I feel about living in cali and dealing with our courts here.

But more so in our case here, its that we dont even have an acknowledgment that we as individuals have any constitutional rights protected by the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights. A document designed to clarify certain rights retained by the people. And more important further restricting government action.

Wulf
11-09-2007, 7:35 AM
Yeah, there's definitely something wrong with the idea that you have to impale yourself on the legal system before you have to right to challenge the constitutionality of a law.

I can understand where the courts would not want to get involved in judging theoretical defendants vs. theoretical prosecutions. That could quickly get very stupid..........."What if I was a disabled, veteran, African American, albino, living on an Indian reservation with cat that was sensitive to loud noises....could I have a silencer then?"

But at the same time, a reasonably common scenario should not have to wait for some DA to get lucky and some decent person to have their life ruined to have a chance to sort things out.

Liberty1
11-09-2007, 9:34 AM
I'd like to see bills vetted by a "review" court, for constitutionality only, thereby getting that third "check and balance" in from the start before a bill becomes law. State houses and Congress get time to committee, debate and vote on bills over the course of a year, why not let a "constitutional court of vetting" have a review period before we're forced to live under the laws and become subject to prosecution until over turned. If something is so important that Congress can't wait for the review then let 2/3's be the threshold for a temporary bypass of that new court (this would take a constitutional amendment I think so it's a DOA idea :().

bwiese
11-09-2007, 1:23 PM
I see this happening to us, if we don't get proactive on the limits of AB2728. It's a great law, as long as it is only applied to illegal rifles. When legal rifles get confiscated under it, like buff_01's RAA saiga, then we have a problem.

AB2728 really has nothing to do with legal rifles.

JALLEN
11-09-2007, 1:29 PM
I'd like to see bills vetted by a "review" court, for constitutionality only, thereby getting that third "check and balance" in from the start before a bill becomes law. State houses and Congress get time to committee, debate and vote on bills over the course of a year, why not let a "constitutional court of vetting" have a review period before we're forced to live under the laws and become subject to prosecution until over turned. If something is so important that Congress can't wait for the review then let 2/3's be the threshold for a temporary bypass of that new court (this would take a constitutional amendment I think so it's a DOA idea :().

If that was such a good idea, why has it not been done all these two hundred something years? The founders we revere so fervently limited judicial power of the federal government to "cases or controversies"

"The Supreme Court first considered Article III's "case or controversy" limitation on the judicial power when President George Washington forwarded to the Court a request for guidance as to how best to maintain neutrality, during an outbreak of hostilities between England and France, consistent with international law and treaties to which the United States was a party. Chief Justice Jay responded by informing the President that the Court was without power to help (the President had said he would be "much relieved" if the Court answered his questions). Jay said that the Constitution authorized the Court to interpret the law only in the context of a real case or controversy--it had no power to render an advisory opinion about the law. (Note that this limitation on the judicial power is not shared by many state supreme courts, which often do issue advisory opinions.)" http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/caseorcontroversy.htm

Crazed_SS
11-09-2007, 1:30 PM
AB2728 really has nothing to do with legal rifles.

It sorta does. If a person gets arrested for a legally configured OLL or Saiga, a DA can basically use Alonso's line from Training Day... "You wanna go home or you wanna go to jail?"

bwiese
11-09-2007, 1:40 PM
It sorta does. If a person gets arrested for a legally configured OLL or Saiga, a DA can basically use Alonso's line from Training Day... "You wanna go home or you wanna go to jail?"

You guys are unclear: AB2728 has nothing to do with that.

Such DAs have exhibited those identical behaviors before AB2728 too.

AB2728 only does a couple of things:
Rewrote 12276.5PC so DOJ surrenders ability to list new 'series' AWs to the
"Kasler list" nor can it petition courts to add items to Roberti-Roos list.


Offers a prospective penalty reduction for an *AW*. If the gun ain't an AW,
AB2728 is not applicable (though some handwaving in plea negotiations may
let it slide into action.)


You're assuming maximum evil in DAs offices, instead of overworked win-at-any-cost semi-incompetence. Most DAs (or the typical female junior DA involved in such cases) don't even know this law exists and it has to be brought to their attention by defense in the first place.

AB2728 has some technical issues making it way more favorable than you'd think and its benefits are long-term.

WolfMansDad
11-09-2007, 2:48 PM
Woops. My bad. Buff_01 hasn't even been charged. Had something else on my mind.

Please pretend it never happened.