Why CA should not resist Peruta any longer-HuffPo essay

H

HarrySchell

New member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-santiago/guns-in-america-why-i-thi_b_5628403.html

Hopefully not a duplicate. The article keys off the the Palmer decision over the weekend, how gun control efforts and resistance to concealed carry outside the home has not worked to stem violence is progressive centers like Chicago and argues that the weight of experience and the plain direction in Palmer should be gracefully accepted by the CA AG as a signal to end her resistance to Peruta.

I like especially the last part of the essay:

" So I've been pondering how to explain this in everyday language all weekend. What's the message here? What are these court decisions actually saying to America? And I came up with this,

"Mom you can't nanny your children forever. You can't demand that they stay babies. Somewhere along the way it's time to let Americans grow up and deal with the risks of the real world with all of the tools they need and the demands to be responsible that go along with them. Do not fret. They will make you proud of them, these Americans, if you just let them.""
 
As long as there are no personal consequences,,,

As long as there are no personal consequences,,,
The leaders will continue on their merry way.

Florida passed a law allowing monetary penalties,,,
And I believe jail time for any local government person,,,
Who tries to enact or enforce laws stricter than the state laws.

The fine, IIRC, was $5,000.00 for the first offense.

It had the local anti's screaming about "bullying" by the state.

When a federal judge sends his LEO's (Bailiff? Sergeant at Arms?) to place someone under arrest,,,
That's when you will see the real screaming and hollering.

So what happens in DC when a gun owner decides to test this,,,
He will be arrested and nothing will happen to the DC Chief of Police.

Nothing will happen until the Federal Judges actively enforce their rulings.

I don't know if there is even a mechanism to do this.

I would love to see Agents of a Federal Court take the DC Police Chief into custody.

But I also want to meet a real live alien. :rolleyes:

Aarond

.
 
Hello Tom,,,

Why? Is there evidence of her breaking the law or failing to enforce the law as the legislature wrote it?
Click to expand...

In the context of my statement/scenario there would be.

If the DC police Chief continues to enforce their laws,,,
That a federal judge just told them were unconstitutional,,,
What can that federal judge do to enforce his (her?) decision?

Can a federal judge issue some kind of warrant for disobeying their order?

My point is that time after time we see rulings handed down,,,
But no real enforcement of that ruling takes place.

I whooped for joy the first time I read that Florida had charged one local legislative body for ignoring their state pre-emption law.

If a local official, such as the DC Chief of Police ignores a federal court ruling,,,
I would like to know what recourse the federal judge has.

If it can include the arrest of the Chief,,,
I want to see it if/when it happens.

Aarond

.
 
Dennis Santaigo said:
"Mom you can't nanny your children forever. You can't demand that they stay babies. Somewhere along the way it's time to let Americans grow up and deal with the risks of the real world with all of the tools they need and the demands to be responsible that go along with them. Do not fret. They will make you proud of them, these Americans, if you just let them.""
Click to expand...
I like this quote.
 
aarondhgraham said:
Can a federal judge issue some kind of warrant for disobeying their order?
Click to expand...

Disobeying court orders would fall within the bounds of holding a person or organization in contempt of court.

Rather than trying to recount federal rules for contempt, let me recount a state judge's explanation of contempt that I observed on Monday. The judge said the defendant could be held in criminal or civil contempt if he failed to comply with the court's order. The judge explained criminal contempt as punishment for not complying with the court's order and that punishment could be imprisonment for up to 180 days. The judge explained civil contempt as a way to encourage the defendant to comply with the court's order and the defendant could be imprisoned until he complied with the order ... for a period up to the balance of his natural life. Yep, that last phrase really caught the defendant's attention.
 
I'm a little surprised to see an article like that from HuffPo, but I won't complain. I'm stuck in Cali for the foreseeable future (unfortunately), so being allowed to carry under "self defense" reasoning would be just great. They certainly are taking their sweet time putting the decision into action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top