Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh the lunacy of the liberal politicians and the sheep that follow them. If you were lucky enough to get one (AR15) in 1964 you've been through this many many times. You are a criminal, now you're not, now you can be, now you are legal. What a freakin lame, tired game being played. No wonder LE can't keep up with the laws. I just got done going through a year long case ending with it being tossed out but it still cost me 5000. It's a freakin money maker for the state and , of course, the attorneys.
Oh the lunacy of the liberal politicians and the sheep that follow them. If you were lucky enough to get one (AR15) in 1964 you've been through this many many times. You are a criminal, now you're not, now you can be, now you are legal. What a freakin lame, tired game being played. No wonder LE can't keep up with the laws. I just got done going through a year long case ending with it being tossed out but it still cost me 5000. It's a freakin money maker for the state and , of course, the attorneys.
And that's why it will continue until such a time as people are voted out of office for doing such things OR the state is forced to pay a defendants expenses/penalties when the state fails to obtain a conviction.
It's a no lose proposition for the state now, either way they win, especially when asset forfeiture is involved.
If you take a "hunting rifle" and put a scary black folding stock or flash suppressor on it or a scary looking for-grip or a tac-light on it, (or god forbid all four) now it's a military style weapon.
Actually, under the old assault-weapon ban, a muzzle loader would have been illegal with those accessories.
The part about the state confiscating your property and turning you into a felon. And take you complaints about prisoners being released to the Supreme Court because they are the ones who ordered reducing the prison population
1. I didn't say I would become a felon, I said I would become a criminal and possibly if not likely lose my job.
2. The state is confiscating My legally owned property without compensation.
3. It was the CA court that said prisons are over crowded
4. It was democrat politicians who refused to build prisons to support the needs of a growing population and choosing to release said individuals into the general population all while passing more laws that do nothing to actually prevent crime.
I think what is even more interesting about the whole story is this part of the article, "Mokhiber was pulled over for speeding in April 2016. Although Mokhiber had not been drinking, police performed field sobriety tests. When Mokhiber requested that officers turn on body cameras, he was arrested, and his vehicle was searched without a warrant."
1. I didn't say I would become a felon, I said I would become a criminal and possibly if not likely lose my job.
2. The state is confiscating My legally owned property without compensation.
3. It was the CA court that said prisons are over crowded
4. It was democrat politicians who refused to build prisons to support the needs of a growing population and choosing to release said individuals into the general population all while passing more laws that do nothing to actually prevent crime.
I'm not the least bit interested in #1 or #2, but you are wrong about #3 and #4
#3 "Conditions in California’s overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday, ordering the state to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, described a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.â€Supreme Court Upholds Order to Reduce Calif. Prison Population - The New York Times
#4 The State was given two years to comply with the Court Order, two years is not enough time to finance, design, build and staff 8-10 prisons which is what would have been required because not only did SCOTUS require that the state reduce the population by 30k, but they also required that the 10k inmates held in out of state prisons be returned. https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rowded/239313/
As part of Plata, California was ordered to improve the medical treatment of inmates, to comply they built the Stockton prison hospital, a 900 million dollar project that houses 3,000 inmates and costs 295 million annually to operate.
The California prison budget is currently 10.1 million dollars a year, the cost per inmate annually is $64,000. Want to double down on that and put some more people in prison? Even red states are changing sentencing laws to cut down on number of people sent to prison, Texas is years ahead of California in sentencing reform. I'm not sure why some people get stuck on stupid and think that throwing everyone who breaks the law in prison is such a great idea.
And that's why it will continue until such a time as people are voted out of office for doing such things OR the state is forced to pay a defendants expenses/penalties when the state fails to obtain a conviction.
It's a no lose proposition for the state now, either way they win, especially when asset forfeiture is involved.
It's right there, in the OP. He was in possession of something that was legal, it was made illegal for no logical reason and now he's a criminal. There are thousands, maybe millions of other people in the same scenario. What is hard to understand about it?
Lousy argument my friend. He was in possession of 17 round glock magazines which violated NY law. It does not matter if they were legal 'somewhere else', just like Colorado's recreational marijuana law does not keep you from being arrested for possession of marijuana in Utah.
Lousy argument my friend. He was in possession of 17 round glock magazines which violated NY law. It does not matter if they were legal 'somewhere else', just like Colorado's recreational marijuana law does not keep you from being arrested for possession of marijuana in Utah.
Well that flew over your head. They were legal, a law was changed to make them illegal.
First off, I left taxifornia years ago and secondly, the same issues I describe exist in ALL states. Look up asset forfeiture and educate yourself on what happens when you're charged with some offense and found not guilty. You lose in both situations even if you win.
So what's your point again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
