Saturday, November 21, 2015
541 Guns Confiscated from California man are all Legal
"It's a blatant attempt by a Sacramento politician to aggrandize herself with the anti-gun group in San Francisco and Los Angeles and garner votes among that group," said Coleman.
Some of the guns in Sheakalee's possesion are banned in California, but Coleman has the 2006 paperwork to show the guns are legal, and says he has a strong legal defense.
More Here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
It is a mistake to fight this in state court. This is a federal rights issue and thus the jurisdiction should be federal court. It may well be a state law at issue, but the remedy is not at the state level, it is at the federal protection level.
Even established precedent in control here destroys California's and the feds arguments listed. The script has been flipped so to speak. The government is now in the seat of having to prove the man is prohibited. Yeah, innocent until proven guilty really does apply to gun owners too, now.
And on top of it all, lets say they "prove" mentally defective adjudication. Even then, it will have to prove that confiscation by government AND prohibition is the least restrictive remedy possible to the situation.
I understand the state court jurisdiction decision, but I profoundly disagree with it. He should at the least sue federally in concert, for deprivation of rights. I contend that doing so would facilitate the return of his firearms, and almost instantly. They know full well the only prayer they have is delaying it by keeping it in state court, for years, until the eventual appeal goes to federal court anyway.
Time to play hardball, imho. Endlessly playing whack a mole with state law is no different than endlessly playing whack a mole with local law. It is the same endless game. The federal defense, the Constitutional defense, the Second Amendment defense is the proper defense.
Post a Comment