"Right" to Remain Silent

[MannDude]

Just look at Commifornia and the bill that passed this week to require a permit and $50 fee to buy ammunition.  Talk about 2nd Amendment erosion with that.  Real concerning.

No kidding? I haven't heard about this. California is one of the least gun friendly states, and is it any safer? I think not. Ammo is already expensive enough as it is, this is just ridiculous.

 

[drmike]

No kidding? I haven't heard about this. California is one of the least gun friendly states, and is it any safer? I think not. Ammo is already expensive enough as it is, this is just ridiculous.

This IS the bill that just passed.

SB 53, as amended, De León. Ammunition: purchase permits.


(1) Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain records, including among other things, fingerprints, licenses to carry concealed firearms, and information from firearms dealers pertaining to firearms, for purposes of assisting in the investigation of crimes, and specified civil actions.

This bill would require the Attorney General to also maintain copies of ammunition purchase permits, information about ammunition transactions, as specified, and ammunition vendor licenses, as specified, for those purposes.

.... require the purchaser of ammunition to ...be authorized to purchase ammunition by the Department of Justice ...

establish a centralized list of persons authorized to purchase ammunition.

source: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53

 

[D. Strout]

The Supreme Court is really the most powerful governmental body in the U.S. They are appointed for life, they can overrule any legislation by majority vote, and they can basically ignore any cases they don't want to bother with, picking up only the ones they're interested in. This is not Congress or Obama's fault, this is the Supreme Court's fault. For some reason "checks and balances" don't really apply to them.

 

[MannDude]

This IS the bill that just passed.

SB 53, as amended, De León. Ammunition: purchase permits.


(1) Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain records, including among other things, fingerprints, licenses to carry concealed firearms, and information from firearms dealers pertaining to firearms, for purposes of assisting in the investigation of crimes, and specified civil actions.

This bill would require the Attorney General to also maintain copies of ammunition purchase permits, information about ammunition transactions, as specified, and ammunition vendor licenses, as specified, for those purposes.

.... require the purchaser of ammunition to ...be authorized to purchase ammunition by the Department of Justice ...

establish a centralized list of persons authorized to purchase ammunition.

source: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53

Sheesh. It's crazy to see states like California exist in the same nation where states nearby (like Arizona) have 'constitutional carry' laws and allow open carry. Indiana is somewhat lax too, though not nearly as much as other states. We do allow open carry here plus have the castle doctrine. Just recently (within the last year) implemented a law protecting citizens who shoot officers who enter homes unlawfully via no knock no warrant entries. (Though I suspect even if protected by the law in this situation, you'd still leave your home in a bag and full of more holes than swiss cheese.)

 

[MannDude]

The Supreme Court is really the most powerful governmental body in the U.S. They are appointed for life, they can overrule any legislation by majority vote, and they can basically ignore any cases they don't want to bother with, picking up only the ones they're interested in. This is not Congress or Obama's fault, this is the Supreme Court's fault. For some reason "checks and balances" don't really apply to them.

Average age among these members is 68. They'll all die out sooner or later and will hopefully get replaced with sensible individuals. While few and far between, there are some individuals in politics who I believe actually care and would like to see America be great again.

 

[Marc M.]

They'll all die out sooner or later and will hopefully get replaced with sensible individuals.

Probably not, we'll just have more of the same.

While few and far between, there are some individuals in politics who I believe actually care and would like to see America be great again.

@MannDude everyone is susceptible to corruption. And when one of those rare idealists comes along, a man without a price, he just gets eliminated out of the way.

Sorry, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to these things.

 

[MannDude]

Here you go Aldryic: http://rt.com/usa/california-man-13-prison-banks-237/

Jeff Olson, the 40-year-old man who is being prosecuted for scrawling anti-megabank messages on sidewalks in water-soluble chalk last year now faces a 13-year jail sentence. A judge has barred his attorney from mentioning freedom of speech during trial.

According to the San Diego Reader, which reported on Tuesday that a judge had opted to prevent Olson’s attorney from "mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,” Olson must now stand trial for on 13 counts of vandalism. 

In addition to possibly spending years in jail, Olson will also be held liable for fines of up to $13,000 over the anti-big-bank slogans that were left using washable children's chalk on a sidewalk outside of three San Diego, California branches of Bank of America, the massive conglomerate that received $45 billion in interest-free loans from the US government in 2008-2009 in a bid to keep it solvent after bad bets went south. 

The Reader reports that Olson’s hearing had gone as poorly as his attorney might have expected, with Judge Howard Shore, who is presiding over the case, granting Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard's motion to prohibit attorney Tom Tosdal from mentioning the United States' fundamental First Amendment rights. 

"The State's Vandalism Statute does not mention First Amendment rights," ruled Judge Shore on Tuesday. 

Upon exiting the courtroom Olson seemed to be in disbelief. 

"Oh my gosh," he said. "I can't believe this is happening." 

Tosdal, who exited the courtroom shortly after his client, seemed equally bewildered. 

"I've never heard that before, that a court can prohibit an argument of First Amendment rights," said Tosdal. 

Olson, who worked as a former staffer for a US Senator from Washington state, was said to involve himself in political activism in tandem with the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement. 

On October 3, 2011, Olson first appeared outside of a Bank of America branch in San Diego, along with a homemade sign. Eight days later Olson and his partner, Stephen Daniels, during preparations for National Bank Transfer Day, the two were confronted by Darell Freeman, the Vice President of Bank of America’s Global Corporate Security. 

A former police officer, Freeman accused Olson and Daniels of “running a business outside of the bank,” evidently in reference to the National Bank Transfer Day activities, which was a consumer activism initiative that sought to promote Americans to switch from commercial banks, like Bank of America, to not-for-profit credit unions. 

At the time, Bank of America’s debit card fees were among one of the triggers that led Occupy Wall Street members to promote the transfer day. 

"It was just an empty threat," says Olson of Freeman’s accusations. "He was trying to scare me away. To be honest, it did at first. I even called my bank and they said he couldn't do anything like that." 

Olson continued to protest outside of Bank of America. In February 2012, he came across a box of chalk at a local pharmacy and decided to begin leaving his mark with written statements. 

"I thought it was a perfect way to get my message out there. Much better than handing out leaflets or holding a sign," says Olson. 

Over the course of the next six months Olson visited the Bank of America branch a few days per week, leaving behind scribbled slogans such as "Stop big banks" and "Stop Bank Blight.com." 

According to Olson, who spoke with local broadcaster KGTV, one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing. 

Public records obtained by the Reader show that Freeman continued to pressure members of San Diego’s Gang Unit on behalf of Bank of America until the matter was forwarded to the City Attorney’s office. 

On April 15, Deputy City Attorney Paige Hazard contacted Freeman with a response on his persistent queries. 

"I wanted to let you know that we will be filing 13 counts of vandalism as a result of the incidents you reported," said Hazard. 

Arguments for Olson’s case are set to be heard Wednesday morning, following jury selection.

 

[lv-matt]

And yet my American co-workers always get so offended when I mention that I miss the USSR.. and when asked why, "Because they were honest."

They where far from honest, they where only honest after Glasnost, which was in 1988. Up to then, they hid all there honesty thats for sure.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

one Bank of America branch claimed it had cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk writing

That pretty much summed up the whole thing for me =\ Given my own experiences with BoA, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. And now with courts suppressing articles from the Bill of Rights? I don't see myself staying in the US much longer.

They where far from honest, they where only honest after Glasnost, which was in 1988. Up to then, they hid all there honesty thats for sure.

You missed the point there. Those of us that grew up under the red flag had absolutely no disillusions about what was going on. There was no belief that the government was "taking care of us", and certainly nobody I knew was blind to the totalitarian control.