California Court rules Convicted felons can wear body armor

[ericire12]

http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/convicted-felons-can-wear-body-armor-20091219

Los Angeles - A state appeals court has tossed out a California law that prohibits convicted felons from wearing or possessing body armor, a decision that today angered Los Angeles police union leaders.

The Second District Court of Appeals ruled that the law was too vague, and would not allow an average felon to decipher which types of bulletproof vests are banned. California's constitution requires that persons be able to determine if their conduct breaks a law before being charged with violating it.

Los Angeles Police Protective League president Paul M. Weber today slammed the court for making "another display of judicial arrogance" that showed "scant regard to the real world."

A three judge panel in Los Angeles ruled Thursday that Ethan Saleem's conviction for violating the law in 2007 should be overturned because the state law does not allow citizens to understand what types of bulletproof vests are off limits for convicted violent felons. The law only specifies clothing that provides "ballistic resistance to the penetration of test ammunition" for certain guns.

"We do not see how, without providing something like an official list of prohibited vests, the statute can be said to provide either fair notice to a defendant or meaningful guidelines to the officer on the street," said the court's Presiding Justice, Joan Dempsey Klein. The ruling was based on numerous other court findings, including federal court rulings that said assault gun bans must provide specific lists defining which assault weapons were banned.

But the police union's Weber slammed the decision and said the justices "were apparently deeply concerned that violent felons would be uncertain as to what constitutes body armor."

The state law in question was enacted after 11 LAPD officers and six passersby were wounded in a North Hollywood shootout with armed felons clad head-to-toe in body armor.

In its decision, the state appeals court overturned the conviction of Ethan Saleem, who had been convicted and served his term for voluntary manslaughter. The convicted killer was pulled over by LAPD officers for a traffic violation and found to be wearing a bulletproof vest in violation of the new state law.

"Certainly Saleen wasn't wearing body armor because he was going to a job interview or going on a date," Weber noted.

But Saleen's lawyer, Gerald Butler, said the law relied on obscure and convoluted law that was designed for police officers, not private citizens.

The dissenting judge on the 2-1 vote noted persons being released from prison are put on notice that all such armored clothing is illegal, regardless of technical specifications.

The state may appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

[tt11758]

Kalifornication rears it's ugly little head once again.

[JC5123]

HEADSHOTS!


Also good for eliminating a backed up court system, and overcrowded prisons.

[MikeBjerum]

Even if I could fully wrap my pea brain around the fear of guns, ammo, cannons, etc., I don't know that I could ever understand why we should have a law against anyone wearing a garment that could protect them.  I'm surprised that New York City and Chicago don't have a firearms based law similar to motorcycles that requires you to wear body armor just like a motorcycle helmet 

[ericire12]

Even if I could fully wrap my pea brain around the fear of guns, ammo, cannons, etc., I don't know that I could ever understand why we should have a law against anyone wearing a garment that could protect them.  I'm surprised that New York City and Chicago don't have a firearms based law similar to motorcycles that requires you to wear body armor just like a motorcycle helmet 

Its politics..... its not supposed to make sense

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

Its politics..... its not supposed to make sense

What would the founding fathers do if they found out that politics replaced public service?

[ericire12]

What would the founding fathers do if they found out that politics replaced public service?

Tom, would you like to take this one?

[tombogan03884]

Tom, would you like to take this one?

   I only waited to read the rest of the thread  

What would the founding fathers do if they found out that politics replaced public service?

Have another Revolution !

By the way, in anticipation of the armed overthrow of the current regime I am working sporadically on a rewrite of the US Constitution.
My intention is to idiot proof our Liberty  the next time around. We all know the current 2nd Amendment reads :

"A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This has not worked, there are idiots who don't understand it, and Enemies of the people assisted by activist Judges have managed to work around it.  Version 2.0 needs to read like this:

"A well regulated Militia be necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of the People to safely and knowledgeably bear arms for defense of themselves and the community shall be enforced."

I'm working for a society where if a cop does not SEE a firearm on your person he checks you out to make sure you are only carrying concealed or gives you a ticket for being socially irresponsible.
I also for see a slight change in the duties of the Supreme Court, instead of "Interpreting the Constitution" they will have the duty of enforcing it, and the authority to seize any military or Police assets they need to impose penalties from published warning to death on politicians who violate it.

[r_w]

If our rights are from GOD and not from .gov, how can we say that an ex-con does not have the right to self defense?

If they have proven to be a menace to society, well KEEP THEM OUT OF SOCIETY.  If they are in society, they get all the rights and responsibilities.  That includes the 2nd in my opinion.

I have nomex underwear, so flame away.  I can take it.

[Pathfinder]

By the way, in anticipation of the armed overthrow of the current regime I am working sporadically on a rewrite of the US Constitution.

My intention is to idiot proof our Liberty  the next time around. We all know the current 2nd Amendment reads :

"A well regulated Militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This has not worked, there are idiots who don't understand it, and Enemies of the people assisted by activist Judges have managed to work around it.  Version 2.0 needs to read like this:

"A well regulated Militia be necessary to the security of a free state, the duty of the People to safely and knowledgeably bear arms for defense of themselves and the community shall be enforced."

Great idea, but using ebonics? That is dumbing it down a tad much, no? ? ?   


I can proofread your work offline if that will help . . . .