View Single Post
Old July 11, 2010, 11:54 PM   #48
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by csmsss
I don't see how anyone has his/her "backside in the breeze" as far as this is concerned. Politicians are generally indemnified from personal civil and criminal liability for their official acts, and the idea that the voters will actually vote out Daley and the other entrenched machine politicos is as laughable an idea as any ever constructed.
Read Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law again.

I think it would be relatively easy to show in a court that the city's administration should know or reasonably know that most of their limitations would not pass constitutional muster. To wit;
● Limitations on only 1 functional gun in the home
● Unconstitutional limits on the exercise of a right (1 gun a month)
● Requirements that are impossible to meet without excessive burden (training)
● Excessive permit fees ($115) to register for Chicago
● Unconstitutional limit on the right to self defense (not in garages, porches, etc)

I'm surprised that the legal team advising Mayor Daley and the council hasn't publicly distanced themselves from this debacle. The easy comparsions are asking if the city could get away with ...
● allowing only 1 functional typewriter or word-processor in a home;
● limiting citizens to one "letter to the editor" per month;
● requiring them to pay $33.33 per year to go to church;
● prohibit citizens from posting political candidate signs on garages, porches, stairs, yards, etc.
● or requiring the accused to pay all travel expenses to confront witnesses.

Public statements and city council records can prove a conspiracy to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights. Doing so under the guise of "public safety" knowing many of the "features" of the new law are likely to be struck down is a crime under section 242.

In most cases, when a public official violates your rights through common error "in good faith" (e.g. a new police officer on the scene starts asking you questions after you asked for a lawyer and quits when he is informed of that fact), they are personally immune from lawsuits. However, when a public official knowingly violates a person's rights (e.g. making drug and/or gun crime defendants pay for their own lawyers) that will "pierce" the veil of limited immunity and expose them to legal actions.

That's what I mean by having their rumps hanging out in the breeze.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04199 seconds with 7 queries