Michael's Law: Money Quote from the Arizona Court of Appeals

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Money Quote from the Arizona Court of Appeals

If you're a victim of an unconstitutional revocation of your Second Amendment via a civil injunction, use this quote from the Arizona Court of Appeals in your appeal. Better yet, quote this in a Notice to your judge before you challenge the injunction against you. By putting the judge on notice now that he can't take away your gun rights, you might save yourself a lot of aggravation in the future.

On October 18, 2012, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a Second Amendment gun grab against a Federal Border Patrol Agent. (Thankfully, they gave the Agent his gun right back. He was going to lose his job otherwise. No gun = no job.) There is a great statement in the Opinion which pertains to "Michael's Law" and should settle the issue once and for all that a judicial officer in Arizona cannot legally revoke your Second Amendment right in a civil injunction.

The case is Mahar v. Acuna.

The case was about a criminal Order of Protection, a criminal domestic violence matter, which, per statute (right or wrong) allows a judge to take away your guns. (As opposed to a civil injunction, which does not. And which our blogger has been fighting for a few years now.)

While the overall case is not on-point for civil injunctions per se, the COA said something interesting in their ruling which is on-point for civil injunctions:

Our statutes do not authorize their use [orders concerning firearms] to discourage people from yelling or engaging in 'harassment' of the type proscribed by A.R.S. § 12-1809(R). Nor do our statutes authorize the use of firearms restrictions to provide incentives for positive behavior or to teach people a '[l]esson' about civilized conduct.

And that's from the liberals in Tucson! (Division 2)

So the judges of the Court of Appeals get it, even if the Justices of the Arizona Supreme Court don't.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Suing two cheating judges and a cheating prosecutor + a religious twist

The civil rights law Congress gave us says you can sue "Every person" who deprives you of a civil right under the color of law. The law goes back to the civil rights era and the Ku Klux Klan.

Sadly, as in Orwell's Animal Farm, judges say that "every person" doesn't mean them. And it doesn't mean prosecutors. Judges say that they have "absolute immunity." (What, there were no biased KKK white judges in the Deep South in the 60's?)

I say that "Absolute immunity corrupts absolutely." As evidenced by the corrupt prosecutors of the late Senator Ted Stevens. Not even a Federal judge would punish the federal prosecutors for their willful wanton misconduct. Poor Senator Stevens died without having any recourse for justice.

This has got to stop. In essence, this policy by judicial fiat is a deprivation of the our First Amendment right to redress for grievances. So, let's "Redress for Success!" (Even Liberal Law Professor / Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is sympathetic!)

It's an uphill battle, but I'm suing a bunch of cheaters. See my two civil right lawsuits - one against two small town judges who cheated, the other against a small town prosecutor who cheated both now in the Ninth, appealing perfunctory procedural matters. In the first, the judges aren't arguing they didn't do anything wrong. Just that they can.

To wit, there's proof that one judge tampered with a court file (a felony in Arizona, but Yavapai County prosecutor Sheila Polk is obstructing justice and Arizona AG Tom Horne's staff wouldn't touch it), suspended the rules of court procedure, acted as attorney at trial for one of the parties, and so on. The other judge "un-recused" himself to cover for the first!

There's an interesting twist to this, as the first judge should have recused, per motion, due to religious bias. When you read about the temple ceremony and the oaths of allegiance some take to their church in there, it may give you some idea why you may not want a Mitt Romney in the White House.