Too many hidden laws

[sgser]

I just finished reading the “Arrested at Circuit City for not showing ID” thread and find myself agreeing with those who feel we should push back against this sort of thing. http://www.pafoa.org/forum/lounge-10...id-page-9.html

One thing kept coming back to me while reading the (was it nine?) pages of that post was the reason Michael Righi was booked.

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

To me that was an obscure catch-all BS ordinance that was dredged up for the singular purpose of justifying the arrest and detention of Mr. Righi.

About a week ago “Gary in Pennsylvania” posted “I learned new law today regarding Firearms Carry.... at http://www.pafoa.org/forum/concealed...rms-carry.html

I recall other discussions about carrying in state parks and GC regs. regarding guns not directly related to actually hunting and also those at GC target ranges. There was also some discussion about post offices and whether it was OK to carry when doing business in them. There were probably more.

The point I am reaching for is that there are to damn many rules and regs and laws out there for us to keep track of and any over-zealous “official” can probably dig one, or more, out to make our lives miserable and possibly cause the loss of our LTCF.

I believe that we should push back and get anything, in the state, that affects our fundamental rights, "to keep and bear arms …" to be revised or repealed. Further, we should have them all in one place so we could at least know about them and not have them sneak up and bite us as we innocently go about our business.

[jerkin]

But if we cut down on the # of laws what would happen to all the extra judges, DAs, ADAs, not to mention the people who work for the clerk of courts and all the other offices? We would still have to pay for their existence some how.

Seriously though, I agree with you 100% but it will never happen. I do think a good start would be to hold those responsible who bring up false charges instead of letting them hide behind a badge or office. These people can drum up false charges, make you spend your life savings proving yourself innocent, and then walk away untouched even though they knew the charges were bogus and just trying to protect their ass. Not being able to sue for legal fees is complete BS.

Another thing that needs changed is that we need the same legal system for everyone. The fact that the rich can walk away from murder by throwing away a bunch of money is disgusting. One of the lawyers on this board said something a few months ago I will never forget, "How much justice can you afford?".

[Captain Tuttle]

The point I am reaching for is that there are to damn many rules and regs and laws out there for us to keep track of and any over-zealous “official” can probably dig one, or more, out to make our lives miserable and possibly cause the loss of our LTCF.

+1

This is why big government is a non-starter and why the Founders had a limited government in mind.

The example stated by the OP is very on-point. Yes, you can have CCW, but navigating all the laws (i.e. "Gotchas") is like threading a pole through a balled up fishing net.

So, sure, you may have the right, but it won't be easy to exercise. And a right not exercised, is a right lost.

[mauser]

But if we cut down on the # of laws what would happen to all the extra judges, lawyers, DAs, ADAs, not to mention the people who work for the clerk of courts and all the other offices? We would still have to pay for their existence some how.

Seriously though, I agree with you 100% but it will never happen. I do think a good start would be to hold those responsible who bring up false charges instead of letting them hide behind a badge or office. These people can drum up false charges, make you spend your life savings proving yourself innocent, and then walk away untouched even though they knew the charges were bogus and just trying to protect their ass. Not being able to sue for legal fees is complete BS.

Another thing that needs changed is that we need the same legal system for everyone. The fact that the rich can walk away from murder by throwing away a bunch of money is disgusting. One of the lawyers on this board said something a few months ago I will never forget, "How much justice can you afford?".

Maybe they could concentrate their efforts on real crime. Perhaps have more time and resources to concentrate on prosecuting criminals rather than plea bargaining to get them through the system as quickly as possible.
(Just a thought).

[Azzy]

Elect me to office, and I will pledge that for every law is made, 3 more will be reviewed and repealed.

[jerkin]

[/COLOR]

Maybe they could concentrate their efforts on real crime. Perhaps have more time and resources to concentrate on prosecuting criminals rather than plea bargaining to get them through the system as quickly as possible.
(Just a thought).

Come on Mauser, you know that's no good. If they had all that free time and resources to put away the real criminals that would cause a big drop in the gun violence and then they would have to make up a whole new reason to take guns from the honest citizen.

[netw0rkpenguin]

But if we cut down on the # of laws what would happen to all the extra judges, lawyers, DAs, ADAs, not to mention the people who work for the clerk of courts and all the other offices? We would still have to pay for their existence some how.

wallmart is probably hiring

[Pa. Patriot]

ORD:525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)
(a) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s offical capacity shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Some overzealous LEO's may typically abuse statutes to make an arrest. But thats not the same as a true "catch-all" statute.

It's only a catch-all when it is used improperly.

From what I understand about the incident, Mr Righi was not obligated by law to show his DL to the LEO in the first place.

Not complying with a request (or illegal demand) is the same as not answering Q's. And can not be Obstructing Official Business.
This statute is to address issues such as giving false info, etc.

[Rule10b5]

Laws are nothing more than a societally codified response to certain behaviors that specifies how they are dealt with when they occur. In the absence of all the "unnecessary" laws on the books you end up with inconsistent results applied to different factual scenarios which is the textbook definition of unjust.

The system of laws is complicated because our society is complicated. People want rules. And before there were secular rules there were religious rules. What you can eat, when you can eat it, what you can eat it with, with whom you can eat it, whether you can eat it with your wife when she's menstruating or not. Go read the OT. People. Crave. Rules. It's human nature for 99% of the population.

If it bothers you, how about instead of whining about lawyers you actually get off of your collective ass and do something about it?

Get involved in local politics. Start a campaign to restrict government. Start a campaign to repeal laws with which you disagree.

Run for office yourself and try to fix it.

But FFS, stop whining about it.

You know who's responsible for the way things are?

YOU.

You're responsible for it. Not the lawyers, not the judges, not the politicians. YOU. Every time you vote for a majority political candidate you're voting for more rules.

And if all you can do is sit back and make snarky comments about lawyers and crap like that then screw you, you're nothing but an ignorant, puling, waste of skin.

[sgser]

Some overzealous LEO's may typically abuse statutes to make an arrest. But thats not the same as a true "catch-all" statute.

It's only a catch-all when it is used improperly.

From what I understand about the incident, Mr Righi was not obligated by law to show his DL to the LEO in the first place.

Not complying with a request (or illegal demand) is the same as not answering Q's. And can not be Obstructing Official Business.
This statute is to address issues such as giving false info, etc.

Thank you. I was caught by the “catch-all" term. But doesn’t that make the point? Just as I didn’t know that there was a specific legal “catch-all” statute or whatever the hell, wasn’t Mr. Righi detained and charged using “ORD: 525.07: Obstructing Official Business (M-2)?” Was that being properly or improperly used? Does it even make a difference? I really don’t give a rat’s ass what it was. It was an obscure thing that they dredged up and used to make his life hell for a period of time. It certainly, in my narrow way of looking at things, didn’t fit anything about this issue. Look at what Gary posted. Could that have been used to pull him in by some LEO that felt it might apply? Most of the stuff that is put out needs a competent legal mind, (which you seem to have) to understand. But my curiosity is peaked, was that ordinance, 525.07, being used properly in the Righi charge?

P.S. That's what I should have used instead of catch-all, i.e., "dredged-up"