Humorous: What the Cali Supreme court wastes its time on

In Cali, where there are few things you can do with a gun, legally; the supreme court wants you to know this:

Shooting at an occupied building or vehicle is still illegal... Even if the muzzle of the weapon has crossed the outer plane of said building or vehicle, and you (your body) are still outside. You are shooting at the building or vehicle not in it.

This is an important distinction in California, where its undoubtedly illegal to shoot in an occupied building or vehicle as well. (But I haven't confirmed that with the Cali Supremes)

This valuable information is provided so that you know if a building is trying to rob you (and it is occupied), you cannot shoot at it... except in self defense... But you probably better be able to prove the building was a threat to your life or limb.

And, as I've often said, it is incumbent upon us as CCW holders to be aware of all the laws of the states in which we reside, or plan to visit with our weapons.

Here's the story

Reminds me of how do you define “is”.

Great, they waste time on appeals that don't matter, as the defendant is serving a life sentence regardless of the ruling; meanwhile SCOTUS can't see fit to hear cases that do matter and ignore the Constitution in their rulings. Wonderful.

Sent the link to my cousin in CA. He hates guns. He probably thinks it was a good use of judicial resources to clarify such an obvious thing. When him and his daughter visited he asked me to make sure I had all the trigger locks on them! I said what are trigger locks? He was serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

Sent the link to my cousin in CA. He hates guns. He probably thinks it was a good use of judicial resources to clarify such an obvious thing. When him and his daughter visited he asked me to make sure I had all the trigger locks on them! I said what are trigger locks? He was serious.

---

Oh, I like wood working... so I'd have built little boxes for the visitor's hands (1 for each hand) with little locks on them. That way they couldn't pick up a gun, manipulate it, or accidentally pull the trigger... That'd show 'em..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nedrgr21

Great, they waste time on appeals that don't matter, as the defendant is serving a life sentence regardless of the ruling; meanwhile SCOTUS can't see fit to hear cases that do matter and ignore the Constitution in their rulings. Wonderful.

---

Fortunately, it wasn't SCOT U.S. It was just Californian Supremes doing what they do...

What if an unoccupied building tries to rob you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badey

What if an unoccupied building tries to rob you?

---

Two to the chest and one to the attic.

Wonder if the law applies to police as well?

That aside, it seems rather asinine a case given what the crime actually was.

But don't blame the judges. People forget that judges don't go out looking for cases.
They can never initiate anything on their own.

The only way a case gets before a judge is when two parties have a dispute over facts or a dispute over
what a law means.

The judges do seem to have clarified the law. You can't shoot into a building or a car
from outside; and if your back end is outside and your gun is inside, you are still outside.

That seems sort of obvious, but someone other then the judges determined to
litigate it.

Judges get a great deal of flack for rulings in goofy and difficult cases. Just remember,
no judge ever went out to find a case. All came to him with both sides begging for the judge
to make a decision.

Usually a supreme court can refuse to hear arguments, SCOTUS does it all the time.

Quote:

---

The only way a case gets before a judge is when two parties have a dispute over facts or a dispute over
what a law means.

---

Your honor my wife thinks that the brown spot in my drawers is a skid mark of the man made kind,I say it's a direct result of sliding down a wet muddy bank while fishing....What doeth the Court find to be the cause

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

Usually a supreme court can refuse to hear arguments, SCOTUS does it all the time.

---

Yes, but refusing to hear arguments is also a decision; against the person who brought the appeal. It isn't a totally
benign do nothing thing.

SCOTUS gets to choose its cases but only from among the universe of cases actually filed for appeal. They can't involve themselves in some matter unless someone else started the case.

I think they are obligated to hear cases involving disputes between two different states, but that is about it as far as
initial jurisdiction.

-
My head hurts after reading that. :blink:

I was twelve years old when I fired my first shots from a .30-06 at an unoccupied automobile - my first shots from a center fired rifle ever! :danceban:

Good thing it was in Florida and not California!