Opinions Needed

LOL... I knew I forgot something! LOL... that thought was actually in my head when I began my second post, but my thoughts skipped ahead to the organization thing.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Medical Marijuana was INTERSTATE COMMERCE and hence in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Now I don't know how the heck they ruled it Interstate Commerce and the dissenting opinion by the minority echoed this in the sense that they believed it was removing state rights. Heck, if they can do this, then they can easily rule Bail Agents as Interstate Commerce since a lot more skips than medical marijuana crosses state lines.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

Don,

I think you're right about how the pot precedent can effect bail if argued properly at some future court hearing by some rascal of an attorney.

Rex

Rex,

Yes, I think it will definately set a precedent... but also to scarier things. It's almost a kickback to the old Federalist Arguments back in "the day" when the U.S. Constitution first came into being.

I watched a news segment on the medical marijuana ruling and it was interesting to note that when they interviewed the prosecutor for, I think, San Diego, and asked if that would stop them, the prosecutor just smirked and said they supported the law that was passed in California and that the US Court rulling wouldn't be honored by them. It was a blatant "go screw yourself" statement to the court ruling.

It's going to boil down to a battle between the federal government vs state rights. The scary thing is that, while I lean towards federalism in the sense of the fact that it would be a lot easier with national standards (ie; not fifty different regulations for each state), such an action would effectively remove the checks and balance system which is inherent in our current system.

The main reason that amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was a fear of the federal government becoming so powerful it would turn into another monarchy with the states having no rights.

It is only a hop skip and a jump away from declaring that ALL state or individual activities can be considered Interstate Commerce and therefore under the regulatory right of the federal government.

_________________
-The Solution-
Indiana Agency #: PI20700211
Indiana Notary Public - Exp: 12/20/13

"Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong. That is your oath."
- Kingdom of Heaven

Erased By Rex

OK, I spent an hour typing a reply and when I tried to post it I got an invalid session screen . Soooo, I will try to remember most of it and try again. Actually, it was a good thing because before I started over, I went out and found the law they are using to validate this Bill.

I have read some interesting interpretations and opinions here but mine doesn't seem to be addressed...

On the face, the Bill appears to be a good thing, forcing a more uniform regulation, weeding out the unfits, blah, blah, blah.

But, here is the law cited in the Bill.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242 Prev | Next

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law


Release date: 2004-08-06

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 242


NOTES:


Source

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201 (b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607 (a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)

Historical and Revision Notes


Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 52 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 20, 35 Stat. 1092).
Reference to persons causing or procuring was omitted as unnecessary in view of definition of “principal” in section 2 of this title.
A minor change was made in phraseology.

Amendments


1996—Pub. L. 104–294, § 607(a), substituted “any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District” for “any State, Territory, or District”.
Pub. L. 104–294, § 604(b)(14)(B), repealed Pub. L. 103–322, § 320103(b)(1). See 1994 Amendment note below.
1994—Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(H), substituted “shall be fined under this title” for “shall be fined not more than $1,000” after “citizens,”.
Pub. L. 103–322, § 320201(b), substituted “any person in any State” for “any inhabitant of any State” and “on account of such person” for “on account of such inhabitant”.
Pub. L. 103–322, § 320103(b)(2)–(5), substituted “bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both” for “bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life”.
Pub. L. 103–322, § 320103(b)(1), which provided for amendment identical to Pub. L. 103–322, § 330016(1)(H), above, was repealed by Pub. L. 104–294, § 604(b)(14)(B).
Pub. L. 103–322, § 60006(b), inserted before period at end “, or may be sentenced to death”.
1988—Pub. L. 100–690 inserted “and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;” after “or both;”.
1968—Pub. L. 90–284 provided for imprisonment for any term of years or for life when death results.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment


Amendment by section 604(b)(14)(B) of Pub. L. 104–294 effective Sept. 13, 1994, see section 604(d) of Pub. L. 104–294, set out as a note under section 13 of this title.

I must be missing something here. Doesn't this law already apply to every citizen of the U.S.?

In my humble opinion, we are now being singled out with a good possibility of OUR civil rights being taken away. I underlined the points that caught my attention. Is this Bill depriving us of our right to bear arms and use them if necessary to make an arrest? If a person runs and we have to chase and tackle them, is this now illegal? What happened to "reasonal and necessary force"? Does this say that if we have a larger number of a "protected" category of skips than another that they can file charges for discrimination for arresting them? And even though we have a legal warrant and right to arrest, can anyone then claim that we kidnapped them? And does it only apply to making arrests, or will they try to apply it to how we write our bonds as well? If I refuse a bond because they didn't have the premium or collateral or just because they were too big of a risk, can they try to file criminal charges for discrimination or some other civil rights violation?

I am well aware of the "cowboys" out there that do break into the wrong houses or arrest and/or injure the wrong person, but they are already subject to this law and many have been prosecuted under it and/or state & local laws.

I guess what I am trying to say is that how I now read it, this Bill is trying to make any arrest that we make a violation of the person's civil rights. Am I missing something in the interpretation or am I just being paranoid? Any and all comments will be appreciated but please, no name calling. I might feel my civil rights are violated .

_________________
Kathy Blackshear
Blackshear Investigations
Blackshear Bail Bonds
Sales Associate, Prepaid Legal Services, Inc.
Walsenburg, CO

Proud Member of the AB Reject Club

Here we go again--in my opinion the feds are going about this backwards as usual--first-needed federal legislation is the removal of states regulation towards bea. so in fact a federal bea license gives us the right to hunt in all 50 states without state interfearence-while i agree with the no felon and with a finger print backround check and a federally accepted bea course-all are great things--i though we are private citizens enforcing a private contract in which the bailee gives the bondsmen absolute right of arrest and a supreme court decision and many state court decisions have upheld that right--in fact the bondsmen is the bad guys jailer -so all the bad guys civil rights are suspended just as if they were in jail

i believe this bill almost creats a new division of the federal marshalls service or at least a new federal fugitive recovery force with none of the power but still with all the physical and legal risk privately paid.

you all know i support federal licensing but it cannot be half ass it needs to be all the way or no way or else this will turn in to a shoving match between state and fed with us in the middle being squeezed between two giants

the other aspect that has not been brought up is can bondsmen afford the costs or the liabilty issues this is sure to bring up or will most just go belly up-- i guess only time will tell--i still believe the best way of going is a supreme court clarification of t v t in todays terms(i know this might open a whole new can of worms but so would our a--hole legisators in dc-many of whom have nothing but air space between their ears)

kebcpa,

Good job on getting the details of USC 1983!

To address your question succintly, I must again point to ongoing precedent in various jurisdictions wherein people who agree to be bailed are essentially and willingly giving up certain rights as is indicated in the Constitution.

My concern is that by omitting specific language in a new bill that also conflicts with said precedent, we must consider whether or not the proposed law will, at some point, be used to argue why a bailee's Constitutional rights should not be waived upon being bailed, thus creating a whole new sphere of liability.

Rex

I was discussing this with my son who is an attorney. He says that LE and other officials have more protection from USC 1983 when they are acting in their official capacity. According to his interpretation of this proposed bill, it is giving bail bondsmen, their agents and bounty hunters this same protection by saying that we are acting under color of law when we go after someone. I guess was reading it as the opposite.

"(1) a surety on a bail bond;
(2) an agent of such surety; or
(3) any bounty hunter;
seeking to obtain or exercise custody over a person admitted to bail
under the laws of a State is acting under color of a statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage of that State"

Maybe this is a way of firming up TvT? I still don't know if I agree with more federal government control, but interpreting it this way makes me consider it differently. It might set a new precedence with the states and get more uniformity across state lines if they would agree to universal standards and if met, recognize our right to arrest anywhere at any time.

But then you still have the states more vs less requirements and how would that affect those of us already in the biz? Would we be grandfathered based on the requirements when we started or at least ok if those requirements at least met the new ones? I have complied with the 4 things they are suggesting so I am not concerned about qualifying. At the same time, I would welcome stricter controls to get rid of the cowboys out there.

I must be dreaming, huh?

_________________
Kathy Blackshear
Blackshear Investigations
Blackshear Bail Bonds
Sales Associate, Prepaid Legal Services, Inc.
Walsenburg, CO

Proud Member of the AB Reject Club

Kathy,

I'm a bit tired right now, so please bear with me.

There are cases where skip people have tried to sue bail people for violating their Constitutional rights by using 1983, but the cases get tossed out under private contract doctrine.

By including bail people--who do not have the protections of sworn LE--this would open bail people up to causes of actions based on 1983.

In essence, based on what you learned, while it would seem to be good on the surface, I think we need to read the fine print.

I could be off the mark on this one, but I don't think so.

Rex