A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down a 31-year-old Los Angeles law that bars people from living in parked vehicles, saying the vaguely written statute discriminates against the homeless and poor.
The ruling involved a 1983 law that prohibits the use of a vehicle "as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise."
The court said the law was unconstitutional because its ambiguous wording does not make clear what conduct would constitute a violation and "criminalizes innocent behavior."
The decision came in a case brought on behalf of four people who were cited and arrested in the Venice area by Los Angeles police officers who concluded the numerous belongings in their RVs and cars meant they were violating the law.
"Is it impermissible to eat food in a vehicle?
Is it illegal to keep a sleeping bag?
Canned food? Books?
What about speaking on a cellphone?
Or staying in the car to get out of the rain?"
Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the panel. "These are all actions plaintiffs were taking when arrested for violation of the ordinance, all of which are otherwise perfectly legal."
http://www.abc27.com/story/25821319/court-overturns-city-law-that-bars-living-in-cars
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles refused to take a driver’s license photo until make up was removed.
With just that sentence, and nothing else... isn't it reasonable to feel the DMV has lost it's effing mind? The rules on drivers license photos... are that you can't wear theater stage makeup to purposely alter your appearance to disguise your identity, and though 15 states will issue a drivers license without a photo due to constitutional religious rights, in this case, eyeshadow and lipstick weren't tolerated.
Well, here's the info that caused the DMV to hold a grudge... it was a 16 year old, that wasn't a girl. So now the government is telling kids that they aren't going to get a drivers license unless they represent the conventional appearance of their XX or XY genetic markers? WTF?
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/06/18/south-carolina-dmv-tells-teenage-boy-to-remove-makeup/#axzz34tgZL79A
I point out for perspective, that the Federal govt will cover hormone therapy for prisoners transitioning to the opposite sex http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2014/jun/16/new-open-life-transgender-people/ Medicare's ban on sex reasssignment surgery is revoked: http://www.ktiv.com/story/25652755/medicare-ban-on-sex-reassignment-surgery-lifted and the state of New York allows the change of sex on a birth certificate, without the operation http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/6/headlines/new_york_allows_transgender_people_to_change_birth_certificate_without_surgery
But one kid wants to wear makeup, and the DMV has a cow. Sheesh. Shave your head? No problem. Get a tattoo on your face? Sure. Get a tan with a shape or artistic design across your face? Go ahead. Grow a beard and mustache? Okey dokey. But wear eyeshadow and blush? Now wait a minute there buddy, that's crossing the line.
The ruling involved a 1983 law that prohibits the use of a vehicle "as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise."
The court said the law was unconstitutional because its ambiguous wording does not make clear what conduct would constitute a violation and "criminalizes innocent behavior."
The decision came in a case brought on behalf of four people who were cited and arrested in the Venice area by Los Angeles police officers who concluded the numerous belongings in their RVs and cars meant they were violating the law.
"Is it impermissible to eat food in a vehicle?
Is it illegal to keep a sleeping bag?
Canned food? Books?
What about speaking on a cellphone?
Or staying in the car to get out of the rain?"
Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the panel. "These are all actions plaintiffs were taking when arrested for violation of the ordinance, all of which are otherwise perfectly legal."
http://www.abc27.com/story/25821319/court-overturns-city-law-that-bars-living-in-cars
The South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles refused to take a driver’s license photo until make up was removed.
With just that sentence, and nothing else... isn't it reasonable to feel the DMV has lost it's effing mind? The rules on drivers license photos... are that you can't wear theater stage makeup to purposely alter your appearance to disguise your identity, and though 15 states will issue a drivers license without a photo due to constitutional religious rights, in this case, eyeshadow and lipstick weren't tolerated.
Well, here's the info that caused the DMV to hold a grudge... it was a 16 year old, that wasn't a girl. So now the government is telling kids that they aren't going to get a drivers license unless they represent the conventional appearance of their XX or XY genetic markers? WTF?
http://fox5sandiego.com/2014/06/18/south-carolina-dmv-tells-teenage-boy-to-remove-makeup/#axzz34tgZL79A
I point out for perspective, that the Federal govt will cover hormone therapy for prisoners transitioning to the opposite sex http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2014/jun/16/new-open-life-transgender-people/ Medicare's ban on sex reasssignment surgery is revoked: http://www.ktiv.com/story/25652755/medicare-ban-on-sex-reassignment-surgery-lifted and the state of New York allows the change of sex on a birth certificate, without the operation http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/6/headlines/new_york_allows_transgender_people_to_change_birth_certificate_without_surgery
But one kid wants to wear makeup, and the DMV has a cow. Sheesh. Shave your head? No problem. Get a tattoo on your face? Sure. Get a tan with a shape or artistic design across your face? Go ahead. Grow a beard and mustache? Okey dokey. But wear eyeshadow and blush? Now wait a minute there buddy, that's crossing the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment