It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California city wants to force people to get a permit for any gathering of more than 3 people

page: 2
32
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Sorry for being so unsympathetic but seems like what goes round comes round.

All those Americans patrolling these boards jumping on any opportunity to say 'Only in the UK' and 'Never in the USA' will now also be quick to use their 'Right to bear Arms' to prevent this from happening, as that nearly always tends to be their reasoning......or maybe not!

I know it's a serious infrigement of civil liberties and another example of the draconian legislation that TPTB wish to enforce throughout 'the west' etc but I really can't help but laugh.




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Justoneman
 


If you have a regular scheduled large gathering at your house for something like a church, meeting, club, or group of a NON PRIVATE (i.e friends and family) nature, I really don't see the problem with needing a permit to do so at a residential address.

I mean making the law limit up to 3 people does seem ridiculous. But I think the basic premise of the law seems reasonable. Its not going to be an instant crackdown on all groups of people meeting at a residential address, it will just be to stop people abusing what should be a residential address and not a church/clubhouse/meeting place for an organization or large group of people.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by homeslice
But I think the basic premise of the law seems reasonable. Its not going to be an instant crackdown on all groups of people meeting at a residential address, it will just be to stop people abusing what should be a residential address and not a church/clubhouse/meeting place for an organization or large group of people.


Im guessing you dont have much experience with law or city hall bureaucracy?

The "spirit" of the laws is always ignored when the "letter" of the law can get city hall another ticket or permit revenue stream.

The "spirit" of the law is always ignored when the "letter" of the law will get the local cops more brownie points and subsequently more funding.

The days of reasonable laws and not forsaking the "spirit" for the "letter" died nearly half a century ago.
edit on 22-9-2011 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

edit on 22-9-2011 by homeslice because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



I mean 50 people is quite a lot of people and it blocks everything. But still, making people get permits is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


does the consitution limit state and city legislation ? your link specifically states " congress shall not "



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
the real reason for this is even more insidious - the elimination of bridge



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by homeslice
 


[color=dodgerblue]I agree that since their gatherings have gotten so large, that they should find another venue. I would probably not be too happy with my neighbors if they had that kind of traffic (regardless of what it is for), that often.

They should move their Bible study to their church. I am sure they have plenty of parking and seating there (:




posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 




California city wants to force people to get a permit for any gathering of more than 3 people


None of this surprises me anymore. And it's not like it is slipping by because of inattention. We've just arrived at a place where government can ignore the rights of the people and get away with it because we no longer have a free press to ring the alarm bell. Stories show up here or on the less traveled blogs but rarely if ever in the mainscream media... who are generally too busy covering important issues like, how many times this celebrity or that has been sent to rehab.

But I guess there is no real problem because we do seem content to take it all lying down... or maybe, comfortably kicked back in our overstuffed recliners.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the real reason for this is even more insidious - the elimination of bridge


That's because Omar Sharif played a muslim once.
*shakes fist*


(U2U me if nobody gets the reference
)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vampiri
 


Of course you're right, it was likely unintended, but it underscores a critical point that is the most relevant point in the US National dialog. All government, federal, state and local have been growing in size and intrusiveness for decades and now the limit has been reached. The growth must be stopped, the size and intrusiveness must be reversed.

As far as this law, I don't think that these folks should have 50 person gatherings in their homes but I don't think that it should be illegal. If the neighbors don't like it they have several options. Blast slash rock or rap right on the border of their property when they are attempting to hold church service, key the cars parked on the street or let the air out of their tires. Take matters into your own hands and they'll move their prayer meeting somewhere else. With that many people they could easily afford to rent a room somewhere to hold their meeting. These folks sound like self righteous jerks.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I affiliate with no religion, and as of 2008 I affiliate with no specific political party, that said.

What if a group of some 50 muslims were gathering at the same place for the same reason? Think non muslims would put up with this? I think naught..In reality a group of muslims meeting up like this would scare the yellow streak out of us americans..As for the bible study, they should gather at a park, or a place non residential. I kinda agree with stopping this because, think of all the cars lining up and down the streets. Once I lived close to the oceans shores, the beach. The area I live was the only area that had residential housing on the beach, all other buildings were either apratment complexes or businesses. Our beach access led you down to a hughe portion of this cities beach but to get to it and to get to our area of the beach you would have to park some mile away down by the businesses and walk down the beach for a mile. I was leasing a house for 1 year, it was july 3rd around 3:45 I had just went to get my daughter from school, as I came into our area I had to show proof of my residence to get back in, apparently this has been happening for a few years by know, it was explained to me that if the city didnt do this there would be serious issues for the residence in this area like, people parking on every inch of the street even in and infront of driveways, also after sitting on the beach drinking alcohol for several hours many residents haev problems with angressive people and robberies, so in some factors this is acceptable to make them relocate there place of bible study, heck why not the church itself, the church is not used 24/7 there aer plenty of time slots to meet everyones needs...( ex-christian of 37 years here)



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
They shouldn't need to get a permit for a right they already have.
What the neighbors are irritated about is the parking.
I couldn't care less if my neighbors had 100 people over every night.
I would care very much if I had to park 4 blocks away from my house because 100 strangers took up all the parking spots.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Some very good points made here on both sides of the argument.

People are free to meet and associate. But when they do so regularly, in a residential area, the other residents in the neighborhood must be considered. It's not the meeting that's the problem, it's the parking and the issues this causes for nearby residents.

I would suggest that if these people want to continue to meet like this, they should park elsewhere and carpool to the house or make arrangements to have the meeting somewhere with parking space.

As with most other new laws (like no praying in the streets) the law addresses the wrong behavior. There's nothing wrong with praying in the streets. What's wrong is blocking traffic by placing one's body in the street. Prayer has nothing to do with it. In this story, meeting isn't the issue, it's the parking. THAT is what should be addressed. And not by the government! By the people.

We need to take our power back. We have forgotten that we have brains and power that we can use. We're so used to turning to the government for everything, that we've forgotten how to solve problems on our own... It's a sad day that we go to the government to claim our own parking place... :shk:



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
wow , thats the next town over from me!
i take the train to LA from the Capo station all the time..... ill have to remember not to stand in a group anymore lol.


fyi.. san juan capo and dana point forced all the weed shops outta town last year, theres a big legal battle with one of the shop owners and the township.

the cherry on top is that there is no local police down here.. just OC sheriffs.. and they dont play around



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
some of you are saying, no big deal...it was SO MANY people thats why

i say to you..its not the town or city's business as to who gathers at your house...now if they are making carloads of money off it and pissing off neighbors I can see why folks would be pissed

but this is the type of slippery slope..that will crush people someday.

where 3 or more are gathered..lock them up



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


wait so if 4 of my friends want to come over and hang out I need a permit or I could be arrested or fined ?

How DUMB !!!!!!!!! are the people who we let run this country. We let them do this people.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
the uk had this in the form of the criminal justice bill some years ago. ostensibly it was to deter 'raving' .. never mind the fact that humanity have been dancing round campfires to the sound of repetitive beats since the dawn of time, .. it's to deter anybody like minded getting together.... particularly if they could have something to say against the government.

don't let them do it usa... over here an old people's home got busted under the criminal justice act for their criminal gathering... it will get that way there very quickly if you're not careful.

although i can't find the link for the above, here's another one that just highlights how incredibly out of order this "law" is.

forums.theregister.co.uk...



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Another fine example of how things are in the nazi/us gov nation. What else to expect when its people do nothing? more control, just another pull on that knot around the neck. SIT AMERICA, SIT! LOL



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
does this only extend to residential locations?

i mean what if 12 buds want to play a game of basketball? FINE no permit

me and my wife and 3 kids are going for a walk ? FINE no permit over 3 people

My family has a bbq at the park, better get those permits

oh no, a lady just got hit by a car. myself and 2 other are going over to help her, oh wait no just you go we dont have a permit for this gathering, does she count if shes unconscious? better safe than sorry, no permit no help


do i need a permit to ride the bus? just incase there are 3 other people on there?


this is tyranny and unbelievable,



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
does this only include physical gatherings? or could they twist it to include social media gatherings, oh 5 peopel are "gathering" on facebook by joining the same group, get the fine book out



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join