New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Tucson cosmetology student under investigation for giving free haircuts
Source:
Tucson News Now
URL Source: http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/ ... rce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Published: Feb 11, 2017
Author: Kristin Haubrich
Post Date: 2017-02-11 13:55:28 by Hondo68
Keywords: Arizona State Board, of Cosmetology, Bureaucratic nanny state
Views: 14782
Comments: 53
A local cosmetology student who gives free haircuts to the homeless is now in trouble with the state board. (Source: Tucson News Now) TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) - A local cosmetology student is being investigating for giving free haircuts to homeless in the community. Juan Carlos Montesdeoca has given dozens of free haircuts to the homeless at the Santa Rita Park over the past few months. “Out of the kindness of my heart. Out of the memory of my mom, because she lost her hair,” Juan Carlos Montesdeoca said. Montesdeoca thought he was doing a good deed for Tucson by offering the haircuts, a service many homeless hadn’t received in a long time. “About seven months was the longest one, another lady was about two years without a basic trim.” He too has been homeless in the past. When his Regency Beauty school closed its doors last September, he felt compelled to offer his services for free. But now, the Arizona State Board of Cosmetology is investigating a complaint against him for practicing without a license. (Official complaint from the Arizona State Board of Cosmetology. Source: Juan Carlos Montesdeoca) Tucson News Now spoke over the phone to Donna Aune, the board's executive director, who declined to comment because it is an active investigation. But she said they stand by the words written in the state statue that says in part “A person shall not perform or attempt to perform cosmetology without a license or practice in any place other than in a licensed salon.” Montesdeoca said he wasn’t aware of this regulation and is now worried that the haircuts he offered for free could now cost him his future in cosmetology. “They can suspend – even before I even try to get a license, they can say no. That would be very very unfortunate,” Montesdeoca said. Aune said they also have very detailed statue on sanitation and health safety. She said working outside a licensed salon and using an unlicensed person, is a “real risk.” For more information on current Arizona law regarding this, CLICK HERE. Poster Comment: Private charity is bad, but government wealth-spread is good? Rogue Outlaw haircuts, without government certification! The end of civilization. It takes thousands of hours of government training and supervision to cut a hair! /s 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#16. To: hondo68, Deckard, Stoner, nolu chan, Gatlin, A K A Stone, buckeroo, Pinguinite (#0)
I understand both sides. I have a license but not in this field. Their are two reason why we have these licenses. Sheeple complained enough to get the state involved and state saw a money making opportunity. Its not fair to the license holders that someone is allowed to due business with out a license because to comply with government regulations it cost lots of money and time. You have to go to many govenrment mandated classes. Its a big hassle. I would prefer not to have a license but im honest. Too many people are not and they cause most the problems. The days of John Wayne are over. Too many sheeple want government to regulate every stinking part of life except when they have to compile. BTW there was a complaint. Its on the notice.
When it's an anonymous complaint, it's often a state employee that complained, possibly one working with the enforcement division itself. Who else would be so stuck up about a charity event? It's highly unlikely that the recipients of the free service complained, so who else would have a beef in the matter? But I still suspect that the jurisdiction for these licenses is only with regard to people making money conducting the service in question. Someone doing it for free is probably immune from license requirements & restrictions, though this may not be obvious in the licensing laws directly. Term definitions are important.
Im thinking it was another barber that was pissed that kid did not have a license. It sucks to compile with govenrment when you compete with those that don't. Some of the guys will complain after having a bad day or just get tired of see people do their job that have no clue what they are doing. There really is no telling who complained. But I still suspect that the jurisdiction for these licenses is only with regard to people making money conducting the service in question. Someone doing it for free is probably immune from license requirements & restrictions, though this may not be obvious in the licensing laws directly. Term definitions are important. Not true. State hates this the most because there is zero taxes coming from zero sales. Whether you charge or not charge is irrelevant to the state.
Not true. State hates this the most because there is zero taxes coming from zero sales. Whether you charge or not charge is irrelevant to the state. I think I am right. If I'm wrong, then parents cutting the hair of their tottlers would be illegal. People in state authority positions may indeed be monetarily motivated, but they cannot regulate all aspects of people's lives willy nilly. They need jurisdiction to enact any and all laws and regulations that restrict activity. Challenging the jurisdiction of the state on issues like the one in question is a good first move. And doing that is not claiming the jurisdiction doesn't exist. It merely forces the state to show the basis of authority to require the license, which can then allow the defense to show it's not applicable in the present case. I.e. if the basis of authority is to to regulate business/profit making activity, then the guy here can show their license requirements do not apply to him giving haircuts for free. I'm no legal pro but.... my 2c, FWIW.
There are no replies to Comment # 28. End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#25. To: Justified (#16)
BTW there was a complaint. Its on the notice.
#26. To: Pinguinite (#25)
When it's an anonymous complaint, it's often a state employee that complained, possibly one working with the enforcement division itself. Who else would be so stuck up about a charity event? It's highly unlikely that the recipients of the free service complained, so who else would have a beef in the matter?
#28. To: Justified (#26)
Replies to Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]