
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 hadnt 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 wasnt 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
#2: Stoner To: Deckard (#1)
Google is his friend.
Stoner posted on 2017-02-11 16:29:46 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: Deckard, nolu chan (#1)
2014 Arizona Revised Statutes
Title 32 - Professions and Occupations
§ 32-574 Unlawful acts; violation; classification.
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-11 17:16:46 Reply Private Reply
#4: Hondo68 To: Gatlin, impeach, enhanced interogation, trial, remove (#3)
LOOK, at this criminal scumbag. You've provided grounds for impeachment and removal of this slimball, aka "Mr. President", until justice is served.
Illegal cosmetology, thousands of witnesses.
Hondo68 posted on 2017-02-11 17:40:27 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: hondo68, ignorant Paultard asshole (#4)
"This is NOT happening in Arizona.
The discussion HERE is about the Arizona law .STUPID!
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-11 17:46:08 Reply Private Reply
#6: Deckard To: Gatlin, nolu chan (#3)
Geez man STFU already! You channeling nolu spam now?
The problem with government shills like you two is that you are too submissive to think for yourselves and need daddy government to tell you what to do.
It's really pathetic watching you genuflect before the almighty State.
This law is overly broad, capricious and arbitrary and makes anyone who cuts hair without approval from the State a criminal.
Deckard posted on 2017-02-11 19:28:24 Reply Private Reply
#7: Gatlin To: Deckard (#6)
Read it again.
This time let your mind automatically engrain the essential left-to-right straight line processing of the printed words without the use of your finder to physically track or point under each of the words you read.
That way, you will find the law is quite specific and easy to understand .try it:
There now .what is there about that you find so hard to understand? You are correct, in that: Attaboy .you got that part right!Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 00:24:35 Reply Private Reply
#8: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#7)
A K A Stone posted on 2017-02-12 00:38:28 Reply Private Reply
#9: Deckard To: Gatlin, hondo 68, Stoner, A K A Stone (#7)
And Gatlin continues to cheer the police state.
I think the thing I despise most about you is your condescending attitude and your slave-like obedience to laws like this and your apparent support of such laws.
It's nanny-state morons like you who are the pussies of society.
Florida Sheriffs Used SWAT-Style Attack to Enforce Barbershop License
With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupantsand demanded to see their barbers licenses, the court wrote. The raid was one of several deputies carried out against minority-owned barbershops and salons in 2010.
The justices said the deputies went too far in using a SWAT-like approach just to check whether barbers were licensed. In fact, inspectors from Floridas Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) had inspected Strictly Skillz only two days prior to the raid and found everything in order.
I'm sure Gatlin approves.
Deckard posted on 2017-02-12 01:49:32 Reply Private Reply
#10: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#8)
Yes, I do.
However cosmetology licensing laws and requirements vary by state and there are some portions In each state I would not support .given a chance to vote on them.
Who can say what the Founding Fathers would have supported this day and time.
After all, they were such pussies enough to support slavery:
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 02:13:39 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#9)
Trump has expressed unflinching support for police by pledging to stand up for our Law Enforcement.
While on the other hand:
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 02:37:05 Reply Private Reply
#12: Gatlin To: Deckard (#9)
I never approve of yellow journalism and fake news from the websites you use that deliberately publish hoaxes, propaganda, disinformation and outright lies purporting to be real news.
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 02:49:22 Reply Private Reply
#13: Hondo68 To: Gatlin. loves criminals, supports anything they do (#11)
There, you've admitted that DJT supports law breaking police.
You support ISIS McCain of Panama, your Senator, the traitor.
You love criminal scumbags. Why?
Hondo68 posted on 2017-02-12 06:36:56 Reply Private Reply
#14: buckeroo To: hondo68, tater (#13)
Asking tater questions like that is not going to get you very far. Don't you remember tater's love for yukon? The answer is self-evident.
buckeroo posted on 2017-02-12 07:11:47 Reply Private Reply
#15: Pinguinite To: hondo68 (#0)
Pinguinite posted on 2017-02-12 08:51:07 Reply Private Reply
#16: Justified To: hondo68, Deckard, Stoner, nolu chan, Gatlin, A K A Stone, buckeroo, Pinguinite (#0)
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.
Justified posted on 2017-02-12 09:25:50 Reply Private Reply
#17: sneakypete To: hondo68 (#0)
NOBODY is that stupid. Especially not someone who had a license to run a cosmology business.
Having said that,this is NOT the crime of the century.
WTH happened to common sense? WHY can't the city health board just give him a physical to prove he has no communicable diseases,and then give him a license to operate a mobile hair business? What would it cost them,5 bucks?
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:00:03 Reply Private Reply
#18: sneakypete To: Deckard (#1)
Yup.
They just don't have the stones to kick in doors and arrest citizens for this "crime". If they did,they would.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:01:08 Reply Private Reply
#19: sneakypete To: Deckard (#6)
That IS who they are. All they want in life is to find their spot to graze in the government pasture.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:03:13 Reply Private Reply
#20: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#8)
Well,the law itself isn't stupid because people that cut hair also cut whiskers,and there is always a danger of blood transfer. Would YOU want someone with AIDS or some other blood-borne disease cutting your hair or shaving you?
What IS stupid is the APPLICATION of the law. Too many in government have gone beyond WHY the laws were established to start with,and focus entirely on enforcement and punishment.
Given that this guy poses no threat to the profits of anyone with a brick and stone hair care shop because his "clients" are homeless and mostly penniless,WHY couldn't common sense have prevailed,and the city GIVE him a lousy permit to operate a mobile hair care business so he could cut the hair of the homeless legally,and nobody would be getting their panties all in a wad over this?
ALL it would cost the city would be maybe 5-15 bucks in lost permit fees,and you can bet your ass they will spend thousands prosecuting him.
How the HELL does that make any kind of sense? The Mayor and his staff need to lose their jobs over allowing this to happen.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:09:34 Reply Private Reply
#21: sneakypete To: Pinguinite (#15)
Good points,but regardless of if this is the case or not,SOMEBODY or even multiple somebodies in city government need to be fired for allowing this to get this far.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:12:16 Reply Private Reply
#22: sneakypete To: Justified (#16)
True,but there is nothing requiring the city to find the complaint to be valid. The one thing we all know is he isn't dipping his fingers into anyone else's tills by giving free haircuts because homeless people are NOT spending their money on haircuts.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 10:14:22 Reply Private Reply
#23: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#20)
I still say stupid useless "law".
A K A Stone posted on 2017-02-12 10:19:30 Reply Private Reply
#24: Justified To: sneakypete (#22)
Justified posted on 2017-02-12 10:19:35 Reply Private Reply
#25: Pinguinite To: Justified (#16)
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.
Pinguinite posted on 2017-02-12 10:33:50 Reply Private Reply
#26: Justified To: Pinguinite (#25)
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.
Justified posted on 2017-02-12 10:41:54 Reply Private Reply
#27: Gatlin To: hondo68 (#13)
These arrests and convictions disproves the convenient mythology you Paultard assholes try to continually spread .that policing in America and the judicial system is broken. When the one percent bad cops are charged and convicted, both are functioning and doing exactly whey they were designed and structured to do.
You intentionally neglected to post the entire quote thereby creating fake news stating that Donald Trump supports law breaking police .when he does no such thing. To be certain, in the limited instances where clear and identifiable patterns of police misconduct are uncovered as you have pointed out, the federal oversight under Donald Trump will be the most appropriate remedy to ensure the rights of all Americans as he stand up for law enforcement.There is no professional group of individuals that have been as assailed and maligned recently as the American police officers. You Paultard asshole anarchist detractors and critics have become malcontent insurrectionists who always paint our nations police officers as racist and brutal in your failed effort to show the entire criminal justice system as systemically failed. Innuendos and misinformation in the wake of controversy and constantly calling attention to the one percent bad cops has become the standard response among you dissatisfied and rebellious malcontent Paultards within the public discourse on LF.
Cops are operating within the most difficult and dangerous environment in decades and no single will provide immediate relief for the systemic obstacles facing the LEOs. But there is definite pattern to show hope the Trump administration has provided a welcome start.
Although you have been chastised and your posting privilege suspended by Stone for posting lies and fake news on LF .you continue to do so. WHY?
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 10:51:09 Reply Private Reply
#28: Pinguinite To: Justified (#26)
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.
Pinguinite posted on 2017-02-12 11:22:22 Reply Private Reply
#29: Stoner To: sneakypete (#17)
Damn good question. But exercising common sense, will keep them from playing "tuff guy ".
Stoner posted on 2017-02-12 11:22:48 Reply Private Reply
#30: Stoner To: Deckard (#1)
SAFELY !
If the person did not, a family could go to sleep, and if the work was not performed properly, the house could burn down, killing everyone in the house / building. SAFETY !
I just really do not see the SAFETY factor in this case !
It sounds like it is more monetary / ego. The competitors do not want to lose money, which they are not; the state does not want to lose license fees; and the state bureaucrats do not like to see someone that ignores them and their author a tay !!
The guys that pushed this have too much time on their hands, and no common sense. That seems to be a common trait with bureaucrats !!
Stoner posted on 2017-02-12 12:07:50 Reply Private Reply
#31: Gatlin To: A K A Stone (#23)
You have the right to your opinion to call it a stupid useless law.
I could agree that the law may be, and is, sometime misinterpreted and misapplied.
But, I paraphrase Crocodile Dundee to say
Thats not a stupid useless law .these are stupid and useless laws:
http://www.truthin7minutes.com/weird-laws/
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 12:24:38 Reply Private Reply
#32: buckeroo To: Gatlin (#31)
Why is that a weird law? Because you don't understand your own posts filled with bullshit?
buckeroo posted on 2017-02-12 12:40:22 Reply Private Reply
#33: Pinguinite To: Stoner (#30)
It's not physical safety in this case, but if a woman goes into a Salon and erroneously has her long hair about all lopped off due to some dummy not knowing what he's doing, then it's a very bad thing for her that she would need at least many months to recover from, and which could harm her financially if her business required a reasonable, customary appearance. So there's potential financial harm, in addition to social harm.
The idea is that the general public has an expectation that if they go into a publicly advertised shop in a commercial district to obtain any kind of skilled service, that the person who says they can do that service is qualified to do it. I.e when there's a strip mall of many vendors, the expectation is that all of them are trustworthy. The city/state then steps in and feels it's their duty to ensure this is the case for the benefit of the general public, whom it is supposed to be serving. Hense, the creation of the legal license requirements.
But if someone is providing services on a private basis not available to the public, then there should be no licensing requirements as the public is not at risk. And if there is not payment or compensation of any kind being made to the service provider, as with the man in this article, then it's very arguably not a public service he's providing, and therefore no need of license exists.
Pinguinite posted on 2017-02-12 13:27:44 Reply Private Reply
#34: Hondo68 To: buckeroo, fish shooting legal (#32)
Fish Shooting Season Opens
Hondo68 posted on 2017-02-12 13:42:21 Reply Private Reply
#35: Stoner To: Pinguinite (#33)
Stoner posted on 2017-02-12 13:59:21 Reply Private Reply
#36: buckeroo To: hondo68, tater (#34)
buckeroo posted on 2017-02-12 14:29:15 Reply Private Reply
#37: Fred Mertz To: buckeroo (#36)
Fred Mertz posted on 2017-02-12 14:30:02 Reply Private Reply
#38: buckeroo To: Fred Mertz, tater (#37)
buckeroo posted on 2017-02-12 14:38:06 Reply Private Reply
#39: Deckard To: Gatlin (#27)
Speaking of fake news - have you made the call to Donald yet informing him that his assistant and chief strategist Steve Bannon is a purveyor of fake news having worked for many years at Breitbart, a site that is prominently featured on the list of "fake news" sites that you and the other leftists love to tout?
Deckard posted on 2017-02-12 14:59:07 Reply Private Reply
#40: Gatlin To: Deckard (#39)
I see that you are now out of the closet and showing your liberal tendencies by joining the mainstream media as they repeatedly try to slander Breitbart by continuing to print false and defamatory descriptions of Breitbart News in a nakedly political effort to marginalize a growing competitor.
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 15:47:23 Reply Private Reply
#41: A K A Stone To: Gatlin (#40)
I don't think you believe Brietbart to be fake news.
A K A Stone posted on 2017-02-12 16:15:09 Reply Private Reply
#42: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#23)
I do. The barber I go to will shave you with a straight razor if you ask.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 19:18:18 Reply Private Reply
#43: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#42)
I haven't seen anyone shaved with a straight razor since I was a kid. And that was only once.
Maybe I go to the wrong place. You know where all the hot girls cut your hair.
A K A Stone posted on 2017-02-12 19:19:29 Reply Private Reply
#44: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#31)
Bathhouses are illegal in a state where homosexuality is a freaking religion?
I ain't buying it.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 19:23:25 Reply Private Reply
#45: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#43)
I guess that depends on how you define "wrong place".
My barber recently raised his hair cut price to 10 bucks.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-12 19:41:16 Reply Private Reply
#46: Gatlin To: sneakypete (#44)
Gatlin posted on 2017-02-12 20:45:56 Reply Private Reply
#47: sneakypete To: Gatlin (#46)
Why didn't they try to enact a law against homosexuality and be done with it?
Yeah,I know,but I am guessing no bathhouses were shut down or anyone arrested as a result of that law. I am GUESSING it was just a PR game they were playing.
sneakypete posted on 2017-02-13 01:15:40 Reply Private Reply
#48: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#47)
SAN FRANCISCO -- AIDS closed the bathhouses here when the city tried and failed. It was 15 years ago, when the epidemic was raging and bathhouses, as bastions of anonymous, unsafe sex, were considered major contributors to the spread of the disease.
https://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/aids/052999aids-frisco- baths.html
A K A Stone posted on 2017-02-13 08:08:09 Reply Private Reply
#49: nolu chan To: hondo68 (#0)
He should have had the cosmetology school invite the homeless to obtain haircuts at the school where the students could render the service under supervision.
Then why is he attending cosmetology school to obtain a license?
nolu chan posted on 2017-02-13 19:27:48 Reply Private Reply
#50: Hondo68 To: nolu chan (#49)
The school is CLOSED. You want him to break and enter?
Hondo68 posted on 2017-02-13 19:47:29 Reply Private Reply
#51: GrandIsland To: Justified (#16)
Spot on... and asshole Decktard knows this to be true... but can't miss a chance to fear monger authority hate... for his anything goes drug addict loving society. I'm sure the douchebag gets his fat head hair cut by a LICENSED person.
Well said. After you posted this response, no other posts needed to be said. You nailed it.
GrandIsland posted on 2017-02-13 19:58:08 Reply Private Reply