Posted on 10/05/2007 3:39:13 PM PDT by processing please hold
This report hopes to assist in protecting the right of the people to keep and bare arms, individually and collectively, for the safety of the individual, and for the safety of the nation. There are certain fundamental laws and principles over which public officials have no authority to alter or to deny--not even if they profess to have acquired the 'consent of the governed'. In this case, prohibiting possession and use of arms is not possible, because those rights which have been endowed upon man by the Creator are unalienable, and nor revocable by mankind. The purpose of this report is to show how 'consent of the governed' has become abused, and how government officials in the lead state with the help of change agents had set out to destroy the essential and unalienable right of the people to keep and bare arms, by setting into motion unauthorized and unlawful procedures and then pretend that they operated under the 'consent of the governed'.
(Excerpt) Read more at libertygunrights.com ...
If the Ca. state constitution doesn't protect that right, it is not a right in their eyes to KABA. Correct? This is the part that is confusing me. Thaks so much for your patience with me.
I have a quote from Feinstein, I believe, about guns, I'll see if I can find it.
;) Thanks for the company.
Your question is very difficult to answer, because both the state and federal governments have over-stepped their bounds significantly.
Our Founders very much feared a standing Army. They had just had to pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to over-throw their own tyrannical government, defeating a significant standing army of Redcoats to do it.
Both the federal armed forces AND almost anything that passes for a city police department these days would be viewed as standing armies. To oppose abuses by such, the people were to be protected in their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their communities.
To address the natural concern of the people, there is a law called the "Posse Comitatus Act" which limits the use of the military for non-military purposes. I vaguely recall that some change was made recently having to do with guarding our borders, but I don't have any details.
Would that be better or worse than Mayor Daley ordering the Chicago Police to shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters?
I'll wait for the DC ruling. I hear Brady is changing their wording so as not to have it head to the SC.
#2: If by freak chance they ever are prohibited that prohibition would last about 5 minutes. ...or until the first few public figures got lead implants.
Lead implants, I like your wording. lol
#3: If you ever want to be taken seriously learn the difference between "bear" and "bare."
An editing mistake, not stupidity, I assure you.
I believe that most counties in Kalifornia require a psychological assessment of some sort to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Unlike most states, Kalifornia gives the chief law enforcement heads the power to say who may or may not carry a concealed firearm. In most counties, the number of such people is in the dozens and it is suspected that most of them are financial supporters of the local sheriff or politically well-connected like Diane Feinstein.
Many of us may be. The Kalifornia DOJ has refused in some cases to make clear decisions regarding what is legal and what is not legal with respect to so-called "assault weapons". Instead, they have suggested that it is up to the 58 District Attorneys in each county to decide what the law means.
That's 58 different people charged with deciding what constitutes a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip". What fun.
I loathe to see the day that they should stand together against us. Heaven help us all.
To oppose abuses by such, the people were to be protected in their right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their communities.
Some in our country are trying to take away just that means of protection against such abuses. As a FReeper said, Our 2nd amendment is our reset button.
You’re welcome. You may find this one interesting, too: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
But the DC government recently stated that self-defense does not require handguns (despite all those police officers protecting themselves with them). Do you agree or not with DC's stance?
First of all, I didn't accuse anyone of being stupid. Secondly, I was referring to the author, not to you. Sorry I wasn't clear.
Sometime, when you have countless days to fill, dig all around the un. From their stated objectives to their treaties, than ask me that question again.
Would that be better or worse than Mayor Daley ordering the Chicago Police to shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim looters?
If I'm gonna be shot dead in my own country, I'd rather get shot dead by an American than a blue helmet. I don't like either but that's the one I choose.
Second, the Federal AWB, back when it existed (again, the ban WAS allowed to expire), was passed using the power of the Commerce Clause. Second amendment incorporation or non-incorporation has no effect on a Commerce Clause law.
Third, as such, the Federal AWB was valid, constitutional law that the states cannot ignore, incorporation or not.
My concern is that, under incorporation, Congress bans all handguns and the U.S. Supreme Court rules that handguns are not protected by the second amendment as militia-type weapons since the average soldier doesn't carry one. A lower federal circuit court has already ruled this way.
Or a future liberal U.S. Supreme Court rules that "bear" does not include concealed carry. Many case rulings there.
Or the U.S. Supreme Court rules that "keep" means "keep in a state armory".
I didn’t mean you meant I was stupid. I meant is was merely an oversight on my part and the error got by me before posting it. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. :)
That’s exactly how I found it earlier. Thanks for posting the link.
>Germany already has their young people stomping hell out of the Muslim Turks there as well.<
Do you have any links to this?
I don't think there's enough prison room to lock up all those who have guns there. That's plus.
I'm glad I don't live in California.
That's 58 different people charged with deciding what constitutes a "conspicuously protruding pistol grip". What fun.
If I were Jewish I'd say, Oy Vey. If Catholic, Saints preserve us. But since I'm Baptist I'll go ahead and say, sonofa*****. Fifty-eight different people with possible fifty-eight varying viewpoints.
No. The right exists. It is a natural right that you have. No one gives it to you.
Now, whether or not the people of your state protect that right is up to them. Most states write the protection into their state constitution. Most states protect concealed carry. Some states don't. It's all up to the citizens of each state.
If the RKBA is not protected in the California State Constitution, it's obvious the citizens didn't consider it to be a high priority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.