Some of us are working on it. But the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment is a right of the people of Kalifornia as well. It's just not recognized by the government. But surely YOU recognize it.
Also, the Constitution of Kalifornia does contain the following:
"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
To suggest that one has a right to "defend life and liberty" and "protect property" and "obtain safety" without the use of guns is equivalent to suggesting that one can "keep and bear arms" without being able to keep and bear handguns.
That virtually every law-enforcement officer in the state carries a handgun is all the proof any court should need that the defense of life requires that one have access to handguns.
Repost: (+) THE ART OF THE (WEAPONS) CACHE (+)
The original thread is here.
It offers limited protection from your state legislature in that it prevents total disarmament.
"To suggest that one has a right to "defend life and liberty" and "protect property" and "obtain safety" without the use of guns"
Personally, I would shoot for stronger language - something along the lines of "the people have the right to keep and bear arms".
-- The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment is a right of the people of Kalifornia as well. It's just not recognized by the government.
Notice how some here claim Californians should shoot for stronger language in their State constitution; - something along the lines of "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" -- even while saying that we, as a society, decide which rights we will protect. --- We may choose not to protect your right to guns.
If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will.
Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this.
The above type of 'majority rule' socialism is a strange political disease, one that completely ignores the US Constitutions restraints on all levels of gov't.
I'm sure Don Kilmer is with you. Is Geoff Metcalf still working on it?
Way back in the Clinton Regime my spouse and I worked some gun shows with the SVNRAMC getting names on petitions. One huge, gruff guy in line to get in told me we didn't need to amend the CA constitution because the USA Constitution covered it and that should be enough. I agreed with him but added that people kept using "a well constituted militia..." to cloud the issue even though the militia is all of us and that a CA amendment would remove that liberal loophole (phony though it was) once and for all. He didn't say a word, but he got out of line and went right over to the tables with the petitions. Thereafter I started with, "Even though the US Constitution ..."
Of course, if the Supremes uphold the right as an individual right as we expect they will, everyone should be covered. As long as a treaty with the UN is not sneaked through that would supersede the Constitution.
We moved out of CA right about the time the SVNRAMC turned into something else and I never really knew what happened. I know the group is still active and a wonderful group of people and I wish you all the best from Arizona.