Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: processing please hold
The California State Constitution does not protect the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms. Short of total disarmament (which would violate the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8) the California state legislature can pretty much do what they want with the gun laws in that state.

The citizens need to amend the state constitution to include protection of their gun rights.

26 posted on 10/05/2007 4:16:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
The citizens need to amend the state constitution to include protection of their gun rights.

Are there enough conservatives left in California to do that? The left applauds losing our guns. Stupid idiots.

38 posted on 10/05/2007 4:32:13 PM PDT by processing please hold (Duncan Hunter '08) (ROP and Open Borders-a terrorist marriage and hell's coming with them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
The California State Constitution does not protect the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms.

The second ammendment does. Until CA secedes from the Union they'll have to abide by our Constitution.

The up-coming D.C. case will clinch it. Certain things require a national precedent and self defense via individual ownership of arms is one of them. (Abortion is not, but let's not go there).

90 posted on 10/05/2007 5:56:37 PM PDT by budwiesest (The public teat has been poisoned. Best latch on to something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
robertpaulsen said: "The citizens need to amend the state constitution to include protection of their gun rights."

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.

133 posted on 10/05/2007 9:28:38 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson