Replies

To close, here is what is ironic, and a major part of what makes me so sad:
1) Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution expressly declares that it is the supreme Law of the Land. Section 3 says "and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution, . . . ."
2) Article VII of the U.S. Constitution said, in context, that when enough states ratified the Constitution it (the Constitution) would be the supreme law, binding on the States.
3) Article V of the U.S. Constitution said, in context, that amendments to it, such as the Bill of Rights, are as much a part of the original Constitution as the original itself.
4) The Second Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is binding on the States and all judges, including the 9th circuit judges who decided Silveira and the U.S. Supreme Court judges who rejected Silveira.
5) Silveira originated in California, arguably one of this nation's most rabid pro-victim disarmament laws states.
6) California's Constitution's preamble acknowledges the existence of "Almighty God" and thanks "God" "for our freedom."
7) Article 1, Section 1 of California's Constitution acknowledges that all people "have inalienable rights" and among these are "defending life and liberty, . . . Safety, . . . Privacy."
8) How can one defend life and liberty and obtain safety when disarmed?
9) How can one maintain privacy when so much requires government's prior permission, which requires substantial disclosures, which is the antithesis of maintaining privacy?
10) Article 1, Section 5 states, ". . . A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. . . . ."
11) Article 1, Section 6 states, ". . . Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime." Servitude is distinct from and broader than slavery. Servitude involves the idea of being stripped of one's rights before being convicted of a crime.
12) Article 1, Section 26 states, "the provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory . . . ."
13) Article 3, Section 1 states, "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."
14) The California Supreme Court in People v. Camacho (2000) 23Ccal.4th 824, a Fourth Amendment case, at page 838, said, "[C]onstitutional lines are the price of Constitutional government." I am sad because they have never respected this Constitutional bright line: ". . . The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.," and that line is brighter than the one in the Fourth Amendment.
15) The U.S. Bill of Rights' purpose was to withdraw certain subjects from controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624. One's right to life, liberty, property, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote. Id. The Bill's philosophy is that the individual is the center of society and individual liberty is a paramount value that government must respect. Id.
16) Government must honor rights guaranteed in the U.S. Bill of Rights even when it is inconvenient. Reid v. Covert (1957) 354 U.S. 1. It is dangerous to allow inconvenience to undermine individual rights. Id. To do so, would destroy the benefit of a written Constitution and undermine the basis of our government. Id. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. Id. A close and literal construction leads to gradual depreciation of rights. Id.
17) The rights declared in the U.S. Bill of Rights are law. Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, 966.
18) The Forth Amendment (and much of the rest of the Bill of Rights) is designed to prevent, not simply to redress, unlawful police action. Steagald v. United States (1981) 451 U.S. 204, 217.
19) "A right that is not honored when invoked is no right at all." People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63, 89. (Justice Kennard concurring.)
Can these 19 points be logically reconciled with the 9th Circuit's Silveira decision? With the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Silveira? Does the government speak with a forked tongue? Shuffle the law like a professional card shark shuffles cards?
Are you, too, sad?
Why?
What now?
Why?
Governments' alleged basis to regulate firearms is based on what is called "the municipal police power to promote public health, safety, and welfare." Governments' argument is:
1) We have this power and duty to promote public safety;
2) Firearms are obviously dangerous and when misused members of the public are harmed or killed and public safety and welfare are threatened; and
3) We must, therefore, use our municipal police power to regulate firearms.
Superficially, this argument has plausible merit. It fails, however, to come to terms with the counter arguments:
1) Governments' municipal police power to regulate firearms cannot Constitutionally be used to circumvent nor to trump the U.S. Bill of Rights;
2) That police power stops at the foot of the Bill of Rights;
3) That police power crashes into, and destroys itself, against what is arguably one of the Constitution's clearest, absolute, unequivocal, bright lines: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.";
4) That language is really three Constitutional commands—First, Right of the People; Second, To keep and to bear arms; and Third, Shall not be infringed;
5) The declaration of that right coupled with "shall not be infringed" means this: Governments in this nation do not have any Constitutionally legitimate right to engage in any kind of prior restraint regulation of anything having to do with privately owned, controlled, possessed, carried, used, sold, bought, transferred, or manufactured firearms, period....

Pete Mancus