Posted on 03/10/2004 10:29:00 PM PST by William Tell
Efforts are already underway in California to collect almost a million signatures in an attempt to establish the right to keep and bear arms in the California Constitution.
Successful gathering of the necessary signatures by June 1, 2004 will allow the voters of California to decide at this November's election whether they will recognize the unalienable right to defend one's self, family, and home with firearms.
The text of the proposed amendment is as follows:
The use of the term "strict scrutiny" and references to freedom of speech and the press are intended to restrict legislators to the minimum interference with the right and only when no alternatives exist.
An organization called "The Alliance for Civil Rights" has been distributing materials and applications for volunteers. Unfortunately, their website has not been updated yet and the clock is ticking. Rather than wait while signatures could be gathered by motivated members of FreeRepublic, I have created a simple web page which makes available the essential materials for conducting a successful petition drive.
The Unofficial California RKBA Petition Web Site contains a link to the sponsoring organization's web site, The Alliance for Civil Rights, as well as a link to the Golden State 2nd Amendment Council which has made the petition files available.
My web site has links to the individual county petitions in PDF format and an instruction sheet for filling out and submitting petitions.
I have included a recommended course of action for volunteers which reflects the activities which I am carrying out in my county.
There is an email address for this unofficial web site, rkba@sonic.net. Let me know if I can help more.
There are almost 2000 California Freepers. If we had to do this by ourselves, it would take nearly 500 signatures each. But we are not alone. Signatures are already being gathered at gun shows (that is where I signed) and the word is getting out. The unsuccessful effort to repeal SB23, one of the many "assault weapon" laws in California, collected about 570 thousand signatures, about 85% of the number required to put the matter to popular vote. At that time, many who were only concerned about their shotguns might have had little interest. I think they may be listening now.
We can do this but you will need to do your part.
William Tell
Sidearms, nuclear arms, firearms, concealable arms, "lay down your arms", disarmed. Our Founders had rifles, muskets, bayonets and knives, pikes, cannons, mortars, ships, catapults, mines, early equivalents of napalm, and made liberal use of fire.
They had ships outfitted for war and merchant ships carried their own arms. Chains were stretched from shore to shore to block passage of ships in rivers.
Look at your own sentence.
We all think "arms" applies to all arms ...
"Arms" does apply to all "arms". That is a fact. Words have meanings and the Supreme Court is not the definitive source of the meanings of words. What you have pointed out about the Supreme Court is a factual description of one of the failings of our system. It in no way justifies that fact.
Those who argue that handguns are not arms are just as wrong as you when you argue that heavy machine guns are not arms.
. My question was about what his position was on the rights of responsible law abiding citizens to carry fire arms and specifically what his position was on 'may' issue vs 'shall' issue. I swear, he had no clue what I was talking about.
A fatal flaw. My district had a Republican Representative, Steve Kuykendahl who voted with the Democrats on gun issues. He was a one term congressman. Bill Jones won't dent Barbara Boxer. Jones lacks the testicles of Babs Boxer.
You are patently wrong in the context of the 2nd. Amendment. The "arms" are personal property that would suitably equip a company of militia. To suggest that the entire ordnance inventory of the Continental Army is considered to be covered by the 2nd Amendment is only fodder for the cannons of our enemies. You come off as sounding one round shy of a full magazine.
Our Founders had rifles, muskets, bayonets and knives, pikes,...
They also had cavalry. Are you willing to include horses as protected arms under your definition of "Arms"? If so, can you ride a horse? Or will I have to keep my horse at a slow walk while waiting for you to catch up? (sigh)
If it is not protected by your state constitution, yes, the state may quarter soldiers in your house in time of peace.
The 3rd amendment has not been incorporated by the USSC under the 14th. However, a lower court did rule Due Process protection:
"The Second Circuit for the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the Third Amendment is a fundamental aspect of the right of privacy that is to be protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982))."
But this is a moot point, and a waste of my time, since if you knew your own state's constitution you wouldn't have asked the question:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 5. The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. Soldiers may not be quartered in any house in wartime except as prescribed by law, or in peacetime without the owner's consent.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
It means that a state cannot make two sets of laws -- one for residents and one for non-residents. Why do you ask? What does the Privileges and Immunities Clause have to do with anything, other than again wasting my time? Really, tell me.
"Do you agree that the "right to keep and bear arms" existed prior to the creation of the Second Amendment prohibition against its infringement?"
Really? I know that under the Articles of Confederation, agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781, that:
"every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
Maybe you could reference for me this early right to keep and bear arms, and why this is significant. Maybe you could also cut the crap and cite this secret passage of yours so I can comment on it.
The rest of your screed doesn't deserve comment. I've wasted enough of my time telling you things you already knew or should have known.
They did. Here's a list of each state, the date, and the actual "arms" law for that state. --
-- If the federal government wrote the law, it would apply to all states.
______________________________________
The 2nd does apply to all states, and is much infringed.
That link to the various states constitutional laws illustrates beyond all doubt why we should never have allowed our RKBA's to be infringed upon by state legislatures. -- Whatta mess.
-- The paulsens of this country see these State infringements as proof that the States have a power to license & prohibit. -- Rational people see them as the police power violated. -- It is way past time, long overdue, to insist that the USSC strike down these various State 'regulations' that violate our individual right to own and carry arms.
Pathetic.
You acknowledge this and here you are, choosing to look to this "failed" USSC system to decide whether Americans will have the RKBA.
And if five liberal judges on the USSC decide otherwise? Well, you'll just go off to your little corner, suck your thumb, and pout, "It in no way justifies the fact". Maybe you can then find some Roe v Wade pro-lifers and you can all have a good cry.
From memory I think the entire second amendment is something like:
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It you want to read it like:
"A well regulated....well never mind, its just whatever the supreme judiciary or especially some guy with the screen name of robertpaulsen on the Internet (whatever that is cause us founding fathers don't know yet) says about keeping a and bearing arms".
Please support the above absurd assertion. Hint: if you can't do it using just the U.S. Constitution, then your argument is not valid.
...or don't because guess what: you can't.
In case you haven't noticed, they already do. Do I want them to have more, NO!
However, from my sarcasm directed to a post that expresses the "Any Arms, Any Time, Any Where, kind of unrealistic attitude, YOU have deduced that I am anti-gun, anti 2A, which is far from the truth. That's my point. Words mean something, inflammatory words inflame passions. Not only our own but those who want to scrap the 2nd. Amendment. My biggest fear is no longer Sarah Brady, but the Magnum Morons shooting their mouth off about nuclear "Arms" and "Full-Automatic Arms" that are really not part of the 2nd. Amendment.
Never mind, I found it.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 5, 1788
What do I suppose it means? Since this was spoken at a convention to ratify the U.S. Constitution, I would assume he is referring to the fact that the U.S. Constitution will prevent Congress from infringing on gun rights.
This is supported by another statement he made:
""Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense is the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
I did not say anything of the kind. It is you who have perceived an "either or meaning" that I did not imply, infer or postulate.
BTW, it's "Elbucko" to you.
Maybe you can find me the abortion amendment while your at it.
Note, that in four decades of endless debate, the pro-abortion side never mentions a single part of the Contitution--it seems they think of "Roe vs Wade" as a Constitutional amendment, when it was actually an act of capricious legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court based on what seems like a totally forgotten premises, that appears to have so little merit (beyond the false rape claim), not even the most militant pro-abortionists have ever bothered to argue it.
Callous disregard for the plain words of the U.S. Constitution must and should be opposed.
The place of a statement is not its context. The context is "Armed" and that every man who is able (might) have a gun. In the convening 150 years since the passage of the equality clause of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution has been applied more often in deference to "the people", than it has to the states. IMHO, the 2nd Amend. applies to the states as well. A state amendment only affirms what the US Constitution guarantees. Or shall we go back to segregation?
So what if it does? The will of the people means exactly squat in CA, as evidenced by the passage of Prop 187 (by an overwhelming margin) only to be shot down by the courts as "unconstitutional."
Oh, but I can. Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Article VI states, in part: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
If the second amendment applied to the states, then it would override any state law. Many state laws infringe on the RKBA -- some cities even ban the ownership of all guns. Some states do not allow concealed carry. How do they get away with it when Article VI of the U.S. constitution says the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
Can you answer that? Without ranting about conspiracies?
Also, why does each state have it's own form of the RKBA? These laws were written into the state constitutions before and after the signing of the U.S. Constitution (refer to my link in post #119).
If the second amendment applied to the states, then state laws are unnecessary, right?
I do not "want" the USSC to "call" this one. I want them to do their job, and interpret the Constitution in a way that is not absurd. Certainly what is called an arm should not include nukes--but things like heavy machine guns might be debatable, and this is something that actually should be within their jurisprudence.
But I want the USSC to be a judicial rather then a legislative branch of government. I want them to apply common sense and fairness, but in case they do not I want them to have limited power.
Sorry, but the way I see it you are just another moral coward bowing down to give them the limitless capricious power to arbitrarily interpret the Constitution any damn way they like. What good to even have a legislature then?
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.