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
So if some one gets into a minor fight gets a DC when he is 18 he would be prohitted for owning a firearm the rest of his life. This is a good start get rid of B and your going the right way.
Under this they could pass a law not allowing minors firearms for training and hunting and they could get away with it.
Molon Labe!
How so? Currently, Californians have no RKBA protection -- their state constitution is mute on the subject.
Once the Demoncrats reads that part, we have to hope they don't realize they will not be able to keep and bear arms.
A common misconception. The 2nd amendment was never incorporated into the 14th. The 2nd amendment, therefore, only applies to the federal government.
An individual's RKBA is defined by his state's constitution. California's existing constitution is silent on the RKBA. This amendment is crucial, despite its perceived flaws.
It's pretty sad what passes for a Republican these days in California. I support no Demoncrats and only pro-gun Republicans.
Geoff Metcalf was the KSFO talk-show host who was very active in prior petition campaigns. I think that he lost his time slot to Dr. Laura. I don't know if he is available to be involved in this campaign. Michael Savage is also supportive of gun rights, but he has pretty much gone national, so it might not be practical for him to help in this directly. Perhaps you can track them down and get them on board.
I have read that. It seemed to me that prior campaigns have purposely avoided the issue of having paid signature gatherers. They thought that there was some value to having a "grass roots" only effort. I think that is a bad trade-off if it means the initiative doesn't qualify for the ballot. If I had the resources, I would see that California voters were forced to re-vote their opposition to gun rights as often as possible.
Based on the slow start that this campaign has evidenced, I doubt that there is a backup plan for collecting contributions to pay signature gatherers if the grass roots effort is lagging.
The Internet has changed how people communicate and associate. There are almost 2000 California Freepers who have a chance to respond to my posting. This is an incredible resource and I hope that it makes a difference.
absalom01 also said: "Don't count on getting a bunch of your friends to help you -- they won't. Just go do it yourself, and have fun. And those few folks who DO help -- man, keep their numbers.
Don't count on a bunch. But don't neglect the effort. Tuesday I supplied an in-law of an in-law with enough petition packets for 1500 signatures. He was going to spend yesterday at a shotgun range and he expected 50 participants. He would have them sign and then give each of them a packet of petitions for families and friends.
This same friend is member of two clubs with a total of 400 members located mostly in three local counties. That is a lot of leverage from one helper.
Most Americans believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Even in California, I think. A liberal couple I talked with the other day are anti-gun but were very surprised when I explained that the courts have claimed that there is no right to keep and bear arms in California.
Such people are woefully ignorant of firearms and are easily swayed by emotional appeals. This couple knew of someone who was killed in a violent act by a murderer using a shotgun. They did not choose to sign the petition, but I doubt they would bother to go to the polls to support anti-gun measures.
That is the case as the law stands now. Under the new amendment, the parents right to keep and bear arms would be infringed by limiting their ability to train their children. The clause regarding minors eliminates the anti-gunners claim that any ten-year-old will be able to buy a shotgun and shoot up his school.
My understanding is that the term "strict scrutiny" IS the plain language of the law. Courts have dealt with the problem that virtually every law restricts somebody's freedom. The courts recognize some liberties as being "rights" and they have established guidelines for judging laws in light of their impact on such rights.
One of the benefits of having the US Supreme Court take a Second Amendment case is that they can clarify what they said in US vs. Miller in 1939.
The Miller case contained language which has been twisted by lower courts to mean that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. That is not what the Miller case established but the present day Supreme Court has failed to correct the distortions of other courts.
The Fifth Circuit Federal District Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Emerson case. Since the Supreme Court chose not to overrule them, there is a good case for attacking any anti-gun law in the states covered by the Fifth Circuit. (The issue of a state's power to infringe an individual right has not been directly addressed, but it is ridiculous on its face to refer to a right which can be infringed.)
Stay Safe.......
I share your frustration with the present federal administration's inability to restore the full potency of the Second Amendment.
I disagree with your assessment of the effect of this proposition. I own several rifles which I chose to store out-of-state rather than register. One of my "lines in the sand" is that I will not register a firearm which I already possess.
Passage of this amendment puts the government in the position of having to prove that there is a compelling government interest in banning so-called "assault weapons". Pistol grips on rifles, for example, are exactly the type of appliance that a disabled person who is missing an arm would require to exercise their right to bear arms.
What compelling government interest could justify disarming the disabled? Without the amendment, the government only has to show a "rational basis" for an anti-gun law. They only have to state some reason at all and if the reason is not ridiculous on its face, the law is enforceable.
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.