Right to Keep and Bear Arms - California Initiative Constitutional Amendment Petition Drive Underway

The Unofficial California RKBA Petition Web Site ^ | 03/10/2004 | William Tell

[budwiesest]

Post 213, nice.

In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes.

It's not being 'respected' and the only conclusion one can come to from this is that it's all down-hill from here.

One-if-by-land, two-if-by sea, and three-if-the-SOB-is-your-neighbor.

[budwiesest]

Thanks for the CA heads-up. Will try the links. I've gotta printer and friends with my pro-2A attitude. Thanks for the effort WT.

[tpaine]

Post 213, Justice Black:

"I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century "strait jacket" as the Twining opinion did.
Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils.
But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many.

In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes."

______________________________________


It's not being 'respected' and the only conclusion one can come to from this is that it's all down-hill from here.
-Bud-

______________________________________


Exactly, -- and in particular when we find so many socalled 'conservatives' who can find specious reasons to object to Blacks stirring words..

It's damn near unbelievable to me.

[robertpaulsen]

"and in particular when we find so many socalled 'conservatives' who can find specious reasons to object to Blacks stirring words. It's damn near unbelievable to me."

Really? Why so unbelievable? The founding fathers wrote the BOR to apply only to the federal government, not the states.

It wasn't until almost 80 years later that most of the BOR were incorporated under the 14th amendment to apply to the states.

Makes you wonder how the states survived, huh?

[Sandy]

Maybe the court did indeed error on the P&I of the 14th amendment. But null and dead it is.

Wrong. Read Saenz v. Roe.

[robertpaulsen]

Well, I thought I was pretty specific in my post #379 when I referred to state violations of the 14th amendment. I said, "The only privileges which the Fourteenth Amendment protected against state encroachment were declared to be those ..."

When a state law treats residents differently, that falls under 14th amendment Due Process or Equal Protection. When California attempted to amend it's AFDC program to treat new residents differently, it was struck down under Equal Protection in Green v. Anderson, 811 F. Supp. 516, 521.

When Congress enacted PRWORA, it authorized a state to treat new residents differently. Since this was a federal law, it violated not only a state citizen's rights but a United States citizen's rights.

The federal law was struck down as a violation of P&I. That's the way I read it, anyways.

[Sandy]

My only point is that the P&I clause is not null and void, nor is it moot, as was stated multiple times in this thread. Naturally the Court still got the clause wrong, but nevertheless, it lives. Thomas' dissent is quite good, btw.