Help Add the Right to Keep and Bear Arms to the California Constitution

The Alliance For Civil Rights ^

[William Tell]

Do you have a right to keep and bear arms in California?

NOT ACCORDING TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

QUOTE:    “…. If Plaintiffs ( gun owners ) are implying that a right to keep and bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG. No mention is made in it of a right to keep and bear arms. “ ( Kasler v. Lockyer 2000 )

Amending the California Constitution is the best way to restore respect for the rights of law abiding gun owners. It will also undermine attempts by local jurisdictions to restrict your right to keep and bear arms. Candidates for political office will also find that this initiative represents one of the best issues upon which to base their campaign for office. ( Remember how Al Gore lost his own state of Tennessee in 2000? ) The Democrats have learned that hostility to gun rights can lose and election. We think supporting gun rights can win one. We need volunteers to put this issue directly to the voters. As a volunteer you will play a pivotal role in making this initiative a reality at the county level. Our goal is 850,000 signatures of registered voters in California and we can only achieve this with your help!

The Proposition:

The inalienable right to defend life and liberty as set forth in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution includes the fundamental right of each person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family and home. This right shall not be infringed.

1. All State government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to acquire and possess arms for the defense of self, family and home shall be subject to strict scrutiny, in the same respect as the freedoms of speech and of the press. All county, city and local government action on this subject is preempted by state law and this Amendment.

2. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct.

---

The Alliance for Civil Rights         1261 Lincoln Avenue          San Jose, CA         95125-3030         24 hour message line  (408) 496-9346

[William Tell]

A new petition drive to add the right to keep and bear arms to the California Constitution will begin soon. The petition language is expected to be approved around November 21, 2005. Once begun, signature gathering will continue for 150 days.

Read more about the petition language and the overall schedule at the official web site www.tacr.us.

Your help is needed as a volunteer to organize and participate in the collection of signatures in your county. Contacts for several counties have already been identified and their contact information appears on the "Unofficial" web site, rkba.members.sonic.net.

To volunteer, email or phone the person listed for your county on the "Unofficial" web site.

If there is not yet a person listed, then volunteer to become the contact for your county by sending your name, county, and phone or email address to Dave at rkba@sonic.net.

[Prime Choice]

Bookingmarking for later. Thanks for posting!

[SDGOP]

Ping for later

[Brad’s Gramma]

.....per your tag line, I pingeth thee.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

You bet!!!!......it's gauranteed by the Constitution...Try and take my guns away MOFO!

[Waco]

If the 2nd doesn't apply in Kali. then the 5th, 14th, and ALL others don't apply either, right? I read where there was a ruling back in the 1800's which said the amendments definitly apply to the States. Case closed.

[upchuck]

Pardon me for being cynical, but you guys are gonna bust your butts for this and get it passed only to have the Ninth Circus rule it unconstitutional.

Go for it!

[mvpel]

It is California's last hope. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[mvpel]

Also, that's why this is an initiative Constitutional Amendment, rather than an initiative statute. It is the people determining what's going to be constitutional in California.

[sergeantdave]

I would think that any constitutional amendment approved by the people to bear arms would be found unconstitutional by the legislature, the executive and certainly the courts.

California more closely resembles a soviet socialist republic than a democratic republic.

Your illegal Coastal Commission and assorted regional planning commissions are certainly examples of unelected soviet socialists ruling over the everyday affairs of citizens.

However, I wish you luck in your endeavors. If you need assistance to pass around the petition and get signatures, give me a buzz. Then again, the California socialists would probably find my actions illegal since I'm no longer a California serf.

[mvpel]

If they manage to find anything among the scant 142 words of this amendment to declare unconstitutional, it's the final proof that California no longer has a republican form of government as guaranteed by the US Constitution, but rather a dictatorship of the judiciary.

It MUST be attempted. Please put a cork in your pointless cynicism at least until April 21, 2006.

[robertpaulsen]

"I would think that any constitutional amendment approved by the people to bear arms would be found unconstitutional by the legislature, the executive and certainly the courts."

Huh?

[robertpaulsen]

Starting in the early 1900's, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to selectively incorporate the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. They have declared certain rights fundamental to liberty, and made the protection of those rights applicable to the states.

Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).

This means that your RKBA is protected by your state constitution.(The second amendment is only a restriction on the federal govenment, not the state.)

Since the California state constitution provides no protection in this area, a constitutional amendment is the only way to get it.

[robertpaulsen]

"Pardon me for being cynical, but you guys are gonna bust your butts for this and get it passed only to have the Ninth Circus rule it unconstitutional."

How?

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[sergeantdave]

I would think that any constitutional amendment approved by the people to bear arms would be IGNORED, REWRITTEN AND REINTERPRETED by the legislature, the executive and certainly the courts.

That better for you?

[claudiustg]

To the left it's only words and the meaning of words changes.

[HangFire]

bumping and pinging for later consumption;-)

[faireturn]

Starting in the early 1900's, the U.S. Supreme Court has erroneously used the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment to selectively 'incorporate' the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

The fact remains that all of the Constitution & all of its Amendments have always applied to all levels of governments and all officials in the USA, just as Article VI makes clear.


The USSC has erroneously declared only certain rights fundamental to liberty, and made the protection of only those rights applicable to the states, contrary to the clear words of both Article VI and the 14th Amendment.


Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been erroneously 'incorporated' (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment).
We can only wonder who gave the Supreme Court the power to 'except' certain of our most fundamental rights.

This means that your RKBA is unprotected by your state or local officials if they ignore your state constitution.
Thus they can contend that our second amendment is only a restriction on the federal government, not the state.

Since the California state constitution provides no protection in this area, a constitutional amendment is only one way to get it.

Forcing the US Supreme Court to hear a case on Califorina's clear infringements of the 2nd is another, and better method. It would settle the issue for good.

[Frohickey]

btt