Posted on 10/18/2005 11:28:06 PM PDT by William Tell
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 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 effect of the proposed amendment cannot be challenged by claiming that it is a "collective" right because it uses language which explicitly refers to " ... the fundamental right of each person ...".
The 9th. Circuit Court has already used the "collective rights" argument in firearms issues brought before it. This court does not recognize any individual right in the 2nd Amendment. That CA Democrats and the Gun Control activists won't push for a California constitutional amendment to be voided by the 9th. is wishful thinking. AG Bill Lockyear, prodded on by Senators Jack Scott and Don Perata, will be in the van. If the amendment passes get ready for a fight. A big one.
It doesn't matter. The Second Amendment is irrelevant to this California Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is not mentioned, referred to, or involved in any way. Misinterpretations of the Second Amendment cannot be applied to this amendment.
Further, there are no grounds for the Ninth Circuit to make any ruling whatever. Federal courts are already on record as having determined that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. They cannot then claim that the Second Amendment somehow limits state action.
The people of California have the power to recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
At such time as some state attempts to adopt RKBA which conflicts with the infringements already existing at the federal level, THEN the Ninth Circuit will be called upon to settle the conflict.
The Ninth, like the present US Supreme Court, will rule that states DO NOT have the power to permit their citizens to keep and bear newly manufactured machineguns, for example. They will cite similar rulings involving medical marijuana. All the drug warriors should then not be surprise that their right to keep and bear arms will be permanently infringed despite the language of the Second Amendment and despite state protections.
The Supreme Court will have one last chance to undo the tyranny of the last century. If they don't do their jobs, then it will be time for the red state/blue state civil war.
I fully support states' efforts to protect themselves from an activist Supreme Court.(or in the case of the 2nd Ammendment, a lazy court)
If a state ammendment is needed, then so be it. The social whirlwinds that black-robed tyrants have sown over the years can be halted by the states. The taking of private property through eminent domain is one example. Trashing the 1st ammendment via McCain-Feingold is another. And then there were fetuses.
States have rights the Feds can only dream of. Unless the states can re-assert their once usefullness in this 'Union', we are doomed. 'Til then, it's up to us as individuals to light the proverbial fire under our representative's asses to "get'er done".
Someone's got to crash the Fed's power-grab party and I applaud the states in their effort.
This is very good news so you can: Count me in!
Hey! How come on the very next reply after the one I'm replying to, the comment was removed and it shows up on my ping list as from (unknown)???
That's why Webster wrote the danged dictionary!!! He knew that liberals and Tories were already tryin to change the definitions of words way back then!!!
What? Gun owners must belong to a group to have any right to keep and bear arms? Democrats think there's nothing other than "group rights!"
Individuals might as well not exist except to form idiotic "groups" controlled by some outcome based consensus process instead of the democratic process!!!
They told me they don't like the democratic process because it creates "winners and losers" and they just don't think that's fair. I've noticed that courts causing the same thing doesn't bother them one whit, however.
Stuff happens.
Thank ya! That esplains it!!!
---They told me they don't like the democratic process because it creates "winners and losers" and they just don't think that's fair. ---
Then there is Art Torres, head of the Democratic Party in California. Back during Newsome's gay marriage experiment a reporter asked Art as he was going into some gay victory celebration in SF, if the referendum, recently passed by the voters, with over a 60% majority, rejecting gay marriage, didn't mean these marriages were all illegal.
Art replied with a big grin, "That was only a poll and polls change."
Just brings the forces of good and evil right into focus, doesn't it?
bttt
It's not just the Rats. Don't forget, Arnold likes gun control and just recently signed a couple of stupid anti-gun bills. Arnold continues to be a big disappointment.
True, but an even bigger disappointment to me is the Party hierarchy in CA and the wicked hardball they're playing with any and all conservative candidates at this time! It's disgusting what they're doing to McClintock!!!
I consider the CRP a lost cause without a complete changeout of the existing crapweasels. Like the "New Majority" infecting Orange County, the CRP is one of the gems featured by the Hispandering GOP Big Tent RINOs, liberals and moderates as represented by the RNC, NRCC and NRSC. I have cut them off completely--no more money. I donate now to specific conservative candidates. And I will no longer vote a straight Republican ticket. Not any more.
bookmark
The ninth circus is a federal court, and does not get the final say on a state constitution matter. If they decide to rule on it anyway, the US Supreme Court could overturn them (as they often have to do).
Congress shall not...
Means that all levels of government shall not, howerver:
...shall not be infringed.
Means shall not be infringed by Congress, but may be infringed by all other levels of government (especially the judicial).
Subsequent to the 14th amendment, some (not all) of the rights contained in the BOR were protected from state infringement also. The second amendment isn't one of them.
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.