California 'Literacy Tests' for Gun Buyers an Assault on Civil liberty

"A new state law requiring what amounts to a 'literacy test' for handgun buyers is a slap in the face to firearms civil rights to the same degree that such tests required of black voters in the South were an attack on their voting rights, the founder of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.

'On the day our nation celebrates the life of one of the leading civil rights activists of the 20th Century, Dr. Martin Luther King, it is an outrage that California law now treats gun buyers in much the same way that African Americans were treated in the South to prevent them from voting,' said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. 'The right to own a firearm is no less important than the right to vote. California is treating gun owners like cracker racists treated black citizens in the South during the days of Segregation.'

'Social bigotry against gun owners,' said Gottlieb, 'is just as insidious today as racial bigotry was a half-century ago in the South. Yet, here it is, in all of its raging demagoguery, alive and well in the State of California, fueled with the same anti-civil-rights mentality that is always at the core of discrimination.'"

Under a new California law that took effect Jan. 1, handgun buyers must pass a 30-question "written test" and pay what amounts to a $25 "poll tax" for a five-year Handgun Safety Certificate, replacing the less-expensive basic safety certificate that was good for life. Gone are exemptions for military veterans and Hunter Education graduates. They must also demonstrate their dexterity with the gun, and endure a 10-day waiting period.

"Dr. King reminded us all that a right delayed is a right denied," Gottlieb observed. "Yet California not only delays the right to own a firearm, they charge law-abiding citizens for the 'privilege' of this affront. Regardless how 'easy' or 'hard' the test questions may be, this new requirement amounts to the same kind of literacy test used to intimidate would-be black voters when Dr. King was alive and fighting for their civil rights.

"Anti-gun prejudice in Sacramento is just as wrong as white prejudice was in Selma," Gottlieb added. "Those who hate guns will bury themselves in denial, but hatred is still hatred, whether the target is a black citizen or an armed citizen. How is it, in California and elsewhere, that we renounce one form of bigotry while encouraging another?"

The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners. Current projects include several concealed carry lawsuits, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers & an amicus brief & fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms. California has no "second amendment" in the state constitution.
Normally, the 14th amendment would cover a citizens rights at the state level, but the USSC never incorporated the 2nd amendment under the 14th.
Bottom line: California could ban guns if it wanted to.
-rp-

"Incorporation" is a legal fiction used by the USSC and the political power structure to play their silly games.

The constitution uses clear language to declare itself as the supreme 'law of the land' and, in the 2nd, - to protect the peoples RKBA's.
The 9th and 14th clearly support these facts of constitutional law. The arguments used at the ratification of the 14th clearly show that the one of the purposes of the 14th was to make the individual U.S. citizens RKBA's absolutely un-infringeable by state/local governments.

Statists of all stripes cannot abide by this fact.

Your 'incorporation' theory is a red herring. Dupes use it to imply that 'interpreting' our constitution is best left to the 'experts'.

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 'strict scrutiny' clause on the power to 'regulate', is far too vague, imo.
The same applies to the restraining order bit.

Our gun rights are being regulated away, despite our best efforts at strict scrutiny.
'Majority rules' are voiding reasonable regulations.

News flash to Californians against gun ownership....just becuase your state constitution does not call for private gun ownership, the constitution does and if I remember correctly, the constitution supercedes any state constitution as far as our rights go.

Anti-gun lobbiests always try and argue that the founding fathers had no intention of civilian gun ownership. When you research their private papers you'll find that private ownership of guns is one of our central and most important rights. Some even consider it one of our basic unalienable rights that doesnt need to be written for us to exercise. Gun ownership is central in the efforct to protect our liberties. America was built to provide its citizen a free country where ones freedom could not be ursurped by a tyrannical and power hungry central government. Gun ownership provides us with a last ditch tool incase we need to protect ourselves. Protection is what it is all about. The police are never around when you need them. Anti gun is about Anti self protection. Id rather keep my guns and secure myself and my family then sit around and wait to be another victim.

Drunknsage

The 'strict scrutiny' clause on the power to 'regulate', is far too vague, imo.

It's only vague if you don't have any legal training. The term "strict scrutiny" has a very specific, well-understood meaning in the vocabulary of the judicial system, as part of a spectrum called "standards of review."

From this page:

Three standards:
1. Three key standards of review appear constantly when courts review the constitutionality of government action
  1. Mere rationality:
    1. The easiest one to satisfy.
    2. The court will uphold the governmental action so long as it meets two requirements:
      1. Legitimate state objective:
        
        First, the government must be pursuing a legitimate governmental objective.
        This is a very broad concept — practically any type of health, safety or "general welfare" goal will be found to be "legitimate."
      2. Rational relation: Second, there has to be a "minimally rational relation" between the means chosen by the government and the state objective.
        
        This requirement, too, is extremely easy to satisfy
        Only if the government has acted in a completely "arbitrary and irrational" way will this rational link between means and end not be found.
  2. Strict scrutiny:
    1. This standard that is the hardest to satisfy.
    2. This standard will only be satisfied if the governmental act satisfies two very tough requirements:
      1. Compelling objective: The objective being pursued by the government must be "compelling" (not just "legitimate," as for the "mere rationality" standard); and
      2. Necessary means: The means chosen by the government must be "necessary" to achieve that compelling end.
        
        In other words, the "fit" between the means and the end must be extremely tight.
        It’s not enough that there’s a "rational relation" between the means and the end, which is enough under the "mere rationality" standard.
        No less restrictive alternatives: In practice, this requirement that the means be "necessary" means that there must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government’s objective just as well.
  3. Middle-level review:
    1. In between these two review standards is so-called "middle-level" review.
      1. "Important" objective: Here, the governmental objective has to be "important" (half way between "legitimate" and "compelling").
      2. "Substantially related" means: And, the means chosen by the government must be "substantially related" to the important government objective.
      3. This "substantially related" standard is half way between "rationally related" and "necessary".
Consequences of choice: The court’s choice of one of these standards of review has two important consequences:
1. Burden of persuasion: First, the choice will make a big difference as to who has the burden of persuasion.
  1. Mere rationality: Where the governmental action is subject to the "mere rationality" standard, the individual who is attacking the government action will generally bear the burden of persuading the court that the action is unconstitutional.
  2. Strict scrutiny: By contrast, if the court applies "strict scrutiny," then the governmental body whose act is being attacked has the burden of persuading the court that its action is constitutional.
  3. Middle-level review: Where "middle level" scrutiny is used, it’s not certain how the court will assign the burden of persuasion, but the burden will usually be placed on the government.

Right now in California, we are under the "mere rationality" (also known as "rational basis") standard of review when it comes to gun laws, as should be very easy to tell by what has been passing muster here of late. The burden is on us, as gun owners, to prove the laws unconstitutional, and we've been getting our butts kicked in that respect.

Under a "strict scrutiny" standard, the burden shifts from us to the government to support the enactment of the laws, and the presumption is against them.

And with respect to restraining orders based on violent conduct, coupling it with the strict scrutiny standard it may put an end to frivolous and false allegations of violent conduct as a bargaining tool in divorces, since the standard of proof would be higher.

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.