Posted on 01/21/2002 1:32:58 PM PST by 45Auto
I was raised in racially diverse New York City. In the 1950s, I took my first trip to the South and was in for a big shock. Before me were "white" and "colored" drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. Segregation was rampant. Worse, it was totally acceptable to the white locals, the local governments and even to the Southern state governments.
Then, in the 1960s, the federal government stepped in and the civil rights of those who had been affected were restored. Local and state laws allowing civil rights deprivations and violations were eliminated.
The U.S. Constitution is the unquestioned law of our land. Its Bill of Rights protects the various unalienable rights of individual Americans. Among these are freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religion, and, though quite unpopular in California, the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. These are our civil rights.
Today, California's state government and a portion of its population are acting exactly in the same way that segregationists did in the 1950s. Only now, California firearms owners are the civil rights victims. The Second Amendment clearly states that the individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You wouldn't know that in California, where the governor falsely believes it isn't an individual right at all.
On July 3, 2001, in Donald M. Bird vs. Gray Davis et al, Gov. Davis stated through his attorney general, that:
"(There is) no legally recognized right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution" and "the (U.S.) Constitution does not provide a private right to bear arms" and "the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen."
Davis' above-stated opinions on Californians' civil rights are even more wrong than the way he mismanaged the power crisis in California.
Californians are also told what firearms they may or may not "keep," and are generally prevented from "bearing" them anywhere. They must go through all kinds of bureaucratic hassles to purchase them, the number they can purchase is limited and they even have to register some.
It is exactly the same as Californians being told by the state which church they can and can't attend, how often they can buy "approved" Bibles, and that they first have to be tested and licensed in order to buy one. There would be lists of "registered" Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Imagine the outrage that would result if California passed any such laws.
But each year, California's legislators enact even more "gun control" laws. Another nine went into effect on Jan. 1. These laws (exactly like the old segregation laws) ignore the individual civil rights of California's firearms owners. By contrast, at the federal level, things are quite different.
On May 17, 2001, John Ashcroft, the attorney general of the United States, stated his legal opinion that "the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." More recently, in U.S. vs. Emerson, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that "the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individual citizens to own and possess firearms. ..."
In a National Review interview, Nelson Lund, a professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law, stated "(The Emerson ruling) is the most important and favorable Second Amendment judicial decision in American history. For the first time, a federal court of appeals has unambiguously held that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individual citizens."
Because California's governor, attorney general, legislators and courts just don't get it, it's time for the federal government to go to California in the exact same way they went to Alabama in the 1960s -- to restore civil rights.
To make this happen, a "Petition for Enforcement of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States" is being circulated nationwide. It will be sent to the attorney general of the United States. The petition can be found at keepandbeararms.com/petition.
So far, (and entirely by word of mouth) tens of thousands of people from all 50 states have signed the petition and over 1,000 new signatures are arriving each week. Download the petition and read it. No matter how you may feel about firearms, please sign it.
All elected and appointed officials in the United States are required to take a solemn oath of office to support and defend the entire U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment. When they don't, it's a civil rights matter.
David Peltz lives in Reseda. Write to him by e-mail at dpeltz@pacbell.net.
Ah, yes. "The era of ONE-PARTY southern DemocRAT rule. Those were the good ol' days..." so the 'RAT apologists will claim on this forum. Disgusting, isn't it? You have to agree with them and believe racist, socialist DEMOCRATS were heros or you're a "southerner hater" (even though you're more than happy to praise CURRENT southern leaders)
U.S. Constitution not valid in California, Maryland, NYC, New Jersey, or Mass. Consult your local politicians before attempting to use U.S. Constitution.
Should they use the 14th Amendment to kill unconstitutional gun laws in California as they used it in Alabama in the 60s to kill Jim Crow?
Does this then become a states rights argument?
I'll flag a few, and see if they still feel this way.
There was a retired marine working there who was tickled pink that I refused to provide a SSN.
Interestingly, one of Chief Justice Taney's arguments in Dred Scott was that if Dred Scott (and other freedmen) were US citizens, then they could not be denied the right to own firearms. In other words, the post-war black code prohibitions on firearm ownership violated the Second Amendment. I don't know if Second Amendment challenges to the statutes prohibiting blacks from owning firearms were ever attempted.
The 1875 SC case, US v. Cruikshank, is about the closest case to address the gun rights (among other rights) of Freedmen. Even so, this was not about government trying to deny rights, but about whether US law at the time could be invoked to protect civil rights from being infringed by other private parties. The SC concluded this was a 'state issue' and remanded the case. It also said that the 2nd Amendment "stayed the hand of the Federal government only", and, thus, set the stage for a hundred years of lunatic leftists claiming that the 2nd could be infringed by the states. The trouble is, the 2nd has never been formally 'incorporated' under the 14th. It is this decision, and the subsequent quoting of it by later courts, that has allowed the (current) government of California to freely abridge the 2A rights of its citizens.
...or put another way, does a State's sovereign rights give it the ability to abridge Federally guaranteed rights? Can, for example, a State use burning at the stake as a punishment? The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is in the Federal Constitution. Does it apply to the States?
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.