Posted on 05/04/2002 9:19:51 AM PDT by mvpel
California is in trouble.
The ideals embodied in the Second Amendment can no longer be entrusted to business as ususal. We now know that traditional partisan politics in this state is no longer effective for protecting the right to keep and bear arms. We can no longer afford to keep begging our politicians for relief from irrational gun control.
The problem with lobbying politicians on gun control issues, is that the feedback mechanism is defective. Gun rights victories are counted by the laws we keep off the books. We are successful only when we succeed in keeping what is rightfully ours in the first place. Stopping a thief from taking your property does not enrich you. The effort to stop him is - ironically - a net loss.
In 1999, the Governor of California - Gray Davis - signed into law the most comprehensive gun laws in the nation. He is proud of this accomplishment. But being a political animal with aspirations for re-election, he warned the legislature in 2001 to send him no more gun control bills. They couldn't help themselves, they still sent the governor more bad gun control bills. Apparently unable to help himself either, he signed them into law.
There is now a feeding frenzy in Sacramento by politicians in both parties to outlegislate each other on gun control. A law that would impose a 1000% tax on some of the most popular calibers of ammunition is seriously being considered by our legislature.
Gun Control politicians in both parties dominate the houses of our State's legislature, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. If it ever was effective, it is now clear that lobbying politicians has become useless. it is a spent weapon. It is time to change the strategy of Second Amendment advocacy in California.
What Should We Do ?
We must take direct legislative action. We must amend the California Constitution. The following is a proposal to accomplish that.
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
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.
Bill Lockyer, the Attorney General of California [and himself no friend of gun owners] prepared a legal description of what the initiative will accomplish if passed by the voters:
Amends the California Constitution to state Article I, Section 1 includes the right to keep and bear arms in defense of self, family and home. All state regulation of the right to keep and bear arms will be subject to strict scrutiny review. The Amendment and state law preempts all county, city and local government action on this subject. The Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and persons subject to restraining orders based on their own violent conduct. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result in unknown, potential costs to the state and unknown net fiscal effects on local governments.
The Legislative Analyst for the California Joint Legislative Budget Committee made these additional comments about the legal effects of the initiative:
...local jurisdictions would not be able to limit who obtains concealed weapons permits unless the applicant does not meet federal or state criteria. In addition, individuals could no longer be arrested and tried for simple possession of a weapon, unless other circumstances existed. Currently, these types of arrests are misdemeanor offenses where the individual is generally cited and released.
...[t]he measure also amends the State Constitution to require the application of a "strict scrutiny" test in judicial review of state actions that restrict individual rights to acquire and possess firearms. The strict scrutiny test presumes the challenged regulatory action to be invalid and the burden of proof is on state and local governments to show that the law serves a compelling public interest. [emphasis added]
...[s]avings could result from the potential reduction in crime resulting from a larger number of citizens possessing firearms for self-defense.
This initiative will not only stop the insanity, but it will restore the right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding citizens in California.
What Has Already Happened?
As of the date of this letter, an amendment to the California Constitution requires over 680,000 signatures to qualify for ballot access. This number is based upon the total number of voters who voted in the most recent governor.s race. A new number will be established by law after the contest in November 2002.
Twice, with no money and no support from gun rights groups, an attempt was made to gather sufficient signatures to qualify this initiative for the state-wide ballot. Twice, we have failed. And since by law, we are not permitted to use the signatures gathered to construct a database, each effort must start from scratch. But this time, we are better organized and more determined than ever.
We have formed The Thermopylae Group a California non-profit organization with two principal goals: (1) educating people about their constitutional rights, including the .right to keep and bear arms,. and (2) advocacy, through the legislative/initiative process, for the restoration and preservation of these important rights. The Greek Hoplite and American Minuteman are our symbols. They are historical examples of how outnumbered patriots made crucial differences in the legacy of preserving freedom. The organization is taking steps to acquire favorable tax status. We are making long range plans and building momentum for 2004.
What Still Needs to Be Done ?
First and foremost, we need to have volunteers - in the thousands - standing ready to gather signatures when title and summary are issued again in 2003. Based upon the election code, we should be submitting our petitions to county registrar of voters on or before February 20, 2004. Backing up the 150 days allowed for gathering signatures, we must have our organization in place and ready to roll by September 1, 2003. We expect to submit title and summary to the Secretary of State in July, 2003.
We should set our goal at 1 Million signatures. If we have 5000 volunteers, then each volunteer needs to gather only 200 signatures of registered voters in his/her county. Assuming we can get on the ballot with little or no cost. We still need to raise money for the campaign during the election cycle. We will also need funds to pay for an office and staff to coordinate the petition process and the campaign.
You should consider contacting any civil rights organizations you belong to and enlist their support. By way of example: With over 200,000 NRA members in California who get a monthly subscription to American Rifleman, American Hunter, and/or America's First Freedom magazines, it would be a simple matter to fold a petition into each magazine headed for California with instructions for gathering more signatures and returning the petitions to a central mail-drop. So far the National Rifle Association, and other gun rights groups, have declined the invitation to become involved in this effort. We respect their decision and applaud the good work they have already done. But we would welcome the opportunity to form a partnership with them for the sole purpose of passing this initiative.
You can use this web-site to read about the progress of the initiative and find out how you can help. You can see the documents from the Secretary of State, the Attorney General's Office and the Legislative Budget Committee from the prior two (2) efforts.
Conclusion
Sunshine patriots won't get the job done. This will require hard work, intestinal fortitude and a willingness to make commitments that will steal time away from activities and projects that all of us would rather be working on.
Remember, stopping the thief is a net loss, but it is the price we must pay to defend and preserve what is rightfully ours. There are only two other alternatives: (1) move away and abandon the home with whatever valuables you have left, or (2) stay in a home with inadequate locks and let the thieves continue taking what they want until you are left with nothing.
[signed]
Donald E. J. Kilmer, Jr.
Attorney at Law and Board Member
The Thermopylae Group
...[s]avings could result from the potential reduction in crime resulting from a larger number of citizens possessing firearms for self-defense.
No offense intended.
This is too vauge and open to abuse. What does "strict scrutiny" mean, the DA read it twice before going to bed?
For most people, the logic behind forbidding a nutcase, child, or violent criminal from carrying firearms in public is clear. The issue of unconstitutional Federal overreaching aside, California also has such laws.
Not all of us are content to wait for a SCOTUS RKBA ruling that may never come, while California's gun rights are eroded further and further as gun rights activists in the state fight a losing rear-guard battle against the likes of Senator Perata.
In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. (See Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981) 452 U.S. 61, 71-74 [68 L.Ed.2d 671, 682-684]; City of Indio v. Arroyo (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 151, 157.) It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on First Amendment rights. (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com., supra, 514 U.S. [131 L.Ed.2d at p. 440]; H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1207.)
Right-on !!
Stop the attacks on our God given Rights by the extreme wacko left !!
Guns Save Lives !!
Freedom Is Worth Fighting For !!
The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed !!
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen !!
No Guns, No Rights !!
Molon Labe !!
BTW, that wasn't snippy coming from me. Believe it or not, I was really trying to be apologetic for interfering with your state's business. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
The problem is that due to the way the initiative process works, we have to get this on the ballot then get a majority of the state to vote for it.
The current state of affairs in California jurisprudence is that one has a constitutional right to defend life and liberty as set forth in article 1, section 1, but you don't have a right to use a gun to do so:
If plaintiffs [gun owners] are implying that a right to 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 bear arms.
[Kasler v. Lockyer (2000)]
If we just put forth an initiative stating "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the first hurdle would be to get anyone to vote for it in the face of hysterical and heavily financed fear-mongering put forth by the likes of Brady, McKelvy, and Sugarman, and the second hurdle would be to fend off the judicial jokers who argue that "bearing arms" means only in a military context. The wording of the Second Amendment hasn't done us much good thus far, has it?
I mean, out here we have California National Guardsmen, the only people truly protected by the Second Amendment according to our Federal District Court, being pulled from duty because they can't pass their firearms proficiency tests, most likely because they are no longer allowed to purchase AR-15 rifles with which to practice thanks to Senator Perata's SB-23. If the Second Amendment doesn't even protect National Guardsmen's ownership of AR-15 rifles, you can see the predicament we're in out here. We have no recourse in the courts, a fact further underscored by the Calif. Supreme Court decision regarding gun show preemption.
Section 2 takes away the biggest bludgeon that the lying, cheating, craven anti-gun crowd can use against us. It shows "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," to borrow a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, and gives us that much more of a chance to get it passed. Tying it to the existing right to defend life and liberty in Article I, Section 1, rather than having it stand alone, is another such strategy. It puts the gun-haters in the untenable position of arguing against the established right to defense of life and liberty.
I'd be very interested to read further detail regarding your disagreement with Section 2. What do you envision happening? Why do you see these exemptions as hooks on which to hang further infringements?
The restraining order exemption requires a finding of violent conduct before it applies. They would have a very hard time defining the age of a "minor" upwards, since that would affect voting rights. Felons are already subject to a raft of regulations restricting their rights, including their right to vote, and exemping firearms from such regulation is a non-starter. And finally, "mentally incompotent" has a specific legal definition in California just like "strict scrutiny" does. It's set forth in another section of the California code, and redefining it would have a similar kind of ripple effect that redefining "minor" would.
I can't see the good in enacting an amendment which says in effect" the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except when politicians decide that it should be infringed." There is no justification for disarming anyone who is the subject of a restraining order. That hook, added to your amendment makes your amendment worthless.
IMO, the amendment reading as you stated" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is perfect. You're going to be atacked by hysterical commies no matter what you propose, so why propose something which contains any concession to them at all? I would submit it the way you described it in one sentence and let them stop it if they can. All of this trying to control the outcome by anticipating the arguments of some people who should be hanged anyway is just going to guarantee failure.
Go on the attack. Leave the defensive posture to the commies for a change. Just my opinion, of course.
..."based upon their own violent conduct." If the restraining order is boilerplate or financial, with no finding of violent conduct, then the exemption does not apply. Disarming someone subject to a restraining order because that person has already conducted themselves in a violent manner is sensible, wouldn't you agree?
Plus, it prevents the Million Moms from keening that this amendment gives a license to kill to abusive husbands or some other such nonsense.
The point is to win back the right to armed self-defense, not to commit seppuku on the sword of uncompromising absolutist principles.
Out of curiosity, did you sign during the previous campaign? If not, I would be curious to know why not. I distributed and collected petitions. During the time allotted and with the time I could spend I was still coming up with ideas for reaching more voters.
When the new campaign starts, I will be prepared to move quickly (although one gun store from which I collected signatures has since closed up. ) That is, of course, if I have not yet left the state. Twelve months to early retirement.
They're already putting up billboards with a cute kid pointing a gun at his head down in LA. In Michigan, organizations from several states fought long and hard to prevent shall-issue from becoming reality, and waged an unsuccessful campaign to overturn it. Every single time, they've recycled the same old pack of lies they used when Florida went shall-issue - "blood in the streets," "dead children," "the Gunshine state," "shootings over parking spaces," - even when none of those predictions ever comes to pass.
Far from putting them on the defensive by going for the whole shooting match in the iniatiative, they have the money to put us on the defensive. We'd spend all our time trying to convince our neighbors that despite the glitzy multi-million dollar print, radio, and television ad campaign from VPC, HCI, AGS, etc, that no, it won't allow the crazy homeless guy who mutters to himself downtown carry a gun legally. No, this won't allow the wife-beater subject to a restraining order go out and buy and carry a gun legally. No, this won't allow children to carry guns to school legally. No, this won't let the paroled murderer who can't even vote buy and carry a gun legally. They have the money to set the terms of the debate, and we don't.
Because even if we went with a one-sentence amendment, all of those caveats would still be true due to state and federal law, and we'd pointlessly have spent enormous amounts of capital countering the well-funded lies of the anti-gunners.
It's not the three-cushion bank shots that have us in this position. When was the last time we tried even a one-cushion bank shot out here anyway? It's the politicians like Perata and Scott, and our Ninth Circus Federal District Court that ruled that there is no individual right, and the racists that drafted our Constitution with no RKBA in order to keep the "spics" and the "coolies" from claiming a right to arms. We haven't been making any shots, three cushion or no, we've been fighting a rear-guard battle against their shots against us.
If you want an unambiguous right to arms, including machine guns, there's Nevada to the east and Oregon to the north. In California, we don't even have the right to defend ourselves with firearms, and that's what we're trying to change. And thanks to the only process available to us to bypass the courts and legislature who are standing against us, we have to get a majority of California voters to support it. And in order to do that, I believe, we need to head the gun-haters off at the pass by preemptively framing the debate in terms of "mom, apple pie, and defense of self, family, and home."
What's the alternative? "En Attendant Emerson," as it were, while they crush us out of existence and drive us out of the state with a 25c per bullet ammo tax, Goldilocks gun bans, and discriminatory taxation and fees? It took them 9 years to rule on the Roberti-Roos "assault weapon" ban. How much longer can we fight a rear-guard legislative battle here in the face of the tide of anti-gun bills they keep churning out?
Getting Simon elected will give us some breathing room, I'll grant, but effective self-defense will still be against the law in most places in the state.
This is why I left the state of California. I can not see any hope for gun owners in California. You can always disobey the gun control laws if you want your freedoms but then you may face the consequences of ending up in prison for life or dead from a S.W.A.T. team's bullet.
My advice is to leave the state and let it go to a dunghole and then the people may elect some representatives who actually support the Constitution.
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.