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

firearmsnews.com ^ | 1/24/03 | firearm news

[freepatriot32]

is there any way bush can have every member of a state goverment held in federal detention as enemy combatants ?

[Robert A Cook PE]

600,000 members, eh?

More than the NOW can claim. (By about 3 times the actual paid number.)


But I'll have to wait with bated breathe for that little factoid to be released on ABCNNBCBS....

How many does the NRA claim? 1.4 - 1.5 million, isn't it?

[John Jorsett]

I think it's a mistake to go around calling it a 'literacy test'. It gives the opposition an opportunity to make fun of pro-gun people as fearing to be revealed as illiterates.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I'd be willing to have a literacy test for gun owners if we also get to have a literacy test for voters.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I think it's a mistake to go around calling it a 'literacy test'. It gives the opposition an opportunity to make fun of pro-gun people as fearing to be revealed as illiterates.

In that case, they should not object to a literacy test for voters.

[right way right]

I second that!!!!!!

[mvpel]

Every Californian, and every person who cares about gun rights in California, needs to go to California Citizens for Self-Defense and enter their contact information.

In California, we have no right to own firearms:

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.
[California Supreme Court, Kasler v. Lockyer (2000)]

... the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms...
[Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Silveira v. Lockyer (2002)]

We are working to amend the California constitution to include the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home, linking it to the fundamental right to defend life and liberty, protect property, and secure safety listed in the first words of the state's constitution.

We need about 580,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, and in 2000 we collected 650,000.

[templar]

"Dr. King reminded us all that a right delayed is a right denied,"

I was under the impression that owning a gun was no longer a "right" in California.

In any event, it should be obvious that these type of laws are intended to restrain the poor in general and the minorities in specific. 14th Ammendment issues would apply if 2nd Amendment issues did not.

[FreedomPoster]

I second that motion.

[templar]

We need about 580,000 signatures to put it on the ballot, and in 2000 we collected 650,000.

Were the 650,000 on this issue? And what happened to it if so?

[freepatriot32]

oops i was going to add this link to the first comment but forgot about it 'Tis the season to picket the Blockheads

[Highest Authority]

What is it that makes California and New Jersey the lands of the insane politicians?

[mvpel]

Yes, the 650,000 were on this issue, in fact, the identical wording of the amendment.

The voter turnout in the 1998 governor's election had a higher turnout than the 2002 election, and the signature requirement for constitutinal amendment initiatives is 8% of the total votes cast. We needed 673,000 in 2000, and only got about 650,000 on a shoestring budget, and thus failed to qualify it for the ballot.

This time around, thanks to the dismal turnout in the Simon/Davis contest, which ranked near the lowest turnouts in the nation, 8% of the total votes cast is about 580,000.

We're going to do it this time around, no question, God willing and with every liberty-loving citizen pitching in to help. http://www.CApropRKBA.org/

[mvpel]

The beauty of the amendment is that it ties the hands of the politicians and the judges - it rewrites all the rules for gun control in California.

http://www.CApropRKBA.org/

[basil]

Unbelievable!

[robertpaulsen]

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.

[John Jorsett]

I just read the amendment text. Is it modeled on the language in the constitution(s) of any other state(s)?

[upcountryhorseman]

You can always buy them in Nevada!

[templar]

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.

That's what I was thinking. But I was more mentioning the 14th in regard to this law since it should be obvious that it is targeting a specific group (minorities) for different treatment than others. That is what the voters rights act of '65 was about. Why is it that only the liberals want to use the 14th?

[robertpaulsen]

ping