Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California 'Literacy Tests' for Gun Buyers an Assault on Civil liberty
firearmsnews.com ^ | 1/24/03 | firearm news

Posted on 01/26/2003 11:17:40 AM PST by freepatriot32

"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.'

Literacy tests were outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

'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.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2cd; amendment; assault; buyers; california; civil; gun; liberty; literacy; rights; tests
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: tpaine
Umm, --- but strict scrutiny doesn't seem to be working, does it?

We don't have strict scrutiny review with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, we merely have rational basis review, the easiest to satisfy. That's why this proposed amendment to the California constitution is written the way it is, to fix that problem and shift the burden away from gun owners and onto the gun-banners.

41 posted on 01/27/2003 9:07:27 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Incredible reasoning.
~If~ the USSC uses some phony excuse to avoid slapping the 9th Circuit & ~if~ the amendment fails, then what?

Then, you have admitted that "California citizens have no right to own firearms."

You're exactly right, because under the law and case precedent as they stand right now, we don't have any right to "own or possess" firearms.

The politicians have free reign to pass any manner of gun ban and restriction that they like, from the statewide level right down to the towns with one stop light, and free reign to throw us in jail for violating them, and in absence of an individual rights ruling from the SCOTUS or the amendment, that is the prevailing state of affairs in California.

If the amendment fails, it will be a clear message to California gun owners that our political opponents would rather see us dead than defending ourselves with a firearm, and that it's time to pull up stakes and move to Nevada or Oregon.

42 posted on 01/27/2003 9:16:34 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: A6M3
American's rights come from God, therefore only God can legally take them away.

It may be true that only God can take away rights, but Man can most certainly throw you in jail for years and ruin you financially for exercising them.

43 posted on 01/27/2003 9:19:26 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Man can also say that you never had such a right in the first place, which is what they've done here in California.
44 posted on 01/27/2003 9:20:37 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Actually, it does not mean that the right does not exist, merely that the government does not honor the right, tipping the US govt. closer to the awful status of an illegitimate govt. which is subject to Thomas Jefferson's right of rebellion. Dred Scott was a similar decision that unfortunately was never corrected so we ended up having a civil war over slavery.
45 posted on 01/27/2003 10:01:01 AM PST by dbrutus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dbrutus
The amendment is our effort to restore the right peacfully through the ballot box. We should all do everything we can to avert an outcome such as DBrutus describes, and this includes getting on the contact list for the amendment effort.

Things should start rolling in earnest in the next 2-3 months.

46 posted on 01/27/2003 10:37:11 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Incredible reasoning. ~If~ the USSC uses some phony excuse to avoid slapping the 9th Circuit & ~if~ the amendment fails, then what? Then, you have admitted that "California citizens have no right to own firearms."

You're exactly right, because under the law and case precedent as they stand right now, we don't have any right to "own or possess" firearms.

False. - We have the right to insist that our U.S. Constitutional RKBA's be enforced in Ca. -- to strike down these insane laws.

The politicians have free reign to pass any manner of gun ban and restriction that they like, from the statewide level right down to the towns with one stop light, and free reign to throw us in jail for violating them, and in absence of an individual rights ruling from the SCOTUS or the amendment, that is the prevailing state of affairs in California.

Wrong, - because apparently you think that our U.S. Constitution is not the "law of the land" in CA. It clearly is. Read Art. VI -

If the amendment fails, it will be a clear message to California gun owners that our political opponents would rather see us dead than defending ourselves with a firearm, and that it's time to pull up stakes and move to Nevada or Oregon.

Moving on is not an option to me. It just illustrates your incredible reasoning, imo, - that we are at the mercy of the "prevailing state of affairs". 'We the people', can force the feds & state to cave on these matters, not 'cave in' ourselves.

47 posted on 01/27/2003 11:43:06 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
False. - We have the right to insist that our U.S. Constitutional RKBA's be enforced in Ca. -- to strike down these insane laws.

That's all well and good, but the controlling legal authority as to what the Second Amendment means in California is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and unless and until they are overturned by the United States Supreme Court, we are stuck with their interpretation which states that it is a "collective right," and that there is no individual right to own or possess firearms. And without anything in the California Constitution, we are SOL.

Wrong, - because apparently you think that our U.S. Constitution is not the "law of the land" in CA. It clearly is. Read Art. VI.

I know that! You know that! Everyone here knows that! But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' opinion on the matter is what makes the difference in Calfornia between exercising our rights and jail time, and they are of the opinion that there is no individual right to own or possess firearms. A bunch of Freepers flapping our gums won't matter one whit to a judge ruling on an unjust firearms law.

Moving on is not an option to me. It just illustrates your incredible reasoning, imo, - that we are at the mercy of the "prevailing state of affairs". 'We the people', can force the feds & state to cave on these matters, not 'cave in' ourselves.

Why in heaven's name do you think I keep posting the link to the California Constitutional Amendment initiative project, if not in an effort to get the state to cave on this matter through the force of the popular vote?

But as far as exercising the right to keep and bear arms, we ARE at the mercy of the current state of affairs: if you possess an AR-15 rifle, the semi-automatic version of the standard-issue military rifle -- a militia rifle -- you can have your freedom taken away, your business bankrupted with legal bills, and your name splashed across newspapers nationwide as a "felon," and unless you've got what it takes and can survive the years that it will take to fight all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States losing all the way up, and you can convince them to render an individual right ruling, then you're just flat out of luck in California.

The "individual right" argument does not hold any water in any court in California at this point in time. That's why we're trying to change the Constitution!

48 posted on 01/27/2003 12:55:11 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Incredible reasoning. ~If~ the USSC uses some phony excuse to avoid slapping the 9th Circuit & ~if~ the amendment fails, then what? Then, you have admitted that "California citizens have no right to own firearms."

You're exactly right, because under the law and case precedent as they stand right now, we don't have any right to "own or possess" firearms.
-mvpel-


False. - We have the right to insist that our U.S. Constitutional RKBA's be enforced in Ca. -- to strike down these insane laws.

The "individual right" argument does not hold any water in any court in California at this point in time. That's why we're trying to change the Constitution!
-mvpel-

We should reject the theory that "the "individual right" argument does not hold any water in any court".
This is an incredible stance to take regardless of the rationalizations put forth.
We can still try to change the Ca constitution, without agreeing to an unconstitutional premise.
- Good grief.

49 posted on 01/27/2003 2:49:04 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We should reject the theory that "the "individual right" argument does not hold any water in any court".

It's not a "theory," my friend, it's a flat out fact here in California, whether you like it or not. If you're going to wage a battle, you really need to know where the battle lines are drawn.

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)]

These are the two highest courts short of the US Supreme Court having jurisdiction in California. And if you attempt to make an "individual right" argument against a gun law in any lower court in California, you're going to be shot down immediately under the precedent of these and a few other decisions. The lower courts are bound to abide by them.

Yes, we all know that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but until the California courts recognize that, or we force them to recognize it by amending the constitution, then this is what we're stuck with.

And them's the facts as they stand until we get an individual rights ruling from the US Supreme Court or an amendment to the California constitution.

50 posted on 01/27/2003 3:34:17 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
We should reject the theory that "the "individual right" argument does not hold any water in any court".
This is an incredible stance to take regardless of the rationalizations put forth.
We can still try to change the Ca constitution, without agreeing to an unconstitutional premise.
-tpaine-

Yes, we all know that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but until the California courts recognize that, or we force them to recognize it by amending the constitution, then this is what we're stuck with.
-mvpel


You agree that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
-- But claim that until the California courts recognize that, or we force them to recognize it by amending the Ca constitution.-

--- That we are stuck with their unconstituional gun laws. - And if we can't or don't win, we can move.

- OK. -- So be it.
--- On those terms, I submit we will never win. - Our opponents are not idiots. - Thanks for your imput.



51 posted on 01/27/2003 4:52:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Of course I agree that the Second Amendment is an individual right. But we are stuck with their unconstitutional gun laws at the moment because it's the courts that decide whether or not something is unconstitutional, not you or I, when it comes to the realm of state-sponsored force or the threat thereof to induce compliance with a given law.

And those courts, as I posted, do not recognize an individual right to even own firearms, much less carry them. If you carry, and get caught, your personal belief that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right won't carry much weight before a California judge.

Realistically appraising the current situation in California doesn't mean we will never win. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Two years ago, we gathered 650,000 signatures to put this amendment on the ballot. Thanks to the recent low turnout in the governor's race, we now only need about 580,000 signatures. We will put this on the ballot, and the polls indicate that we will pass it. Are you on the list yet?

52 posted on 01/27/2003 9:59:01 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Re: your post #25

Where can I sign a petition?

53 posted on 01/27/2003 10:07:35 PM PST by albee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Proud to be an SAF member.
54 posted on 01/27/2003 10:12:06 PM PST by Dan from Michigan (Yippee Kai Aye......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: albee
Albee - the petition circulation has not yet begun. It should start around the middle of this year. There's a 180-day window during which signatures can be gathered for a California initiative petition, and it starts on a specific date after the Secretary of State issues the title and summary.

Please add your name to our list, so that we can inform you the minute that petitions can begin to be circulated.

55 posted on 01/27/2003 10:43:20 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Reply to post #43: As was the case for many of our founding fathers, who sacrificed everything they had for the revolution.
56 posted on 01/27/2003 11:10:14 PM PST by A6M3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Reply to post #43: As was the case for many of our founding fathers, who sacrificed everything they had for the revolution.
57 posted on 01/27/2003 11:11:24 PM PST by A6M3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: A6M3
This is quite true - we are blessed today to have the option, thanks to their sacrifices, of adjourning to neighboring states that still recognize the fundamental right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms of all kinds, rather than having to sacrifice everything we have.
58 posted on 01/28/2003 8:17:05 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson