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.
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.
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.
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.
Things should start rolling in earnest in the next 2-3 months.
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.
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!
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.
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?
Where can I sign a petition?
Please add your name to our list, so that we can inform you the minute that petitions can begin to be circulated.
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.