[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/

[John Jorsett]

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

[tpaine]

The Proposition

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.
________________________________

The 'strict scrutiny' clause on the power to 'regulate', is far too vague, imo.
The same applies to the restraining order bit.

Our gun rights are being regulated away, despite our best efforts at strict scrutiny.
'Majority rules' are voiding reasonable regulations.