[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.

[mvpel]

The 'strict scrutiny' clause on the power to 'regulate', is far too vague, imo.

It's only vague if you don't have any legal training. The term "strict scrutiny" has a very specific, well-understood meaning in the vocabulary of the judicial system, as part of a spectrum called "standards of review."

From this page:

1. Three standards:
   1. Three key standards of review appear constantly when courts review the constitutionality of government action
      1. Mere rationality:
         1. The easiest one to satisfy.
         2. The court will uphold the governmental action so long as it meets two requirements:
            1. Legitimate state objective:
               1. First, the government must be pursuing a legitimate governmental objective.
               2. This is a very broad concept — practically any type of health, safety or "general welfare" goal will be found to be "legitimate."
            2. Rational relation: Second, there has to be a "minimally rational relation" between the means chosen by the government and the state objective.
               1. This requirement, too, is extremely easy to satisfy
               2. Only if the government has acted in a completely "arbitrary and irrational" way will this rational link between means and end not be found.
      2. Strict scrutiny:
         1. This standard that is the hardest to satisfy.
         2. This standard will only be satisfied if the governmental act satisfies two very tough requirements:
            1. Compelling objective: The objective being pursued by the government must be "compelling" (not just "legitimate," as for the "mere rationality" standard); and
            2. Necessary means: The means chosen by the government must be "necessary" to achieve that compelling end.
               1. In other words, the "fit" between the means and the end must be extremely tight.
               2. It’s not enough that there’s a "rational relation" between the means and the end, which is enough under the "mere rationality" standard.
               3. No less restrictive alternatives: In practice, this requirement that the means be "necessary" means that there must not be any less restrictive means that would accomplish the government’s objective just as well.
      3. Middle-level review:
         1. In between these two review standards is so-called "middle-level" review.
            1. "Important" objective: Here, the governmental objective has to be "important" (half way between "legitimate" and "compelling").
            2. "Substantially related" means: And, the means chosen by the government must be "substantially related" to the important government objective.
            3. This "substantially related" standard is half way between "rationally related" and "necessary".
2. Consequences of choice: The court’s choice of one of these standards of review has two important consequences:
   1. Burden of persuasion: First, the choice will make a big difference as to who has the burden of persuasion.
      1. Mere rationality: Where the governmental action is subject to the "mere rationality" standard, the individual who is attacking the government action will generally bear the burden of persuading the court that the action is unconstitutional.
      2. Strict scrutiny: By contrast, if the court applies "strict scrutiny," then the governmental body whose act is being attacked has the burden of persuading the court that its action is constitutional.
      3. Middle-level review: Where "middle level" scrutiny is used, it’s not certain how the court will assign the burden of persuasion, but the burden will usually be placed on the government.

Right now in California, we are under the "mere rationality" (also known as "rational basis") standard of review when it comes to gun laws, as should be very easy to tell by what has been passing muster here of late. The burden is on us, as gun owners, to prove the laws unconstitutional, and we've been getting our butts kicked in that respect.

Under a "strict scrutiny" standard, the burden shifts from us to the government to support the enactment of the laws, and the presumption is against them.

And with respect to restraining orders based on violent conduct, coupling it with the strict scrutiny standard it may put an end to frivolous and false allegations of violent conduct as a bargaining tool in divorces, since the standard of proof would be higher.

[albee]

Re: your post #25

Where can I sign a petition?