Replies

There is no right to keep and bear arms in the California constitution. Even so, the Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land. Any judge who can interpret a power to infringe on any article in the US Constitution is by definition unworthy of their seat on the bench. IMO.

Read this from the California Constitution:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

In criminal cases the rights of a defendant to equal protection of the laws, to due process of law, to the assistance of counsel, to be personally present with counsel, to a speedy and public trial, to compel the attendance of witnesses, to confront the witnesses against him or her, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to privacy, to not be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself, to not be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense, and to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual punishment, shall be construed by the courts of this State in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States, nor shall it be construed to afford greater rights to minors in juvenile proceedings on criminal causes than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.

This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

As a state Supreme Court Justice, her primary duty would be to interpret legislative enactments to determine whether they violate the state constitution. Frequently, federal courts will certify questions of state constitutional law to the state supreme court to determine the law of the state in certain cases.

I am pro-Second Amendment, but if the NRA believed that this weapons ban could be stricken based upon an infringement of the U S Constitution, I am certain they would have filed a parallel suit in federal court asserting the federal constitutional violation. I think it harsh to say she is unqualified based upon her refusal to cite the Second Amendment for the proposition that no state restrictions on guns are constitutional. If she were on the U.S. Supreme Court, she would seem to be receptive to a more absolutist Second Amendment position based upon her desire to be faithful to the text of the particular document (whether it be the State Constitution or the U.S. Constitution) before her.

That said, I know little about her, but I believe it is fair to give her a hearing before opposing her based on one opinion. Little was known about Clarence Thomas, and he has turned out to be a splendid Supreme Court Justice.