PDA

View Full Version : article 1: California state constitution


calixt0
06-19-2010, 7:21 PM
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

With this being as part of our state constitution why do so many say if you protect your property with force you leave yourself open to litigation.... not only protecting property but protecting your well being or life. Seems like with this being stated as an absolute right in the state that anyone who protected their property or themselves even short of fear of life would be ok legally. I'm not a lawyer and am hoping to hear others views of such things


after reading stuff like this and even our federal constitution it makes me ill how some have twisted things that were written so clearly to make them so complicated.

hoffmang
06-19-2010, 7:27 PM
However, the California Supreme Court has ruled that that doesn't mean you have the right to keep/own/use or otherwise look at a firearm. See Kasler v. Lockyer (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Kasler-v-Lockyer.pdf).

-Gene

winnre
06-19-2010, 7:41 PM
According to this Article, the thief who was trying to possess MY property has a right to do so!

wildhawker
06-19-2010, 7:48 PM
Search this forum for posts by Gene or me using "supremacy" or "preemption" as a keyword; you'll find some discussion on this subject (it tends to come up every so often).

glockman19
06-19-2010, 9:00 PM
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

With this being as part of our state constitution why do so many say if you protect your property with force you leave yourself open to litigation.... not only protecting property but protecting your well being or life. Seems like with this being stated as an absolute right in the state that anyone who protected their property or themselves even short of fear of life would be ok legally. I'm not a lawyer and am hoping to hear others views of such things


after reading stuff like this and even our federal constitution it makes me ill how some have twisted things that were written so clearly to make them so complicated.

In California you have no rights. Criminals however do.

I have been found guilty of a crime while attempting to regain posession of my car that was driving off without me. No one seemed to care. My CA Inalieable Constitutional Rights were completely ignored as was my National Constitutional right to bear arms.

I am comming to a point where I NO LONGER ACKNOWELDGE THEIR AUTHORITY.

juicemansam
06-20-2010, 9:04 AM
In California you have no rights. Criminals however do.

I have been found guilty of a crime while attempting to regain posession of my car that was driving off without me. No one seemed to care. My CA Inalieable Constitutional Rights were completely ignored as was my National Constitutional right to bear arms.

I am comming to a point where I NO LONGER ACKNOWELDGE THEIR AUTHORITY.

Don't forget that the State and it's agents have rights too.

hoffmang
06-20-2010, 9:51 AM
The entire reasoning behind Kasler is about to be thrown out by the SCOTUS, my guess sometime around June 30th :)

Remember that Kasler will remain partially good law - useful for citing that the only RKBA California residents have is the Federal one...

-Gene

yellowfin
06-20-2010, 10:10 AM
However, the California Supreme Court has ruled that that doesn't mean you have the right to keep/own/use or otherwise look at a firearm. See ?Kasler v. Lockyer?. Sheesh, another Lockyer case? That guy was/is slimier than a sunken log in a Florida swamp. Doesn't speak very well for your Supreme Court to have liked him so much.

Meplat
06-20-2010, 10:40 AM
I NO LONGER ACKNOWELDGE THEIR AUTHORITY.

Been there a long time now. But remember, pushing a right-of-way issue against an 18 wheeler with your Honda is not a good idea.

N6ATF
06-20-2010, 5:20 PM
To quote Jack Bauer,
Our government has no integrity!

If it did, A1, S1 would actually be enforced in the state courts.

tuolumnejim
06-20-2010, 5:27 PM
In California you have no rights. Criminals however do.

I have been found guilty of a crime while attempting to regain posession of my car that was driving off without me. No one seemed to care. My CA Inalieable Constitutional Rights were completely ignored as was my National Constitutional right to bear arms.

I am comming to a point where I NO LONGER ACKNOWELDGE THEIR AUTHORITY.

I passed you years ago. :43:

calixt0
06-20-2010, 9:53 PM
Do I understand this correctly in that the laws the get passed and upheld are on the grounds of public safety and that the government has a compelling interest in such? If this is the case whats the point of the constitution (state or federal). If it can be over turned or spit on because there is compelling evidence that its needed then why have it to start with.

It makes more sense to me to say there is compelling interest to heavily fine those who would abuse such system rather than abolish the system to start with. If the right to free speech were absolute and could not be altered, even screaming fire in a theater or bomb on an airplaine, The compelling interest would be to fine or imprison those who would abuse it rather than make all kinds of things illegal to say.

If they (any government: local, county, state, or federal) don't have to live by the founding principles or laws then why do I? I have a right to protect my assets according to article 1, they pass some law or something else to say not the case. If they deny the foundation how can anything built on it be firm and not fall apart?