PDA

View Full Version : California Gun laws Violate the 2nd & 14th amendments


Piper
08-10-2007, 12:38 AM
I know I'm peaching to the choir here, but if what everyone says is true, this is directed more toward the powers that be, attorneys and government eavesdroppers that think they are keeping an eye on us.

I have been looking over alot of founders documents regarding this issue, and find it rather curious that the government assertions have spawned ridiculous gunlaws. I find it hard to believe the attorneys/politicians that have created these insane gun laws actually studied constitutional law, or for that matter, passed the bar. And what about the attorneys that are supposedly working to remedy this problem, how hard is it to say that these laws violate the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments, so they are therefore null and void. I mean how hard is that? How difficult is it to read the same documents that I found?

I don't consider myself to be extraordinarily intelligent, but I am capable of reading the kings english. What I find so interesting is that there are documents available on the internet that show proof positive that gunlaws have their roots in bigotry and racism. It's also interesting to note how, for the sake of control, politicians just started making up new laws. It's kind of like....wow, I have an idea, and there they go just pulling new gunlaws out of their political @$$e$$ because they knew they could do it and no one would challenge them. And they use doublespeak and tell us that the the right of "the people" in the second amendment doesn't mean the samething as "the people" in the first amendment. And now we have these socialists in power that don't give a rip about what you or I think so long as the sheeple are duped by their propaganda, disinformation and scare tactics.

Quite frankly, I'm on this rant for two reasons. First, it's past midnight and I can't sleep, and second, I'm tired of being told that my RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, is only for the government and the social/political elite. I'm fed up with having to get "permission" to excercise a right that the Bill of Rights guaranteed to me just because I'm an American. I want to arrest and convict some government employees, who will claim "I was just following orders" for violating my civil rights and put them in jail for a very long time. I'm tired of being disarmed and told to call 9-1-1 if somone attacks or robs me. And most of all, I'm tired of having to choose between violating the law and defending myself and my family in public from the maggots, dirtbags and animals or conforming to laws created by socialists that have no grasp on reality.

I'm done, I think I'll go to bed now.

Ford8N
08-10-2007, 6:34 AM
Not to spout racist crap, but what you see is one way that white rulers in our government are trying to cope with the black murder rate. Statistics just released in 2005 show that 49% of the murders that year were black. And the majority were between the ages of 17 and 29. Yet blacks only make up 13% of the population. And the kicker is that 93% of the black murder victims were killed by other blacks. So how can the old white guys ,who make up the majority of rulers in government, somehow effect the black murder rate and show the voters they are "doing something". They do the easy thing, "ban evil guns". It doesn't matter that the guns are not the problem or that it goes against what is in the Constitution. They are taking the easy solution to show the soccer mommy/NASCAR daddy that the inanimate object is what is causing the the "crime rate" to soar. And that by making illegal the "evil pistol grip" the murder rate will go down. I know it's illogical and crazy but I hope we as responsible gun owners can stop the ignorance. One easy way is to take a newbie out shooting. Especially the soccer mommy/NASCAR daddy types who have only been exposed to guns on TV.

Piper
08-10-2007, 7:31 AM
There is a more logical way to cut down on violent crime, and 80% of the United States is doing it. And that's to quit violating our constitutional rights. It's not just a black issue, it's an American issue. It's a law abiding citizens issue. I don't care who you are, you're an American and that means your right to bear arms is guaranteed.

If someone commits an armed robbery, you catch them and arrest them for 211PC.

If someone commits assault with a deadly weapon, you arrest them for 245PC.

If someone murders, you arrest them for 187PC.

And then YOU CONVICT THEM AND PUT THEM IN PRISON FOR THEIR CRIMES.

There's no rocket science there, it's simple cut and dry.

An inanimate object is just that. It's neither good nor evil. A hammer, knife, car, plane, washing machine, microwave, chainsaw, bucket, water, rock, dirt, baseball bat, golf club and any other objects that a person can think up can be used for evil by an evil person. Inanimate objects have no mind of their own. It would also appear that the government employees that give life to idiot gunlaws have no mind of their own either, because if they did, they would realize that it's their rights that are being trampled as well. But hey, throw a bone to a government employee and give him or her a pat on the head and say "good boy/girl" and the government has a loyal lap dog that the government can turn on an American citizen if we choose to ignore the attorney/politicians edicts. Make a small portion of the second amendment available to government employees beyond what the "normal" citizen receives and what do you have, someone that will feel so special and protect that little piece of extra right by assisting the government in abridging or outright infringing on another Americans right. And that's just pathetic. It's like gee, I have my rights so F' everybody else.

I wish we as citizens weren't so afraid of government. I wish everyone would engage in civil disobedience and stand in front of the government lap dogs with our "illegal" arms and say come and take them. Would they have the stomach to engage us since we would outnumber them significantly? Or would they tuck tail and run away. We are being ruled by fellow Americans that for one reason or the other refuse to take responsibility for their actions unless it's to their political advantage to do so. But we as citizens refuse to engage them. And we don't fire them, we let them live off of the government tit until they retire or die of old age. And fellow citizens that refuse to take responsibility for their own lives are ready to let the politicians stay because they promised us another entitlement so that must mean they care...OMG where do I sign up!

I just wish that those who claim to be on our side would actually do something, but unfortunately all I see is alot of lip service.

xenophobe
08-10-2007, 8:00 AM
First, the 2nd and 14th Amendments have been discussed in depth here, perhaps you should search a little, there is some really interesting discussion on this very topic. I'll briefly restate the facts... although the Civil Rights Act and the pre-ratification 14th Amendment dealt directly with the infringement of rights with a key focus on the RKBA, the Supreme Court has never acknowledged this and rights incorporated under the 14th are quite selective.

...how hard is it to say that these laws violate the 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendments, so they are therefore null and void. I mean how hard is that? How difficult is it to read the same documents that I found?

Unfortunately, the government does not work like this. The legislators are free to pass unconstitutional law (but may be punished under legislative ethical rule), the President may sign or veto it (as well as be punished by Congress), but it is up to the courts to decide whether or not any law is Constitutional or not.

First, the 2nd and 14th Amendments have been discussed in depth here, perhaps you should search a little, there is some really interesting discussion on this very topic. I'll briefly restate the facts... although the Civil Rights Act and the pre-ratification 14th Amendment dealt directly with the infringement of rights with a key focus on the RKBA, the Supreme Court has never acknowledged this and rights incorporated under the 14th are quite selective.

Anyways.... There are a few cases that will be beneficial, Parker v. DC may be heard by SCOTUS and a positive ruling will provide the basis for eliminating bans across the country, and prevent them from happening again. However, it may come at the cost that regulation and registration ARE lawful, as most examples of RKBA in state constitutions, along with the Militia Acts may prove that regulation and registration was indeed allowable under the Constitution and BOR.

If you're not familiar, please do a search in this forum on "14th" and "Parker". There has been a lot of insightful discussion on this topic.

Prc329
08-10-2007, 8:46 AM
However, it may come at the cost that regulation and registration ARE lawful, as most examples of RKBA in state constitutions, along with the Militia Acts may prove that regulation and registration was indeed allowable under the Constitution and BOR.

If you're not familiar, please do a search in this forum on "14th" and "Parker". There has been a lot of insightful discussion on this topic.

Would registration be a bad thing? I mean think about it. If it is shown that the 2nd amendment is an individual right like we all believe then the government can not violate that right. So why would registering be a bad thing if we can not loose the RKBA?

Maybe my logic is flawed but I don't see a problem with the government knowing what I have if they can not be taken away and I can get a real M4 (no bans).

Just like how my view maybe extreme when compared to others but if it means I am free to buy what guns I want and they can not be taken away I would not mind a "gun id". Sort of like a drivers license.

Piper
08-10-2007, 9:11 AM
Well, so far, all I see is two states that have constitutional laws regarding firearms and I don't think I need to go into that. As for the discussions regarding the 2nd and 14th amendment, I've read them. Unfortunately, those discussions do nothing to change the laws.

As for regulation and registration, maybe, but only for the purposes of maintaining the militia, and only to tell me what I must have as a bare minimum. It doesn't prevent me from going beyond that. So, if they want to register and regulate, then they will have to make available to me what the current basic issue for a soldier is and that's all TA-50 issue, an M-16, and any other equipment that is deemed necessary to ensure I'm properly equiped. As for people that can't afford it, 200 years ago they where thinking of ways to provide equipment for them. Which means that so long as you weren't a criminal, drunk, or bum, they would try and provide by todays standards, an M-16 and TA-50. But that would defeat the purposes of the socialists.

I include myself when I say this, but we failed to see it come. We took for granted that government wouldn't stoop that low and it bit us in the @$$. All of the times when I saw an AR-15 or an HK-93 in the gun rack behind the counter, I just assumed it would be there forever. Apparently, having faith in government only allows government to sneak in the back door when you least expect it and simply screw you without so much as a kiss and a thank you. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I kept my head in the sand and let it slip by me. It was only after I was attacked and nearly killed, that I realized what has happened. I relied on government and what I deemed a safe community to protect me and nearly got a box and a hole for my complacency. Well, no more. Government has gone too far and needs to be put in its place.

bwiese
08-10-2007, 10:43 AM
Would registration be a bad thing? I mean think about it. If it is shown that the 2nd amendment is an individual right like we all believe then the government can not violate that right. So why would registering be a bad thing if we can not loose the RKBA?

Maybe my logic is flawed but I don't see a problem with the government knowing what I have if they can not be taken away and I can get a real M4 (no bans).


Yes, that is the conundrum. While I almost completely favor complete lack of gov't knowledge of what I or others own, this almost turns into a moot point if things unfold in a positive way.

What good does it do for the gov't to know I have gun(s) if they can't be taken away? What good is the data for law enforcement when there's data that 300 million people own 210 million firearms? Such data then effectively become useless noise as - if everything were registred and database were perfect - 2 out of three inquiries come up as "owns a gun".

Furthermore the cost of implementing/administering such a database in states without one already is prohibitive. And your rifle may be reg'd in CA, but you'll be able to buy and acquire one.

Parker is not the be-all/end-all gun rights case, but it's a start - and it's well-crafted one from which other good things can flow.

JawBone
08-10-2007, 11:55 AM
As long as we're ranting:

If SCOTUS confirms an individual right, I respectfully disagree that registration becomes moot. OK, for practical purposes, yes, it won't matter to most of us, but the consequences long term and to the original intent of the 2A are still relevant in this society.

If they have to declare martial law in your area (could happen, see Katrina) what list do you think they will go off of to come get your guns? REGISTRATION LIST

If resistance against tyranny were ever necessary - guess what list the Tyrants are going to go off of to come get your guns? REGISTRATION LIST

If your area is ever occupied by a foreign power (OK, not likely in our lifetime, but think of future generations) what list do you think they will go off of to come get your guns? REGISTRATION LIST

Why would I have to register something that is my right to keep and own? Driving a car is a "privilege" and can be taken away, so I understand the licensing requirement, tracking, expiration dates. But, as long as I am legally eligible to own a firearm, I have a RIGHT to keep and bear those arms and the government has no business knowing where I keep those arms.

Where does this stop? - Will I have to register a newspaper with the govt. if I want to publish a flyer and hand it out? Does a religion have to be "registered" with the govt. in order for me to be free to believe in it?

What concerns me most is not the frontal assault on gun owners rights, it is this newer assault on the supply side. These new laws on ammunition restrictions are coming fast and furious - pretty soon it seems like we will have to give a DNA sample and have a waiting period to buy one box of ammo per month - and then they will start taxing ammo to pay for "gun violence" causes.

The BATFE is going after FFL's and shutting them down for minor paperwork violations. Linky (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57074). And they aren't doing this just in California - they are doing it in IDAHO! The regulatory agencies answer to no one - people are having their businesses shut down by the government without due process and without compensation. They investigate for months, bug shops, intimidate owners...and this is a "right" guaranteed to us by the Constitution? What if they started doing this type of investigation and intimidation at major newspapers across this Country?

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America told WND that as recently as 15 or 20 years ago, there were 250,000 licensed gun dealers in the United States. The federal government confirms there are only about 108,000 now.

If SCOTUS confirms the individual right - next the antis will go after the ammo and the FFL's. "Gee, I can buy a gun, but I have to go to the one FFL in the State that is five hours away to buy my one gun per year and pay taxes that are more than the gun is worth - oh, and I can only buy 5 rounds per month of ammo." Great.

Why am I made to feel like a criminal for doing something that my father, his father and his father before him did as patriots.

Don't they get it? A militia IS an armed populus. A militia is not a PART of the government, it is a CHECK on the government.

And the rub is, I don't see how the antis miss this point - in theory they don't want a Monarchy, they don't want unchecked power in govt. but if they succeed in destroying the 2A that is most likely what they will get.

It's maddening! Perhaps that dead forum should be a Rant Forum. I feel better now. Keep up the good fight.

dfletcher
08-10-2007, 12:04 PM
Not to spout racist crap, but what you see is one way that white rulers in our government are trying to cope with the black murder rate. Statistics just released in 2005 show that 49% of the murders that year were black. And the majority were between the ages of 17 and 29. Yet blacks only make up 13% of the population. And the kicker is that 93% of the black murder victims were killed by other blacks. So how can the old white guys ,who make up the majority of rulers in government, somehow effect the black murder rate and show the voters they are "doing something".

You know, the truly skeptical would say old white men are effecting the murder rate in exactly the way they want to effect the murder rate. That what is happening is exactly what they want to happen and that is black people killing black people and perpetuating the perception that murder and crime is a primarily black problem.

I'm not saying that - and I hope looking at my posts folks see that I don't stir the pot (maybe a bad joke once in a while, OK) for effect, but some people will say "Look at the result".

jjperl
08-10-2007, 12:04 PM
There is a more logical way to cut down on violent crime, and 80% of the United States is doing it. And that's to quit violating our constitutional rights. It's not just a black issue, it's an American issue. It's a law abiding citizens issue. I don't care who you are, you're an American and that means your right to bear arms is guaranteed.

If someone commits an armed robbery, you catch them and arrest them for 211PC.

If someone commits assault with a deadly weapon, you arrest them for 245PC.

If someone murders, you arrest them for 187PC.

And then YOU CONVICT THEM AND PUT THEM IN PRISON FOR THEIR CRIMES.

There's no rocket science there, it's simple cut and dry...



I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with you, but the matter is not "simple cut and dry," it goes much deeper. In order to convict people of violent crimes and put them in prison there needs to be a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system.

To put it simply, our justice system is so over burdened with frivolous cases (such as with drug possession cases) that it cant function properly when larger much more important things comes along, such as armed robbery and murder, etc.

As a result our prisons are filled to capacity with drug users and dealers, and the violent criminals are being set free with only a fraction of their time served.

So instead of doing whats hard and fixing the problems in our criminal justice system, our legislature instead, simply passes feel good laws and ordnances in hopes that it will fix or at best mend for a time the much larger problem. As a byproduct of their laziness and or stupidity, law abiding citizens get the shaft and the criminals go on with business as usual.

Piper
08-10-2007, 12:55 PM
You know what makes me the most angry? It's how politicians would respond if they were targets of violence. Take for example Diane Feinstein. When the Mayor of San Francisco was mudered, what did DiFi do? She got a CCW and started carrying a firearm for personal protection. Now I'm not angry because a person can carry, I'm angry that the government infringes on my right because to the government, I'm not important enough. In my opinion, a majority of the politicians and government employees in California should be indicted for 2nd and 14th amendment violations. "I was only following orders" should not be an excuse for this kind of treachery.

Benjamin Franklin said that his generation gave us a REPUBLIC so that we could live in freedom so long as we are able to keep it. That means alot to me and shows me how insightful his generation was. And bit by bit the socialists are nibbleing away at it and we are doing very little to squash that cockroach.

dfletcher
08-10-2007, 2:49 PM
Benjamin Franklin said that his generation gave us a REPUBLIC so that we could live in freedom so long as we are able to keep it. That means alot to me and shows me how insightful his generation was. And bit by bit the socialists are nibbleing away at it and we are doing very little to squash that cockroach.

The city of San Francisco does not really function as one would expect in a republic. San Francisco is a perfect illustration of true democracy and all the perils it entails - simple majority rule carries the day.

Whenever a compicated issue arises, the SF city government throws the matter to a public vote and 51% makes law for 100% of the residents. A Republic protects a minority from the scourge of the majority.

Alexander Hamilton was right about "the people".

xenophobe
08-10-2007, 5:23 PM
Parker is not the be-all/end-all gun rights case, but it's a start - and it's well-crafted one from which other good things can flow.

No, but it is definitely the most pivotal turnkey. It may well be the grounds for completely eliminating import, possession and transaction bans, depending on how the opinion reads.

xenophobe
08-10-2007, 5:31 PM
Well, so far, all I see is two states that have constitutional laws regarding firearms and I don't think I need to go into that. As for the discussions regarding the 2nd and 14th amendment, I've read them. Unfortunately, those discussions do nothing to change the laws.

Those 'conversations' are the basis of how all the restrictive laws may be unraveled.

Umm.... 2 states? There are 47 States with Constitutional RKBA. There are only three without.... California, New Jersey and New York.



As for regulation and registration, maybe, but only for the purposes of maintaining the militia, and only to tell me what I must have as a bare minimum. It doesn't prevent me from going beyond that.

What you like and what restrictions may be ruled permissible are two completely different things.

Piper
08-10-2007, 5:46 PM
Those 'conversations' are the basis of how all the restrictive laws may be unraveled.

Umm.... 2 states? There are 47 States with Constitutional RKBA. There are only three without.... California, New Jersey and New York.




What you like and what restrictions may be ruled permissible are two completely different things.


Vermont and Alaska are the only two states where you don't have to ask "permission" from the government to excercise your second amendment right. You still need a piece of paper from the rest of the government entities to carry concealed. They may not be as restrictive as California, New York or New Jersey, but they still control your second amendment right. Remove that restriction from the governments hands and let honest law abiding citizens travel to all 50 states unimpeded, and our second amendment right will be fully restored.

I'm not one to settle for a portion of what is rightfully mine, I want it all.

KenpoProfessor
08-10-2007, 6:08 PM
Here is the Vermont constitution.

http://www.harbornet.com/rights/vermont.txt

And here are the states without an RKBA clause in theirs.

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=rkba_protections

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde