PDA

View Full Version : CALNRA: NRA Introduces AJR 46 - "That California supports the Second Amendment"


CALIFORNIA_NRA_INFO
02-08-2008, 5:01 AM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: NRA Introduces AJR 46 - "That California supports the Second Amendment"
2/8/2008 4:00 AM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

On Thursday, February 7, 2008, NRA-Authored AJR 46 (Assembly Joint Resolution), introduced by Assemblyman John J. Benoit of Riverside, went into print at the Capitol and became available to Sacramento legislators and staffers. This simple resolution calls for a floor vote in both houses of the California legislature regarding support for the Second Amendment and specifically with regards to the Heller case now before the Supreme Court.

"Joint Resolutions" are often passed to express sentiment or support for a cause or issue outside of the normal scope of state government. AJR 46 places the members of the California legislature on record and asserts that "the California State Legislature supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and supports the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia."

In the context of state governance, AJR 46 represents "First Strike" legislation that will carve the vote of California lawmakers in stone and help illuminate those who believe in the founding principles of our country and contrast them with those who do not.

AJR 46 will need your support as it comes up for votes in committee and on the floor. At this time, the resolution is expected to next appear before the Assembly Public Safety Committee. For contact tools, the latest information or to read AJR 46 in it's entirity, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ajr46

For other California-Related Information:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

aileron
02-08-2008, 5:06 AM
Thanks NRA. :D

Fjold
02-08-2008, 6:35 AM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: NRA Introduces AJR 46 - "That California supports the Second Amendment"
2/8/2008 4:00 AM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

On Thursday, February 7, 2008, NRA-Authored AJR 46 (Assembly Joint Resolution), introduced by Assemblyman John J. Benoit of Riverside, went into print at the Capitol and became available to Sacramento legislators and staffers. This simple resolution calls for a floor vote in both houses of the California legislature regarding support for the Second Amendment and specifically with regards to the Heller case now before the Supreme Court.

"Joint Resolutions" are often passed to express sentiment or support for a cause or issue outside of the normal scope of state government. AJR 46 places the members of the California legislature on record and asserts that "the California State Legislature supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and supports the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia."

In the context of state governance, AJR 46 represents "First Strike" legislation that will carve the vote of California lawmakers in stone and help illuminate those who believe in the founding principles of our country and contrast them with those who do not.

AJR 46 will need your support as it comes up for votes in committee and on the floor. At this time, the resolution is expected to next appear before the Assembly Public Safety Committee. For contact tools, the latest information or to read AJR 46 in it's entirity, please visit:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ajr46

For other California-Related Information:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml

An "expression of sentiment"?

Why not push for support for a CA constitutional amendment to directly list the individual right to own and bear arms? We get enough meaningless, feel good expressions of sentiment from the other side.

Salty
02-08-2008, 6:39 AM
Nice!

Paladin
02-08-2008, 7:08 AM
The timing is excellent to get info for next November's elections. While this won't help in the anti strongholds, it very well may help us rally the troops in contested seats.

Salty
02-08-2008, 7:34 AM
An "expression of sentiment"?

Why not push for support for a CA constitutional amendment to directly list the individual right to own and bear arms? We get enough meaningless, feel good expressions of sentiment from the other side.

Thats next. Once they say they support 2A, we can hold them too it.
(or at least I am assuming that that is their tactics)

GenLee
02-08-2008, 7:41 AM
Another ATTA BOYS to the NRA.

ibanezfoo
02-08-2008, 8:04 AM
Why not push for support for a CA constitutional amendment to directly list the individual right to own and bear arms?.

We already have that... its right there where it says "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment.

-Bryan

Edit: I thought you were referring to the U.S. Constitution, not the State Constitution. But, no State Constitution can contradict the U.S. Constitution anyway so I guess my statement is still valid.

johnny_22
02-08-2008, 8:37 AM
Got one automated reply so far:

"
Thank you for contacting our office.
To ensure your issue is properly addressed, please contact me via my website at:
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma
In Peace and Friendship,
Fiona Ma
Assemblywoman, 12th District
Majority Whip
District Office (415) 557-2312
Capitol Office (916) 319-2012"

We'll see how many are "deleted without reading".

Piper
02-08-2008, 9:00 AM
Unlike other state constitutions, California doesn't specifically have an amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms. But what the California constitution does say is:

ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

This is as binding as any words that can be written into it to protect our freedom to keep and bear arms.

Rob P.
02-08-2008, 9:01 AM
This is a nice first step. IF this passes then we can push for the amendment to the state constitution. We can also use this in legal cases to show that there IS a right to keep & bear arms in California (and stick a thumb in the eye of the 9th cir) as expressed by the legislature of California.

Could also be used to fight for unified shall issue CCW.

StukaJr
02-08-2008, 10:06 AM
Thanks, NRA - it's a promising step!

bwiese
02-08-2008, 10:54 AM
This is more important than you think and is not 'window dressing' and has some political significance beyond CA.

It will also force some wavering wishywashy CA Republicans to stand & be counted.

Paratus et Vigilans
02-08-2008, 11:06 AM
Got one automated reply so far:

"
Thank you for contacting our office.
To ensure your issue is properly addressed, please contact me via my website at:
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma
In Peace and Friendship,
Fiona Ma
Assemblywoman, 12th District
Majority Whip
District Office (415) 557-2312
Capitol Office (916) 319-2012"

We'll see how many are "deleted without reading".

"In Peace and Friendship"????

WTF is THAT about???

Paladin
02-08-2008, 11:12 AM
We already have that... its right there where it says "the right of the people" in the 2nd Amendment.

-Bryan

Edit: I thought you were referring to the U.S. Constitution, not the State Constitution. But, no State Constitution can contradict the U.S. Constitution anyway so I guess my statement is still valid.You and Piper are bumping into the Doctrine of Incorporation, and the current absence of it in regard to the 2nd A.

SCOTUS could say the 2nd A applies only to the fed, and then CA could uphold that saying, "Yep, the US BoR's 2nd A limits only the federal and not state government's ability to limit/restrict/etc. RKBA. Now, let's knock the dust off of those proposed 'sniper rifle' (scoped bolt action rifles), 'assault pistol' (semi auto pistols), and 'military ammunition' (any ammo used by any military in the world (9mm, 45acp; 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .30-'06)) bans."

Hopefully, however, SCOTUS will not rule that way.

CCWFacts
02-08-2008, 11:55 AM
This is more important than you think and is not 'window dressing' and has some political significance beyond CA.

It will also force some wavering wishywashy CA Republicans to stand & be counted.

When I first saw this thread, I thought, "what are they doing, why is the NRA wasting time with this meaningless stuff", but now I'm warming up to it.

Any feeling on how likely this is to pass?

I'm sending a letter (snail mail) today btw.

mymonkeyman
02-08-2008, 12:06 PM
You and Piper are bumping into the Doctrine of Incorporation, and the current absence of it in regard to the 2nd A.

SCOTUS could say the 2nd A applies only to the fed, and then CA could uphold that saying, "Yep, the US BoR's 2nd A limits only the federal and not state government's ability to limit/restrict/etc. RKBA. Now, let's knock the dust off of those proposed 'sniper rifle' (scoped bolt action rifles), 'assault pistol' (semi auto pistols), and 'military ammunition' (any ammo used by any military in the world (9mm, 45acp; 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .30-'06)) bans."

Hopefully, however, SCOTUS will not rule that way.

SCOTUS almost certainly won't rule on the incorporation issue. It's just not before them in the Heller case because DC = Feds. The best you can hope for is favorable dicta.

CCWFacts
02-08-2008, 12:25 PM
SCOTUS almost certainly won't rule on the incorporation issue. It's just not before them in the Heller case because DC = Feds.

I assume that's one of the reasons why the plaintiffs' attorneys picked DC, because there wouldn't be any state law to interfere. And there was a (almost) total ban, clarifying the question.

Paladin
02-08-2008, 12:28 PM
SCOTUS almost certainly won't rule on the incorporation issue. It's just not before them in the Heller case because DC = Feds. The best you can hope for is favorable dicta.I logged back on to delete my posting because I realized I shouldn't be posting when I'm sick. Thanks for confirming my second thoughts.

mymonkeyman
02-08-2008, 12:47 PM
I assume that's one of the reasons why the plaintiffs' attorneys picked DC, because there wouldn't be any state law to interfere. And there was a (almost) total ban, clarifying the question.

You are right. It is pretty much that and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is much more conservative than the 2nd Circuit (which contains New York).

ontmark
02-09-2008, 11:18 AM
I have sent my assemblymember an email asking for co-sponsor. My assemblyperson is not very Gun Friendly. I urge all to send their assemblyperson a letter or email asking for co-sponsorship

otteray
02-09-2008, 11:53 AM
I sent one to the committee, then one to Sam Farr, my Congressman:

I noticed that you have not yet spoken out about AJR 46.

Please show your support for Assembly Joint Resolution 46.

AJR 46 places the members of the California legislature on record and asserts that "the California State Legislature supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and supports the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia."

Thank you,

Hopefully, many more of his constituents will also contact him.
I'll probably email John Laird, as well.

krazz
02-09-2008, 5:45 PM
This is good.....for now.

Salty
02-09-2008, 11:47 PM
Unlike other state constitutions, California doesn't specifically have an amendment that protects the right to keep and bear arms. But what the California constitution does say is:

ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.



This is as binding as any words that can be written into it to protect our freedom to keep and bear arms.

It also says

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


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.

Patriot
02-09-2008, 11:51 PM
protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

I'm pretty sure Joe Citizen could go to jail for shooting a burglar, which makes me doubt whether that counts for anything beyond window dressing.

Courts have a nasty habit of focusing on some parts of constitutional documents while entirely ignoring others.

Salty
02-10-2008, 12:11 AM
I'm pretty sure Joe Citizen could go to jail for shooting a burglar, which makes me doubt whether that counts for anything beyond window dressing.

Courts have a nasty habit of focusing on some parts of constitutional documents while entirely ignoring others.

I totally agree, eventhough 197 & 198.5 sayyyy...

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.


Any given law or part of the constitution means nothing when the judge / DA / cop wishes it didn't exist.

Piper
02-10-2008, 4:53 PM
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.


198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

I think it's important to take note of the word felony which for the most part paints a broad brush stroke outlining when a firearm may be used. To me, we're not that far from having the castle doctrine in California.

dfletcher
02-10-2008, 5:32 PM
So the most anti - gun legislature in the country is going to be afforded the political cover of proclaiming, in an election year, that they support the 2nd Amendment while at the same time dismantling it?

Is someone from NRA (FYI - I'm a life member) going to walk out of the meeting and proclaim "I hold in my hand a document signed by Herr Nunez, that he has no more claims ....."?

OK, a little drama for effect and I'd hope this is used to hold everyone accountable, but isn't this going to be used as cover for antis? They'll vote for it and when later taken to task dance a bit & say "Well the 2nd I believe in doesn't say that".

dwtt
02-10-2008, 6:07 PM
This is a good first step. However I'm surprised there hasn't been anyone like the idiot from another thread claiming this resolution was really the work of GOA or CRPA.

hoffmang
02-10-2008, 6:08 PM
Uhhh no.

If you actually think about it, it's a very strong way to make the conservative Dems from pro-gun districts and the left leaning Republicans go on the record and keep moving the right direction.

-Gene

yellowfin
02-12-2008, 10:29 AM
I for one am skeptical, in a healthy sense of skepticism. There is a problem with it. They haven't stood for the 2nd at all yet somehow have been able to say they're not violating it. To have a statement of good intent yet keep on with the same diffuses the need to change them, not helping it. If the courts conclude that they can have all the absurdities they have and yet still support the 2nd Amendment, then they won't make them change at all, and worse they'll see that restrictions are perfectly acceptable. That is a disaster we don't need.

It's a bold faced lie if it doesn't abolish regulations. As it is, I think it's a whitewash. They see the push for gun rights so they're offering a token statement to get us off their backs. The worst antis can easily sign this and not mean a single word of it, yet they can have something for the record to say "See, I'm not so bad!" They've gotten where they have by insisting that what they have done is "reasonable" and "responsible regulation" that is still allowable. The antis would be all too glad to throw us a decoy, especially if it doesn't cost them anything. There is NOTHING BINDING about this. Of course they'll sign it if it's practically against the law for them not to! What the heck does that prove, other than we're gullible if we believe them? Attach something like abolishing the safe list or the features restrictions and I'll believe it. Politicians are forever willing and eager to sign something that looks like they're doing something when it doesn't, especially if it's something they don't want to do but make it look like they did. Caveat emptor.

1911su16b870
02-12-2008, 11:03 AM
It also says

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


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.

+1 its amazing to me that this can be in our State Constitution, yet the State is so anti-shooting sports. :confused:

AfricanHunter
02-13-2008, 8:55 AM
Already sent correspondence to the individuals on the public safety committee. How many have signed on so far?