Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:01 AM
Tom Towns Tom Towns is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I've got a question about violating oath of office...

When our legislators are sworn in to office, don't they take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies both foreign and domestic? When they introduce anti 2nd legislation why isn't it considered an attack on the constitution? I'm also wondering why it seems to be acceptable to let individual states/local municipal govts. establish rules governing our civil rights that wouldn't be acceptable if it were other bill of rights issues...in short, is there a way to file charges against our legislators for violating their oath of office? And if so, how??? I'm not talking about petitions for recall. Why can't legal charges be filed against them??? If there isn't a law, there should be....
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:08 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,411
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Discussed many times before. Read http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1189022
__________________
I never post in threads that begin with "School me"

Best States for Gun Owners 2015

Freedom in the 50 States

Quote:
Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democratic Party since 1959 except from 1969 to 1971 when the Republican Party held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:09 AM
JTizel's Avatar
JTizel JTizel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: The Beach, SoCal
Posts: 304
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default I've got a question about violating oath of office...

Laws are created based on the interpretation of the constitution. The part of where it states, "...shall not be infringed" still befuddles me. The majority believes that also is left open for exceptions.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:44 AM
Milsurp Collector's Avatar
Milsurp Collector Milsurp Collector is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 4,411
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTizel View Post
Laws are created based on the interpretation of the constitution. The part of where it states, "...shall not be infringed" still befuddles me. The majority believes that also is left open for exceptions.
This is what gun controllers cling to from the DC v Heller decision:

Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
__________________
I never post in threads that begin with "School me"

Best States for Gun Owners 2015

Freedom in the 50 States

Quote:
Both chambers of the California legislature have been dominated by the Democratic Party since 1959 except from 1969 to 1971 when the Republican Party held both chambers and from 1994 to 1996, when Republicans briefly held a majority in the Assembly.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-23-2016, 11:52 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems liberals feel exempt from the oaths they take...
Shame on oath breakers.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-23-2016, 12:09 PM
snowdog650's Avatar
snowdog650 snowdog650 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 981
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It floors me that there are still some people out there who actually believe that politicians are in the business of having rational thoughts, caring about rule of law, or giving a F about the peasants over whom they rule.

SMFH
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-23-2016, 12:15 PM
JTizel's Avatar
JTizel JTizel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: The Beach, SoCal
Posts: 304
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

I see, today's arms accessible to citizens are antiquated, and really along with modern tanks and bombers. I forgot the end game are nukes. Blanket analysis for a progressive society. Super - now how am I suppose to sell this rail gun?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-23-2016, 1:34 PM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpage View Post
Seems liberals feel exempt from the oaths they take...
Shame on oath breakers.
This is intellectually dishonest. We all know it's up to the courts to interpret the constitution. It's debatable whether any of California's gun laws pass Heller or not. We all know the right answer to that debate, but it's not settled yet.

Is a magazine restriction constitution? Hell if I know. Full auto ban? Probably. Handgun ban? Definitely not. No right is absolute.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-24-2016, 7:10 AM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,552
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Since the constitution is no longer operative, they are not violating their oath. We are a dictatorship. So they can do what they want.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-24-2016, 9:17 AM
1bulletBarney's Avatar
1bulletBarney 1bulletBarney is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: West of Mayberry (209)
Posts: 1,078
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

All OP needs to do is click the link in my sig in regards to his question...
__________________
NRA Member
NRA-ILA Contributor
CGN Contributor

36 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A of treachery...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-24-2016, 9:57 AM
rich_o's Avatar
rich_o rich_o is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Obama and many others would have to resign to fulfill their oath of office.

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-24-2016, 3:16 PM
gruntinhusaybah gruntinhusaybah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 142
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
This is intellectually dishonest. We all know it's up to the courts to interpret the constitution. It's debatable whether any of California's gun laws pass Heller or not. We all know the right answer to that debate, but it's not settled yet.

Is a magazine restriction constitution? Hell if I know. Full auto ban? Probably. Handgun ban? Definitely not. No right is absolute.

The 2nd amendment is broken into two parts the first; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," does not in any way limit the second "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people refers to every single individual in the country, same as it does in the 1st and 4th. And infringed means any encroachment, any restriction. So mag cap limits are not constitutional, FA bans are not either. No restriction of arms is legal. And arms means weapons used in warfare. Civilians owned warships when the constitution was written, the most advanced weaponry of the time. Civilians owned FLEETS of warships.

Actually our rights are absolute, to the point we infringe on some else's rights. That's Liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-24-2016, 7:34 PM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gruntinhusaybah View Post
The 2nd amendment is broken into two parts the first; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," does not in any way limit the second "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people refers to every single individual in the country, same as it does in the 1st and 4th. And infringed means any encroachment, any restriction. So mag cap limits are not constitutional, FA bans are not either. No restriction of arms is legal. And arms means weapons used in warfare. Civilians owned warships when the constitution was written, the most advanced weaponry of the time. Civilians owned FLEETS of warships.

Actually our rights are absolute, to the point we infringe on some else's rights. That's Liberty.
I like your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. But instead of you getting to write SCOTUS opinions we have judges who have a much narrower view of 2A rights. They opined that even things as boring as a short barreled shotgun are fair game for restrictions. And their opinion is literally the only one that matters.

By the way, when I run across someone who says the 2A is only for militia members (a common assertion on the other side) I give them essentially the same response. The constitution is not whatever you want it to be but whatever 9 appointed judges want it to be.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-24-2016, 7:52 PM
Hot Holster's Avatar
Hot Holster Hot Holster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Florida
Posts: 917
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog650 View Post
It floors me that there are still some people out there who actually believe that politicians are in the business of having rational thoughts, caring about rule of law, or giving a F about the peasants over whom they rule.

SMFH
Their main focus and care is to be reelected every subsequent election.
__________________
You may not like guns, and choose not to own one. That is your right. You might not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first two things you're going to do are, 1) Call someone with a gun, 2) Pray they get there in time.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-24-2016, 8:32 PM
gruntinhusaybah gruntinhusaybah is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 142
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I like your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. But instead of you getting to write SCOTUS opinions we have judges who have a much narrower view of 2A rights. They opined that even things as boring as a short barreled shotgun are fair game for restrictions. And their opinion is literally the only one that matters.

By the way, when I run across someone who says the 2A is only for militia members (a common assertion on the other side) I give them essentially the same response. The constitution is not whatever you want it to be but whatever 9 appointed judges want it to be.
I know. Is it too much to ask for 9 strict constructionalist justices at the same time?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-24-2016, 9:51 PM
TMB 1's Avatar
TMB 1 TMB 1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: 530
Posts: 3,308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I like your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. But instead of you getting to write SCOTUS opinions we have judges who have a much narrower view of 2A rights. They opined that even things as boring as a short barreled shotgun are fair game for restrictions. And their opinion is literally the only one that matters.

By the way, when I run across someone who says the 2A is only for militia members (a common assertion on the other side) I give them essentially the same response. The constitution is not whatever you want it to be but whatever 9 appointed judges want it to be.
I thought the 2A is for when the 9 appointed judges and the people who appointed them decide the interpretation of no doesn't mean no anymore, then we the people might be able to do something about it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-25-2016, 5:51 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMB 1 View Post
I thought the 2A is for when the 9 appointed judges and the people who appointed them decide the interpretation of no doesn't mean no anymore, then we the people might be able to do something about it.
Be my guest.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:12 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.