State Referendum - would this even work?

[bcj128]

Ok - I know we?re all frustrated by legislators who treat gun owners as second class citizens. I?m sure we?re also tired of them flipping their nose to the US Constitution - what?re your thoughts?


Referendum: The People?s Right Act, The Legislative Reform Act of 2024

In an effort to ensure that those serving in the state legislature will serve the people with respect to the US Constitution, as well as protect the People of the State of California from Government Over-reach with respect to the Bill of Rights, legislators are to be reminded they serve the people in their districts, including those who may not be in alignment with their personal beliefs. In an effort to reassert this, this referendum will establish the following:

- Any California legislator who passes a bill or law, by authoring, sponsoring, or voting for such legislation, and they know, or reasonably should know, this law will violate any portion of the Bill of Rights as stated in the US Constitution, will lose all protection from personal liability for civil recourse by anyone injured by such law.
o For the purposes of this section, a legislator will be determined to reasonably know this is a violation of the Bill of Rights if either of the two occur:
? There is already established case law to establish what they have done is in conflict with the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Or,
? They legislator has received legislative guidance that the law or bill will likely violate a person?s rights under the Bill of Rights of U.S. Constitution.
- Any legislation passed by either house of the California Legislature will be binding on all members of the Legislature unless there is a significant occupational need for an exemption. Any bill with such an exemption should have the express and open approval of the Governor.
- Commencing any legislator elected after January 1, 2025, legislative pensions will be for 2.5% per year of service as a state legislator.
- Legislators will only be elected for a period not to exceed 12 years in either house, or both combined.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bcj128]

Our goal would be for them to stop playing with the constitution like it?s their personal thing to toy with.
Secondly, we want them to think long and hard about laws that impact peoples individual rights. It doesn?t matter which side of the political spectrum you?re on, our constitutional rights should be something that?s above that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[riderr]

Even SCOTUS justices come with the opposite interpretations of the Constitution. How do you expect to charge a semi-literate legislator? I would suggest a different solution, like the signed law can be challenged in the courts immediately, not after it becomes effective.

[Aragorn]

The only thing that will work now is massive civil disobedience. Or move to a Free State to take up the fight there. Because, yes, no state is free or immune from the cancer that is destroying the US. It?s evil is everywhere.

Court action takes too damn long ( 10 years or more!!) and even US Supreme Court rulings are outright ignored. With ZERO effective enforcement power to remedy.

This reality is what Thomas foolishly ignored in the Courts latest ruling. A ruling that ought to have outlawed all permitting systems and any and all restrictions on firearms ?commonly available and in common use?.
Only Court rulings which effectively comprise a Thor?s Hammer of ultimate Liberty will even have a chance to impact what?s going on now.

These tyrants act with impunity and must be sued and punished individually, with subsequent loss of political office, massive punitive fines and jail time imposed else the crap we?ve seen happening across the country will never stop. Short of civil war.

Forget ballot ?Referendums?, CA is way past that now. There is no ROL anymore. Wake up to it.

[Librarian]

Technical issues:

You don't mean "referendum" here -

Article II, Section 9, of the California Constitution provides for the referendum process in California. Electors have the power to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, with the exception of urgency statutes, statutes calling elections, and statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for usual, current state expenses.

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bal...res/referendum

You probably mean 'initiative' - https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bal...ify-initiative

And if one began the initiative process, what gives you the idea that the predominant D voters of CA would vote to pass it?

See also my old post, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=156804

[Aragorn]

Yes, true. This would be a proposed Initiative put forth by the people of CA.

[Aragorn]

One that would lose 70-30 even if enough signatures were obtained to even get it on the ballot.

[BOBGBA]

In my opinion it should be:

If a law is found to violate the constitution, all those that voted in favor are:
1. Stripped of their right to vote on any future legislation as a public servant.
2. Forfeit any and all retirement and heath care benefits.

This would force a constitutional review for all laws passed by the legislature.

[Librarian]

See also this short article, https://californiaglobe.com/fr/bindi...e-legislature/

What one might like to pass is a constitutional amendment. Generally speaking, I vote against those, though I would like to se some of the proposed 'features' implemented.

[BAJ475]

Ok - I know we?re all frustrated by legislators who treat gun owners as second class citizens. I?m sure we?re also tired of them flipping their nose to the US Constitution - what?re your thoughts?
...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't work last time. Do a search for VetoGunmagedon. Could not even get it on the ballot. Only a few red northern California counties met their signature goals and even in those counties the signature totals were less than the number of CCWs in those counties.

[1859sharps]

The big issue with this idea is you are trying to solve rule breaking with another rule.

If solving criminal misuse of a gun with yet one more law makes no sense, why would you think this proposed law would make any sense or solve the root problem.

If legislatures don't follow the rules (constitution) now, why would they follow your new rule?

[BAJ475]

The big issue with this idea is you are trying to solve rule breaking with another rule.

If solving criminal misuse of a gun with yet one more law makes no sense, why would you think this proposed law would make any sense or solve the root problem.

If legislatures don't follow the rules (constitution) now, why would they follow your new rule?

He is not trying to solve criminal misuse of a gun but legislative overreach. Following your logic, we could stop all rule breaking by not having any rules.

[AlmostHeaven]

Since this proposal has a 0% chance of passing in California, which voted for Gavin Newsom by 23.8 points in both the 2018 election and 2021 recall, I recommend instead to focus on attempting ballot initiatives on subjects that have bipartisan appeal, such as term limits.

[1859sharps]

He is not trying to solve criminal misuse of a gun but legislative overreach. Following your logic, we could stop all rule breaking by not having any rules.

You missed the point, and you are making a completely ridiculous leap.

The op basically made the same argument anti-gun people make to try and solve the problem of criminals misusing guns. "They broke the rules, so the solution is yet one more rule". Doesn't work for criminals, why would it work for politicians?

The answer is not NO rules (that leap was just plain silly, please smack yourself multiple times upside the head with a wet trout), nor is it more rules.

The answer is simply vote them out. If there are not enough people that agree with you, either your stance is wrong (not in this case), or you need to figure out a better way to explain it (this is the challenge), so people join you in voting out politicians that break the rules... in this case ignore the constitution.

[BAJ475]

You missed the point, and you are making a completely ridiculous leap.

I do not think that I missed the point but you are exactly correct about a ridiculous leap.

The op basically made the same argument anti-gun people make to try and solve the problem of criminals misusing guns. "They broke the rules, so the solution is yet one more rule". Doesn't work for criminals, why would it work for politicians?

We agree 100%, it wouldn't.

The answer is not NO rules (that leap was just plain silly, please smack yourself multiple times upside the head with a wet trout), nor is it more rules.

Again we agree, so I am not going to smack myself. You got my point that while technically we could reduce the number of crimes to zero, that would not stop the bad behavior.

The answer is simply vote them out. If there are not enough people that agree with you, either your stance is wrong (not in this case), or you need to figure out a better way to explain it (this is the challenge), so people join you in voting out politicians that break the rules... in this case ignore the constitution.

If you can figure out a way to explain it so the people vote out these politicians please let us know. So far, nothing seems to be working.