DOJ as Intimidators in my Civil Rights

[bcj128]

Is it a possible idea to sue CA's DOJ / Legislature as using intimidation tactics against my constitutionally protected 2nd amendment right to purchase a gun. Can't the requirements continually stacked on us as gun owners by CA be viewed much the same way as requiring ID to vote. I know that the State refuses the ID requirement because they consider it intimidating.

Would not the HSC, Roster, documentation of residency, and lock/safe requirements be viewed as equally intimidating? Not to mention the myriad of confusing laws we also have to navigate through..,


Just a thought.

[bcj128]

To be clear, the individuals I have dealt with at DOJ have been professional and helpful. My statement is regarding the DOJ as an organization that carries out the direction of the Attorney General and legislature.

[ClarenceBoddicker]

You can only "sue" governments if they decide to allow you to. CA doesn't not & will never have a 2A clause in it's state Constitution. The SCOTUS has not made & never will make any sweeping pro 2A rulings. Any thing they do for 2A rights will be very limited in scope. If you want to express your 2A rights as freely as Federally possible, move to a free state.

[kcbrown]

You can only "sue" governments if they decide to allow you to. CA doesn't not & will never have a 2A clause in it's state Constitution. The SCOTUS has not made & never will make any sweeping pro 2A rulings. Any thing they do for 2A rights will be very limited in scope.

That remains to be seen. While I share some of your skepticism, I expect the protected right to be something substantially greater than what we currently have here in California. Which is to say, I expect the protected right to actually be meaningful.

I realize it may be shocking to hear me say that, but there it is.

The real question is what will happen if we fail to secure the right through the judiciary. I expect a Constitutional Convention to turn out very badly for us in the end, if it happens at all, because given the current tensions between the federal government and the various states, I expect the states to attempt to assert a "states rights" amendment in that case, which would of course cause those of us in California and other anti-gun jurisdictions to lose completely. I also see no real chance of the proposed amendment coming from 2/3 of both the senate and the house because they will have no interest at all in limiting their own power to make law and are already empowered to limit the states' ability to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.


In short, securing this through the judiciary is our only chance. If we fail here, we fail forever.

[CitaDeL]

In short, securing this through the judiciary is our only chance. If we fail here, we fail forever.

While this is slightly off-topic, I disagree with this.

1) Rights are secured through force. Ideally, through the machinations of the legislative, executive, or judiciary branches of our government. Absent any intervention of those, our collective and individual defiance is essential. The 2A is the last chance, not black robed law commentators.
2) If we fail in the judiciary and there is no alternative to securing liberty by any other means, it is our duty to resist and put down all efforts to strip us and our posterity of self-determination.

[dantodd]

Challenging the actions of the DOJ and legislature in court is essentially what you are asking. You will NEVER be blue to pierce immunity for legislators and get to them personally. It is almost just as hard to do that to the AG but not impossible.

We get to the legislature by challenging the constitutionality of their laws and we attack the actions of the AG by challenging her regulations.

I don't know if there is precedence for challenging an entire code section for its chilling effect on exercising a civil right by creating an overly-complex regulatory structure. I agree that a large percentage or 922 and the CPC are designed largely to make owning and using a firearm more trouble than it's worth.

[kcbrown]

While this is slightly off-topic, I disagree with this.

1) Rights are secured through force. Ideally, through the machinations of the legislative, executive, or judiciary branches of our government. Absent any intervention of those, our collective and individual defiance is essential. The 2A is the last chance, not black robed law commentators.
2) If we fail in the judiciary and there is no alternative to securing liberty by any other means, it is our duty to resist and put down all efforts to strip us and our posterity of self-determination.

My statement was in reference to nonviolent means. If we cannot secure the right through our actions in the judicial system, then we will be entirely out of nonviolent options, as action through the legislature is essentially impossible both at a national level (witness the fact that HR822 is dead) and a state level (California's legislature is actually getting worse over time).

I've already discussed at length the problems with the violent options. It's sufficient to say that there is substantial disagreement about the likelihood of success of such an option, both in terms of achieving actual victory through force as well as managing to put people in power who will actually properly respect the Constitution. In my view, neither of those things is individually likely, which makes the combination of the two exceedingly unlikely. But as I said, there is substantial disagreement about that.