CA constitutional assult on AWB

[paradox]

Not the first time law and common sense have diverged, I doubt it will be the last.

What is scary is the implications of this line of reasoning.....

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

Yeah there is freedom to print your ideas, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal for us Government Stooges to make you sign an obedience oath in order to buy a modern xerox printing unit. After all you are still able to carve woodblocks ancient china style. Oh nevermind, the new unsafe-press law makes that illegal. Well, plenty of printing presses have been manufactured in the past, you can freely buy amongst those in circulation ... so long as you make the transaction through a State and Federally licensed print dealer and supply your drivers license, thumb print, retnal scan, chip implant and background check to make sure you have never been arrested of any Soapbox offenses.....



Makes one want to buy more ammunition.

[taloft]

Not the first time law and common sense have diverged, I doubt it will be the last.

... so long as you make the transaction through a State and Federally licensed print dealer and supply your drivers license, thumb print, retnal scan, chip implant and background check to make sure you have never been arrested of any Soapbox offenses.....



Makes one want to buy more ammunition.

Don't forget the DNA sample and the anal probe.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

You guys are living in a fantasy if you think that the states don't have the ability within their police power to regulate firearms ownership and registration under current case law.

The Supreme Court has even upheld complete bans of handguns in various municipalities around the country.

In Quilici v. Morton Grove the Supreme Court upheld a handgun ban in a city in Illinois. They have upheld many other bans and restrictions around the country b/c of the states' right to regulate commerce and firearms registration within its border.

If you can make a NEW or UNIQUE argument, then that is worth discussing. If you are simply going to say "The 2nd Amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms", you are just wasting your time and any court would likely grant summary judgment for the state and the appellate court would affirm and no state or the US SC would hear the case.

The best way to change things in this state is to be POLITICALLY ACTIVE, SHARE THE SHOOTING SPORTS, VOTE and ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE AS WELL. (By no means are all Dems against guns. You can be a Dem (though I am not) and still support gun rights. So, even though this state is Dem dominated, that doesn't mean you can't educate or introduce your friends to shooting and convert them to gun friendly voters (when various pieces of legislation come up)).

While I agree with you on the current state of gun laws across the country my point is more fundamental. The Bill of Rights apply to all Americans regardless of which state they reside. Of course there are reasonable restrictions that can be legally put on firearms...just like there are for the 1st Amendment....you cant yell fire in a crowded theater. There are reasonable limitations and unreasonable limitations. You dont see individual States having 50 different interpretations of the 1st Amendment. You dont see individual States have 50 different interpretations of the 4th Amendment. I can go right on down the line and you will see that the 2nd Amendment is treated differently than any of the others in the Bill of Rights. This is wrong.

The 10th Amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When States argue sovereignty they base that on the 10th Amendment. The Bill of Rights are Individual rights that can not be abridged by ANY state. Its not until you get up to the 10th where it says everything else that has not been talked about Amendments 1-9 are left to the states to decide. This gives the individual states broad powers.....but not when you are dealing with Amendments 1-9.....those are for the individual regardless of which State they reside in.

I know...I know....this is how I see it and no court has ruled this way...YET. This is why we need the SCOTUS to clarify this issue. If the SCOTUS came down and agreed that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual that would SERIOUSLY limit the amount of regulation individual States could impose on the gun owner.

We need the SCOTUS to agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual....just like the rest of Amendments 1-9.

[glen avon]

You dont see individual States having 50 different interpretations of the 1st Amendment. You dont see individual States have 50 different interpretations of the 4th Amendment. I can go right on down the line and you will see that the 2nd Amendment is treated differently than any of the others in the Bill of Rights.

not true. there are many many different laws, varying from state to state, city to city, regarding the 1st amendment. state free speech laws can differ from federal laws, too.

and the circuits have differing 4th amendment jurisprudence.

there is a split between the 5th and 9th circuits re the 2nd amendment.

there is no inherent inconsistency here. it may seem that way because there is so little 2nd amendment jurisprudence, but that is not the case.

[CowtownBallin]

I was pretty sure that the Bill of Rights was to prevent Federal tyranny, not state tyranny. So, all you guys who are crying that the 2nd amendment says the ability to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, I say it means not infrindged by the Federal government. Remember, a lot of the Founding Fathers were States Rightists, and I think they left it as is so that each state can come up with its own Constitution to define what they want and don't want. The California Constitution happens not to have a clause for the protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

[glen avon]

I was pretty sure that the Bill of Rights was to prevent Federal tyranny, not state tyranny. So, all you guys who are crying that the 2nd amendment says the ability to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, I say it means not infrindged by the Federal government. Remember, a lot of the Founding Fathers were States Rightists, and I think they left it as is so that each state can come up with its own Constitution to define what they want and don't want. The California Constitution happens not to have a clause for the protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

you are correct up until the 14th amendment, where the bill of rights was applied to the states. now, some thinl only certain parts apply to the states, other argue that all of them do. the current supreme court jurisprudence is that only some of the first 10 amendments are applied to the states, and the 2nd is not one of them.

[icormba]

Originally Posted by CA Constitution
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
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.

Actually, by looking at all these reasons... I think my collecting (acquiring) firearms these past years have brought me more happiness than anything else.

[xenophobe]

First and foremost, you are a Citizen of the State of California, and you must abide to the laws set by this state. Furthermore, you are also a Citizen of the United States of America and have rights, unless regulated on a state level. People need to realize, no matter how blurred the lines have become in the past hundred years that you are only an American Citizen because of the fact that you are a Citizen of a State that is part of the greater republic. If California were to secede from the Union, we would no longer be Americans, we would be the Independent Republic of Californians.

The State has the authority to modify rights, deviating from the US Constitution where it chooses, it also has the power to become independent, though there would be a nightmare of new problems, infrastructure that would need to be built... anyways, that's getting of the subject... The Bill of Rights does not grant you, or guarantee you any specific rights individually. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent corruption to the Constitution by nature of amendments to the Constiution. The Constiution was designed to prevent corruption of the States.... The Rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are considered pre-existing. We are assumed to have all these rights, and this document merely declares this and says that the government must recognize and respect them.

Anyways, until the 14th Amendment came out, the States could freely ignore the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, in theory a State may not take away, limit or restrict ANY of your rights, without due process of law. This obviously sucks, but has been built into our government.

So there it is... sorry, having a hard time focusing. Perhaps I'll re-edit later. lol

[FreedomIsNotFree]

You guys are living in a fantasy if you think that the states don't have the ability within their police power to regulate firearms ownership and registration under current case law.

The Supreme Court has even upheld complete bans of handguns in various municipalities around the country.

In Quilici v. Morton Grove the Supreme Court upheld a handgun ban in a city in Illinois. They have upheld many other bans and restrictions around the country b/c of the states' right to regulate commerce and firearms registration within its border.

In Quilici v. Morton the court found that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. Their reasoning for allowing the handgun ban had to do with the handgun specifically...not the right to bear arms in general. They basically found that handguns were not "military weapons". I dont see how that would apply in this case being that we are talking about rifles that are undoubtedly "military weapons" likely to be used by a member of the militia.

[ohsmily]

In Quilici v. Morton the court found that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. Their reasoning for allowing the handgun ban had to do with the handgun specifically...not the right to bear arms in general. They basically found that handguns were not "military weapons". I dont see how that would apply in this case being that we are talking about rifles that are undoubtedly "military weapons" likely to be used by a member of the militia.

The above is correct...BUT, I was only using the case as an example of where the court allowed a complete ban of handguns (to show those people who claim the 2nd amendment means "the right to bear arms PERIOD" are mistaken in light of MANY cases handed down by The Court). I did not state that the case was on point with the current situation. However, thank you for clarifying the case for everyone (honestly).

[FreedomIsNotFree]

The Bill of Rights does not grant you, or guarantee you any specific rights individually. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent corruption to the Constitution by nature of amendments to the Constiution. The Constiution was designed to prevent corruption of the States.... The Rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are considered pre-existing. We are assumed to have all these rights, and this document merely declares this and says that the government must recognize and respect them.

I have to disagree with you on this one Xeno. The Bill of Rights were not initially even in the Constitution. It was not until power was consolidated, to a certain extent, to the Federal Level while the Constitution was being ratified that the Bill of Rights came to be. Prior to that each of the States had their own Consitutions and there was no need to spell out the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

The only way the Anti-Federalists, most outspoken was Richard Henry Lee, would get on board with ratification was to spell out these provisions....The Bill of Rights. These were to be clearly spelled out, the rights of people and the limitations of Government. These were to be protections against Federal tyranny for the individual, not the States. There were plenty of provisions in the Constitution to protect the states.....it was the Individual that was at issue with the Bill of Rights.

A State cant just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies. They have some leeway with interpretation, but if any State grossly acts outside of the 1st Amendment the Federal Courts can clearly step in...and have.

[xenophobe]

Yes, the Bill of Rights was adoped after the Constitutioin was adopted as a protection from States corrupting the Constitution or the States themselves being corrupted... the Bill of Rights has power over the Constitution.

Even the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes no specific mention of individual rights. It more specifically addresses what the Government CANNOT do, not what YOU may do:

EDIT: In other words, you are free to do whatever you want unless the government restricts you, as opposed to, you are allowed to do what the government has granted you. The foundation of our government assumes that we are a free people with inalienable rights, and that the rules they set fourth were meant to keep the government from infringing upon them. The Bill of Rights does not specifically protect individual rights, it limits the power of the government to oppress. Reading prior drafts of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution clearly support the fact that your rights are not questionable, government action to infringe those rights, not on an individual basis but as a whole, is.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

No, a state can't just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies, but it can be legally restricted, as long as due process is followed. Hence, yelling "fire" in a movie theater, yelling "This is a stick up" in a bank, or "bomb" at an airport. There are restrictions to free speech everywhere, look at the 1995 Communications Decency Act. You're NOT allowed to say anything you want and have a right to say it. That's a fact.

As for being corrected, yes the key term is "grossly acts outside the 1st Amendment" and the Supreme Court will step in.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Yes, the Bill of Rights was adoped after the Constitutioin was adopted as a protection from States becoming corrupt.

Even the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes no specific mention of individual rights. It more specifically addresses what the Government CANNOT do, not what YOU may do:



No, a state can't just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies, but it can be legally restricted, as long as due process is followed. Hence, yelling "fire" in a movie theater, yelling "This is a stick up" in a bank, or "bomb" at an airport. There are restrictions to free speech everywhere, look at the 1995 Communications Decency Act. You're NOT allowed to say anything you want and have a right to say it. That's a fact.

As for being corrected, yes the key term is "grossly acts outside the 1st Amendment" and the Supreme Court will step in.

Yes, I agree that there are limitations to everything...even the Bill of Rights. I disagree with your opinion that the Bill of Rights, specifically, were added to protect only the States from the tyranny of the Federal Government. If you look at the writings of the time you will see that during ratification many States worried about the consolidation of power from the States to the Federal Governent. That is part of the reason they were NOT ratifying the Constitution. It was not until the Anti-Federalist demanded the Federal Constitution include such protections FOR THE INDIVIDUAL that they agreed to ratification.

The quote that you have in your previous post has to do with the INITIAL 12 Bill of Rights. Those were not ratified. Only 10 of the original 12 were ratified in order and that makes our current 1-10 Bill of Rights. I disagree that the quote backs up your claim that the main purpose of the Bill of Rights were to protect the States.

Here is some info that you may find interesting:

"The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis."


"A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
From the National Archive. http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...n_history.html

[Creeping Incrementalism]

I don't understand why we need to argue about incorporation. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights stands on its own. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, except for where states say they don't. In a series of articles in the CRPA's Firing Linearen't military weapons?

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I don't understand why we need to argue about incorporation. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights stands on its own. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, except for where states say they don't. In a series of articles in the CRPA's Firing Linearen't military weapons?

Here would be my understanding, even with the current opinions on the 2nd as they stand.

If you are not a Felon, mentally insane, dishonorably discharged...etc..etc, all other classes that have been legally restricted, you can own a rifle that would likely be used as a member of a militia. The militia would include all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and when called for service these men are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

One could even argue that a fully automatic rifle would be considered common use in terms of todays weaponry.