CA constitutional assult on AWB

[paradox]

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.

Has there been an attack on the assult weapons ban using Article I, Section I of the California Constitution? I may not need a non-neutered AR with a 30round mag for deer hunting, but I may need it for defending life and liberty. If a group of Gang Bangers/CHICOM/ninjas/zombies/aliens attack I am going to need more than a 10 round, break open rifle.

[Chaingun]

Has there been an attack on the assult weapons ban using Article I, Section I of the California Constitution? I may not need a non-neutered AR with a 30round mag for deer hunting, but I may need it for defending life and liberty. If a group of Gang Bangers/CHICOM/ninjas/zombies/aliens attack I am going to need more than a 10 round, break open rifle.

I think a .38 and a .22 is all you need to fend off those pesty gang-bangers

[klmmicro]

Zombies (and most Aliens)? That is when the M14 should be out of the safe! Poodle Shooters have their limitations.

[sv_sniper]

I will drag my .50 BMG out of safe if such situation ever happens.
Also get my IDF-M14 ready (with a lot of 20-rd USGI mags, of course).

The fixed-mag 10 round AR style weapons would be junk at this moment. It's even worse than a SKS. Believe me, load 10 rounds to SKS with stripper clips is pretty fast.

[blacklisted]

Won't work. We don't have the right in California to possess and to defend our life with firearms. Notice that there is no 2nd amendment in the California constitution. This argument was tried before and failed.

[paradox]

Won't work. We don't have the right in California to possess and to defend our life with firearms. Notice that there is no 2nd amendment in the California constitution. This argument was tried before and failed.

Do you know the name or docket number of the cases that failed?

[blacklisted]

Do you know the name or docket number of the cases that failed?

Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)

Although plaintiffs assert the AWCA fails to satisfy even the rational basis test, they contend it should be reviewed under the "intermediate or even strict scrutiny standards of legal review" because "portions of the [AWCA] touch upon [an] express fundamental constitutional right." This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: "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." If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution's declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.

[paradox]

Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.

Thank you.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.

This is TOTAL BS!!!

They act as though the state of CA is an island not part of the United States of America. As if the US constitution does NOT apply to Californians. TOTAL CRAP! The US Constitution applies to ALL, even Californians. Our right to bear arms is protected even if NOT specifically written into the CA Constitution. Its just that the US Supreme Court has not granted cert. on a case that would clear the issue. I mean, is there NOT a need for clarification? Is that NOT what the SPOTUS is for? We have different states with hugely varying opinions on the 2nd amendment and we need the SCOTUS to clarify and state that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just like the rest in the Bill of Rights.

The problem I have with CA Judges is this.....cleary they wrote in the decision that the right to bear arms is not specifically written into the CA Constitution. They used that as part of their justification for denying the plaintiffs argument. That does NOT mean they would agree with the Plaintiff if it were....they would just come up with some other BS reason NOT to acknowledge the individuals right to bear arms...or they would say severe restrictions were perfectly legal.

What we need is for the SCOTUS to clarify the issue. That is the only way I see our rights to be restored.



**Blacklisted** I hope you know my anger is not at you or anything you have said...only at the judges and politicians that keep screwing us on this issue.

[blacklisted]

What we need is for the SCOTUS to clarify the issue. That is the only way I see our rights to be restored.

**Blacklisted** I hope you know my anger is not at you or anything you have said...only at the judges and politicians that keep screwing us on this issue.

I understand. I'm in a constant state of anger because of them as well.

SCOTUS could clarify the issue, or they could totally ruin it for everyone. I think with the new justices we have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable ruling though.

Have you signed the CA RKBA petition? The link is in my profile. This group is trying to get a Right to Keep and Bear Arms added to the California state constitution.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

I understand. I'm in a constant state of anger because of them as well.

SCOTUS could clarify the issue, or they could totally ruin it for everyone. I think with the new justices we have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable ruling though.

Have you signed the CA RKBA petition? The link is in my profile. This group is trying to get a Right to Keep and Bear Arms added to the California state constitution.

Yes, I absolutely have. I even have some printed on the proper paper and keep some with me to have my family sign.

While I agree that the CA RKBA petition is important to get on the ballot and passed, I dont think it will settle the issue for us. We still need SCOTUS to act. I could see the SCOTUS coming down and saying there needs to be access and restrictions to guns not unlike some of the more restriciton free states have now. Not like CA, NY and other states. Also, CCW's should also be available as long as you are not a felon or insane.

I can dream cant I?

[vrylak]

I guess we are second class US Citizens in the state of Kalifornia then and in some states that have mimic Kalifornia. I think if the state insists that the
2nd Amendment is not honored in it's constitution then the state's constitution is illegal and unenforceable since it doesn't completely guarantee the rights of all US Citizens as outlined in the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

It's as if you went to a car dealership but the new car you bought only got 3 wheels because the 4th wheel is banned in the state. OTOH most of the Union are enjoying their cars because they get to drive around with all 4 wheels. I mean WT%#%#$F!

[ohsmily]

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)).

[taloft]

This is TOTAL BS!!!

Now you know why so many of us are mad about this issue. Apparently you are permitted to defend your life but, you will have to be a master of the boomerang to do it.

If you find that boomerangs are illegal keep it to yourself. It will only depress me further.

[ajwells]

Now you know why so many of us are mad about this issue. Apparently you are permitted to defend your life but, you will have to be a master of the boomerang to do it.

If you find that boomerangs are illegal keep it to yourself. It will only depress me further.

hahahahahaa... that's great.