APR 15,16 HEARINGS WE MUST SHOW UP!

[Loco45]

IMO anything that infringes on our right to keep and bare arms is illegal and we the people should be able to make a difference. Now that's my opinion, but I do know what the reality of this is and the reality is we are living in a police state where we the people really don't have a lot to say... I bet our forefathers are turning in their graves to see how much we have let the government infringe on our constitutional rights and I'm not just talking about the 2nd amendment.

[JustEd]

https://www.carkba.org

Anyone know what happened to this site?

[Meatwaggon]

it is wildly inappropriate to say that because a previous law was successfully enacted and followed that it was constitutional. After all, the great majority of laws that are overturned by SCOTUS had been successfully enacted and followed before being overturned.

It's not just the fact that an AWB was left standing without challenge for 10 years, it's also the fact that the Supreme Court has said more than once that the 2nd Amendment is not a free-for-all on guns; in other words, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed in general, but can be limited depending on the circumstance. To argue against this is, frankly, stupid. It is already widely accepted that there are PEOPLE who do not have an unlimited right to bear arms, such as felons, psychos, people with restraining orders, etc., PLACES where you cannot bring arms, such as banks, schools, etc., and GUNS themselves, such as NFA weapons requiring permits or those that are banned altogether. A further limitation of the 2nd Amendment, such as against "assault"-type weapons, is along the same vein as the limitations above. If the feds or the various states decide for whatever reasons that these "scary" weapons are to be prohibited, then they will be prohibited. And it will be constitutional, depending on the exact language. That is why I say that in the fight against the new CA measures, the 2nd Amendment is a poor choice to use. The legal battle will center around other Amendments and other constitutional arguments. For example, any measure that prohibits grandfathering can be attacked on basis of prohibitions against ex post facto laws and 5A prohibition against confiscation without just compensation. Any measure which is too expansive can be attacked on the basis of prohibition against laws that are too vague or too broad. But like I said, attacking these measures on nothing more than the fact that the gun grabbers are further limiting the 2A is a simple legal no-go from the start, regardless of how gunowners "feel" or "want" or think that the 2A "ought" to mean. The SCOTUS has already told us what the 2A ought to mean and whether it can be limited (it can). If a new AWB is worded shrewdly and manages to avoid the constitutional landmines, they can and will legally further limit your 2A rights and there is nothing you can do about it short of electing new CA lawmakers to overturn current CA laws.