Gun control unconstitutional under California Constitution

[ewarmour]

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.

Among these inalienable rights are defending life and liberty and protecting our property.

So how is it that we defend life, liberty and property? With harsh words, rocks and sticks? How do we obtain safety, by more police funding?

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Among these inalienable rights are defending life and liberty and protecting our property.

So how is it that we defend life, liberty and property? With harsh words, rocks and sticks? How do we obtain safety, by more police funding?

Yes, really harsh words and rocks and sticks with some heft to them - to make a point.

A.W.D.

[Untamed1972]

The CA constitution is virtually useless as the CA state courts just seem to ignore it in favor of political agendas.

CA constitution also says that it recognizes the US constitution as the supreme law of land......which would include the 2A. But do the CA courts care?

[sholling]

Your first mistake is assuming that the legislature and the courts have the slightest respect for rights secured in either the state or federal constitution, they don't. The second mistake was assuming that the courts would accept that the right means more than the use of harsh but politically correct words.

[ewarmour]

Your first mistake is assuming that the legislature and the courts have the slightest respect for rights secured in either the state or federal constitution, they don't. The second mistake was assuming that the courts would accet that the means more than the use of harsh but politically correct words.

However, I make no mistakes. I'm leaving this communist cesspool for a free state very soon.

[a1c]

Well the problem is that some state constitutions are easily amended with a popular vote, like we saw with Prop 8.

[SOAR79]

^^right

[nastyhabts26]

Just don't wrap any tape around the end of the stick or put a handle on it or it becomes a weapon and a felony.

[Some Velvet-Fisted Brute]

It would be rash to underestimate the effectiveness of a pointy stick with dog doo on the end.

[DTOM CA!]

Among these inalienable rights are defending life and liberty and protecting our property.

So how is it that we defend life, liberty and property? With harsh words, rocks and sticks? How do we obtain safety, by more police funding?

Have people tried to use this defense recently or do they know a judge will look at them and roll there eyes ?

[Untamed1972]

The only parts of the state constitution our state overlords pay attention too are the parts that give the legislature and the courts their authority. Anything that even hints at limiting their power is completely ignored.

[howbobert]

CA wants you to defend yourself by calling 911 and wait for the LEO's to arrive. Until they arrive, you are to invite your attacker for some tea and cookies and ask that they wait for the police before they continue.

How else?

[glockman19]

CA legislators have made EVERY tool of Self Defense unlawful. Many are Felonies.

LA Elect CA Mike Feuer even tried to pass legislation making non-lethal means of self protection misdemenors.

[nicki]

SOme background here.

This issue actually went all the way up to the California Supreme court, can't remember name of case off hand, but it was litigated by Don Kilmer.

The California Supreme court ruled that we have no individual right to bear arms, to say we got shot down in flames would be an understatement.

However, that ruling was made before both "Heller and MacDonald" and that ruling heavily relied on the fact that we had no state constitutional right nor a federally recognized RKBA.

While "Heller" was a big game changer, the real game changer IMHO is the "MacDonald case" since that is the one that incorporated and made the 2nd amendment binding on the states.

At this time, the 2nd amendment is "unsettled law" and we have many courts that are in basically in judicial rebellion against the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS may have been concerned with both Heller and MacDonald that activist judges may have thrown out gun laws across the board which is why IMHO, I think both rulings were written the way they were for that reason.

At this time, it is my understanding that it is more advantageous to use the Federal courts on 2nd amendment issues at this time.

Judges are reluctant to overturn laws on constitutional grounds, that being said, Judges may not be happen with newly enacted gun laws that are passed that contradict what they just ruled is a right.

Our opponents pass laws based on "feelings", courts rule on laws based on "Facts". We should be seeing some interesting cases hit the courts over the next few years.

Expect about 10 to 20 years of court litigation before 2nd amendment law starts to get settled.

By that time the first Plasma rifles in the 40 watt range should be hitting the stores and firearms will become antiques.

Nicki

[glockman19]

This issue actually went all the way up to the California Supreme court, can't remember name of case off hand, but it was litigated by Don Kilmer.

The California Supreme court ruled that we have no individual right to bear arms, to say we got shot down in flames would be an understatement.

However, that ruling was made before both "Heller and MacDonald" and that ruling heavily relied on the fact that we had no state constitutional right nor a federally recognized RKBA.

While "Heller" was a big game changer, the real game changer IMHO is the "MacDonald case" since that is the one that incorporated and made the 2nd amendment binding on the states.

At this time, the 2nd amendment is "unsettled law" and we have many courts that are in basically in judicial rebellion against the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS may have been concerned with both Heller and MacDonald that activist judges may have thrown out gun laws across the board which is why IMHO, I think both rulings were written the way they were for that reason.

At this time, it is my understanding that it is more advantageous to use the Federal courts on 2nd amendment issues at this time.

Judges are reluctant to overturn laws on constitutional grounds, that being said, Judges may not be happen with newly enacted gun laws that are passed that contradict what they just ruled is a right.

Our opponents pass laws based on "feelings", courts rule on laws based on "Facts". We should be seeing some interesting cases hit the courts over the next few years.

Expect about 10 to 20 years of court litigation before 2nd amendment law starts to get settled.By that time the first Plasma rifles in the 40 watt range should be hitting the stores and firearms will become antiques.

Nicki

I'll be 60-70 years old...I've already waited 50.