Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: California Constitution- No right to keep and bear arms...

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    The California Constitution doesnt have a article addressing the right to keep and bear arms. Go figure.

    Perhaps I'm tinkling against the prevailing winds... but I like the idea of a State level Constitutional protection rendered as follows;

    No law shall restrict the right of the peopletokeep andbear arms, for the defense of themselvesor the State.

    Such a Constitutional amendment would however not be easily enacted... partly because volumes of code would be obsolesed or at best, in diametric opposition to such wording.

    Anyone have an idea how something like this could be forwarded?
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    The California Constitution doesnt have a article addressing the right to keep and bear arms. Go figure.

    Perhaps I'm tinkling against the prevailing winds... but I like the idea of a State level Constitutional protection rendered as follows;

    No law shall restrict the right of the peopletokeep andbear arms, for the defense of themselvesor the State.

    Such a Constitutional amendment would however not be easily enacted... partly because volumes of code would be obsolesed or at best, in diametric opposition to such wording.

    Anyone have an idea how something like this could be forwarded?
    Unfortunately, Cal Prop RKBA has failed multiple times to galvanize support for signature gathering. The NRA has consistantly refused to provide any support or funds. The most recent proposal would have, according to the AG, made the CCW system shall-issue by constitutional right.

    Search for CalPropRKBA, and search around California CCW for more information.

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php...5a2b36d3b1f9ce
    Attorney General Position on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    I am deeply committed to the preservation and protection of the system of government our founding fathers established for our country more than two hundred years ago, including the Bill of Rights. I am also honored that the people of California elected me to a position sworn to uphold and protect both the California and United States Constitutions as the chief law officer of our state. (California Constitution, article V, section 13 and California Government Code, section 12511.)

    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in its entirety:

    "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Although I am sworn to uphold the law, the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions. In the system of separation of powers established by our forefathers, that role is properly performed by the state and federal Courts.

    "In the last few decades, courts and commentators have offered what may fairly be characterized as three different basic interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it merely recognizes the right of a state to arm its militia. . . . [the second perspective is that] the `individual' right to bear arms can only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia who bear the arms while and as a part of actively participating in the organized militia's activities. . . .The third model is simply that the Second Amendment recognizes the right of individuals to keep and bear arms." United States v. Emerson (2001) 270 F.3d 203, 218-220. Although the only federal circuit court of appeals to adopt the third model has been the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, "the individual rights view has enjoyed considerable academic endorsement, especially in the last two decades." (Id at 220).

    The federal and state courts interpreting the scope and meaning of the Second Amendment in California's jurisdiction, however, have consistently reached two conclusions, both of which are clear and unambiguous:

    1) The Second Amendment limits only the powers of the federal government, not those of the states; and,

    2) The "right to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is not an individual right to possess firearms, but a collective right of the States to keep and maintain a "well-regulated militia." (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 101-102 (9th Cir. 1995); Fresno Rifle Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729-731 (9th Cir. 1992); see also cases listed in "Federal Constitutional Right to Bear Arms" 37 A.L.R.Fed. 696 and Supp (1978); and see Galvan v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 851, 866 (1969)["The claim that legislation regulating weapons violates the Second Amendment has been rejected by every court which has ruled on the question."]. The Second Amendment also permits federal regulation of firearms, as long as such regulation does not encroach upon the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939); see also, Gun Control Act of 1968, Title 18 United States Code, section 921, et seq.)

    Likewise, the California Supreme Court has determined that laws passed by the state legislature which address gun control can be valid. "No mention is made in [the California Constitution] of a right to bear arms. (See In re Ramirez (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651 [226 P. 914, 34 A.L.R. 51][`The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject.'].) Moreover, `it is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function.' (Galvan v. Superior Court, (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866 [76 Cal.Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930].)" Kasler v. Lockyer, (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 481.

    I am duty bound and constitutionally obligated to defend and enforce the law as written by our state legislature and explained by our courts. And, while I am personally convinced that the Second Amendment was indeed intended to provide some measure of entitlement for individuals to own firearms, the degree of that entitlement, and the extent to which it must be balanced with the state's right and responsibility to protect public health and safety, is still being interpreted by our nation's courts. And I believe that the interpretation of most courts, which holds that the states have the power to regulate firearms possession and usage within their boundaries, is both wise and correct. As a legislator, I supported reasonable measures to regulate firearms over the years. As California's Attorney General, I strongly support the system of government which we enjoy, and which I am sworn to preserve and protect, and I will continue to keep my promise to the people of California to fairly and fully enforce our laws, and to defend the laws our representatives have enacted.
    Yeah, that's nice Mr. Attorney General, but you missed an important part of the Constitution.

    Article VI

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    So, in short, if the laws enactedin the United Statesmust be made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution-- and if any law contradicts the Constitution, our judiciary is not bound to rule on it. So, actually- any laws relating to the regulation of keeping and bearing arms is not a law at all. In order to enact laws regulating the keeping and bearing arms, a Constitutional amendment abolishing the second amendment would have to be passed.

    And yet, here we are. A police state enforcing laws that actually dont exist and a punitive judiciary meting out its version of justice. Makes me want to write a letter.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Gary, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    518

    Post imported post

    Theoretically, in the area of firearms, it should not matter whether any of the 50 state constitutions have an RKBA provision, because the U.S. constitution is the law of the land with regard to firearms. State constitutions' provisions on this matter, in theory, are merely novelties; those that have an RKBA provision are simply doing what the U.S. constitution tells them they must do. States that don't and make life difficult for law abiding gun owners are in violation of the constitution. Unfortunately, over the years, judges at both the state and federal levels have read so many "penumbras" into the constitution that the constitution as it was intended to be read and understood hasbeen renderedvirtually meaningless, and as a result, states are free to decide what the U.S. should be.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •