AJR 46 - "That the California State Legislature supports the Second Amendment"

imported post

http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2008&summary=ajr46

Assembly Joint Resolution 46 reads as follows:

WHEREAS, The California State Legislature has consistently supported the civil liberties guaranteed to all American citizens by the federal Bill of Rights; and
WHEREAS, The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights guarantee that "[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;" and
WHEREAS, The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have interpreted the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual the private right to keep and bear arms; and
WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that struck down a ban on the possession of a handgun in the home; and
WHEREAS, Polls have consistently shown that the public views the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the individual the private right to keep and bear arms, the public opposes a handgun ban, and the public supports the right to self defense especially in the home; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly and the Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the California State Legislature supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and supports the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; and be it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the President and the Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States.

Click to expand...

Im reading the words. Some of the words please me. But this is a non-binding resolution that does not change the panoply of unConstitutional ordinances, prohibitions, codesand laws governing the ownership, possession, configuration,transportation and use of firearms. In effect, it is nothing more than a test to see where our legislature stands on firearms. Do we really need a recount in California of those who oppose the 2A?

If there were any real chance that the legislature were in support of the 2A as an individual right, then we would certainly see an effort to ensconce a state constitutional amendment drafted to protect ownership and carry. I wonder if there is any real value to spending the time and effort to test the waters with a resolution, when real pro-gunlegislationwould bemired in committee and voted down by a Democrat controlled body.

imported post

I dislike that it focuses on the US CONstitution and the courts. Our rights are granted by neither. This trash makes me sick ; it makes me sad to know that this is probably the best our 'conservative' constituants are capable of.

Thank you for sharing and reminding us how terrible our state's situation is. It is important that we not become complacent.

imported post

As to whether this means anything good, I would have to say: No. My reason for saying that is that the latest liberal twist of common sense is to say, "I believe in the second amendment but there ought to be laws preventing people from having guns." If this makes sense to you then you might be a liberal.

Actually, the whole idea is that, when cornered by logic they can wail, "But I said I support the second amendment." The rest of the time they're all for "reasonable" laws for "reasonable people." Thus they can have their cake and eat it too.

There is a glimmer of hope for Californians, though. Part of the decision in Heller will be whether or not to incorporate the second amendment, making it apply to the 50 states. I'm almost afraid to hope for this but hope I do.

MD

imported post

Not every liberal is an anti-gunner.

Machoduck wrote:

As to whether this means anything good, I would have to say: No. My reason for saying that is that the latest liberal twist of common sense is to say, "I believe in the second amendment but there ought to be laws preventing people from having guns." If this makes sense to you then you might be a liberal.

Actually, the whole idea is that, when cornered by logic they can wail, "But I said I support the second amendment." The rest of the time they're all for "reasonable" laws for "reasonable people." Thus they can have their cake and eat it too.

There is a glimmer of hope for Californians, though. Part of the decision in Heller will be whether or not to incorporate the second amendment, making it apply to the 50 states. I'm almost afraid to hope for this but hope I do.

MD

Click to expand...

imported post

Lonnie Wilson wrote:

Not every liberal is an anti-gunner.

Machoduck wrote:

As to whether this means anything good, I would have to say: No. My reason for saying that is that the latest liberal twist of common sense is to say, "I believe in the second amendment but there ought to be laws preventing people from having guns." If this makes sense to you then you might be a liberal.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

+1 on the vocabulary Lonnie. I think many seem to use 'liberal' and anti-gun interchangably subconsciously, even though they mean very different things. This coming from a 'classical liberal' of the Jeffersonian variety. (I'm learning...)

imported post

Lonnie and C3,

"Well regulated" isn't the only term whose definition is in question, at least in some circles. To me the current definition of liberalism encompasses a belief in absolute government control of every facet of our lives. The method of collecting adherents to this philosophy is to make overtures to certain select minority groups while calling the other side evil in any way that might imply restriction of the rights of these minorities. These attacks and attributions may or may not have validity but repeated thousands of times in tha lamestream media, act like Hitler's "Big Lie".

One of the approaches, which I've seen many times, is to offer up position statements which are completely or partially self-contradictory and which almost anyone educated prior to 1960 would immediately perceive as babble. Too many people today, faced with the proposition of determining irrationality, assume that they are at fault for failing to understand. They forget that Alice In Wonderland wasn't meant to be adopted as a philosophy.

Jeffersonian liberalism is cool. I suppose that I could call myself a desciple, except for that word liberal. Sorta goes to the heart of our differences, doesn't it? Labels. Yes, I applied a label. I did it in order to avoid verbosity, and look at me now!

What drove me up the wall is the absolute hypocrisy of the Kali Assembly, both sides of the aisle, making all the good sounding noises in support of gun rights after having done all that they have done to harm gun rights and self protection rights in their state. "I believe in the Second Amendment but there should be laws prohibiting gun ownership" seems to be the sum total of their words and actions taken together. Total hypocrisy. Is this what you support? In fact, I know you don't. I realize that not everyone who labels himsef a liberal agrees with the pronouncements of the leaders of current liberal thinking. It's this "current liberal thinking" that I disagree with.

I suspect that many liberals, having a certain amount of common sense combined with a forgiving nature, tend to give this hypocrisy a pass. After all, doesn't every media source decry judgementalism? For me, I don't want to drive over any bridge designed and built by people who are not judgemental.