Using DC v. Heller to eliminate CA Laws?

imported post

There seems to b a lot of mis-statements on this forum. So for the record:

A) You DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS...you have 'un/inalienable Rights' given to u by ur creator.

B) Each state's constitution, and the fed constitution are NOT RULES FOR YOU - each constitution is the RULES for the respective state, and fed territory.

C) The Cali Const clearly reads that the U.S.Const "...is the supreme law of the land." The U.S. constitution trumps all California rules, codes, legislation. The U.S. supr crt justices clearly decided in the Heller case, that the Right to bear Arms is an 'individual Right'. Citizens had this Right long before the Constitution was written, and Citizens have this Right today. PERIOD !!!!

This decision trump ALL CALIFORNIA LAW...though u still may b thrown in a Cali jail for excerising your Rights. Are you brave enuf to risk being thrown in jail for excerising a Right??

I wrote the LA districit Attorney's office to obtain 'clarification' of the Heller case as it pertains to my excersing my Rights here in Cal. They wrote bac, "we do not give legal advise." I walked into the DA's office in San Luis Obispo. Asked the desk clerk to see a DA to ask inquire about the Heller decision. Clerksaid, "We do not give out legal advice." I asked her, "Is killing someone illegal?" She said, "Of course it is." I asked, "I though u didn't give legal advice?"

I then ventured in the San Luis Obispo police dept. And office said my agrument is for the courts cuz they only recognize the Cal Penal Code. Then he asked me, "What do you mean, God given Rights?" When i rolled my eyes, he then says, "What's with all this fascination w/ Rights."

Cops are ignorant...and they are not your friends.

imported post

Rayce Bannon wrote:

"What's with all this fascination w/ Rights."

Click to expand...

I don't know if this is more scary or more funny.

imported post

Rayce Bannon wrote:

you have 'un/inalienable Rights' given to u by ur creator.  [/size][/b]

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, but do not presume to speak for others. The concept of "natural rights" is clearly well over your head. Your spelling and grammar (or should I say, lack thereof) indicate as much.

imported post

please kindly enlighten me, where ur Rights cum from? btw (by the way), n informal email settings, i generally rite n txt type 4mat. shame u equate txt riting w/ improper grammer and the uneducated.

peace b the journy

imported post

I am tired of people acting as if spelling and grammar are the measure of a persons intelligence or credibility.

Maybe you may be one of those people that can at all times use perfect grammar, punctuation and spell at all times correctly, but that makes you no more intelligent than anyone else.

I do though agree that as everyone should know, one does not speak for any other than the one unless given expressed permission to do so. I speak no more for you than you do for me.

My creator is my mom and dad, and I am pretty sure that they did not give me my rights...Something they reminded me of often.

marshaul wrote:

Rayce Bannon wrote:

you have 'un/inalienable Rights' given to u by ur creator.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, but do not presume to speak for others. The concept of "natural rights" is clearly well over your head. Your spelling and grammar (or should I say, lack thereof) indicate as much.

Click to expand...

imported post

A person's ability to spell is far less relevant than their willingness to make the attempt. It's about respect. If I want to read instant message chat I have plenty of people in my buddy list I can get that from.

As for rights, ascribing them to a deity is at worst (from the perspective of nonbelievers) an appeal to irrational superstition, and at best (from the perspective of believers with a measure of reason), an illogical appeal to authority. Either one does the cause of rights no benefit. Rights can be explained and justified through reason, which is ultimately a far stronger position than repetitive, if insistent, appeals to authority.

These things matter. Screaming over "God-given rights" is just the kind of thing that will only "convince" those who already agree with you. It's fine to believe yourself that rights are God's gift to mankind, but the concept of "natural rights" is going to win more people over to your side than "God-given rights", especially when you're dealing with issues that some people may not (yet) agree are individual natural rights, like firearms ownership.

The simple fact is here in California it isn't enough to win over conservatives. We'll need to get liberals on our side as well (not all of them, obviously). Right or wrong, many people are going to close their ears to anything involving "God-given...".

Just my opinion.

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1342-Natural_Rights.aspx

imported post

marshaul wrote:

A person's ability to spell is far less relevant than their willingness to make the attempt. It's about respect. If I want to read instant message chat I have plenty of people in my buddy list I can get that from.

Click to expand...

My feeling exactly. I avoid reading the gibberish, whether it's texting shorthand, lack of punctuation/paragraphs, or excessive use of the shift/CapsLock keys.

Oh, and I wish unimaginably horrible things on people who think TyPiNg In AlTeRnAtInG cAsE iS cOoL. iMaGiNe If I tYpEd EvErY pOsT lIkE tHiS?!!1!1!!111!!Eleven!

IMO, if you want to be taken seriously, you have to present your communications in a way that your intended audience will find appealing. For texting your friends, that shorthand might be acceptable. On a forum where we are exchanging ideas that may very well determine the future of our state... I don't think so.

I'm not telling you not to do it, I just want it to be clear that you should expect to be criticized and not taken seriously.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, a person who corrects every simple/common mistake of spelling/grammar needs to get the stick out of their posterior oriface.


... oh, and +1 to everything else Marshaul said.

Even if you believe in a diety, it is futile and dangerous to attribute your rights to that diety. In order to strip you of your rights, all one has to do is not believe in your diety, or be convinced it is your diety's will to strip you of your rights.

imported post

Pretty sure not many people are 'screaming' over God-given Rights. The bottom line is that according to the 'federal' doc drafted and signed by a few people, wrote in part, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...." For me - that would mean I havGod given Rights. Believe the U.S. sup Crt recognizes these as 'fundamental Rights' and this is a well-settled fact in law.

The U.S. sup Crt has also recognized in the Heller case, i have the individual Rightto 'bear arms'...and thatpeople had this fundamental Right before and after the 'fed const' was written.

The preamble to the Cali Const mentions 'God' -

"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution."

TheCali Const also clearly states that the U.S. Const is the sup lawof the land.

In sum -

a) In Cal, the U.S.const is the law of the land.

b) In Heller, the justices of the U.S. sup crt decided 'we' have an individual Right, before and after, theFed Const was written.

c)In Miranda, the justices of the U.S. sup crt decided, 'no rule, no code, no legislation can interfer w/ our 'fundamental Rights'.

d) therefore, it is a well-settled fact in law...that in Cal...we have the fundamentalRight to bear arms. PERIOD!!