• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Nordyke goes en banc

Article1section23

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
489
Location
USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Damn it! Help us SCOTUS, you're our only hope.
There is a more powerful body than our 9 member oligarchy, President or Federal Legislature....if it chooses to exercise its power.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:
Now tell me again who the H*** is the judge who asked for an en banc session? And for what?
The judge that initiated the vote gets to remain anonymous, and doesn't have to give any reason.

Sorry, but we'll probably never know who or why.

Well, let's put our celebration on hold... another hoop to jump through in the hopes of restoring our right to self defense.

/sadface
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

If the original decision gets over turned and the 2nd does not get incorporated, and if SCOTUS does not take the issue in October, or if they do and the 2nd loses (God forbid), then we will have no other choice but to fight tooth and nail to amend the CA constitution with the exact same wording as the 2nd. When all else fails and you can no longer rely upon the judges then you just have to take it directly to the people. Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.
 

flintlock tom

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
405
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

What I don't understand is why this doesn't count as "incorporation":

Code:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the  United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the  supreme law of the land.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

flintlock tom wrote:
What I don't understand is why this doesn't count as "incorporation":

Code:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 
SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the  United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the  supreme law of the land.

Decades of infringing legislation and court rulings disregarding it...
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.

The easiest way to do it would be with a referendum. In California, ballot proposals have a weight of law nearly equal to our state Constitution itself.

Keep it short and sweet, like Prop 215. No specifics, just a declaration of right and a statement that the right is to be respected by the government.

Once so instructed, the legislature can sort out the details, while keeping in compliance with the referendum, on pain of supreme court review.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
coolusername2007 wrote:
Personally, I think a state constitutional amendement would win.
If that were the case, then why bother with incorporation?

I don't know anything about the process to amend the CA constitution, but I'm guessing it would require getting the Democrat-controlled legislature to vote it in... which I doubt would work.
I don't know, but that's the point. I suspect its because lawsuits are the primary avenue for recourse. Then over years of suits it just kind of perpetuates itself. Then one day someone says screw it let's do a constitutional amendment, something that I thoughtisvoted in by the people, not the legislature, just like the recent prop 8 vote - that vote changed the CA constitution.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

For it to be effective, it would have to be 1) more explicit than the 2A 2) include penalties for any government official who violates it. So something like...

Parts (a) and (b) are added to Article I, Section I of the California Constitution, to read:

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.

(a) To this end, all law-abiding adults of sound mental status shall not be in any way interfered from purchasing, possessing, or carrying firearms and/or any tool capable of being used in self-defense, in any manner whatsoever.
(b) Any elected or unelected government official, agent, or employee who interferes is punishable by a fine of $500,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for five years and shall permanently be banned from government employment.


The following Penal Codes are hereby null and void: 12031, 12025, 626.9, etc...
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

That would be great, but such a proposal seems unlikely to the point of impossibility until such a time as it would be practically redundant anyway. It's hardline, too controversial, not mainstream enough -- as much as I personally agree with the sentiment.

Much better is to use the referendum system to pass a not-too-loaded short-and-sweet statement, something a plurality of California voters will agree on (think of how easy a plurality is to obtain...), which will later compel the legislature and the courts in a meaningful way.

I maintain my reference to Prop 215. Easily passed, little more than a declaration of intent, yet it lead to real-world changes for those affected. Now, imagine what the RKBA community could do where those affected by 215 didn't manage to take what they had and run with it. ;)
 

SOneThreeCoupe

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
55
Location
, ,
imported post

All the rallying cries of "Nordyke will be our saving grace" fell upon my deaf ears.

The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back. The Supreme Court has "given us" (oh thank you, our great benefactors) a neutered Second and, even if we can get Kalifornia to accept the national idea of 2A rights, we still aren't free.

We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back. The Supreme Court has "given us" (oh thank you, our great benefactors) a neutered Second and, even if we can get Kalifornia to accept the national idea of 2A rights, we still aren't free.

We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.
I'd like to give this sentiment the old +1.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
The courts are NOT the way to get our 2A rights back.


The history of Bill Of Rights jurisprudence indicates otherwise.



We need the people, which is why OC is so important. OCers get out and educate, they get out and inform, they get out and change opinions on gun owners.


I agree, and this will be most effective in CAwhen we are dealing with a Right to carry and can then mirror the movements in WI, MI, OH and VA for example.

We are like the pathfinders landing on Normandy (two years early :shock:).
 
Top