Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Attorney General Position on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php

    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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    Did he write that before or after Heller? He is off the mark by a bit.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Keep a copy of this somewhere safe. This was definitely written pre-Heller, without a doubt. I doubt the Attorney General will revise this statement and in fact he has had almost two years to revise it since Heller.

    You have to read it very carefully. He essentially is saying that he as Attorney General is bound by law to uphold it and not interpret it. Which I fully agree with.

    Here is where you really understand what his position is regarding the 2nd Amendment:

    "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."

    IMO what he is saying is that he has worked as a legislator for gun control over the years and has been instrumental in enforcing gun control as the Attorney General and strongly supports gun control. He has sworn to preserve and protect gun control and will continue to keep his promise to the people of California to fairly and fully enforce gun control laws, and to defend gun control laws our representatives (him included) have enacted.

    The problem with this is that he has sworn to uphold first and foremost the Constitution of the State of California AND the Constitution of the United States of America. He has not sworn to upload every law on the books, only those that are within the State and Federal Constitutions. IMO any elected official can't be true to their oath of office if they allow State laws to subvert the Constitution of the United States of America and/or the Constitution of the State of California.

    Don't be fooled by some out there that claim that Jerry Brown is the only pro-2A choice for Governor. Do your research and know the facts. I don't know yet who would be the right choice for governor when it comes to second amendment rights, but I know that Jerry Brown is moving down the list very quickly.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Menifee, ,
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    Jerry Brown has been in power in California for almost ALL of the gun rights restrictions.
    If you value your 2nd amendment RIGHT...Dont let jerry brown become Governor in Calif....



  5. #5
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    resonance wrote:
    Ca Patriot wrote:
    Jerry Brown has been in power in California for almost ALL of the gun rights restrictions.
    If you value your 2nd amendment RIGHT...Dont let jerry brown become Governor in Calif....

    So do you contend that Poizner and Whitman are much more pro-2A? Which of them will you be casting your ballot for?
    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

  6. #6
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    Did he write that before or after Heller? He is off the mark by a bit.
    No matter when it was written, it is part of the current CA AG website. And where he states "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.'", and any otherallusions to the 2A being a "collective" rather than individual right, his view has been shown to be completely invalid per the Heller decision.

    Are any of our CA patriots getting in touch with the AG to correct this completely wrong info on the CA AG website?
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Jerry Brown is you're typical California politician, who starts off saying one thing but is obvious that he means something completely the opposite as he continues to talk. The only thing Jerry Brown cares about is what's good for Jerry Brown. (Like most politicians.)

    He is not a supporter of 2A.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  8. #8
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227

    Post imported post

    He says,
    "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."
    .

    From what I have read the Bill of Rights was established by God fearing Bible reading, believing, and studying men of quality and character. From what I have read in the Bible, men wereexpected to arm themselves for self defence and protection. The Sword in Jesus Christs day was the weapon of the day used not only for war but for personal self defence. Here is what Christ said regarding self defence.

    "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (luke 22:36).

    The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in (Matthew 26:52-54).
    Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?
    While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place" He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter's sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

    Politicians who whaffel on about interpreting this particular statement; ""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." are full of hot air and obviously dont understand theenglish language.

    After the words awell-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, It clearly says inthe concluding words;"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, and not justconcentrated in the hands ofa central government.In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.
    The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs them that their's, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people.


    A government who cannot trust its law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms is a government in fear of its people and therefore no government at all.


    Haz.



    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  9. #9
    Regular Member PincheOgro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Perris, Ca., California, USA
    Posts
    420

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    resonance wrote:
    Ca Patriot wrote:
    Jerry Brown has been in power in California for almost ALL of the gun rights restrictions.
    If you value your 2nd amendment RIGHT...Dont let jerry brown become Governor in Calif....

    So do you contend that Poizner and Whitman are much more pro-2A? Which of them will you be casting your ballot for?
    Poizner !

  10. #10
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/...rry-brown.html

    Looks like Don Kates has endorsed Brown for Gov because of aMcDonaldamicus brief submitted by Moonbeam.
    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

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post


    I'm going to go with... "snake in the grass"... these kind of views on the 2A, combined with the position of power, combined with, the total ******** this guy vomited onto this page, the deceptive tone in which he covers his position on gun control makes me kind of sick. Like just before a boxing match or if you ever felt like someone was threatening you and you got a little uneasy for that moment just before something bad was about to happen... That's how I feel when I read this guys puke... Traitor to the people of CA? Are my words too strong? Good, They should be strong. The constitution Declares, from the beginning, that our rights come to Us, from our Creator, not the federal government. Furthermore, these truths being self-evident, though, often overlooked by the arrogant, who assume they can take our God-given rights away, with such ease.

    A great place to write that... What makes him think he can hide his position with such a thin veil? Does he take us for complete idiots or what? This isn't about us only, but our children and so on... What will they do? The next generation, Amassed with debt and no way out of lock down land. 60-70% taxed, inflation, corrupt system and no guns or defense. No way to free themselves from all of it or any of it, and possibly more and then more of course... No free speach, no way to take it back. Are we so lazy...?
    It won't stop growing or feeding on us because,
    that is perhaps, the only nature of the Beast, Self-preservation and gluttony will commence until further notice... but, this is no laughing matter. Of course, it will consume us until we are all drained out of time money and life itself. Little by little it grows, year by year, generation after generation, until it blocks all the light out above our heads, until its completely entangled us all, individually and together.
    All the meanwhile trying to remove the very clippers, trimmers and especially the chainsaws (ie. guns, 50cal.'s, assault rifles, etc.) from our hands.
    They suppose our right to own gardening equiptment, was given to us by men, forgetting that those men themselves, pointed to our Creator. (God bless their souls.) The opposed are in no way, whatsoever, in line with me, my rights, or my Creator:shock: They are traitors to our souls and slaves to other masters; who's very nature is to enslave, since after all, they are slaves themselves. They are no longer freemen but, slaves.
    We need to take peaceful action now. We need to show our teeth a little bit, shake the rattle, if you will... Otherwise, we may wait and find ourselves in a very bad position, at the dentist, sedated, getting our teeth removed, being forced to eat our food through straws or whatever else wicked **** people conjour up, to deliver to other peoples.
    This is exactly why I support, "the current movement of the people" and "consistent open carry".

    Please, be diligent and disciplined to open carry... It may be a little hassle for now, to open carry everywhere, but, It might be more important and instrumental than we know to be courageous and disciplined.

    However, open carrying may prove to be fundamental in the future preservation of our rights and for our children to have any life at all. We can still take it back peacefully but, we gotta keep working at it. We need to look at them, right in the eye, plain as day and just say no way dude.
    And then, after-wards, you may Thank God, our Creator, that we are still able to do that, together, peacefully, and effectively.

    No Man Has Rights Like A Free Man. God Bless our Souls and efforts.
    When the people of a nation go astray, they should be taught Piety and Virtue.
    After all, is it not, these things, which have been forgotten in the first place, by the people, all of them?
    Ensnared and entangled,/ blinded by some delusion of pleasure and a general lack of concern for the truth or each other? Chasing pipe dreams and enslaving themselves through overbearing debt, and finally, forgetting what it is to be free men at all.

Posting Permissions

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