Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: California right to keep and bear arms.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    California right to keep and bear arms.

    Here's a website that was wanting to get this in our Cal-Constitution.
    This is the only way we can win I believe.
    Get it on the ballot.
    Check it out and give me your opinion ! Robin47

    www.crkba.com

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Sorry to continue being a negative nelly, but even if enough signatures were obtained, the constituents from the greater San Fransisc o and Los Angeles areas will dispose of the initiative with prejudice. Free California will be outvoted by a ratio of at least three to one- particularly because of the way this proposed amendment is worded to eliminate 45 years of carefully crafted gun control in one fell swoop.

    The way we get our rights back is, unfortunately up the same path by which they were taken... incrementally, through one little victory at a time.
    Last edited by ConditionThree; 11-07-2011 at 10:04 PM.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    Here's a website that was wanting to get this in our Cal-Constitution.
    This is the only way we can win I believe.
    Get it on the ballot.
    Check it out and give me your opinion ! Robin47

    www.crkba.com
    I have to appreciate the optimism, but please do at least a very small bit of research on ballot initiatives (especially, I would hope, before you say something ironic like, "This is the only way we [gun rights activists] can win I believe. Get it on the ballot [in California].")

    -Brandon
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I could be wrong, but a ballot initiative cannot change the state constitution. The Legislature does that.
    I would hardly expect an anti gun majority in the Legislature to add any 2nd ammendment language to our state constitution.
    The courts are the only way to achieve our goals.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I could be wrong, but a ballot initiative cannot change the state constitution. The Legislature does that.
    I would hardly expect an anti gun majority in the Legislature to add any 2nd ammendment language to our state constitution.
    The courts are the only way to achieve our goals.
    if that was the case, proposition 8 would not have happened.

    You are right about courts being the only way though....
    Last edited by Gray Peterson; 11-08-2011 at 02:03 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    if that was the case, proposition 8 would not have happened.

    You are right about courts being the only way though....
    Ahh good point about prop 8.

    I have no faith in courts though.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Ahh good point about prop 8.

    I have no faith in courts though.
    And I have no faith in the masses of voters.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    And I have no faith in the masses of voters.
    Yea that leaves two of us.....

    As the horrible proposition you just brought up shows.

    And that is why democracy just doesn't work. When a group of people can vote to infringe on the individual liberties of others.

    They have continually increased police power, watered down, rights and priveleges, abused the general welfare and commerce clause to expand powers beyond what is enumerated. Especially since the end of the Lochner period. But hey I am labeled as an extremist because of that thinking......

    What frustrates me about the courts is they will used well thought out reasoning to defeat unconstitutional props like 8 but then totally do an about face and forget such reasoning when dealing with things like firearms, or medical marijuana.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 11-11-2011 at 04:16 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    I believe we don't need to go through, the legislative other then having
    our local Congressman put it on the ballot.
    The petitions we would have to to get and organize, maybe through Cal-Guns
    I think they would help, as there an OC friendly group ?
    Or the "California gun owners group.

    The only other chose is a class action law suit !

    Are there any such law suits going on now about this ?

    Robin47

  10. #10
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    CA does have a RKBA provision.
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    Effectively added by McDonald vs Chicago.

  11. #11
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman View Post
    CA does have a RKBA provision.
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

    Effectively added by McDonald vs Chicago.
    If that is true, so does Illinois... So,... how do you carry a firearm ready for confrontation?
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    One must know how the statutes don't apply to the free men and women of the state and learn how to rebut any presumption that they do apply with NOTICE.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  13. #13
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    The way we get our rights back is, unfortunately up the same path by which they were taken... incrementally, through one little victory at a time.
    It will never happen that way as stated in my signature space.
    People learning more about law, how it is applied and how they can apply it is key.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  14. #14
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    It will never happen that way as stated in my signature space.
    People learning more about law, how it is applied and how they can apply it is key.
    No compromise hmmm?
    And the statutes do not apply to free people?

    If you practice what you preach, 12025, 12031,12050, 626.9, 171b, dont apply to you and you carry concealed and openly and loaded where ever you please. Or have you found some new way to apply these prohibitive statutes that we are not aware of?

    If you arent regularly carrying a loaded gun, your arguement is mooted.
    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

  15. #15
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    After some research, I finally found where California's "right to fish", article 1 sec.25, had been effectively overturned by the court. It happened almost immediately after an initiative to preserve it as a right was voted in, and became law in 1910. 3 years later, the court told a fisherman that sec 25 did not bestow him any rights the state could not take away or otherwise restrict if the state chose to do so.
    So add sec.25 to the constitutional amendments that have preceeded your proposed attempt to chisel another one into the constitution, that have been revoked by the crown. Prop 187, prop 103, and now prop 10 have all been proof that the will of the people be damned where it conflicts with the crown.

    the fisherman's defense:

    The sufficiency of the complaint, or warrant of arrest, is not disputed. The claim of petitioner is:
    "That he has the right to engage in the vocation of fishing for profit (or for pleasure) without the payment of any license therefor, and that this right is secured to him by virtue of the provisions of section 25, art. 1, of the Constitution of the state."
    And the reply from the crown's appointed counsel:

    In Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U. S. 517, 532, 16 Sup. Ct 600, 606 (40 L. Ed. 793), the Supreme Court, by Mr. Justice White (now Chief Justice), said:
    "So far as we are aware, it has never been judicially denied that the government, under its police powers, may make regulations for the preservation of game and fish, restricting their taking and molestation to certain seasons of the year, although laws to this effect, it is believed, have been in force in many of the older states since the organization of the federal government. » « « The ownership being in the people of the state, the repository of the sovereign authority, ana no individual having any property rights to be affected, it necessarily results that the Legislature, as the representative of the people of the state, may withhold or grant to individuals the right to hunt and kill game or qualify or restrict, as. in the opinions of its members, will best subserve the public welfare. Stated in other language, to hunt and kill game is a boon or privilege, granted either expressly or impliedly by the sovereign authority, not a right inherent in each individual, and consequently nothing is taken away from the individual when he is denied the privilege at stated seasons of hunting and killing game. It is perhaps accurate to say that the ownership of the sovereign authority is in trust for all the people of the state, and hence by implication it is the duty of the Legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state. But, in any view, the question of the individual enjoyment is one of public policy and not of private right."

    Of the police power, Freund on Police Power, p. 19, says:
    "The police power is the power to restrain common rights of liberty to property. When it is sought to exercise rights which are not common or fundamental, still more when special privileges are asked, the state may grant the required permit or license upon such conditions as it pleases, without observing the limitations which otherwise hedge about the exercise of the police power."
    The restrictions upon the right to fish and pursue game are given among other "conspicuous illustrations" of the exercise of power respecting cases of qualified property.
    That the imposition of a license tax of $10 per annum for the privilege of fishing in the waters of the state for profit is a reasonable tax we are satisfied. The food fishes caught in those waters have an annual value running into millions of dollars, and furnish the means of livelihood to thousands of our citizens. Large sums are expended annually by the state to maintain the propagation of our food fishes and to prevent the decrease of the supply. It Is but fair that those who profit by these laudable and paternal efforts of the state should contribute something towards their cost, and this license tax is, from the nature of the business, the only tax which can be imposed to aid in the protection of this important Industry.
    We think also that the imposition of this license has a tendency to protect the fish and prevent their extermination, and the Consti
    tution expressly authorizes the Legislature to "enact laws for the protection of fish." Section 25%, art. 4. The writ is denied.
    I am now committed to helping assemblyman Tim Donnelly with his effort to place an initiative before the people in regards to overturn the DREAM Act. I am going to finish that, because a committment is important to me, but after that I will not be seeking to make any more citizen based initiatives until the people have the power required to enforce them. It has become clear to me that the crown does not respect the electorate, nor will they heed their wishes.
    I tell you I cannot believe the twisted logic and convoluted pathway that the court took in nullifying article 1, sec.25. I was further disturbed how the court threw in references to personal rights where none were tendered by the appellant, most likely so they could refer to this case when a non-commercial fisherman tendered the same defense. The court conspired here, and that's the only way I can read it. But basically we can spin our wheels making claims to our power all we want as far as the crown is concerned. In the end, they will have the veto power.

  16. #16
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    If that is true, so does Illinois... So,... how do you carry a firearm ready for confrontation?
    At present that is don't ask don't tell.

    Our current unloaded concealed carry is less effective than your current unloaded open carry.

    Our legislature refuses to do anything and we have two pending actions, one which the trial court has been sitting on a request for injunctive relief for months.

    Patients is not one of my best virtues.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: The whole 'Sovereign Citizen' movement is not something that is welcome here.

    We advocate for legal change through the courts, the legislatures and the media. If you believe that the laws of the United States or your state do not apply to you, THEN THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR YOU.

    If, however, you believe that you are subject to these laws but that true citizens have a duty to work to see unconstitutional laws repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts, then WELCOME ABOARD!
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  18. #18
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawful Aim View Post
    The statues apply to those who profess to be U.S. Citizens/residents and not state citizens/nationals.

    “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
    United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

    “...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
    McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

    “That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
    Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

    "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
    Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383


    “The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
    Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

    “There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
    Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

    “The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
    Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

    “...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
    Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)


    Excellent sites to begin understanding;
    http://www.state-citizen.org/
    http://www.usavsus.info/

    You have completely dodged answering the question I posed by posting bits and pieces of rulings that may very well be nothing more than dicta, not one of which is any less than 50 years old.

    Let's make this really simple;

    Yes or no; Do you carry a firearm ready for use in the state of California as a 'state citizen' in defiance of statutes 12025, 12031, 696.9, and 171b absent a 12050 license?

    I assert that if you do not carry a firearm in any manner and any place you please, that none of the posted material and websites is relevant- and that you do not believe your own claims and will not practice what you promote or that you do not possess the confidence in your position to be insulated from prosecution in the event you are wrong.
    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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529
    Quote Originally Posted by Save Our State View Post
    After some research, I finally found where California's "right to fish", article 1 sec.25, had been effectively overturned by the court. It happened almost immediately after an initiative to preserve it as a right was voted in, and became law in 1910. 3 years later, the court told a fisherman that sec 25 did not bestow him any rights the state could not take away or otherwise restrict if the state chose to do so.
    So add sec.25 to the constitutional amendments that have preceeded your proposed attempt to chisel another one into the constitution, that have been revoked by the crown. Prop 187, prop 103, and now prop 10 have all been proof that the will of the people be damned where it conflicts with the crown.

    the fisherman's defense:



    And the reply from the crown's appointed counsel:





    I am now committed to helping assemblyman Tim Donnelly with his effort to place an initiative before the people in regards to overturn the DREAM Act. I am going to finish that, because a committment is important to me, but after that I will not be seeking to make any more citizen based initiatives until the people have the power required to enforce them. It has become clear to me that the crown does not respect the electorate, nor will they heed their wishes.
    I tell you I cannot believe the twisted logic and convoluted pathway that the court took in nullifying article 1, sec.25. I was further disturbed how the court threw in references to personal rights where none were tendered by the appellant, most likely so they could refer to this case when a non-commercial fisherman tendered the same defense. The court conspired here, and that's the only way I can read it. But basically we can spin our wheels making claims to our power all we want as far as the crown is concerned. In the end, they will have the veto power.

    Thanks SOS, I always wanted to know how they "Weasel worded" to force their will on "We The People".
    Rats ! All of them.
    One of these days, the people will say "Enough is Enough" most likely when they get real hungry.
    Will our rights be restored in California ? Not if "They" can help it.
    Its a tough fight.
    All we can do is take one day at a time.

    Well that judge, and all who follow him are totally wrong.
    First "they" don't own the Animals, or the Fish.
    The one who owns them is the one who made them God !
    Genesis 1:25-30 And the "Right" to use them for food or whatever IS the right of Man.
    So in reality its a Spiritual war going on world wide.

    The Right to keep and Bear arms is also a fundamental God given right.
    That's Common Law!
    It don't have to be written down, if anyone has Common Sense these days.
    As SOS says, "The Crown is demanding to be your god".

    We must continue to resist this evil. That is making unarmed victims of us all.
    Keep up the good fight and Carry on !

    Robin47

  20. #20
    Regular Member Save Our State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Golden State
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Robin47 View Post
    As SOS says, "The Crown is demanding to be your god".
    Robin47
    I din't actually say that Robin. And I don't know that God gave us the right to bear arms. But really, it was not the bible the court was interpreting; However, they tend to be comparable to those who interpret the bible, or the word of God. I don't believe they are truly interpeting without bias. The crown I refer to is our judiciary having constantly relied upon the English common law instead of encouraging the people and the legislature to clearly write their will. It hardly seems to fit that we formed a more perfect union, or are independent., when the courts take every opportunity to link us at the hip to the previous direction of the king and his edicts.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238
    Lawful Aim:

    We do not allow calls for lawbreaking here. You will immediately cease this activity on the forum.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Lawful Aim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    129
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: The whole 'Sovereign Citizen' movement is not something that is welcome here.

    Right on, I am in agreement with that.

    We advocate for legal change through the courts, the legislatures and the media. If you believe that the laws of the United States or your state do not apply to you, THEN THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR YOU.

    I agree with that too. My post containing court cites is intended introduce the fact that under the law statutes don't always apply to everyone, all the time.

    If, however, you believe that you are subject to these laws but that true citizens have a duty to work to see unconstitutional laws repealed by the legislature or overturned by the courts, then WELCOME ABOARD!

    Thank You.
    The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it. -Albert Einstein
    Liberty that was diminished in increments has never been restored by the same. -Lawful Aim
    One who compromises in steps toward freedom will always be compromising. -Lawful Aim
    It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    26

    Voters

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
    And I have no faith in the masses of voters.
    ...I think you just paraphrased one of my all-time favorites quotes. It is:
    " I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" - Thomas Carlyle

Posting Permissions

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