California is a free State. The people only need to learn how the statutes DO NOT apply to them except by CONSENT.
If the sites below exist, how is it that the people are having their rights trampled?
It is by CONSENT. When the people learn how and apply non-consent we will see less trampling and more exercising.
...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... -The Declaration of Independence
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant,
before those who sleep on their rights..]
Lawful Aim,
Here's where I see your strategy failing. I will say first that I agree with many of the points you have made over time. But,,,,
The law that is written is only adhered to by those who can defend it. The courts here in California will abandon the written law, or interpret it to suit their needs. Many of the plainly written constitutional protections, declarations, and gaurantees, are not defended by any omnipitent being; just mere men. Corruptable, weak, and fallible men. So when you show them the escape clauses, and they have no plain answer for them, they will write one so complicated that it will justify it. Then, all you have is a higher court that will be borne of the same cloth as the lower one. When court fails, it is back to survival of the fittest. You have been betting on legalities and fair hearings, and although much of that has been extended to some of you, were your strategy to catch on, the heirarchy will punt, leaving you with no options. Right now the courts have dismissed the defenses you and yours have tendered because they are not worthy of their time. When it is, and the stakes are higher, they will put you through the wringer, with motions, hearings, and rulings that will build a permanent pathway to their firm and forever decision.
I have seen this already from some associates, although not had it happen to me. I've seen jury trials denied even though it's a right declared under California Constitution.
They just give 34 pages of reference and case law that somehow made it all plausible to assume that that right didn't mean what it said. Likewise for many other rights. Unless something turns up that the court fears will entangle some other precedent, they can twist and turn to defend the crown. I do like that you make the lower courts squirm and hide. That's as it should be. But the big boys deal in power, and when the castle is threatened they will throw you in irons or deprive you at will. This gun issue is one that is near and dear to them, and you're not going to deter them with tomfoolery, which is how they'll call it.