Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 2/20/2001 7:54:00 AM EDT
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/20/scotus.assaultweapons.ap/index.html CNN.com - U.S. Supreme Court upholds California weapons ban - February 20, 2001 U.S. Supreme Court upholds California weapons ban February 20, 2001 Web posted at: 10:53 a.m. EST (1553 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court passed up a challenge to California's pioneering assault weapons ban, opting Tuesday not to decide if the state is applying the law unconstitutionally. The court, without comment, let stand a lower court decision that upheld the state's ability to selectively add weapons to the list of banned models while allowing the sale of nearly identical guns. California's 1989 law was passed in part as a response to a school yard shooting in Stockton, Calif., that year in which five children died. The gunman sprayed the playground with a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle before killing himself. The law was a compromise that backers knew would not cover all forms of assault weapons. Instead, the law banned future sales of specific models of military-style semiautomatic weapons and included a provision that the state attorney general could ask courts to ban other models down the line. Gun control advocates prefer bans that describe the action or characteristics of a prohibited gun without regard to a specific make or model. That way copies of a banned gun are also automatically banned. California amended the 1989 law a decade later to add that kind of coverage. The original California law withstood a constitutional challenge that never made it to the Supreme Court. Several other states patterned assault weapons bans on the California law, although some made their bans more comprehensive from the start. This case focused on the way the California attorney general and state courts can revise and expand the law to cover models that were not originally on the banned list. A group of California men and the gunmaker Colt's argued that through the expansion mechanism "the attorney general is now able to accomplish through the judicial back door what there was insufficient political support to accomplish in the legislature." It is not fair that some models end up banned while similar models are not, the suit said. As applied, the law violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law in part because gun owners and dealers are cut out of the decision when new models are proposed for the ban, and the state does not do enough to inform those most directly affected that their guns may be illegal, the suit claimed. The California Supreme Court upheld the add-on procedure last year. Five years after the California law, Congress prohibited domestic production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. The federal law also expanded existing bans on imports of assault weapons. The case is Kasler v. Lockyer, 00-981. Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © 2001 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 7:56:51 AM EDT
So, what´s next?
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 7:59:03 AM EDT
I guess the Supreme Court is waiting for Emerson. I dont see any mention of the 2nd Amendment, thus it probably doesnt fit the criteria that Thomas is looking for. Kharn
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:02:45 AM EDT
I like the way they imply the USSC ruled in favor of the ban. They simply chose not to hear it. Seen this tactic used by the antis before.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:36:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dr Johnny Fever: So, what´s next?
View Quote
More bans until such time as you can only buy bolt action rifles in Kali.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:37:56 AM EDT
SCotUS refused to hear this case, and rightfully so, IMHO. This is a states rights case. And while we might think the ends justifies the means here in doing away with Kali's weapons ban, we should be mindful of the pandoras box that would be opened by SCotUS meddling in other states rights issues. I REALLY don't want the Feds interfering with local school boards who may approve prayer at HS football games, or local manger / Nativity scenes that the majority of the people have CLEARLY indicated they find to be acceptable. If patriots in California want to do away with these laws, they need to work within state channels, by booting Marxist legislators, Commie governors, and activist judges. We in the rest of the country can help them by sending $$$$ to make it happen.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:37:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ChrisS: I like the way they imply the USSC ruled in favor of the ban. They simply chose not to hear it.
View Quote
Bingo. If the USSC had actually upheld the ban then that would be the law of the land nationwide. They simply refused to hear this case, hopefully because they're waiting for a real Second Amendment case to come before them.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:40:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lordtrader:
Originally Posted By Dr Johnny Fever: So, what´s next?
View Quote
More bans until such time as you can only buy bolt action rifles in Kali.
View Quote
Bolt action SNIPER rifles??? No way Kali will continue to allow them. Them Commies are gonna break y'all down till all ya gots left is black powder muzzleloaders.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 10:16:02 AM EDT
Much as it hurts me to say it, I agree that SCOTUS acted properly. SCOCA was out to lunch when they ruled that the law was (state) constitutional - Allowing the AG to write text into the law violates the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of state government. But having a rogue state Supreme Court is not an issue for SCOTUS. Stay tuned. More legal challenges are coming soon to a courthouse near you. And AW registration has been an utter failure so far. http://www.uniontribune.com/news/uniontrib/mon/news/news_1n19gunlaw.html
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 10:16:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: If patriots in California want to do away with these laws, they need to work within state channels, by booting Marxist legislators, Commie governors, and activist judges.
View Quote
Garandman: I agree with you 110%. We should try to not let these laws pass in the first place, or reverse them on the state level. The problem is that too many of my fellow gunners just sit and do nothing, letting the few people who actually do something carry all of the load. Simply joining the NRA is not enough to ensure their rights. And those folks also rely too heavily on the Courts to reverse these law. It won’t be easy to undo the damage. It will take a long time and a lots of money to reverse these onerous laws. All we are going to have are sling shots. All purchasers of the black powder arms here in Calif. are already required to fill out a 4477. It would not be too hard to force the black powder people to do background checks etc, since the infastructre is already in place. I also think that in some states, the govt. classifies bow & arrows as a firearm.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 10:59:36 AM EDT
News Flash 2002 A ring of illegal weapons dealers were arrested today. Even though they are only 5 years old, they will be tried as adults. All the assault weapons found at the time of the arrest (including a sniper spitwad launcher, a pair of tactical scissors, and some assorted high capacity rocks found in the area) will be destroyed lest they fall into the wrong hands. Seriously though, I think Warlord is on track. They're not going to just stop at some point. In the back of a lot their minds they're no compromise, no weapons at all. It's interesting that the no compromise gun owners are painted as radical militants, while no compromise anti's somehow try to come off as reasonable.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 11:17:18 AM EDT
Garandman, Help me out here. You say it was right for scotus to stay out of this because it was a states rights case. Do Califorian's have a right to keep and bear arms? Do you see banning weapons as an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? I don't know what the legal reasoning for bringing this case to scotus was, or why they refused to hear it. It just seems to me that this is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. And a thank you goes out to those of you in Cali who refuse to register!
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 11:24:05 AM EDT
I hope there is a glimmer of chance that that the AW ban is reversed. Everytime I see a good deal on a lower I get a sick,sad, mad feeling. I did register (I like to be able to use what I have) if they ever try to confiscate....they won't find a thing, whoever thought of the underground railroad was onto something. If I could just reverse time by a year I would have bought a couple more lowers. This sucks!
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 11:30:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By lordtrader:
Originally Posted By Dr Johnny Fever: So, what´s next?
View Quote
More bans until such time as you can only buy bolt action rifles in Kali.
View Quote
Bolt action SNIPER rifles??? No way Kali will continue to allow them. Them Commies are gonna break y'all down till all ya gots left is black powder muzzleloaders.
View Quote
English style law, no ownership of firearms unless you are a criminal then anything goes.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 11:36:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2001 11:50:49 AM EDT by garandman]
Originally Posted By Angel: Garandman, Do Califorian's have a right to keep and bear arms?
View Quote
IF their state Constitution so provides. On a Federal level, read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Congress is PROHIBITED from legislating in areas other than those specifically enumerated within the Constitution. With that in mind, how can SCotUS rule on the Constitutionality of laws that the Feds didn't make???? States rights SHOULD be absolute. For SCotUS to rule on a state law would make state laws just sort of "suggestions" of behaviours that are legal, with the real teeth of the law being federal. Of course, that happens all teh time in ways I dislike. I can't justify that happeninn just becasue I like the end product in this one case. Don't get me wrong - I am as pro-RKBA as anyone. I just happen to believe that you DON'T defend the Second Amendment by violating the Ninth and Tenth.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 11:55:18 AM EDT
SCOTSOC, not SCOCA.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 12:01:12 PM EDT
Yes, this is a state right sadly. Since the 2nd is not under the equal protection act, the states have what ever choices they want. Garandman has it right. We need to protect the 2nd, but without disregarding 2 other amendments. Californians are in this, and only Californians.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 1:54:15 PM EDT
Roberts Well I hope they never try to confiscate your weapons as I hope they never try to confiscate my weapons. But if you think that if they will never find a thing if or when when they do try to confiscate your weapons, you are living in a fools paradise. I am not saying that you are a fool but that you along with a lot of other people made a mistake when you decided to register. I have seen your point of view posted many times, that if they come to take your guns you will just say that they were stolen, lost, fell overboard or that you will just tell them that you moved your guns to another state. Well that will not work out exactly as you have all planned. For one thing what makes you think the gun grabbers will believe you when you tell them that you no longer have the guns that are listed. That they were either lost or were removed from your state. An “underground railroad” for guns come on now you can’t really believe that, it just will not work. Let me tell you what I believe will happen or at least a close proximity. First they will pass the law and give you a set amount of time to turn them in, you will receive a letter listing the exact weapons that you need to turn in. So you will have to contact them and explain to them that you no longer have the “registered weapons”. I don’t believe that the government agents will simply take your word that you don’t have the guns anymore, they will want proof. If you tell them that you sold the guns out of state then you will need to provide a copy of the transfer form. If you tell them the guns were stolen then you better have a filled out police report and proof that your home was really broken into, like a smashed in door etc. What it comes down to, is that they are not just going to take your word that you no longer have what they want. And the bottom line is if you have not turned them in or have positive proof you no longer have them by the turn in date they will add your name to the list of people who have not complied with the law, and you better get ready for a midnight raid. They will not simply show up at your door and politely ask you where your guns are, I think we all know that don’t we. They will search your house and your property and in the process do a good job of destroying it. I have seen posted here many times about how we are going to fool the authorities and tell them that our guns fell overboard while we were fishing and how we are only going to register some of our guns and if you think that the authorities don’t know what we are planning then we are not only fools but are in need of some professional help. What all the people who have registered have done is to limit their choices when the time comes that a confiscation law is passed. And those choices are to comply with the law and turn in their guns and hope that they are not asked, where the rest of their banned guns are since the authorities know all about only registering some of your guns and hiding the rest. Or to use your guns to fight for your rights. Life sucks, Liberty or Death we just may have to make that choice fairly soon. I will fight alongside any true patriot and if I die fighting for what I believe in then so be it, I will be with very good company. Sniper for Justice
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 2:38:18 PM EDT
Sniper I totally see your view and must say I agree with a lot of the facts that you stated. Those agents love crashing into places and over dramatizing many situations. (must be all that time just sitting around and training, works up their appetitie). If they're eager enough to search every family member in each one of their states, then so be it. To sum it up I guess I'm a firm believer in our rights as we all are and I'm also a firm believer in retaining what is rightfully ours. Regards
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 4:09:34 PM EDT
What provision does the State os Kali constitution have for keeping and bearing arms? Exactly right in saying that it is a states rights issue. The Bill of Rights protects us from the federal gov. State constitutions are usually along the same lines.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 4:17:58 PM EDT
Californian's have NO EXPLICIT RIGHT OF FIRE ARM OWNERSHIP! [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=1792128392+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve[/url]
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 4:45:01 PM EDT
State's rights died at Appomattox.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 4:50:40 PM EDT
Article 1 of the California state constitution provides explicitly the right to privacy and (this may surprise some of you) the right to self-defense, but no RKBA.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 4:53:56 PM EDT
Sniper_762x51: Wow! I will agree with you 100%. You are pretty close to being right-on. I admire your commitment. Unfortunately you will probably feel a little like the “Maytag Man,” kind of lonely. I was doing a petition drive to gather signatures to overturn our SB23 Assault Weapons Reg. Law under the auspices of Veto the Governor here in Calif. I was gathering signatures at a local gun show. A lot people asked me what do I get if I signed your petition, my reply was “you get to maybe keep your gun a little longer.” Some of the single action folks reluctantly signed, after we explained that some of their fixed tubular magazined lever-action rifle could be classified as “assault weapons,”(I believe since then, they had got an exemption). A lot of folks told me that they already have theirs and don’t want to be put a list, so they refused to sign our petition. A lot of folks just simply shined us on. With only a handful of people to gather signatures, we had to waste precious time convincing people why they should sign. A few people told me that I was doing a great job, and I asked them to see if they can help, I have never seen anyone run so fast before in my life. If these people won’t do the easy stuff such as signing their name on a piece of paper or help gather signatures, I am pretty these cowards will not stand by you when you really need their help. As for having document proof that you sold you gun own of state, that is happening now. Some people tried to register their detachable magazine SKS late, and Calif. DOJ required positive proof that it was sold out of state. If they came door-to-door confiscation there will be no opportunity to explain anything because you must produce the gun, or else. I believed that somewhere on these boards, someone mentioned that during WWII in Nazi Germany, when “they” came door to door, and you don’t have your gun, they summarily executed you on the spot, no ifs, and/or buts. But please be aware that all of the currently laws are not presently directed at you personally, since you most likely will have one already. These laws are directed at the next generation of people, your sons and daughters or their children, the people who are not old enough to legally buy it now. They will not be legally able to own an AR15/M16, the official battle rifle of the United States. I would like to close by asking, how many years did it take to reduce the legal minimum barrel length from 20inches to 16inches. Answer, 10years, according to Neal Knox.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 5:19:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2001 5:30:36 PM EDT by SaltCreek]
I once believed that confiscation was a possible future event, but I think it is highly unlikely. Do you realize how many people in this country are armed (and well-armed, like this a-hole writing this)? We all know it is in the millions. And of all those millions, there is a very high number of people who would destroy any entity which tried to permanently deprive them of their God-given right of self defense. If confiscation started, word of the event would spread like wildfire across the country. There aren’t enough law enforcement officers in the Nation to attempt a simultaneous confiscation. There would be an absolute slaughter of civilians and government agents, and keep in mind the armed population vastly outnumbers the armed government agents (regardless of how well-equipped the government is). The government wouldn’t stand a chance. And the military? That’s a whole different story, but if they got involved, the United States of America would cease to exist. Why? Because the military would crumble from within (I believe that a large portion of the military would not fire on their own countrymen), and there would be absolute anarchy. The country would be no more. I wonder how Diane Feinstein’s conscience allows her to sleep at night, knowing full well that this is the path she is steering us in????? May she and the likes of her scum rot in [red]HELL!!!!!!!!!!![/red]
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 6:11:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By lordtrader:
Originally Posted By Dr Johnny Fever: So, what´s next?
View Quote
More bans until such time as you can only buy bolt action rifles in Kali.
View Quote
Bolt action SNIPER rifles??? No way Kali will continue to allow them. Them Commies are gonna break y'all down till all ya gots left is black powder muzzleloaders.
View Quote
Yeah, just like the Founding Fathers intended you to have. I can't wait for matchlock drivebys "Damn Leroy I need a patch!"
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 6:36:06 PM EDT
garandman, stubbs You are incorrect, the Supreme Court has the power and has always used it’s power to rule on state laws. If I am correct, what you are suggesting is that the Second Amendment has no effect on state gun laws. If that is correct then the Supreme Court has no power to rule on any state law even though it has done so in the past. So if a state were to pass a law that required people to belong to a specific religion or closed the states newspapers or even had Nazi type extermination camps for the Jews, the Supreme Court would not be able to rule on it because that would interfere with a state’s rights. Well that has not stopped the Supreme Court from ruling on the death penalty, abortion, prayer in schools and religious displays during Christmas has it. And think about this if you are correct then the entire Bill of Rights has no effect on any state law and only effects Federal Laws. Do you really want the states to be completely free to do as they wish, I hope you do not want that. There would then be no freedom for any one unless they were lucky enough to live in a state that believed in freedom. States Rights only go so far, after all this is a nation and not just 50 separate states who happen to belong to something called the United States just like the United States belongs to something called the United Nations. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The First Amendment would seem to mean that the First Amendment, only refers to Federal and not State law since it states, Congress shall make no law. So does it actually give the states the right to regulate both religion and the press. Anyway that is not how it has been applied by the Supreme Court in the past, so a legal precedent has been set. Plus the ninth and tenth Amendments do not mean that the Second Amendment only applies to Federal Law. “Nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” seems to mean that since the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment the states do not have the right to regulate arms since that is prohibited by the second amendment. Sniper for Justice
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 6:42:45 PM EDT
Warlord, Roberts Thanks, I feel the problem is that most of us seem to have their head in the sand and don’t want to believe what is really happening. They are afraid just as I am, the only difference is the way we deal with it. I feel we should meet it head on and let the powers that are in control and all the sheep that follow them know what is at stake and will happen if they keep trying to turn our country into some socialist utopia, which is a very high probability of a civil war and the destruction of our country. While the head in the sand crowd keep talking about how there is nothing we can do and we should just accept our fate or they are never really going to go that far and take all the guns, plus all the rest of their defeatist ideas. I have never said that it will be a certainty that we will prevail or that we who fight will not have to pay a very great price to preserve our freedoms, but that freedom is important enough to at least try to defend and not give up without even trying, which is what some people are suggesting. There are estimated to be between 60 and 80 million gun owners in the United States, and if 10 percent of us were to fight that would be a very large army indeed. And even if only 1 percent of us gun owners were willing to fight for freedom that would equal 600,000 to 800,000 freedom fighters. So what would happen if even this number of patriots were to defy the law and fight for their rights. In the first American Revolution less then ten percent of the population fought in the war and there is no reason why we can not do as well if there is to be a Second American Revolution. If we fight and we lose at least we will have done our best to preserve the freedom that was given to us by our Nation’s Founding Fathers and we will have died as free men and woman. If there is a heaven, and I believe there is, then I do not want to explain to our founding fathers and to God why I did not fight for what I knew was right. I want to go to heaven as a man who knows he did the best he could and never surrendered. The greatest death a person can have is to willingly give your life for God. And next best death is to give your life for something or someone you love. We will all die someday the only difference is when, how and why. The when is not all that important except that I would like to live as long as the next person, the how does make a difference of sorts, we all have some way that we either do not want to die or some way we would prefer to die like a pilot might like to die while flying. But it is the why I am going to die that has the real importance, at least to me.
Link Posted: 2/20/2001 9:32:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By lordtrader:
Originally Posted By Dr Johnny Fever: So, what´s next?
View Quote
More bans until such time as you can only buy bolt action rifles in Kali.
View Quote
As of 1/1/?? you can only buy .22LR bolt actions! Me thinks my Serbu BFG-50 (bolt action 50 BMG)will be banned before I have a chance to break it in!
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 12:49:22 AM EDT
Yeah, just like the Founding Fathers intended you to have. I can't wait for matchlock drivebys "Damn Leroy I need a patch!"
View Quote
There's one I've not heard before. Good one!!!!
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 4:38:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sniper_762x51: garandman, stubbs You are incorrect, the Supreme Court has the power and has always used it’s power to rule on state laws. If I am correct, what you are suggesting is that the Second Amendment has no effect on state gun laws. If that is correct then the Supreme Court has no power to rule on any state law even though it has done so in the past. So if a state were to pass a law that required people to belong to a specific religion or closed the states newspapers or even had Nazi type extermination camps for the Jews, the Supreme Court would not be able to rule on it because that would interfere with a state’s rights. Well that has not stopped the Supreme Court from ruling on the death penalty, abortion, prayer in schools and religious displays during Christmas has it.
View Quote
I never said SCotUS [b] HASN'T [/b] ruled on state matters. I said they [b] SHOULDN'T [/b] rule on state matters. Not to be offensive, but please read more carefully. If a local state, their legislators, their general populace, decides ALL people must wear pink socks on Tuesdays, WHAT RIGHT DOES SCotUS HAVE TO COME AROUND AND SAY OTHERWISE????? When such a law is passed, the ONLY court that has jurisdiction are the STATE courts, and ultimately the STATE supreme court. SCotUS has been overstepping their bounds for 100 years and more. They have NO BUSINESS overruling a state legislature, and a state court on a states rights issue. Otherwise, any state law becomes merely a "suggestion" of legality, with the Feds as the final say. The FF left England to get away from King George. We've recreated King George in SCotUS. You cited the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and they blow your post out of the water. The powers not SPECIFICALLY delegatd to Congress in writing in the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people. [b] HAVING SEVERLY RESTRICTED CONGRESSES ABILITY TO EXERCISE THEIR POWER, DO YOU *****REALLY***** THINK THE FOUNDING FATHER INTENDED TO GIVE THAT POWER TO NINE INDIVIDUALS????? [/B] Think, man.
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 7:07:11 AM EDT
the ONLY answer to this problem is to get libertarians into office. the only way to stop big government (supported by republicans and democrats) is to eiminate it. lets see, if you give a child a hammer he will go around LOOKING for things to hit. the only way to stop it is to TAKE THE HAMMER AWAY. comparatively if you give a republican or democrat the power to make laws, BOY!! will they make laws--we need to take the hammer away from them too. until you take the power away from these jerks you will be forever wondering what the next person elected will do TO your rights! instead consider putting libertarians in control and you will never have to worry about big govenment in your pockets; in your bedroom; in your bank account; in your church; and in your childs school. lets take the president for example. most people here voted for bush because they were afraid of gore. and those for gore, vis-a-versa. but if the president didnt have the power (the extra-constitutional powers) to affect your life, you wouldnt really care WHO was in the white house. as michael cloud wrote: "the problem IS NOT that the politicians abuse power. the problem IS that they have that power to abuse in the first place"
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 7:42:53 AM EDT
Here is an interesting comment to this story from someone at STURMGEWEHR http://www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/general.cgi?read=9837 Correct, much like our FL supreme election fiasco Posted By: mick@mrm (jcvmfl-as-6-ip-21.atlantic.net) Date: 2/20/01 23:47 In Response To: They passed on ruling, did not uphold, different (Jim) The Federal Supreme Court RESPECTS the Constitution. INCLUDING the Bill of Rights. Especially that there 10th Amendment, stating rather clearly that if it ISN'T Their business, they ARE going to keep their Noses Out of it. Sending it Back to the Lower courts, and State Supreme courts is an excellent opportunity to send the message that the US Supreme Court does NOT want to be "Wiping the Butts" of a State Supreme Court if for some reason they have allowed emotion to interfere with logic, and the interpretation of LAW. No State may pass a law that is in direct violation or contradiction WITH the US Constitution, and since that IS the case with this particular piece of legislation via commiefornia lawmakers, the message HAS now been sent. "Clean UP YOUR OWN Act, BEFORE WE Have to"; Bank on the fact that the message was heard loud and clear in the Calif. Supreme Court halls and chambers today. If(like florida a few months back)they ARE Stupid enough to try to "stand their ground" on a majority vote upon "further review", it WILL be back on it's way before the US Supremes Again(and they WON'T be happy about it), and the State Supremes WILL be overturned at that time and embarassed in front of the nation. Hence the reason the US Sup.s like to avoid such a scenario like the plague. It's about round 10 in a 12 round fight. Long time 'till the fat lady sings. -mick
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 8:15:19 AM EDT
Garandman, what about the 14th Ammendment? Under that supposedly most of the rest of the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated" and cannot be violated by state governments. Interestingly, the 2nd is not included...yet.
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 8:34:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The Patriot: Garandman, what about the 14th Ammendment? Under that supposedly most of the rest of the Bill of Rights has been "incorporated" and cannot be violated by state governments. Interestingly, the 2nd is not included...yet.
View Quote
Patriot - The 14th Amendment muddies the waters slightly, but as you indicated teh 2nd Amendment hasn't come under that umbrella yet. Let me put it this way. When states get to decide for themselves on abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriages, gun rights, etc, then you'll get 50 different approaches, 50 different solutions - one that could fit most every persons beliefs and desires. When the Feds or SCotUS comes down with their big mallett, what do you get??? One narrow minded, monolithic, one-size-fits-all solution that makes NO ONE happy. To me, the dividing line of where SCotUS needs to step in is "Does this state legislation / policy CLEARLY and DIRECTLY affect non-residents of that state?" Non-residents have little recourse when ANOTHER state makes a law that affects them. For example, Non-residents of Florida would be DIRECTLY affected by the outcome of HOW ballots were counted in Florida. In situations like that, SCotUS MUST step in to defend the non-residents. Bush's people grabbed onto the 14th Amendment 'cuz that s all they had, but that scares me alittle. Where does it end??? At what point does "incorporation" become "subjugation???" Can SCotUS overturn ANY state law, based on some broad brush application of "incorporation???" As I indicated, I don't want to go there. I would rather NOT get the Kali gun ban overturned by ScotUS, than to open the floodgates of SCotUS or Congress interfering in every minute aspect of my life, or a states sovereignty. There is always the proper state channels to accomplish overturning the Kali gun ban. Alternatively, we should plan an extraction of Kali patriots from the Kommie regime. [:D]
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 10:03:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: Yes, this is a state right sadly. Since the 2nd is not under the equal protection act, the states have what ever choices they want. Garandman has it right. We need to protect the 2nd, but without disregarding 2 other amendments. Californians are in this, and only Californians.
View Quote
I believe you are wrong, Cali is unconstitutionally infringing upon its people's rights. Not just 2nd Amendment but what the founding fathers believed were god-given rights. So the feds should definately step in.
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 3:40:32 PM EDT
Sniper_762x51: I love my adopted country very much. Personally, I am not going to stand by and let it go down the tubes without at least me trying something to prevent it. So many firearms people are sitting on the sidelines and whining about restrictive laws. Talking among ourselves is not going to prevent restrictive gun laws from passing or rescind current oppressive laws, we are hopefully pretty much preaching to the choir. What we need to do is some real grunt work, such as intimidating the anti-gun politicians at the local town hall meeting, by walking precincts and volunteering to help local pro-gun politicians, and to defeat anti-gun politicians. This is a LOT of work. There are a many things that would rather do with my life. But then the alternatives that some people are calling for is really bad. It will take the people in Yugoslavia for example at least one to two generations to completely repair the damage to their infra-structure. I would feel really guilty if we go that route, if we didn’t at least try the easiest way first.
Link Posted: 2/21/2001 10:52:30 PM EDT
Gator, you are correct the rights in the Bill of Rights are God given rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Warlord, Well I have already tried the easy way and it is now too late for it too have much effect on our rights. I fear that the only way that may be left for us to protect our country is the hard way. And I know it will not be fun for anyone, but it may be necessary. There were quite a few things that we could have done years ago that might have made a difference, like going after all those anti gun politicians and people like Rosie and showing them what happens to traitors like in the book unintended consequences. But it is now too late for that, we are in the end game and it will only get worse until someone finally fires the shot that will start the Second Civil War or the Second Revolution whichever you prefer. And that will be the end of our country at least the way we know it. So yes I am very afraid and I can only pray to God that it will all work out and the USA will be saved.
Link Posted: 2/22/2001 11:47:26 AM EDT
You guys arguing about whether the States can regulate firearms and comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st are missing one distinction. The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." about freedom of speech and religion. Nothing about rights. The 2nd amendment states a right. So, the 1st Amendment actually is written to not apply to the States, while the 2nd is written to apply to all. But we have a situation where people are arguing that the 2nd doesnt apply to the states, while the 1st does? Wow. Talk about Orwellian thinking! Madkiwi
Link Posted: 2/22/2001 12:05:50 PM EDT
Madkiwi - The [b] ENTIRE [/b] Constitution is concerned with two areas - (1) the powers delegated to the Congress (i.e. Federal) and (2) the rights reserved to the people, or to the states. BOTH the 1st and the 2nd deal with the rights of the people and the states, hence the name the "Bill of [b] Rights [/b] BOTh the 1st and the 2nd are indicating that the Federal gov't (i.e. the Congress) are PROHIBITED from tresspasing on the [b] RIGHTS [/b] of the states, or the people. In its purest sense, the FF were saying "Congress ( i.e. the Federal gov't) shall not trample these rights, but the states are free to." hence, you ALSO have STATE constitutions that acknowledge the peoples rights to free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, fredom of religion, and as is relevant here, firearms rights (which as we have noted before the Commiefornia Constitution DOES NOT acknowledge the firearms rights of its subjects, er, citizens. Again I say, in the purest sense, the FF were saying "Congress ( i.e. the Federal gov't) shall not trample these rights, but the states are free to." Remember they were midful of King george, and the abuses of centralized power. To further support this point, I offer you the text of the Tenth Amendment: [i]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/i] Remember, "powers" relate to the abilities to make laws. "Rights" supercede laws. Read the text. The "powers not given to the Federal gov't ARE given to the states (i.e. the ability to limit freedom of the press, religion, assembly, speech, and firearms rights."
Link Posted: 2/22/2001 12:09:08 PM EDT
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and [B]the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.[/B]
Top Top