Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/6/2001 6:08:27 PM EDT
In reading this thing for the upteem time, it seems to me that it violates the fifth amendment of the US Constitution. This is for deprived of property without due process. Here's my reasoning: it is legal for a resident of another state to bring in his/her AR for competition but illegal for a resident to do so. Therefore, if a non-resident can keep but bring in an AR for competition, a resident should be afforded the same rights. Or, other words, a resident should be able to keep an AR out of state (okay by the CA DOJ) and bring it in for competition (not okay by the CA DOJ or SB23). So here's me question... who is seriously challenging SB23 in courts and not on a petition?
Link Posted: 11/6/2001 6:28:45 PM EDT
Sure it's unconstitutional, just like most gun laws. But since when did the gov't of the PRK care anything about constitutional rights?
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 5:40:19 AM EDT
The fact that it's legal for a resident of another state to temporarily import an "AW" into California in order to participate in a match is buried so deep in "spaghetti code" that very few people even know that fact. I doubt that many have done so. FWIW I completely agree with you completely. The law - Penal Code section 12280 (p) - gives special privileges to people who DON'T live in California. There's something distinctly un-American about that. It's like something Cuba would do - in fact Cuba DOES allow commerce in US dollars to everyone EXCEPT Cuban citizens.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:31:12 AM EDT
of course to bring in the AW one needs a CA DOJ permit that is NEVER GIVEN!
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:52:39 AM EDT
"Due Process" in this case was the procedure that the Legislature followed to enact the law.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 8:58:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stator: So here's me question... who is seriously challenging SB23 in courts and not on a petition?
View Quote
Fresno District Attorney Ed Hunt. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 9:04:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: "Due Process" in this case was the procedure that the Legislature followed to enact the law.
View Quote
That's certainly what the state will claim. I say it's not due process because it's a rogue government. I doubt that argument would get far in a court system run by the same rogue government.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 9:11:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/7/2001 9:05:55 AM EDT by punkatomic]
You're absolutely right. And another thing, the AR-15 rifle is a modern militia weapon if there ever was one. You have (or, had) a Civilian Marksmanship Program that supported marksmanship fundementals throughout the twentieth century and two World Wars. To call this rifle an "Assualt Weapon" is an insult to the Veterans who defended this country and a violation of the Constitution in the most egregious manner. Allowing civilians to own, possess "America's Rifle", and practice rifle marksmanship with the proper militia-type rifles is homeland security at work, and this point ought to be driven home even more forcefully now that we're at war against terrorism!!!
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 12:31:27 PM EDT
Here's a link to the Fresno lawsuit. Good thing is it's state money against state money. [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20011105-28385456.htm[/url]
Fresno District Attorney Ed Hunt is taking the unusual step of suing the state attorney general to overturn the regulations behind California's stringent 1999 ban on assault weapons. "It's a matter of due process," said Mr. Hunt. "If I don't understand the law, how can Joe Sixpack?"
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 2:18:35 PM EDT
Ed Hunt is correct but I'd take it a step farther. If Joe Sixpack can't understand a law there's no way an average state Senator or Assembly member could understand it.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 5:09:41 PM EDT
cyrax777- It is my understanding that non-residents don't need a permit from the DOJ to bring in their AR for competition. The permit process is for CA residents and CA corporations like Enterprise Arms (located in Irwindale east of L.A.) which obviously has a permit. Nice of our DOJ to give Enterprise Arms a permit to manufacture "evil" AWs for export to other states. chaingun- thanks for the link. I think I will check into contributing to Ed's campaign. I think Ed Hunt has a very good point because even the CA DOJ has posted simplified text on CA's AW laws.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 5:39:32 PM EDT
California_Kid, Whether or not you like it, the lawfully elected legislature enacted laws that were signed into law by the lawfully elected governor. Constitutionally speaking, that was "Due Process." Your opinions are yours. They have no legal standing. Chaingun, It's not "state money against state money." It's taxpayer money against taxpayer money. We the taxpayers are financing both sides of this case.
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:29:33 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/7/2001 6:40:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut: Well if the Emerson ruling were to carry over to PRK, which I know it doesn't. Then it would fall onto the state to show why they needed this exception to the 2nd. The decision in Miller already states the individuals RKBA but it said that the sawed off shotgun didn't fit the nitch as a military weapon. Since they are banning military style gun features then it would have to be struck down. This being the case then the state would have no cause in claming "must have a sporting purpose" with their laws.
View Quote
I brought this up in the "Will the ban sunset?" thread. Doesn't the Emerson decision fly directly against the 1994 assault weapons ban, as well as the 1989 and 1993 executive orders banning the importation of rifles with a "non-sporting purpose?" God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 11:14:13 AM EDT
Dave_G: The argument of whether our government is rogue or not is based upon the arguement that when members of our government breaks their sworn oath, they are no longer legally elected leaders but elected leaders gone rogue. The sworn oath being to defend the constitution. I would think this is California_Kid's arguement not simply whether they were elected or not by itself. As to the Emerson judgement from the fifth, they stated that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply for unilateral firearms rights, but just equally stringent tests much like the 1st. So the question is whether the 94 crime bill meets this stringent test for individual rights or not. I do say it has no merits but the 1930's NFA does as it originally existed.
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 12:32:18 PM EDT
stator, Your "rogue government" argument is without merit. You or Kid, as private citizens, lack the Constitutional authority to declare an elected official or government to be illegitimate or “rogue”. To use such language tends to make your arguments sound like the prattling of a spoiled child. Also, the 5th Circuit’s Emerson decision was not a binding one concerning 2nd Amendment issues even in the 5th Circuit due to the way Judge Garwood worded the majority opinion. It now falls on Dr. Emerson to appeal to the US Supreme Court. Even if that appeal is successful, it falls on others to challenge any gun ban on 2nd Amendment grounds. Those challenges would likely have to be fought all the way back to the highest court, too.
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 2:20:58 PM EDT
Dave_G: I truely don't understand your rant about using the word rogue to describe the politicians in CA. Webster's defines rogue as: a "dishonest or worthless person". Seems to me that would fit many politicians including the likes of Clinton and Condit. It would also fit someone who had sworn to uphold and obey the US constitution but does the opposite as that is dishonesty as well. It sounds like Davis and Perata can be included. If you don't like Webster's definition but the more common one of "being in little control or out of control", then it is still applicable. The US consitution is unarguably the basis of "the people" maintaining control over the government. When our elected officials fail to uphold the consitution, they have truely undermined control. Finally, because you penned the word "spoiled child", you owe California_Kid an apology in my view. BTW, emerson is appealing to SCOTUS. I've already followed another AR15.com member's lead and donated $250 for the defense fund. How about you? Perhaps, if it is okay with California_Kid, you can apologize by donating too.
Link Posted: 11/8/2001 4:59:16 PM EDT
Prattle, prattle, prattle....
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 1:03:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 6:56:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2001 9:49:14 AM EDT by Chaingun]
Originally Posted By Dave_G: Chaingun, It's not "state money against state money." It's taxpayer money against taxpayer money. We the taxpayers are financing both sides of this case.
View Quote
Right, but all previous ventures were from private funds (read Big Bear's list). This suit is finally state tax money against state tax money. a very first for the 2nd in Kalif. [b]Unconstitutional laws[/b] I'm still unclear as to how the people protect their constitutional rights from politicians. For instance, similar to the current anti-2nd laws, Kalif could pass a law stating "Everyone has the right to free speech if approved by the Kalif gov." They now create a black list of groups (like the banned reciever list) not allowed to have free speech. Missing is a check to prevent this from happening. Then it takes the people an average of 10 years to repeal the law, if they are lucky to win in the court system.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 9:46:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2001 9:41:23 AM EDT by Dave_G]
Chaingun, You are missing the mark by a wide margin. The money was not earned by the state. Every penny of the money in the state treasury belongs to the people of the State of California. It is either money paid in taxes or money paid as interest or return on the investment of taxpayer money. It's our money that our elected officials are disbursing. Our money is financing both sides of the Fresno suit. The State does not own the money. The State [b]controls[/b] it. Rush Limbaugh put it very well: [green][b]"It's your money!"[/b][/green] Elect a conservative government and the money will be spent differently. We also wouldn't be projecting a $15 billion deficit just three years after a Republican Governor left behind a $5 billion surplus, but that's another problem. As for the paragraph on unconstitutional laws, we are in the US 9th Circuit which has held that the 2nd is not an individual right. All of the laws are therefore nominally constitutional until the issue is decided by the US Supreme Court.
Link Posted: 11/9/2001 10:50:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stator: Dave_G: ...Finally, because you penned the word "spoiled child", you owe California_Kid an apology in my view. BTW, emerson is appealing to SCOTUS. I've already followed another AR15.com member's lead and donated $250 for the defense fund. How about you? Perhaps, if it is okay with California_Kid, you can apologize by donating too.
View Quote
Thanks for the support but I can take the heat from my esteemed fellow contributor Dave_G. My original remark was worded so as to make it clear that I wasn't presenting it as a viable argument in a literal sense. I DO believe that our elected officials have failed to uphold the Constitution of the state. What I'd like to see happen in the long run is for the beleagured citizens of California to get their heads out of the sand and see what the hacks in Excremento are doing to us. Of course Dave_G is correct that only the state's high courts have standing to declare a law unconstitutional. But the disease has infested all branches of the state government at all levels.
Top Top