Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 8/25/2004 10:30:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 10:30:55 PM EDT by Airwolf]
MOTHERFUCKING SON-OF-A-BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Koretz can rot in HELL for this!

Thread at TheHIghRoad:


Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:30:58 PM EDT
Hurry go buy one use a cc
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:32:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 10:37:59 PM EDT by Leisure_Shoot]
I am so sorry for you guys and your shitstain representatives.

from The High Road...

originally posted by stv

Who's to say someone won't create a wildcat based on a necked-down 50 BMG and call it '.499 Koretz' or the like?

edit: I think I saw this on calguns, as .499 feinstein

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:45:16 PM EDT
<fuckin-liberal-mode> Aww come on, why would you need one of those to go hunting? </fuckin-liberal-mode>

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:49:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:54:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Leisure_Shoot:
I am so sorry for you guys and your shitstain representatives.

from The High Road...
originally posted by stv

Who's to say someone won't create a wildcat based on a necked-down 50 BMG and call it '.499 Koretz' or the like?

edit: I think I saw this on calguns, as .499 feinstein

That was me. My idea!! I COPYWROTE IT!!! .... OK well.... I didnt copywrite it...

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:21:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 11:26:49 PM EDT by Moof]

This thing is scarier than I thought, much scarier. Once again, in addition to ignoring the 2nd, they've granted the CA AG far too much discretionary power (remember when they said, basically, "Well, we don't really understand what exactly constitutes an 'assault weapon,' so we'll just leave that up to you to determine, okay?").

And that whole Consolidated Firearms Information System...oh don't get me started.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:23:30 PM EDT
Fuck, glad I'm here.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:35:12 PM EDT
When we say to get out of that state, some get mad and say stuff like "thanks for not supporting us" and "leaving is not the answer", but every damn day, it seems, they are passing some even more fucked up law.

I don't care about the scenery, the women, or how much you think the rest of the nation needs Kali, get the fuck out. Kali is lost. I see no signs of turning it around, ever! Instead of making any progress, gun owners in Kali keep sinking deeper and deeper into that hole. Not blaming you guys, but just stating what you are up against and I see no way for you to ever change that state back to something resembling America.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:47:25 PM EDT
arnold is spoda be a big time gun collector, so i guess this is his first test on gun rights.

even if he signs the law, it wont go into affect until 2005, which means there is still time to get a 50cal by the end of the year.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:48:55 PM EDT
I still can't believe that this would get passed considered noone has even been killed by one of these rifles in the entire US.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:49:12 PM EDT
He will sign it. There's no doubt about it.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:49:45 PM EDT
I got my 2 year plan to get out of here......... and am marking the days on my calander. Then i will join you guys in Free America

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:58:24 PM EDT
I can see Arnold owning a fifty. Hope he doesn't sign it.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:59:39 PM EDT


Link Posted: 8/26/2004 12:03:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 12:04:19 AM EDT by Moof]
Another fine sample of logic...


(a) It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities.

Oh really?! But surely you can see that multi-thousand dollar, 30+ pound, single shot and non-select-fire .50 BMG rifles are, by design, intended for target shooting?!

(b) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of .50 BMG rifles, as defined in Section 12278, poses a clear and present terrorist threat to the health, safety, and security of all residents of, and visitors to, this state, based upon findings that those firearms have such a high capacity for long distance and highly destructive firepower that they pose an unacceptable risk to the death and serious injury of human beings, destruction or serious damage of vital public and private buildings, civilian, police and military vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities, petrochemical production and storage facilities, and transportation infrastructure.

Actually no, I don't see .50 BMG's as a clear and present terrorist threat. I see your open border policy as a clear and present terrorist threat.

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 12:04:27 AM EDT

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 12:26:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand1911:

even if he signs the law, it wont go into affect until 2005, which means there is still time to get a 50cal by the end of the year.

Actually with the registration scheme as outlined in the bill, for all practical purposes The State would own the rifle; you'd only be allowed to hold it, with its use and transport strictly regulated, until such time that The State decides to confiscate it (or as they'll probably word it when the time comes, in order to make it more palatable, "buy it back").
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:21:49 AM EDT
Interested to see what Arnould does. However I expect I will be saying "Dont blame me, I voted for McClintock" again very soon.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:28:53 AM EDT
This isn't as much of a travesty as the next law will be. How's that for a kick in the pants?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:31:56 AM EDT
Would the last American out of California please tannerite the San Andreas on their way out!

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:40:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 4:58:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By A_G:
He will sign it. There's no doubt about it.

Yes, he will. Guaranteed.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:08:16 AM EDT


Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:09:23 AM EDT
Sorry guys. Cali always seems to be the top of the hill and their shit laws roll down onto the rest of us eventually. I feel like we are in the decline and fall of Rome. Decadant, top-heavy, full of laws about everything. Collapse is inevitable. This is just another sign as our freedoms are sliced away.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:14:18 AM EDT
arnold will sign it and then he will give his speach espousing freedom at the republican convention.

How much do you want to bet he will say something about losing freedom if kerry gets elected......
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:17:40 AM EDT
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell everyone in kali that it;s their own damn fault.

But really it's just another anti-gun law that was shoved down thier throats.

I hope barret decides not to sell ANY .50s to ANY Kali LE agencies like was threatened a year or so ago when this first came up.

Lets ban a gun that has never ever been used in a crime.......

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:19:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:24:17 AM EDT
Nuke it from orbit--it's the only way to be sure.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:35:37 AM EDT
CA is geographically beautiful but demographically ugly.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:37:38 AM EDT
And, just think, when it gets to the Federal court system, the administration will support the ban, just like they did the Kali AWB!!!!

"Reasonable Restrictions", Ashcroft!!!!
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:41:00 AM EDT
.. the records stuck.. the records stuck.. the records stuck...

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:41:41 AM EDT
I am glad I got the F out of that POS state. What a joke.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:43:54 AM EDT
bow down before the one serve you're gonna get what you deserve

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 5:45:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 5:56:34 AM EDT by lippo]

By the time you guys in Kalistan figure out that you need to get more agressive with your state government and enlightening the local sheep, the only thing you'll have to fight with if they start rounding up people for death camps...is ROCKS. Or will they ban those too?

The 2nd amendment doesn't have anything to do with hunting or "sporting purposes" and you guys need to let them know that.

Do I see a lawsuit coming? Oh, I hope so
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:19:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 6:20:53 AM EDT by Airwolf]

Originally Posted By lippo:
By the time you guys in Kalistan figure out that you need to get more agressive with your state government and enlightening the local sheep, the only thing you'll have to fight with if they start rounding up people for death camps...is ROCKS. Or will they ban those too?

I've posted this link before. This is what happened LAST YEAR when they tired to pass AB50. Read it carefully and you'll see that what "the people" want in thiis state doesn't mean jack shit if those in power have a bug up their ass about a personal agenda.

I haven't seen any blow-by-blow of what went down this year so I can't say if the "fix" was in as well, but given how things work in Sacramento....


50bmg: Descent into Madness 48 Hours in the California Legislative System

Descent into Madness
48 Hours in the California Legislative System

Michael Marks
Executive Director
The Fifty Caliber Policy Institute

Stereotypes are a common part of American culture. Often as not they
are based on a grain of truth wrapped in a mile of exaggeration. While
most of us enjoy a good laugh at the wacky world of California
politics, a rational man might think that accounts of strange thinking
on the Left Coast, like any good bass fishing story, were a little
larger than life. After spending two days in the halls of California
state government in Sacramento, it is apparent that the inmates are
running the asylum.

California is struggling with the biggest budget crisis in its history.
Take note, we are not talking about your run-of-the-mill budget
shortfall where teachers and medical services are cut as a first-line
response. California is so awash in red ink that on the day I arrived,
the Sacramento District Attorney’s office filed a proposal with the
state under which it will simply stop prosecuting misdemeanor crimes
because it cannot afford the staff. A subsequent component of that
proposal will cease supervision of all paroled criminals, misdemeanor
and felons alike, for lack of parole officers. Jails are releasing
prisoners they can’t afford to house. The implications of this are
staggering. The message to criminals is clear-- hunting season is open
on law-abiding Californians because the government can’t afford to
prosecute you!

With the state budget coughing up blood like a bad horror movie, you
would think that legislators would be focused on the urgent task of
fixing the economy. Issues like tax-relief come to mind, or paring down
excessive government waste. That would be the agenda of any competent
legislator, but not for those who govern the land of Oz. Given all of
the options open to the Democrat-led Assembly on Public Health, the
best idea they could come up with to help the citizens of California
was to dump time, resources and money into banning a bolt-action target

The catastrophic failure in judgment is California bill AB50, authored
by Paul Koretz of the Hollywood area. In his bill, Mr. Koretz expressed
a sky-is-falling need to ban .50 caliber target rifles by including
them in the ever-changing definition of “assault weapon”. The strident
urgency driving this bill was Mr. Koretz’ claims that these bolt-action
rifles are a terrorist superweapon which have the ability to shoot
planes out of the sky, punch holes through tanks, and kill people in
armored limousines from four miles away.

Mr. Koretz should send his report to the Pentagon. Apparently the
greatest assembly of military minds and experience on earth has
universally overlooked the earth-shattering power of the humble target
rifle. Perhaps they missed “superweapon day” in basic training. The
more likely answer is that Assemblyman Koretz took on an ultra-liberal
cause that most Democrats would have been ashamed to author, having no
real idea what he was doing. During questioning on the floor of the
committee, Koretz admitted, “I don’t understand much of this gun stuff,
I just think they are bad.” Well, Koretz was half-right... he clearly
doesn’t understand gun stuff.

Thankfully, there were some people on the Public Safety committee who
do understand, people who made an effort to demand a few facts before
signing another blank check for a bill listed as “fiscal impact not yet
determined”. On the forefront of this group was Assemblyman Jay La
Suer. Drawing on an extensive experience in law enforcement, La Suer
knows a great deal about crime in California. He conferred with
recognized experts on terrorism to either confirm or rebut the
emotion-packed claims set forth in the bill. With a prosecutor’s focus
on hard fact, La Suer began to grill the small handful of AB50
proponents. The facts he revealed told a very different story.

How many years have .50 caliber rifles been in civilian hands? Over
80 years.
In that time, how many people in America have been killed by these
rifles? Zero.
How many aircraft have been shot, on the ground or in the air? Zero.
How many limousines have been shot through? Zero.
How many oil refineries have been blown up? Zero.

One by one La Suer dissected the claims of what was soon exposed as
just another myopic gun ban pushed to center stage while the economy
burned. At one point, La Suer’s growing disgust crossed its limit. The
Assemblyman vehemently expressed his outrage that the time and
resources of the state were being diverted from the economy to even
consider such a blatant sham and he called on Koretz to pull the bill
so they could get on with real work. Koretz simply smiled and refused,
knowing the fix was in. His fellow Democrats on the committee seemed
all-too eager to rubber-stamp the bill in spite of the facts.

But wait, you say! Government is a collective process; there are checks
and balances to weed out the quacks, right? Well, sadly for
Californians, the government seems to have a lot of checks and very few
balances. That would certainly explain the thirty billion dollar budget
crisis that threatens Governor Gray Davis with a growing prospect of
being recalled.

On this day, the only other balance to help protect the California
economy was Assemblyman Todd Spitzer. Like La Suer, Spitzer seemed very
concerned that the Assembly was being fed a bag of lies. It was also
clear that Spitzer had done his homework. He asked pointed questions
regarding the basis of allegations made by Koretz, pointing out that
numerous statements made in the bill were prefaced by “it is said
that...”. Spitzer wanted to know who said it, and what tests had been
run. He demanded facts in place of innuendo. As before, supporters of
AB50 could point to no document, no experience, no test or study to
support their claims. A representative of the Los Angeles Police
Department with 26 years on the job admitted that in all that time he
had never run into a single .50 caliber rifle involved in any way with
any criminal activity. Not once.

The farce became even more apparent when La Suer asked the LAPD officer
what weapons he had seen used in violent crimes. The answer ranged from
handguns to knives, tools and the ever-popular “blunt objects”. La Suer
asked if all of these items used to commit murder were presently
banned, to which the officer answered no. “Do you think they should be
banned?” La Suer asked calmly, and again the officer firmly answered
no. It was then that La Suer cut to the chase. “Well then explain to me
Officer, how is it that you don’t want to ban things that have killed
people, yet you want to ban something that you admit has never killed
anyone and has never been used in any sort of crime?” Speechless, the
officer mumbled and backed away from the microphone.

The small handful of supporters for AB50 included the usual suspects;
the Violence Policy Center, which survives by scaring unwitting
citizens into making donations, as well as their ill-disguised
offshoot, the Trauma Foundation. There was a representative of the
Brady organization, a member of the Million Mom March and a handful of
others. Their entire presentation lasted a few short minutes. This came
as no great surprise-- armed with no facts and only a handful of tall
tales, even hardcore fanatics can only tap dance for so long.

In contrast, the line of opponents to AB50 filled the front table, ran
down the length of the room and out into the hall. They ranged from
industry representatives to shooting enthusiasts to military
memorabilia collectors. Mr. Bill Ritchie, owner of EDM Arms, spoke
passionately as the only rifle manufacturer left in the state of
California. He explained that he could be forced to relocate if the
bill became law. He spoke of the employees who would lose jobs, of the
tens of thousands of tax dollars the state would lose, not to mention
the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually funneled to California
machine shops, case manufacturers and other suppliers who rely on EDM’s
business. But those were facts that went to the economy; those facts
meant jobs and revenue. The Democrats on the Public Safety Committee
made it all too clear that financial issues were not their concern.
They were on a political agenda.

Ritchie was followed by Ronnie Barrett, President of Barrett Firearms,
Inc., who elaborated on the critical role that the civilian firearm
industry plays in developing technologies that are vital to the
military. He demonstrated with clear evidence that several of the
characterizations regarding the fifty-caliber rifle were based on
exotic military-grade ammunition that has never been available to
civilian marksman. By this point, Committee Chairman Mark Leno was
beginning to sweat. The overwhelming evidence against the bill was
threatening to erode the party-line support that everyone expected.
While many politicians don’t mind selling out, few prefer to look like
imbeciles on public television. As the hearing rolled on and on, core
supporters of the bill were increasingly looking like the next
rendition of the Three Stooges.

The suffering of Koretz and his ilk wasn’t over. Ed Worley of the
National Rifle Association spoke up, drawing a very different parallel
to the Committee’s attention. The term “assault weapon”, he noted, was
coined to label a group of guns, which were deemed bad because they
could spray a lot of bullets in a rapid, inaccurate fashion. Yet now a
target rifle was being deemed an “assault weapon” because it could fire
one bullet at a time in an accurate fashion. “So which way do you want
it?” Worley demanded of Chairman Leno, “Am I the only person who finds
this bizarre?” The Chairman did not have an answer to a very good

While speaker after speaker took the floor in opposition of the bill,
Democratic members sat in dull disinterest. Just an hour earlier,
Assemblywoman Goldberg found ample passion to debate a law that would
make it illegal for a sports-event spectator to hurl his cellphone at
an athlete, but she sat through the AB50 presentation with barely a
peep. Assemblyman Longville, who earlier was casting votes
self-admittingly having no idea which bill he was voting on, was
likewise indifferent to the concerns of La Suer, Spitzer and most of
the assembled audience. When asked on the sidelines how he was leaning,
Longville rather blithely explained, “I don’t know. I’ll vote which
ever way the speaker tells me to.” Not what he thinks, or God forbid,
not what his constituents think, but what the Speaker thinks-- a
Speaker who is not even present to hear the facts. It must be
disturbing to the voters of San Bernardino to learn they elected a
Muppet to represent them.

The only Democrat who appeared to grasp the gravity of AB50 was Rudy
Bermudez, who focused not on the ban of target rifles but the
accompanying ban on any form of .50 caliber ammunition. “I have a .50
cal round on my mantle,” he explained, “given to me at the funeral of a
friend killed in Viet Nam. By my reading of this bill, having that
round is a crime.” A befuddled Koretz blustered that this was not his
intention, but the wording was undeniable. The bill would treat
possession of each round of .50 cal ammunition as a separate crime,
even if you didn’t own a .50 cal rifle. One can only imagine the scores
of pointless arrests that would follow passage of AB50. Californians
wrongly made into criminals overnight could only hope that the criminal
justice system would go bankrupt completely before they were hauled
into court.

There was only one statement made by Koretz during the day that made
any sense, although it was spoken two hours before the AB50 discussion.
Arguing against criminalization of a specific act of personal violence,
Koretz very rightly pointed out that laws would only deter law-abiding
citizens. “The kind of people who will hurt someone else won’t be
deterred by a law.” It was a momentary spark of human insight that made
the very foundation of AB50 all the more insipid. We need to ban these
rifles, he repeated ardently, to keep them out of the hands of
terrorists. To suggest that a terrorist would be deterred from getting
a rifle because it is banned is like suggesting that he would be
deterred from parking his car bomb in front of a building because of a
No Parking sign.

At the end of the day, partisan politics once again proved stronger
than right or reason. Down the line the five Democrats on the committee
cast their obligatory yes votes and AB50 moved one step closer to
becoming law in California. Even staunch liberals in attendance were
stunned. One woman leaving the proceeding stated, “I’m not a big fan of
guns but right now I’m ashamed to say those people are from my party.
What are they thinking?”

What indeed? While the tired, alarmist mantras of gun-control advocates
have all but run their course across the nation, a handful of die-hards
have no better thought process to offer Californians than a
regurgitation of old lies. Their true motivation, it was revealed, fell
into the most reprehensible bucket of political stereotypes. One member
of the voting majority, who asked to remain nameless, set it out in no
uncertain terms. “Everyone on the committee thinks he [Koretz] is an
***. He put up four bills this term and they were all idiotic. Three
went down in flames so the Democratic caucus had to throw him a bone to
keep him voting the right way on other bills. AB50 was the bone. It had
nothing to do with facts.”

So there it was, the bottom line. It was as simple as it was ultimately
believable, the only answer that made sense. In literally the same days
and weeks that the world watched citizens of Iraq take to the streets
in celebration of their first chance to vote in over 30 years, America
has legislators willing to throw away the votes entrusted to their care
as some sort of booby prize so the village idiot will continue to play
ball. The word “disgusting” doesn’t begin to adequately describe this
betrayal of the public trust.

Climbing aboard a plane headed back to reality, I could not but pity
the citizens of California who find themselves hurtling towards the
cliff of bankruptcy while their driver is asleep at the wheel. What
will soon follow will make the closing scene of Thelma & Louise look
like a minor fender-bender. Hospitals won’t have beds, criminals won’t
have to worry about courts or jails, unemployment will soar and
Californians will be left to warm themselves by the dying embers of a
once-thriving economy. But hey, at least they won’t have to worry about
a crazed terrorist shooting at their armored limousines from four miles

The brush with California legislation was revealing and truly
saddening. Californians are hard working and creative-- they deserve
legislators with the same traits. In spite of thoughtful and realistic
efforts by true leaders like Mr. La Suer and Mr. Spitzer,
business-as-usual prevailed in the Democratic majority. With people
like Gray Davis, Koretz, Goldberg, and Longville running the show,
Californians are well-advised to become acquainted with the motto of
the U.S. Navy SEALS: the only easy day was yesterday.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:29:08 AM EDT
I see the loophole and it's easy to use.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:32:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 6:34:42 AM EDT by jblachly]

If you have family in Cali like I do, especially impress upon him that you come and spend your m oney there once or twice ever year, but are 100% willing to never set foot in the state again.

Hit them in the pocketbook.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:36:18 AM EDT
Having just come off of an unsuccessful fight against a county-wide recycling fee on our property tax bills in my state, I can say without a doubt that "the people" have very little chance of fighting the power. I couldn't even get a six-member county board to listen to a rational argument, what chance does anyone have with an entire legislature? Talk about ramming things through--the fee got one hearing and then was raced into "law" before the budget year ended. I suspect extreme malfeasance on the part of the people operating the landfill, possibly even criminal malfeasance.

All I'm saying is, don't get on the Kali board members, they are fighting the good fight. It's just that Kali is going over the cliff now and will probably be taking the rest of the country down with it. Schwarzeneggar is not going to be able to stop the slide, it's too far along.

The good news is that socialism is going to die in our lifetimes. Now if only we can find a way not to die right along with it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:38:50 AM EDT
I'll never understand why you guys continue to put out the wildfires. They are a blessing in disguise and you don't even realize it. Burn baby, burn.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:44:07 AM EDT
We need to hit Arnold hard. There's lots of good reasons not to sign it.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:51:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:52:46 AM EDT
Move out of California.

Seriously, there is no point of being a gun nut in an anti gun state.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 6:56:23 AM EDT
Educate me please. What part of the constitution allows a state to "back door" the Bill of Rights?
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:06:49 AM EDT
Kalifornia is like a bad stock... better to just dump it and eat your loss rather than to go down with the ship and sell at 0.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:11:23 AM EDT
feed a few pigs and see what happens.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:19:57 AM EDT
I'm not sure what Arnold will do (my guess is he will sign it), but here's some talking points for you poor saps in CAlifornia if you call the .gov's office.

1. This legislation requires more and more expenditures of taxpayers money to fund a regulatory regime against weapons that have not been used in crime. These weapons are pursued by collectors and long distance target shooters, and cost between $5000 and $10000 each. They cannot be said to be attactive to the criminal element, nor is there any instance of a terrorists' use of these guns. The anti-gun lobby has created a boogieman and demanded that the taxpayers open their already stretched wallets to pay for a new law that is not needed.

2. The legislative process that resulted in the passage of this legislation represents the liberal's keytowing to interest groups in order to maintain support against the governator's programs. In other words, the guy behind this bill threatened that he would not support the liberal block in budget matters against the government unless they threw this bone to the interets group that supports him the most.

3. California has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and yet crime involving firearms continues. As England and now Australia have found out, once you disarm the populus, you wind up with criminals who arm themselves with impunity. If they obeyed gun laws, the would obey murder laws, property laws, assault laws, rape laws, etc. They don't obey laws. That's why they're criminals.

Mr. Governor, please terminate this legislation and send a message to the general assembly that you are unwilling to advance interest group legislation that will cost the taxpayers money until the assembly squarely addresses the consequences of its budget and its uncontrolled spending in years past.
"The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law." - Ayn Rand
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:25:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandguard:
Educate me please. What part of the constitution allows a state to "back door" the Bill of Rights?

Because the AG says so:


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

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.
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:28:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2004 7:29:18 AM EDT by Blued-Steel]

Oh no you don't I saw a .50 cal being used to bring down a helicopter from a mile away! Of course, it was in the movie SWAT last summer and oh yeah, the criminal element was a well-trained rogue LAPD JBT!

Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:35:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2004 7:39:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell everyone in kali that it;s their own damn fault.

But really it's just another anti-gun law that was shoved down thier throats.

I hope barret decides not to sell ANY .50s to ANY Kali LE agencies like was threatened a year or so ago when this first came up.

Lets ban a gun that has never ever been used in a crime.......

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top