Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/11/2002 5:57:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:55:59 AM EDT
I just called Mr. Kilmer's office, and unfortunately I was told that they are short on signatures for THIS election cycle. However, they are gathering names so that next time around, and those people on their list can go out and get signatures. So please do call the phone number above and sign up. Do it for your children.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 8:58:02 PM EDT
They are going to make another attempt in 2004. They tried in 1998 or 2000, and came quite close to getting the required number of signatures. If you want to read the text of the amendment and the initiative: http://[url]www.reasonableguncontrol.org[/url]
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 9:32:19 PM EDT
I helped last time. Time for round two. At least this time there's a lot less gun control pressure, except in the Caliban country. used to be http://www.vetothegovernor.org/ but no more.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 9:45:29 PM EDT
This is a very important amendment, is there anything we can do between now and 2004? Collect signatures or something like that? - Sulaco
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:15:02 PM EDT
As far as signature collection goes I think a cheap and easy way to do it as opposed to having some guy stand around collecting a couple nickles per signature...fax/mail/give the forms to collect signatures to ranges and gun stores. Then just have it mailed to whomever is in charge. I'm sure they can get signatures fast...
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:42:50 PM EDT
This amendment gives the other side what they want and they will not be satisfied with it. It needs to have a harder line and be better worded as to what a compelling interest is. From the CA constitution
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
View Quote
. Unfortunately until you get the majority of gunowners to understand that any attack on someone?s rights is an attack on their rights as well. Remind them of the riots and how they can keep their homes safer with a firearm than with out one. That teaching a child better prepares the child for adult responsibilities. Those children who are given the responsibility of gun ownership are less likely to commit crimes at all and that applies across the board. Guns improve the safety of the community and lessen the level of violence. That even military rifles are useful in combating terrorism and allow the common man to be the terrorists worst nightmare. Just ask a politician, hehe Perata should be a good choice since he carries a gun. Obviously if it's good for him then its good for everyone and everyone should be just like him. [beer]
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:56:13 PM EDT
Who thinks the Kaliban government will even care if this becomes a reality? They sure as hell already ignore the "inalienable rights" and "supreme law of the land" sections in the U.S. Constitution.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:58:28 PM EDT
Cool. I'm in and will call them ASAP.
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 5:52:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Who thinks the Kaliban government will even care if this becomes a reality? They sure as hell already ignore the "inalienable rights" and "supreme law of the land" sections in the U.S. Constitution.
View Quote
"strict scrutiny" has to mean something, even in California.
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 5:56:24 AM EDT
Language of the Amendment [size=3]The inalienable right to defend life and liberty as set forth in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution includes the fundamental right of each person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family and home. This right shall not be infringed. All State government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to acquire and possess arms for the defense of self, family and home, [u]shall be subject to strict scrutiny, in the same respect as the freedoms of speech and of the press[/u]. All county, city and local government action on this subject is preempted by state law and this Amendment. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct. [/size=3] (emphasis added by me)
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 8:11:13 AM EDT
Nice work! This might be better[thinking] The inalienable right to defend life and liberty as set forth in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution includes the fundamental right of each person to keep and bear personal firearms and other arms for the defense of self, family, and home, as well as for the common defense of the community, state or the United States of America. This right shall not be restricted, taxed or modified by statute or constitutional amendment. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: the mentally incompetent, those persons incarcerated by the state or local authorities. Those children who are given the responsibility of gun ownership are less likely to commit crimes at all and that applies across the board. This was confirmed by an obscure federal study that is hard to find. The aim here is an inviolate right to own or posess firearms, and arms in general. This right should not be subject to scrutiny or comparison to any other right. That would cause a linkage you don't want. If you have linkage, a prior right can be restricted further then the linked right gets restricted at the same time and is subject to the new interpretation. You want an amendment that is clear, concise, leaves little to no room for any other interpretation. You have to get it right the first time, nad then ram it home to get what you are after. To do otherwise is to invite opportunities for others to subvert it to a different form which will be meaningless.[bounce]
Top Top