Posted: 4/5/2005 6:52:25 PM EDT
|
i'm reading through the Peoples not so Democratik Rebublik of Kali's firearms ban stuff and i saw something that pissed me off.... Article 1, section 12276 subpart d. Any firearm declared by the court pursuant to Section 12276.5 to be an assault weapon that is specified as an assault weapon in a list promulgated pursuant to Section 12276.5.... more importantly Any firearm declared by the court ... isn't that unconstitutional? hell, for that matter, damn near any law against owning any weapon (AK, AR-15, etc.) unconstitutional? isn't the state trying to tell its subjects what a sportsman is? is the state trying to redefine the meaning of the constitution with these outlandish laws? ' whats the deal folks? isn't there any pro gun legislators in PRK, and if not, why aren't there any being elected? |
|
They don't have to change any laws.... ...they just interpret them any way they see fit. The laws in California, especially in regards to guns, have always been off target and always hurt the honest people more than the people they are targeted at. It's just comes with the territory I guess. Most of us never had those evil rifles, so we don't know what we are missing. You have freedom, so you know what you are losing and that is why it angers you so much. 
|
|
Read the whole sentence and then go back and read everything in context, it will make sense. You might not agree with the law per se. See the end of the sentence, it's a firearm being judged to be one of the firearms on the list. In other words For example you take and stick a decal proclaiming an AR to be a Flummox XE-1 WhammerBammer and then claim it isn't a banned AR and legal. The Judges says bullshit it's still and AR. (Besides any that is on the list will most likely hit the features definition too. And realistically it should have been registered so the small portion of the sentence really isn't anything to get worked up over. The whole law may be but that portion really doesn't mean anything. As far as Constitutionality - It is Constitutional with respect to the CA Constitution (which has no 2nd Amendment equivalent.) Federal Constitutionality? Yes it's Constitutional. And btw you better take Constitutional Law 101. You are trying to take the Second Amendment which is a restriction on the FEDERAL Government and apply it to a State Government. Until the 2nd is incorporated as applying to all the states (like some but not all of the Amendments are) the States will continue to make their own gun laws as they are allowed to do by the US Constitution. You might not like it, and you can whine and cry and pout all you want, but that's the way it is. We really need to get a thread on "Why the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states " tacked at the top. |
Go back to DU. It's gunowners like you who get people in that kind of a fix |
|
The separation of powers in California government has been infringed. Laws are supposed to be written and changed only through acts of the legislature. The AW ban allows the executive (Attorney General) and the judiciary to bypass the process. IMO it's unconstitutional, but the state SC has ruled otherwise. |
WTF? I mean that sincerely, WTF? So he doesn't lock arms with you and agree it's "bullshit," without any specifics, so he's a gungrabber? He's correct, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution applies to the FEDERAL government. Cali has NO state provision protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Therefore, until we get a US supreme court decision which holds that the second amendment applies to the states, the second doesn't help. As to Cali itself, as above there is no equivalent to the second amendment, and the statute you cite has been tested and found to pass constitutional muster by the Kali supremes. So you are wrong, it's not guys like him or me that are the reason this is happenning. I didn't write the Kali constitution or the Roberti Roos et al laws. I don't sit on the Kali supreme court. But I bet I own more weapons than 3/4 of the prople who post here, and I don't support any restrictions on weapons ownership, either. Stating the facts of how and why we are in this predicament doesn't make me a gungrabber. If you would take the time to learn the basics about what and why it is happenning, and legally being done, maybe you could help solve the problem. But I guess it's easier to call me a gun grabber and seek "Yeah, he's right" from others who also don't know what's hapening and why. |