CA RKBA petition is on!

[jnojr]

Updated information is now appearing on the official web site http://www.tacr.us/

The Unofficial web site, http://rkba.members.sonic.net/ will be updated soon.

The official web site reflects that signature gathering might begin around
November 21, 2005 with a goal of qualifying the Initiative to
appear on the ballot for the general election in November, 2006.
Signatures can be gathered for 150 days during the drive.

NO SIGNATURE GATHERING can take place before the proper start date.
Also, DO NOT GATHER SIGNATURES until we have verified that the petition
forms are properly worded and formatted. I will provide further guidance
on this point as soon as possible.

There are actions to take RIGHT NOW.

1) WE NEED VOLUNTEERS! We need "County Coordinators" for most counties, and we need volunteer signature gatherers in all counties! Sign up on the unofficial site for now.

2) Identify the major places where signature gathering will take place.
Gun stores, firing ranges, sporting goods stores, etc. Encourage them
to have their employees gather signatures and/or allow
YOUR volunteers to gather signatures. Contact gun clubs or other
organizations. Encourage them to enlist a member to work with you.
My experience is that having a volunteer at a business gathering
signatures results in about FOUR TIMES as many signatures as relying
on busy employees. If a business is willing to be listed as a location
for petitions on the Unofficial web site, let me know and I will add it.

3) Acquaint yourself with the "Instructions for Gathering Signatures"
on the Unofficial web site. We don't want to lose valuable signatures
through mishandling of petition forms.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. The more successful of
prior drives have only fallen short by about 15% of signatures required.
We can easily make up for that by getting off to a fast start.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Best of success to you, Californians!

 

[fjolnirsson]

Best of luck, you guys!

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Jon, this is fantastic. Never give up on it. I'm a great database web programmer and I volunteer my services to help set up a great website to help tracking, communication, emailing, etc. I'll send you a PM.

One word about the wording:

any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct.

In that sentence, "person" is singular so it needs to go with a singular pronoun. It should be written as:

any person subject to restraining orders based upon his own violent conduct.

or:

any person subject to restraining orders based upon his or her own violent conduct.

Anyway, it's a great proposition. I know what I'll be doing on Nov. 6, 2006: voting yes. And then applying for my FFL or starting a CCW training school....

 

[Boss Spearman]

Best of Luck! California to me is one of the wonderful cool places to live in the US, until the liberals started taking over.

 

[M-Rex]

Count me in.

 

[BB62]

Is JIM MARCH in on this effort?

 

[jnojr]

Guys - if you want to volunteer, email [email protected] If you're in San Diego County, then contact me.

 

[jnojr]

Bump

 

[perception]

Good luck folks, hope you can win one for a change.

 

[Dragun]

This is good news! GOOD LUCK! There is hope for Cali after all. Don't ever give up fighting for your RIGHTS.

 

[El Rojo]

Am I being dense or does this thing look like it wouldn't change a darn thing in this state? Here is the text of the initiative.

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.

1. All State government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to acquire and possess arms for the defense of self, family and home shall be subject to strict scrutiny, in the same respect as the freedoms of speech and of the press. All county, city and local government action on this subject is preempted by state law and this Amendment.

2. 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.

#1: it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are having a hard enough time on the national level justifying this. There are still people who misread the 2nd Amendment and it pretty much has the same langauge.

#2: Right after you say it can't be infringed, Part 1 says all state government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to aquire arms shall be subject to the same scrutiny of free speech. So in other words, it can be infringed and they can pass limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, but only if they carefully scrutinize the case. ***? The legislature just says, "We carefully scrutinzed this case, you don't need assault weapons, handguns, or magazines over 6 rounds to defend yourself. A shotgun or revolver will work just fine in order to provide you for your self-defense clause." Does anyone not see this coming?

#3: Part 2 says that state action takes precedence over all else. Hello!!! Our state legislature is exactly why this state sucks! Sure there are a few places like Los Angeles that try and make more strict laws, but they get what they deserve! State law already rules, the only people this part saves are the few urbanites who live in the real communist hell holes and only protects what is not already illegal here. It won't change the discretionary issue status in this state anymore than it is now.

Honestly, this thing is lame legislation. In my humble opinion from just reading it right now, it wouldn't do a damn thing about increasing concealed weapon permits, getting back assault weapons, ending "safe" handgun restrictions, or anything else good for us. All it says is the legislature has to "carefully scrutinize" the bills they pass to restrict our freedoms. THEY ALREADY THINK THEY ARE CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZING US! They think these laws will reduce crime and keep us safer, that is why they pass them. This would not stop them in the least from continuing what they are already doing. The only hope you would have is the 9th Circuit making a statement that the legislation wasn't "scrutinized" hard enough. HELLO! The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in the nation, they will always rule that the legislature "scrutinized" it enough. Hell, everything the legislature passes is "scrutinized" just by the fact it goes through committee and then two houses of legislation, then is signed by the governor.

Sorry, but I don't see how this would do a damn thing for us in California. I don't see any point in messing with it. I mean I would think about it if it gave us something back, but this won't give us a darn thing. Not one. Maybe I am missing it, if I am, please point out what this would do for us. The only remotely close possiblity would be the individual cities couldn't pass a "Saturday Night Special" ban. Big deal! The state legislature would just do it and then "state law would preempt" the city laws. Great, it already does.

I would rather spend my time getting the districts redrawn and getting rid of the people who would have no problem "scrutinizing" our gun laws to begin with when they make them. This thing is a lame duck if I ever saw one. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if an anti-gunner thought it up. All it does is say the legislature has the right to legislate what we was once an unalienable right as long as they "scrutinize" the legislation. Gee, thanks. Serioulsy, this thing boggles my mind. I don't get it at all.

 

[jnojr]

Am I being dense or does this thing look like it wouldn't change a darn thing in this state? Here is the text of the initiative.
#1: it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We are having a hard enough time on the national level justifying this. There are still people who misread the 2nd Amendment and it pretty much has the same langauge.

"Shall not be infringed" is an issue nationally because the verbiage of the Second Amendment allows some to form the impression that it's a collective right. Society, as an "entity", can go ahead and infringe on "its" own rights. The CA amendment specifically says this is an individual right.

#2: Right after you say it can't be infringed, Part 1 says all state government action regulating the right of law-abiding persons to aquire arms shall be subject to the same scrutiny of free speech. So in other words, it can be infringed and they can pass limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, but only if they carefully scrutinize the case. ***? The legislature just says, "We carefully scrutinzed this case, you don't need assault weapons, handguns, or magazines over 6 rounds to defend yourself. A shotgun or revolver will work just fine in order to provide you for your self-defense clause." Does anyone not see this coming?

Unfortunately, nobody really believes "shall not be infringed" means the right is absolute and cannot be restricted in any way, shape, or form. Just as you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which is an infringment upon an absolute right to free speech, a private citizen cannot own a hydrogen bomb. Where is the line drawn? That's what the courts are for.

So, why say "shall not be infringed"? I don't know... maybe because that's what the Second Amendment says? Maybe to add another hurdle for anti-gun laws to jump?

#3: Part 2 says that state action takes precedence over all else.

Err, no, it doesn't. Read it again.

Honestly, this thing is lame legislation. In my humble opinion from just reading it right now, it wouldn't do a damn thing about increasing concealed weapon permits, getting back assault weapons, ending "safe" handgun restrictions, or anything else good for us. All it says is the legislature has to "carefully scrutinize" the bills they pass to restrict our freedoms.

You clearly don't know what "strict scrutiny" means. Please look it up.

Sorry, but I don't see how this would do a damn thing for us in California. I don't see any point in messing with it. I mean I would think about it if it gave us something back, but this won't give us a darn thing. Not one. Maybe I am missing it, if I am, please point out what this would do for us.

After you find out what the strict scrutiny test is, you'll understand

I would rather spend my time getting the districts redrawn and getting rid of the people who would have no problem "scrutinizing" our gun laws to begin with when they make them.

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Heck, redistricting is going to be a done issue, one way or another, before the signature gathering period even starts! maybe it'll pass. Maybe, if it does pass, the current system won't get an emergency injunction preventing new districts from being drawn. Maybe that injunction won't stay in place for years while the idea is hashed out in court. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

But you're right. It's much better to do nothing. The hell with it. I'm probably going to be exempt from most CA gun laws in a few weeks. I promise you'll never hear another word out of me at that point. You can enjoy what rights you have left for as long as you have them, and when they're gone, you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that you never supported anything that wasn't exactly perfect.

 

[El Rojo]

I know the good old "doing something is better than doing nothing line" and I give you that one. However, it doesn't matter what I think, you think, or what the dictionary thinks about "strict scrutiny". What is the legislature going to say about strict scrutiny and what are the courts going to say is strict scrutiny? If I were a liberal Senator or Legislator, I would say exactly this,

"This ban on handguns that can accept a magazine or cylinder that accepts more than six rounds has passed the strict scrutiny test because it first went through the appropriate committees, the State Legislature, then the Senate, then joint committee, and finally the governor signed it. If that is not "strict scrutiny", I don't know what is. Citizens can still "defend themselves" in their homes and at their places of work, but they don't need more than six rounds to do it as the threat of indiscriminate spray fire is a greater risk to everyone."

So how do you answer for that? You can insinuate I don't know what "strict scrutiny" means, but that doesn't change the fact that I am not in the legislature nor on the court, so it doesn't matter what I think it means. Give me an honest answer. But then again, I guess I am too dumb to know what the "strict scrutiny test" is. Instead of informing me what it is and how I am wrong and this is right, why don't you insult my inteligence and degrade me for asking a valid question. How will this legislation prevent a rabidly liberal state government from "regulating" our rights based off of their proving they "scrutinized" the bill by sending it through the regular process?

And the First Amendment does not have the words "infringed in it". It says,

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.

So to say that we can "infringe" upon the First Amendment by busting people who say fire has nothing to do with the Second Amendment as the language in the First and the Second Amendment are not the same. Second, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is a malicious act. Owning firearms is not. I stand by what I said. What is the point in saying you have an unalienable right that "cannot be infringed" and then following right after it that it can indeed be infringed after "strict scrutiny". I know what scrutiny means, it means a careful observation or examination. What is to prevent the legislature from saying, "We looked at it carefully, you don't need those guns to defend yourself."

And big deal if it is an individual right. If they are going to be able to restrict it after close scrutiny, an individual right doesn't make a bit of difference. We can lose them individually instead of a class.

I guess you can just put me in the no-compromise catagory for once. This is most certainly a compromise. The only thing is we don't get anything out of it and we just acknowledge that the state has the right to legislate our rights away as long as they "think about it" first. So sure, doing something is better than nothing. However, if that something is poking more holes in a sinking ship, I don't agree.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Am I being dense or does this thing look like it wouldn't change a darn thing in this state? Here is the text of the initiative.

JON CONGRATULATIONS! YOUR EVIL PLOY WORKED!

Senor El Rojo, you're not being dense. You're just not a lawyer. Jon has carefully drafted this thing in such a way as to have maximum effect AND maximum stealth. Most non-lawyers reading it would read the same thing you read: "It won't change anything." Or maybe they'll even get an "anti" reading from it: "Yeah, I don't like guns. They should be subjected to strict scrutiny!"

Alas, "strict scrutiny" is a legal term. First, all of our constitutional rights are subject to some kinds of regulation or limitation. Our right to free speech doesn't let us slander or violate copyright law for instance. But the courts have created a standard called "strict scrutiny", which means basically that there has to be a compelling and clear reason for the regulation. If gun laws were under the same regulation, most of CA's gun laws would be swept away. For example, what is the clear and compelling reason for banning standard-capacity magazines? And is a ban the minimal regulation that could possibly achieve the necessary effect? The fact is, there are lots of opinions about standard capacity magazines but there are no facts about them that require them to be banned, and even if there were, a ban would not be the minimal amount of regulation necessary.

So this is a clever and stealthy way to go. It is a lot more protection than the US constitution's 2nd. The US' 2nd leaves open the possible idea that it's a right held by the states or collectively (not correct, but that is a possible reading) and also does not say what are the limitations on regulation.

This is a great thing to put in the CA constitution. I know it can get on the ballot and I think there's a chance of it passing.

For example, I have a friend in CA who is Canadian. He has lived in the US all his life but never got US citizenship. After Bush won the election, he decided that he hated Bush so much that he was going to become a citizen just so he could vote against Bush. He did it! He's now a US citizen and a Californian and he's from Canada. He's also asking me which gun he should buy for his first gun. This is the kind of guy who is a 100% solid Democrat, a liberal, and a Canadian... and he will sign this petition and vote for this ammendment. And he's not the only one like him out there. This initiative will win based on people like him, who the pollsters don't know about, but they're out there.

I know the good old "doing something is better than doing nothing line" and I give you that one. However, it doesn't matter what I think, you think, or what the dictionary thinks about "strict scrutiny". What is the legislature going to say about strict scrutiny and what are the courts going to say is strict scrutiny? If I were a liberal Senator or Legislator, I would say exactly this,

"This ban on handguns that can accept a magazine or cylinder that accepts more than six rounds has passed the strict scrutiny test because it first went through the appropriate committees, the State Legislature, then the Senate, then joint committee, and finally the governor signed it. If that is not "strict scrutiny", I don't know what is. Citizens can still "defend themselves" in their homes and at their places of work, but they don't need more than six rounds to do it as the threat of indiscriminate spray fire is a greater risk to everyone."

No, you're reading it wrong. "Strict scrutiny" is an actual legal term. It does not mean what it sounds like. Going through committees etc is not strict scrutiny. You really should look it up. This wording is so clever.

This is a powerful amendment and will give CA the best gun laws in the country.

I guess you can just put me in the no-compromise catagory for once.

Senor, the ONLY wording that would have less compromise than "strict scrutiny" would be to say, "shall not be subject to laws or regulations." That's impossible. All of our rights are (and should be) subject to laws and regulations. As Jon said, we can't own hydrogen bombs. We shouldn't be allowed to own hydrogen bombs. I don't want my neighbor owning a hydrogen bomb. So our choices are: "strict scrutiny" or "no regulation whatsoever". "No regulation" is neither possible nor desirable. Strict scrutiny is exactly what we want, no more no less. THIS IS NOT A COMPROMISE, unless you're in the very small camp that thinks we should be allowed to own nukes.

 

[El Rojo]

Thank you for explaining that too me. That wasn't too hard.

So how much faith do we have that the courts out west are going to see "strict scrutiny" the same way we do? How do you know they aren't going to say a magazine capacity ban wouldn't prevent more death and carnage while still providing for the original intent of the legislation, "self-defense"?

If the security of a free state can get screwed up and "shall not be infringed" can get screwed up, what is to stop "strict scrutiny" from getting screwed up? I think that is the problem. Everyone wants lawyers and deep thought in legislation and it takes a freaking lawyer to figure anything out anymore. What happened to good old simple plain English or hell in Calfornia I would even settle for Spanish ( ). I think that is part of the problem, too many lawyers and too many laws. If the common man can't figure it out, we have problems.

So sure I will support this thing, but count me as suspicious. You already have a legislature and court system that does what they want regardless of law or intent and you are counting on them to suddenly start playing by the rules? You expect them to interpret "strict scrutiny" as the legalize and not something else? I mean afterall, how did we get legalize in the first place? A court decided. So what is to prevent the 9th Circuit from interpreting "strict scrutiny" as I have and the Supreme Court decided to not touch it?

Try your back door method, but I am still think you are leaving way too much for subjective review when what we need is clear objectivity. That is just me.

From dictionary.com

Strict Scrutiny: the highest level of judicial scrutiny that is applied esp. to a law that allegedly violates equal protection in order to determine if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

That isn't much clearer to me. Too many "its" there. Are they saying you have to carefully look at it in order to make sure that the law serves a compelling state interest or is it saying you have to look at a law to make sure it doesn't narrowly serve a compelling state interest? Again, if we are relying on the "will" of the State of California to not say any kind of gun ban is not in our "state interest", we are screwed.

Here is another explination. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s118.htm

In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on First Amendment rights.

So like I have already said, how are you going to prove that a specific ban on assault weapons does not serve the public interest and that it is too vague or violates our rights to self defense? It is pretty specific. Again, from what I am reading here, I see a lot of wiggle room, especially if we leave it up to the liberal California courts and the 9th Circuit. They will be the ones determining if our gun laws are "too vague" and whether the gun laws are a rational means to accomplish a legitimate end. Sure we know that these gun laws don't do much, but you can skew statistics anyway you want. Who says the courts aren't going to rule that assault weapons, magazines bans, and unsafe handguns are specific bans that do not alter the orginal intent of self-defense? This seems like an awfully big gamble in an awfully liberal state.

See I am smart enough to understand "strict scrutiny". Thanks for taking the time to clue me in DeseoUnTaco. That was much more effective than jnojr's flippant response that only made me hate lawyers even more for their arrogant attitudes. Seriously, there is something wrong with legislation if you need a freaking lawyer to tell you what is says. I contend lawyers are the real downfall of this society. When the common man can't figure out the laws, we have an elite class that only seeks our servitude.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

So how much faith do we have that the courts out west are going to see "strict scrutiny" the same way we do? How do you know they aren't going to say a magazine capacity ban wouldn't prevent more death and carnage while still providing for the original intent of the legislation, "self-defense"?

Try your back door method, but I am still think you are leaving way too much for subjective review when what we need is clear objectivity. That is just me.

Alas, using legal terms like "strict scrutiny" is the best we can do. If leave out and just say "shall not be infringed" then we'll be in the same place we are today with the federal 2nd amend: it says "shall not be infringed" and courts have interpreted that according to a "reasonable basis" standard. "Reasonable basis" means that the legislature can say "Well, we think it's reasonable to require such-and-such" and that's it.

The courts are human institutions. The best thing we can accomplish is to give them firm and clear guidance about what to do, and "strict scrutiny" does that. There's no better way to write it and there's no way to get around the fact that courts are human institutions.

I know what you're thinking: It should be written in such a way that we (excluding minors, felons and the mentally ill) have a right to own, carry, and carry concealed, pretty much any firearm. This amendment, as written, is the closest we can possibly get to that in a legal written form, unless we want to go into specific technical terms. And if we did go the technical description route we would end up in trouble from that because there would be ways to word around it.

Trust me, this is a fantastic way to do it, and if there is a better way to word it, I can't imagine what it would be.

In fact, if we do get a pro-states-rights supreme court, we might even be able to do BETTER than Federal law with this amendment, such as being able to make and own new machineguns.

I don't know how else to say it... but this is a perfectly worded thing and will be fantastic for our gun rights in California and put California at #1 in the nation for gun rights.

 

[El Rojo]

What about the self-defense clause. What is self-defense? What do you need for self-defense? What kind of arms? Just a shotgun? Just a handgun? Just ten rounds? Just six rounds? When we lose the militia part of the amendment, we lose our rights to full autos and high capacity. What is to keep the court from saying six rounds or just a shotgun is enough? I guess that is my main issue. When it is about "security for a free state" anything applies as you need just about anything to fight a tyrannical government. When we just talk about self-defense, who says the courts don't just rule that self-defense is just for the criminal element? You don't need an assault rifle to defend your house. You don't need a handgun to defend your house. You can carry a shotgun. I mean they already ruled that sawed off shotguns were not legitimate military arms. What are we going to do when they rule that full autos, high capacity, or unsafe handguns are not legitimate self defense arms?

Sorry, I just am not buying this thing. I'll sign a petition, but I think we are leaving an awful lot of subjective determination for a historically liberal court to figure out and a Supreme Court that hasn't ever wanted to comment on the Second Amendment. I guess I would like to see something work sooner than the ten to twenty years this thing is going to take to pass, get through the courts, and to the Supreme Court. And then we still don't have a sure thing, but a lot to lose if they don't see it our way.

Plus I still hate lawyers even more after commenting in this thread.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

What about the self-defense clause. What is self-defense? What do you need for self-defense? What kind of arms? Just a shotgun? Just a handgun? Just ten rounds? Just six rounds? When we lose the militia part of the amendment, we lose our rights to full autos and high capacity. What is to keep the court from saying six rounds or just a shotgun is enough? I guess that is my main issue. When it is about "security for a free state" anything applies as you need just about anything to fight a tyrannical government. When we just talk about self-defense, who says the courts don't just rule that self-defense is just for the criminal element? You don't need an assault rifle to defend your house. You don't need a handgun to defend your house. You can carry a shotgun. I mean they already ruled that sawed off shotguns were not legitimate military arms. What are we going to do when they rule that full autos, high capacity, or unsafe handguns are not legitimate self defense arms?

That's where the "strict scrutiny" part comes in. Think of how strong of protection we have for free speech. We're allowed to advocate any belief system including Nazism, Communism, whatever. We're allowed to publish porn. We're allowed to burn a flag. Congress and the state legislature would love to be able to restrict these things, but they can't. The courts apply "strict scrutiny" and laws to ban Nazi publications, flag burning and porn can't stand up to it.

I don't know any other way to say explain it, but the fact is, if that initiative gets signed into law, it will sweep away the AWB and the magazine ban and it will make California a shall-issue state. It's just written using the correct legal terms. The problem with the US 2nd amend is that it's written in common terms which have let the courts weasel out of it (no offense to weasels). Jon's amend as written has as little weasel room as you can imagine. Just saying "shall not be infringed" would NOT work because we know that all rights can be regulated. Refering to a militia would also be bad because that brings up the possibility that it's a collective right, it has something to do with the state, or it only applies to a certain class of "militia" weapons which might exclude concealable pistols, sawed-off shotguns (see the Miller case), etc. It has to refer to self-defense because that's what the whole thing is about. Should it say, "offensive weapons", protecting our right to own surface-to-surface missiles? I can prove that an MP5 is inherently suited to home defense, and under strict scrutiny, the CA DoJ would NOT be able shoot me down on that. So self defense is fine and it's the only realistic option.

As I said, there's no other way to write it that wouldn't also allow us to own nukes, and that's neither possible nor desirable.

 

[jnojr]

Thank you, Deseo... I think you saved me from a stroke

It's my understanding that "strict scrutiny" in this case would mean that my right to purchase and own an AR-15 and a stack of high-capacity magazines for defense against a possible riot would supersede society's "right" (yeah, I know) to "control dangerous weapons".

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Thank you, Deseo... I think you saved me from a stroke

Any time. And congratulations on your upcoming new job / career / life. Please run for sheriff at some point. I'll become a SD resident if you do.

It's my understanding that "strict scrutiny" in this case would mean that my right to purchase and own an AR-15 and a stack of high-capacity magazines for defense against a possible riot would supersede society's "right" (yeah, I know) to "control dangerous weapons".

Dude, it is more than that. From what I understand they have to show that a problem WILL happen if they don't have the regulation and also that the regulation in question is the minimal regulation that will achieve the need.

So... let's say that I want an MP5-10 for home defense. Clearly that's an effective home defense weapon, so there's a reason why I would want it. If they DON'T want me to have it they need to show that banning it is the only way to prevent some harm from happening. So they would need to show that MP5-10s have been used to go on shooting sprees... but wait... no civilian has ever used an NFA weapon for a shooting spree... so they can't prove that. Then they would need to show that a ban is the only type of regulation which would work... they can't show that because these weapons are not banned in other states and there are no MP5-10 shooting sprees in other states.

Let's look conversely at a nuke. I can't show that a nuke is needed or effective for home defense. They can clearly and easily show that the state has an overwhelming interest in me not owning a nuke. So yeah nukes would be banned. Good.

So in your example of AR-15... no, think M16.

One side benefit of this is that CA would also become an NFA-tolerant state. That would be cool. Then the next step would be to overturn or throw out the '86 MG ban. And then... I would finally have an MP5-10 by my bed, and a Glock 18 in my belt.

 

[El Rojo]

I don't know any other way to say explain it, but the fact is, if that initiative gets signed into law, it will sweep away the AWB and the magazine ban and it will make California a shall-issue state.

Hmmmm. This is such a suspicious answer. You have no way to explain it, but it will just happen?

I hear what you are saying for free speech. However, it is merely a moral arguement against porn, Nazis, and flag burning. Although those actions are offensive to some, it is clear they are only in bad taste, but clearly protected.

Here comes our little jewel you are trying to convince me on. It says that we have a right to defend ourselves with arms. It doesn't say from what or from who. In fact it doesn't even define arms. Just that we have a right to defend ourselves. So if the liberals can get enough studies that prove that assault weapons increase crime and death rates and are used by criminals, can the liberals turn this around and use strict scrutiny to prove that removing these specific items from the public realm would be in the public's best interests? You keep harping about how great strict scrutiny is and how it is going to sweep away the AWB, magazine restrictions, and make the state shall issue. However, I keep brining up that there are two ways to look at this. We could look at it from our perspective in that the courts and everyone else will see that we need a right to keep and bear arms and that it is a universal right that can never be restricted. However, the legislation you propose says itself that you can indeed make rules concerning the maintenance of arms if it meets strict scrutiny. Meaning, if a liberal court can prove that assault weapons, high capacity magazines, or anything other than a shotgun has a negative effect on society and those very specific items are banned it would be in the interest of the public at large, bam, there they go. And we wouldn't be able to bring them back because they were banned by meeting the test of strict scrutiny.

So basically by using strict scrutiny we gamble the whole pot. Either the liberals get their way and prove that certain restrictions don't alter the fundamental right of self-defense because certain means of self-defense are still legal (shotguns, non-AW, low capacity magazines, unsafe handguns) and the means that aren't are primarily used for reasons not for self-defense like criminal activity. Or we get our way and somehow we prove that CCW discretion, AWs, and magazine limits are reasonable exercises of lawful self-defense and are not merely "fun toys" that we want to just have them.

Again, if we are going to take this gamble, I wouldn't mind having a better answer than,

I don't know any other way to say explain it, but the fact is, if that initiative gets signed into law, it will sweep away the AWB and the magazine ban and it will make California a shall-issue state.

 

[El Rojo]

From what I understand they have to show that a problem WILL happen if they don't have the regulation and also that the regulation in question is the minimal regulation that will achieve the need.

So what happens if they use some skewed research project that links crimes and assault weapons? What happens when they say the reason there aren't more crimes with full automatics is because we made them harder to get in the 1930s? What if they point to the high crime rates then to our low crime rates now? Again, there seems to be a lot riding on this when you have to take into consideration that a liberal judge could give a damn less about real logic and more about feel good studies.

One side benefit of this is that CA would also become an NFA-tolerant state. That would be cool. Then the next step would be to overturn or throw out the '86 MG ban.

I am trying to remember where in the Constitution it says that local and state legislation supercedes federal legislation. Oh wait, it doesn't. It actually says it the other way around. So how is the PRK going to be able to make new MGs in violation of the Federal 86 ban?

 

[tube_ee]

Good discussionj...

And it answers some questions I posed on an identically-titled thread over on TFL. But I can see why El Rojo is worried. I had the same thoughts. Granted, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but it seemed pretty vague to me.

I have since learned, from this thread, that "strict scrutiny" is in fact a technical term, with a clearly defined and understood meaning in the legal domain. This is different from the non-technical meaning of those two words in other contexts. I'm OK with that. That's how technical language works. For example, outside the sciences, "theory" pretty much means an informed guess. Within the scientific domain, "theory" means a system that explains a specific class of observations, and whose correctness has been repeatedly deomnstrated by its being used to make accurate predictions about the results of experiments. We get into trouble when we use a meaning from one domain in reference to the other.

But I also thought of a way to avoid these confusions:

proposed amendment

1. No Government subject to this Constitution shall enact or enforce any regulation or restriction on any person's purchase, ownership, or possesion of any weapon that is more restrictive than Federal law. language can be tuned, IANAL, but the idea is to permanently "peg" CA weapons law to Federal law, and to ensure that no lesser jurisdiction can go farther.

2. Any person not disqualified from owning a weapon under section 1 shall be issued a permit to carry any weapon they are entitled to own. Additional language dealing with training requirements could be inserted here. There are many schools of thought on this one. That's a separate argument

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. And I don't disrespect them, either. I wouldn't drive over a bridge designed by a lawyer, but if I'm ever headed for a courtroom, you can bet I won't be calling an engineer. I'd be interested in hearing which approach is more likely to get us where we want to go, and why. Lawyers, weigh in!!

--Shannon

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

So what happens if they use some skewed research project that links crimes and assault weapons?

Not good enough and doesn't matter. Here's an article about strict scrutiny. From the article:

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts in the United States. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards the Court employs to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or policy that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue, regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue. It arises in two basic contexts: when a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed, particularly those listed in the Bill of Rights; or when the government action involves the use of a "suspect classification" such as race or national origin that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must first be justified by a "compelling governmental interest," and second must be the "least restrictive means" for achieving that interest. Many legal scholars, including judges, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because most laws are struck that are subject to that highest standard.

Do you see what that means? Look at the last sentence: "Strict in theory, fatal in fact?" In other words, if we get strict scrutiny applied to gun laws, it's going to be FATAL to the gun laws in California. It's almost impossible for a law or rule to match up to that standard.

I am trying to remember where in the Constitution it says that local and state legislation supercedes federal legislation. Oh wait, it doesn't. It actually says it the other way around. So how is the PRK going to be able to make new MGs in violation of the Federal 86 ban?

Oh wait, I found it, it's right there in the Tenth Amendment:

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.

Where in the constitution does it delegate to the United States the power to ban machineguns? Nowhere. It doesn't. So if a court would uphold the 10th, then we may get the Federal MG ban overturned. There is in fact such a case that is going to come up before SCOTUS pretty soon. I'm opptimistic that our new Chief Justice will rule the right way on it. I listened to his confirmation testimony and I liked what he said about that issue. Chucky Schumer grilled him on it. I didn't like Chucky.