CA RKBA petition is on!

[DeseoUnTaco]

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.

That's an excellent example. To a non-scientist "theory" means "guess" or maybe what a scientist would call a "hypothesis". To a scientist, "theory" means "established model within the context of our current state of experimental evidence."

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.

Not good. The way Jon's language reads, we get stronger protection that what the Feds give us. We don't know what might happen to federal law ten or twenty years from now. The way Jon wrote it there, it's iron-clad and much better than the Federal 2nd amend. Furthermore, if we get a SCOTUS that will overturn Wickard vs. Filburn we might see ourselves free of federal firearms laws for intrastate firearms issues. Yes it's a realistic possibility at this point, depending on who W picks for the next SCOTUS seat. That's all beyond the scope of this thread.

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

Not good. Language likes that belongs in a law, not in the constitution. That's too specific and as such there will be holes in it. That's not where we want to go.

Think of it: if the Founding Fathers had put in specific language in the constitution about being able to own muskets... would that be what we want? No.

 

[LAR-15]

1) The Right To Keep And Bear Arms in California Shall Only Apply to Dianne Feinstein and Don Perata and they may own and carry any gun they want.

 

[LAR-15]

Seriously why not this:

The Proposition:

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 the state, self, family and home. Such right may not be restricted by the state or any political subdivision of the state in any way except on property owned by such political entity.

 

[El Rojo]

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.

Again, you are putting all of your eggs into the "court" basket. That is a pretty big "IF" the court upholds the 10th Amendment. If they don't hear it, guess what, the feds keep on restricting machine guns. They have been restricting machine guns since 1938, I sure hope something is ready to change suddenly. I am glad you are optimistic about it. I hope California completely over turns all of their anti-gun laws and we live in a free society again. Some people hope they win the lottery. I think the odds of the lottery are better.

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.

So you don't see the argument that the anti's are going to make about the "compelling governmental interest" of restricting dangerous weapons like nuclear arms, artillary, fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, unsafe handguns and how the least restrictive means is to ban them and allow "safe handguns" or just shotguns? All you have to combat this possibility is that "strict scrutiny" has always been favorable for the First Amendment and you have a strong feeling about John Roberts. If we lose, we lose everything as there will be a clear presidence for the government's ability to "restrict" our arms. Are you prepared to gamble the entire game on 9 people in black robes? You say you are.

I guess the part that puzzles me the most is that we already have such a hard time with the 2nd Amendment and logically applying it, so suddenly you think it is going to be so clear to the anti's when they see "strict scrutiny". They really don't care about playing by the rules or using logic and reasoning to back up their arguments. They apply emotion and the dumbest factor. Again I wish I could share your optimism when the first court hears a case challenging any such intiative. Maybe our odds are getting better for a Supreme Court case, but it sure is an awful lot to risk. I guess the good thing is if it gets much worse, then we go to war and start over. I hope we all live.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

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 the state, self, family and home. Such right may not be restricted by the state or any political subdivision of the state in any way except on property owned by such political entity.

Look, I completely understand where you're coming from on this. That sounds great! That's plain English. We can all understand it.

Except... there's no such thing as a right that can't be regulated. They are all regulated. The state can regulate rights where it has an interest in doing so. So what is the test, what is the standard for this regulation? Well there are several options to choose from. If you don't pick one in writing, the courts or the legislature may pick one for you.

And the best standard there is is strict scrutiny.

To take an example: There's no way the government (state, local, fed, etc) can say "this is a white school and that is a black school". They could advance all kinds of theories: it's safer to have schools all one race, separate schools can be equal, etc. But none of that stands up to strict scrutiny. There's only one time and place where the state's desire to segregate based on race stands up to strict scrutiny. The California prison system wanted to have a rule that would enable them to (under certain limited circumstances) separate prisoners by race. The courts upheld this because the state was able to show conclusively that this was occasionally necessary to prevent prison gang violence.

But the limits imposed are very strict! There aren't black and white prisons. The separation can only be put in place in certain narrowly defined circumstances.

So that's one rare example of a rule which survived strict scrutiny. It just barely survived in a very limited form.

Bottom line: the amendment could look one of two ways:

1. "The right to keep and bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed or regulated by any law or regulation."

2. "All laws in California which regulate the right to keep and bear arms shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

1) is neither possible nor desirable. The next best thing would be 2). There's nothing else! We can't do better than that. Such an amendment would be THE STRONGEST RKBA amendment in the US and would probably give CA the best firearms laws in the US, maybe even in the world.

Please run this by your lawyer friends or do some more research on what strict scrutiny means, and about government regulation of rights.

You may think a right is something that cannot be regulated, but it just aint so. The courts can determine if a right can be regulated and what the standards are. Our best bet is to pick the standard or else they will pick the "reasonable basis" standard, which means basically "they can do whatever they want."

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Again, you are putting all of your eggs into the "court" basket.

If we lose in the legislature (which we have been doing pretty consistently here in CA) then our next basket is the court basket. If we lose in that, our next basket is one I don't want to think about right now.

That is a pretty big "IF" the court upholds the 10th Amendment. If they don't hear it, guess what, the feds keep on restricting machine guns. They have been restricting machine guns since 1938, I sure hope something is ready to change suddenly. I am glad you are optimistic about it. I hope California completely over turns all of their anti-gun laws and we live in a free society again. Some people hope they win the lottery. I think the odds of the lottery are better.

The court upholding the 10th is an iffy proposition. If they do uphold the 10th, it won't change the NFA; it will only change the 1986 MG ban. The NFA has a valid nexus of regulation, which is taxation. The 86 MG ban removes that nexus. The court could (and realisticly might) remove that law. In fact, FYI, the 9th circuit HAS struck down the 86 MG ban and there are people in the 9th circuit areas who have Form 4s ready to file as soon as the BATF starts accepting them. The BATF has said, "we won't accept them 'til the SCOTUS resolves the issue", and I'm actually optimistic that it will be resolved correctly. And where is this 9th circuit court? It's in liberal San Francisco! So what does that do to your argument here?

So you don't see the argument that the anti's are going to make about the "compelling governmental interest" of restricting dangerous weapons like nuclear arms, artillary, fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, unsafe handguns and how the least restrictive means is to ban them and allow "safe handguns" or just shotguns?

I see they would make it and when it's on a strict scrutiny test, it will not stand up.

All you have to combat this possibility is that "strict scrutiny" has always been favorable for the First Amendment and you have a strong feeling about John Roberts. If we lose, we lose everything as there will be a clear presidence for the government's ability to "restrict" our arms. Are you prepared to gamble the entire game on 9 people in black robes? You say you are.

This is no gamble. Even with an inconceivably bad court outcome on this proposed amendment we wouldn't be any worse off than we are now. The CA AWB was already challenged in court in CA in the Silveria vs. Lockyer case. Yes! That case used the 2nd amend to challenge the CA AWB. That case crashed and burned. Why? Because the 2nd has plenty of wiggle room in it. Is it an individual right? And more importantly to what standard should regulations be held? The court said "reasonable basis" and guess what, CA's AWB does stand up to reasonable basis scrutiny. If it had been held up to strict scrutiny it would have been shot down, like almost every other law or regulation that has to stand up to strict scrutiny. So this isn't a gamble; we've already lost on what we've got now and the new amendment couldn't make things worse.

Please do some reading about these standards. I'm laboring to explain something which is a simple misunderstanding here.

I guess the part that puzzles me the most is that we already have such a hard time with the 2nd Amendment and logically applying it, so suddenly you think it is going to be so clear to the anti's when they see "strict scrutiny".

That's exactly what will happen. Read this article about the Sileira case and then get back to me please. This proposed amendment destroys that problem.

They really don't care about playing by the rules or using logic and reasoning to back up their arguments. They apply emotion and the dumbest factor..

If you start arguing in terms of doomsday outcomes then I can't argue with you. If the courts aren't going to uphold the law, then we could pass whatever amendment we want to. We could have an amendment that says "Senor El Rojo shall have the right to possess an M16 at all times and places in the state of California and no authority shall regulate that right or prevent him from doing so and the State of California shall send him a case of 223 every Christmas" and if the courts stop following the law then none of that will happen. Nothing we can do about that. That's out of the scope of this situation. The proposed amend will be the strongest legal wording we can have and it gives iron-clad guidance to courts about what to do, in a language that they understand with no wiggle room.

If you're saying that we should give up on the courts, then the only thing we have left is this:



I say, no way, or at least, not yet.

I'll say it again, there's no better way a RKBA amendment could be written than Jon's writing here. There's no stronger or clearer or less ambiguous way to say it. Unless you think it's time to start shooting at helicopters, then let's get this amendment on the ballot and let's get it passed. If we find out that the courts won't enforce the clear wording then great, time to use the ammo box.

 

[El Rojo]

Ok, you convinced me. We live in California. We have nothing to lose. And if we screw up the whole country, well good. That will teach the rest of free America to always write us off and tell everyone to move out of the state!

 

[Mute]

Let me put this question up. If this becomes a part of the California constitution, how will that be worse than where we are now?

 

[jnojr]

Some people just can't be made happy. Give them what they want, and all of a sudden, that isn't what they wanted at all!

I think that if our bad laws were swept away, some people would have to find something else to argue and rant about.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, though. We're up to a whopping 13 volunteers, none in the most populous counties. Unless people start stepping up, we don't have to worry about seeing this issue on the ballot. We can go back to complaining about how bad things are for another few years.

Oh, BTW... I did not write the initiative. Don Kilmer did. I'm just blowing the trumpet.

 

[Gordon Fink]

In fact, FYI, the 9th circuit HAS struck down the 86 MG ban and there are people in the 9th circuit areas who have Form 4s ready to file as soon as the BATF starts accepting them. The BATF has said, “we won’t accept them ’til the SCOTUS resolves the issue”, and I’m actually optimistic that it will be resolved correctly.…

Sorry, Taco, but it has already been resolved and not correctly.

Just remember that laws do little to stop criminals … whether they operate on the street or in the legislature.

~G. Fink

 

[LAR-15]

But rights cannot be restricted if they do not infringe on another.

My carrying an MP-5 down the street infringes on the rights of no one unless I start shooting at them or take it on their proprerty when they do not want me to.

And why prohibit minors from buying .22 rifles?



You might as well 'go the whole hog' because in CA you have nothing to lose. Spell it out and make it totally clear the state cannot restrict firearms whatsoever except on govt owned property

 

[Gordon Fink]

LAR-15, you may want to rethink that last point.

~G. Fink

 

[El Rojo]

Jnojr,

Thanks to Uno Taco, I have changed my mind on this thing and would be happy to help with the cause. However, you did nothing to change my mind. Take this as constructive criticism. We are on the both side and want the same thing, so I am not trying to degrade you, but give you my honest opinion.

I asked legitimate questions about strict scrutiny and you didn't give me anything but a wise answer of "go look it up". That instantly turned me off. You could have even said, "It is a legal term, go look it up." If you want people to follow you, you have to work with them. If gun owners resist you, don't assume they are stupid and are incapable of getting it. Assume they are ignorant and need to be educated. You have to do the educating. Uno Taco did a good job of educating me. He explained strict scrutiny and challenged my theories.

If we are going to put out a hard to understand concept like strict scrutiny and the wording that goes along with it looks bad, you HAVE to explain to your supporters why it really is a good thing. If you just blow them off, no wonder you only have a few supporters. You have to work for it. You can't just expect people to always blindly follow you, especially the hypercritical and suspicious pro-gun crowd who by their nature distrusts the government and the laws that come from the same government.

I was going to PM this to you, but I thought it was a good lesson for us all. You will run into guys like me who are going to question you. Don't insult us or blow us off. Try and explain it to us. If you can convince us, we will be the biggest supporters you have. As a volunteer coordinator, it is our job to get people excited and inform them. You have to work on them.

I am going to forward this on to my NRA rep and get his opinion and I still want to get a better idea about this thing. After that I am going to see what I can do up here in Kern County to get this thing moving. In the end, the idea that "It can't get much worse" is a big motivator for me to try anything! Long live oppressive California!

You might as well 'go the whole hog' because in CA you have nothing to lose. Spell it out and make it totally clear the state cannot restrict firearms whatsoever except on govt owned property.

Nothing like the vote your principle attitude when you know there is no way in hell the liberals in this state would go for it. After some consideration, this idea is our best shot as its tricky language might be enough for the middle ground to go for it not realizing what it might really mean for this great state. I can hear the "assault weapons are flooding our streets" cries even now!

 

[jnojr]

You're more than welcome to "do it the right way", Rojo. I'm just tired of having to fight people on this issue. Nobody has said "Hey, this is great! I'm going to volunteer right now!" It's "You're doing it wrong", "This is all a waste of time", "You should be doing XYZ instead of ABC" and, of course, the defeaning silence from the overwhelming vast majority.

I'm through trying to convince people. I'll let as many know about it as possible. If someone has honest questions, I'll try to answer, but why not just ask TACR? For people who want to pick the effort apart, criticise it, and tell me that it's all wrong... the hell with 'em. I'm going to do what I can do, but i'm just done irritating myself over an issue that is very quickly not going to have much if any direct impact on me personally.

 

[El Rojo]

I can understand your frustration, but look at it from the perspective I gave. This thing looks like it does nothing or at the worst it takes away even more. Can you see why good honest people think it is wrong. If you take the time to explain it, it will work. If it is worth it, that is what you are going to have to do. I would certainly appreciate your efforts even if you are leaving soon. So many people encourage us Californian's to turn tail and flee. It is so refreshing when someone wants to stay and fight. It would be even better if someone fought even though they weren't staying. That is someone with moral principles and someone I could respect.

 

[Beethoven]

I am downloading and filling out the volunteer sheet.


Jnojr, please let me know if there is anything else I can do!!!

 

[tube_ee]

You're more than welcome to "do it the right way", Rojo. I'm just tired of having to fight people on this issue. Nobody has said "Hey, this is great! I'm going to volunteer right now!" It's "You're doing it wrong", "This is all a waste of time", "You should be doing XYZ instead of ABC" and, of course, the defeaning silence from the overwhelming vast majority.

I'm through trying to convince people. I'll let as many know about it as possible. If someone has honest questions, I'll try to answer, but why not just ask TACR? For people who want to pick the effort apart, criticise it, and tell me that it's all wrong... the hell with 'em. I'm going to do what I can do, but i'm just done irritating myself over an issue that is very quickly not going to have much if any direct impact on me personally.

Hey, man... I'll be the first to admit, when I read the proposed amendment, I thought the same things ER did. Having had it explained to me, I'll now go ahead and say

"Hey, this is great! I'm going to volunteer right now!"

PM me with details.

--Shannon

 

[Mr.V.]

Jon has carefully drafted this thing in such a way as to have maximum effect AND maximum stealth.

I don't know about anyone else but this "strict scrutiny" crap is pissing me off. So essentially we're to be putting lawyer jargon into our constitution. And maybe just maybe we can FOOL lots of people into signing it. Afterall that's the purpose of the "stealth", is it not?

We should present an amendment that is simple and clearly written to be understood by us, the people. We shouldn't be dishonestly presenting an amendment to sucker people into thinking differently or hiding the real motivation.

People should be making an informed decision about amending a fundamental document. I hope it goes towards gun rights. But we shouldn't try to sneak it in. There's already too many laws that sneak things in..

And if "strict scrutiny" even mattered, explain Kelo v. City of New London.

 

[El Rojo]

Yeah me too Mr. V, but you know as well as I do, THE POLITICS HERE SUCK! Worse for you on the other side of the Grapevine. We don't have much going fo us here, so I am willing to try a sneaky move. Honestly, if it gets much worse, there is going to have to be a backlash sooner or later, so lets give it a try. If it works, awesome. If it doesn't, lets revolt.

 

[tube_ee]

I don't know about anyone else but this "strict scrutiny" crap is pissing me off. So essentially we're to be putting lawyer jargon into our constitution. And maybe just maybe we can FOOL lots of people into signing it. Afterall that's the purpose of the "stealth", is it not?

We should present an amendment that is simple and clearly written to be understood by us, the people. We shouldn't be dishonestly presenting an amendment to sucker people into thinking differently or hiding the real motivation.

People should be making an informed decision about amending a fundamental document. I hope it goes towards gun rights. But we shouldn't try to sneak it in. There's already too many laws that sneak things in..

And if "strict scrutiny" even mattered, explain Kelo v. City of New London.

You are letting your hatred for lawyers get in the way of reality. Hate tends to do that. Laws and constitutions are legal documents. They will be interpreted by judges, all of whom are lawyers. The cases those judges will rule on will be argued by lawyers. You wouldn't write a physics paper in "plain english", and you shouldn't write a law in it either. The law is a very specialized domain, as specialized in it's way as physics, or medicine, or engineering. As such, it uses terms that have very narrowly defined terms, with meanings that are specific to that domain. Since that is the framework in which this, or any, law will be evaluated, it only makes sense to use the technical language of that framework.

If you really want to understand the kinds of problems that using "plain language" definitions for technical terms can cause, look into the history of Euclid's 5th postulate. The development of geometry was stalled for over 2000 years because geometers assumed that words like "point" and "line" had to mean the same thing in formal geometry that they mean in everyday life.

"Strict scrutiny" is a term with a clearly, narrowly defined meaning in the law. I too shared your concerns when I first read the amendment. Once I understood that "sctrict scrutiny" was technical language, and not "plain english," I felt much better. I am now fully supporting this amendment, as well as volunteering to get signatures. I encourage you to do the same. If you've got any pull with the NRA, you might try to get them to back this thing. We're gonna need the money, that's for sure.

Or you can sit back in your easy chair and bitc# about "California's" stupid gun laws, which you are doing nothing to change.

The choice is yours. I know what I'm going to do.
--Shannon

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Excellent post, Shannon.

Look, LAR-15, a CA amend that's written the way you have written it a) would never pass and b) even if it did pass it would be thrown out by the courts! How is that possible? It's very possible. They would say that it's written in a way that is not legally acceptable and throw it out. And even if it did pass... would you really want to be in a world where any bozo (including criminals) could walk in the gun store with $1,000 cash and walk away with a new automatic grenade launcher or an M60? The purist libertarian answer is "that's how it should be" but I don't think you'll find very many gun owners who feel that way. I certainly don't. Some exceptionally dangerous weapons (like automatic grenade launchers) should be regulated and criminals and the mentally ill shouldn't have such an easy time getting their hands on them.

But none of this matters. Politics is the art of the possible. The way Jon's post has it written, it is possible. The other way is not possible. I'm a lot more interested in achieving progress than I am in being perfect and losing. That's just me. That's a fundamental personal philosophy thing.

Jon, don't give up, don't have a stroke, I'll keep on explaining it until it sinks in or at least until it's reduced to a personal philosphy issue which we can understand but can't change.

Senor El Rojo and Shannon, I'm so glad you're in our camp on this. If this passes, first, it will sweep away most of the firearms laws in CA, including the AWB and the pistol safety nonsense. Not only that but it will provide a defense. Let's say someone was caught carrying without a permit. He would be able to use this amend as part of his defense! Suddenly the prosecutor would have to show (under the highest legal standard of strict scrutiny) that banning So-and-so from carrying was necessary and was the least-restrictive regulation that could have achieved the goal. Today, prosecutors only need to show that so-and-so violated the law. Do you see the difference? Prosecutors would just not even take these cases because suddenly the law is also on trial with the deck stacked against it. In fact this proposition might result in CA joining the elite group of Vermont and Alaska in its carry laws...

This proposition (and Prop 77) are the two best shots we have of reforming CA's firearms laws.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

You're more than welcome to "do it the right way", Rojo. I'm just tired of having to fight people on this issue. Nobody has said "Hey, this is great! I'm going to volunteer right now!" It's "You're doing it wrong", "This is all a waste of time", "You should be doing XYZ instead of ABC" and, of course, the defeaning silence from the overwhelming vast majority.

Jon, we're here! I'm saying, "Hey this is great" and I'm volunteering right now to a) explain this law to death and back if I need to and b) do all the database / web work to give it a killer website. And I'll get some of those petitions and fill them out. I just can't volunteer in a public way due to my business.

 

[Mr.V.]

They will be interpreted by judges, all of whom are lawyers. The cases those judges will rule on will be argued by lawyers. You wouldn't write a physics paper in "plain english", and you shouldn't write a law in it either. The law is a very specialized domain, as specialized in it's way as physics, or medicine, or engineering.

There's still a big difference. If you never know what "Henoch-Schönlein purpura" is you don't go to Riker's Island. To my knowledge, people don't go to Pelican Bay for not getting that dQ/dt=-lamda A dT/dx.

Unlike medicine, physics, etc, Law has a funny distinction (not the haha funny variety either). If you try to read the laws it's difficult at best to gain an understanding of what it means. However, if you break a law, it was your responsibility to know the laws of California. So if this is true, there should be a requirement in public and private education to teach laws so that we cannot claim ignorance.

Right now I pretty much go by what I think is morally correct or by what other people tell me is okay, and so far, I haven't been imprisoned. But if the, "I don't understand the laws" defense nor the "but this guy said it was okay" defense aren't admissibile, we're stuck all having to be lawyers to live in our society. Should not law be required to use terms we can all understand because after all it's our butts that end up in the clink when we don't?

Also--I'll not only sign the petition but I'll volunteer to help. I'm just not the biggest fan of trying to use "stealth" in order to achieve it. I'm not only ignorant of law generally, I'm terribly unfamiliar in the practice of Ninja Law.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Should not law be required to use terms we can all understand because after all it's our butts that end up in the clink when we don't?

That's really a philosophy question. The other question is, should there be so many laws that no one human being can ever understand them? Should there be so many felony laws on the books? Etc? I think our legal code is bloated and incomprehensible but reforming that is far outside the scope of this proposition. This is a good proposition and it's designed to work well within our current reality, flawed though it may be. I care about stuff that works within reality.

Also--I'll not only sign the petition but I'll volunteer to help. I'm just not the biggest fan of trying to use "stealth" in order to achieve it. I'm not only ignorant of law generally, I'm terribly unfamiliar in the practice of Ninja Law.

Stealth is part of the game sometimes. This is California we're talking about. We have to do what we can do. And I'm sick of all the people saying "just move", "there's plenty of room in Nevada", etc. We don't need to move. We can fix it right here.

 

[dav]

Just a quick reply to LAR-15
You are aware, aren't you, that the government owns ALL property in the US?
Try not paying taxes and see what happens.
If the government can limit firearms on its own property, it can limit them everywhere.