Gun ownership requirements around the world

[P5 Guy]

Isn't the 2nd. Amendment valid in California?

Some of the 'several states' have very restrictive laws pertaining to firearms ownership. Most are in the northeastern part of the USA but hardly restricted to that area. Hawaii is a glaring example of extreme gun control.

 

[Dudedog]

Isn't the 2nd. Amendment valid in California?

Yes it is but the government in CA does not seem to think so.
So if they pass a law that goes against it (or someone feels goes against it)a suit must be filed and then it has to go to court.
I the State wins the person filing can appeal to a higher court,(which may or may not be heard) if the person filing wins the State usually appeals to a higher court (which again may or may not decide to hear the case)
and so on until a higher court refuses to hear it or it works it's way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, which if they decide to hear is the final authority.
(more to it than this but the above is the simple version of the process)

It could be in the court system for years.
Sometimes a court may issue an injunction blocking the law until the court decides sometimes it goes in to effect until the court decides.

So yes it is valid in CA but they state tries to skirt or get around it every way possible.
This is a very general statement but the Democrats tend to be anti gun and the Republicians tend to be pro gun.
Since CA has a Democratic house, Senate and Governor it is antigun and the only thing that stops it (sometimes)is the court system.
Sadly the courts tend to be divided along political lines as well.
So if the judges in the court hearing the case were appointed by Democrats they tend to follow the Democrats line of thinking.
Republican judges tend to try to follow more what was originally intended by the Constitution.
Note: this is a broad generalization and not always the case.


So while you would think courts would be non-political they are not.

 

[Jammersix]

I would argue that the majority of active California voters are the ones who want it this way; their representation and the laws that representation passes are a reflection of that majority desire.

 

[Orkanen]

Yes it is but the government in CA does not seem to think so.

Isn't it sad when people who are hired to serve our best interests believe themselves to be our masters? Seems it's the same all over the world.

 

[Dudedog]

I would argue that the majority of active California voters are the ones who want it this way; their representation and the laws that representation passes are a reflection of that majority desire.

Yes, but if what the majority desires is Un-constitutional that does not make the Majority right.
During Civil war times I am sure the majority of Southern States desired slavery and their elected officials did as well.
Just because it is "desired" by a majority of people does not make it right or constitutional.
(note: using this as an example, not implying in any way that slavery was right/fair/acceptable)

 

[Jammersix]

My point wasn't right or wrong, constitutional or not, my point was that what's happening in California is not the result of some mysterious cabal of dark-magic anti-gun professional politicians that have infiltrated the California government against the will of all the righteous voters of that state. What's happening in California is the result of the votes that were cast by the voters of that state according to their free will, dictated only by their desires.

 

[Kevin Keith]

My point wasn't right or wrong, constitutional or not, my point was that what's happening in California is not the result of some mysterious cabal of dark-magic anti-gun professional politicians that have infiltrated the California government against the will of all the righteous voters of that state. What's happening in California is the result of the votes that were cast by the voters of that state according to their free will, dictated only by their desires.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[Orkanen]

My point wasn't right or wrong, constitutional or not, my point was that what's happening in California is not the result of some mysterious cabal of dark-magic anti-gun professional politicians that have infiltrated the California government against the will of all the righteous voters of that state. What's happening in California is the result of the votes that were cast by the voters of that state according to their free will, dictated only by their desires.

Opinions can be swayed, and are. And not necessarily through reason. Do you know what your elected politicians stand for? I know that far too many take for granted what they hear in the news.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Losing focus.