You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California Gun Laws
- Thread starter Doug 29
- Start date
Our problem in Kalifornia is the state supreme court has ruled they see no individual right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution and certainly not in the state constitution. They, in the same ruling, have determined the attorney general can add weapons to the assault weapons banned list by finding a tame, ambitious superior court judge, who wants to be the next supreme court justice.
Libertarian
New member
I do not see how California (and NY, IL, etc...) get away with what they do. From the US Constitution I extracted the following:
Any legal scholars out there who would care to explain these questions?
[Edited by Libertarian on 12-16-2000 at 02:43 PM]
How did they ban guns once legal, especially after they forced registration based on the promise that they would not ban them.Article I Section 9
3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
If VA allows CCW, how can CA not accept my permit as it does my driver's license and marriage license? Further, how can the get around the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?Article IV Section 2
1. The Citizens of each State be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This sure looks like any failure to allow 2nd Amendment rights is wrong.Article VI
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any legal scholars out there who would care to explain these questions?
[Edited by Libertarian on 12-16-2000 at 02:43 PM]
It's the "Living Constitution" which AlGwhore spoke about during one of the debates, and Klinton spoke about as being too radical (in need of change). As the country grows, they believe the Constitution can change, not by 3/4 popular vote, but by re-interpretation by judges. You see it's much easier this way. Do away with the electoral college by some judges opinion.
With a philosophy like this why have a Constitution, or should this be considered Treason?
With a philosophy like this why have a Constitution, or should this be considered Treason?
Libertarian
New member
I wonder if the "Corruption of Blood" statute could be interpreted to mean breeding more mindless sheeple?Article III Section 3
1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
2. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture during the Life of the Person attainted.