SB23 Sitrep - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

Pthfndr

New member
OK, we didn't get enough signatures. As another poster said there is a next phase. All members please read the sitrep. It will now be possible for anyone in the country to help.

SITREP 10/16/99

First the bad news: We did not achieve the necessary signatures to qualify the SB23 Referendum for the ballot. I have already put my anger and disappointment
in a box and filed it. NOW is the time to get energized and learn from what we HAVE achieved. I'll address some of the problems and lessons learned further in
a while.

PHASE TWO starts Monday 10/18/99. We are introducing a California Constitutional Amendment, which is designed to correct a significant omission in the
California Constitution. An omission that many constitutional scholars believe is the root cause for the plethora of evil, discriminatory, noxious anti-gun bills we
are continuingly bludgeoned with by duplicitous lying legislators.

Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms Initiative is only 129 words. Several constitutional lawyers have been working on the language, and the spectrum of
recommendations went from a single sentence to 38-pages. The language, which we have approved, accepted and are submitting to the Attorney General for
Title and Summary Monday is what we will be offering to the California voters.

Here it is:

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 and local 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 the press.
2.This Amendment does not limit the State or local governments from regulating the acquisition and
possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and any person subject to the
restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct.


That's it!

What happens next?

1.First off, pat yourself on the back. Despite having failed in achieving our initial goal, we have accomplished A LOT. As a result of your commitment,
initiative, determination, and inertia, we have established a grassroots organization, which covers the state from San Diego to Eureka. We have over 60
locations for distribution of petitions, and the core of a grassroots network that will only grow and expand its outreach. This is NOT the time to bitch and
moan. We lost a battle, but we WILL win this war.
2.Monday 10/18/99 we will submit the referral letter to the Attorney General. He will probably take ten days to complete the Title and Summary (which
must be included on the petition along with the language of our initiative).
3.During those ten days, we need to establish regional, district, and community coordinators. We are contacting several individuals who have already
distinguished themselves and demonstrated by their performance an ability to coordinate volunteers and make things happen. We will be changing and
updating the web page to accommodate and direct sign ups and management.
4.One of our most valuable lessons learned is that we need more structure, organization and routine management of our resources. Before we issue the
petitions (which should be ten days from Monday) anyone in the state will have A PERSON they can contact with any and all questions.
5.We are shutting down the Forum for a few days for maintenance and re-structuring. Meanwhile, all the old forum data will be archived as a link. You
won't be able to post new items to the forum for a while, but you can email individuals who have posted.
6.When we reopen the Forum please (again) restrict comments to nuts and bolts mission oriented stuff. We will keep the "Rant Forum" where you can itch
and moan about off topic items that are related to our efforts. However, both forums ARE moderated, and if you have some pet agenda, which is
unrelated to our goals, it will not be permitted.
7.The petition is already completed. HOWEVER, we can not make it available for distribution until we receive the Title and Summary from the A.G.. Look
for it by 10/28/99. It will be a pdf file in Adobe Acrobat as before, but will be MUCH easier to print and copy. Additionally we will be printing copies
for distribution and will be seeking donated printing services from any an all that can help.
8.EVERY WEEK subsequent to commencement, we will be posting an updated count of how many valid signatures have been collected to date. Although
we have more time (5 months) we also have to collect more signatures. Our goal is ONE MILLION.
9.We are inviting several pro-gun/pro-Constitutional groups to join our coalition. ANYONE AND EVERYONE is invited. We will be including a list on
our home page of all participating coalition members. They will be shown as a hotlink on the home page. The only requirements for coalition members is
that they cross link us to their pages and agree to mail or distribute petitions to their membership.
10.The Internet is remarkable valuable tool. However, we cannot achieve our goal with ONLY the Internet. Anyone with the capacity to fax-tree, mail, and
otherwise network is invited to help. NOTE: We do not want nor need any group's membership list. You keep that, protect it, and secure it. However,
we DO ask that YOU ask your members to sign and distribute our petition.

When I first started seeking solutions to the crap flowing out of the billmill back in November '98, I was committed to keeping it grassroots and avoiding the
creation of another organization. I wanted a single purpose effort that would do a job and then dissolve. I was wrong. Experts told me how this game is played,
and what needed to be done. It involved a lot of experts and money. I had hoped to avoid that, but if we are to achieve our goals, we need to do it the way it
has already worked. Kinda. Actually we are creating a hybrid of the way things have been done, and the way we are going to do it. Originally, I did not want to
raise money for several reasons. First, I didn't want the accounting nightmare. Secondly, I didn't want the inevitable audit hassles. Lastly, I did not want to be a
threat to other non-profits that are always seeking member's money. However, the reality is, we will need money.

1.We are going to establish a 501c-3 or 4 non-profit. We will make the decision in a couple of days of whether it is a 3 or a 4. There are advantages and
disadvantages to each. That means we WILL be soliciting money. However, don't call for a job. We are not hiring any paid staff. We will continue to be
an all-volunteer grassroots organization. Any and all money will be spent on mailings, office expenses, and advertising.
2.This is organization is designed for planned obsolescence. When we succeed in getting the initiative on the ballot we will focus on getting the votes, and
THEN we will fold our tent. We will spend whatever we get, and if anything is left over, we will donate it to some pro-Constitutional organization.
3.If everyone who has visited our website makes even a modest donation, we will have a lot of money.

Communication with the grassroots has been lousy, and that is largely MY fault. I had been incapable of addressing the myriad questions, small and large. Our
new organization will fix that QUICK. You will always be able to find someone local to address and answer questions. Local coordinators will communicate to
district coordinators who will communicate to regional coordinators who will (WEEKLY) be able to participate in a closed private chat room

The forum has attracted a huge amount of activity. IF, for every forum entry we received we had gotten a signature, we could have qualified two initiatives. For
what it's worth: It has been suggested (as a joke, but I like it) that if folks were to commit to providing a new signature for every visit to the page or every entry
in the forum, we could put this puppy to bed before the New Year.

EVERY WEEK, henceforth, I am committed to providing a new SITREP. This IS doable friends. We have already accomplished more than anyone thought
possible, despite what some will consider a failure. We lost one round, but we gained invaluable experience. Many of you have met new friends and kindred
souls you didn't know existed. We need to build on the extraordinary base we have created, and drive on.

Words, sadly, are grossly inadequate a means of expressing my most sincere and heartfelt appreciation, thanks, and awe for what you have done already.
Although I have not (and may never) meet most of you, I am personally, and deeply proud of each and every one of you.

Inter Fratris Unum

http://www.vetothegovernor.org/
 
This is something we should have done after we defeated Prop 15 years ago. Let's do it!

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Holes that I see are:

1. Limiting the right to self, family and home... what will the courts view this as a limitation in view of "1.All State and local 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 the press." In the first para it states it shall not be infringed.. but then turns right around and says the state and local will regulate the same as the freedoms of speech and the press?

Will this limit the type of arms to only those suitable to defense of self, family & home... IE.. no 'assault weapons'? no anything else except for a shotgun by the bed? Seems to me that large game rifles (30-06 with a scope)(sniper rifles now) would not be necessary for defense of self, family & home?

How about CCW or open carry? Could the courts construe that the gov has the right to regulate these since the wording is skewed toward home? If one is away from home don't they have the police to protect them so that they won't need to carry?

There is the question then of part 2. giving the government the right to regulate the purchase and possession of arms by felons, MINORS and those under RESTRAINING ORDERS. Could they not then just decree that anyone falling under these catageories are banned from owning a gun period? How about those restraining orders? Could not the government issue a restraining order if you receive a traffic ticket?

Sorry to sound so pestamistic, but I always try and look at the downside so that I am aware of the worse that can happen.

Question comes up... will we be better off giving up part of our rights to the state under this proposed RKBA provision or will we be better off to wait and see if the federal 2nd will be held against the states?

Way I see it, if we sign up for this, we and our generations will have to live under it. In reviewing history and how the courts have distroted the 2nd.... and how this gives the hint that our gov can regulate for.. and for.. what will they do with that?

Your throughts and comments will greatly be appreciated as I'm trying to mull this over.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Bookie
It does put defense of self first. The way I see it that would go a long way to opening the door for easier access to a CCW. While it does emphasize the right to defense, I don't think that "they" would deny anyone to own any kind of more "mundane" rifle like typically portrayed to hunt with. I think that the non vocal hunting/shooting community would become very vocal if it suddenly became PC to own an assault weapon or have CCW but not be able to go hunting. IMO

This will definitely be an uphill battle but one I think may actually have a better chance since it focuses on the right to defend ones self, family and home rather than their right to own an assault rifle.
 
Better to have something protecting our rights than nothing as state is currently. Who know if or when the "ducking U.S. Supreme court" will ever rule on this issue, it's been a long time since the miller case, probably would have helped if miller had shown up to court to argue his position. Think this amend is good thing.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON
 
In another thread, Brett brought up an interesting question, one that I too would be curious as to the answer: just how many valid sigs did the 'veto the governor' campaign collect? Anyone here know the answer?

[This message has been edited by BAB (edited October 18, 1999).]
 
Bookie: I share your concern about the way it's written; In practice, for other rights, "strict scrutiny" has meant, "the government can violate this absolute prohibition if it demonstrates it has a REASON to want to violate it." Unfortunately, until we amend the Bill of Rights to add "Simon says" to each of the 10 Amendments, strict scrutiny IS the highest level of protection any of our rights have. (Since there are apparently several parts of the word "no" the S.C. doesn't understand.) It's going to be enough of a fight getting into the CA state constitution an amendment giving gun ownership as high a level of protection as speech; Giving it a HIGHER level of protection might be a bit of a stretch, hm?

I'm actually more concerned about the bit with the restraining orders; You don't have to be actually convicted of anything to be subject to one of those, after all, just under suspicion. They've basically written the Lautenberg amendment into their proposed RKBA amendment!

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
Back
Top