Supreme Court - Major Loss in California

J

JimDiver

New member
The State Supreme Court rejected, entirely, the arguments against the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989.
Notice on page 6 that the court states that "If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized... they are simply wrong."

:MAD::MAD::MAD::MAD::MAD:

Just goes to prove once again there is NO justice in California.

PDF Format

Word DOC Format




[This message has been edited by JimDiver (edited June 29, 2000).]
 
Time to put a For Sale sign in front of my house and start looking for a good motorhome.
Hell....I wanted to retire anyway. ;)

------------------
"Lead, follow or get the HELL out of the way."
 
They said it wasn't in the California Constitution. Was does it say?

Also about the need for such guns. I guess the Korean merchants in the LA riots needed law books instead.
 
I thought the state constitution had a right to bear arms clause. Or is CA one of the few states that doesn't have that right?
 
This is a larger quote from the Supreme Court opinion that quotes the California Constitution:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Although plaintiffs assert the AWCA fails to satisfy even the rational basis test, they contend it should be reviewed under the "intermediate or even strict scrutiny standards of legal review" because "portions of the [AWCA] touch upon [an] express fundamental constitutional right." This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms. (See In re Rameriz (1924) 193 Cal. 633, 651 ["The constitution of this state contains no provision on the subject."].) Moreover, "t is long since settled in this state that regulation of firearms is a proper police function." (Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 866.) We reject any suggestion that the regulations at issue here impermissibly infringe upon the right to defend life or protect property guaranteed by the California Constitution.[/quote]

I guess that settles it. If you are in California, you have NO RIGHT to keep and bear arms.Period.

[sarcasm]If you own guns in the state of California you can write a letter to your state congresscritters, governor, city council members, etc. and thank them for allowing you the privelege of owning a gun...for now.[/sarcasm] :(

It's only a matter of time...and it starts in California.


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Quote from artice:
This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights, they are simply wrong.

OK, so just how are we to defend life and liberty, protect property and obtain safety if we are disarmed. We are not all martial arts experts and can accomplish the above with our bare hands! :mad:
 
The courts of CA as well as the Federal 9th district court have no ligitimacy. They do not rule based upon law, but rather by political fiat. I'll say no more, before I get myself in trouble.



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

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
Um, isn't a gun "property"?...

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
You can defend your life by dialing 911 and waiting for the police to think about arriving. After arriving and finding the there really is no crime in progress as you claimed in your hurried 911 call, they will arrest you for misusing the 911 system, and claim that yet another dangerous criminal has been taken off the streets. This statement will of course be followed by pleas for more power for police and DA's, so that the system can be even more streamlined than it already is. If you live in the PRK and have any sense of freedmom or even plain decency, you should seriously consider moving. Once you have established your family outside the state, we should all get together with a bunch of jack-hammers and start pecking at the fault line with the hopes of sending that whole state into the ocean. The PRK is a lost cause, we should let them rot in the sess pool they created and consolidate our strength in states that still have some sense of honor and freedom. Once we get these states undour our control, then we can spread forth and further the cause in other states. Right now we are faced with a lines that are spread too thin and often fighting loosing battles. We should take a lesson from the past. Find the weak point in the enemy and concentrate ALL your power there to break through, and backdoor them to death.
 
No surprise.

VOTE BUSH. Emerson is going all the way, but first either Gore or Bush will have a chance to put in one or two new robes on the Supremes.

A full-tilt win for Emerson and this piece of buttwipe they call a decision just became moot.

Jim
 
Many states treat their citizens better, and offer more protection to boot. For example, here is the pertinent section of the AZ Constitution:

"26 Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

Consider voting with your feet, although I certainly understand not leaving one's home because the barbarians are at the gate.

Indeed, we can hope that Emerson clarifies this mess at the federal level, and that would correct these travesties. However, I'm honestly not optimistic ... I fear Emerson will end up being upheld on other grounds, and they'll dodge the RKBA. Hope I'm wrong.

Sorry to hear of this setback.

Regards from AZ
 
I guess the scary part of this decision is the Attorney General under the legislation has the right to add weapons to those specifically listed as he/she deems fit simply by classifying them as "assault weapons." All this without hearings let alone additional legislation.

I wonder if this be the case, and a RKBA friendly AG were to come to office, if he might "de-classify" weapons as AW's as well.

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
Gentlemen: the time is here ...they are all trators!!!! Consider:The Sixth Article, Second Clause which states:"This Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby." No State Legislature, judge, federal agency, law enforcement officer, President, or anyone has the right or the power to alter, change or interfere with the Supreme Law of the Land. ....The US Constitution!

------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top