CA: Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[shaginator]

I hope this one gets enough signatures before 5/28/02:

943. (SA01RF0041).

Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Summary Date: 12/28/01 Circulation Deadline: 05/28/02 Signatures Required: 670,816
Proponents: Donald Kilmer Esq., Geoffrey M. Metcalf (408) 998-8489

Amends the California Constitution to add a personal right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home. Requires state to prove a compelling government interest for any action regulating the keeping and bearing of arms. Provides that this amendment, and such state laws as it allows, take precedence over county, city, and local government regulations on this subject. Allows the state to continue regulating the acquisition or possession of arms by felons, minors, mentally incompetent persons, or persons subject to restraining orders based on their violent conduct. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result in unknown, potential costs to the state and unknown net fiscal effects on local governments.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

(Edited by shaginator at 1:33 am on April 11, 2002)

[jerry d]

If there's a chance something like this will pass in this state, now's the time to try.

The terrorist thing has a lot of people thinking in this direction.

Let's all do what we can to make this a reality!!!!!!!!

[300BOSS2]

Does anyone recall the name of the case where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals(?) decided 2 nd Amendment was an individual right.

Also, does anyone have any info on the Ohio State Supreme Court decsision saying Concealed Carry Law was unconstitutional, that 2nd Amendment guarantees a persons right to carry concealed arms on their person?

[Kernhuntr]

300BOSS2,

I think that you're talking about the Emerson case in Texas? It's the only one that comes to mind.

Check out the thread titled "Court Weapons Ban Unconstitutional" in this section for the Ohio information.

Kernhuntr

[JBarn3]

Unfortunately, the Ohio case is based on the Ohio state constitution, not the US constitution, so this case will have no precedent outside of Ohio.

The first article of the Ohio constitution states "the people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security."

Liberals claim that the US constitution isn't quite so clear although I fail to see the amibuity in "the right of the people to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

[Kernhuntr]

I always find it humorous that the libs and do gooders only see the portions of the constitution that they feel will be good for themselves and there own.

But when the feces hits the turbine they are always the first ones to want help after opposing the same rights they fought so hard to INFRINGE. i.e. Fienstien, Peretta (sp?), Rosie's bodyguards, et all, and they rest of the do gooders that have ccw's becuse of precieved threats on their well being. The rest of us can just swing in the wind......

Kernhuntr

[MAC]

I called the sponsor of this bill, and they said that they are not going to have enough signatures due to poor knowledge of the petition. If you go to the link in the above post, and call the number listed for the sponsor, you can be put on a mailing /email list to help with ###the future efforts (i believe he said 2004). They are building a database of friendlies. They would like as many to call to build up a core of supporters for next time so that the effort doesn't get bogged down in the starting gates. When you call, you will get a law office. Tell them you want to sign up to support the right to bear arms petition, and they will get your info.