Posted: 3/7/2004 12:24:45 AM EDT
|
Hmm the big argument the SFO lawyers made was that City Officials don't have to obey laws they BELIEVE are unconstitutional, so why can't a citizen go to San Francisco and carry concealed because he "believes" the CCW laws are not only unconstitutional on their face (2nt Amendment) but that as currently administered differently in most jurisdictions also violate the equal protection clauses which are the second argument the mayor is making. That would sure make for an interesting trial when you called the City Attorney or presented his arguments in support of your defense. |
|
I wrote a nice letter or two when this shit started. The plain fact is that the Federal Constitution states that congress shall make no laws infrindging on the right of citizens from keeping and bearing arms ... and that rights spelled out in the Federal Constitition can not be abridged by the states. It's the plain simple truth that the State of California has passed dozens of firearm laws which anyone with a 6th grade education can see. I don't need a panel of liberal judges to read and tell me what the US Constitution means today - it means the same thing it did 50 years ago and 200 years ago but somehow that's not the way they see it. How could the thousands of judges and leglistators over the first 150 years of the Constitution's life not see the error of their ways and know that the Second Amendment doesn't mean shit? |
|
Except that Congress didn't make the laws that are hassling us. The Legislature did and so we need to attack on the state level first. but that's kind of the point. If these perceived rights (in the State) are held viable under the State Constitution then it will be (or should be) far more dificult to claim that the same rights don't exist for keeping and bearing arms, Why should a citizen in several counties have almost automatic granting of a CCW while citizens in other counties are almost automatically denied. That's not equal application and should probably be held to unconstitutional denial of equal protection. IANAL and the State Constitution is a morass, it could likely be held to be covered because it was in fact addressed and the marriage issues are not. However for government official to claim rights based on belief is definitely opening the door wide open for us to charge through. Any legal beagles conversant with the State Constitution wanna take a few shots at this??? |
|
Guys, I was pondering some of the same points you are trying to make here. Why is it we as gun owners dont get together, and start openly carrying our guns (loaded). Are we that afraid of what will happen? Nothing is happening to all the homo's, and politicians that are breaking Kalifornia law with disdain, claiming equal protection clause. Where is our equal protection clause, I didnt choose to be a gun owner, I was born that way. Something about holding that cold hard steel in my hand and shooting my load. Won't the gun owners of Kalifornia ban together, and come to each others aid. What will Bill Lockyer and his cronies do if we all start openly carrying? Its about time Kalifornia gun owners come out of the closet, and quit being a gun owner in secret. Is not one gun owner in Kalifornia willing to keep his inalienable rights or are we going to cowtow to the all powerful politcians? I think we can learn something from the homo's, Civil disobediece is working for them, what about us? |
|
okay, Ive thought this trough a little bit more, and if there is no brave Sherrif, or LEO that is pro Second Amendment, willing to hand out CCW's Why dont we just head ovver to SF and marry walther or Reminton, or winchester, or Bushy etc. etc. How could they turn us down? LOL |
|
One of the problems is that Gay's are considered a “protected class”. Any time you even start to step on toes the scream goes up about “discrimination”, “homophobia”, “violating my civil rights” etc, etc, etc... Gun owners on the other hand have been demonized to death. I agree that Gay's were in that boat not too long ago but the “coming out” process was difficult and fraught with danger and violent resistance from intolerant people. Strapping on your sidearm and walking the streets is a *bit* different than carrying a sign protesting some real or imagined injustice. The sign might get you a ticket or harassed, the firearm *will* get you surrounded by cops that see anyone with a gun as a deadly threat and you just might end up dead in the process. Are you wiling to die as a Martyr for the cause? I'm not unless it's a true SHTF/TEOTWAWKI situation and I take some of the other side out in the process. The difference between standing up for our rights as gun owners is that you risk felony convictions, stand to lose everything you've built up in your lifetime and possibly die. Gun owners by nature tend to be law abiding and very thoughtful on how their behavior impacts both themselves and those around them. Unlike many other groups that take it as a badge of honor to disrupt and get in people's faces, that's an anathema to most law abiding gun owners. Also, to fight a case through the courts requires LOTS of money. The people that are most likely able to finance such a challenge are the ones that are most concerned with losing it all. If you could create a plan where a few brave souls make the challenge, with a legal defense team in place and funding already arranged it would go a long way. Still you'd have to get several people to take a great risk and possibly be imprisoned for years while this thing winds its way through our “justice” system. There's also a good chance that the DA or State AG would refuse to rise to the bait, charging the “offenders” with a lesser or unrelated “crime” so that the whole messy issue doesn't get a fair hearing. The LAST thing that the powers-that-be want is a well funded, well grounded challenge to their “interpretation” of the Second Amendment. They are fucked either way. Court rules in favor of the Second and you've opened a MAJOR can of worms because you've proven that decades of bullshit that has been foisted on the citizens of this nation is just that... BULLSHIT. The Emperor HAS no clothes. Court rules against the Second and you've put the government in the position of saying that black is white and up is down. The grabbers would have a field day banning everything they could and registering everything else for the next phase (confiscation). That would be the wake up call to all those that say it can never happen here and that's the LAST thing the Socialist bastards want. They want to take over without waking the sheep. An outright denial of the Second would put EVERYONE on notice that the shit HAS hit the fan. I think that the time will come, as it did for our forefathers, where we will need to stand and make THE choice. I don't know what's going to be the trigger for it but I DO know that we're getting closer every day. |