Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page




	California State Supreme Court Outlaws Rights!!! by John Campbell On June 29th, The California State Supreme court overturned the appeals court finding that the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) was unconstitutional thereby reinstating the law and it's subsequent confiscation's abilities as seen in the SKS Rifle confiscation orders. For any of you who may be anti gun activists or supporters of such, I want you to see exactly just what you have done. The reason for this is that it is now only a matter of time before you realize that you are the subject of that attack against our rights by government. You have successfully outlawed all rights in the State of California with the words of the findings of the court as follows: (note: This is not a joke or a hoax) "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 Constitutions 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, [i]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. Therefore, as the AWCA does not burden a fundamental right under either the federal or the state Constitutions, the rational basis test applies." If you are an anti gun activist or supporter of such, did you miss it while you were reveling in your personal win? Did your hatred for me and my guns, who's only purpose was to protect rights, blind you to what was just quoted? If so, let me show you a closer look. From the State Constitution we have the following which was quoted above by the Judges: "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." Every facet of that paragraph has now been violated by the following words of the Judges in the very same finding from which I quoted above in the following quote: "If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitutions declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms." On this basis one should consider that all things that the State Supreme court determines to be not explicitly contained within the State Constitution are mere privileges and not Rights. The intentional actions of the court to ignore the Ninth amendment to the Constitution of the United States as well as the Second Amendment and the supremacy clause is self evident. The California State Constitution in article 1 section 24 is nearly identical to the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It was violated as well. See Below: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment IX, Constitution of the United States. "This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people." Article 1 sec. 24, Constitution of the State of California. The California State Supreme Court now declaring itself to be the arbiter of Rights by this action, it then follows that if the State determines that they do not want you to have a pickup truck, a fireplace, a computer, or anything else that is not explicitly written in the State Constitution, the State has the authority to enforce such bans and subsequent confiscations. With these two sentences, the California State Supreme Court has declared at least two things. They claim there is no Right to keep and bear arms and because they based this on such a Right not being explicitly written in the State Constitution. They have also declared that you have no Rights to anything if it is not explicitly written in the State Constitution. If the law makers claim you cannot have a wood burning stove, they now have the power to confiscate one from you. Maybe your washing machine doesn't fit their elitist ideals--or even your house. If you simply say that I am wrong as these Judges did, consider this. Go to the California Constitution and locate were it says that a person has the right to own or posses a pickup truck, car, boat, woodstove, clothing, money, or anything else you can think of including being secure in your effects. Look all you want. It isn't there. My "pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy" was protected by the Constitution up until this final ruling. Now the court has said that without the enumeration of items that fit such descriptions explicitly, We have no such right. If you simply say that I am wrong as these Judges did, consider this. Go to the California Constitution and locate were it says that a person has the right to own or posses a house. Look all you want. It isn't there. My possession of property--and a firearm is property--was protected by the Constitution up until this final ruling. Now the court has said that without the enumeration of property, We have no such right. There you have it folks. Democracy in action. Of this finding I can only say this: A court or representative who willfully attacks the Rights of the people and intentionally attempts to run a dictatorship by the above prescription is a criminal predator and a traitor. They represent a clear and present danger to our continued survival. Self defense is a must if we wish to remain free of their bondage and subsequent violent, life threatening, attacks. With control of law enforcement at their beck and call unless on an individual basis they refuse to comply, it is now only a matter of time before the blood shed starts as their attempt to enforce such a tyrannical prescription will undoubtedly be met with armed resistance. The law makers and courts responsible for this action knew this would be the result, for the degree of ignorance required not to know this would preclude the ability of those individuals to become Judges and Representatives in the first place. The only possibility left is that a concerted, willful, and wanton intent to destroy our Republican form of government in favor of an ideological dictatorship in proceeding. Such an effort is called Treason. John Campbell Bakersfield, Ca. A Patriots Heart 1404 White Lane Bakersfield, Ca. 93307 CONDORO7@aol.com (661) 836-9020 For related story, read the expanded list of firearms now offered up by the Firearms Division of the California Department of Justice. Also HIGHLY recommended is Brian Puckett's Why I Will Not Obey California's Gun Registration Edict.