In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Gun bias continues in California
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Gun bias continues in California
Posted: April 26, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
It's no secret that lawmakers in California are some of the most paranoid, anti-gun zealots in the nation. A recent state Supreme Court decision solidifies that claim to shame.
On Monday the state's legal chieftains ruled 6-1 that it is perfectly legal for cities and counties to deny citizens the right to buy constitutionally guaranteed self-defense mechanisms at gun show venues, despite state laws that say otherwise.
The ruling stems from an appeal of lower court actions upholding bans imposed by the city of Los Angeles and Alameda County in 1999 - two bastions of guaranteed victimhood if there ever were any.
The Associated Press reported that Alameda County outlawed gun possession on county property after a shooting at its fairgrounds in Pleasanton, while Los Angeles County issued its ban for its fairgrounds in Pomona as county lawmakers decried gun violence.
The resulting gun bans - foisted upon hardworking and largely honest Californians by elites with 24-7 access to tax-supported cadres of armed protection - ensured that armed criminals face no danger in their continuing quest to terrorize good people. The bans also mean no gun shows, either.
In arguing the case, litigants rightfully pointed out that local governments are supposed to be powerless to regulate the gun industry because the legislature has already authorized gun shows on public property. State laws, they argued, supersede the local ones.
Well, except in California. There, anti-gun bias so often supercedes common sense and the rule of law.
But how could the high court ignore state statutes so blatantly? Well first, justices had to redefine what the law actually says in order to justify circumventing it.
According to the ruling, justices "granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for certification, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.5 to address the following questions: 1) Does state law regulating the sale of firearms and gun shows preempt a county ordinance prohibiting gun and ammunition sales on county property; and 2) May a county, consistent with article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, regulate the sale of firearms on its property located in an incorporated city within the borders of the county?"
"The first question may be rephrased as follows: Does state law compel counties to allow their property to be used for gun shows at which guns and ammunition are sold?" the justices wrote. "We conclude that it does not."
There you have it. If you're a paranoid elitist who doesn't believe the lowly masses should possess the means to dethrone you at will, just change the question to produce the desired legal answer.
Here is another example of the state's growing legal bias against Californians' constitutionally guaranteed right to use a firearm for self-defense.
In 1982 a state appeals court overturned a San Francisco ban on handgun possession, saying cities and counties cannot write such laws. But by 1998, "another appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, which were legal in other parts of the state," AP said.
Despite protestations to the contrary, rulings like these suggest that in California top jurists with a legal bias don't see anything wrong with ignoring the law. Like liberal-socialists tend to do, they favor the right to make up their own rules as they go along while insisting that you, "the little people," abide by them and like it.
Such improper usurpations will ultimately lead to more legal outrages against other constitutionally protected rights besides the freedom to own a gun and conduct lawful commerce. A legislature, governor and attorney general that don't move to prevent such usurpations are equally complicit.
What is really a shame is that such courtroom treachery against a federally protected constitutional right goes unnoticed 'way over on the other coast, in Washington, D.C., where such abuses are often just as routine.
It is Attorney General John Ashcroft's job to protect Californians against such blatant legal bias. When Bush was hosed by Florida's Supreme Court during the 2000 election, he went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Why not now?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27401
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Posted: April 26, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
It's no secret that lawmakers in California are some of the most paranoid, anti-gun zealots in the nation. A recent state Supreme Court decision solidifies that claim to shame.
On Monday the state's legal chieftains ruled 6-1 that it is perfectly legal for cities and counties to deny citizens the right to buy constitutionally guaranteed self-defense mechanisms at gun show venues, despite state laws that say otherwise.
The ruling stems from an appeal of lower court actions upholding bans imposed by the city of Los Angeles and Alameda County in 1999 - two bastions of guaranteed victimhood if there ever were any.
The Associated Press reported that Alameda County outlawed gun possession on county property after a shooting at its fairgrounds in Pleasanton, while Los Angeles County issued its ban for its fairgrounds in Pomona as county lawmakers decried gun violence.
The resulting gun bans - foisted upon hardworking and largely honest Californians by elites with 24-7 access to tax-supported cadres of armed protection - ensured that armed criminals face no danger in their continuing quest to terrorize good people. The bans also mean no gun shows, either.
In arguing the case, litigants rightfully pointed out that local governments are supposed to be powerless to regulate the gun industry because the legislature has already authorized gun shows on public property. State laws, they argued, supersede the local ones.
Well, except in California. There, anti-gun bias so often supercedes common sense and the rule of law.
But how could the high court ignore state statutes so blatantly? Well first, justices had to redefine what the law actually says in order to justify circumventing it.
According to the ruling, justices "granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for certification, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 29.5 to address the following questions: 1) Does state law regulating the sale of firearms and gun shows preempt a county ordinance prohibiting gun and ammunition sales on county property; and 2) May a county, consistent with article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution, regulate the sale of firearms on its property located in an incorporated city within the borders of the county?"
"The first question may be rephrased as follows: Does state law compel counties to allow their property to be used for gun shows at which guns and ammunition are sold?" the justices wrote. "We conclude that it does not."
There you have it. If you're a paranoid elitist who doesn't believe the lowly masses should possess the means to dethrone you at will, just change the question to produce the desired legal answer.
Here is another example of the state's growing legal bias against Californians' constitutionally guaranteed right to use a firearm for self-defense.
In 1982 a state appeals court overturned a San Francisco ban on handgun possession, saying cities and counties cannot write such laws. But by 1998, "another appeals court upheld West Hollywood's ban on cheap handguns known as Saturday Night Specials, which were legal in other parts of the state," AP said.
Despite protestations to the contrary, rulings like these suggest that in California top jurists with a legal bias don't see anything wrong with ignoring the law. Like liberal-socialists tend to do, they favor the right to make up their own rules as they go along while insisting that you, "the little people," abide by them and like it.
Such improper usurpations will ultimately lead to more legal outrages against other constitutionally protected rights besides the freedom to own a gun and conduct lawful commerce. A legislature, governor and attorney general that don't move to prevent such usurpations are equally complicit.
What is really a shame is that such courtroom treachery against a federally protected constitutional right goes unnoticed 'way over on the other coast, in Washington, D.C., where such abuses are often just as routine.
It is Attorney General John Ashcroft's job to protect Californians against such blatant legal bias. When Bush was hosed by Florida's Supreme Court during the 2000 election, he went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Why not now?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27401
Jon E. Dougherty is a staff reporter and columnist for WorldNetDaily, and author of the special report, "Election 2000: How the Military Vote Was Suppressed."
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments