How California will likely ban guns, even though it will be illegal.

[NightShade]

They will REGULATE them away like they are vehicles.

First step, pay $1000.00 to get a mail order Ph.d and get some junk science.

Second step take it to a commission and make sure the chairperson doesn't inform the rest that you are a fraud.

Third step get them to vote on a regulation that will make all guns that are not electronic illegal in the state except for law enforcement use.

Fourth step make this retroactive so that it's not just all guns made from now on but anything made before now.

That is exactly what they did for diesel engines made before 2010.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/governmen...ost-of-regulations-will-take-your-breath-away

It’s a basic principle of freedom that the government cannot pass a law that applies retroactively, criminalizing something that was legal at the time it originally happened. The U.S. Constitution says no “ex post facto Law shall be passed” by the federal government or by the states. “Ex post facto” is Latin meaning “from a thing done afterward.”

It’s another basic principle of freedom that the government exists by consent of the governed, meaning government officials are accountable to the people, not the other way around.

In the fall of 2008, a CARB staff report concluded that reducing “fine particulate” air pollution from diesel engines would prevent 9,400 premature deaths in California between 2011 and 2025. The report was presented to the CARB board members, who quickly voted to approve the new regulation requiring filters or new diesel engines.

But the lead staffer responsible for that report, Hien Tran, was later revealed to have lied about his academic credentials — he purchased his Ph.D. from a diploma mill for $1,000 — and although CARB chair Mary Nichols knew about the deception, she withheld that information from board members until months after they voted to pass the new rule.
The problems with the report were not limited to credentials. Extensive studies of the health effects of fine particulate air pollution, including one by CARB-funded scientist Michael Jerrett of the University of California at Berkeley, showed that it is not causing any premature deaths in California.

And once they do it other states like New York and New Jersey will try and follow. If they have success then they will try and push it through the federal government. I wouldn't be surprised if a California Health and Safety board just like CARB exists and someone is just waiting to do this.

 

[Gideon]

I wish we could go back in time and explain things to the Framers, maybe they'd copy and paste the First Amendment into the Second, as was intended.

"1.Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...
2.Congress shall make no law respecting armament."

Apparently, the "right of the people...shall not be infringed" is not clear enough.

 

[Shadowrider]

I wish we could go back in time and explain things to the Framers, maybe they'd copy and paste the First Amendment into the Second, as was intended.

"1.Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...
2.Congress shall make no law respecting armament."

Apparently, the "right of the people...shall not be infringed" is not clear enough.

Oh it's plenty clear. They just don't care...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If California bans guns altogether, it would be like surrendering the whole state to an invader such as North Korea, or China or both. The only resistance they would run up against would be the Mexican gangs an cartels.

Woody

 

[Gideon]

If California bans guns altogether, it would be like surrendering the whole state to an invader

Fine by me. It'll make the path clear for the Free American Army when we break through to the cut-off Americans in the north.

 

[davek]

So, CARB will ban guns because they emit lead?

 

[Okey-Dokey]

There are a LOT of gun owners in the state of CA. I also know the state of CA well.....they would absolutely love to drive down the street with a giant magnet and suck every single AK up. davek, you cannot underestimate the vastness of the CA liberal stupidity and craftiness. They will try everything they can muster up in that teeny tyrannical mind to get what they want. I remember years ago, when the gun ban wagons were out in force trying to get people to want confiscation....they obviously couldn't get it....then they banned 50 BMG weapons state-wide. Get this, because that's what they said the gang bangers were using so they had to get them off the streets! You can't make this stuff up, except in the grand state of CA.

 

[twoguns?]

So, CARB will ban guns because they emit lead?

Haha ha ha.....thats good.....Thanks.....

 

[dennishoddy]

Every banger I've seen is carrying a .50 BMG, and was aiming it at an airliner. LOL....The stupid those people believe is amazing, BUT, a large percentage of the people in commiefornika are from another country that has strict gun controls and always have. Its just another day to them.

 

[farmerbyron]

I wish we could go back in time and explain things to the Framers, maybe they'd copy and paste the First Amendment into the Second, as was intended.

"1.Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...
2.Congress shall make no law respecting armament."

Apparently, the "right of the people...shall not be infringed" is not clear enough.

Often misinterpreted by reading with modern context, "A well regulated militia" is taken as proof by progressives that the founders intended regulations to be placed upon arms. Further more they also try and limit the coverage of the term "militia" to the national guard in the respective states.

There are several problems with this interpretation, especially considering that the national guard was a creation of the 20th century. "Well regulated" as defined in the founders day was to have something in "properly functioning order". Then you would have to ignore the second part of the second amendment where it specifically describes "the right of the people". This verbiage is only used in one other amendment, the first, and I don't think there is any doubting that the first amendment is an individual right.

Yet another discrepancy you would have to ignore is that the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, was a list of limitations placed upon the federal govt and a listing of personal liberties. The states would not ratify the constitution without the BOR being added in as a safeguard against tyrannical govt. To infer that the second amendment spells out a limitation of rights of the people ignores the entire intent of the BOR.

I know you and most others here already are well versed in this interpretation but maybe it can help others when they are approached with ignorant arguments that try and take down the second amendment as an individual right. We all encounter those people at family gatherings or in other everyday life and it is good to have the argument already played out in advance.

If I were to re-write the second it would read something like this,

A well armed citizenry, necessary to maintain the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms of common military utility shall not be infringed upon.


Really no changing the intent of the original but certainly eliminating any doubt for those whom struggle with reading comprehension.