San Francisco, California Brace for Legal Challenges to Their Gun Laws

[XDTalk RSS]

SAN FRANCISCO -- Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, the Supreme Court declared Thursday in a ruling that resoundingly endorsed the ability of an armed populace to resist tyranny but appeared to allow bans on military-style weapons and regulations on other firearms. The National Rifle Association immediately said it would use the ruling for a new round of legal challenges to... [San Francisco Chronicle, via gunpolicy.org ]

More...

[Yuppicide]

What we (California gun owners) NEED to do is start collecting signatures, so that we can ADD "The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" to the California Constitution. We could give 'em to gun shops and shooting ranges.

[Yuppicide]

I was looking at the California Constitution, and while there is no "RKBA" - I found this part Interesting, and it could help with Pro-gun lawsuits:



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.



This part right here is kinda funny:

SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States
of America and the State of California. This section is intended to
preserve, protect and strengthen the English language, and not to
supersede any of the rights guaranteed to the people by this
Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California.
English is the official language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate
legislation. The Legislature and officials of the State of
California shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of
English as the common language of the State of California is
preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no law which
diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of
the State of California.



State Constitution - Table of Contents

[Yuppicide]

Bumped, to see what people thought of the above ^

[novaDAK]

How can they say that bans on "military style" weapons is constitutional, when the ruling of Miller (1939) said that the 2nd Amendment was there to protect the right of the people to own arms suitable for military use (their reasoning behind the ban on a sawn-off shotgun (SBS) that is covered under the 1934 NFA).

It looks like they want it both ways: Ban "military style" weapons while also banning weapons that aren't suitable for military use.

[Yuppicide]

Looks like the San Francisco Chronicle is FINALLY starting to get a SENSE OF HUMOR!