Saldana wants to restrict two Civil Rights for the price of one.

[PavePusher]

"The state Assembly has advanced a bill that would change California's open-carry gun law. The legislation, authored by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, would make it a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public areas, subject to exceptions. In California, individuals are allowed to carry a gun without a license, though it must be unloaded. The measure would not affect current law that allows those with permits to carry concealed weapons, even if they are loaded. What does the proposed legislation mean for gun rights?"



California NPR interveiws Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego, Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-60th District, California and Lt. Wayne Bilowit, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on Saldana's proposed legislation to ban open carry.

And both she and the Lt. prove that thay do not even understand the current law, or Constitutional Rights, especially the First and Second Amendments. Sigh.



http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2010/04/21/californias-open-carry-gun-law-challenged/

[tblue]

1. I'm just shocked there's a Dem from San Diego.

I hate guns so I don't mind the ban. Not sure what this has to do with the First Amendment tho.

[Chulanowa]

2. It doesn't; Nor does it affect the 2nd amendment rights

it only does if you labor under the delusion that the constitution is ironclad and "no more need be said" - which has obviously never been the case.

Sort of like how we have certain forms of speech that are protected and others that aren't, and how the first amendment protects you from censorship but not from the government exacting retribution for what you say...

Welcome to law. There's a reason even good lawyers are assholes :rofl:

[PavePusher]

3. "Nor does it affect the 2nd amendment rights"

You just never skip an opportunity to be wrong, do you?

And I've known many lawyers who were not "assholes".

You know, if I wanted to read hate and vituperation, I'd be at a Conservative web site.

[Chulanowa]

4. Except I'm not wrong

There's a reason laws like this hold up in court - and they work on the other rights in the constitution, too. It's not because these are evil liberal statist gun-grabbing tyrants legislating from the bench, or whatever your favorite explanation is.

it's because adding restrictions and regulations to the expression of rights does not actually infringe on the rights themselves. For instance, the first amendment allows you to have freedom of speech and press unless it's libelous, except at certain times declared by the Executive, provided said speech is judged suitable by the FCC. You follow?

Sort of like how you have the right to representation and immunity from double jeopardy unless you are accused of terrorism and excepting in civil courts...

You have the right to keep arms provided you are licensed and they are registered only if you are not a felon so long as these are personal weapons and not military hardware unless ypu have licensing for that sort of thing. You have the right to bear arms provided you meet the previous criteria, and only so long as you follow your local regulations about where you may bear arms and restrictions on whether the weapon can be concealed or displayed or have a bullet chambered...

I think you're mistaking the fact you don't like the law with the hopes that I'm wrong about it.

The lawyer thing was meant in good humor. of course, this is the internet, it's srs bzns

If you don't want a conservative website, why are you in the gungeon?

[shadowrider]

5. If you don't want a conservative website, why are you in the gungeon?

Are you saying guns and gun ownership is the exclusive domain of the RW and LW people should be agin them?

Just curious

[Chulanowa]

11. Not at all

A gun is a tool, and as such has no innate moral state.
A person who owns a gun is no different from someone who owns a stapler.

What I'm saying is that this particular subforum reads like a right-wing website. How do I figure? Well, take your post; I stated my meaning clearly, and you then tried to twist it into something that bears no resemblance to what I actually said. People here, like you, display a shocking inability to respond to what someone actually says, preferring to argue at straw men you've built for yourself. Pair that tendency with the constant lies, a severe persecution complex, black and white moral outlook, a general hatred of liberals and liberal policy, and the whole "The founding fathers agree with every single thing I believe in" fetish and you've got yourselves a nice little mirror for a right-wing website. Seriously, if I flip between the gungeon, and the "guns" section of rightnation, I can't tell the difference.

if there actually is a difference, maybe I just can't see it. Like the difference between "libertarian" and "free market republican"

[shadowrider]

14. I don't read into anything.

It gets me into too much trouble, so I take statements at face value

You said: If you don't want a conservative website, why are you in the gungeon?

By association, you're saying if a liberal wants a liberal website, don't visit the gungeon.
Conversely, the gungeon, by insinuation, is conservative.

That's the way I read it.

[Chulanowa]

15. And that's exactly what I meant

The gungeon is a conservative outpost on DU.

You say "that's the way I read it" but you also said this: "Are you saying guns and gun ownership is the exclusive domain of the RW and LW people should be agin them?"

Clearly that isn't at all what I said, though, is it?

[shadowrider]

16. Of course you didn't say it

It's a question I asked that you still haven't answered.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

19. Wow

A hole bunch of DU'ers are going to be shocked they hate liberals and liberal policy simply because they're pro-gun and post on this forum.

[X_Digger]

7. That's why we have 'scrutiny'..

it's because adding restrictions and regulations to the expression of rights does not actually infringe on the rights themselves.

It's inherent in the concept of scrutiny/ judicial review that it's infringement, it's just a matter of balancing one interest against the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

[Chulanowa]

13. Be careful what you wish for

I see demands for "strict constitutionalists" coming from the conservatives, too.

Do you suppose that your strict interpretation is different from their strict interpretation?

if so, then doesn't that make "strict interpretation" something of an oxymoron?

[X_Digger]

18. Hopefully, McDonald will incorporate, and give us a level of scrutiny.

In order for the second amendment to be incorporated against the state, first it had to be declared a 'fundamental right of ordered liberty' (Heller).

Because of the lack of meaningful legislation around the second amendment, courts have had to stretch a handful of cases (Miller, Presser, Cruikshank) to ludicrous levels. And because it wasn't incorporated, those cases were only federal in nature.

We know from the dicta in Heller that 'Rational Basis' is off the table. That leaves 'intermediate' and 'strict'.

IIRC, any infringement of all of the provisions of the first amendment are reviewed by the 'strict' standard.

Here are some cases that might interest you- while not 'gun' cases, they do illustrate some of the thinking about protecting a fundamental right..

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections

In 1966 (two years after passage of the twenty-fourth amendment's prohibition on poll taxes in federal elections) Annie E. Harper was refused voter registration in Virginia. The SCOTUS ruled on Harper's side, saying in part,

a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.

or..

Talley v. California

A Los Angeles city ordinance prohibited the distribution of flyers without the writer's name and address (among other things.) Talley was arrested and the case eventually made it's way to the SCOTUS. The court ruled in Talley's favor, saying

We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face.

or finally..

Cantwell v. Connecticut

In 1940, in Connecticut, a solicitor of any stripe was required to obtain a license before going door to door, whether to sell vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, or their particular flavor of religion.

Newton Cantwell and two of his sons were proselytizing in a heavily catholic neighborhood. The trio were arrested for soliciting without a license.

Connecticut courts sided with the state. The SCOTUS disagreed-

to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.

I'm sure in the coming years, we'll have a comparable body of case law to look back on regarding the second amendment. I can see things like DC's requirement that guns be inoperable, arbitrary ('may issue') concealed carry licensing, IL's gun owner registration, CA's gun registration- all being thrown out.

[paulsby]

24. double jeapardy doesn't trigger in civil courts

since jeapardy MEANS being subject to CRIMINAL sanctions

cops get subjected to double jeapardy for example.

look at rodney king case.

those were two CRIMINAL trials, but since the feds have sovereign immunity, it doesn't "count" as double jeapardy lol

[Tejas]

27. "You have the right to keep arms provided you are licensed and they are registered "

huh?

I live in Texas so am not familiar with this type of invasion of privacy.
I do not care to be familiar with it either.

[Tejas]

29. You're correct to a point, but your point is moot.

"does not actually infringe on the rights themselves"


That is a copout in some circles, ie: the DC gun ban.

Sure, you can possess a handgun in your home but only if it's a revolver, you cannot possess a semi-auto.

Yes, you can own a .50BMG revolver, but a .25 Lorcin is prohibited under DC law and will get you hauled to jail...even if you're a lawyer.




Oh, and by the way, the .25 Lorcin is classified as a MACHINEGUN by DC laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Hold on now.

The 2nd has not been incorporated YET.

[Callisto32]

6. I hate black people, so I don't care if they can't vote and are only part of a peson, legally.

Yeah, it sounds that ridiculous.

[Chulanowa]

12. Okay, I'm stumped

WHat does your statement have to do with the OP? I understand you're being facetious, so don't worry about that, I'm just puzzled as to what you're getting at.

[Callisto32]

20. I was responding to post 1.

"I hate guns, so I don't mind the ban."

[Chulanowa]

23. So guns are like black people?

Hating a tool is like hating a race of people?
Banning a weapon is completely identical to denying human rights, and murder?

Man. Now I feel like an ass for passing over mechanized tillers in favor of a good old fashioned hoe.

[Callisto32]

25. Indeed, things have to be exactly identical to make a comparison.

Get real.

Suggesting that a right can be removed from all people because you don't like the right is as morally reprehensible as suggesting that rights can be removed from a group of people because you don't like that group.

Both things are equally ridiculous, that is, worthy of ridicule.



Gun control's early history in racist laws is just a bonus.

[Chulanowa]

31. It's pretty different, actually

And the comparison is ridiculous and offensive - you might as well claim gun owners are the new Polish Jews or something, why go half-cocked?

Trick is, unfortunately, guns aren't people. You really, really can't have slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and, in the same breath, talk about how banning a particular way of carrying a gun is "just like" Jim Crow.

But I do get what you're getting at, even if you phrased it in a head-shakingly silly way. If you want to make historical comparisons, go with prohibition. A gun has a lot more in common with a jug of whiskey than it does with any variety of human.

[tblue]

22. I'm black and I'm not a "peson." I have no idea what you're saying.

None.

[Callisto32]

26. Fine, here is a belated correction, even though scrivener's errors are usually ignored.

"person"


Great, so you should understand how it is morally reprehensible that you suggest that because you don't like something, it can be restricted is just as bad as saying that because someone doesn't like black people, they ought to be restricted.

I don't like people owning guns so it's okay with me if we stop them from doing it. = I don't like black people voting, so it's okay if we stop them from doing it.

Is this really so hard.

I'm done with this conversation. If you folks want to be intentionally obtuse, go right ahead. But I'll waste no more time on it.

[slackmaster]

8. There's a lot you don't know about San Diego

Like the fact that we have two openly gay men serving on our city council.

[jazzhound]

9. Insanity in both the subject line and message body, eh?

At this juncture I'd like to tip my hat to the pro gun rights cats in this forum who persevere through mounds and mounds of inane b*llsh*t.

You have more stamina and poise than I possess, and I just need to take a moment to admit that.

And to admit that I've been needlessly cranky with those who've formed their opinions without honest study of the guns/violence issue.

[tblue]

21. I know a victim of an anti-gay hate crime there. And it's a red city.

There's a lot I don't know about a lot of things. So sue me.

[Tejas]

28. Who is this elitist?

And why is she pursuing this?

Did half of Kalifornia write her office and demand she do...something?

[Trillo]

30. Maybe she's a truth teller.

Maybe the second amendment was also a message from the founders that the point in time when the right to keep and bear arms is infringed by a state, then one is no longer living under a *free* State, but some other kind of State.

So maybe Saldana is simply telling us we're no longer free. It may be an unwelcome message, given that we've mostly been mislead to believe we're free by a variety of sources, but perhaps it is an honest message.