California Gun Rights Initiative (2014)

BillofRightsBy George Miller

Large numbers of people are concerned that the California legislature has overreached with its gun control measures and enacted statutes which are not only unconstitutional, but wrongly deny self-defense and actually weaken public safety. They believe that the net effect of gun restriction rules is to take them out of the hands of law-abiding Citizens and leave them in the hands of criminals, who tend not to obey laws. They are proposing the “California Gun Rights Initiative” to amend the state Constitution and are trying to get it on the November ballot.

Opponents of this measure believe that statutory restrictions will reduce gun violence. Some claim, in conflict with evidence to the contrary including the Second Amendment and Supreme Court rulings, that citizens have no right to even own guns or that ownership should be severely restricted. Others claim that public safety takes precedence over Second Amendment rights.  So far, the California legislature has tended to agree with the latter, based on statutes they have passed. However, Governor Brown vetoed 7 bills from the last legislative session, including an “assault weapon” ban and ammunition registration, feeling that they went too far even for him.

Some evidence suggests that gun control laws enacted actually harm public safety. Washington, DC and Chicago are presented as poster children examples of that. Gun control statutes vary by state and are not necessarily correlated with levels of gun violence, per FBI statistics. However gun deaths have plunged by half since 1992, even as gun laws have laxed in many states, while gun sales went through the roof.

Initiative petitions may be downloaded and people may collect signatures.  Read the Ballotpedia materials on the initiative, do your own research and decide ….

California Gun Rights Initiative (#13-0031) has been approved for circulation in California as a contender for the November 4, 2014 ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment.[1]If the initiative qualifies for the ballot and is approved by the state’s voters, it will:

  • Amend the California Constitution to “establish a right to acquire, possess, transport, transfer, and use firearms for lawful purposes, including for defense of self, family, home, and property.”
  • Eliminate state firearms owner registration, regulation of ammunition, and assault weapons restrictions.
  • Permit limited state regulation in the areas of possession of firearms and ammunition by, and sale to, the dangerous mentally ill and felons; handguns for those under 21; tefloncoated, armor-piercing, or explosive ammunition; concealed weapons; fully automatic weapons; and background checks.
  • Limit seizure of firearms.
  • Prohibit special taxes or fees on firearm sales, except sales taxes.

Supporters of the initiative refer to it as the “California Gun Rights Act”.

Text of measure

Ballot title:

Firearms Regulation. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary:

“Amends California Constitution to establish a right to acquire, possess, transport, transfer, and use firearms for lawful purposes, including for defense of self, family, home, and property. Eliminates state firearms owner registration, regulation of ammunition, and assault weapons restrictions. Permits limited state regulation in areas of: possession of firearms and ammunition by, and sale to, the dangerous mentally ill and felons; handguns for those under 21; tefloncoated, armor-piercing, or explosive ammunition; concealed weapons; fully automatic weapons; and background checks. Limits seizure of firearms. Prohibits special taxes or fees on firearm sales, except sales taxes.”

Fiscal impact statement:

(Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state’s Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

“Unknown increase in state sales tax revenue due to increased purchases of firearms, ammunition, and accessories. Reduction in local sales tax revenues of several million dollars annually due to the elimination of local sales taxes on firearm-related purchases. Reduction of around $30 million in annual revenue from fees applied to firearm purchases for various firearm regulation and enforcement activities. Costs for some of these activities would still be incurred by state and local governments if the measure was enacted. Reduction in state and local correctional costs that could eventually exceed a couple million dollars annually.”

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

External links

References

 


Flag of California.png This article about a California ballot proposition is a stub. You can help people learn about California’s ballot propositions by expanding it.

Source http://ballotpedia.org/California_Gun_Rights_Initiative_%282014%29

_______________________________________

George Miller is Publisher of Citizensjournal.us and a “retired” operations management consultant, active in civic affairs, living in Oxnard.

Get free Citizensjournal.us BULLETINS. Please patronize our advertisers (including below) to keep us publishing and/or DONATE.

 

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
William "Bill" Hicks

If those that want to see a reduction in the sales of firearms are really in ernest, they would be for this amendment. Every time the words come out of legislators mouths that they want to restrict firearms, there is a rush to buy even more before the law comes into effect. This kind of legislation would calm the concerns of pro-2nd amendment advocates to the point where there would be less concern on their minds.

Stefan Djordjevic

This is an editorial masked as “news.” Having said that, it’s very informative and interesting. Thanks.

Richard Michael

This was first posted here:
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/12/27/california-gun-rights-advocates-want-state-constitutional-amendment/#comments

====

Please don’t promote this.

If you read it, you’ll see it is giving unprecedented power to the government to regulate the right to bear arms.

And if CBS is reporting it, then you have to ask why is the corporate media giving this air time?

The danger of low-information voters signing this is high.

Who wrote the initiative? Who is Robert Carroll?

The title is deceptive. It’s not about gun rights. It’s about gun control.

===REPLY===
TonyAndrade
Richard! The California Government now has all the power and has taken away our Gun Rights

I wrote the Initiative that you find objectionable. What is your Plan?

Starting with section 8: Gun rights are preserved and protected.

Visit website. CaliforniaGunRights,com

===REPLY BACK===

8:56 p.m., Monday Dec. 30
For more than 150 years California has never had an explicit declaration of a right analogous to the Second Amendment.

Since you pointed out that the rights in your initiative begin with the eighth sub-section (after a series of new government powers), I’ll pick the tenth, as an example.

“(10) Neither the State nor any political subdivision of the State shall require firearm or firearm owner registration, except as required by federal law.”

Here you gratuitously make the people of California subject an act of Congress.

If the problem, as you describe it, is an out-of-control government, then the solution should reign in the government, not grant more power in the constitution.

How about this:

“The people are not subjects of the government that the People created. The governments of the state have no jurisdiction over the people without an individual’s explicit and informed consent.”

In other words, if we like the statute, we’ll obey it.

If I decided to write such an amendment, I would recognize that I wouldn’t want to reinvent the wheel and that I’m not the smartest person in the world. So I’d do a survey of analogous provisions of other state constitutions.

Your amendment:
969 words

Here’s a survey I compiled in just a few minutes from on-line versions of state constitutions.

By the way, California is not only state without an explicit declaration in its constitution.

Federal
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
27 words

Alaska
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Arizona
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Georgia
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

New Hampshire
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Pennsylvania
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Utah
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

Tennessee
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Virginia
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

C Powers

Amen to that. Short, Sweet and Simple. The more words used, the more likely the lawyers can spin, dodge and change the meaning!