GUNS/BARMS

[crazy horse 0]

Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/01/gun-group-seeks-supreme-court-review-calif-handgun-statute/#axzz5bSlQvoBD

Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of their challenge to California’s “Unsafe Handgun Act,” a part of that state’s penal code that violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.

Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns are joined by private citizens Ivan Pena, Dona Croston, Roy Vargas and Brett Thomas. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of California and Alan Gura of Virginia. The case is known as Pena v. Horan.

“Our challenge of the California Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), if the high court accepts it for review, could be a critical wake-up call to lower federal courts that continue to employ what they call an ‘interest-balancing approach’ to deciding gun control cases because that strategy is forbidden by the 2008 Heller decision,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
“It is time to bring a halt to what is essentially a revolt by the lower courts against the landmark Heller opinion, and the Pena case could provide that vehicle.”

California’s Unsafe Handgun Act generally prohibits the manufacture, import or distribution of handguns that do not meet the state’s extremely restrictive design requirements under the state penal code. The result, as the plaintiffs contend in their petition for high court review, is that the state is gradually achieving a handgun ban because they cannot meet the impossible requirements, which include microstamping. That technology is not offered by any handgun manufacturer because it cannot be practically implemented, the petition notes.

“The landmark Heller ruling cannot become just a footnote in history,” Gottlieb observed, “but that appears to be the ultimate goal if such laws as California’s are allowed to stand. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court, with the benefit of fresh perspectives from two recently-seated associate justices, agrees that it is time to once again visit the Second Amendment and further restore its rightful place as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights.”

Second Amendment FoundationThe Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
46 thoughts on “Gun Groups Seeks Supreme Court Review In Challenge Of Calif. Handgun Statute”

raymond baldwin says:
January 3, 2019 at 4:34 PM

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. These 27 words of the Second Amendment is one sentence of a complete thought, and are not individual phrases. Politicians are interpreting the Second Amendment sentence into phrases to promote their meaning of the Second Amendment.

There is only one meaning of the gift our Founding Fathers gave us within the Second Amendment, the Citizens can keep guns and bear the guns necessary to protect and defend our freedoms under this Nation. It did not mean self protection, hunting, or sport shooting, as these are inherent usages of the Second Amendment. Just as Bullets are inherent to arms. We all know the politician that came up with that interpretation.

The Militia Act of 1903 made two important determining interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 had to be enacted in order to resolve two incidental issues of States and Federal rights, that were not covered in the Militia Acts of 1792.

During the War of 1812, the Government ordered the Governor of NY to send his State’s Militia into Canada and attack the British Army. The Governor of NY did not comply with order, as he believed his State’s Militia was for his State’s needs and could not be federalized for the Governments needs. The Governor of NY failed to understand the Governments order would have saved lives and end the war sooner. The other issue occurred upon the sinking of the USS Maine, in which Congress declared war against Spain during their Revolutionary War with their colonial state of Cuba. Upon the Spanish/American War, the U.S. Military did not have the manpower to support of the war, nor did they have the means to gain the men to support the war effort. Therefore, the Militia Act of 1903 addressed these issues, in which the Act defines 3 types of Militia; 1. U.S. Militia – Military, 2. States’ Militia – National Guard, and 3. Citizen Militia – any able male between 17 and 45. The States’ Militia and the Citizen Militia applies to the Second Amendment. The Militia Act of 1903 determined the words “Well Regulated” of the Second Amendment as well training, organized, and armed. this is why the States’ National Guards are trained and armed by the U.S. Military. The Militia Act of 1903 also determined that “The People” Militia was the citizens. Both of these determinations apply to the Second Amendment as they defines the meaning of “A Well Regulated Militia” as well organized, trained, and armed, and “The People” have a Citizen Militia.

The anti-gun Politicians and Courts are ignoring the most import 4 words of the Second Amendment, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” These 4 simple words is the guarantee of the rights given to us within the Second Amendment; the citizens’ right to form a militia, the right to keep arms, and the right to bear the necessary arms to protect and defend our freedoms under this Nation under opposition of any entity.

In the D.C. vs Heller case, the Government applied the Militia Act of 1903 determination that the Militia was the Nation Guard and that only members of the Nation Guards could have guns in their homes. In the Supreme Court’s decision of the D.C. vs Heller case, the determined the Second Amendment applied to right of the citizens to keep arms in order to form a militia when necessary, and that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States’ National Guard or the U.S. Military. The D.C. vs Heller decision also changed the usage of self-protection from an inherent usage to a right. The attorneys within the D.C. vs Heller case in fact argued their case under a vacuous ideology belief that “The People” were allowed to form a Civilian Militia, which was part of the Militia Act of 1903. The attorneys knew that the Militia argument of the Citizen Militia would also be a double sword, as the definition under the Militia Act of 1903 was in error of discriminating a citizen’s right due to age and sex.

The Militia Act of 1903 was supposed only address the issues under States’ Militia rights and the Federal Government’s Militia rights. Basically, the Act was to give the Government the right to utilize the State’s Militia – National Guard for federal necessities. However, due to fact the Militia Act of 1903 determined the a Citizen Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, is considered discriminating an individual’s right to enlist into such citizen militia due to the individual’s age or sex. It is inherent that any individual is of maturity and ability to bear arms, under the term of able-bodied.

However, it should it be noted Justice Scalia’s D.C. vs Heller Decision opinion was erroneous in determined the Second Amendment did not protect the Government to determine what types of arms The People can keep. Justice Scalia was completely wrong, the 4 simple last words within the Second Amendment is the guarantee that the Government nor the States can impose limitations or restrictions on what types of arms the people can keep. This why the National Firearms Act of 1934 could not ban the sale of fully automatic guns to the citizens of the Nation, that is why they could only imply a Tax of $200.00 (high enough at the time to extremely limit who could afford the cost of purchasing a fully automatic firearm) and means to regulate the purchase of such firearms. Just remember the Second Amendment is a guaranteed protected right of the citizens rights to keep and bear the arms necessary to protect and defend the security of a free state, as the Amendment is a complete sentence, not a series of sentences.

However, again the Politicians failed to understand that the Second Amendment is UNTOUCHABLE, but the vacuity of “The People” allowed the Government to Infringe upon the Second Amendment with the enactment of the Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986. The Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986 was meant to stop the Government from limiting where “The People” can purchase firearms. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Bureau of ATF went from a regulatory entity to an enforcement entity. Basically, upon this transition ATF agents were going to gun dealers and checking the firearm purchaser’s , ATF form 4473. Upon seeing that the purchaser utilizing the abbreviation form of their State, street, avenue, road, etc., the agents were pulling the dealers’ FFL, for not complying with form 4473 rules. Upon the pulling the gun dealer’s FFL for violations was a life long BAN to be reinstated. Therefore, limiting the number of FFL gun dealers in the country, and given the fact the Gun Control Act of 1968 limited gun buyer only within their State of residency. In theory, if every FFL dealer in one State is out of business due to violations of ATF Form 4473, then individuals in that State had nowhere to go an purchase firearms or transfer firearms from another State. Eventually, “The People” would not be able to purchase any firearms, in theory. This is why the Owners Firearms Protection Act needed to be enacted. However, before the passage of the bill, an vacuous U.S. Representative named Willian Hughes, Dem/NJ, used a bribery tactic, yes BRIBERY, “I will not sign this Bill until my Amendment is included.” That is bribery, yet WE the People let the Politicians do it in just about every Bill nowadays.
Dem/NJ Rep. Hughes amendment to the Owner Firearms Protection Act of 1986 is unconstitutional as the Bill infringes upon our rights to purchase a fully automatic firearm made after the enactment of the Act. Just remember, any infringement of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. Contrary to the politicians belief, the Owners Firearms Protection Act did not ban the sales of Fully Automatic firearms to civilians, it just limited who can purchase them. Per ATF’s statists, there are approximately 170,000 registered privately owned fully automatic firearms in the USA. Upon demand, the value goes up under todays trade. Meaning, if you want a Colt M16, it will cost you approximately $34,000.00 plus the $200.00 tax stamp to purchase the gun.

Now that everyone understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment, any limitations or regulation by any State or the Government is Unconstitutional, to include of what type of gun we can own rather it is single shot or semi-auto (not considered as an assault weapon – assault weapons are fully automatic firearms ) gun, or any infringement of owning a fully automatic firearm; and limiting the rounds of magazines, or any limitations or restrictions on the inherent of bullets, AS THE WORDS “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” MEANS THEY ARE UNTOUCHABLE.

There are many individuals who will argue against the meaning of the Second Amendment, but they cannot argue the last 4 words of “Shall Not Be Infringed”, as it just simply means cannot be touched. Even the ideology of the belief the Second Amendment refers to the firearms of the times, muzzle loaders, upon writing the Constitution. Really, read the history of the rifled barreled firearms used in during the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Father were not vacuous to new advancement of firearms technology, and that is why they employed the last 4 words of the sentence “Shall Not Be Infringed.”
Hopefully same day soon, all of the States’ and Federal Government infringement will be heard in the Supreme Court, their decision is based on their Constitutional Belief of the meaning of the Second Amendment, as our Founding Father meant any decision of the Supreme Court will be based on the Constitutionality and not based on the individual Justice’s own personal or any ideology belief. For which some laws and Court decisions were render under. Especially the Owners Firearms Protection Act of 1986, and the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Just so everyone understands I’m not just posting about gun rights, I’m also posting about Politicians Ideology too, in which the Court are protecting. Under the Supreme Court’s Decision on the Affordable Care Act, the Government was given a VERY POWERFUL tool, the Government can impose any law of any means as long as they say we will be taxed, instead of imposing a penalty. This is not a theory, it is the reality of Justice Roberts vacuity in re-writing the Afford Care Act to make it Constitutional. Under the Constitution of the United States, the Judicial Branch of the Government only interprets the laws in there Constitutionality, not to write laws.

There are some many other laws and Court decision that are in violation of the Constitution, it is just unreal of the countless laws and ruling we live under today. Just a few words. Laws and Amendment being taking out of context, just as the Second Amendment, which now imply unconstitutional meanings. Immigration Act of 1965 took a part of the 14th Amendment, out of context, even though the Act doesn’t really state it, but the Courts have ruled the out of context meaning person born in the United States is a citizen. Just read quotes of the politician who wrote the 14th Amendment, even President Grant stated the 14th Amendment applied to persons born within the jurisdiction of any state or within the United States, had equal rights under the law of due process (criminal process). Illegal Aliens are not within the jurisdiction of any State or the United States as they are not legal citizens of any jurisdiction. Even President Teddy Roosevelt understood that, read his quotes. And since when did a combative become a citizen protected under the due process of the courts and laws? Alternative life style individual do have equal rights under the laws, but their life style is not normal, due to fact of not able to produce and give birth to another human being. Marriage is between a man and woman, yet if a man and woman are not married and are considered as common law spouses, the equal rights under the law still does not apply. Yet the Supreme errored again upon their alternative life style marriage decision, they should have heard and decided on the civil union ruling instead, which would have satisfied all three opinions of the issues at hand. Marriage would remain the same, yet the rights of the common law marriages, which most States do not recognize, are individuals who are together as a couple for 10 years or more. Civil Union passage would have satisfied the needs of the common law spouse issue of any couple regardless to their life style.

It is the politicians ideologies that have imposed infringements of our rights. Yet some of our citizens keep electing the same people or people with the same ideology into office. It is well past the time for term limits in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. And the States should follow.