Skip to comments.Oakland Neighbors Policing Their Own Streets As They Lose Faith In Cops
Posted on 02/26/2013 9:10:45 PM PST by 444Flyer
OAKLAND (KPIX 5) Oaklands crime problems have gotten so bad that some people arent even bothering to call the cops anymore; instead, theyre trying to solve and prevent crimes themselves.
KPIX 5 cameras caught up with a half dozen neighbors in East Oaklands Arcadia Park neighborhood Monday as they walked the streets on the lookout for crime. The vigilance has never seemed more necessary than now; 25 homes in the neighborhood have been burglarized over the last two months alone.
In a neighborhood that has started to feel like the wild west, people have even started posting wanted signs.
(Excerpt) Read more at sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com ...
Open carry of even an unloaded weapon in California is illegal unless it is on your own property.
Maybe the state legislators making the draconian gun laws should be forced to park for several hours in Oakland unarmed.
AND unprotected. Good thought.
An OPD of my acquaintance tells me that the neighborhoods where gang murders are rampant are known as a “self-cleaning oven”.
Meanwhile, in different State houses in America. The Leftists are plotting to disarm the population.
And locally...the example mentioned above.
“City Wants Power To Disarm Individuals During Crisis (Guntersville, Alabama)”
Plus, in CA, it is near impossible to acquire a CC permit.
Noting that the Bill of Rights (BoR), including 2A, originally didn't apply to the states, consider that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had officially included 2A when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutonal statutes containing privileges and immunities which 14A applied to the states. See 2A in the middle column of the page linked to below from the post-Civil War congressional record.
And for those of you who haven't seen the following, the Supreme Court later clarified that the 2A was made not to give the right to bear arms, but to clarify that Congress cannot infringe on the natural right (my term) to use arms in self-defense against another citizen when necessary.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
So the states now arguably have as much constitutional red tape as Congress does with respect to regulating arms.
On the other hand, noting that Bingham had also clarified that 14A did not take away state's rights, although I think that guns need be regulated to an extent with respect to age requirements and other uncommon common sense considerations, I believe that such laws should be left up to the states, not the federal government. After all, it's too easy for anti-gun rights liberals to abuse federal legislative powers to trash our natural right to self-defense.
In fact, consider a major 14A obstacle federal lawmakers who want to take away our gun rights. When Congress makes gun laws, 14A arguably requires Congress to make only laws which prevent the states from enforcing state gun laws which abridge our natural right to self defense.