Skip to comments.Letter to Randy Rossi, head of the Cal DOJ firearms division:
Posted on 09/16/2002 4:23:21 PM PDT by 45Auto
"Randy, what the heck is your boss high on?"
I just finished reading Lockyer's position paper on the 2nd Amendment, and David Codrea's rebuttal. Both just went online here: http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3505
Randy, what the hell are you guys doing over there?
Lockyer's cite of Miller is a flat-out lie. Don't take my word for it, read the dang case:
Miller can be very easily read to guarantee the civilian ownership of military full-auto battle rifles! There's been an entire law review article done on the butchering Miller has been subjected to by lower courts: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
Hickman doesn't do any real scholarship except to butcher Miller the same way Lockyer did. The law review article above reserves special scorn for Hickman.
The Fresno Rifle Club decision doesn't have any 2nd Amendment scholarship in it at all, except to cite Cruickshank (US Supremes, 1876). Well gee, we had a bunch of blacks peacefully meeting and trying to vote in the Louisiana when a bunch of state agents and Klansmen disarmed 'em, beat the snot out of 'em and outright killed several for daring to try and VOTE. The Feds stepped in to help, and the USSC declared the KKK an endangered species or something and said that the Feds had no right to intrude on violations of the second or FIRST amendments, or any right to halt equal protection violations or due process rights or anything else. Gee Randy, you really think that case would hold up TODAY!? Again, read the case: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/92/542.html - it's WORSE than the infamous Dred Scott decision! Dred Scott was a moral abomination, but it WAS legally correct at the time (1856). Cruikshank was as immoral, and a legal fraud - the 14th Amendment had passed eight years earlier, you think there was no Federal equal protection or protection from First Amendment abuses?!
The real kicker is that the 14th Amendment is ONLY mentioned in the Cruikshankdissent. The main judgment totally ignores it. Wow, Randy, that's a real solid foundation of legal scholarship y'all got there.
Randy, it's not just me saying this. From: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/sections/history/19th.asp
The Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The case grew out of a brutal massacre of blacks in the little Louisiana town of Colfax.
In Colfax whites burned the court house and murdered an unknown number of blacks. After the U.S. Army restored order, a federal grand jury indicted 72 white men. The United States Attorney brought nine to trial and won a conviction against William Cruikshank and two others.
Normally the federal government does not prosecute persons charged with murder. Control of ordinary crime has traditionally been the job of the states. In this case the U.S. Attorney used the 1870 Enforcement Act. This law makes it a crime for two or more persons to band together with intent to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen.
The Supreme Court threw out the convictions of Cruikshank and his cohorts. As it had in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Court acted to protect states' power. "Every republican government," Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite wrote, "is in duty bound to protect all its citizens." He then added, "That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there."
Jim again. Randy, that website is from the National Constitution Center, ESTABLISHED BY THE US CONGRESS. See also: http://www.constitutioncenter.org
Lockyer cites In Re Ramirez. You DO understand that the whole decision was declared racist and junked in 1972, right? See also:
So Lockyer lies about one case, another contains well-debunked lies, and two were based on absolutely horrific racism, one of which has been completely overturned and the other (Cruikshank) has only one small surviving bit which is the sole remaining real barrier to Federal review of state gun control?
Are you guys serious? Do you understand that your boss just proved that you guys are against discovering current racism in CCW abuse because your boss's primary support for ideological gun-grabbing is based on PAST racism, without which all of California gun control would collapse in ruin?!?
Do me a favor. Please tell Lockyer there's a point at which "precedent" is so disgusting, so racist, so contrary to basic civil rights that it's literally a crime to follow it.
And he just blew by that point doin' triple the limit on bald tires and no muffler.
How in hell do you expect to enforce gun control based on THIS crap? Naked force? That's all you have left! He just tossed your moral authority in a toilet and flushed it!
Well you know , this is the "Living Constitution" interpretation of the Constitution that comes in so handy at fund raisers or election time. It enables Democrats to tell any group anything it wants to hear in order to receive their money or their vote.
GUNS! H*ll, why should they stop at guns? There are nine other amendments of the Bill of Rights that they can threaten to enlarge or restrict according to the most money or votes they are likely to get out of a well placed sound byte.
I don't see anything in the US or CA constitution that prevents the people of CA from deporting an office holder at the end of his term to New York. Let's put that on a proposition and see if it passes.
But Lockyer and Davis are standing on very flimsy legal ground in their desire to screw the citizens out of the RKBA. It is my fondest political wish (along with the Repubos regaining a majority in the US Senate) that the damn AW bans are overturned. They are the most egregiously unconstitutional gun laws.
Lockyer is not only dishonest, but he is a damn liar and a hypocrit. If he really thought there was strong legal standing in his assinine opinion that there is NO individual right to keep and bear, he and his commie minions in the Cal government would have passed a law simply banning the sale and possession of ALL guns.
These people are Fabians and their tactic is to stall and wear down opponents. I think we are playing their game by our own too gentlemanly rules. We need some pictures of Lockyer with some "Evening Ladies" and we ought to be willing to pay for them, posting as a metaphor of course. (of course)
In California, this would probably be considered to be a positive thing for an elected official; it sure hasn't hurt "Da' Mayor", his highness, Mr. "I've Got A Willy" Brown.