• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Northern Calif, Sheriffs stand tall for the Constitution

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Wishful thinking. Our Sheriff, while a 'professing' pro-gun member of the NRA has made it evident to me that he isn't as supportive of the Second Amendment as he would like his constituents believe. I guarantee you, he and his deputies will enforce 26350 if a violation should occur and be reported in areas of his jurisdiction.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Wishful thinking. Our Sheriff, while a 'professing' pro-gun member of the NRA has made it evident to me that he isn't as supportive of the Second Amendment as he would like his constituents believe. I guarantee you, he and his deputies will enforce 26350 if a violation should occur and be reported in areas of his jurisdiction.

I think if a few OCers, went and talked to the so called Constitutional Sheriffs, and ask if they were going to challenge
the Governor Brown, on the un-constitutionality of this new law AB144, and that all law biding citizens
would be denied their rights, and that the Sheriff would not enforce such un-constitutional laws
I wonder what the Governor could do ?

In other words where does that Governor get the authority to deny citizens God given rights Guaranteed by
the B of R in the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Supreme Court.

Remembering Sheriffs do not have to fallow unlawful laws contrary to their oath. Robin47
 

wildhawker

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
113
Location
California, USA
Sheriffs **could** choose to exercise their discretion under PC 12050 et seq by adopting - and adhering to - a few very simple principles: All persons who are (1) a resident of their county be issued a license to carry for (2) any stated "good cause", including self-defense, (3) upon their successful DOJ background check. Accept application, take fingerprints via Live Scan, wait for results, notify applicant of success and direct to train, accept proof of training, and issue license. Done. Little administrative burden.

While the above is certainly not the end objective, it would go a long way to respecting the right to bear arms.

In the final analysis, however, even these "Constitutional Sheriffs" refuse to take the most basic steps to, well, act constitutionally.

-Brandon

I think if a few OCers, went and talked to the so called Constitutional Sheriffs, and ask if they were going to challenge
the Governor Brown, on the un-constitutionality of this new law AB144, and that all law biding citizens
would be denied their rights, and that the Sheriff would not enforce such un-constitutional laws
I wonder what the Governor could do ?

In other words where does that Governor get the authority to deny citizens God given rights Guaranteed by
the B of R in the U.S. Constitution and backed by the Supreme Court.

Remembering Sheriffs do not have to fallow unlawful laws contrary to their oath. Robin47
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Sheriffs **could** choose to exercise their discretion under PC 12050 et seq by adopting - and adhering to - a few very simple principles: All persons who are (1) a resident of their county be issued a license to carry for (2) any stated "good cause", including self-defense, (3) upon their successful DOJ background check. Accept application, take fingerprints via Live Scan, wait for results, notify applicant of success and direct to train, accept proof of training, and issue license. Done. Little administrative burden.

While the above is certainly not the end objective, it would go a long way to respecting the right to bear arms.

In the final analysis, however, even these "Constitutional Sheriffs" refuse to take the most basic steps to, well, act constitutionally.

-Brandon

They also **could** exercise their discretion to use licensing as a punitive measure to quash an individuals rights even having previously satisfied residency, good cause and good moral character. Such people arent inclined to pick and choose which laws they will enforce, particularly when it is against their political interests to do so.
 

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
No; that's why it's called "state law" instead of county or sheriff's law

Exactly ! That's why it is a "Police State" who enforce the states law.
A Constitutional Republic, which is on our flag by the way, recognize the individual rights of citizens.
So these "Sworn protectors of our Liberty", are really not working for us anymore ?

Sheriff's whom we elected, are to work for "We the People", not a law contrary to our God given rights.
Has any one ever taken the 1st Amendment to court along with the 2-A, as
a violation of ones right to self- protection, as is also taught in the Bible ?
PC 12031 e and AB 144 which I guess is the new PC 26350.
So the violations are 1st,2ed, 4th, and 5th.
So yes I would think that many violations of ones God given Unalienable rights that
this is really a Police State.
If this was a free state, we would have the 2A RKBA to keep our state free, and secure.
Its sad how California has sunk so low. :( Robin47
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Exactly ! That's why it is a "Police State" who enforce the states law.
A Constitutional Republic, which is on our flag by the way, recognize the individual rights of citizens.
So these "Sworn protectors of our Liberty", are really not working for us anymore ?

Sheriff's whom we elected, are to work for "We the People", not a law contrary to our God given rights.
Has any one ever taken the 1st Amendment to court along with the 2-A, as
a violation of ones right to self- protection, as is also taught in the Bible ?
PC 12031 e and AB 144 which I guess is the new PC 26350.
So the violations are 1st,2ed, 4th, and 5th.
So yes I would think that many violations of ones God given Unalienable rights that
this is really a Police State.
If this was a free state, we would have the 2A RKBA to keep our state free, and secure.
Its sad how California has sunk so low. :( Robin47

There was an attempt to add a second amendment to the California constitution by Senator Don rogers back in the 90's. He started an initiative which didn't gain the needed traction, nor the signatures. I remember getting those petitions and displaying them for signatures in my business back then. Actually didn't get many signatures there either, but no big shock there since so many of my customers were basically foreigners. If you really want a 2A in California without crawling before the federal government on hands and knees, another initiative would be the only pathway.
Actually, Californian's don't have that many inalienable rights left. They are still declared, but the list of them that get dismissed, weakened, or just "alienated" is getting larger all the time:

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.

this one is under assault, and the opposition to it has won several important battles lately. Displaying a noose, burning a cross, displaying a swastica, have been outlawed. this year they banned mobile billboards where the publicized message might disturb the teaching environment. Muni's can now restrict mobile billboards to the point of extinction

Marriage only between a man and a woman

this one is in and out. Looks more out than in now

A person may
not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime
for a militia fine
.
A debt for child support can get one imprisoned. One of the few times I was jailed, there were two other men in there for not paying child support

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable seizures and
searches may not be violated;

Lots of exceptions in this one now. The supreme court of California has let the supreme court of the US write the interpretation of this one because it reads too much like the 4th amendment. Hard to know we even have our own constitution sometimes

Trial by jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured
to all,

This one stopped growing with the state back in 1849. Small claims court took the basic breath out of it in more modern times, and administrative law has been taking a hunk. It's certainly not an absolute, and it gets violated all the time for the purposes of expediency and economics

The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof,

I'm going to quit here, because it's depressing, but the right to fish was added to the state constitution by initiative in 1910, and somehow changed from a right to a privilege by legislation. Simply amazing how the fight for the right was so engaging, and it had more than popular support at the vote. But there was nary a wimper from anyone as the senate drew up the bill a few years later and quietly declared fishing a privilege. Why did we let them do that?
 
Last edited:

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
There was an attempt to add a second amendment to the California constitution by Senator Don rogers back in the 90's. He started an initiative which didn't gain the needed traction, nor the signatures. I remember getting those petitions and displaying them for signatures in my business back then. Actually didn't get many signatures there either, but no big shock there since so many of my customers were basically foreigners. If you really want a 2A in California without crawling before the federal government on hands and knees, another initiative would be the only pathway.
Actually, Californian's don't have that many inalienable rights left. They are still declared, but the list of them that get dismissed, weakened, or just "alienated" is getting larger all the time:



this one is under assault, and the opposition to it has won several important battles lately. Displaying a noose, burning a cross, displaying a swastica, have been outlawed. this year they banned mobile billboards where the publicized message might disturb the teaching environment. Muni's can now restrict mobile billboards to the point of extinction



this one is in and out. Looks more out than in now

.
A debt for child support can get one imprisoned. One of the few times I was jailed, there were two other men in there for not paying child support



Lots of exceptions in this one now. The supreme court of California has let the supreme court of the US write the interpretation of this one because it reads too much like the 4th amendment. Hard to know we even have our own constitution sometimes



This one stopped growing with the state back in 1849. Small claims court took the basic breath out of it in more modern times, and administrative law has been taking a hunk. It's certainly not an absolute, and it gets violated all the time for the purposes of expediency and economics



I'm going to quit here, because it's depressing, but the right to fish was added to the state constitution by initiative in 1910, and somehow changed from a right to a privilege by legislation. Simply amazing how the fight for the right was so engaging, and it had more than popular support at the vote. But there was nary a wimper from anyone as the senate drew up the bill a few years later and quietly declared fishing a privilege. Why did we let them do that?

Yeah SOS,
I knew about the right to fish in our Constitution back in the late 1970's. Article 1 Section 25. Cal - Constitution.
that right goes back to 1879, in 1910 is when they stated the F & G codes, however there code also reads
1-89 number 3 said's any laws that were prior to this F & G code are still valid.
By there own code the 1879 right to fish is still valid.
However as corrupt as things are, we have lost the Cal - Constitution and the Federal one also 2-A.
Yes your right it is very Depressing I agree.
HEY time to start looking at the Free States in America. That's the good news. Robin47 :)
 

Save Our State

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2011
Messages
287
Location
The Golden State
Yeah SOS,
I knew about the right to fish in our Constitution back in the late 1970's. Article 1 Section 25. Cal - Constitution.
that right goes back to 1879, in 1910 is when they stated the F & G codes, however there code also reads
1-89 number 3 said's any laws that were prior to this F & G code are still valid.
By there own code the 1879 right to fish is still valid.

The constitution is still valid. The action the senate took several years after 1910 in declaring it a privilege does not superscede the declared rights in article 1, sec.25.
that's what I was trying to understand about the mindset of the people at the time. After fighting to make fishing a constitutional right, there was no resistance when the senate decided to ignore what the constitution said. There were many fish and game laws, as the legislature began realizing fish and game were a finite resource. Those laws were all shepherded under first one commission, and then another, and finally they created the Fish and Game department. before that, sheriffs and such were the enforcement arm, and they were just "laws" not fish and game laws. So that's why they made reference to keeping previous laws in effect.

But this should highlight something in relation to right to carry, right to own, right to bear, etc, and that's that we can work our butts off to make it a right, only to see it changed back by sleight of hand.
 

steele

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
135
Location
Ventura, California
Sheriff Mack fought the Brady Bill, refused to enforce it, and won a judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. Demand your Sheriff put their support of 2nd Amendment rights, in writing, or VOTE them OUT!

BTW: If you suspect they may have committed any felonies, you can also post them to ArrestWanted (for free) and offer Rewards for their arrest/conviction. The posts are searchable on Google. It may be easier to drag them out ;)

http://ArrestWanted.com/
 
Last edited:

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Sheriff Mack fought the Brady Bill, refused to enforce it, and won a judgment in the Supreme Court of the United States. Demand your Sheriff put their support of 2nd Amendment rights, in writing, or VOTE them OUT!

BTW: If you suspect they may have committed any felonies, you can also post them to ArrestWanted (for free) and offer Rewards for their arrest/conviction. The posts are searchable on Google. It may be easier to drag them out ;)

http://ArrestWanted.com/

Yeah I believe your right.
An example would be, as far as a charge goes.

Fraud in public office, "Taking public money under false pretenses", That's the best one I've found.
That would also go for those who have sworn an oath, and did the opposite,by not keeping their oath of office.
The filing would be in Federal Court, I believe there is one in California.
They would have to answer in Fed Court to the charge as an Individual.
This is very much a OC issue, as it effects our Right to Keep and "Bear" arms. Functional arms ! LOC :)

Robin47
 
Top