Assault on Second Amendment in California could spread

If California is the pace-setter state, what just happened there could soon be on the dockets of all state legislatures or imposed upon all gun owners at the federal level. Democrats effectively control California. Their political party significantly dominates all branches of government in the state. With such power, they have passed a litany of new laws on gun magazines, ammunition, gun registration, gun ownership and lending of firearms. In essence, California's legislators have shot (excuse the metaphor) so many bullets into the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as to render it impotent.

All this legislation has resulted despite the clear language in the U.S. Constitution prohibiting government infringement on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The anti-self-defense people despise the following language of the Second Amendment: "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."

There exists no sentence in the Constitution that was more understood at the time. A militia then was the people. And, an armed populace was understood to be necessary for a free country in two ways: an armed populace could assist the military in standing against foreign invasion, and it would be in place should the biggest enemy to liberty be one's own government -- as in the American Revolution against British tyranny.

Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, amount of ammunition, where or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety, or hunting, these were already assumed. Founding documents show it was specifically placed right after freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (no pun intended) squarely at the government should it become tyrannical, as happened before under the British.

But, certainly, we need have no fear of the government today, have we? Given California's new gun laws, which follow, perhaps we should be afraid.

Background checks on all ammunition purchases within the state will be required under Senate Bill 1235, effective in 2019. As patrons may make several purchases a year, this is likely to overwhelm a background system already overwhelmed with gun purchases alone, resulting in long delays. The new law also requires all ammunition vendors to submit sales reports to the California Department of Justice for the creation of an ammunition registration system. The anticipated effect for gun-rights haters is that smaller outlets will cease selling ammunition because of all the paperwork. But this restriction gets worse, you may not give friends or family members ammunition without going first to a gun store for the gift to be processed. Hereafter, it will be a crime to "transfer more than 50 rounds of ammunition within a 30-day period." Should you opt to purchase ammunition in another state, you may not bring more than 50-rounds into California unless you are a licensed ammunition vendor.

Self defense advocates are now more restricted in gun ownership and use than ever before. Starting in January 2017, "all semi-automatic center-fire rifles that do not have fixed magazines will be illegal if they have a bad 'feature,' such as a thumb-hole stock, a telescoping or folding stock, or a pistol grip." Moreover, such weapons may not be transferred as part of an inheritance. California already had a gun law prohibiting the lending of a firearm for more than 30 days between friends or family members. That too is now forbidden. Instead, you and your brother or friend must both go to a gun shop and submit to a background check and 10-day waiting period for him to use your firearm and then, when it is returned, both have to return to the store with a new background check and 10-day waiting period on you, the owner and lender.

In California, gun magazine sales have been limited to 10 rounds for the last 17 years, but persons already in possession of magazines exceeding this number could keep them. Now, State Senate Bill 1446 requires the confiscation of all these high-capacity magazines by July 1, 2017. To get rid of them, owners may turn them in to law enforcement for destruction, destroy them themselves, remove them from the state or sell them to licensed firearm dealers.

Imagine how these restrictions might emasculate citizens in their ability to assist the military against a foreign invasion (as in the case of citizens stopping the British invasion in the Battle of Saratoga) or to oppose our own government should it become tyrannical, as has also happened before. Our founders did not deny future generations the same means of resisting tyranny that they themselves used.

All these new laws violate the Second Amendment, which placed off-limits to government any restriction upon the people keeping and bearing arms; and it used the strongest language possible in doing so, stating that this right "shall not be infringed."

If the Second Amendment to the Constitution is felt to be inadequate for the needs of today, the only constitutional option available is an amendment to the Constitution abolishing this one and state approval of another amendment to replace it, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution -- this was done to end prohibition.

Legislators, whether state or federal, have no authority to undermine or destroy an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Yet, in California it is being done; and what's happening in California is a threat to the freedoms of all Americans.

Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for more than 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Editorial on 09/21/2016